IRC log of tagmem on 2006-08-15

Timestamps are in UTC.

17:00:35 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #tagmem
17:00:36 [RRSAgent]
logging to
17:00:37 [noah]
noah has joined #tagmem
17:00:45 [ht]
zakim, this will be tag
17:00:45 [Zakim]
ok, ht; I see TAG_Weekly()12:30PM scheduled to start 30 minutes ago
17:00:53 [raman]
raman has joined #tagmem
17:00:57 [ht]
zakim, please call ht-781
17:00:57 [Zakim]
ok, ht; the call is being made
17:00:59 [Zakim]
TAG_Weekly()12:30PM has now started
17:01:00 [Zakim]
17:01:07 [raman]
zakim not picking up?
17:01:13 [noah]
Not for me either
17:01:34 [raman]
long hiss then went silent.
17:01:38 [ht]
suggest you try once more, then call Amy
17:01:52 [raman]
how does one call amy?
17:02:01 [raman]
I usually hit 0 at zakim, but then zakim isn't picking up
17:02:08 [EdR]
EdR has joined #tagmem
17:02:10 [ht]
17:02:14 [ht]
Er. . .
17:02:24 [EdR]
at least your getting the rings..
17:02:38 [noah]
meeting: TAG Teleconference of 16 August 2006
17:02:47 [raman]
I didn't even get rings:-)
17:02:53 [noah]
I'm getting LOTS of rings.
17:02:58 [EdR]
me either..
17:03:05 [EdR]
Noah's stealing all the rings!
17:03:16 [Zakim]
17:03:36 [ht]
Hmm, HST can't actually _hear_ DanC. . .
17:03:51 [ht]
Maybe I have locked things up -- I'll hang up. . .
17:03:57 [noah]
17:04:42 [noah]
scribe: Noah Mendelsohn
17:04:47 [noah]
scribenick: noah
17:04:54 [noah]
date: 16 August 2006
17:05:26 [noah]
zakim, who is here?
17:05:26 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Ht, DanC
17:05:27 [Zakim]
On IRC I see EdR, raman, noah, RRSAgent, Zakim, DanC, Norm, ht
17:05:58 [noah]
Amy doesn't seem to be on IRC
17:05:58 [ht]
No, and what's weird is that DanC and I are in just fine. . .
17:06:13 [ht]
I can't raise anyone at MIT . . .
17:06:18 [EdR]
can I offer a alternate number? I have a conferance line we can use.
17:06:34 [noah]
Do other W3C numbers pick up? Could be a problem with the MIT switch, if zakim goes through that.
17:06:35 [ht]
Hold on 1 minute
17:07:25 [dorchard]
dorchard has joined #tagmem
17:07:42 [EdR]
Hi Dave, phone problems?
17:07:53 [noah]
None of us can get zakim to pick up.
17:08:15 [EdR]
I have an personal conferance number, but its only toll free in the u.s.
17:08:48 [noah]
Henry, you in Maine or UK?
17:09:03 [ht]
UK, but that's not an issue
17:09:17 [ht]
I can dial from my vonage box, which _is_ in the US
17:10:27 [ht]
We've got someone looking at rebooting zakim just now
17:10:32 [ht]
hang on a few more minutes
17:10:35 [daveo]
daveo has joined #tagmem
17:10:36 [noah]
17:10:42 [EdR]
ok.. two more minutes :)
17:10:43 [ht]
sorry about this -- many W3C staff on holiday this week
17:10:49 [daveo]
what's up with the phone?
17:11:01 [daveo]
two different computers ;-)
17:11:03 [ht]
Not answering, we're trying to get a fix
17:11:03 [DanC]
somebody tripped the critical need sensor and Zakim noticed that Ralph and amy were away.
17:11:04 [noah]
Zakim is hung
17:11:15 [daveo]
17:11:15 [daveo]
17:11:21 [daveo]
17:11:26 [daveo]
17:11:38 [daveo]
We could use a bridge that I have..
17:11:42 [EdR]
ok, lets use mine..
