IRC log of tagmem on 2005-05-31

Timestamps are in UTC.

17:00:05 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #tagmem
17:00:05 [RRSAgent]
logging to
17:00:22 [Zakim]
TAG_Weekly()12:30PM has now started
17:00:25 [ht]
ht has joined #tagmem
17:00:29 [Zakim]
17:00:30 [noah]
zakim, [IBMCambridge] is me
17:00:33 [Zakim]
+noah; got it
17:00:37 [ht]
zakim, please call ht-781
17:00:37 [Zakim]
ok, ht; the call is being made
17:00:39 [Zakim]
17:01:45 [Zakim]
17:04:16 [ht]
zakim, please mute ht
17:04:16 [Zakim]
Ht should now be muted
17:04:30 [ht]
zakim, please unmute ht
17:04:30 [Zakim]
Ht should no longer be muted
17:08:28 [Zakim]
17:08:32 [Vincent]
Yes, it's time
17:10:16 [noah]
Minor bug in today's agenda: where it says Accept this agenda[10]?
17:10:36 [Vincent]
noah, reload
17:10:42 [noah]
It points erroneously to
17:10:51 [noah]
That seems to have been carried over from last week's.
17:11:22 [noah]
Reload doesn't fix my copy. Maybe a mirror problem.
17:11:55 [Vincent]
17:13:25 [timbl]
timbl has joined #tagmem
17:13:45 [Vincent]
hi Tim
17:14:50 [DanC]
regrets NDW
17:16:46 [Zakim]
17:17:09 [DanC]
DanC has changed the topic to: TAG 31 May
17:17:32 [DanC]
Topic: Convene, take roll, review records and agenda
17:17:43 [DanC]
Regrets: RF, NDW
17:17:49 [DanC]
Zakim, who is on the phone?
17:17:49 [Zakim]
On the phone I see noah, Ht, Vincent, DanC, TimBL
17:18:12 [DanC]
DO to arrive later. no news re ER
17:18:26 [DanC]
17:18:35 [DanC]
Chair: Vincent Quint
17:18:44 [DanC]
Meeting: TAG Weekly
17:19:01 [DanC]
Scribe: DanC
17:19:30 [DanC]
upcoming scribes...
17:19:30 [Vincent]
Scribe list: NDW, DC, ER, RF, NM, DO, HT
17:20:24 [DanC]
VQ: comments on the agenda?
17:20:28 [DanC]
[none just now]
17:20:43 [DanC]
Date of Next telcon? 7 June conflicts with AC meeting
17:21:12 [DanC]
HT not available 7 Jun
17:21:18 [timbl]
I would not be there
17:21:27 [DanC]
next meeting seems to be ftf in Cambridge
17:21:50 [DanC]
RESOLVED to cancel 7 Jun telcon; meet next in Cambridge
17:22:27 [DanC]
proposed minutes 3 May
17:22:44 [DanC]
RESOLVED to approve 3 May minutes and 10 May minutes.
17:23:07 [DanC]
(item 2 AC prep deferred pending DO's arrival)
17:23:23 [DanC]
Topic: fn:escape-uri
17:23:57 [DanC]
(weird... pointer gone bad)
17:25:52 [DanC]
DanC: I asked if it was OK to drop "DanC to draft comment about splitting fn:escape-uri into separate" from 12 Apr...
17:26:07 [DanC]
... relates to ftf prep; I hope to discuss XQuery namespaces
17:26:25 [DanC]
VQ: yes... speaking of which, I'm a bit behind on our ftf agenda; any feedback would be best in the next day or two
17:29:34 [DanC]
DanC: I suppose we have enough overlap with XQuery/XPath, with HT and Norm... do they need any heads-up?
17:29:37 [DanC]
HT: not really
17:29:50 [DanC]
DanC: TimBL, do you still think fn:escape-uri needs splitting?
17:30:13 [DanC]
TimBL: well, yes, different task... one of them is invertible, the other is not
17:30:16 [timbl]
TimBL: Yes, I do - into0 one ifnormation-losinga nd one reversible function.
17:30:26 [DanC]
VQ: merits ftf time?
17:30:31 [DanC]
HT: yes, but cap at 30min
17:30:32 [DanC]
VQ: ok.
