12:59:13 RRSAgent has joined #awwsw 12:59:13 logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/05/27-awwsw-irc 12:59:20 zakim, bye 12:59:20 Zakim has left #awwsw 12:59:24 Zakim has joined #awwsw 12:59:34 zakim, this will be awwsw 12:59:34 ok, dbooth, I see TAG_(AWWSW)9:00AM already started 13:00:38 zakim, code? 13:00:38 the conference code is 29979 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), dbooth 13:00:46 +DBooth 13:04:08 +Alan 13:05:10 alanr has joined #awwsw 13:05:32 alanr has left #awwsw 13:05:54 alanr_ has joined #awwsw 13:07:20 +??P0 13:08:03 Stuart has joined #awwsw 13:11:13 Meeting: AWWSW 13:11:20 Chair: Jonathan Rees (jar) 13:11:34 Present: Stuart, David, Alan, Jonathan 13:12:41 http://www3.isrl.uiuc.edu/~junwang4/langev/localcopy/pdf/hurd95communicationGame.pdf 13:12:55 Draft of my versioning memo: http://sw.neurocommons.org/tmp/versioning.txt 13:13:41 http://www.frbr.org/ 13:13:55 Topic: FRBR 13:14:09 FRBR: http://www.ifla.org/VII/s13/frbr/frbr.pdf 13:14:23 s/FRBR/FRBR document/ 13:16:38 Alan: An Entity is an instance of a Manifestation class. 13:16:52 jar: All the exemplars of a Manifestation have the same bits. 13:17:38 (looking at diagram on page 13) 13:18:09 jar: I would draw another arc to "PhsycalBitString". 13:18:54 Alan: Two different printings with different covers would be different Manifestations. 13:19:14 no, to bit string. the item is the physical thing 13:20:04 Stuart: What if it were a play? 13:21:48 Alan: You have an idea for a story, Romeo and Juliet, independent of language. Then an expression is a performance of it, such as the author writing a version of it or some people playing it out. The manifestation is something like the recording of it -- video or sound recording, or a book. Then the Item is a CD or a physical book. 13:22:03 s/Entity/Item/ 13:22:11 jar: What if it's PDF? 13:23:41 Alan: With a lithograph, there are slight differences between each physical book, but not with a PDF. 13:25:11 David: With a PDF, there doesnt' seem much difference between Manifestation and Item. 13:25:41 ACTION: Alan to prepare material on generically dependent continuum for next meeting 13:25:41 Created ACTION-5 - Prepare material on generically dependent continuum for next meeting [on Alan Ruttenberg - due 2008-06-03]. 13:25:42 generically dependent continuant -- from BFO 13:25:56 s/continuum/continuant/ 13:26:38 Alan: IEO = Information Entity Ontology 13:26:47 digital entity and non realizable information entity 13:26:54 basic formal ontology 13:27:01 http://ifomis.org/bfo 13:27:02 that was DENRIE 13:27:15 s/basic formal ontology/BFO = basic formal ontology/ 13:27:20 http://www.ifomis.org/bfo/1.0 13:27:40 Alan: What about FRBR? 13:27:48 http://ashby.csail.mit.edu//presentations/DenrieReport.pdf 13:28:45 jar: People make names or catalog numbers for things and then they talk about them. If you look at FRBR, they dont' say whether they are classes or instances, but we talk about them adn there's somem world view, and I'm trying to come up w a method that allows any such world view to align w web semantics. 13:28:53 -Alan 13:29:49 ... That's the acid test for a theory of a web semantics: can it integrate someone else's view? Suppose Work is a class and Tim's IR is a class. Is Work a subclass of IR? You'd want to be able to answer that to know. Web semantics isn't a semantics unless you're on the road to being able to answer that. 13:29:54 dropped. calling back in 13:30:03 http://neurocommons.org/page/Information_Entity_Ontology 13:30:22 +Alan 13:30:22 Stuart: I wonder if there are things that are IR that are Works, but perhaps not all IRs are Works. 13:31:38 David: I think the question is the wrong way around. 13:31:54 dbooth: semantic web arch is a model. you have a choice as to how you cast things into it. 13:32:32 dbooth: not a question of is or isn't it an information resource, but how one chooses to make the correspondence 13:33:14 dbooth: the owner of the uri gets to choose ... 13:34:22 dbooth: question of work vs. nonwork is independent of IR vs. non-IR 13:36:11 jar: what is not an information resource? 13:36:49 I think that things that have mass are not information resources. 13:38:27 dbooth: an IR is a function 13:39:24 jar: IR's don't have mass. maybe we can agree on that. 13:39:56 jar: boothian IRs don't have mass. good. 13:40:16 FWIW: I think Roy's model is a model of the operation of Web Infrastructure in respect of an Information Resource - ie. the mechanism by which an IR is inspected by a GET operation and reported on in the form of a awww:representation. 