IRC log of tagmem on 2007-09-19

Timestamps are in UTC.

08:19:01 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #tagmem
08:19:01 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2007/09/19-tagmem-irc
08:19:13 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #tagmem
08:19:46 [Rhys]
Rhys has joined #tagmem
08:21:48 [DanC_lap]
Topic: Agenda Review
08:22:26 [DanC_lap]
Present: Stuart, Rhys, Henry, Dan, Norm, Noah
08:23:31 [Stuart]
- Reviewing "Cool URIs..."
08:23:31 [Stuart]
- #fragId / indirect identification
08:23:31 [Stuart]
- namespaceDocument-8
08:23:31 [Stuart]
- Web 2.0
08:23:31 [Stuart]
- Noah's WebArch Presentation
08:23:32 [Stuart]
- URI Testing
08:23:35 [Stuart]
- WebArch Vol 1 2nd Ed, and/or Vol 2: How to get started?
08:27:01 [Stuart]
https://gnowsis.opendfki.de/repos/gnowsis/papers/2006_11_concepturi/html/cooluris_sweo_note.html
08:29:01 [Noah]
Noah has joined #tagmem
08:34:23 [Stuart]
https://gnowsis.opendfki.de/repos/gnowsis/papers/2006_11_concepturi/html/cooluris_sweo_note.html
08:34:29 [Norm]
Norm has joined #tagmem
08:34:48 [Stuart]
https://gnowsis.opendfki.de/repos/gnowsis/papers/2006_11_concepturi/html/cooluris_sweo_note.html
08:34:52 [DanC_lap]
Topic: Reviewing "Cool URIs..." (ISSUE-57 HttpRedirections-57 )
08:41:13 [DanC_lap]
HT: we agreed to ask to add "http: " to the "On the Semantic Web, URIs identify ..." , right? [right]
08:42:28 [DanC_lap]
NM: "On the Semantic Web, " suggests there are 2 webs. I understand this is tutorial, but I think this concern could be addressed with something like... [missed]
08:42:43 [Rhys]
q+
08:44:03 [DanC_lap]
... "With the addition of Semantic Web capabilities..."
08:46:14 [Rhys]
ack me
08:46:16 [DanC_lap]
(consensus emerges; Norm is editing a review comments message)
08:51:19 [DanC_lap]
NM: "description of a URI" is a use/mention bug... should be "description of a resource identified by a URI"
08:51:51 [DanC_lap]
DanC: not sure it's cost-effective to repair all such use-mention buglets in informal text
08:52:16 [DanC_lap]
SKW: "identified resource" works
08:52:19 [DanC_lap]
DanC: OK
08:54:00 [DanC_lap]
DanC: I wonder if people are using this "Be on the Web" box to argue against doc#term URIs. Note that "description of" is not "representation of"
08:56:15 [DanC_lap]
SKW: acme.com is used, still. needs to be example.com
08:58:19 [DanC_lap]
(hmm.. N3 syntax... it actually only uses the turtle fragment; might be better to cite turtle than N3. maybe I'll send that as an individual comment)
09:22:17 [Rhys]
DC: Draws diagram on whiteboard. SW takes picture.
09:23:20 [Rhys]
DC: Suggests that the story could be told by successive elaboration of the diagram. Starting from the statement about 'Don't be ambiguous' and refining through the various approaches that are proposed.
09:25:56 [Rhys]
q+
09:27:49 [Rhys]
ack me
09:28:20 [Rhys]
q+
09:29:56 [Rhys]
q?
09:34:14 [Rhys]
ack me
09:36:44 [DanC_lap]
[scribe missed quite a bit... picking up...]
09:38:04 [DanC_lap]
HT: there's some stuff about fragments and conneg, no? [indeed... http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#frag-coneg ]
09:38:39 [DanC_lap]
HT: going back to our discussion of namespaceDocument-8 and the XML Schema datatype namespace document, we're saying that the difference between a datatype and a paragraph doesn't matter for this purpose
09:38:46 [DanC_lap]
DanC: umm... yeah.