17:12:54 [Zakim]
17:12:56 [Zakim]
17:12:57 [Zakim]
TAG_Weekly()12:30PM has ended
17:12:58 [Zakim]
Attendees were Ht, DanC
17:13:00 [noah]
If the staff has write access to the logs, that's fine.
17:13:48 [noah]
Otherwise,I'd keep an eye on my phone bill.
17:16:49 [noah]
Present: Dave Orchard, Noah Mendelsohn, Henry Thompson, Ed Rice, Dan Connolly
17:17:30 [noah]
Regrets: Vincent Quint, Tim Berners-Lee
17:17:47 [noah]
topic: Next teleconference
17:17:53 [noah]
chair: Ed Rice
17:18:11 [noah]
ER: Next telcon next week on 22 Aug 2006
17:18:25 [noah]
NM: Regrets for Noah for 22 Aug.
17:19:06 [noah]
s/Teleconference of 16 August/Teleconference of 15 August/
17:19:15 [DanC]
so what's the address of the minutes?
17:19:33 [noah]
topic: Generic Resources
17:20:10 [raman]
zakim, ring ring ring
17:20:10 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'ring ring ring', raman
17:20:21 [raman]
zakim, it's mutual:-)
17:20:21 [Zakim]
I'm glad that smiley is there, raman
17:20:38 [noah]
ER: We had invited XXX to join us, but he would prefer to wait a week or two.
17:20:49 [raman]
anyone have ideas on how I can get on this call? Otherwise I have more useful things to do that I could use the time for
17:20:56 [EdR]
r /xxx/Rhys Lewis
17:20:59 [raman]
17:21:03 [DanC]
(is this the corrected minutes? )
17:21:34 [DanC]
17:21:45 [raman]
17:21:46 [noah]
topic: URNsAndRegistries-50
17:21:57 [EdR]
ed tells raman 7484437
17:22:02 [DanC]
LSID URI thread includes
17:22:30 [noah]
DC: W3C has health care and life sciences interest group
17:22:38 [daveo2]
daveo2 has joined #tagmem
17:22:38 [DanC]
"Resource identifiers: URI vs. LSID (and ARK)"
17:22:39 [DanC]
17:22:42 [noah]
DC: Has YYYY subgroup, which had a meeting July 31
17:23:00 [noah]
DC: Seems like people are warming up to the ARK approach.
17:23:15 [noah]
DC: Still not clear to me that there's a suitable DNS domain to use in ARK case
17:23:16 [ht]
17:23:17 [raman]
finally ...
17:23:33 [noah]
present: +T.V. Raman
17:24:12 [noah]
DC: I tried out some software that went for an actual LSID. Got 404. Sent mail asking about it. Answer was: well, that machine was just down.
17:24:22 [noah]
DC: Seemed a lot like HTTP as we know it.
17:24:31 [noah]
DC: Trying to grok the social structures around LSID.
17:25:04 [noah]
DC: One issue with the minutes of that meeting is that it reports my position (I.e. Dan's) as if it were the W3C's.
17:25:32 [noah]
DC: There is a reasonable record in minutes, no formal decisions made.
17:25:52 [noah]
DC: ARK stuff was influential, albeit would have been easier to consider if known 4 years ago given large amount of deployed software.
17:26:03 [noah]
HT: I thought I saw decision to keep talking in the Wiki.
17:26:11 [noah]
DC: Hmm. I don't remember being formally asked to concur with that.
17:27:21 [noah]
DC: Versioning came up, and things headed downhill when that happened.
17:27:49 [noah]
NM: Do they mean new versions of schemes for naming things, or for example, how to name different versions of attempted sequencing of a given gene?
17:27:57 [noah]
DC: Any and all of that. Not clear.
17:28:18 [noah]
DC: Furthermore, there were strong feelings that metadata vs data distinction is important, but everyone draw's the line differently.
17:28:28 [noah]
DC: Do we cite ARK in the paper?
17:28:42 [noah]
HT: No, but our finding is at the moment more a log of discussion than points.
