IRC log of tagmem on 2005-06-16

Timestamps are in UTC.

04:27:28 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #tagmem
12:47:48 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #tagmem
12:47:48 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2005/06/16-tagmem-irc
12:47:52 [Vincent]
Vincent has joined #tagmem
12:48:02 [DanC_lap]
Zakim, agenda?
12:48:02 [Zakim]
I see 5 items remaining on the agenda:
12:48:06 [Zakim]
5. TAG directions [from DanC_lap]
12:48:07 [Zakim]
1. namespaceDocument-8 [from DanC_lap]
12:48:08 [Zakim]
2. abstractComponentRefs-37 [from DanC_lap]
12:48:09 [Zakim]
3. XMLVersioning-41 [from DanC_lap]
12:48:10 [Zakim]
4. fn:escape-uri [from DanC_lap]
12:48:18 [ht]
Agenda: Archi for Semantic Web
12:48:36 [Roy]
Roy has joined #tagmem
12:48:42 [ht]
Meeting: TAG
12:48:48 [ht]
Scribe: Henry S Thompson
12:48:53 [DanC_lap]
agenda + GRID Services
12:49:00 [ht]
ScribeNick: ht
12:49:13 [noah_home]
date: 16 June 2005
12:49:26 [ht]
Topic: Agenda review
12:49:30 [ht]
[see above]
12:49:44 [ht]
Action: All to send vacation info to Vincent
12:50:44 [ht]
Action: Minute takers to get minutes to Vincent by Monday 20 July
12:52:28 [ht]
Norm will be chair _pro tem_ after Vincent leaves this afternoon
12:52:54 [ht]
Topic: Architecture of the Semantic Web
12:53:08 [ht]
VQ: Extending our work to the Semantic Web. . .
12:53:17 [ht]
Looking for steps to make progress
12:54:48 [ht]
TBL: Trying to identify the primary hooks we're hanging the SW on, writing them up and connecting things to existing WebArch
12:55:35 [ht]
... Lots of discussion of philosophy in the SW community, some tensions particularly with the folk from the KR and logic communities, but those tensions have been easing
12:56:04 [ht]
... The existing documents are not easy to work with as they stand
12:56:18 [ht]
... We can try to pull out some principles, write some stories
12:56:38 [Norm]
Norm has joined #tagmem
12:57:02 [ht]
... Try to explain the SW in a way that hasn't been done before -- make the connection between SW and OFW
12:57:18 [ht]
... For newcomers from an academic perspective, for example
12:57:57 [DanC_lap]
-> http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/Primer Primer: Getting into RDF & Semantic Web using N3
12:58:01 [ht]
... There is a standalone, non-XML, intro to the SW -- interested to get review of this from relative newcomers
12:58:14 [timbl]
http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/Primer
12:58:54 [timbl]
ht, vq
12:59:07 [ht]
Action: HST, VQ to review the primer
13:00:20 [timbl]
http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/doc/
13:00:31 [ht]
TBL: Would like three reviewers for the first page, and at least one for the whole tutorial
13:01:10 [ht]
q+ to project a logic story and ask for parallels
13:01:39 [ht]
TBL: It's in various forms. . .
13:03:24 [timbl]
ACTION Tim revise http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/HTTP-URI.html
13:03:44 [ht]
Action: TBL revise http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/HTTP-URI.html
13:04:28 [ht]
TBL: Most recent SW talk has become more software engineering orientated. . .
13:04:39 [noah_home]
Noah notes that http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/HTTP-URI.html comes pretty close to bearing on the questions he (Noah) asked yesterday regarding the relationship of schemes and protocols
13:04:57 [timbl]
http://www.w3.org/2005/Talks/0517-boit-tbl/
13:05:09 [timbl]
Talk to bio-IT conference with some softweare engineering pictures
13:05:35 [ht]
ack DanC
13:05:35 [Zakim]
DanC_lap, you wanted to note 2 principles of RDF that I think our audience should know about: (1) taking "use URIs" all the way (and not stopping at qnames) for reusability (2)
13:05:38 [Zakim]
... partial understanding, which has big impact on extensibility/versioning
13:05:44 [Vincent]
ack DanC_lap
13:06:16 [ht]
DanC: Frustrated at people reinventing RDF -- at least do it well
13:06:43 [ht]
... Given any RDF document, any subset of the triples there stand on their own
13:06:54 [ht]
... Adding triples never hurt
13:07:28 [ht]
NM: Can't I add a negation of a triple -- that can't be ignorable
13:07:53 [ht]
HST: Negation requires re-ification, I believe
13:08:24 [ht]
HST: Stopping at qnames means what?
13:10:20 [ht]
DanC: E.g. schemas, lots of things have QNames, but knowing a QName is not enough to be able to point to something unequivocably
13:11:32 [ht]
TBL: [diagram on whiteboard] Standards-based bus -- raw RDF, GRDDL-derived RDF, RDF queries. . .
13:11:53 [DanC_lap]
(I suppose one could refer to " that XML Schema type whose namespace name is X and whose localname is N"... I'm not sure if that approach has been exhaustively tried)
13:12:32 [ht]
... triple-stores, RDBs exposed as XML or RDF, XMLDBs, all projecting RDF on to the bus
13:12:48 [DanC_lap]
(norm, have you heard of ,timbl? )
13:14:20 [ht]
... Apps bit on top of the bus -- browsers, aggregators, inference engines
13:16:18 [ht]
... Both data sources and apps may need 'adapters' to convert to/from RDF
13:17:57 [Vincent]
ack ht
13:17:57 [Zakim]
ht, you wanted to project a logic story and ask for parallels
13:18:00 [ht]
ack q+
13:18:26 [DanC_lap]
(I've been wondering if the TAG should take a 20 minute course in model theory)
13:20:01 [timbl]
http://www.w3.org/2005/Talks/0517-boit-tbl/#[18] and floowing slides have bits of this
13:23:56 [DanC_lap]
HT gives a 4-slide presentation on traditional definition of a logic
13:34:26 [DanC_lap]
(did ht already put a pointer to these slides in the record?)