13:43:57 ie. modeling an IR as a function from time to sets of awww:representations isn't saying that an IR *is* such a function, but that a way of modeling a view of a resource as presented by web infrastructure in the form of awww:representations is as such a function. 13:44:39 dbooth: work vs. IR (function) would be a pun 13:45:30 jar... I wonder if it would be useful to run through the Journal Publication example in 1) FRBR and 2) as web resources 13:45:50 worms r us 13:45:59 dbooth: punning is inevitable 13:46:28 ir = work, representation = expression? 13:46:44 journal article = expression 13:47:07 bound in a magazine = manifestation (each is an item) 13:47:15 dbooth: Punning is undesirable but inevitable, because it is always possible to come up with a finer identity distinction. 13:47:15 dbooth: undesirable but inevitable, because it's always possible, and sometimes necessary, to make finer distinctions 13:47:31 jar... what is the thing in what you are discussing that motivates a possible change in URI? 13:48:27 scenario: a FRBR adherent defines U to be a FRBR Work. 13:48:35 that was 1. 13:49:02 2. they publish the work (or manifestation of it) on the web at U, with 200 response 13:49:20 3. apply for a $1M grant which is contingent on adhering to web architecture 13:49:27 question: do they have mint new URIs? 13:50:02 s/have/have to/ 13:50:22 stuart: answer might depend on what exactly they think U identifies 13:50:43 stuart: the Work is abstract, and doesn't have representations 13:50:48 Stuart: I think they don't necessarily have to change their URIs. It may depend on whether they think they are identifying a Work or Manifestation. They're clean if they thinnk they're publishing a URI of a Manifestation of a Work. 13:51:21 stuart: it's not a concrete document as such... 13:51:31 alanr: compare to Tim's bylaws example 13:51:57 Alan: Tim say a generic document is like the by-laws of an org, and a representation is like a PDF. 13:52:23 stuart: generic documents - you end up with a pdf or html - you also get an alternate URI that is more specific 13:52:41 alanr: is moby dick not a generic document? 13:54:31 (jar needs to leave) 13:55:05 Dbooth: My answer is partially written up here: http://dbooth.org/2007/splitting/#httpRange-14 13:55:54 I.5a: Implement FRBR concepts to present related works hierarchically, pulling together all records related to a particular work (e.g., Moby Dick), diverse expressions of that work (e.g., translations into German, Japanese and other languages), different versions of the same basic text (e.g., the Modern Library Classics vs. Penguin editions), and particular items (a copy of Moby Dick on the shelf). 13:56:07 from http://www.frbr.org/2006/01/24/rethink 13:57:04 jar will probably say: no one except web arch geeks *want* to talk about boothian function/IRs. so no classes of things that anyone wants to talk about will ever intersection function/IR. ergo no one will ever want to use 200-responding URIs to name anything that they want to talk about. 13:57:29 -Jonathan_Rees 14:03:22 The intention of webarchitecture is that a given URI consistently refer to the same thing. 14:08:16 The harder part is say with precision what think that is - which I think is Pat's principle point. 14:08:31 s/say/saying/ 14:12:17 -??P0 14:15:50 -Alan 14:15:51 TAG_(AWWSW)9:00AM has ended 14:15:52 Attendees were Jonathan_Rees, DBooth, Alan 14:23:19 s/think/thing/ 14:23:22 dbooth: The basic idea in http://dbooth.org/2007/splitting/ is to show how to deal with situations in which a URI is minted and it later turns out that that URI is ambiguous. For example, a URI for AKT is minted as an instance, and it later turns out that there are three distinct things AKT1, AKT2 and AKT3. Architecturally, this is no different than when Mark Baker uses the same URI to denote himself and his web site. Hence, "the use of a URI to directly d 14:23:22 enote both an information resource and a non-information resource should be viewed as a violation of good practice, but not a violation of Web architecture". 14:26:00 s/I thing/I think/ 14:26:07 s/what think/what thing/ 14:26:26 rrsagent, draft minutes 14:26:26 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/05/27-awwsw-minutes.html dbooth 14:26:38 rrsagent, make logs public 14:27:00 rrsagent, draft minutes 14:27:00 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/05/27-awwsw-minutes.html dbooth 14:45:23 zakim, bye 14:45:23 Zakim has left #awwsw 14:45:29 rrsagent, bye 14:45:29 I see 1 open action item saved in http://www.w3.org/2008/05/27-awwsw-actions.rdf : 14:45:29 ACTION: Alan to prepare material on generically dependent continuum for next meeting [1] 14:45:29 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/05/27-awwsw-irc#T13-25-41