13:03:24 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #vmtf
13:03:24 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2005/06/21-vmtf-irc
13:05:33 <danbri> al: http-range is resolved! :)
13:06:22 <danbri> tom: i presented on skos and vm at recent german sw meeting
13:06:38 <danbri> ...people responded well to idea of a language that existing thesauri could be exposed via
13:06:45 <danbri> oh, in vienna
13:06:50 <danbri> german/austrian w3c office
13:06:57 <danbri> all day event yesterday
13:07:11 <danbri> peter v from progos.hu was there, presenting too
13:14:36 <danbri> http://internetalchemy.org/2005/06/victory
13:14:57 <danbri> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2005Jun/0039.html
13:18:08 <danbri> danbri: [explains http-range decision and his view re relation to bp work]
13:18:21 <danbri> tom: could we retire the hashless note from our work list?
13:18:46 <aliman> +1
13:19:29 <tbaker> include in VM note an explanation of how to implement redirects when using hashless URIs
13:19:55 <danbri> note is that this is on the assumptoin that rdfs/owl properties + classes are not themselves info resources
13:20:10 <aliman> q+
13:20:13 <danbri> (the hashless note was an attempt to argue that they are; but now not so urgent to explore that option)
13:21:10 <danbri> ack aliman
13:21:30 <danbri> al: could we have a section at top of basic principles note, 'bp for naing xyz with htttp uris'
13:21:39 <danbri> ...and say 'if using # do this, if using / do that'
13:22:00 <danbri> ...postpone for now q of whether its an info resource
13:22:41 <danbri> tom: in spirit of alistair's previous comments, not trying to avoid things that'll potentially confuse, no need to argue whether an info-resource or not
13:22:48 <danbri> danbri: agree, thats why hashless doc was a separeate note
13:22:50 <danbri> q+
13:23:15 <danbri> alistair: now we have a tag position, i'd like to update skos core guide, and say 'heres how a skos concept should behave, in case of it being a hash, versus a slash'
13:23:25 <danbri> ...but something like that in the vm note, for classes and for properties
13:24:10 <danbri> q-
13:25:26 <tbaker> <dc:description xml:lang="en-US">The Dublin Core Element Set v1.1 namespace provides URIs for the Dublin Core Elements v1.1. Entries are declared using RDF Schema language to support RDF applications.</dc:description
13:25:27 <danbri> action: danbri try find out how many of the / namespaces use redirect at moment (and who might change first)
13:25:43 <danbri> dublin core does redirect; foaf used to, and should.
13:26:17 <danbri> all purl.org namespaces redirect (sometimes to something without a #)
13:26:31 <tbaker> <dc:title xml:lang="en-US">The Dublin Core Element Set v1.1 namespace providing access to its content by means of an RDF Schema</dc:title>
13:26:34 <danbri> alistair: can the thing redirected _to_ do content negotiation?
13:26:37 <danbri> danbri: i don't know
13:26:53 <danbri> alistair: ...have some MAYs and SHOULDs
13:26:54 <tbaker> q+
13:28:29 <tbaker> is the idea that you are redirecting to a document?
13:29:02 <tbaker> danbri: dc:title redirects to dublincore.org/terms#title
13:29:10 <danbri> yup
13:29:23 <tbaker> s/dc:/http:\/purl.org\/dc\/elements/
13:29:40 <danbri> i think both designs are consistent with their decision, but emphasis is on the vocab-describing document that you point off to, being an info resource
13:29:51 <danbri> (and hence per al's point, reasonable to conneg it)
13:31:10 <danbri> tom: current dc namespace used this sentence from Roland, "The Dublin Core Element Set v1.1 namespace provides URIs for the Dublin Core Elements v1.1. Entries are declared using RDF Schema language to support RDF applications"
13:32:03 <danbri> tom: q is 'what is the title of the thing that you're retrieving'
13:34:24 <danbri> [discussion of who might take an action]
13:34:32 <danbri> tom: lets add a placeholder into the note
13:35:34 <danbri> "Best Practice for naming RDF and OWL vocabulary with HTTP URIs"
13:35:38 <tbaker> Best practices for http behavior of classes and properties
13:35:57 <danbri> (would cite TAG decision http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2005Jun/0039.html)
13:37:20 <tbaker> ACTION (Tom): add reference to TAG decision and "best practices"... (see above)
13:37:43 <tbaker> danbri: notion of "information resource" is appealed to in TAG finding
13:37:51 <tbaker> if you have namespace documents
13:37:55 <danbri> http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-webarch-20041215/#pr-namespace-documents
13:38:12 <tbaker> at the moment, they say "should make available material for people..."
13:38:23 <tbaker> mention OWL, etc.
13:38:54 <tbaker> section 2.2 as well
13:38:57 <danbri> in http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-webarch-20041215/#pr-namespace-documents 
13:39:00 <danbri> they define 'information resource'
13:39:10 <danbri> [[
13:39:11 <danbri> By design a URI identifies one resource. We do not limit the scope of what might be a resource. The term "resource" is used in a general sense for whatever might be identified by a URI. It is conventional on the hypertext Web to describe Web pages, images, product catalogs, etc. as “resources”. The distinguishing characteristic of these resources is that all of their essential characteristics 
13:39:12 <danbri> can be conveyed in a message. We identify this set as “information resources.”