13:36:36 [DanC_lap]
(it was slides N thru 7 )
13:42:52 [timbl]
dretske
13:43:03 [DanC_lap]
TBL asks if shannon:information has been connected to frege:model-theory
13:43:13 [ht]
Knowledge and the Flow of Information
13:43:21 [DanC_lap]
HT replies with a reference to Dretske, Fred I. Knowledge and the Flow of Information. as cited from http://www.press.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/hfs.cgi/00/14537.ctl
13:44:33 [DanC_lap]
a nearby article nominated by google is http://www.ils.unc.edu/~losee/b5/book5.html
13:44:49 [ht]
TBL: Example of communication as reduction in uncertainty [= entropy?] by conveying information
13:46:22 [ht]
Action: HST to recommend intro to Dretske thought
13:46:57 [DanC_lap]
DC asks HT whether " A Discipline Independent
13:46:57 [DanC_lap]
Definition of Information" has the relevant info; HT is unable to confirm
13:48:07 [ht]
TBL: People working with different subsets of a patchwork of information in an unbounded set
13:48:25 [ht]
... Each agent can take care of the local consistency of the information it is working with
13:48:41 [DanC_lap]
(I think the nearest point on the TAG agenda at this point of the discussion is http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html#rdfURIMeaning-39 )
13:48:52 [ht]
... Using URIs as individuals in more than on logic
13:49:20 [ht]
... Some of the logics have inconsistencies
13:49:30 [ht]
s/inconsistencies/inconsistent/
13:50:36 [ht]
NM: People are making statements (in different logics) which all use URIs
13:51:10 [ht]
... Sentential forms are out there, in bits of Prolog, DescriptionLogic, .. . .
13:52:19 [ht]
... Problem is combining these
13:52:38 [ht]
HST: Not quite -- RDF triples are independent of all those -- they are what they are
13:53:32 [ht]
TBL: Architectural rule: To understand a triple, take the predicate, look it up on the web, if the result is english, then at least _you_ know what it means
13:53:56 [ht]
... If you find an OWL class, your computer may be able to do things
13:54:43 [ht]
NM: Lots of triples out there, for some subset of them, I'll be able to reason about them in a useful way, maybe because they are all using OWL-defined predicate
13:55:09 [ht]
... But if some are like that, and some are defined e.g. in French, combining them isn't going to work very well
13:55:20 [ht]
... That's a problem in practice, but not in principle. . .
13:56:03 [ht]
NM: What about the prolog approach?
13:56:44 [ht]
DC: { :timbl :carowner :xyzzy } --- look up :carowner, find ...[scribe coulnd't keep up]
13:56:57 [ht]
... The unit of meaning on the web is a document
13:57:41 [ht]
NM: In practice, then, the same triples in one document may have a different impact than the same triples divided over several documents
13:57:43 [ht]
DC: Yes
13:58:39 [ht]
TBL: Philosophers think they've gone beyond this, believe they exhausted the rigid meaning approach in favour of some kind of meaning-as-use approach
13:58:54 [ht]
... So they think the SW story is too simple and are a bit dismissive
13:59:20 [ht]
NM: Squishy
13:59:57 [ht]
TBL: Semantic web is going to be very un-squishy -- if you send a particular XDI message, the tags have a very firm pre-negotiated meaning
14:00:07 [DanC_lap]
DC: rdfURIMeaning-39 is on our issues list because... when you look up :carowner, you'll find a document that says, e.g. carowner is a property, and it's a subproperty of uniform-commercial-code:owner, etc. But what if that defining document also says "and Reagan is a great president"; does use of :carowner involve assent to that statement as well? The extreme other position is: no... I can use any URI I like to mean whatever meaning I like, irrespective
14:00:07 [DanC_lap]
of what infromation its owner publishes
14:00:23 [ht]
... In RDF, all you need is the pre-negotiated meaning about the RDF framework, you can look up the predicates
14:01:29 [ht]
TBL: What we need for the arch doc is an answer to the question of what you're committing yourself to when you send someone an RDF document
14:01:52 [ht]
... When you chase the predicate links, you eventually converge on a small number of meta-ontologies
14:02:06 [ht]
... Not of course the same when you chase the subject and object URIs
14:02:22 [ht]
... So what's a best practice in this area. . .?
14:02:55 [ht]
VQ: Useful intro/overview of the space
14:03:17 [ht]
... What do we do next, beyond looking at the tutorial
14:04:06 [Norm]
q+ to suggest that what we really need are the Dirk and Nadia stories
14:04:21 [ht]
... Should we use the tutorial as a starting point for the architecture?
14:04:25 [Norm]
ack norm
14:04:25 [Zakim]
Norm, you wanted to suggest that what we really need are the Dirk and Nadia stories
14:04:37 [ht]
TBL: No, I think it's not directly in the architectural direction
14:05:34 [ht]
NDW: I regularly get pushback from e.g. people in Sun as to what the value of all this is and why it's worth the overhead -- a good Dirk&Nadia story or two is really needed to address this
14:05:54 [ht]
NM: How much of this is really within the TAG's remit. . .
14:06:12 [ht]
DC: Let's tell stories that connect SW to issues on our issues list
14:06:35 [ht]
NM: SW interesting because/when it connects to the Web as a whole -- e.g. httpRange-14
14:06:56 [ht]
... Comfort level goes way up in that case
14:07:13 [ht]
... How do we connect the world of logic to the world of the Web
14:08:25 [ht]
HST: Otherwise it's not obvious how SW connects to our customers, as identified as the W3C WGs
14:08:52 [ht]
DC: ATOM isn't our WG, but they sure need this help -- they've reinvented RDF several times!
14:09:33 [ht]
NDW: ATOM has cut most of that loose -- they also could have done much of it with RDF, but they didn't believe it was usable in practice
14:10:25 [ht]
TBL: practicality, and XML RDF syntax
14:10:33 [ht]
HST: Not our problem, c.f. XML and entities
14:11:27 [DanC_lap]
agenda + WS Description and "safety"
14:12:16 [ht]
NM: Well, if we thought it was so important that it was going to break the web
14:12:30 [ht]
... then it would be our remit
14:13:17 [ht]
VQ: Agreement that we need some stories, particularly if they make the connection
14:13:45 [ht]
DC: Tension between the SW architecture and the XML architecture
14:14:13 [ht]
... How to know when to solve your problems by manipulating XML with the XML tools, vs. using the SW arch
14:15:08 [ht]
... There's a whole XPath-based application development worldview outthere, with hardware accelerators and so on
14:15:37 [ht]
HST: And Norm and I want to get the XML Processing working group going, because we think processing XML as XML is good and needs a standard
14:15:55 [ht]
DC: So that view competes seriously with the RDF architecture
14:16:06 [ht]
TBL: And AJAX competes also
14:16:23 [Norm]
TBL: building XML support into your programming language competes with building RDF support into your language
14:17:54 [ht]
DC: Is XML Proc WG going to look at XDuce and things like that?
