IRC log of tagmem on 2004-06-07

Timestamps are in UTC.

18:44:23 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #tagmem
18:46:43 [DanC]
DanC has joined #tagmem
19:01:21 [Zakim]
TAG_Weekly()2:30PM has now started
19:01:29 [Zakim]
+Roy
19:01:39 [Zakim]
+Stuart
19:02:21 [Zakim]
+[Lotus]
19:02:30 [Zakim]
+Norm
19:02:34 [timbl]
timbl has joined #tagmem
19:02:54 [Norm]
Zakim, [Lotus is PaulC
19:02:54 [Zakim]
+PaulC; got it
19:03:02 [mario]
mario has joined #tagmem
19:03:16 [Zakim]
+Ian
19:03:52 [Stuart]
zakim, who is here?
19:03:52 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Roy, Stuart, PaulC, Norm, Ian
19:03:53 [Zakim]
On IRC I see mario, timbl, DanC, RRSAgent, Stuart, Zakim, Norm, Ian
19:04:34 [Zakim]
+??P4
19:04:34 [Stuart]
zakim, who is here?
19:04:35 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Roy, Stuart, PaulC, Norm, Ian, ??P4
19:04:36 [Zakim]
On IRC I see mario, timbl, DanC, RRSAgent, Stuart, Zakim, Norm, Ian
19:04:37 [Zakim]
+TimBL
19:04:39 [Stuart]
zakim, who is here?
19:04:41 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Roy, Stuart, PaulC, Norm, Ian, ??P4, TimBL
19:04:44 [mario]
zakim, ??P4 is Mairo
19:04:49 [Zakim]
On IRC I see mario, timbl, DanC, RRSAgent, Stuart, Zakim, Norm, Ian
19:04:51 [Zakim]
+Mairo; got it
19:04:51 [mario]
zakim, ??P4 is Mario
19:04:59 [Zakim]
I already had ??P4 as Mairo, mario
19:05:09 [Zakim]
+DanC
19:05:16 [mario]
zakim, mairo is Mario
19:05:21 [Zakim]
+Mario; got it
19:05:47 [Chris]
Chris has joined #tagmem
19:05:55 [Zakim]
-DanC
19:06:06 [Zakim]
+DanC
19:06:07 [Chris]
zakim, dial chris-617
19:06:07 [Zakim]
ok, Chris; the call is being made
19:06:08 [Zakim]
+Chris
19:06:56 [Zakim]
-DanC
19:07:07 [Zakim]
+DanC
19:07:16 [Chris]
zakim, dial chris-617
19:07:16 [Zakim]
ok, Chris; the call is being made
19:07:20 [Zakim]
-Chris
19:08:18 [Zakim]
-DanC
19:08:51 [Ian]
Roll call: All present (while DC and CL fight to get on)
19:08:58 [Ian]
Agenda:
19:09:04 [Ian]
http://www.w3.org/2004/06/07-tag
19:09:09 [Ian]
Accept the minutes of the 12-14 May F2F?
19:09:15 [Ian]
http://www.w3.org/2004/05/14-tag-summary.html
19:09:19 [Ian]
PC: Looked ok to me.
19:09:27 [Zakim]
+DanC
19:09:48 [Ian]
Anyone opposed to accepting ftf minutes?
19:10:05 [Ian]
Resolved: Accept http://www.w3.org/2004/05/14-tag-summary.html as record of 12-14 May ftf meeting.
19:10:15 [Ian]
Proposed: accept the minutes of the 24 May teleconference?
19:10:21 [Ian]
http://www.w3.org/2004/05/24-tag-summary.html
19:10:30 [Chris]
zakim, drop chris-617
19:10:30 [Zakim]
sorry, Chris, I do not see a party named 'chris-617'
19:10:34 [Chris]
zakim, drop chris
19:10:34 [Zakim]
sorry, Chris, I do not see a party named 'chris'
19:10:42 [Ian]
SW: Anyone read them?
19:10:42 [Chris]
zakim, passcode?
