12:53:16 RRSAgent has joined #awwsw 12:53:16 logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/07/01-awwsw-irc 12:53:20 Zakim has joined #awwsw 12:53:32 zakim, this will be awwsw 12:53:32 I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, dbooth 12:57:23 jar has joined #awwsw 12:59:29 zakim, this will be awwsw 12:59:29 I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, jar 13:00:31 jar, i've just emailed amy, but we better call her for help getting a bridge line 13:01:10 talking to ralph now 13:01:23 thanks 13:02:10 Meeting: AWWSW 13:02:48 'one moment' 13:03:51 zakim, this is awwsw 13:03:51 jar, I see TAG_(AWWSW)9:00AM in the schedule but not yet started. Perhaps you mean "this will be awwsw". 13:03:57 timbl has joined #awwsw 13:04:07 zakim. this will be awwsw 13:04:09 Zakim, what is the passcdoe? 13:04:09 I don't understand your question, timbl. 13:04:11 zakim, code? 13:04:11 sorry, dbooth, I don't know what conference this is 13:04:13 zakim, this will be awwsw 13:04:13 ok, jar; I see TAG_(AWWSW)9:00AM scheduled to start 4 minutes ago 13:04:19 zakim, code? 13:04:19 the conference code is 29979 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), dbooth 13:04:24 zakim, this is awwsw 13:04:24 jar, I see TAG_(AWWSW)9:00AM in the schedule but not yet started. Perhaps you mean "this will be awwsw". 13:04:39 TAG_(AWWSW)9:00AM has now started 13:04:45 +DBooth 13:04:49 dialing in now 13:05:22 + +1.617.253.aaaa 13:05:26 +TimBL 13:05:45 zakim, aaaa is jar 13:05:45 +jar; got it 13:06:32 topic: http://esw.w3.org/topic/AwwswJarNotes20080630 13:07:07 dbooth has changed the topic to: http://esw.w3.org/topic/AwwswJarNotes20080630 13:09:31 +??P3 13:12:56 Stuart has joined #awwsw 13:13:01 zakim, ? is stuart 13:13:01 +stuart; got it 13:13:34 zakim, who is on the phone? 13:13:34 On the phone I see DBooth, jar, TimBL, stuart 13:14:51 jar: (Gives tim an update on discussion for the past few weeks.) 13:16:59 timbl: Lots of people see a diff btwn IR and representation over HTTP. 13:17:18 jar: Alan's view seems to be a sequence of bits w mime type, varying over time. 13:17:35 alan would like to rule out content negotiation 13:18:13 tim: we can argue over whehter IR fundamentally *is* a mapping or *has* a mapping, but that doesn't answer how the web works. To me writing rules like david has been writing, that's valuable, because it can be used in software. 13:18:51 jar: It's one thing to say what triples tabulator should assert, and much harder to say what is an IR, but I'm trying to look in the middle: when is an RDF graph consistent w server behavior? 13:19:39 ... e.g., you've asserted that 3 is not an IR. So if I have a URI that denotes 3, we want that to be indicated as disjoint from IR. 13:19:55 ... So we want to know not only what is an IR but what is *not* an IR. 13:20:50 ... But the AWWW doesn't give enough guidance to know whwther 3 could be an IR. 13:22:23 timbl: 3 is not an IR is more a statement of programming language types 13:22:30 timbl: We're not doing physics, we're doing engineering. One could design a system in which 3 is an IR. You can write a programming language in which numbers are strings ... it's a question of design. 13:23:12 ... Could you consider 3 to be a document in which the value is 3? You could do that, and it's not fundamentally inconsistent, but it's more complicated to program, more difficult to think about, etc. 13:23:32 jar: who makes those decisions? You, me, Xiaou Shu? 13:24:00 ... Those decisions need to be articulated in a waht that lets me know what to do. 13:24:10 timbl: an ontology should be grounded in code 13:24:17 timbl: We're going in the right direction by writing an ont and rules. 13:24:41 ... But I don't expect to complete the sentence: "An IR is a ____" 13:25:24 jar: Yes, you want things to be grounded in code, but the code doesn't know what to do with things it hasn't seen before. E.g., is pamphlet an IR? 13:25:34 timbl: That's why we generate an ont. 13:25:59 jar: We cannot enumerate every possible thing that isn't an IR. 13:26:06 ... We don 13:26:27 ... We don't want an engineer down the road to be surprised by timbl saying "3 is not an IR". 13:27:09 timbl: Why do you need to enumerate them all? We build a system, and people connect it up. 13:27:51 ... and we say "IR is not a physical object", but we don't have to provide something that will answer every question involving IR. That would take an infinite amount of time. 13:28:22 jar: someone trying to connect another ont to this system, it seems useful to have some sort of guidance. 13:28:59 timbl: i think the second gen of people using SW tech will not argue about it. They'll know what would happen if they did -- they've internalized it. 13:30:12 ... When you first introduce OO programming it is strange, but the next time it comes easily. people won't keep going back to fundamentals. 