14:18:27 [ht]
HST: No, document level, not lower, is way to get consensus quickly, lots of existing specs/tools at that levels
14:21:03 [ht]
TBL: Dirk has some RDF triples, Nadia adds some, doesn't get in Dirk's way
14:21:12 [ht]
HST: I want a story about a problem solved
14:22:50 [ht]
... It's where the people who have problems with the perceived impracticality of RDF processing hit the buffers
14:23:01 [ht]
NDW: Paul and Paula example, phonebook rules
14:24:04 [ht]
TBL list from whiteboard: Stories: Versioning; Looking up predicates; Data merge; Ontology link; Inference (phonebook)
14:25:09 [Norm]
The core of the story is that I have two address book entries for Paul and Paula because they have different work phone numbers. I use RDF inference to avoid having to duplicate the home phone numbers in each record.
14:25:32 [ht]
DC: NDW did View Source on his website, showing that he imported 27 different RDF sources and used them
14:25:45 [Norm]
The URI for the data Dan is referring to is http://norman.walsh.name/knows/norman.walsh.name.rdf
14:25:55 [ht]
... No way you could do that in vernacular XML w/o writing code
14:34:46 [ht]
TAG looks at http://norman.walsh.name/knows/norman.walsh.name.rdf
14:35:08 [ht]
... which aggregates a lot of information from different sources
14:35:28 [ht]
TBL: HST, how can you combine XML information from many namespaces
14:35:41 [ht]
HST: Just do it, combine the docs under a common root
14:35:55 [timbl]
DC: But then common references are not evident
14:35:58 [ht]
DC: But you can't cross refer from one part to another
14:36:21 [ht]
HST: Show me an example of that in Norm's doct
14:36:43 [ht]
NDW: look at e.g. http://norman.walsh.name/1998/04/images/canaldish
14:37:02 [ht]
NM: Purchase order example. . .
14:37:42 [ht]
... Schemas are just a tool, to help people build systems
14:38:22 [ht]
... Versioning work is directed at handling the common cases of language evolution, finding what the mechanisms system builders want
14:39:43 [ht]
TBL: When the computer hits the unexpected code, it doesn't know what it is
14:40:59 [ht]
NM: Schema allows some hooks via annotation, but doesn't guarantee that different parties will agree the annotation's meaning
14:41:33 [ht]
TBL: RDF hasn't done much in the direction of required/desired/notallowed kinds of meta-information about predicates
14:44:08 [ht]
NM: XML focus is historically on syntax, does that ccode goes at the end of the element or the beginning
14:44:28 [ht]
... RDF has less emphasis on ordering
14:45:34 [ht]
NDW: RDF does versioning easily for what it does, but doesn't help much if at all with versioning XML languages
14:47:24 [ht]
TBL: yes -- RDF versioning is much easier
14:48:44 [DanC_lap]
NDW discovers that x can be redirected to a#b . HT asks: what if I'm looking up x#q ?
14:51:28 [ht]
HST: I understood DC to say that XML 'solved the versioning' problem, which I think Norm was disputing, but I guess DC meant it 'disolved' the versioning problme, that is, by moving to RDF you avoid most of XML's versioning problems
14:51:40 [ht]
DC, TBL: the latter, pretty much
14:51:42 [ht]
[break]
15:09:01 [dorchard]
dorchard has joined #tagmem
15:09:41 [Vincent]
Hi Dave. Will you join us on the phone?
15:09:56 [dorchard]
not right away. wsdl call calls.
15:10:18 [dorchard]
i'll follow as best I can from irc for the rest of your morning
15:10:33 [Vincent]
Ok, you'll join after our lunch then
15:15:10 [ht]
HST would like to hear more from NDW wrt how the two applications of RDF he uses . . . by email
15:15:12 [DanC_lap]
Zakim, close item 5
15:15:12 [Zakim]
agendum 5 closed
15:15:13 [Zakim]
I see 6 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
15:15:15 [Zakim]
1. namespaceDocument-8 [from DanC_lap]
15:15:18 [DanC_lap]
Zakim, next agendum
15:15:18 [Zakim]
agendum 1. "namespaceDocument-8" taken up [from DanC_lap]
15:15:30 [ht]
Topic: namespaceDocument-8
15:17:06 [ht]
NDW: Problems with taking RDDL forward -- some problems encountered:
15:17:33 [ht]
... 1) XHTML modularisation is needed to be more blessed
15:17:47 [Ed]
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html#namespaceDocument-8
15:17:58 [ht]
... 2) There's a two-URI problem ;
15:18:19 [DanC_lap]
looking back at http://www.w3.org/2005/04/05-tagmem-minutes.html#action03
15:19:30 [ht]
... 3) CMSMCQ alleges that RDDL commits some kind of tag abuse
15:19:54 [ht]
DanC: What feedback about GRDDL/RDDL?
15:20:40 [ht]
HST: Recall my problem with the GRDDL idea is the necessity to run XSLT to get my schema document
15:20:48 [ht]
DanC: you can hard-code that too
15:25:30 [ht]
NM: Regarding (2) above, what I meant was that in the RDDL document you have to include the same URI twice, once for humans and once for machines, which is a) tedious and b) liable to error/abuse
15:25:49 [ht]
s/NM/NDW/
15:26:10 [ht]
NM: Is that an architectural problem?
15:27:14 [ht]
NDW: No, just good document design -- the architectural question is introducing the level of indirection we need to get to all different kinds of things: Schema, DTD, human doc't, RELAX NG schema, ....
15:28:16 [ht]
HST: A good-enough solution, no competitors
15:28:43 [ht]
DC: Is status of current RDDL spec. good enough?
15:28:48 [ht]
NDW: AC said no
15:29:20 [ht]
NM: As written, it says it's about e.g. namespace documents, not specifically only namespace documents
15:29:46 [ht]
... If we were to make it a REC, we would need to specify this, yes?
15:30:25 [ht]
NDW: Don't say 'only', just 'start there'
15:30:47 [ht]
DC: Don't imply you should use this, just you may if you want to do the indirection
15:31:01 [ht]
NM: So the use cases can all be namespaces, but no restriction to that
15:32:09 [ht]
HST: So do we send RDDL to the XML Core WG ?
