IRC log of tagmem on 2006-02-07

Timestamps are in UTC.

18:00:37 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #tagmem
18:00:37 [RRSAgent]
logging to
18:00:39 [noah]
scribenick: noah
18:00:49 [noah]
date: 7 February 2006
18:01:03 [Zakim]
18:01:22 [Vincent]
Zakim, INRIA is Vincent
18:01:22 [Zakim]
+Vincent; got it
18:01:31 [noah]
18:01:47 [Vincent]
Zakim, who is here
18:01:47 [Zakim]
Vincent, you need to end that query with '?'
18:01:57 [Vincent]
Zakim, who is here?
18:01:57 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Ed_Rice, Raman, Ht, [IBMCambridge], Vincent
18:01:58 [Zakim]
On IRC I see RRSAgent, Vincent, noah, raman, Zakim, Ed, ht, DanC
18:02:11 [noah]
zakim, [IBMCambridge] is me
18:02:14 [Zakim]
+noah; got it
18:02:36 [Zakim]
18:03:51 [noah]
regrets: Norm, Dave
18:04:32 [noah]
present: Noah Mendelsohn, Vincent Quint, Ed Rice, T.V. Raman, Henry Thompson
18:04:44 [noah]
s/Thompson/Thompson, Dan Connolly/
18:04:49 [noah]
topic: Administrivia
18:04:58 [noah]
We will have a telcon next week on 14 Feb 2006
18:05:04 [noah]
No regrets so far.
18:05:08 [noah]
Dan will scribe.
18:05:37 [noah]
topic: Review of Agenda
18:05:55 [noah]
VQ: inclined to agree with Noah to defer discussion of Principle of Least Power.
18:06:00 [noah]
VQ: anything else?
18:06:24 [noah]
DC: We should be publishing something every 3 months on technical reports page.
18:06:25 [Zakim]
18:06:34 [timbl]
timbl has joined #tagmem
18:06:43 [noah]
VQ: OK, let's discuss at end in place of Principle of Least Power
18:06:51 [noah]
Tim Berners-Lee joins the call.
18:07:13 [DanC]
8 and 41
18:07:19 [noah]
DC: I would also like to discuss issues 8 and 41
18:07:34 [noah]
HT: I'd also like to discuss Principle of Least Power after all, as I am just coming up to speed
18:07:43 [noah]
VQ: Agenda should go quickly, it all should fit.
18:07:58 [noah]
topic: Minutes of Previous Teleconference
18:08:10 [noah]
See draft minutes at
18:08:18 [noah]
VQ: comments?
18:08:20 [noah]
18:09:15 [noah]
VQ: I think one of the issues has a wrong number, but readers will probably get it. I'm OK to approve as they are.
18:09:57 [noah]
TR: Sorry, do the issues have names as well as numbers?
18:10:14 [ht]
Raman, issues are identified officially by name-number, e.g. xmlFunctions-34
18:10:23 [noah]
VQ: Yes, see the agenda. In this case we are discussing the minutes of last week at
18:10:34 [noah]
RESOLVED: Minutes of 1 31 2006 at are approved.
18:10:38 [ht]
... But sometimes people just use the number - this usually confuses me too :-)
18:10:57 [DanC]
sorry; namespaceDocument-8 and xmlVersioning-41
18:10:58 [noah]
topic: Face-to-face in Cannes/Mandelieu
18:11:11 [noah]
VQ: Suggest we divide agenda explicitly as we are meeting Monday afternoon and Friday
18:11:21 [ht]
HST regrets for Friday of the Tech Plenary TAG f2f
18:12:01 [noah]
VQ: Why separate meetings? Two reasons: 1) accomodate scheduling conflicts and 2) review what we've learned during the week
18:12:19 [noah]
VQ: input welcome
18:12:21 [DanC]
q+ to think out loud about "closing keynote" or "summary from the TAG" in the tech plenary minutes
18:12:30 [noah]
VQ: I'll prepare a draft meeting page soon
18:12:47 [Vincent]
ack danc
18:12:47 [Zakim]
DanC, you wanted to think out loud about "closing keynote" or "summary from the TAG" in the tech plenary minutes
18:13:24 [noah]
DC: thinking about what it would mean to do a closing keynote for plenary. Probably not a good idea to actually give such a keynote, but it may be a useful way to think about focussing.