17:30:52 [DanC]
DanC fails to withdraw his action. it continues.
17:31:35 [DanC]
NM: pls make the ftf agenda have good background pointers; danc points out a broken link
17:31:43 [DanC]
VQ: will do
17:32:29 [DanC]
Topic: Reviewing some pending action items
17:32:52 [DanC]
looking at NDW to work with HT, DO on namespaceState [recorded in]
17:33:20 [DanC]
HT: no progress; sorry.
17:33:36 [DanC]
VQ: maybe I'll ping NDW
17:33:47 [DanC]
looking at Tim to provide a draft of new namespace policy doc ( and start discussion on www-tag [recorded in]
17:34:31 [DanC]
TBL: I discussed this internally a bit, I think...
17:35:12 [DanC]
... it still has the "note" in it [that shouldn't be there]
17:35:19 [DanC]
... I should follow that up, yes.
17:35:32 [DanC]
action continues.
17:36:18 [DanC]
looking at NDW to take GRDDL/RDDL discussion to www-tag to solicit feedback on directions for namespaceDocument-8 [recorded in]
17:36:25 [DanC]
VQ: I don't see progress there.
17:36:51 [DanC]
17:37:07 [DanC]
17:37:36 [DanC]
VQ: I gather NDW has made some progress on this... made a list.
17:37:56 [DanC]
17:37:58 [DanC]
Topic: Reviewing some commitments
17:38:09 [DanC]
looking at Henry to monitor [RFC3023bis wrt fragmentInXML-28] and bring back up when time is appropriate. [recorded in]
17:43:00 [DanC]
HT: I've made some progress, talking with various people.
17:44:04 [DanC]
... the process is kinda complicated.
17:46:31 [DanC]
(hmm... this relates to )
17:46:38 [DanC]
HT's action is done.
17:46:54 [DanC]
looking at: Noah to own draft skeleton of SchemeProtocols-49 finding and send around for comments. [recorded in]
17:48:20 [DanC]
NM: things above this on my todo list are done-ish, and I've started on it...
17:49:09 [DanC]
... I see some difference of opinion
17:49:34 [DanC]
... if you have input, now would be a good time to send it to me (via www-tag)
17:50:21 [DanC]
... it might merit ftf time
17:50:41 [DanC]
HT: I've talked with NM about this a bit... it's subtle and complex, and yes, it does seem to merit ftf time
17:52:49 [DanC]
NM motivates the issue to the point where TBL is tempted to discuss in substance... VQ is convinced it merits ftf time.
17:54:41 [DanC]
17:55:03 [DanC]
VQ: hmm... AC prep remains on our agenda, but we still lack DO...
17:55:15 [DanC]
Topic: httpRange-14
17:56:26 [DanC]
making progress on httpRange-14 -- yet another suggestion
17:56:30 [DanC]
17:56:31 [Vincent]
ack DanC
17:56:31 [Zakim]
DanC, you wanted to swap in unanswered mail from HT
17:57:44 [ht]
DanC: dc:title is the URI that's mentioned in the SWBPG message to us
17:58:01 [ht]
It's a hashless URI for a non-information-resource, i.e. an RDF property
17:58:15 [ht]
But you don't get a 200 if you try to retrieve it
17:58:21 [ht]
you get a redirect. . .
17:59:19 [ht]
DanC: When asked, I say -- pick a part of webspace, divide it up, slap a hash on the end, that's your name, then put something useful at the URI w/o the #
17:59:33 [ht]
NM: [missed the question]
18:00:02 [ht]
DanC: leads to confusion about e.g. 'author' assertions about that property vs. 'author' assertions about the document describing it
18:00:14 [ht]
NM: Indeed my concern was about 200 codes
18:00:36 [DanC]
NM: so far we've talked about dividing between InformationResources and others...
18:01:12 [DanC]
... so if I get a 200 response for /noah , that seems kinda fishy, since I didn't really contact Noah, but rather a proxy for [or description of] Noah.
18:01:44 [DanC]
NM: [missed some...] but consider { ?SOMETHING measures:wieghtInLbs 200 } ...