15:32:13 [ht]
[all] No
15:32:48 [ht]
DC: Start a WG
15:32:52 [ht]
NDW: Schema WG
15:33:50 [ht]
NDW: Maybe if we asked the AC to create a WG to do this, they would agree it's OK
15:39:19 [ht]
NM: If we recommend a WG we get in process trouble vis a vis what we said about binary XML
15:39:46 [ht]
[not well-minuted passage about routes to make RDDL a spec]
15:39:51 [ht]
s/spec/REC/
15:42:24 [ht]
TBL: Wants not just the RDDL syntax, but also a semantics, i.e. a GRDDL stylesheet and an ontology for what it produces
15:42:58 [ht]
HST: syntax is there, stylesheet is there (see March minutes somewhere, at worst April), all we need is the ontology
15:43:27 [ht]
NM: Prefer specs not to talk about processing, if possible
15:44:32 [dorchard]
maybe an XG?
15:46:39 [Norm]
RDDL natures: http://www.rddl.org/natures/ and purposes: http://www.rddl.org/purposes/
15:52:14 [ht]
DC: HST would you be happy if RDDL didn't have the relation you needed?
15:52:24 [ht]
HST: Sure, The Schema WG would mint one
15:52:35 [ht]
... The RDDL REC better allow for that
15:52:42 [DanC_lap]
right, norm, how much of those lists should go in the REC?
15:52:49 [ht]
NDW: Yes, I have to do that for functions for F&O
15:54:09 [ht]
TBL: We need to look at RDF-A before reaching a resolution
15:54:11 [Norm]
I'm happy with both of those lists, in their entirety, being in the REC. And add some more if you want. Like RDF properties, I get to mint more.
15:54:30 [ht]
s/RDF-A/RDFA/
15:54:49 [timbl]
http://www.formsplayer.com/notes/rdf-a.html
15:55:05 [ht]
DC: RDFA is the HTML WG's attempt at the general problem which RDDL is a specific instance of
15:55:44 [DanC_lap]
(they have the same level of generality, as far as I can tell)
15:55:47 [ht]
NM: Attributes for adding RDF to arbitrary HTML
15:56:17 [ht]
... Argh, uses QNames in content
15:56:30 [ht]
TBL, HST: Sometimes that's the best solution . . .
15:56:33 [Norm]
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2004/rdf-a
15:57:18 [DanC_lap]
http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-xhtml2-20050527/mod-metaAttributes.html#s_metaAttributesmodule
15:57:44 [DanC_lap]
NDW: ew... qnames in content
15:58:03 [ht]
TBL: Instead of rddl:resource or GRDDL, just use RDF-A, maybe?
15:59:30 [ht]
DC: The news people use this technology, they really like the QName thing
16:04:20 [ht]
HST: I still like the simple solution for the bounded problem
16:07:34 [ht]
DC: What is the scope of a RDDL REC
16:07:48 [ht]
NM: 1) Just namespace docs, just these N properties;
16:09:45 [ht]
... 2) Just namespace docs, these N properties for sure, more later ad lib.
16:09:54 [DanC_lap]
("here's the RDDL property" hmm... the space of RDDL properties is the same as the space of RDF properties, yes?")
16:09:57 [ht]
... 3) Anything about anything
17:03:59 [DanC_lap]
(hmm... the odd thing about web architecture is perhaps that a traditional architecture allows you to determine whether a new machine is or is not an IBM360, but the #1 principle of web architecture is that there's only one web. (even though it's fractal, and there are independent webs in intranets and such, perhaps))
17:07:46 [Roy]
Scribe: Roy Fielding
17:09:06 [Roy]
DC: should we place namespaceDocument-8 in the some day pile?
17:10:06 [Roy]
NW: lots of people are deploying RDDL. It seems we should either say that is okay or that they are treading on unsafe waters.
17:11:47 [Roy]
TBL: much more inclined to pursue GRDDL than RDDL
17:12:10 [Roy]
VQ: is this something we can do in the short term?
17:12:13 [Roy]
DC: sure
17:13:36 [Norm]
Norm has joined #tagmem
17:13:52 [Norm]
The solution that looks appealing is:
17:14:02 [Norm]
1. Define an ontology for this problem
17:14:13 [Norm]
2. Explain how rddl:purpose exposes that ontology
17:14:37 [Norm]
3. Write a GRDDL stylesheet with a well-known URI that literally instantiates an instance of that ontology when applied to rddl:purpose elements
17:15:22 [Norm]
4. So if you get a rddl 1.0 document, you can do it with GRDDL or by recognizing the URI of the stylesheet. If you get something else and apply its GRDDL and you get that ontology, you can use that too
17:15:30 [DanC_lap]
(re part 1, the only term I know of that's used in practice is the one XSV uses to find schema documents)
17:16:40 [Roy]
VQ: there is nothing about RDF-A there ...
17:16:43 [Norm]
ACTION: Norm to write something like this up and send it to www-tag to see if it gets popular support
17:16:56 [Roy]
DC: step one and three apply to RDF-A
17:17:05 [DanC_lap]
s/RDF-A/RDF/
17:17:34 [DanC_lap]
(VQ thought it didn't say RDF anywhere; I was clarifying that "ontology" brings in RDF)
17:17:34 [Roy]
VQ: I suggest we move on
17:17:37 [Norm]
ACTION: VQ to update the open action list; this action subsumes Norm's outstanding action to post something about GRDDL/RDDL to the list
17:17:45 [DanC_lap]
Zakim, close item namespace
17:17:45 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'close item namespace', DanC_lap
17:17:53 [DanC_lap]
Zakim, take up item namespace
17:17:53 [Zakim]
agendum 1. "namespaceDocument-8" taken up [from DanC_lap]
17:17:58 [DanC_lap]
Zakim, close this item
17:17:58 [Zakim]
agendum 1 closed
17:17:59 [Zakim]
I see 5 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
17:18:01 [Zakim]
2. abstractComponentRefs-37 [from DanC_lap]
17:18:04 [DanC_lap]
agenda?
17:18:26 [Roy]
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html#abstractComponentRefs-37
17:18:46 [Roy]
DC: Dave is needed for this one and the next
17:18:58 [DanC_lap]
Zakim, take up item 4
17:18:58 [Zakim]
agendum 4. "fn:escape-uri" taken up [from DanC_lap]
17:19:44 [DanC_lap]
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2005/03/action-summary.html
17:19:56 [DanC_lap]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2005Apr/att-0068/April122005.html#action01
17:21:17 [Roy]
DC: [looking for example]
17:22:15 [timbl]
One is idempotent and irreversible, the other is reversible.