17:29:29 [noah]
HT: I'm particularly grateful that the ARK stuff is at least being looked at, and that folks like Sean Martin have had an open mind when ideas like that have been raised.
17:30:37 [DanC]
-> Re: LSID lookup details: help? [was: All about the LSID URI/URN]
17:30:45 [noah]
NM: One issue raised a month or two ago was that our draft finding didn't do a compelling job of justifying its points. Are we working on that?>
17:30:59 [noah]
HT: It's at the top of my TAG queue to do that.
17:31:18 [noah]
17:31:58 [noah]
DO: I've responded to 4 or 5 comments from David Booth, Boeing, etc. which have given me ideas for sections 4,5,6.
17:32:31 [noah]
DO: Debating whether I can do this in half day, in which case it will be a priority, otherwise versioning work will come first.
17:32:33 [DanC]
(looking up , I see "Henry and David to update draft finding URNs, Namespaces and Registries accepted on 18 Apr 2006". looks like that continues )
17:33:08 [noah]
DO: Mary Schleiff of Boeing asked
17:34:17 [DanC]
-> RE: URNs, Namespaces and Registries
17:34:43 [DanC]
17:34:44 [DanC]
17:34:44 [DanC]
> members please clarify if their gripes about XRI would
17:34:44 [DanC]
> dissolve if XRIs begin with ""
17:34:44 [DanC]
> instead of "xri://"?
17:34:44 [DanC]
17:34:50 [DanC]
for my money, yes.
17:35:47 [noah]
NM: Marty's message at says:
17:35:55 [noah]
"I think the statement in URNsAndRegistries [1] that "Naming authorities
17:35:55 [noah]
can impose such constraints on the http: URIs under their control" also
17:35:55 [noah]
covers XRI metadata requirements if we use a naming authority like
17:35:55 [noah]
"" instead of the "xri:" scheme.
17:36:13 [noah]
DO: We should consider taking a stand on this in the finding.
17:36:21 [noah]
DC: How about just agreeing a formal TAG position on this.
17:37:53 [daveo2]
Can TAG members please clarify if their gripes about XRI would dissolve if XRIs begin with ""instead of "xri://"?
17:37:58 [DanC]
17:38:31 [noah]
Proposal: Does the TAG wish to answer "yes" to the question asked by Marty Schleiff "Can TAG members please clarify if their gripes about XRI would dissolve if XRIs begin with ""instead of "xri://"?"
17:40:17 [noah]
HT: His assumption is that applications are going to recognize that string and recognize it specially.
17:40:23 [noah]
DC: That's OK
17:41:41 [DanC]
friendly ammentment: yes, they _should_ make available representations there. but if they choose not to, oh well.
17:42:00 [noah]
NM: Yeah, they are documenting that "metadata in URI" and software can rely on it.
17:42:49 [noah]
NM: Generic access to HTTP GET can work too. If they choose to go 404 on their stuff, it's their loss
17:42:56 [noah]
HT: But they're saying the WILL do 404
17:43:07 [noah]
DO: That's OK.
17:43:23 [noah]
DC: Not just as good, but their choice.
17:44:05 [noah]
DO: But, crucially, they can change their mind later if generic HTTP access is missed.
17:44:39 [noah]
NM: Exactly. Strong +1 to that the crucial point is that by naming with http:, you always have the option to deploy.
17:44:59 [noah]
HT: But now they have an obligation to deploy representations.
17:45:14 [noah]
DC: They have an obligation to deploy representations regardless of the scheme they use.
17:45:40 [noah]
NM: And that's a bit harder if you have a scheme for which there aren't widely deployed software protocols for access to those representations.
17:45:47 [DanC]
friendly ammentment: yes, they _should_ make available representations there ( ) . but if they choose not to, oh well.
17:46:08 [noah]
HT: Do you really mean that across schemes, Dan? What about mailto:?