09:44:43 [DanC_lap]
HT: on the other hand, we get a contradiction if xsd:boolean is a paragraph and a datatype [presuming datatypes and paragraphs are disjoint]. So www.w3.org shouldn't give a 200 for the /2001/XMLSchema namespace URI
09:45:20 [DanC_lap]
DanC: I don't think so; I prefer to ammend the HTML media type so that head/@profile takes away some constraints on fragids
09:45:47 [DanC_lap]
[there are other designs in this space too]
09:52:19 [Stuart]
Whiteboard photo is attached to: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2007Sep/0061
10:04:12 [DanC_lap]
SKW: note Dan's diagram uses distinct style for URIs and resources. that seems significant
10:07:09 [DanC_lap]
NM: not clear that "err on the side of caution" is well-motivated...
10:07:27 [DanC_lap]
... e.g. in the case of a relational table, TimBL and I agreed that a 200 was ok...
10:08:03 [DanC_lap]
... it's not clear to me that doing a redirection where it's not needed isn't more harmful than doing a 200 where it shouldn't have.
10:10:15 [DanC_lap]
SKW: the "all its essential characteristics can be conveyed in a message" is a bit out of context; we didn't give that as definition of Web document, but information resource
10:12:14 [Stuart]
Stuart has joined #tagmem
10:18:16 [DanC_lap]
DC noodles... ... not well motivated; for example, we think many relational tables are information resources, and this recommendation would result in unnecesary redirections.
10:40:14 [Stuart]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2007Sep/0017.html seems relevant
11:10:14 [DanC_lap]
SKW: so NDW has an action to finish this review...
11:10:50 [DanC_lap]
... meanwhile, what about the hypothesis that "Cool URIs..." obviates much of Rhys's draft on HTTP URIs?
11:11:05 [DanC_lap]
DanC: in that my main goal is to help people choose URIs, yes.
11:11:50 [DanC_lap]
NM: with some reservations about other HTTP status codes and whether we're elaborating or suggesting changes to the HTTP spec, yes
11:13:53 [DanC_lap]
Rhys: I think "Cool URIs..." addresses much of what "Dereferencing HTTP URIs" was going to say, but there are some other bits that seem useful for covering other aspects of ISSUE-57/ HttpRedirections-57 and ISSUE-28 (fragments)
11:16:12 [DanC_lap]
HT: to some extent, yes [scribe struggles to capture the gist of what he actually said]... though there are some critical bits of Rhys's draft that I want us to work on
11:16:31 [DanC_lap]
q+
11:17:23 [DanC_lap]
HT: I'm somewhat sympathetic to the point that a write-up of our decision on httpRange-14 is still in order.
11:19:09 [DanC_lap]
DanC: looking at the redirections ISSUE-57, I see bits like "Particular concerns are the cachability (or otherwise) of HTTP redirection responses" that I don't think "Cool URIs..." should cover that.
11:19:11 [DanC_lap]
Rhys: quite
11:19:57 [DanC_lap]
Rhys: one possibility re more-than-a-mail-message on issue 14, perhaps webarch 2nd ed?
11:20:06 [DanC_lap]
HT: well, but I'm not holding my breath
11:21:01 [DanC_lap]
(see also Users/ndw/TAG on norm's disk)
11:21:57 [DanC_lap]
ACTION NDW: relay comments as constructed today to the SemWeb EO IG editors of "Cool URIs..."
11:22:26 [DanC_lap]
s/critical bits/critical bits around "web presence"/
11:22:34 [DanC_lap]
ACTION: Norm relay comments as constructed today to the SemWeb EO IG editors of "Cool URIs..."
11:22:34 [trackbot-ng]
Sorry, couldn't find user - Norm
11:22:39 [ht]
ht has joined #tagmem
11:22:39 [DanC_lap]
ACTION: Norman relay comments as constructed today to the SemWeb EO IG editors of "Cool URIs..."