17:22:20 [Roy]
TBL: mixing two different functions under a single name -- one is idempotent and the other is reversible
17:22:23 [DanC_lap]
http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-xpath-functions-20050404/#func-escape-uri
17:22:40 [DanC_lap]
(invertible is more traditional than reversible, but close enough)
17:23:11 [DanC_lap]
i("my file name") = "my%20file%20name"
17:23:49 [timbl]
The reversible one takes a string and produced a path segment.
17:24:11 [DanC_lap]
encode("my file name") = "my%20file%20name"
17:24:17 [Roy]
DC: this functions allows arbitrary data to be included to produce a URI path segment
17:24:32 [Roy]
s/functions/function/
17:24:39 [DanC_lap]
#
17:24:39 [DanC_lap]
fn:escape-uri ("http://www.example.com/~bébé", false()) returns "http://www.example.com/~b%C3%A9b%C3%A9"
17:24:57 [timbl]
uriSafe("htpp://foo/~bar") = ... %7E
17:25:02 [timbl]
..
17:26:07 [DanC_lap]
critically: urisafe(urisafe(x)) = x
17:26:20 [Roy]
DC: the second example takes an entire IRI and encodes only the unsafe characters
17:27:38 [Roy]
RF: what about iri2uri?
17:28:03 [timbl]
a2c
17:28:45 [DanC_lap]
clean(clean(x)) = x
17:28:47 [ht]
kool!
17:28:49 [Roy]
TBL: I propose clean
17:30:00 [timbl]
encodeForURI(foo)
17:30:02 [DanC_lap]
xxlify
17:30:06 [timbl]
&ify
17:30:19 [DanC_lap]
encode-as-uri()
17:30:19 [Roy]
RF: percent-encode and clean-uri
17:30:23 [timbl]
percent-two-fice-ify
17:30:40 [Norm]
percent-encode-uri presumably
17:30:54 [Roy]
TBL: what namespace are these?
17:31:14 [Roy]
all: schema functions and operators
17:32:12 [DanC_lap]
encode-as-uripath() and clean-uri()
17:32:18 [DanC_lap]
encode-as-uri() and clean-uri()
17:32:50 [DanC_lap]
encode-for-uri() and clean-uri()
17:32:54 [timbl]
encode-for-uri()
17:33:37 [Roy]
DC: who gets tell the working group? NOT IT
17:33:47 [Roy]
RF: not it
17:34:32 [Ed]
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=1243
17:35:15 [Roy]
ACTION: TimBL to respond to the Schema WG regarding better split of function into two names
17:35:48 [ht]
s/Schema/XQuery/
17:36:28 [Roy]
VQ: anything else on this topic?
17:37:43 [Roy]
TBL: I see that existing bug report has been resolved... do we need a new bug report?
17:38:46 [Roy]
all: yes, a new bug report is in order
17:39:08 [Vincent]
Dave, do you plan to join us shortly?
17:39:25 [Roy]
[break for 5 minutes]
17:49:50 [dorchard]
yes I do.
17:50:01 [dorchard]
I'll call in when you get back..
17:50:33 [Roy]
we are back but have not restarted yet
17:50:39 [Vincent]
DO: then we will address XMLversioning-41 nad abstractComponentRefs-37
17:51:18 [ht]
Run against random strings ten characters long, the
17:51:18 [ht]
grammar accepts about 0.7% of them, about 70 in 10000
17:51:18 [ht]
trials.
17:51:18 [ht]
17:51:18 [ht]
Run against longer strings (30 characters), the
17:51:19 [ht]
percentage falls somewhat: fewer than 10 in 10000
17:51:21 [ht]
trials.
17:54:14 [dorchard]
I do have a 10 minute appt at 2pm est 11am pst with a painter.
17:54:25 [dorchard]
Perhaps convene once I get back?
17:54:34 [dorchard]
very interested in 41 and 37...
18:04:45 [noah]
On a different subject, but just so it gets into the minutes, I have updated http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/SchemeProtocols.html to point to the newly published http://ietfreport.isoc.org/all-ids/draft-hansen-2717bis-2718bis-uri-guidelines-03.txt
18:05:15 [dorchard]
back in 10..
18:05:19 [noah]
s/guidelines-03/guidelines-04/
18:05:33 [DanC_lap]
-> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=1243 [F&O] fn:escape-uri needs to be invertible in the true() case; take out the % exception
18:06:11 [ht]
base URI issue is launched at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2005Apr/0077
18:06:26 [timbl]
_______________
18:06:28 [timbl]
The design of escape-uri has a flaw in that it hides within one function two quite different ones. It should be split into two functions corresponding to different values of the escape-reserved flag. Possible names are as follows:
18:06:32 [timbl]
encode-for-uri() takes any unicode string and returns a string which can be used as a path segment in a URI. This function is reversible, and NOT idempotennt. (Definition of the inverse function would clearly be a good idea). Its semantics are those of your function with the second argument set to TRUE.
18:06:38 [timbl]
clean-uri() takes a unicode string which may contain URI syntax but (like e.g. IRI) contains invalid URI characters. Without disturbing the URI pucntuation, it encodes non-URI characters so that the result is a valid [part of a] URI in ascii. Its semantics are those of your function with the second argument set to FALSE.
18:06:43 [timbl]
_____________________
18:07:18 [Ed]
Ed +1
18:07:21 [DanC_lap]
+1
18:07:38 [noah]
+1
18:07:45 [Vincent]
+1
18:08:17 [Roy]
+1
18:08:17 [DanC_lap]
so RESOLVED.
