IRC log of vmtf on 2006-02-01

Timestamps are in UTC.

13:52:49 [RRSAgent]

RRSAgent has joined #vmtf

13:52:49 [RRSAgent]

logging to http://www.w3.org/2006/02/01-vmtf-irc

13:52:55 [RalphS]

Meeting: SWBPD VM TF

13:53:19 [RalphS]

Chair: Tom

13:53:25 [RalphS]

zakim, list attendees

13:53:25 [Zakim]

As of this point the attendees have been Ralph, Tom, Alistair

13:54:30 [RalphS]

Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2006Jan/0180.html

13:54:51 [RalphS]

Previous: 2006-01-24 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2006Jan/0125.html

13:55:01 [RalphS]

Tom: I have editorial control at the moment

13:55:06 [aliman]

zakim, alistair is really me

13:55:06 [Zakim]

+aliman; got it

13:55:15 [RalphS]

... not sure there's a lot I need to do

13:55:23 [RalphS]

Topic: Document Title

13:55:33 [RalphS]

Tom: I don't mind the longer title but the '/' bothers me

13:55:56 [RalphS]

Ralph: how about 'and' or 'or'?

13:56:02 [RalphS]

Tom: I'd prefer a shorter title

13:56:27 [RalphS]

... but 'and' would be ok, rather than dropping 'OWL'

13:56:39 [RalphS]

Alistair: I could live with just "RDF Vocabularies"

13:57:23 [RalphS]

... "RDF Vocabulary" is a term understood by OWL folk

13:57:38 [TBaker]

Resolved: just "RDF vocabularies"

13:58:06 [TBaker]

s/^/Best Practice Recipes for Publishing /

13:59:00 [RalphS]

Topic: removing content types

14:00:11 [RalphS]

.... types "text/xml" and "application/xml",

14:00:29 [TBaker]

RalphS and Tom concur to removing text/xml and application/xml as conditions from the rewrite rules.

14:00:32 [aliman]

http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/#MIMEType mime type for OWL

14:00:39 [RalphS]

Alistair: see MIME Type section in OWL Reference Guide

14:00:46 [aliman]

'application/xml' is allowed as mime type for owl

14:01:23 [TBaker]

Resolved: to remove them (see above)

14:01:26 [RalphS]

Ralph: we should propose Best Practice, not "all acceptable practices"

14:03:39 [RalphS]

Ralph: I do believe that it would be good to support clients who can accept either RDF or HTML with a preference

14:03:52 [TBaker]

Al: if content is on same server, can use .var file. If in same directory, can use multiviews.

14:03:52 [RalphS]

... is there a way to do this without .var files?

14:04:01 [TBaker]

If they are on different servers, cannot use a type map.

14:04:16 [TBaker]

SKOS and DC - stuff is in quite different places

14:04:35 [TBaker]

Ralph: type map only works if everything in directory has the same quality rules.

14:04:51 [TBaker]

...applies to everything in directory tree...

14:07:47 [TBaker]

Ralph: a way to configure the whole host? I always prefer to server HTML over x... without having to do a type map for each URI...?

14:08:47 [TBaker]

Al: two use-cases here. Simple one: when server doesn't specify any difference in quality of representations, but client does: "I prefer HTML to RDF but I can accept both".

14:09:02 [TBaker]

In that case, if cond'l redirect are in order...

14:09:22 [TBaker]

Additional situation: server wants to specify some diff in quality... But why would a server want to do that?

14:10:46 [TBaker]

Ralph: in my case - maybe not "real-life" - what happens if client does not include any accept header - has no preference. The specific rules take care of this - falls through to the end.

14:11:10 [TBaker]

Ralph wound up not using conditional rewrites -- why did this feel like the best solution?

14:11:36 [TBaker]

...writing a rewrite condition that says "if there is no accept header"...?

14:11:50 [TBaker]

Doing a conditional rewrite for a missing Accept...?

14:13:46 [TBaker]

Ralph: we should think more about case where client can accept both... but not a pressing question...

14:14:04 [TBaker]

Al: Is the use-case where client can accept either important enough to delay publication?

14:14:12 [TBaker]

Ralph: no.

14:14:31 [TBaker]

...would not add alot more recipes to cover this...

14:16:27 [Zakim]

-aliman

14:17:03 [Zakim]

+aliman

14:17:54 [TBaker]

Tom: do we see anything that would delay publication of a Working Draft?

14:18:08 [RalphS]

-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2006Jan/0185.html Re: [ALL] RDF/A Primer Version

14:18:15 [TBaker]

Ralph: Here's an issue ... Ben Adida summarized yesterday...

14:21:18 [TBaker]

If you don't have a hash in your URI, then you cannot then resolve to URIs with hashes that do not correspond to a fragment of a document.

