13:54:29 RRSAgent has joined #swbp 13:54:29 logging to http://www.w3.org/2006/01/30-swbp-irc 13:54:36 Meeting: RDF-in-XHTML TF 13:54:42 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2006Jan/0062.html 13:54:52 RalphS has changed the topic to: RDF-in-XHTML TF 1400 UTC Monday agenda in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2006Jan/0062.html 14:00:24 benadida has joined #swbp 14:00:50 SW_BPD(rdfxhtml)9:00AM has now started 14:00:57 +Ralph 14:00:57 +Ben_Adida 14:02:06 Previous: 2006-01-24 http://www.w3.org/2006/01/24-swbp-minutes.html 14:05:39 MarkB_ has joined #swbp 14:05:52 +[IPcaller] 14:06:05 zakim, ipcaller is Jeremy 14:06:05 +Jeremy; got it 14:06:21 jeremy has joined #swbp 14:06:29 s/later/late/ 14:07:10 +??P9 14:07:16 zakim, i am ? 14:07:16 +MarkB_; got it 14:07:59 Ralph: I've been writing RDF/A pages 14:08:34 ... had trouble with bnode references in meta and link 14:08:44 Jeremy: bnodes should be implemented, but not well tested 14:09:27 Steven has joined #swbp 14:12:45 [PENDING] ACTION: Ben to draft full response to Bjoern's 2004 email [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/24-swbp-minutes.html#action03] 14:13:03 Ben: nearly done but there's a specific issue about rdf:Bag I'd like to discuss 14:13:24 [DONE] ACTION: contact WG and chairs to notify of mistake and prepare the new version. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/24-swbp-minutes.html#action01] 14:13:33 [DONE] ACTION: Mark to send Ben his latest XML version of the Primer [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/24-swbp-minutes.html#action02] 14:13:37 zakim, dial steven-617 14:13:37 ok, Steven; the call is being made 14:13:38 +Steven 14:14:04 [PENDING] ACTION: All in the TF to look at http://www.w3.org/2005/05/hrel/ to decide whether it's ready for WG review [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/17-swbp-minutes#action03] 14:14:26 Mark: I did a bit more, found some more issues than I'd recalled from previous discussions 14:14:50 ... it will take a more thorough review and discussion 14:15:31 [DONE] ACTION: All in the TF to look at http://www.w3.org/2005/05/hrel/ to decide whether it's ready for WG review [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/17-swbp-minutes#action03] 14:15:55 Ralph: from Mark's comments, hrel is clearly not ready for WG review 14:16:21 [CONTINUES] ACTION: Ben start separate mail threads on remaining discussion topics [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/12/06-swbp-minutes#action04] 14:16:32 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2006Jan/0061.html 14:16:34 Ben: I've done some threads but a few more to do 14:17:01 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2006Jan/0061.html REMINDER: Look at Issues Threads 14:17:14 0061 points to the 3 remaining issues for discussion 14:18:02 [DONE] ACTION: Ben to draft a new example of RDF/A as an XHTML document that is its own RSS feed [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/17-swbp-minutes#action05] 14:18:12 Ben: Ian found a bug, so that's good 14:19:19 [CONTINUES] ACTION: Jeremy followup on edge case [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/12/06-swbp-minutes#action03] 14:19:32 [CONTINUES] ACTION: Jeremy followup with Mark on the question of multiple triples from nested meta and add to issues list [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/12/06-swbp-minutes#action01] 14:19:56 [CONTINUES] ACTION: Jeremy propose wording on reification [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/12/06-swbp-minutes#action02] 14:21:03 Topic: Discussion of latest SWBPD points on proper use of URIs 14:21:36 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2006Jan/0157.html 14:22:07 q+ to give long diatribe ... 14:22:23 Ben: it seemed the point being made was that if you have a URI that resolves to an HTML document then you cannot use that URI with a #fragID to refer to a non-Information resource 14:22:40 Mark: yes, there are two related issues 14:22:57 ... the same URI cannot refer to both a Person and [that person's] home page 14:23:16 ... also if a URI refers to something known to be an HTML document ... 14:23:36 ... Alistair? felt this might be an unnecessary restriction 14:23:46 Jeremy: Pat Hayes has wonderful things to say on this topic 14:23:56 Mark: but how do you know it's an HTML resource at the start? 14:24:10 q+ 14:24:20 ... the conversation that goes on between the agent and the server 14:24:29 ... seems to be a mess in the RDF world 14:24:31 jeremy, you wanted to give long diatribe ... 