18:08:25 [Norm]
+1
18:09:58 [DanC_lap]
recorded as bug 1502
18:10:03 [timbl]
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=1502
18:10:31 [DanC_lap]
Zakim, close this agendum
18:10:31 [Zakim]
agendum 4 closed
18:10:31 [Zakim]
I see 4 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
18:10:31 [Zakim]
2. abstractComponentRefs-37 [from DanC_lap]
18:11:10 [DanC_lap]
Zakim, take up item Refs
18:11:10 [Zakim]
agendum 2. "abstractComponentRefs-37" taken up [from DanC_lap]
18:11:48 [Roy]
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html#abstractComponentRefs-37
18:11:59 [Norm]
Norm has joined #tagmem
18:13:40 [DanC_lap]
(re-checking pending actions http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=1243 )
18:13:47 [timbl]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Jun/0054.html
18:14:37 [DanC_lap]
"HT: prepare abstractComponentRefs materials for ftf discussion (with help from DanC)"
18:14:46 [DanC_lap]
is DONE, IMO
18:15:15 [ht]
http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-xmlschema-ref-20050329/
18:16:04 [Roy]
HT: worth noting that the above is a new draft proposing xpointer schemes for this purpose
18:22:00 [Roy]
RF: for the record, the examples in (http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-xmlschema-ref-20050329/#section-example) show how ugly this can be
18:24:26 [Roy]
DC: [shows diagram showing a reference from an OWL diagram that wants to indicate the range of a function by pointing to a schema type definition, using a URI for that type as described by an xsd document)
18:24:38 [Roy]
s/)/]/
18:24:41 [dorchard]
back.
18:25:26 [Roy]
calling now
18:25:30 [DanC_lap]
Zakim, call the boardroom
18:25:30 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'call the boardroom', DanC_lap
18:25:36 [DanC_lap]
Zakim, dial boardroom
18:25:36 [Zakim]
sorry, DanC_lap, I don't know what conference this is
18:25:40 [ht]
zakim, this will be tag
18:25:40 [Zakim]
ok, ht, I see TAG_f2f()8:30AM already started
18:25:44 [DanC_lap]
Zakim, dial boardroom
18:25:44 [Zakim]
I am sorry, DanC_lap; I do not know a number for boardroom
18:25:49 [Zakim]
+MIT601
18:26:15 [ht]
zakim, who is on the phone?
18:26:15 [Zakim]
On the phone I see DOrchard, MIT601
18:40:01 [DanC_lap]
will do...
18:41:00 [DanC_lap]
HT: I think I'm on the same side as Dan on this, in that I think #xyz should short for a big long lhs#xpointer(...) as long as it's unambiguous, i.e. that there's only one big long xpointer() thing that has a referent
18:42:19 [ht]
The problems the Schema WG has with this are, at least:
18:42:45 [ht]
1) What NS do I look in?
18:42:52 [DanC_lap]
HT was responding to a question I asked about the case of ...people#xmlns(...people, p)xscd(p:minorAge)
18:42:58 [DanC_lap]
ack danc
18:42:58 [Zakim]
DanC_lap, you wanted to correct myself: RDDL spec as-is is *almost* OK; it doesn't have a clear, normative mapping to RDF yet and to ask for a special-case in case the lhs, before
18:43:01 [ht]
2) Do I only look at simple types, or at all namables?
18:43:02 [Zakim]
... the #, is the same as the target namespace and to point out a relation to rdfURIMeaning-39
18:43:45 [ht]
3) What is the default for mapping from left-hand-side (before the #) to schema, in which to look for the named thing
18:47:51 [Roy]
[large discussion about whether the component identifier's LHS (before the number sign) is supposed to be the schema's namespace URI or the URI of a schema document]
18:49:52 [DanC_lap]
ack danc
18:49:52 [Zakim]
DanC_lap, you wanted to point out a relation to rdfURIMeaning-39
18:50:47 [DanC_lap]
(hmm... HT says he has proposed a "language definition document" for composing schemas; I wonder if that's actually novel w.r.t. what's already available)
18:51:29 [Roy]
DC and TBL: the schema-URI should be the namespace URI of the schema -- the owner of that URI is responsible for maintaining the relationship between that URI and its representations (schema documents) -- some schemas will change over time and the owner knows whether they should retain the same URI or mint a new one for the new namespace [? scribe is interpreting]
18:53:54 [Roy]
DC: over time, community will only tolerate changes within the scope of the original namespace, leading to global consensus (or global change to a more stable URI)
18:57:30 [DanC_lap]
(namespaces are *just like other resources* in this respect. when you update your essay, you can do it in-place or in a new place)
18:58:14 [Roy]
TBL: different groups place different constraints on what content can be changed without requiring a different name to reflect that change
18:59:42 [Roy]
... HTML makes changes with the intention of staying within the same namespace, whereas others require each behavioral change to require a new namespace version.
18:59:55 [ht]
HST poses two examples: What is the name of the 'p' element in HTML4.1 strict?
19:00:05 [ht]
What is the name of the 'output' element in XSLT 2.0?
19:00:15 [DanC_lap]
answer: W3C hasn't minted such a name, henry
19:00:47 [Roy]
DO: How does a publisher indicate versions within a single namespace?
19:01:34 [Roy]
VQ: some of us need to leave... before we go, do we need a teleconf on 6/21?
19:01:43 [DanC_lap]
Topic: next teleconference
19:02:55 [Roy]
6/21 is still on, let VQ know if there are regrets
19:03:06 [DanC_lap]
i.e. 21 June
19:03:55 [Roy]
Vincent will chair on June 21, Norm will chair the rest of this meeting
19:04:12 [ht]
q+
19:04:48 [Roy]
Regrets for June 21: DC
19:05:18 [Roy]
Topic: abstractComponentRefs-37 again
19:06:28 [DanC_lap]
what I want names for is: every doodad in every target namespace
19:08:58 [Roy]
NM: What do we want to name? Does it match what schema WG is trying to specify? If not, how do we go from here?
19:09:32 [Norm]
q?
19:09:33 [Roy]
q?
19:09:37 [Roy]
ack ht
19:13:17 [Norm]
q+ to push on the xhtml schema case
19:13:24 [ht]
q+ to talk about a core xscd requirement
19:13:29 [Norm]
q?
19:14:38 [Roy]
DC: why is schema and different from other documents? Front Page of the NY Times changes frequently; the U.S. Constitution changes less often.