11:22:39 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-52 - Relay comments as constructed today to the SemWeb EO IG editors of \"Cool URIs...\" [on Norman Walsh - due 2007-09-26].
11:23:24 [DanC_lap]
trackbot-ng, ACTION-52 is on ISSUE-57
11:23:50 [Rhys]
PROPOSED RESOLUTION: TAG will not publish the Dereferencing URIs draft in its current form. We anticipate that a suitably updated version of the Cool URIs document will provide appropriate guidance on the httpRange-14 finding.
11:25:21 [DanC_lap]
DanC: that decision doesn't seem worthwhile, but updating the status seems worthwhile
11:25:29 [DanC_lap]
trackbot-ng, status
11:26:10 [DanC_lap]
e.g. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/users
11:26:43 [DanC_lap]
no, that page has rlewis2
11:27:09 [Rhys]
ACTION: Rhys to update the current version of the Dereferencing URIs draft to show that we will not formally publish it.
11:27:09 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-53 - Update the current version of the Dereferencing URIs draft to show that we will not formally publish it. [on Rhys Lewis - due 2007-09-26].
11:27:13 [DanC_lap]
BREAK for lunch, 'till 1:15pm
12:06:52 [ht]
I would change this sentence "The nature key is the label which allows us to distinguish between the different targets that could be used for the purpose. @
12:06:53 [ht]
to
12:07:51 [ht]
"The nature key is the label which allows us to distinguish different contributions that the same resource can make"
12:09:16 [Stuart]
recapitulating our agenda for today:
12:09:16 [Stuart]
- Reviewing "Cool URIs..."
12:09:16 [Stuart]
- #fragId / indirect identification
12:09:16 [Stuart]
- namespaceDocument-8
12:09:16 [Stuart]
- Web 2.0 (WBN)
12:09:17 [Stuart]
- Noah's WebArch Presentation (WBN)
12:09:19 [Stuart]
- URI Testing
12:09:21 [Stuart]
- WebArch Vol 1 2nd Ed, and/or Vol 2: How to get started?
12:16:24 [Noah]
Noah has joined #tagmem
12:20:20 [Rhys]
Scribe: Rhys
12:20:25 [Rhys]
Scribenick: Rhys
12:21:08 [Rhys]
Topic: namespaceDocument-8
12:21:14 [Rhys]
ISSUE: 8
12:21:30 [Rhys]
NW: Projects draft document
12:22:01 [Rhys]
DC: Asks about the full URIs for various thinkgs, such as the nature key
12:22:26 [Rhys]
DC: The proposal is that for RDDL, they will own the URIs?
12:22:29 [Rhys]
NW: Yes
12:22:53 [Rhys]
SW: Use of term key occurs earlier than it's definition.
12:23:08 [Rhys]
NW: that's an editorial issue to be fixed.
12:24:01 [Rhys]
NW: Draws diagram on whiteboard showing the relationships between namespaces, natures, ancilliary resources.
12:24:27 [Rhys]
DC: Trying to determine which of this is the generic model and which is specific to RDDL
12:24:59 [Rhys]
RL: Notes that the discussion is about Henry's example, based on RDDL
12:25:26 [Rhys]
DC: Maybe the title of section 2 should be 'using RDDL'?
12:25:46 [Rhys]
HT: But it's not about RDDL, we don't mind where the RDF comes from.
12:26:27 [Rhys]
DC: Do we need to call this 'the model'?
12:27:05 [Rhys]
HT: I think that we need to do this to address the concerns previously expressed to the TAG
12:28:42 [Rhys]
NW: A couple of years ago, we decided that we couldn't change RDDL, but that we could create a model for an abstraction that would let us represent this information.
12:29:24 [Rhys]
DC: The problem is that calling it 'The Model' is very definitive
12:29:49 [Rhys]
NM: Maybe we should look at the parts of this that are mandatory.