14:24:46 Jeremy: this problem goes deep into the heart of Web Architecture, which is why it's a hard one 14:25:02 ... AWWW and particularly Tim's thinking is influenced by a view that there is a right answer 14:25:06 [laughter] 14:25:12 Jeremy: that's a modernist viewpoint 14:25:27 ... part of a whole philosophy that "if we do things right we can get to a right answer" 14:26:11 ... in a post-modern world we go with whatever is right for now and deal with ambiguity 14:26:30 ... AWWW claims, I think, that URIs should not be ambiguous; a URI identifies *a* resource 14:26:47 ... and there's an attempt to identify some URIs as identifying documents; in particular, URIs without a '#' 14:27:33 ... when we make the jump from an abstract resource to a document representation 14:27:58 q+ 14:28:06 ... and blur the fragment id as either a fragment of an HTML document or a fragment of an XML document and not something else as well 14:28:32 ... the point of view Pat was articulating is that language is full of ambiguities like these and it doesn't matter; we cope with the ambiguity in context 14:28:53 ... one way forward for Web Architecture is to accept and embrace this ambiguity rather than fight against it 14:29:24 ... I agree with Pat's point of view 14:29:46 ... the resolution about 303's deals with #-less URIs 14:29:58 ... but still leaves open what URIs with # really mean 14:30:32 ... if you get 200 OK plus an information resource, is the secondary resource identified by # also necessarily an information resource? 14:30:38 ... this flies against Tim's practice 14:31:08 Ben: doesn't Tim use a #frag in his FOAF file, where the URI does resolve to a document? 14:31:15 Jeremy: yes 14:32:27 ... one philosophy says it's ok to be inconsistent -- deal with it, another philosophy says it's a failing to be inconsistent and we should work to correct it 14:32:51 ... there are some deep philosophical issues involved in [this URI#frag discussion] that go throughout our society 14:33:25 http://dig.csail.mit.edu/breadcrumbs/blog/4 14:33:40 http://dig.csail.mit.edu/breadcrumbs/node/71 14:36:16 -> http://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/card.n3#i Tim Berners-Lee 14:36:35 Steven: a home page or a FOAF file is not the same thing as a Person 14:36:54 ... people who hold opposing point of view won't be swayed by a content negotiation argument 14:37:13 ... each content type says what is meant by the frag id 14:37:40 Ben: but what should a URIref with a # resolve to if it's not an information resource? 14:38:24 ... e.g. for example.com/#me to be a Person, what should example.com/ resolve to? 14:38:39 http://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/card#i 14:38:45 is tim's URI for himself 14:38:48 and 14:38:51 http://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/card 14:39:01 resolves either to N3 or RDF/XML but not HTML 14:39:18 Mark: Tim's FOAF file is saying there's a pure abstraction and it's RDF 14:39:36 ... he appears to be saying that the only pure abstraction is RDF 14:39:49 whereas http://norman.walsh.name/knows/who 14:39:52 resolves to html 14:40:26 Mark: if an RDF processor knows how to extract triples from a document, why should the processor care what the content type is? 14:40:35 http://norman.walsh.name/knows/who#norman-walsh is hence either a part of a document 14:40:43 or a non-information secondary resource 14:41:14 RalphS, you wanted to correct #-less URIs 14:41:22 RalphS: Jeremy hit the root problem 14:41:45 ... there's a deep philosophical difference, and this discussion has been ongoing 14:41:52 q+ 14:42:12 ... (personal hat) it's unfortunate that TAG has been annointed to determine what is correct 14:42:22 ... it would have been better to acknowledge the debate 14:42:33 ... httpRange 14 issue is actually not fully resolved 14:42:50 ... not sure if they intend to fully write it up 14:43:26 ... the 303 question is not fully explained, but this re-raised point about frag IDs, they should take up. 14:43:34 ... we could raise this issue with the TAG 14:43:53 ... there are 2 TFs that care about this, us and VM 14:44:16 ... VM is trying to publish a doc that gives people Apache recipes for dealing with the 303 issue 14:44:24 ... specifically for namespaces, not for other abstract non-information resources 14:44:35 ... we care more about that second set of resources that are not RDF classes and properites 14:44:41 s/properites/properties 14:44:57 ... how do we proceed? 