13:30:36 ... Because there will be such a mesh of people with such a large amount of understanding about it that they can ask around the corner. 13:31:38 ... You should write something down, but you should have limited expectations about that. If we write it for a general audience and then someone comes back saying "that doesn't help me", and we would have to write something different for that person, or sit them down with lots of beers,e tc. 13:32:19 jar: there are various entities that i'll have to deal with, and there may be millions of edge cases. And without clearer guidance I'll have to do 303s which seems unfortunate. 13:33:32 timbl: If you're building an ont of works and concepts, there may be lots of ways you can go, you're doing engineering not physics. Deciding whehter something is an IR is deciding whether you want someone to be able to read it. 13:33:59 jar: But it's a decision I'm not free to make, because when i think something is an IR, you come and say it is not. 13:34:25 ... Suppose i want to give a URI to the meaning of a fragement of a doc, or for a representation. Things that are arbitrarily close to the border between IR and non-IR. 13:34:51 timbl: If you take apart the software system, most of the things a C program talks about are not files. 13:35:35 jar: People like to do URIs with 200 responses for all sorts of things, adn I cannot tell ahead of time whether they are IRs. 13:36:05 timbl: If you want to model a blog, you'll have a much more fine grained ont than the average person. 13:36:07 timbl: if you want to model a blog, you have a more fine grained ontology than the ordinary person 13:36:28 ... But if you ask serious bloggers, they'll say the blog is the whole conceptual thing. 13:36:43 jar: But i'm asking what i can use the URI for? 13:37:28 dbooth: but a journal article is close to an IR too 13:38:51 timbl: if you go to the handle system, the 200 you get back is not always the article 13:38:52 timbl: journal article is an IR, it's got meaning 13:39:24 Try: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cpe.1238 13:39:25 ... but if you go to the publisher you'll likely get a 303 because they want to treat it as an abstract object. 13:39:46 timbl: a journal article is inherently an IR 13:40:03 http://example.com/fred/myarticleinccvm.ps 13:40:18 dbooth: so it sounds like you're saying that a journal article can *also* be something more than an IR. 13:40:44 http://publisher.example.com/journals/cacm/234/45 13:41:46 timbl: the abovenamed thing may be the same work as ... 13:41:46 q? 13:41:55 Try a concrete (DOI) example... http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cpe.1238 13:44:03 dbooth: So an IR is permitted to have *some* additional properties, but not others. 13:45:55 timbl: On this call i want to write an ont, not prose about what IR is. 13:46:08 ... e.g., IR is disjoint with RDF literals. 13:47:36 ... Because there is no single upper ont that everyone has bought into, then the first thing we'll discuss is whether an IR can be a sign, then a huge discussion will ensue about what we mean by "sign". 13:48:21 ... So I'm wary about simply giving a definition of IR. I don't think we can give a decision algorithm. 13:52:31 jar: Alan recently brought up a nasty issue about URIs. 13:52:59 timbl: The TAG wrote about that earlier. We called it a URI ladder. 13:53:21 Alan's issue on URIs: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-awwsw/2008Jun/0019.html 13:55:08 http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3986.txt section 6, 6.1 and 6.2 13:59:34 dbooth has joined #awwsw 14:00:16 dbooth: The problem i see with trying to prohibit a resource from being both an IR and a Person is that that is architecturally no different than trying to prohibit a resource AKT from being both AKT1 and AKT2, i.e., the resource can simultaneously have properties of both AKT1 and AKT2 or both IR and Person. 14:01:39 -TimBL 14:01:40 -stuart 14:02:19 -jar 14:02:31 rrsagent, draft minutes 14:02:31 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/07/01-awwsw-minutes.html dbooth 14:02:40 rrsagent, make logs public 14:03:09 -DBooth 14:03:10 TAG_(AWWSW)9:00AM has ended 14:03:11 Attendees were DBooth, +1.617.253.aaaa, TimBL, jar, stuart 14:03:33 Present: TimBL, JonathanRees, DBooth, StuartWilliams 14:03:40 Chair: Jonathan (jar) 14:03:52 Regrets: Noah 14:06:07 Stuart has left #awwsw 14:07:22 timbl: But the ont can specify IR such that it is disjoint from physical things. 14:08:59 dbooth: Yes it can, but what is the architectural justification for excluding some things and not others? 14:09:07 [ ran out of time ] 14:09:16 ADJOURNED 14:09:28 rrsagent, draft minutes 14:09:28 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/07/01-awwsw-minutes.html dbooth 14:33:40 jar has joined #awwsw 15:54:01 Zakim has left #awwsw 17:07:52 timbl has left #awwsw