TAG Weekly

31 May 2005


noah, Ht, Vincent, DanC, TimBL, DaveO (part)
Vincent Quint


  1. Convene, take roll, review records and agenda
  2. fn:escape-uri
  3. Reviewing some pending action items
  4. Reviewing some commitments re fragmentInXML-28, SchemeProtocols-49
  5. httpRange-14
  6. AC meeting prep

See also: Agenda, IRC log

Convene, take roll, review records and agenda

regrets NDW http://norman.walsh.name/2005/itinerary/05-21-xtech

DO to arrive later. no news re ER

<scribe> Scribe: DanC

upcoming scribes...

<Vincent> Scribe list: NDW, DC, ER, RF, NM, DO, HT

VQ: comments on the agenda?

[none just now]

Date of Next telcon? 7 June conflicts with AC meeting

HT not available 7 Jun

<timbl> I would not be there

next meeting seems to be ftf in Cambridge

RESOLVED to cancel 7 Jun telcon; meet next in Cambridge

RESOLVED to approve 3 May minutes and 10 May minutes.

(item 2 AC prep deferred pending DO's arrival)


(weird... http://www.w3.org/2005/04/12-tagmem-minutes.html#action01 pointer gone bad)

DanC: I asked if it was OK to drop "DanC to draft comment about splitting fn:escape-uri into separate" from 12 Apr...
... relates to ftf prep; I hope to discuss XQuery namespaces

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

DanC: I suppose we have enough overlap with XQuery/XPath, with HT and Norm... do they need any heads-up?

HT: not really

DanC: TimBL, do you still think fn:escape-uri needs splitting?

TimBL: well, yes, different task... one of them is invertible, the other is not

<timbl> TimBL: Yes, I do - into0 one ifnormation-losinga nd one reversible function.

VQ: merits ftf time?

HT: yes, but cap at 30min

VQ: ok.

DanC fails to withdraw his action. it continues.

NM: pls make the ftf agenda have good background pointers; danc points out a broken link

VQ: will do

Reviewing some pending action items

looking at NDW to work with HT, DO on namespaceState [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/02/22-tagmem-minutes#action04]

HT: no progress; sorry.

looking at Tim to provide a draft of new namespace policy doc (http://www.w3.org/1999/10/nsuri) and start discussion on www-tag [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/03/08-tagmem-minutes.html#action04]

TBL: I discussed this internally a bit, I think...
... it still has the "note" in it [that shouldn't be there]
... I should follow that up, yes.

action continues.

looking at NDW to take GRDDL/RDDL discussion to www-tag to solicit feedback on directions for namespaceDocument-8 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/04/05-tagmem-minutes.html#action03]

VQ: I don't see progress there.



VQ: I gather NDW has made some progress on this... made a list.

Reviewing some commitments re fragmentInXML-28 SchemeProtocols-49

looking at Henry to monitor [RFC3023bis wrt fragmentInXML-28] and bring back up when time is appropriate. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/02/07-tagmem-minutes.html#action12]

HT: I've made some progress, talking with various people.
... the process is kinda complicated.

(hmm... this relates to http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html?type=1#standardizedFieldValues-51 )

HT's action is done.

looking at: Noah to own draft skeleton of SchemeProtocols-49 finding and send around for comments. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/03/08-tagmem-minutes.html#action02]

NM: things above this on my todo list are done-ish, and I've started on it...
... I see some difference of opinion
... if you have input, now would be a good time to send it to me (via www-tag)
... it might merit ftf time

HT: I've talked with NM about this a bit... it's subtle and complex, and yes, it does seem to merit ftf time

NM motivates the issue to the point where TBL is tempted to discuss in substance... VQ is convinced it merits ftf time.


<Zakim> DanC, you wanted to swap in unanswered mail from HT

making progress on httpRange-14 -- yet another suggestion

<ht> DanC: dc:title is the URI that's mentioned in the SWBPG message to us

<ht> It's a hashless URI for a non-information-resource, i.e. an RDF property

<ht> But you don't get a 200 if you try to retrieve it.

<ht> you get a redirect. . . They're evidently sensitive to claiming dc:title has representations. So a hashless URI is more trouble when it comes to publishing in that way. If they didn't set up a redirect, a 200 from a hashless URI is a claim that the web page is identical to the RDF property, which causes trouble for some consumers.

<ht> DanC: When asked how to choose/publish RDF properties, 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 #

<ht> NM: [missed the question]

<ht> DanC: leads to confusion about e.g. 'author' assertions about that property vs. 'author' assertions about the document describing it

<ht> NM: Indeed my concern was about 200 codes

NM: so far we've talked about dividing between InformationResources and others...
... 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.
... [missed some...] but consider { ?SOMETHING measures:wieghtInLbs 200 } ...

