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