12:56:48 RRSAgent has joined #awwsw 12:56:48 logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/04/29-awwsw-irc 12:56:52 Zakim has joined #awwsw 12:56:59 noah has joined #awwsw 12:57:02 zakim, this will be awwsw 12:57:02 ok, dbooth; I see TAG_(AWWSW)9:00AM scheduled to start in 3 minutes 12:57:08 zakim, code? 12:57:08 the conference code is 29979 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), dbooth 12:57:40 TAG_(AWWSW)9:00AM has now started 12:57:46 +DBooth 12:58:01 Meeting: AWWSW 13:00:44 +Noah_Mendelsohn 13:02:27 +Alan_Ruttenberg 13:02:43 +alanr.a 13:03:06 jar has joined #awwsw 13:03:51 zakim, alanr.a is really jar 13:03:51 +jar; got it 13:04:27 zakim, help? 13:04:27 Please refer to http://www.w3.org/2001/12/zakim-irc-bot for more detailed help. 13:04:29 Some of the commands I know are: 13:04:30 xxx is yyy - establish yyy as the name of unknown party xxx 13:04:32 if yyy is 'me' or 'I', your nick is substituted 13:04:35 xxx may be yyy - establish yyy as possibly the name of unknown party xxx 13:04:37 I am xxx - establish your nick as the name of unknown party xxx 13:04:40 xxx holds yyy [, zzz ...] - establish xxx as a group name and yyy, etc. as participants within that group 13:04:43 xxx also holds yyy - add yyy to the list of participants in group xxx 13:04:45 who's here? - lists the participants on the phone 13:04:48 who's muted? - lists the participants who are muted 13:04:50 mute xxx - mutes party xxx (like pressing 61#) 13:04:53 unmute xxx - reverses the effect of "mute" and of 61# 13:04:56 is xxx here? - reports whether a party named like xxx is present 13:04:58 list conferences - reports the active conferences 13:04:59 this is xxx - associates this channel with conference xxx 13:05:00 excuse us - disconnects from the irc channel 13:05:01 I last learned something new on $Date: 2008/04/29 14:35:36 $ 13:07:52 Topic: Banter before the meeting 13:08:12 Alan: I gave an intro to SemWeb talk. I'll post the slides URL. 13:09:09 Alan: We have a an OWL profile for rules. Check the draft. 13:10:55 dbooth: How it relates to RIF? Alan: Don't know. 13:11:33 Alan: please review the OWL drafts! 13:12:46 Topic: Check in on our direction 13:12:50 Stuart has joined #awwsw 13:14:22 jar: I see a bunch of people with different concerns. Tim is concerned with accessibility. Conneg is about making it accessible, so instead of linking to a particular langauge you link to a generic resource and conneg gives them the appropriate language. So when Tim talks about things "breaking the web", my interp is that that's because he's worried that the user experience will be degraded. 13:14:27 +??P12 13:14:40 zakim, ? is me 13:14:40 +Stuart; got it 13:16:27 noah: i think he has other concerns too. 13:18:51 jar: there's a set of concerns there that have mainly to do with browsing -- classic web arch concerns. There are SemWeb concerns that are a different place on the landscape w diff requierments. Eg for repeatability of experiement you really do want to refer specifically to the XML version of a doc. 13:19:22 I believe timbl would advodate a uri for both the generic resource and each specific resource 13:20:20 jar: There's different set of concerns where you want to nail things down that appear to be at odds w arch concerns in which you want things to be abstract. There';s some tension there, but plenty of space to deal with both concerns. 13:21:09 ... i've heard Alan talk about info entities and feeling frustrated that there's not a lot of attention paid to it. 13:21:29 FWIW, I think that dbooth is correct wrt to TimBL separate URI for generic and its variants... 13:22:06 ... So the q on the agenda: do we want to characterize what's an allowable 200 response? I want to check it with people. Is this reasonable to do? 13:22:11 q+ to say yes 13:24:16 noah: Some of my comment may be because i'm not from the SemWeb community. When I see this discussion going on, there's a complexity to it. Theres's a level to which i send you this on the wire, you send me that ... we're not looking at the most subtle parts of http yet (caching, etc). We're looking at the status code 200, media type, body. The level of subtlety that we're getting into w ValueClouds makes me say "we may need this, but it's daunting and of 13:24:16 f putting". 13:24:29 .... off putting". 13:25:26 Stuart: have you seen jar's most recent diagram? 13:25:53 q? 13:26:18 -Alan_Ruttenberg 13:26:18 ack dbooth 13:26:19 dbooth, you wanted to say yes 13:28:04 dbooth: yes, i think we need a new working def of IR, and i've proposed a very simple one: a function from time and requests to representations. 