19:10:42 [Zakim]
the conference code is 0824, Chris
19:10:47 [Ian]
SW: Looked ok to me.
19:10:48 [Chris]
yes I did
19:10:54 [Ian]
CL, look ok?
19:10:54 [Chris]
one of them, the one I was at
19:10:58 [Chris]
i sent comments
19:11:27 [Ian]
I think those comments were re: ftf meeting.
19:11:29 [Zakim]
+Chris
19:12:20 [Ian]
CL: Ftf minutes are ok, but we could do some work on the conclusion.
19:12:28 [Ian]
SW: Any objections to accepting 24 May minutes?
19:12:31 [Ian]
[None]
19:12:35 [Chris]
not from me
19:12:45 [Ian]
Resolved: accept http://www.w3.org/2004/05/24-tag-summary.html as meeting record for 24 May.
19:12:50 [Ian]
---------
19:13:08 [Ian]
2.2 httpRange-14 status
19:13:08 [Ian]
Action TBL/RF 2004/05/13: Write up a summary position to close httpRange-14, text for document.
19:13:08 [Ian]
Update of discussion on URI mailing list started by email from DC? What is next action (e.g., summary of that discussion to the TAG)?
19:13:21 [Ian]
q+ to talk about upcoming changes in the spec.
19:13:36 [Ian]
RF: I don't think there was much progress on the uri list. I didn't see evidence of any two points converging.
19:14:14 [Ian]
[Sorry, this was agenda review]
19:14:16 [Ian]
-----------------------------
19:14:21 [Ian]
Next meeting 14 June?
19:14:24 [Ian]
SW: My regrets for that meeting.
19:14:37 [Ian]
NW will act as Chair.
19:14:46 [Ian]
SW: I will also be on vacation the three weeks prior to our Aug ftf meeting.
19:15:03 [Ian]
9-11 Aug ftf meeting in Ottawa (resolved 2 March 2004)
19:15:15 [Ian]
SW: I'll be unavailable from 19 July to 9 Aug.
19:15:31 [Norm]
Ian, will you ping me later this week for the agenda?
19:15:49 [Ian]
Likely no meeting 5 July.
19:15:52 [Ian]
PC: I'm out last week of June.
19:15:57 [Ian]
(And unavailable 5 July)
19:16:04 [Ian]
(Monday 28 June)
19:16:22 [Ian]
IJ unavailable 14 June.
19:16:33 [Ian]
SW to TAG: Please indicate missed meetings on tag list.
19:16:48 [Ian]
Resolved: Next meeting - 14 June; NW to Chair. Regrets: SW, TBL, IJ
19:16:51 [Ian]
----
19:16:55 [Ian]
Ottowa ftf meeting.
19:17:03 [Ian]
PC: I'll send info to tag list re: hotel.
19:17:16 [Ian]
Arc Hotel
19:17:18 [Chris]
arc hotel, ottawa
19:17:28 [Chris]
I have stayed there before, its nice
19:17:32 [Ian]
downtown ottowa; no block booking.
19:17:47 [Ian]
PC: Any downtown hotel probably reasonable distance from this one.
19:17:54 [Norm]
http://www.arcthehotel.com/
19:18:28 [Ian]
PC: I'll list some options in email.
19:18:36 [Ian]
PC: Key point is to be downtown.
19:18:55 [Chris]
9-11 mon to weds
19:18:56 [timbl]
Regrets from tim for 14th and 28th June
19:18:59 [timbl]
and regrests for any meetings in July or August except the face-face meeting.
19:19:07 [timbl]
(and except possibly the last week)
19:19:12 [Ian]
PC: Let me know when you will arrive in Ottawa (for social opportunities)
19:19:20 [Ian]
------------
19:19:27 [Ian]
Proposals for F2F meeting venue in 5-7 October in Europe
19:19:27 [Ian]
* Bristol. SW confirmed HP can host.
19:19:27 [Ian]
* Basel. Awaiting more input from RF.