12:30:18 [Rhys]
HT: This part of this document is not about what you must do, it's about the resources that are available to you when writing your namespace document.
12:31:11 [Rhys]
NM: We do say that if you create a namespace we are recommending that you have a namespace and that you have some materials on the web.
12:31:56 [Rhys]
NM: We could say, that you need to put up some stuff about the namespace, and that, whatever the mechanism (RDDL or whatever), there is a set of information that you should have for the namespace
12:33:07 [Rhys]
HT: I don't agree about standardising what should be in the namespace document. RDDL provides a vocabulary for imparting the information to humans. We are extending this to machines
12:34:26 [Rhys]
NM: I thought we were defining the way that you could get something that could then be used to get back to RDF. I thought we were trying to define a preferred way to get you to a schema.
12:34:47 [Rhys]
NM: Could be stylesheets, schemas etc.
12:34:58 [Rhys]
DC: What about using RDF datatypes?
12:35:18 [Rhys]
HT: This is about connecting resources, not datatypes
12:36:07 [Rhys]
SW: This part of the narrative is about ancilliary resources to be used with the namespace. There is another set of information about the things that are in the namespace.
12:36:51 [Rhys]
HT: As of today, if you go to the namespace document, you'll find just connections to associated resources.
12:38:07 [Rhys]
HT: However, there are assertions in the old namespace document about links to names in namespaces but those anchors don't exist
12:38:34 [Rhys]
NM: So we are moving in the direction that the new description document has both connections to associated resources and datatypes
12:39:20 [Rhys]
HT: So the example includes definitions that use RDF datatypes and relate to the names in the namespace
12:41:22 [Rhys]
NM: Trying to infer what we can do in the general case. Is it correct to have the individual names in the same document as the associated resources. It's probably OK.
12:41:55 [Rhys]
NM: Maybe should be a standard way in all RDDLs of referring to a name in the namespace.
12:42:02 [DanC_lap]
(RDDL's normative reference competes with rdfs:isDefinedby. )
12:42:36 [Rhys]
HT: I think that you could conclude that the schema #boolean is either a name in the namespace or an associated resource or both.
12:43:41 [Rhys]
HT: There are two ways to improve this. Either in every datatype statement, could add an additional RDF type named thing (thing identified by something in the namespace).
12:44:07 [Rhys]
DC: Usually this is done by rdf is-defined-by
12:44:36 [Rhys]
NM: Whatever the appropriate expression of this, it seems as though a triple would be the right relationship
12:45:10 [Rhys]
DC: In practice, the processors look for a schema and then carry on processing.
12:45:44 [Stuart]
q+
12:45:47 [timbl]
timbl has joined #tagmem
12:47:24 [Rhys]
HT: Just because x#y resolves, doesn't mean that y is a name in the namespace.
12:48:06 [Rhys]
NM: my sense is that I'm asserting that the name I've defined is in the namespace
12:48:36 [Rhys]
DC: In practice the way that people do this is what Henry wrote on the board.
12:49:21 [DanC_lap]
which is: { xsd:boolean rdfs:isDefinedBy "" }
12:50:26 [Rhys]
NM: To me the namespace is a set of names.
12:50:39 [Rhys]
NW: There are a couple of puns going on here, so it works out.
12:50:40 [Stuart]
q?
12:51:16 [Rhys]
NM: I see the namespace is an information resource. The associated document is a description of the namespace.
12:53:47 [Rhys]
HT: If the W3C server were a standard Apache server, and you requested the XML Schema URI, you'd get a 404. I'd be happy if when you retrieved schema.html you got a 200, and when you asked for the schema you'd get a 303 to the HTML document and if you asked for namespace as RDF, it GRDDLs the namespace html document and returns the RDF.
12:54:35 [Rhys]
NW: You'd have to use xml:base in the RDF.
12:55:40 [Rhys]
NW: Henry's description is a little different to the 303 story we have been telling so far.