13:39:14 <danbri> ]]
13:39:38 <tbaker> if we try to gloss for RDF and OWL community, given Roy doc, will need to point to namespace document (webarch)
13:39:41 <danbri> http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-webarch-20041215/#id-resources
13:40:15 <tbaker> these three cites will give our advice some authority
13:40:21 <tbaker> need to be linked to it in some way
13:40:33 <tbaker> people know this is a confusing area
13:40:43 <tbaker> given this decision, in the end it is quite simple
13:40:53 <tbaker> it's just defining our terms
13:41:06 <tbaker> rather than define "info resource" ourself, can use tag architecture link
13:41:37 <tbaker> issues list not updated yet
13:44:01 <danbri> danbri: maybe VM TF could do outreach to major namespace owners, to get them to use more OWL, etc
13:44:22 <danbri> ...and use that to drive OWL adoption, and have others in SWBPD WG adress OWL Full vs OWL Lite
13:44:34 <danbri> tom: a proposal to dc-architcture could address some of that
13:44:47 <danbri> ...but we'd have legacy issues if we substantially changed the model
13:46:06 <tbaker> danbri: owl has mechanisms for saying "if you see this property, can expect it to point to..."
13:46:13 <tbaker> DC currently has both idioms
13:46:36 <danbri> dc:creator pointing to a literal string, for eg
13:46:48 <danbri> tom: awkward as we have a recommendation that uses strings
13:47:03 <danbri> ...want to be more consistent in advocating resources there
13:47:17 <danbri> ...that legacy spec is an awkward
13:53:00 <tbaker> danbri: do outreach to vocab communities - but in a second step, after this current note is done
13:54:23 <aliman> will plug in my skos bits to the note asap
13:56:38 <danbri> danbri: having the http range decision
13:56:49 <danbri> next meeting, 5th july - same time
13:59:33 <danbri> in cvs, you can put $Id: 21-vmtf-irc.txt,v 1.21 2005/06/21 15:01:17 swick Exp $ and $Log: 21-vmtf-irc.txt,v $
13:59:33 <danbri> in cvs, you can put $Id: 21-vmtf-irc.txt,v 1.21 2005/06/21 15:01:17 swick Exp $ and Revision 1.21  2005/06/21 15:01:17  swick
13:59:33 <danbri> in cvs, you can put $Id: 21-vmtf-irc.txt,v 1.21 2005/06/21 15:01:17 swick Exp $ and [RRSAgent] sync
13:59:33 <danbri> in cvs, you can put $Id: 21-vmtf-irc.txt,v 1.21 2005/06/21 15:01:17 swick Exp $ and
13:59:33 <danbri> in cvs, you can put $Id: 21-vmtf-irc.txt,v 1.21 2005/06/21 15:01:17 swick Exp $ and Revision 1.20  2005/06/21 15:00:17  swick
13:59:33 <danbri> in cvs, you can put $Id: 21-vmtf-irc.txt,v 1.21 2005/06/21 15:01:17 swick Exp $ and [RRSAgent] sync
13:59:33 <danbri> in cvs, you can put $Id: 21-vmtf-irc.txt,v 1.21 2005/06/21 15:01:17 swick Exp $ and
13:59:33 <danbri> in cvs, you can put $Id: 21-vmtf-irc.txt,v 1.21 2005/06/21 15:01:17 swick Exp $ and Revision 1.19  2005/06/21 14:58:28  swick
13:59:33 <danbri> in cvs, you can put $Id: 21-vmtf-irc.txt,v 1.21 2005/06/21 15:01:17 swick Exp $ and [RRSAgent] sync
13:59:33 <danbri> in cvs, you can put $Id: 21-vmtf-irc.txt,v 1.21 2005/06/21 15:01:17 swick Exp $ and
13:59:33 <danbri> in cvs, you can put $Id: 21-vmtf-irc.txt,v 1.21 2005/06/21 15:01:17 swick Exp $ and Revision 1.18  2005/06/21 14:58:16  swick
13:59:33 <danbri> in cvs, you can put $Id: 21-vmtf-irc.txt,v 1.21 2005/06/21 15:01:17 swick Exp $ and [RRSAgent] sync
13:59:33 <danbri> in cvs, you can put $Id: 21-vmtf-irc.txt,v 1.21 2005/06/21 15:01:17 swick Exp $ and
13:59:33 <danbri> in cvs, you can put $Id: 21-vmtf-irc.txt,v 1.21 2005/06/21 15:01:17 swick Exp $ and Revision 1.17  2005/06/21 14:01:34  swick
13:59:33 <danbri> in cvs, you can put $Id: 21-vmtf-irc.txt,v 1.21 2005/06/21 15:01:17 swick Exp $ and [RRSAgent] sync
13:59:33 <danbri> in cvs, you can put $Id: 21-vmtf-irc.txt,v 1.21 2005/06/21 15:01:17 swick Exp $ and in the doc, and CVS committer will do substitutions
14:58:16 <danbri> rrsagent, please draft minutes
14:58:16 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2005/06/21-vmtf-minutes.html danbri
14:58:28 <danbri> rrsagent, make log public
14:59:44 <danbri> http://www.dfg.de/ ?
14:59:51 <danbri> also bmbf.de
15:01:02 <danbri> ---adjourned---
15:01:07 <danbri> (we're talking about eu bids etc now)
15:01:11 <danbri> rrsagent, part
15:01:11 <RRSAgent> I see 1 open action item:
15:01:11 <RRSAgent> ACTION: danbri try find out how many of the / namespaces use redirect at moment (and who might change first) [1]
15:01:11 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/06/21-vmtf-irc#T13-25-27