19:19:59 [Ian]
Straw poll:
19:20:13 [Ian]
RF: Video conf is available.
19:20:19 [Ian]
(in Basel)
19:20:24 [Ian]
PC: Mild preference for Basel.
19:20:29 [Chris]
plus one to Basel
19:20:52 [Ian]
MJ: PReference to Basel.
19:21:02 [Ian]
MJ: PReference for Basel (can drive there...)
19:21:15 [Ian]
Norm: Concur with the majority.
19:21:31 [Ian]
zakim, pick a location
19:21:31 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'pick a location ', Ian
19:21:49 [Chris]
resolved! Basel
19:21:49 [Ian]
Resolved: Meet in Basel in October.
19:21:57 [Ian]
RF to make arrangements.
19:22:09 [Ian]
--------------
19:22:14 [Ian]
AC meeting rescheduled for 2-3 December. Does this affect whether to hold TAG ftf meeting in November?
19:22:28 [Ian]
SW: Postpone this discussion?
19:22:31 [Ian]
Postponed
19:22:32 [Ian]
-------------------
19:22:35 [Chris]
Bâle is the French spelling, but its in German-speaking Switzerland
19:22:43 [Ian]
1.3 TAG Charter
19:22:43 [Ian]
Action IJ 2004/12/14: Organize meeting between some of AB and some of TAG and Danny Weitzner to discuss patent policy and W3C charter.
19:22:43 [Ian]
IJ: Advisory Board plans to discuss this at upcoming teleconference.
19:23:17 [Ian]
To IJ: Please ensure that report from AB meeting gets back to TAG.
19:23:56 [Ian]
Modify IJ action (and fix date) to report back from AB discussion.
19:24:02 [Ian]
--------------------
19:24:08 [Ian]
2.1 Possible New Issues
19:24:08 [Ian]
1. XML 1.1 Question from XMLP-WG
19:24:11 [Ian]
agenda?
19:24:18 [Ian]
Initial email:
19:24:22 [Ian]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2004May/0039.html
19:24:32 [Ian]
[PC summarizing]
19:24:41 [Ian]
PC: Qnames in xschema broken by xml 1.1.
19:24:46 [DanC]
"broken"? an example scenario would help
19:24:55 [Ian]
PC: I propose that the tag adopt this as an issue and then push to xml activity.
19:25:03 [Norm]
A QName using an XML 1.1 character cannot be validated with Schema 1.0
19:25:12 [Ian]
PC: I suggest that the TAG not spend lots of time on this.
19:25:24 [Norm]
Characters in names is the more general issue
19:25:37 [Norm]
s/names/Names/
19:25:54 [Zakim]
+Roy_Fielding
19:25:57 [Zakim]
-Roy
19:26:03 [Ian]
NW: I agree that we should adopt an issue and hand it off to someone.
19:26:12 [Ian]
q-
19:26:25 [Ian]
CL: I agree with PC's plan generally, and sending it to XML CG appropriate.
19:26:35 [Ian]
CL: I agree with NW that this is wider than schema.
19:26:38 [Stuart]
ack Dan
19:26:38 [Zakim]
DanC, you wanted to ask why this belongs on the TAG issues list, and shouldn't be handled by XML foo?
19:26:49 [Ian]
DC: How does this impact architecture?
19:26:57 [Roy]
Roy has joined #tagmem
19:26:58 [Chris]
xml is architectural
19:27:01 [Ian]
NW: I think that this goes beyond xml (e.g., n3)
19:27:17 [Ian]
TBL: n3 doesn't make reference to the bnf in the xml spec.
19:27:19 [Chris]
true, links *into* xml are affected
19:27:46 [Ian]
CL: I think this is of the same ilk as the xml id issue.
19:28:09 [Ian]
PC: XML CG likely to accept this issue from the TAG.
19:28:16 [Ian]
[Example]
19:28:56 [Ian]
NW: Take an xml doc that contains a qname that has one of the new unicode characters in it (i.e., in xml 1.1, not in xml 1.0). Now try to put an xpointer in a document that uses a qname. Which version of qnames does it use?