18:14:19 [noah]
VQ: I note that some TAG members are not registered for Friday afternoon.
18:14:28 [noah]
HT: I've already given regrets for Friday, as I have to leave Wed.
18:14:45 [noah]
TR: I think I've registered for both days and will be there both days.
18:15:00 [Ed]
I'll be there for both days as well.
18:15:07 [noah]
DC: Our home page doesn't note this meeting under current events.
18:15:13 [noah]
VQ: it's in the meeting section
18:15:29 [noah]
DC: Current events listing would make clear it needs attention now
18:15:53 [DanC]
-> registration
18:15:54 [noah]
VQ: Roy will attend only on Monday afternoon, not Friday.
18:15:59 [noah]
VQ: Tim, what about Friday?
18:16:25 [noah]
TBL: I suspect I'll miss Friday. I had thought we were only meeting early in the week.
18:16:37 [noah]
ER: Do we have critical mass for Friday.
18:17:53 [noah]
TBL: Looks like I'm staying into Sat after all. I'll be there on Friday too.
18:18:07 [noah]
zakim, who is here?
18:18:07 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Ed_Rice, Raman, Ht, noah, Vincent, DanC, TimBL
18:18:08 [Zakim]
On IRC I see timbl, RRSAgent, Vincent, noah, raman, Zakim, Ed, ht, DanC
18:18:28 [noah]
NM: What about Dave Orchard?
18:18:30 [raman]
need to step out for a couple of minutes, back in a few.
18:18:33 [Ed]
18:18:34 [noah]
DC: He's signed up for both days.
18:18:51 [DanC]
s/DC: He/ER: He/
18:18:54 [noah]
q+ to discuss metadatainUri
18:19:13 [Vincent]
ack noah
18:19:13 [Zakim]
noah, you wanted to discuss metadatainUri
18:20:12 [DanC]
q+ to say it's my goal to swap in DO's recent work on xmlVersioning-41 and work toward connecting that to self-describing web on xmlFunctions-34
18:20:32 [noah]
NM: First of all, I need confirmation that you all would prefer I spend next few weeks on metaDataInURI vs. SchemeProtocols
18:21:14 [noah]
NM: anyway, two weeks ago I got some requests to pick up metadataInURI-31. If I do, one option would be to discuss at F2F.
18:21:30 [noah]
DC: Interested in nexus of Dave's versioning work, XML Functions, and self-describing Web.
18:21:48 [noah]
VQ: We don't need to finalize agenda just yet anyway
18:22:14 [noah]
topic: Issue xmlFunctions-34
18:22:33 [noah]
VQ: We had a discussion last week about that with Norm (see:
18:22:34 [ht]
I just sent mail about my starting point for this:
18:22:47 [noah]
VQ: Norm reminded us that Henry was supposed to work with him.
18:23:07 [noah]
See note just sent from Henry at:
18:23:17 [noah]
HT: Sent this to clarify my own thinking.
18:23:42 [raman]
18:23:46 [noah]
HT: Propose to distinguish two terms: 1) What I call the "XML Semantics" of an application/xml or text/xml document and 2) the application semantics
18:23:52 [noah]
HT: Difference is important.
18:24:04 [noah]
HT: I think XML Functions is mainly about the second
18:24:08 [DanC]
q+ to say that I'd expect the semantics as views as application/svg+xml to include application semantics
18:24:17 [noah]
TBL: For XML Semantics do you mean mapping to infoset
18:24:21 [noah]
HT: Yes.
18:24:26 [noah]
18:24:47 [noah]
TBL: I don't usually think of that as semantics in the strong sense we usually mean.
18:25:05 [noah]
HT: Well, it's a mapping.
18:25:31 [noah]
TBL: Well, we could also call the infoset an abstract syntax, in which case we're just mapping from concrete to abstract syntax.
18:25:31 [DanC]
"xml abstract syntax" is more appealing than "xml semantics" in some ways, yes.
18:25:38 [noah]
HT: More or less agree, can go either way.
18:25:39 [raman]
One man's syntax is another man's semantics:-)
18:25:43 [Vincent]
ack danc
18:25:43 [Zakim]
DanC, you wanted to say it's my goal to swap in DO's recent work on xmlVersioning-41 and work toward connecting that to self-describing web on xmlFunctions-34 and to say that I'd
18:25:47 [Zakim]
... expect the semantics as views as application/svg+xml to include application semantics
18:26:34 [noah]
DC: I think a significant point is that this story only holds for application/xml and text/xml. In the case of application/svg+xml I know much more. For example, I know about circles.