19:14:52 [Roy]
s/and/any/
19:20:50 [ht]
HST: One week the type definition called 'banana' accepts integers between 3 and 18, the next week it accept dates between 2 and 22 February 1931
19:22:04 [Norm]
ack ht
19:22:04 [Zakim]
ht, you wanted to talk about a core xscd requirement
19:23:52 [Norm]
ack norm
19:23:52 [Zakim]
Norm, you wanted to push on the xhtml schema case
19:26:24 [ht]
So I think I'm brought back to the language definition business, and it gets _much_ richer
19:27:19 [ht]
The language 'document' has to tell me what the kinds and names of instances of the kinds are, and each version within the language has to tell you where to find the definitions of each name which they actually _do_ define
19:27:40 [DanC_lap]
ack
19:27:44 [DanC_lap]
ack danc
19:27:44 [Zakim]
DanC_lap, you wanted to ask if there are hints from the study of the rigid designator problem and the variable/value and the resource/representation situation, recalling
19:27:48 [Zakim]
... information theory/model theory stuff
19:28:10 [ht]
q+ to talk about language definition again
19:32:31 [ht]
NM: Introduces the example of XPath cost of using a new namespace for every change to any element in your schema
19:37:49 [Roy]
http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-xmlschema-ref-20050329/#section-example
19:37:57 [ht]
NM, HST: We are hearing that a { namespace, localname, kind } triple is what would serve the SW's needs, even if it's not what the Schema WG needs for many of its own requirements
19:38:27 [DanC_lap]
no, dorchard , I don't think schema components mostly have names
19:38:46 [DanC_lap]
oops; misunderstood the question
19:44:13 [ht]
Doesn't it matter that namespace -> schema is not 1-to-1?
19:47:08 [Norm]
When timbl finishes or 10 minutes from now whichever comes first
19:58:01 [Roy]
NM: there are two different perspectives on naming -- one is to name the concept by way of the namespace, two is to name a component within a specific schema document
19:58:39 [DanC_lap]
break thru xx:10
19:58:43 [Zakim]
-DOrchard
19:58:45 [DanC_lap]
(hmm... how far did we get on http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html#rdfURIMeaning-39 )
19:58:48 [DanC_lap]
wrong one..
19:58:57 [DanC_lap]
( http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html#abstractComponentRefs-37 )
19:59:15 [Roy]
NM: schema WG is currently working on the latter, whereas TAG *also* wants the conceptual name for use in things like semantic web and version-independent referencing
20:12:23 [Zakim]
+Dave_Orchard
20:14:02 [DanC_lap]
ACTION HT: reflect TAG discussion on (namespacename, kind, localname) problem space, as compared to schema component naming problem space, to XML Schema WG
20:14:20 [DanC_lap]
Zakim, close item 3
20:14:20 [Zakim]
agendum 3 closed
20:14:21 [Zakim]
I see 3 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
20:14:22 [Zakim]
2. abstractComponentRefs-37 [from DanC_lap]
20:14:38 [DanC_lap]
Zakim, close item 2
20:14:38 [Zakim]
agendum 2 closed
20:14:39 [Zakim]
I see 2 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
20:14:41 [Zakim]
6. GRID Services [from DanC_lap]
20:14:46 [DanC_lap]
Zakim, take up item 7
20:14:46 [Zakim]
agendum 7. "WS Description and "safety"" taken up [from DanC_lap]
20:15:22 [DanC_lap]
-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2005Jun/0009.html marsh on safety
20:17:12 [DanC_lap]
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html#rdfURIMeaning-39
20:17:14 [DanC_lap]
phpht
20:17:21 [DanC_lap]
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html#whenToUseGet-7
20:17:46 [Roy]
DO; what happened here was that, as a result of issue 7, the group came up with a minimal provision to satisfy the TAG. There was no work on the bindings to actually use that facility.
20:19:37 [timbl]
Safety is not just a question of how to use HTTP. It is also in general important for optmization.
20:21:10 [timbl]
q+ to say: Safety is not just a question of how to use HTTP. It is also in general important for optmization.
20:21:17 [ht]
q- ht
20:22:00 [Norm]
q?
20:22:01 [DanC_lap]
(er... hang on... this came up as a last call issue from a member of the WG? did the WSD WG not understand that last call means "wg members have finished their review"?)
20:22:38 [Norm]
ack timbl
20:22:38 [Zakim]
timbl, you wanted to say: Safety is not just a question of how to use HTTP. It is also in general important for optmization.
20:23:01 [noah]
q+
20:24:32 [DanC_lap]
q+ to note that the web services that I see are things like the flickr API, and to note that I expect WSDL to be useful for such service interfaces, and ask where I went wrong?
20:24:50 [Norm]
ack noah
20:24:58 [ht]
ht has left #tagmem
20:25:38 [DanC_lap]
(hmm... WSDL requirements were written in 2002. I wonder if I was paying attention. http://www.w3.org/TR/ws-desc-reqs/ )
20:25:54 [DanC_lap]
(ugh... no stories)
20:26:09 [DanC_lap]
(ah... separate stories... http://www.w3.org/TR/ws-desc-usecases/ )
20:27:08 [Roy]
q+ to say: to be responsive to our original issue, they need to provide URIs that are GETable for the information made available by those services -- how they arrange for that to happen isn't as important as making it happen (or stop calling them Web Services)
20:28:03 [Norm]
q?
20:29:19 [Norm]
ack DanC_lap
20:29:19 [Zakim]
DanC_lap, you wanted to note that the web services that I see are things like the flickr API, and to note that I expect WSDL to be useful for such service interfaces, and ask where
20:29:22 [Zakim]
... I went wrong?
20:29:57 [noah]
Dan asked me to paraphrase discussion I just had with David O. Here goes:
20:30:18 [noah]
Noah: does safety/get work with HTTP in WSDL.
20:31:01 [noah]
David: yes, indeed it's a bit better than it was. Although the safety flag is now in an adjunct, the HTTP binding now respects it, and you can also explicitly set the HTTP GET method in the WSDL HTTP Binding
20:31:38 [noah]
Noah: OK, am I right that a cost of the new decision is that you do not have a normative way of saying "use the SOAP GET binding from the SOAP rec"
20:31:40 [Roy]
http://www.pacificspirit.com/blog/2005/05/16/witw_wsdl_20_http_binding
20:32:12 [noah]
David: not quite. The SOAP binding in WSDL does not honor the safety flag, but it does let you set the response only MEP and we think the GET WebMethod as well.
20:32:30 [noah]
Noah: will that MEP to the specific on the wire protocol that the TAG agreed with the XMLP WG would be in the SOAP Rec.
20:32:34 [noah]
David: yes, think so.
20:32:36 [Roy]
http://www.pacificspirit.com/Authoring/wsdl/YahooV1Search.wsdl
20:32:50 [DanC_lap]
http://www.pacificspirit.com/Authoring/wsdl/ArtistWSDL2uriformencoding.html
20:33:53 [DanC_lap]
so DaveO seems to be saying that my hopes are not completely unfounded.
20:36:14 [DanC_lap]
so, dorchard , you're content with the recent decision of the WSDL WG?