19:29:07 [Ian]
NW: I mean in the local name part.
19:29:26 [Ian]
DC: Did people see this coming at PR?
19:29:30 [Ian]
PC: Yes.
19:29:49 [Ian]
NW: I think W3C made the right decision, but that some loose ends need to be tied down.
19:30:01 [timbl]
q+
19:30:09 [Ian]
NW: I am for adopting the issue, helping getting it fixed.
19:30:22 [Ian]
TBL: The way that xml 1.1 was presented was that it should only be used "when necessary."
19:30:37 [Ian]
http://www.w3.org/TR/xml11/
19:30:49 [Ian]
Ethiopic?
19:30:55 [Ian]
Ah, the language.
19:31:09 [Chris]
its a script used by a large country in Africa
19:31:09 [Ian]
NW: Need to use xml 1.1 if writing in ethiopian language.
19:31:40 [Roy]
says +1 to issue
19:31:49 [Chris]
+1 to issue
19:31:49 [Ian]
[No objections to adopting this as an issue]
19:31:52 [Norm]
+1
19:31:59 [Ian]
PC: +1
19:32:01 [Ian]
TBL: +1
19:32:04 [mario]
+1
19:32:47 [Norm]
xml11Names
19:32:49 [Ian]
Proposed: Adopt this as issue xml11Names-46
19:32:55 [Ian]
DC: I abstain.
19:33:04 [Ian]
SW: I abstain
19:33:15 [Ian]
Resolved: Adopt this as issue xml11Names-46.
19:33:27 [Ian]
Action NW: WRite up the issue (and send to www-tag)?
19:33:33 [Ian]
(or send where?)
19:33:49 [DanC]
(didn't the XML CG punt it to us?)
19:33:50 [Ian]
NW: I favor the XML CG as the recipient of this question.
19:34:19 [Ian]
SW: I think issue arose in XMLP WG
19:34:22 [DanC]
"to call the attention of the TAG and XML Co-ordination Group" -- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2004May/0039.html
19:34:46 [Ian]
NW: I'll write up for TAG this week, then if no objections, forward it to XML CG on behalf of TAG.
19:35:04 [Ian]
-------------
19:35:11 [Ian]
2.2 httpRange-14 status
19:35:11 [Ian]
Action TBL/RF 2004/05/13: Write up a summary position to close httpRange-14, text for document.
19:35:11 [Ian]
Update of discussion on URI mailing list started by email from DC? What is next action (e.g., summary of that discussion to the TAG)?
19:35:28 [Ian]
q+ to mention upcoming draft and relation to this issue.
19:36:11 [Ian]
RF: There is no proposed resolution that any two people can firmly agree to.
19:36:16 [Ian]
(on the discussion list)
19:37:14 [Ian]
SW: The title of RFC2396 concerns generic syntax...
19:37:17 [timbl]
q-
19:37:19 [Ian]
RF: IANA requirements require a bit more than that.
19:37:20 [Roy]
q+
19:37:35 [Ian]
ack Roy
19:37:57 [Ian]
RF: I need to incorporate (into RFC2396bis) comments in 2.7.1.7 and 2.7.1.8.
19:38:00 [Ian]
(as well)
19:38:22 [Ian]
RF: The latter needs to go into the RFC since it doesn't really make sense in an informational draft.
19:38:27 [Ian]
RF: Those are both cut-and-paste actions.
19:38:39 [Ian]
RF: The spec has primarily been held up due to travel, not the definition.
19:39:15 [Ian]
RF: The spec won't progress with the current defn; I don't know what the change will be to enable progression.
19:39:21 [Ian]
RF: Proposing concrete text would help.
19:39:32 [Ian]
DC: I was a bit surprised at direction of discussion.
19:39:55 [Ian]
RF: The issue looks resolvable; finding the right words is the problem.
19:40:16 [DanC]
the thread http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/uri/2004May/thread.html#26 is fairly long
19:40:24 [Ian]
RF: Lots of disagreement about definition of "resource".