14:45:24 Jeremy: I think a way forward is to concentrate on the "secondary resources" 14:46:21 ... with the secondary resources (#frag), one can argue that the content negotiation gives you "an appropriate part of" the thing you got back but it is not necessary the same type as the primary resource 14:46:50 ... what we find in the primary resource if we get RDF back is a description of a secondary resource; e.g. Norm Walsh's FOAF file 14:47:16 ... the architectural idea that we get back a representation of the resource holds only for "primary" resources -- resources without fragment identifiers 14:47:38 ... what the #frag identifies is MIME-type specific 14:48:19 Ralph: I think this interpretation of #frag is exactly consistent with the MIME type identifier 14:48:45 Steven: what the #frag identifies is indeed MIME-type specific but do the specifications allow this to be of a different type than the primary resource? 14:48:58 Jeremy: Tim's card.n3 URI is an information resource 14:49:38 ... but the fact that card.n3#i happens to return parts of an information resource yet can refer to a non-information resource 14:49:52 ... so he's relying on the MIME type to say that #i is not an information resource 14:50:56 Ben: if I go to example.com/#me and example.com/ resolves to an HTML document that happens to have an ID 'me', which of these is an identifier for a Person? 14:51:49 q+ to talk about consensus process on http-range-14 14:53:06 Ben: whichever way the issue is resolved on #-less URIs, we can express both in RDF/A with equal ease 14:53:32 Mark: so what is a #-less URI that represents a Person? 14:53:56 ... my understanding is that you cannot use an HTML element to represent anything other than an HTML element 14:54:06 q+ to mention lastminute.com 14:55:03 Mark: if the TAG is saying there is something special about HTML IDs 14:55:29 ... i.e. the implication is that #ID on an HTML document is fair game for something other than an HTML element 14:55:36 ... this I strongly disagree with 14:55:46 ... this seems to fly in the face of what RDF is all about 14:55:51 ... not a very good solution 14:56:33 ... if that is what they're saying then we can't do any of the tricks in RDF/A we'd like to do with fragment identifiers in about= 14:56:39 ... we'd have to spell out full URIs all the time 14:57:23 +1 to Mark 14:57:47 +1 to Mark 14:57:57 ... it seems that they've added to everyone's triple stores the statement that a fragment identifier on an HTML resource can *only* refer to a bit of HTML 14:58:11 ... and this is bad 14:58:45 ... also, what happens if you move a document around from one server to another? 14:58:56 ... it seems wrong that the location of a document determines what statements you are making 14:59:15 ... perhaps the statements about "this" document should really be about an anonymous node 14:59:31 ... when you move the document around these statements continue to say the same thing 14:59:42 q+ to address base issue 15:00:21 zakim, ack me 15:00:21 I see MarkB_, jeremy on the speaker queue 15:00:57 jeremy, you wanted to talk about consensus process on http-range-14 and to mention lastminute.com and to address base issue 15:01:16 Jeremy: the problem of moving documents around obviously impacts RDF/XML 15:01:23 ... the WebOnt group encouraged the use of xml:base 15:01:52 ... it is conceivable that even with an unfavorable resolution of the secondary resource question we could have different base URIs for each resource 15:02:18 Mark: on head could go with 15:02:38 Jeremy: the empty fragment does not occur in HTML so it's fair game -- but this would be awful 15:03:10 Ben: please take a look at my RSS serialization mail 15:03:33 ACTION: All prepare to discuss Ben's RSS serialization case for 6 Feb telecon 15:04:24 Jeremy: to get the WD published we should put in a note that identifies which sections do not have consensus 15:04:37 ACTION: Ben add lack-of-consensus notes to the RDF/A Primer 15:05:26 -Ralph 15:05:28 -MarkB_ 15:05:29 -Steven 15:05:29 -Ben_Adida 15:05:31 -Jeremy 15:05:36 rrsagent, please make this log public 15:05:57 rrsagent, pointer? 15:05:57 See http://www.w3.org/2006/01/30-swbp-irc#T15-05-57 15:06:08 rrsagent, please draft minutes 15:06:08 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2006/01/30-swbp-minutes.html RalphS 15:07:30 SW_BPD(rdfxhtml)9:00AM has ended 15:07:31 Attendees were Ralph, Ben_Adida, Jeremy, MarkB_, Steven 15:07:33 rrsagent, please draft minutes 15:07:33 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2006/01/30-swbp-minutes.html RalphS 15:14:44 zakim, bye 15:14:44 Zakim has left #swbp 15:14:51 rrsagent, bye 15:14:51 I see 2 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/30-swbp-actions.rdf : 15:14:51 ACTION: All prepare to discuss Ben's RSS serialization case for 6 Feb telecon [1] 15:14:51 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/30-swbp-irc#T15-03-33 15:14:51 ACTION: Ben add lack-of-consensus notes to the RDF/A Primer [2] 15:14:51 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/30-swbp-irc#T15-04-37