18:27:05 [noah]
DC: Your email message talks about "The XML semantics is what you get initially
18:27:05 [noah]
- From interpreting correctly a message whose Media type is text/xml or
18:27:05 [noah]
18:27:05 [noah]
18:27:18 [noah]
HT: Emphasis is on initially.
18:27:42 [noah]
TBL: I still don't like calling this semantics.
18:28:05 [noah]
HT: I want to switch to the meat of this, which is that I'm trying to figure out how best to deal with things like XML Base, XInclude, xml:id, etc.
18:28:09 [DanC]
q+ to recall (from where? I forget) that xml:base has to be explicitly cited in the application semantics, though I can imagine a "consent of the governed" approach to revisiting that.
18:28:32 [noah]
HT: want to talk about that, before we get to "compositionality" [sic]
18:28:32 [Vincent]
ack danc
18:28:32 [Zakim]
DanC, you wanted to recall (from where? I forget) that xml:base has to be explicitly cited in the application semantics, though I can imagine a "consent of the governed" approach
18:28:36 [Zakim]
... to revisiting that.
18:28:54 [noah]
DC: My impression is that XML Base is not part of XML semantics. Each spec has to cite it explicitly if desired.
18:29:16 [noah]
DC: Future specs could go further, but that seems to be where we are.
18:29:19 [noah]
HT: agree
18:29:31 [noah]
HT: xml:id tried harder to be in the middle, and thus is tricky.
18:29:35 [timbl]
q+ to say that another layer will not appear above te infoset but inclduing say XInclde, because Xinclude interpretation involves understanding of the XML functions model completely.
18:29:45 [raman]
q+ we ran into similar questions when we tried to define an xml-edit functionality:
18:30:09 [noah]
HT: we've discussed a "baseline processing model" that might include XInclude
18:30:18 [DanC]
q+ to observe that it seems to be an academic, untestable question as to whether xml:base is part of the xml abstract syntax
18:30:48 [Vincent]
ack timbl
18:30:48 [Zakim]
timbl, you wanted to say that another layer will not appear above te infoset but inclduing say XInclde, because Xinclude interpretation involves understanding of the XML functions
18:30:51 [Zakim]
... model completely.
18:30:52 [noah]
TBL: while we want to see these things widely used, we've seen that we can't blindly apply all of these "first". We've got things like quoting to worry about.
18:31:49 [noah]
TBL: I don't think there can be a simple intermediate form that just gets all the XML-related mechanisms have been blindly applied. XML Functions teaches us that we have to know where something like XInclude appears to know whether to process.
18:31:56 [noah]
q+ to discuss variable processing of same doc
18:32:10 [noah]
HT: a bit curious that quoting is the only example. Is that a bad thing?
18:32:12 [raman]
q+ to add, xml-edit raised similar questions, since now you had to distinguish between "displaying" vs "editting"
18:32:20 [noah]
DC: No, we shouldn't be surprised that quoting is special.
18:33:03 [noah]
HT: If quoting is the only reason, then we should treat quoting specially, and have a phased story for the rest.
18:33:08 [noah]
TBL: phased story?
18:33:21 [noah]
HT: what you described as doing all the XML'ish stuff first.
18:33:39 [noah]
TBL: do you want to make the quoting stand out in the syntax?
18:33:48 [noah]
HT: That's a way to do it.
18:33:53 [noah]
TBL: not done in XML.
18:34:21 [noah]
HT: a bit more on compositionality.
18:34:42 [noah]
HT: my initial cut at composition didn't get a supportive reception in Edinburgh.
18:34:48 [noah]
TBL: where do you set it out.
18:34:53 [noah]
HT: in the message we're discussing.
18:35:19 [timbl]
"Compositional semantics" is defined in ?
18:35:54 [noah]
HT: See example in the note:
18:35:55 [noah]
" the interpretation of
18:35:55 [noah]
<xhtml:a href="">...</xhtml:a>
18:35:55 [noah]
is independent of its position in an XHTML document tree.