19:40:36 [Ian]
RF: In my opinion, it seems that people are confused about what a resource is and what it can be.
19:40:49 [DanC]
ah; and Larry started another thread on the same topic. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/uri/2004May/thread.html#50
19:40:54 [Ian]
RF: Not sure whether progress will be (1) clearer understanding or (2) less present definition.
19:41:36 [Ian]
RF: I don't see obstacles to consensus, but discussion has not converged.
19:42:00 [Ian]
q?
19:42:05 [Ian]
ack Ian
19:42:05 [Zakim]
Ian, you wanted to mention upcoming draft and relation to this issue.
19:42:55 [Ian]
-----------
19:43:03 [Ian]
Next editor's draft: 8 June
19:43:19 [Ian]
Action NW: Propose text on tradeoffs for section 4.2.2.
19:43:33 [Ian]
NW: No progress.
19:43:48 [Ian]
Action CL: Rewrite story at beginning of 3.3.1. Consider deleting para that follows last sentence third para after story in 3.3.1. "Note also that since dereferencing a URI (e.g., using HTTP) does not involve sending a fragment identifier to a server or other agent, certain access methods (e.g., HTTP PUT, POST, and DELETE) cannot be used to interact with secondary resources."
19:45:22 [Ian]
Section 3.3.1 Media Types and Fragment Identifier Semantics
19:45:40 [DanC]
3.3.1. Media Types and Fragment Identifier Semantics
19:45:44 [Chris]
I don't see it in http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/actions_owner.html
19:45:47 [Stuart]
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/actions_owner.html
19:45:48 [DanC]
under http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/webarch/#internet-media-type
19:46:17 [DanC]
actions_owner.html is not exhaustive
19:46:31 [Chris]
ok, got it, its listed in http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/actions_owner.html
19:46:51 [Ian]
SW: Anybody finish any of their LC issues?
19:46:58 [Ian]
(i.e., actions associated with LC issues)?
19:48:04 [Ian]
kopecky3:
19:48:08 [Ian]
Action IJ and CL to draft a proposal to address this issue. (No clear direction from 14 May 2004 minutes, but there was discussion about whether the content was "designed for presentation".)
19:48:36 [Ian]
---------------
19:49:14 [Ian]
DC: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#kopecky5
19:49:20 [Ian]
DC: I mailed him; he mailed back.
19:49:52 [DanC]
and he responded 30 mar http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webarch-comments/2004JanMar/1071.html
19:50:37 [Ian]
IJ: that will be in tomorrow's draft!
19:50:55 [Ian]
"One particularly useful mapping is to combine the
19:50:55 [Ian]
namespace URI, a hash ("#"), and the local name, thus creating a URI
19:50:55 [Ian]
for a secondary resource (the identified term)."
19:51:09 [Ian]
IJ: I think that is relevant.
19:52:06 [Ian]
IJ: Ah, I wasn't talking about qnames specifically.
19:52:53 [Ian]
IJ: I will bind what I am writing to Jacek's comments.
19:53:00 [Ian]
Resolved: Close DC's action for kopecky 5.
19:53:06 [Roy]
I would add "(assuming the namespace is flat)" somewhere
19:53:30 [Ian]
(RF: Only useful if the namespace is flat)
19:53:54 [Ian]
DC: Also mention the one that has more wrinkles - schema component designators.
19:54:05 [DanC]
XML Schema: Component Designators http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-xmlschema-ref-20040309/
19:54:15 [Ian]
[PC leaves]
19:54:21 [Zakim]
-PaulC
19:54:53 [Ian]
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html?view=normal&closed=1
19:55:28 [mario]
Would it make sense to reference to the SCD document from the Web Arch one?