17:49:35 [DanC]
Proposal: to the question asked by Marty Schleiff "Can TAG members please clarify if their gripes about XRI would dissolve if XRIs begin with ""instead of "xri://", answer yes, with a reminder they _should_ make available representations there ( )
17:49:50 [noah]
OK by me
17:50:56 [DanC]
aye. +1
17:50:58 [ht]
HST: aye
17:51:01 [noah]
yup +1
17:51:04 [EdR]
ED: +!
17:51:06 [EdR]
17:51:12 [daveo2]
17:51:35 [noah]
RESOLVED: to the question asked by Marty Schleiff "Can TAG members please clarify if their gripes about XRI would dissolve if XRIs begin with ""instead of "xri://", answer yes, with a reminder they _should_ make available representations there ( )
17:52:11 [EdR]
TOPIC: Metadata in URI
17:52:13 [noah]
topic: metaDataInURI
17:53:47 [DanC]
ACTION DaveO: respond to Marty Schleiff
17:53:53 [DanC]
-> # Notes Bjoern Hoehrmann's comments on the draft finding for metadataInURI-31 (Tuesday, 15 August)
17:54:23 [ht]
NM: I've written a lengthy email [above] and will be sending another covering the comments of Hoehrmann and Williams
17:54:30 [DanC]
NM: I responded to ~10 comments from each of Bjoern and [missed]; I expect only a few of them will result in changes
17:54:55 [ht]
... I'll be sending another one which will synthesize these into a minor revision to the draft
17:55:02 [ht]
DanC: What will change?
17:55:36 [ht]
NM: Bjoern is particularly upset with the name of this finding itself
17:55:56 [ht]
TV: Right, and if we approve it then we can push the W3C to change its practices
17:56:18 [DanC]
I disagree that "" is intended to be used directly by people
17:56:23 [ht]
NM: One are that will change is the discussion of guessing
17:57:02 [ht]
... The Best Practice which this section ends with is too close to motherhood, perhaps
17:57:27 [ht]
... Both Hoehrmann and Williams pointed to this
17:57:44 [ht]
... I will try again to improve this
17:58:14 [ht]
DC: I would like to discuss the URI for the finding
17:58:26 [ht]
TV: It's the whole of the W3C naming policy
17:58:33 [ht]
... in particular the use of dates
17:58:56 [ht]
DC: What's worth fixing wrt _this_ URI
18:00:02 [ht]
NM: Well, what I said in my email was that URI authorities can decide not to be helpful, if they don't want to make external usability a design criterion
18:00:58 [ht]
DC: What URI would you suggest, TV?
18:01:20 [ht]
TV: TR/MetadataInURI, or tag/findings/MetadataInURI
18:02:26 [ht]
NM: Hoehrmann is saying "It's my call as a user to judge your URIs for usability, and I judge them deficient"
18:02:58 [ht]
... You (DC) are saying "It's our call as the authority, and the only thing we warrant for use on the side of a bus is ''"
18:03:30 [DanC]
(actually, historically, "" was one of the more widely-plastered URIs W3C promoted)
18:03:43 [ht]
Norm, see log above
18:03:49 [Norm]
18:04:46 [noah]
HT: Another question about the finding.
18:05:10 [noah]
HT: Your draft uses the word designate where others use identify. Was that intentionally or by chance?
18:05:18 [noah]
present: +Norm Walsh
18:06:38 [noah]
NM: Do you want a change? I could try.
18:07:01 [noah]
HT: Well, I could send email that covers some other issues in the intro. Has to do with resource vs. representation of the resource.
18:07:16 [noah]
HT: Sometimes we blur sometimes we don't
18:09:59 [noah]
NM: I have sent a long email covering Bjoern's concerns and will send one more detailing responses to Stuart. Those are long. I will send in addition a shorter one netting out what I think the TAG should look at in resolving metadataInURI 31
18:10:04 [noah]
ER: Any other business?
18:10:08 [noah]
ER: Adjourned
18:10:21 [Norm]
Norm apologizes for missing most of the meeting :-(
18:10:21 [EdR]
Noah, please remove phone number from minutes :)
18:10:47 [noah]
I will do that from the copy I format. You will have to get a W3C Team member to get into the copies of the IRC log on the W3C servers.