18:36:46 [noah]
NM: what about xsd:element?
18:36:50 [noah]
HT: not convinced
18:37:15 [noah]
TBL: you're talking about transforms you can apply leaving the meaning of the message invariant
18:37:51 [noah]
TBL: but I don't know how to judge what "means the same thing" in all cases.
18:37:59 [noah]
HT: consider Python, which has compositional semantics.
18:38:27 [noah]
HT: The semantics of things that appear on either side of a "+" sign don't depend on the "+" itself
18:38:46 [noah]
TBL: well the expressions can be evaluated independently, but what to do with them comes from the operator.
18:38:56 [noah]
HT: good definition of compositional
18:39:06 [noah]
TBL: but XML fragments don't have values
18:39:15 [noah]
HT: I'm drawing analogy to the application semantics of the subtree
18:39:44 [noah]
DC: critically, it's all dependent on the media types. If these same constructs appear in an XSLT document, then the semantics change.
18:39:56 [noah]
HT: Yes, XSL is known to commit tag abuse.
18:40:19 [noah]
DC: Right, but therefore these tags have compositional semantics at best in certain particular vocabularies, not in XML in general.
18:40:47 [noah]
HT: Consider an xhmtl:input element in the middle of an XML Schema. Should it have its compositional semantics in that context.
18:41:21 [noah]
TBL: we're trying to have here a discussion of XML semantics, when XML doesn't have a semantic which is "thick enough" (did scribe get that right?) to grasp.
18:41:37 [noah]
DC: Did you change your mind? Your design issues article seems to take a different position.
18:42:05 [noah]
TBL: I think Henry is going too far in looking for compositional semantics in XML.
18:42:20 [raman]
q+ to add, semantics are also a function of what you're about to do with something ---
18:42:24 [ht]
q+ to point out that the message _asks_ whether it should be a Best Practice for applications to _define_ a comp. sem.
18:42:47 [noah]
TBL: With RDF you're on firmer ground, because we have a clean notion of the "value" which is the RDF graph. We can thus discuss rigorously which syntactic constructs are equivalent.
18:43:22 [noah]
TBL: HTML and SVG have presentation. For example they define screen real-estate. We might ask which things produce the same pixels.
18:44:13 [noah]
TBL: talking in general about XML without knowing the namespace or application doesn't work well, because there's no common sense of meaning. Thus it's hard to talk about compositional semantics.
18:44:19 [Vincent]
ack raman
18:44:19 [Zakim]
raman, you wanted to add, xml-edit raised similar questions, since now you had to distinguish between "displaying" vs "editting" and to add, semantics are also a function of what
18:44:22 [Zakim]
... you're about to do with something ---
18:44:48 [DanC]
I hear timbl saying "xml documents have compositional semantics" in and "xml documents do not have a compositional semantics" on this call
18:45:15 [noah]
TR: The interpretation of something like HTML+SVG can depend on how you're using it, e.g. for editing vs. presentation.
18:45:42 [timbl]
18:45:45 [Vincent]
ack DanC
18:45:45 [Zakim]
DanC, you wanted to observe that it seems to be an academic, untestable question as to whether xml:base is part of the xml abstract syntax
18:45:48 [noah]
TR: I don't think you can answer this question in the abstract. What you do with it, even if it's a specific vocabulary, matters a lot.
18:46:12 [Vincent]
ack noah
18:46:12 [Zakim]
noah, you wanted to discuss variable processing of same doc
18:46:15 [noah]
DC: There's no way to test whether XML base has an effect on the processing. You can't in general tell where all the relative URIs are
18:46:37 [ht]
NM: Close to TR's point -- consider XInclude in particular
18:46:57 [timbl]
Noah: I think this is close to building on what Raman said. For xinclude in particulr, it i temptingto take a view that either the pre- or post-include document is somehow more fundamental.
18:47:07 [DanC]
(might be nice to have a structured argument editor that we can all twiddle at.)
18:47:09 [ht]
... It's tempting to presume that the pre- or, more likely, post-include infoset is the true interp of the document
18:47:12 [timbl]
I take the view that they are both just as fundemental.
18:47:25 [ht]
.. But I think it can be either
18:47:34 [ht]
... Consider the C preprocessor
18:47:53 [timbl]
Suchs for a C preprocessor, is the pre- or post- include version most signifiant? Normally compilers try to work with the line numbers of of the source even though they compiled the include version.