12:56:40 [Rhys]
NM: Often the representation is a rather 'noisy' representation of the resource (advertising etc.)
12:57:23 [Rhys]
NM: Since we are used to that, it seems less of a stretch to claim that Henry's story covers representations of the namespace
12:57:37 [Rhys]
NM: I don't think that we don't need the 303
12:59:50 [Rhys]
DC: Possible argument for the 303. Dan draws diagram. Shows URI of a namespace. Access to the namespace URI 302s to the HTML document. If you ask for RDF you get a 200 and an RDF representation, possibly from the GRDDL.
13:00:10 [Stuart]
10.3.3 302 Found
13:00:10 [Stuart]
The requested resource resides temporarily under a different URI.
13:00:19 [Rhys]
Scribe note: In Henry's description above, should have written 302 not 303
13:01:07 [Rhys]
NM: Why not return HTML by conneg from the namespace URI
13:01:33 [Rhys]
HT: To preserve the difference between the namespace and namespace document
13:02:06 [Rhys]
SW: I think 302 is wrong, because it is not temporarily moved.
13:02:21 [Rhys]
SW: I think it should be 301.
13:02:59 [Rhys]
NM: I don't agree, because 301 means it's permanently moved.
13:04:04 [Rhys]
NM: I think it's 303. But I also feel there is an asymmetry. Both the RDF and the HTML have the same relationship to the namespace URI.
13:04:37 [Rhys]
Scribe note - forget the change from 303 to 303. Leave it as 303.
13:07:12 [Rhys]
HT: If today, with the magic in the configuration on the W3C site, you request HTML from the namespace URI, you get it, but you also get a content header.
13:08:07 [Rhys]
NM: What is the implication of content location header?
13:08:25 [Rhys]
DC: You get the representation, but it's also a representation of this other URI
13:09:19 [Stuart]
14.14 Content-Location
13:09:19 [Stuart]
The Content-Location entity-header field MAY be used to supply the
13:09:19 [Stuart]
resource location for the entity enclosed in the message when that
13:09:19 [Stuart]
entity is accessible from a location separate from the requested
13:09:20 [Stuart]
resource's URI. A server SHOULD provide a Content-Location for the
13:09:20 [Stuart]
variant corresponding to the response entity; especially in the case
13:09:22 [Stuart]
where a resource has multiple entities associated with it, and those
13:09:24 [Stuart]
entities actually have separate locations by which they might be
13:09:26 [Stuart]
individually accessed, the server SHOULD provide a Content-Location
13:09:28 [Stuart]
for the particular variant which is returned.
13:10:39 [Rhys]
NW: I'll make the changes to the diagrams, and then hand the words over to you Henry.
13:10:57 [Rhys]
NW: Claims that his action on this document is now complete
13:11:26 [DanC_lap]
trackbot-ng, status
13:12:43 [Rhys]
ACTION: ht do in 2 weeks produce another revision of the namespaceDocument-8 draft from Norm
13:12:44 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-54 - Do in 2 weeks produce another revision of the namespaceDocument-8 draft from Norm [on Henry S. Thompson - due 2007-09-26].
13:13:42 [Rhys]
Topic: URI Testing
13:13:54 [DanC_lap]
http://esw.w3.org/topic/UriTesting
13:15:04 [Rhys]
DC: URI mailing list doesn't correspond to any working group at W3C. TAG monitors the list.
13:15:52 [Rhys]
DC: I started a Wiki page on URI testing. People copy and paste each others testing techniques. There is no current coordination.
13:16:31 [Rhys]
DC: Tempted to suggest that some kind of interest group be established on URI and IRI testing.
13:18:29 [Rhys]
DC: There is a new Java API in JCP for performing URI manipulations separate from the actual HTTP operations
13:18:49 [Rhys]
DC: I think the time is right to organise something around this.