20:39:30 [DanC_lap]
hmm... <xs:element name="searchString" type="xs:string" fixed="webSearch"/>
20:42:00 [Roy]
q+ DO
20:42:02 [Norm]
q?
20:42:25 [Roy]
ack DO
20:43:56 [Roy]
DO: corporate users want to do REST stuff, but the tooling doesn't support it in the way that they are accustomed to building applications
20:48:13 [Norm]
ack Roy
20:48:13 [Zakim]
Roy, you wanted to say: to be responsive to our original issue, they need to provide URIs that are GETable for the information made available by those services -- how they arrange
20:48:16 [Zakim]
... for that to happen isn't as important as making it happen (or stop calling them Web Services)
20:51:48 [Roy]
DO: two issues: 1) is the TAG okay with what the WSDL group did; 2) does the TAG see the state of the WS world going in the right direction or is there something more the TAG can do to improve things?
20:55:14 [Roy]
NM: I think 70-75% of the problem is political rather than technical -- people are saying that the issue isn't important enough to them to justify implementation. We did the right thing to look at the technical information, but I am wondering whether it is appropriate for the TAG to continue pushing them together
20:56:43 [noah]
Actually, not quite. What I meant to say was, it's absolutely appropriate that we take effort to make sure the WS stack is a good citizen on the web and can exploit REST to the extent that's reasonable. The main role for the TAG is not to solve political and social problems, but we should certainly be supportive of community efforts to promote synergy between the WS stack and the rest of the Web.
20:57:15 [Roy]
DO: WSD rejected the notion of creating a new binding, a la WS-REST binding, based on charter issues
20:57:19 [Norm]
ack DanC_lap
20:57:19 [Zakim]
DanC_lap, you wanted to observe that this is sort of an interesting soap/rest/web-services discussion, but regarding the TAG's position on the WSD WG's decision, it seems
20:57:23 [Zakim]
... acceptable, w.r.t. our position on issue 7, and based on his explanation, it seems OK to me and to suggest a new use case for WSDL.
20:57:29 [noah]
I do think we should ask in all cases: if the technical underpinnings are adequate, and if the deployment isn't happening, then should we try to solve the problem by doing more technical work?
20:58:34 [Roy]
DO: We could considerably simplify WSDL by making it specific to the SOAP binding and create a separate IDL for REST-based Web
20:59:05 [Roy]
DO: The abstraction in WSDL causes additional steps that can be simplified
21:01:59 [Roy]
DC: I have heard some good news, but perhaps it would be useful to come up with a new use-case for WSDL and asking them to support it or declare it won't be supprted by WSDL
21:02:12 [DanC_lap]
6.7 HTTP GET Versus POST: Which to Use? http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20-primer.html?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8#more-bindings
21:03:29 [Roy]
http://ws.apache.org/
21:03:51 [Roy]
TBL: is there any open source code for making use of WSDL with GET
21:03:54 [DanC_lap]
(hmm... offer a bounty for open-source [python?] implementation of this WSDL 2.0 GET stuff? ]
21:03:58 [DanC_lap]
)
21:08:46 [DanC_lap]
Zakim, close this agendum
21:08:46 [Zakim]
agendum 7 closed
21:08:47 [Zakim]
I see 1 item remaining on the agenda:
21:08:48 [Zakim]
6. GRID Services [from DanC_lap]
21:08:55 [DanC_lap]
Zakim, take up agendum 2
21:08:55 [Zakim]
agendum 2. "abstractComponentRefs-37" taken up [from DanC_lap]
21:08:56 [Roy]
NW: Any objection to telling the WSD chair that the change is okay?
21:09:00 [DanC_lap]
Zakim, close agendum 2
21:09:00 [Zakim]
agendum 2 closed
21:09:01 [Zakim]
I see 1 item remaining on the agenda:
21:09:02 [Zakim]
6. GRID Services [from DanC_lap]
21:09:02 [Roy]
[no objections]
21:09:02 [DanC_lap]
Zakim, take up agendum 3
21:09:02 [Zakim]
agendum 3. "XMLVersioning-41" taken up [from DanC_lap]
21:10:11 [Roy]
ACTION: DanC to communiate with Jonathan Marsh regarding TAG opinion on safety attribute change
21:10:25 [Roy]
s/communiate/communicate/
21:11:32 [Roy]
RESOLVED: TAG thanks MIT and Vincent Quint for organizing and hosting this meeting
21:23:20 [Roy]
ADJOURNED
21:23:34 [Roy]
rrsagent, pointer?
21:23:34 [RRSAgent]
See http://www.w3.org/2005/06/16-tagmem-irc#T21-23-34
21:23:53 [Roy]
rrsagent, make world readable
21:23:53 [RRSAgent]
I'm logging. I don't understand 'make world readable', Roy. Try /msg RRSAgent help
21:24:16 [Roy]
rrsagent, make logs world access
21:24:16 [RRSAgent]
I'm logging. I don't understand 'make logs world access', Roy. Try /msg RRSAgent help
21:24:32 [Roy]
rrsagent, make world access
21:24:32 [RRSAgent]
I'm logging. I don't understand 'make world access', Roy. Try /msg RRSAgent help
21:26:07 [Roy]
rrsagent, make logs world accessible
21:26:07 [RRSAgent]
I'm logging. I don't understand 'make logs world accessible', Roy. Try /msg RRSAgent help
21:26:16 [DanC_lap]
Zakim, make logs world-access
21:26:16 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'make logs world-access', DanC_lap
21:26:21 [DanC_lap]
Zakim, make logs world access
21:26:21 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'make logs world access', DanC_lap
21:26:31 [DanC_lap]
RRSAgent, , make logs world-access
21:26:31 [RRSAgent]
I'm logging. I don't understand ', make logs world-access', DanC_lap. Try /msg RRSAgent help
21:26:37 [DanC_lap]
RRSAgent, make logs world-access
21:26:47 [DanC_lap]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
21:26:47 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2005/06/16-tagmem-minutes.html DanC_lap
21:27:00 [DanC_lap]
Zakim, disconnect MIT601
21:27:00 [Zakim]
MIT601 is being disconnected
21:27:01 [Zakim]
-MIT601
21:27:11 [Zakim]
-Dave_Orchard
21:27:12 [Zakim]
TAG_f2f()8:30AM has ended
21:27:13 [Zakim]
Attendees were DOrchard, MIT601, Dave_Orchard
22:37:11 [DanC_lap]
DanC_lap has joined #tagmem
23:02:07 [timbl]
timbl has joined #tagmem