18:48:05 [ht]
... A good debugger will allow you to work with the _un_preprocessed document, even though the compiler has really worked on the post-processed version
18:48:15 [timbl]
With XML base, XMLinclude, etc you may want to liook at teh document before or after these forms of processing.
18:48:26 [ht]
... Or consider DSig -- I may want to sign the xinclude elt itself
18:48:44 [timbl]
To me, the infoset which has been digitally signed has great meaning. Other rimes, I am only interested in teh expanded meaning.
18:48:58 [ht]
... or I may want to sign the fully expanded doc't, and expect you to check against the expanded doct
18:49:13 [timbl]
-- NM
18:49:25 [ht]
... I think we'll have a better story if we have a story that can deal with both levels
18:49:29 [timbl]
s/I take/NM: I take/
18:49:50 [Vincent]
ack ht
18:49:50 [Zakim]
ht, you wanted to point out that the message _asks_ whether it should be a Best Practice for applications to _define_ a comp. sem.
18:50:29 [timbl]
q+ to disagree with Raman and NM about there being being no special form.
18:50:33 [noah]
NM: right, I said that both the unprocessed XInclude and the infoset resulting from processing are of significance and can be used in specifications.
18:51:17 [noah]
NM: To be clear, I'm not saying that no form is special. I'm saying that forms become special because the specifications for them say so.
18:51:28 [noah]
HT: It's about mapping compositionally onto your domain semantics.
18:51:45 [DanC]
timbl, if you disagree with what HT's saying, I'll be perfuddled, w.r.t. [[ Paul opines, Top-down self-descriptiveness is one of the major advantages of XML and I think that doing otherwise should be deprecated. I completely agree with this conclusion. ]] --
18:52:02 [noah]
HT: In any given application context, it's a good thing if the mapping from your Infoset to your application domain is compositional.
18:52:03 [Vincent]
ack timbl
18:52:03 [Zakim]
timbl, you wanted to disagree with Raman and NM about there being being no special form.
18:52:47 [ht]
[NM, backing up]: It's up to the application context to decide what pre-processing gets done
18:52:47 [noah]
TBL: There are lots of times you do things like view source, editing, etc., but I think that for an SVG document the semantics of "the circle" are fundamental.
18:53:19 [noah]
TR: I agree with you. But we hit this when we tried to build an editor in the XForms context.
18:54:21 [ht]
TBL: XInclude has level-crossing capability
18:54:27 [noah]
TBL: this reminds me of the discussion of XInclude, where we asked to include a target (svg:circle) as text plain. You do have the ability to do level breaking in XML.
18:54:36 [noah]
TR: it's eval vs. quote
18:54:53 [noah]
VQ: suggest we end discussion now
18:55:00 [noah]
s/now/for now/
18:55:11 [noah]
TBL: how much are we popping off the agenda stack?
18:55:14 [DanC]
(I need a story in which to set this conversation. Something where interaction between, say, xinclude and xml signature matter.)
18:55:26 [noah]
HT: I covered everything I put in the message, this has been helpful.
18:55:39 [ht]
HST agrees that eval and quote are a) fundamental and b) not immediately covered by the simple functional language analogy/compositionality story
18:55:48 [noah]
topic: Issue xml11Names-46
18:55:55 [DanC]
(I take it "NW with help from HT, produce a draft finding on XML functions" continues)
18:56:03 [timbl]
HT: The schema WG has indeed made progress on this. Some good chance their work will be public soon. Let's discuss then.
19:01:01 [ht]
ACTION: HST to bring us back to xml11Names-46 after the XML Schema WG publishes its expected Last Call PWD
19:01:10 [noah]
topic: RDF mapping for WSDL 2.0
19:01:29 [noah]
VQ: there was a message from Dan at
19:02:13 [noah]
DC: WSDL WG had in their charter to produce WSDL mapping to RDF.
19:02:56 [noah]
DC: I am trying to figure out whether there are any of the semantic web services build on this. So far looks like not.
19:03:05 [raman]
off to next thing ...
19:03:11 [Zakim]
19:04:02 [noah]
DC: I'm probably late here. The charter in question has gone out for review.
19:05:54 [noah]
TBL: We've tended to ask for RDF mappings. Risks that the WS community lacks some combination of the necessary knowledge or perhaps motivation to do it.