13:28:33 Hmm. I thought semantics of HTTP was about right. 13:28:39 jar: maybe we should review the aims of this project 13:28:50 I'm not sure I want to pull on that bit of string and unravel the semantics of the whole world to which that connects 13:29:04 http semantics is good, but only a means to an end. why would we worry about it? 13:29:19 stuart: i'm not overly motivated to pick a new def. I'm not overly dissatisfied with the one we have at the moement. I acknowledge it has some flaws, but any def we have people will criticize. 13:29:19 I agree with Stuart. The definition of IR we have seems to work better for me than it does for many others on this call. 13:31:13 jar: It does actually matter when we're giving advice to people what to say about a 200 responses. But if its' one of these borderline cases that keeps coming up then we can't say. But the other issue is provenance and repeatability: you want to make statements that are clear about documents, versions of documents, etc. It's not always clear what to say about them, and when you do start saying things about them you collide with the current AWWW def of IR. 13:31:49 q+ to say we cannot move forward on clarifying the semantics and guidelines arounnd 200 responses without a workable def of IR 13:32:07 Stuart: how does alan feal about the diagram? 13:32:21 Alan: neutral. it doesn't really say anything. 13:33:13 ... It doesn't seems like we're saying much about the SW, but there's new stuff happening -- linked data, etc. It resembles working w legacy software -- trying to shove something in an old design. 13:33:23 q+ to say fuzziness may not always be bad 13:33:23 stuart: what sort of things do y9ou want to conclude from a 200? 13:34:04 alan: difference between a patient medical record and an entrez gen record, because one is updated every time info is added. 13:34:17 stuart: You'd need a vocab for articulating those features. 13:34:37 alan: Yes, and that vocab would have to go beyond saying "FixedResource", etc. 13:34:47 +1 to alan's comment 13:34:58 stuart: would a 200 with a link header help? 13:36:27 alan: yes, it would allow us to start the conversation. we could then ask what the description should have. for docs on the web we could talke about what kinds of docs they should be, dynamic pages, etc. I was going to suggest: let's have an oracle that says: "bless you, you can now start the conversation. You have a description, and a URI of the thing, and you can talk about them." 13:37:11 ... Now we can go back and say "how can we get to this stage with more motivation behind it?" 13:37:19 Q? 13:37:33 ... The link header is a good idea, but i'm anxious to get on to the next level of conversation. 13:37:53 stuart: jar, this started with "what can you conclude from a 200 response?" 13:38:21 +1 To what Stuart is saying about scope 13:38:54 The TAG has a separate issue about linking to resource descriptions. I didn't think this AWWSW group was focussing mainly on that. 13:39:01 When to use 200 does seem to me to be in scope. 13:39:55 jar: i think i gave that as a concrete question. it is one of my concerns. this is hard because there are layers. That's part of a larger question of how we can use http to support the SW better than it does now. Maybe we dont' even need a link header -- just put a link in the html doc. It's a compilcated question because it's in layers. 13:39:55 q? 13:39:59 ack db 13:39:59 dbooth, you wanted to say we cannot move forward on clarifying the semantics and guidelines arounnd 200 responses without a workable def of IR 13:41:49 Alan... if you get a 200 response an a pile of triples... is that 'nothing'? 13:41:57 alan: I've concluded you can't get anything interesting from a 200 response. 13:43:02 alanr has joined #awwsw 13:43:57 example please? 13:43:59 What's the difference if I get a 303 and a pile of triples? 13:44:58 q? 13:44:59 jar: are 200 journal articles IRs? ftrr:IR defines IR as a function, and that doesn't sound like a journal article. 13:45:13 indeed 13:45:16 But with 303 you *don't* get triples... you get another reference to something else... and you get to choose whether to follow that reference... and if in following that reference you get triples... those triples were served wit a 200. 13:45:20 q? 13:45:24 ack noah 13:45:24 noah, you wanted to say fuzziness may not always be bad 13:45:59 jar: for the purpose of awwsw i'd be fine with going w the def of IR that david proposed, and move forward. 