19:55:29 [Ian]
---------
19:55:53 [Ian]
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html?view=normal&closed=1#stickler7
19:56:41 [Ian]
s/Web resource/resource
19:56:47 [Ian]
[editorial]
19:57:12 [Ian]
IJ: I think that this one is subsumed "Section 3.4, para 1, last sentence:"
19:57:24 [Ian]
ALso: Section 3.4, para 2:
19:57:41 [Ian]
IJ: I think Eidtor's draft will address stickler 7
19:58:35 [Ian]
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html?view=normal&closed=1
20:00:49 [Chris]
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html?view=normal&closed=1#hawke3
20:00:54 [Ian]
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/webarch-20040510/#URI-overloading
20:00:57 [DanC]
(better to use technical keywords rather than section numbers and other indirect mechanisms, perhaps, Ian)
20:01:03 [Chris]
so does the reference to uuid still appear?
20:01:06 [Ian]
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/webarch-20040510/#uri-ownership
20:01:08 [Ian]
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/webarch-20040510/#uri-ownership
20:01:13 [Ian]
he generation of a fairly large random number or a checksum reduces the risk of URI overloading to a calculated small risk. A draft "uuid" scheme adopted this approach; one could also imagine a scheme based on md5 checksums.
20:01:55 [Ian]
DC: s/fairly//
20:02:31 [Chris]
CL attempts to summarize
20:02:52 [Ian]
DC: I propose to either (1) move to future directions or (2) strike the bits about uuid and md5
20:02:54 [Roy]
neither uuid nor mmdf are used because they do not prevent collisions
20:03:11 [Chris]
its future or non-adopted work, so does not conflict with tag to use only registered schemes
20:03:58 [Chris]
support moving to futre directions, unless we think its a failed approach
20:04:16 [Roy]
q+
20:04:28 [Ian]
q+
20:04:41 [Ian]
DC: I'd rather strike than move to future directions at this point.
20:04:45 [Ian]
RF: I'd remove it.
20:04:51 [Ian]
CL: I'd move to future directions.
20:05:06 [Chris]
support removing it also; not hearing that its likely future direction
20:05:13 [Ian]
RF: I don't consider these to be identifiers. md5, e.g., doesn't prevent collisions, but reduces risk.
20:05:30 [Ian]
RF: Given a document repository the size of the web, there is a guarantee that there are colliding docs on the web.
20:05:39 [Ian]
TBL: UUIDs have a delegated part.
20:05:39 [Stuart]
q?
20:05:45 [Stuart]
ack Roy
20:05:48 [Ian]
RF: If properly constructed, yes.
20:05:52 [Chris]
rf also said that its fragile, any edit to the resource gives a new uuid
20:06:02 [Ian]
RF: If properly constructed, have same properties as mid syntax.
20:06:20 [Ian]
MJ: Large random numbers are unwieldly.
20:06:33 [Ian]
TBL: Large random numbers technically work, but raise social issues.
20:07:36 [DanC]
tim, yes, lots of things might be interesting in the fullness of time. meanwhile, nobody has done the homework to finish the uuid: scheme. Let's strike discussion of it, no?
20:08:07 [Ian]
IJ propose: delete second bullet and mention large numbers in third bullet; delete uuid and md5
20:08:17 [Chris]
Mario, that was my point exactly, its a theoretical example
20:09:36 [Ian]
TBL: Say "hypothetical"?
20:09:47 [Roy]
strike
20:09:48 [Ian]
SW: Who would like to see the middle example on large numbers struck?
20:09:50 [Norm]
strike
20:09:55 [Ian]
strike
20:09:57 [Ian]
CL: strike
20:10:01 [Ian]
SW: strike
20:10:22 [Ian]
q+
20:10:26 [timbl]
TBL: Concur
20:10:31 [Ian]
q-
20:10:46 [DanC]
you'll have to tweak "the above approaches"
20:10:50 [Ian]
Action IJ: Remove the middle bullet from 2.3.
20:12:42 [Ian]
DC: Note that mid/cid also use domain names; the number part looks like a file name.
20:13:15 [timbl]
_________
20:13:19 [Ian]
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html?view=normal&closed=1#hawke7
20:13:20 [DanC]
hmm... the future direction stuff about p2p systems and such is gone. I wonder if I have energy to get it put back.