19:06:27 [noah]
TBL: We wind up with things like WS metada on the semantic web side being unfortunately disconnected from, e.g. WSDL constructs
19:06:47 [noah]
TBL: The question is ultimately whether to try harder to get these communities together.
19:06:54 [noah]
TBL: does the TAG see this as a problem?
19:07:21 [Ed]
I see this as a problem.. that should be addressed.
19:07:26 [noah]
VQ: question is what is the role of the TAG in trying to get these communities together.
19:07:47 [noah]
ER: q+ to talk about motivation
19:07:56 [noah]
q+ to talk about motivation
19:08:02 [noah]
ER: Yes, I see overlap
19:08:22 [Vincent]
ack noah
19:08:22 [Zakim]
noah, you wanted to talk about motivation
19:08:32 [ht]
NM: The elephant in the room is the divergence between the communities about the value of convergence
19:08:58 [ht]
... Convincing the Web Services side that there's value here is that hard part, once they're convinced of that
19:09:12 [ht]
... in particular that there's commercial value, then the convergence will happen
19:09:36 [ht]
... w/o help from us. This is too broad, in that there are a few people exploring
19:09:50 [timbl]
q+ to play devil's advocate
19:09:55 [ht]
... Just saying "You should want to do this" won't make it happen, much better to show them
19:10:23 [Vincent]
ack timbl
19:10:23 [Zakim]
timbl, you wanted to play devil's advocate
19:10:27 [ht]
... where real value will arise. Compare the SOAP GET stuff -- we 'persuaded' them to put it in the REC,
19:10:48 [noah]
NM: I think we'll do better to convince people how they're going to get value.
19:10:48 [ht]
... but they weren't convinced of the value, so noone has implemented it
19:11:01 [noah]
TBL: that's not going to happen for just doing WSDL. If they do a large chunk of their enterprise data they may.
19:13:20 [DanC]
+1 feedback loop is critical; there's not sense doing standards work without it
19:14:15 [noah]
NM: Right, but companies like mine don't do WSDL in isolation. If our enterprise DB customers can succeed if only they get that WSDL mapping, we'll be glad to motivate our WSDL people to do it.
19:14:22 [noah]
NM: the challenge is to make those connections.
19:15:13 [noah]
TBL: Did our charter for RDF DAW encourage or discourage service description
19:15:30 [DanC]
-> serviceDescription issue in the RDF Data Access WG
19:15:35 [DanC]
19:15:52 [noah]
TBL: If this were OWL-complete or RDFS-complete, it would be sort of crazy if you couldn't then connect to the WSDL
19:16:14 [noah]
DC: I found a big long URI that the WSDL group was giving for SPARQL interface
19:16:17 [noah]
TBL: 404?
19:16:27 [noah]
DC: no, or we wouldn't have let them publish, but I'm not sure what you get.
19:16:30 [DanC]
19:16:30 [DanC]
postponed 2005-05-19:
19:16:30 [DanC]
whereas the serviceDescription designs aren't maturing in the timescale of the current schedule, and implementation experience is somewhat thin, RESOLVED to postpone serviceDescriptions
19:16:31 [DanC]
19:17:04 [noah]
TBL: who's going to hurt if this problem isn't solved?
19:17:24 [noah]
ER: You'll get more trouble down the line with divergent answers.
19:17:44 [noah]
TBL: Well, you're going to have for each thing that comes out a retrofitted gadget to get RDF out of it.
19:18:38 [noah]
TBL: it's tempting to tell people to stop making legacy systems, but on the other hand that's not useful, because legacy systems have been produced for years, and will continue to be.
19:18:58 [noah]
TBL: there's a certain pace and timing to these things.
19:19:31 [noah]
+1 exactly. We have to engage the market in a way that fits with the pace(s) that it can reasonably handle
19:19:38 [noah]
ER: are they just not focussed on this
19:19:59 [noah]
TBL: lots of current work is focussed very much on top down design and information hiding, modular classes, etc.
19:20:18 [noah]
TBL: Web Services let's them do this on a larger scale, or maybe even between enterprise
19:20:22 [noah]
TBL: Still object to object
19:20:36 [noah]
(Noah is not so convinced, I think there's also a lot of business messaging a la lightweight EDI)
19:20:48 [noah]
TBL: RDF gets you benefit when you break that mindset.