18:02:16 [ht]
q+ to ask what you _get_ with your 200
18:02:20 [timbl]
18:02:34 [Vincent]
ack ht
18:02:34 [Zakim]
ht, you wanted to ask what you _get_ with your 200
18:02:47 [DanC]
NM: consider an actual computer...
18:03:02 [DanC]
... that responds to HTTP GETs about itself
18:03:55 [timbl]
q+ to say that a computer is not an information resource, 200 would be innapropriate.
18:04:11 [DanC]
NM: in the case of a computer, though it's clearly not an InformationResource, the 200 OK response doesn't seem to introduce ambiguity
18:05:13 [ht]
200 for dc:title amounts to identifying the property with the page, which is a realistic confusion
18:05:30 [ht]
[that was DanC]
18:05:55 [ht]
DanC: 200 for computer is not confusing, because everything true about the computer is true about [what]????
18:06:00 [Vincent]
ack timbl
18:06:00 [Zakim]
timbl, you wanted to say that a computer is not an information resource, 200 would be innapropriate.
18:06:56 [DanC]
TBL: to me, it's quite clear: the computer is not an information resource, and hence a hashless http URI for it, and a 200 OK response, is inappropriate.
18:09:14 [DanC]
NM: ok, so this conversation confirms that there are a couple ways to look at this which are each internally consistent...
18:10:55 [ht]
Towers of abstraction are a long-standing problem for AI/Knowledge Representation
18:10:56 [DanC]
where HT wrote "not confusing" I meant to say "not formally contradictory". I do think it's confusing.
18:12:48 [DanC]
[missed some...]
18:12:53 [ht]
Right, Roy favours the "far context" approach to disambiguation, i.e. information about the RDF property of the triple in which the URI appears
18:13:01 [DanC]
NM: what about documents about documents?
18:13:20 [DanC]
TimBL: sure... <a> and <b>. <a#foo> might denote <b>.
18:13:54 [DanC]
18:14:24 [ht]
"far context" is from my initial message:
18:14:36 [timbl]
18:15:04 [Vincent]
ack timbl
18:15:37 [DanC]
DC: as to "OK -- why do we need or want to maintain that notion of identity across the SemWeb/OFWeb boundary?" I think webarch speaks to the value of a global space.
18:15:49 [DanC]
TBL: [missed]
18:16:21 [DanC]
NM: this is an easy one for me, the traditional Metcalf/economy-of-scale arguments convince me.
18:16:22 [ht]
q+ to ask about the history
18:16:29 [Vincent]
ack ht
18:16:29 [Zakim]
ht, you wanted to ask about the history
18:17:09 [DanC]
(DC said earlier that he's somewhat conflicted about this, and wonders if the principle has limitations)
18:17:35 [DanC]
HT: in some histories of RDF, RDF statements were metadata, i.e. data about documents.
18:17:56 [Zakim]
18:18:05 [DanC]
... nowadays, that's less emphasized, and RDF statements are more about things in the world... biotech and such...
18:18:45 [DanC]
... in the "RDF is for metadata" world, yes, it's nutso not to take the identifier spaces the same...
18:18:51 [Vincent]
MarkN is Dave
18:18:53 [timbl]
TBL: We have written about the importance of an unambiguous identifier throughout the OFWweb, and the semantic web depends in it throughout the SemWeb. We could, yes, have an architecture in which the two were separated: the same URI string would identifying different things as a OFURI and as a SWURI. That would mean putting a membrane between the two worlds, never mixing them. [I think this would be a major drawback and very expensive]
18:19:08 [DanC]
... but it's less obvious when you get to lifesci etc.
18:19:15 [DanC]
HT: have I got the history right?
18:19:48 [DanC]
TBL: in a sense; to me, RDF was always a generic thing, but the initial motivation and funding was metadata. So yes, the "center of gravity" has shifted.
18:20:05 [ht]
Thanks, that helps
18:20:09 [noah]
From AWWW:
18:20:21 [noah]
"Software developers should expect that sharing URIs across applications will be useful, even if that utility is not initially evident."
18:20:22 [timbl]
But remember that pre RDF, there was MCF and various KR things which were more general KR oriented.
18:20:26 [noah]
I actually believe this.