20:13:58 [Ian]
IJ: I note for hawke6 that we talked about at ftf and didn't adopt.
20:14:20 [Ian]
For hawk7, I've incorporated into draft.
20:14:59 [Ian]
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/webarch-20040510/#identifiers-future
20:15:15 [Ian]
TBL: I think that this makes sense.
20:15:33 [Ian]
2.7.2. Assertion that Two URIs Identify the Same Resource
20:15:44 [timbl]
No! /TBL/s/.*//
20:16:04 [Ian]
s/to/two
20:16:14 [Ian]
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/webarch-20040510/#identifiers-future
20:16:21 [Ian]
2.7. Future Directions for Identifiers
20:16:22 [timbl]
Ian, DanC asked you about what your issue list summary meant, and I tried to explain, as you seemed not to understand /respond to the question.
20:16:28 [Ian]
2.7.2. Assertion that Two URIs Identify the Same Resource
20:16:32 [timbl]
(i dio not say anything made sense)
20:17:11 [Ian]
Question: Keep "Note also that to URIs that are sameAs one another does not mean they are interchangeable. For instance, suppose that two different organizations own the URIs "http://weather.example.org/stations/oaxaca#ws17a" and "http://weather.example.com/rdfdump?region=oaxaca&station=ws17a". The URIs might both identify the same resource, a certain collection of weather-measuring equipment shared by the two organizations. Although the URIs might be declared "owl:s
20:17:11 [Ian]
ameAs" each other, the two URI owners might provide very different content when the URIs are dereferenced."?
20:17:25 [Ian]
--
20:17:39 [Ian]
TBL: In RDF, sameAs applies to resources.
20:18:09 [timbl]
<ttp://weather.example.org/stations/oaxaca#ws17a"> owl:sameAs <http://weather.example.com/rdfdump?region=oaxaca&station=ws17a>.
20:18:10 [Ian]
IJ: I believe some folks commented on this text at the ftf meeting.
20:18:21 [DanC]
no, I can't endorse "Note also that to URIs that are sameAs one another ...
20:18:39 [Ian]
RF, SW: I don't follow this para.
20:18:59 [Ian]
TBL: If two URIs identify the same resource, that doesn't mean that you can use them interchangeably.
20:19:01 [Ian]
DC: Yes it does.
20:19:06 [Ian]
q+
20:19:14 [DanC]
(timbl was quoting/paraphrasing, I think)
20:19:31 [Ian]
TBL: Suppose you use "#" in both of them; so they both refer to the same weather station.
20:19:55 [Ian]
TBL: Sandro is saying that you can, e.g., put one or the other in an RDF statement.
20:20:08 [Ian]
TBL: But if you dereference them you'll get different information back.
20:20:43 [Ian]
SW: The two URIs denote the same resource but identify two different information resources?
20:20:50 [Ian]
(SW cites Pat Hayes...)
20:21:16 [Ian]
TBL: We use "identify" in the arch doc, not "denote".
20:21:50 [Ian]
s/interchangeable/interchangeable for purposes other than identification/ ?
20:22:37 [Stuart]
No... Stuart suggests a a response that Pat *might* have made - but Stuart was being speculative - he was not quoting.
20:23:25 [Ian]
DC: I don't think this point is worth making (and I don't believe it).
20:23:59 [Norm]
Any argument that says something would be true for URIs of one scheme that's false for URIs of another scheme makes me wince
20:26:28 [Ian]
DC: The resources are interchangeable, the URIs are spelled differently.
20:26:41 [Ian]
TBL: But it makes a difference which one you use.
20:27:12 [Ian]
TBL: If SH intentionally didn't use a "#" in the second URI, then I don't understand his question.
20:27:29 [Ian]
Proposed: Ask SH for clarification - was "#" dropped by mistake in second URI?
20:27:50 [Ian]
Action TBL: Ask Sandro for clarification on whether second URI should have "#".
20:28:17 [Ian]
ADJOURNED
20:28:23 [Ian]
RRSAgent, stop