13:47:26 noah: I thought this effort was charger w a narrower scope: http as a protocol is an important bit of the web. to be able to come up w the rdf statements that describe what you can infer is a very useful piece of the web. that's somewhat orthogonal to wether it's useful for a particular use case. I think it's a usefule piece of gatewaying. 13:48:40 David, here is the presentation http://sw.neurocommons.org/presentations/HarnessingSemanticWeb.pdf 13:49:52 q? 13:50:00 ... also, it certainly is true thta the def of IR in AWWW is not crisp enough to give a clean answer to all questions. There are gray areas. Is that a fatal problem? That glass is half full. Its' very clear that a human does not meet the def. But if i want to convey to you certain words in certain order, i think that's an IR. a reasonable person would conclude it can be encoded in bits. 13:50:35 q+ to say that ambiguity and gray area is not the primary problem w the current AWWW def of IR - the problem is it is wrong 13:51:52 ... noah: regarding a journal article, when you're deploying on the web, you have a degree of control. if what you mean is the text of the article, then you have made a decision that what you mean is an IR. If you decide that what you meant is something deeper then you have decided that it is not an IR. 13:52:26 see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2008Apr/0159.html starting: "Here's where I think this is going" 13:52:27 jar: the problem is that i come up with non boundary cases that sound to me like they match that definition, but timbl says they're not IRs. 13:54:57 noah: there is some history here. The TAG was beating their heads about this. There was a transition from talking about documents to talking about IRs. My example to tim was the abstract tables comprising a relational DB. To me a document tends to have a beginning a middle and and end, but the relational tables don't have that structure. So a rep will have a particular order, but we will ignore it. Tim and i continue to disagree on this one. 13:55:37 jar: when i drew this diagram i was trying to capture what is being said about 200 responses. it is almost said in 2616. 13:55:47 q? 13:56:29 jar: there is activity around what 200 means, and some around 303 redirect. Maybe if we do those two things we're all done because we dont' want to take on the def of IR. 13:56:32 q? 13:56:36 ack d 13:56:36 dbooth, you wanted to say that ambiguity and gray area is not the primary problem w the current AWWW def of IR - the problem is it is wrong 13:56:45 My point is that it's a known point of some disagreement between me and Tim as to what the word "document" really conveys, whether a relational table (in which the order of rows and columns is not significant) is best called a document, and whether the range of the term IR is the same as the range of the word document. 13:57:24 Still, I think that the current AWWW definition of IR is in the ballpark, and I mostly find it useful. It does require a bit of a sympathetic reading, since it doesn't try to be mathematically precise. 13:58:25 I have a hard stop now. Need to go. Signing off. 13:58:51 -Noah_Mendelsohn 13:59:11 -Stuart 13:59:13 -DBooth 13:59:15 -jar 13:59:15 TAG_(AWWSW)9:00AM has ended 13:59:16 Attendees were DBooth, Noah_Mendelsohn, Alan_Ruttenberg, alanr, jar, Stuart 13:59:24 Present: Noah, Stuart, David, Jonathan, Alan 13:59:47 Scribe: dbooth 13:59:52 Stuart has left #awwsw 13:59:56 rrsagent, make logs public 14:04:44 rrsagent, draft minutes 14:04:44 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/04/29-awwsw-minutes.html dbooth 14:07:23 jar has joined #awwsw 14:19:39 Chair: Jonathan Rees (jar) 14:21:37 i/the diagram/jar's latest diagram: http://sw.neurocommons.org/2008/inforesource2.pdf 14:22:11 i|the diagram|jar's latest diagram: http://sw.neurocommons.org/2008/inforesource2.pdf 14:24:13 s|David, here is the presentation http://sw.neurocommons.org/presentations/HarnessingSemanticWeb.pdf|| 14:24:44 i|How it relates|David, here is the presentation http://sw.neurocommons.org/presentations/HarnessingSemanticWeb.pdf 14:26:28 i/My point is that it's/dbooth: ambiguity and gray area is not the primary problem w the current AWWW def of IR - the problem is it is wrong 14:27:07 rrsagent, draft minutes 14:27:07 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/04/29-awwsw-minutes.html dbooth 14:29:06 s|David, here is the presentation http://sw.neurocommons.org/presentations/HarnessingSemanticWeb.pdf|| 14:29:11 rrsagent, draft minutes 14:29:11 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/04/29-awwsw-minutes.html dbooth 14:35:33 zakim, bye 14:35:33 Zakim has left #awwsw 14:35:35 rrsagent, bye 14:35:35 I see no action items