13:19:47 [Rhys]
DC: I'd like it to be relatively disconnected for the same reason as to keep the manipulations separate from HTTP
13:22:33 [Rhys]
SW: Dan, what would you like the TAG to do?
13:24:17 [Rhys]
DC: We could say that this is a good idea and ask the director to consider starting some kind of activity.
13:27:10 [DanC_lap]
agenda + second life arch interop, action to connect to x3d
13:32:55 [Rhys]
General discussion about what the form of any such follow on activity might be
13:33:02 [DanC_lap]
ACTION Dan: work with SKW on a few paragraphs of thinking around a URI testing group (IG/WG/XG?)
13:33:23 [DanC_lap]
ACTION: Dan work with SKW on a few paragraphs of thinking around a URI testing group (IG/WG/XG?)
13:33:23 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-55 - Work with SKW on a few paragraphs of thinking around a URI testing group (IG/WG/XG?) [on Dan Connolly - due 2007-09-26].
13:33:56 [DanC_lap]
agenda?
13:34:18 [Stuart]
- #fragId / indirect identification
13:34:19 [Stuart]
- Web 2.0 (WBN)
13:34:19 [Stuart]
- Noah's WebArch Presentation (WBN)
13:34:19 [Stuart]
- WebArch Vol 1 2nd Ed, and/or Vol 2: How to get started?
13:34:27 [Stuart]
plus virtual worlds
13:34:57 [DanC_lap]
- HT on declarative XHTML fix-up
13:35:45 [Rhys]
Topic: Virtual Worlds
13:35:53 [DanC_lap]
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/2
13:36:12 [Rhys]
DC: Where are we on the action?
13:37:20 [Stuart]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2007Sep/0012
13:37:42 [ht]
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2007/04/30-minutes is relevant
13:38:59 [Rhys]
NM: I've not had a response. I'll try again.
13:39:17 [DanC_lap]
(so ACTION-2 continues)
13:39:23 [Noah]
Slashdot link to standardization effort for virtual worlds protocols: http://games.slashdot.org/games/07/09/19/126250.shtml
13:40:54 [Noah]
Contains link to 2nd Life Wiki: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Architecture_Working_Group
13:43:11 [Rhys]
DC: We've not followed up with Croquet
13:43:33 [Rhys]
NM: I think that Croquet is more of a distributed environment for professional use
13:43:48 [Rhys]
NM: Do you build your own community>
13:43:55 [Rhys]
s/>/?
13:44:20 [Rhys]
DC: Tend to have your own. They are looking at more global communities
13:45:07 [Rhys]
HT: QWAQ is trying to build a business model on top of Croquet.
13:47:45 [Rhys]
Topic: Summary
13:48:24 [Rhys]
SW: About to close. 3 days was good. Enjoyed the group work and the progress has been good.
13:48:43 [Rhys]
NW: 3 days is good.
13:48:47 [Rhys]
General agreement
13:49:29 [Rhys]
NW: Don't assume that just because we don't have a third day's agenda we only need a two day meeting
13:49:54 [Rhys]
NM: Liked the ability to get some small stuff done on the third day.
13:50:39 [Rhys]
General feeling that open agendas can be useful, but we shouldn't necessarily assume this is always a good idea.
13:53:52 [Rhys]
SW: We are adjourned
13:55:05 [Rhys]
HT: I've just found that in Croquet, the connections between rooms are called portals. These are labelled with TPostcards that are not URIs. However, they are described as being similar to URLs in web browsers.
13:55:24 [Rhys]
rrsagent, make logs member visible
13:55:24 [RRSAgent]
I'm logging. I don't understand 'make logs member visible', Rhys. Try /msg RRSAgent help
13:55:44 [Rhys]
rrsagent, make minutes
13:55:44 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/09/19-tagmem-minutes.html Rhys
13:55:52 [ht]
rrsagent, make logs world-visible
14:05:14 [Rhys]
Rhys has left #tagmem
14:06:13 [skw]
skw has joined #tagmem