19:21:39 [noah]
TBL: it still feels object-like
19:23:17 [noah]
NM: I think things are heading to be more document-like. I'll send you a purchase order, you confirm that I've purchased the stuff. No public objects there.
19:23:47 [noah]
TBL: We're starting to declare things like invoices that can be shared by services. That's closer to semantic web.
19:24:08 [noah]
TBL: so you're moving closer to the semantic web, though with the possibility that you're reinventing it.
19:24:21 [noah]
TBL: Maybe the invoice should be an RDF graph
19:24:30 [noah]
DC: versioning
19:24:42 [noah]
TBL: at least in RDF, the parts of the graph are separate.
19:25:37 [DanC]
s/DC: versioning/ER: versioning/
19:28:02 [noah]
NM: The whole point in Web services was to NOT do what Corba and COM did, I.e. to not require agreement on object models or programming models at the two ends of a wire.
19:28:51 [noah]
TBL: if I've invoiced you and specified at as high a level as possible the semantics of the message then I have maximal flexibility
19:31:46 [timbl]
I agree that GRDDL is a very important part of the dsicussion.
19:32:01 [noah]
NM: right. The problem, as I think Tim and I discussed years ago, is that XML and RDF wind up in the same space. Triples all the way down makes sense, XML trees are working moderately well. We've got to deal with the overlap.
19:32:26 [timbl]
Of course GRDDL needs a mapping, so it puts RDF mapping back onto the agenda.
19:32:30 [ht]
HST has sent email about his concerns with the PLP draft -- NM, please take note
19:32:44 [noah]
NM: Perhaps GRDDL might be a good example of a way to get RDF out of SOAP messages.
19:33:01 [Zakim]
19:33:04 [Zakim]
19:33:06 [Zakim]
19:33:08 [Zakim]
19:33:10 [Zakim]
19:33:25 [noah]
We agree to defer until next week the three issues Dan asked us to discuss.
19:33:31 [noah]
DC: not urgent if we don't do it even then.
19:33:42 [noah]
TBL: thanks to Vincent for chairing
19:33:44 [ht]
Noah, it's the ones DanC asked to have added, plus PLP, I think
19:33:47 [noah]
VQ: we're adjourned
19:34:04 [Zakim]
19:34:05 [Zakim]
TAG_Weekly()12:30PM has ended
19:34:07 [Zakim]
Attendees were Ed_Rice, Raman, Ht, Vincent, noah, DanC, TimBL
19:34:22 [DanC]
my 3 agenda requests were: (1) /TR/ heartbeat, (2) namespaceDocument-8, (3) xmlVersioning-41
19:34:40 [noah]
DanC - can you make the IRC log world readable? I don't need minutes drafted as I do that by hand from local log, but I need the links to the IRC log to resolve. Thanks.
19:34:51 [DanC]
RRSAgent, make logs world-access
19:34:59 [noah]
OK, I'll note those issues when I format the minutes.
19:35:02 [DanC]
umm... there's a bit of the log that needs excising though, no?
19:35:02 [noah]
Thanks for the log
19:35:20 [ht]
DanC, I'll edit the logs right away, since it was my mistake
19:35:24 [noah]
True. Do I have edit rights on that? I can do the published HTML copy.
19:35:29 [noah]
Much appreciated.
19:35:30 [DanC]
very well, ht
19:35:49 [noah]
I think it's just the one section where we started discussing XML 1.1. The stuff above my marker line gets deleted.
19:36:43 [noah]
The lines that say <noah> HT: The schema WG has indeed made progress on this. Some good chance their work will be public soon. Let's discuss then.
19:36:43 [noah]
<ht> ACTION: HST to bring us back to xml11Names-46 after the XML Schema WG publishes its expected Last Call PWD
19:36:45 [noah]
19:36:54 [noah]
19:37:02 [ht]
19:37:05 [ht]
wait one
19:42:27 [ht]
OK, noah, all docs on server edited
19:42:39 [ht]
you should be able to convert in place
19:42:50 [ht]
or retrieve and run perl locally
19:42:52 [ht]
over to you
20:15:15 [raman]
raman has left #tagmem
20:41:47 [timbl]
timbl has left #tagmem
21:32:49 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #tagmem