14:22:06 [TBaker]

http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/title

14:22:34 [TBaker]

resolves to http://dublincore.org/2003/03/24/dces#title

14:23:05 [RalphS]

Ralph: hard case of a / namespace that contains # URIs that are not information resources

14:24:27 [RalphS]

Tom: dces#title will serve the RDF schema

14:24:58 [TBaker]

http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/

14:25:27 [aliman]

http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/#title

14:25:29 [TBaker]

http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/#title

14:27:11 [aliman]

303 to http://dublincore.org/2003/03/24/dces

14:27:33 [RalphS]

Ralph: so for DC, both text/html and application/rdf+xml should be 303 redirects

14:27:56 [TBaker]

Ralph: so DC would not have a problem here

14:28:42 [TBaker]

http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/Person - resolves to the top of the spec Web page

14:28:59 [TBaker]

http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/#term_Person resolves to Web doc

14:30:30 [TBaker]

Al: recipes specifically dodge this. Nothing is ever served directly from the namespace URI - always a redirect from somewhere else. Therefore, no Web interaction will ever tell you that the namespace URI denotes a document.

14:32:35 [RalphS]

Alistair: I believe if people use these recipes they put themselves in the safest possible corner w.r.t. this issue of information resources vs. non-information resource

14:33:16 [Zakim]

-Tom

14:33:19 [RalphS]

Alistair has the edit token to remove the extra mime type redirects, then will pass the token back to Tom to send mail to the WG

14:35:34 [RalphS]

[I see some @@'s in the editor's draft]

14:40:51 [RalphS]

@@TODO verify minimal required overrides

14:41:38 [RalphS]

Alistair: I removed some overrides that Ralph added, verified these work, but haven't done exhaustive testing

14:42:19 [RalphS]

see recipe 6 (@@TODO).

14:42:37 [RalphS]

Alistair: I plan to leave both of these

14:43:00 [RalphS]

@@TODO why. in Content Negotiation

14:43:40 [RalphS]

Alistair: I'd like Ralph to fill in why examining user-agent is not good practice

14:43:53 [RalphS]

ACTION: Ralph write text on why examining user-agent is a hack

14:44:29 [RalphS]

doesn't need to stop publication, however

14:44:47 [RalphS]

[[

14:44:47 [RalphS]

Accept: application/rdf+xml, ???

14:44:47 [RalphS]

@@TODO

14:44:48 [RalphS]

]]

14:44:50 [RalphS]

in same section

14:44:57 [RalphS]

Alistair: mail from Jeremy on this

14:45:55 [RalphS]

... we should decide whether application/xml should be in this list

14:46:04 [RalphS]

... there's no mime type for Turtle, N3, etc.

14:46:19 [RalphS]

Ralph: I propose we stick with just mime types for W3C Recommendations

14:47:28 [RalphS]

... so this would leave us with just application/rdf+xml and text/html

14:47:43 [RalphS]

Alistair: so if they're only interested in RDF, they wouldn't need text/html

14:49:19 [RalphS]

Ralph: yes, today

14:51:20 [RalphS]

... in the future if GRDDL becomes a Rec then a large class of HTML documents will become carriers for RDF

14:54:20 [RalphS]

Alistair: propose Accept: application/rdf+xml, application/xml

14:54:29 [RalphS]

Ralph: yes, because OWL endorses application/xml too

14:54:36 [RalphS]

Alistair: how about , */* ?

14:54:51 [RalphS]

Ralph: no, we're giving advice specifically to "applications that expect to process RDF content"

14:55:01 [RalphS]

... eventually when we have GRDDL we can change this

14:55:04 [Zakim]

This conference is in overtime; all ports must be freed

15:00:28 [Zakim]

-Ralph

15:00:32 [Zakim]

-aliman

15:00:46 [Zakim]

SW_BPD(VMTF)8:45AM has ended

15:00:53 [RalphS]

zakim, bye

15:00:54 [Zakim]

Attendees were Ralph, Tom, aliman

15:01:00 [RalphS]

rrsagent, pointer?

15:01:00 [RRSAgent]

See http://www.w3.org/2006/02/01-vmtf-irc#T15-01-00

15:01:08 [RalphS]

rrsagent, please make this record public

15:01:12 [Zakim]

Zakim has left #vmtf

15:01:12 [RalphS]

rrsagent, bye

15:01:12 [RRSAgent]

I see 1 open action item saved in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/01-vmtf-actions.rdf :

15:01:12 [RRSAgent]

ACTION: Ralph write text on why examining user-agent is a hack [1]

15:01:12 [RRSAgent]

recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/01-vmtf-irc#T14-43-53