<Zakim> ht, you wanted to ask what you _get_ with your 200

NM: consider an actual computer...
... that responds to HTTP GETs about itself
... in the case of a computer, though it's clearly not an InformationResource, the 200 OK response doesn't seem to introduce ambiguity

<ht> 200 for dc:title amounts to identifying the property with the page, which is a realistic confusion

<ht> [that was DanC]

<ht> DanC: 200 for computer is not confusing, because everything true about the computer is true about [what]????

<Zakim> timbl, you wanted to say that a computer is not an information resource, 200 would be innapropriate.

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.

NM: ok, so this conversation confirms that there are a couple ways to look at this which are each internally consistent...

<ht> Towers of abstraction are a long-standing problem for AI/Knowledge Representation

where HT wrote "not confusing" I meant to say "not formally contradictory". I do think it's confusing.

[missed some...]

<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

NM: what about documents about documents?

TimBL: sure... <a> and <b>. <a#foo> might denote <b>.

resuming with HT's msg

<ht> "far context" is from my initial message

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. I'm somewhat conflicted about this; I wonder if the principle has limitations.

TBL: [missed]

NM: this is an easy one for me, the traditional Metcalf/economy-of-scale arguments convince me.

<Zakim> ht, you wanted to ask about the history

HT: in some histories of RDF, RDF statements were metadata, i.e. data about documents.
... nowadays, that's less emphasized, and RDF statements are more about things in the world... biotech and such...
... in the "RDF is for metadata" world, yes, it's nutso not to take the identifier spaces the same...

<Vincent> MarkN is Dave

<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]

HT: but it's less obvious when you get to lifesci etc.
... have I got the history right?

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.

<ht> Thanks, that helps

<noah> From AWWW:

Software developers should expect that sharing URIs across applications will be useful, even if that utility is not initially evident.


<timbl> But remember that pre RDF, there was MCF and various KR things which were more general KR oriented.

<noah> I actually believe this.

<noah> This suggests that SemWeb and OFWeb should share an identification space

AC meeting prep

DO: what are the logistics of creating AC slide presentations?

<noah> I seem to remember that Chris Lilley did this quite regularly?

(I have internal mail saying http://www.w3.org/Talks/Tools/ says how to do AC presentation materials)

HT: if you can make vanilla HTML, with one h2 per slide, I can help do the rest... we have a CSS+javascript thingy

DO: umm... how to set/meet slide review expectations?

DC: I'm happy to delegate to DO+VQ

<noah> +1 I don't need to review unless someone wants help

<timbl> +1

VQ: ok, DO will send a draft to tag@w3.org and folks can send comments

DO: I expect to be able to make a draft toninght or tomorrow... I'm travelling...

VQ: so we'll wrap up and get them to Ian by the end of this week

DO: I don't have [ http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tag-summary.html ] in front of me...

<ht> I like the idea of giving some time to the binary and XRI stuff

DO: how much time to spend on external communications e.g. XRI?

VQ: let's see... we have 45 minutes, so there seems to be plenty of time

<ht> We got good feedback on our binary message [good work Ed and Noah!]

<noah> Thanks.

yes, talk to the AC about XRI and XBC

NM: re XBC, note there's been discussion on member-xml-binary
... I hope folks are happy with what I sent there.

<noah> a msg I wrote:

In messages in the thread starting at [1], the question is raised as to whether the TAG is asking that the benefits of binary XML be quantified before or after the chartering of a new workgroup. Though this is not an official TAG communication, I think I am accurately conveying the sense of the TAG on this question. Specifically, we believe that the TAG should emphasize technical analysis in its work, and that where possible we should leave process decisions to others. See for example the discussion of Binary XML in the (as yet unapproved) minutes of our meeting of 10 May [2], in which Dan Connolly quotes from the TAG charter [3]...

<ht> Noah, I thought your reply was well-judged

<noah> Thanks.

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.
... it's traditional to ask questions to the AC. continue that tradition?

TBL: I'm not inclined to ask the AC how the TAG should work...

<ht> That reminds me -- DO should say somethign about the education material stuff

DanC: let's ask the AC "how have you used the webarch doc? not at all? read it yourself? internal training?"

DO: good idea.
... slides on XRI, XBC, questions, educational stuff. something like that.

ADJOURN. for 2 weeks, meet next in Cambridge.

DanC, for VQ and the TAG.
$Revision: 1.5 $ of $Date: 2005/05/31 20:29:13 $ Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.126