18:20:28 [DanC]
18:20:33 [DanC]
Topic: AC meeting prep
18:20:45 [noah]
This suggests that SemWeb and OFWeb should share an identification space
18:21:23 [DanC]
DO: what are the logistics of creating AC slide presentations?
18:21:47 [noah]
I seem to remember that Chris Lilley did this quite regularly?
18:22:13 [DanC]
(I have internal mail saying says how to do AC presentation materials)
18:22:36 [DanC]
HT: if you can make vanilla HTML, with one h1 per slide, I can help do the rest... we have a CSS+javascript thingy
18:23:27 [DanC]
DO: umm... how to set/meet slide review expectations?
18:23:44 [ht]
18:23:49 [DanC]
DC: I'm happy to delegate to DO+VQ
18:24:27 [noah]
+1 I don't need to review unless someone wants help
18:24:51 [timbl]
18:24:52 [DanC]
VQ: ok, DO will send a draft to and folks can send comments
18:25:23 [DanC]
DO: I expect to be able to make a draft toninght or tomorrow... I'm travelling...
18:25:51 [DanC]
VQ: so we'll wrap up and get them to Ian by the end of this week
18:26:14 [DanC]
DO: I don't have [ ] in front of me...
18:27:07 [ht]
I like the idea of giving some time to the binary and XRI stuff
18:27:09 [DanC]
... how much time to spend on external communications e.g. XRI?
18:27:25 [DanC]
VQ: let's see... we have 45 minutes, so there seems to be plenty of time
18:27:27 [ht]
We got good feedback on our binary message [good work Ed and Noah!]
18:27:37 [noah]
18:27:45 [DanC]
yes, talk to the AC about XRI and XBC
18:28:01 [noah]
18:28:10 [noah]
In messages in the thread starting at [1], the question is raised as to
18:28:10 [noah]
whether the TAG is asking that the benefits of binary XML be quantified
18:28:10 [noah]
before or after the chartering of a new workgroup.
18:28:15 [noah]
Though this is not an official TAG communication, I think I am accurately
18:28:15 [noah]
conveying the sense of the TAG on this question. Specifically, we believe
18:28:15 [noah]
that the TAG should emphasize technical analysis in its work, and that
18:28:15 [noah]
where possible we should leave process decisions to others. See for
18:28:15 [noah]
example the discussion of Binary XML in the (as yet unapproved) minutes of
18:28:17 [noah]
our meeting of 10 May [2], in which Dan Connolly quotes from the TAG
18:28:19 [noah]
charter [3]:
18:28:47 [DanC]
NM: re XBC, note there's been discussion on member-xml-binary
18:29:11 [DanC]
NM: I hope folks are happy with what I sent ther.
18:29:34 [ht]
Noah, I thought your reply was well-judged
18:29:44 [noah]
18:30:33 [DanC]
DO: FYI, I've requested a lightning talk so that I can explicitly put on my BEA hat to speak of the XML binary stuff.
18:31:39 [DanC]
DO: it's traditional to ask questions to the AC. continue that tradition?
18:33:04 [DanC]
TBL: I'm not inclined to ask the AC how the TAG should work...
18:33:39 [ht]
That reminds me -- DO should say somethign about the education material stuff
18:34:17 [DanC]
DanC: let's ask the AC "how have you used the webarch doc? not at all? read it yourself? internal training?"
18:34:21 [DanC]
DO: good idea.
18:34:45 [ht]
ht has left #tagmem
18:34:56 [Zakim]
18:35:02 [DanC]
DO: slides on XRI, XBC, questions, educational stuff. something like that.
18:35:35 [DanC]
ADJOURN. for 2 weeks, meet next in Cambridge.
18:35:50 [Zakim]
18:35:52 [Zakim]
18:35:54 [Zakim]
18:35:55 [Zakim]
18:36:19 [Zakim]
18:36:20 [Zakim]
TAG_Weekly()12:30PM has ended
18:36:21 [Zakim]
Attendees were noah, Ht, Vincent, DanC, TimBL, MarkN
18:36:22 [DanC]
18:44:14 [DanC]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
18:44:14 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate DanC
20:33:40 [DanC]
RRSAgent, bye
20:33:40 [RRSAgent]
I see no action items