14:04:17 RRSAgent has joined #awwsw 14:04:17 logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/11/11-awwsw-irc 14:04:49 zakim, this is awwsw 14:04:49 ok, dbooth; that matches TAG_(AWWSW)9:00AM 14:04:55 zakim, ? is dbooth 14:04:55 +dbooth; got it 14:05:06 zakim, who is here 14:05:06 dbooth, you need to end that query with '?' 14:05:12 zakim, who is here? 14:05:12 On the phone I see +1.617.538.aaaa, dbooth 14:05:13 On IRC I see RRSAgent, Zakim, dbooth, trackbot 14:05:30 zakim, aaaa is jar 14:05:30 +jar; got it 14:06:05 +Jonathan_Rees 14:06:09 -jar 14:06:53 jar has joined #awwsw 14:07:07 alanr has joined #awwsw 14:07:16 happening? 14:07:44 maybe. waiting for harry. everything hinges on harry 14:07:47 davidb is here 14:08:21 ok. Not sure how much I can be there as I'm heading to dr. but we'll see 14:09:40 silent for now. we'll give ia few more minutes. david didn't want to just stare at rfc2616 as i suggested, which is reasonable... 14:09:50 :) 14:09:55 what are you looking for? 14:10:17 but my idea was that if we're not doing any work outside of calls, we should at least do work during the time reserved for the call 14:16:03 alanr, david and I are both looking at rfc2616 14:16:27 to what end? 14:17:54 looking for classes and relations. remember the idea was to have on hand, for reference at least, an ontology (or rdfs) that captured important aspects of rfc2616 14:17:57 dbooth: Actually, it isn't that i don't want to stare at 2616 -- i think that is a good suggestion -- my suggestion of canceling today was made before I saw jar's agenda suggestion, when i was feeling guilty of not personally making any progress since the last call. :( 14:18:42 with an eye to superclasses and superproperties, etc 14:19:12 or else a refutation of the idea that you can derive an ontology from rfc2616 14:19:53 i think you should be able to do an rdf schema, but rfc2616 is not meant as, and shouldn't be taken to direct, any ontology 14:20:15 because it's a software thing, not a philosophical thing 14:21:03 software things are in the realm of the IAO, so I'm not sure that would be justification. 14:21:48 and rdf schema has exactly the same sort of semantics as OWL, just a different selection wrt to expressivity 14:22:25 no, by "software thing" I mean a formalism drawn without any interest in truth or real world denotation, but only with regard to effect. That is, things are not what they seem 14:23:32 an rfc2616 entity is an information artifact - that's fine. but what does it mean? that's outside the scope of rfc2616. 14:23:45 or a better example might be content negotiation 14:24:15 content negotiation is a process 14:24:23 content negotiation is a mechanism, the syntactic form of which is given. but what governs its correctness? nothing really (in rfc2616) 14:24:44 information artifacts are the results of decisions by sentients 14:25:02 if cn can't be represented in IAO it will have failed 14:25:11 so the statement "x is a representation of y" is not falsifiable under the terms of rfc2616. it's up to the server, and there's no way the server can be wrong - what it says goes. 14:25:19 not that I'm volunteering at the moment 14:25:21 unless you look at awww, which is not rfc2616. 14:26:05 (that's "falsifiable" in the Popper sense, David) 14:26:22 that's a bug 14:27:06 i'm not sure. the protocol is all syntax, and almost no semantics. what semantics there is is all in the caching arena. 14:27:21 a book on english grammar isn't obligated to tell you what sentences mean 14:27:36 so i don't think it's a bug. in any case it doesn't matter whether it's a bug or not 14:27:53 What is "IAO"? 14:28:00 information artifact ontology 14:28:01 information artifact ontology 14:28:11 thanks 14:28:58 http://groups.google.com/group/information-ontology 14:29:11 I'm not convinced that non-falsifiability is a bug. 14:29:21 "Popper sense"? 14:29:26 right that's what I was saying 14:29:31 hang on i'll get you a url 14:30:05 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability (surprise) 14:30:30 in any case all that means is either a) that in the description of the process, there is some process where the output is always labeled a "representation". or b) "representation" is effectively a synonym for whatever the class of things that happens to allowable outputs of the process. 14:30:33 actually i think 'refutable' might work better for audiences who don't know about Popper. what do you think? 14:30:42 so IAO is for things like journal articles? 14:30:49 yes 14:30:54 good 14:31:04 sounds quite useful 14:31:09 http://neurocommons.org/page/Information_Artifact_Ontology 14:31:18 although the current focus is on what happens in a lab - measurements and so on 14:31:23 http://groups.google.com/group/information-ontology 14:31:51 current, yes. But we also have narrative object in there. 14:32:53 well i think we need to distinguish carefully between an rfc2616-representation and an awww-representation, because they are different classes (or roles). 14:33:37 Me browsing through http://neurocommons.org/page/Information_Artifact_Ontology -- looks like nice work! 14:33:37 representation = "entity subject to content negotiation"... this is so vague as to be useless. 14:33:56 the work has barely begun. it is very difficult. 14:34:23 alright - then representation is used as a name for the class of things that are part of that process. 14:34:31 that class is presumable otherwise constrained. 14:34:43 collecting requirements, jar? 14:35:21 yes. this stance (what alanr just said) is what we need to capture (assuming we want to take on the task of accounting for rfc2616) 14:36:23 jar, i agree with "well i think we need to distinguish carefully between an rfc2616-representation and an awww-representation, because they are different classes (or roles)." 14:37:01 requirements... ok, not sure where to put it 14:37:38 new wiki page i guess 14:37:39 i don't have a requirement to suggest, i was just asking where you are in the work. 14:37:50 ... the IAO work, that is. 14:38:08 oh. 14:38:34 i think everything there is to know is on that wiki page and in the archives of the google group 14:38:50 ok 14:38:51 i'm not taking any management role. not sure who is, maybe alan 14:39:52 well on first glance it looks like a great start. Probably just needs white knight to swoop in and do a lot of work. ;) 14:40:08 Barry and I 14:40:23 the effort is heavily BFO-oriented so may not be to everyone's taste (I often wonder if BFO is worth it) 14:40:35 BFO? 14:40:53 google it 14:41:29 Basic Formal Ontology 14:55:35 http://esw.w3.org/topic/AwwswRfc2616 14:59:38 refresh 15:00:25 -dbooth 15:14:21 rrsagent, make logs public 15:14:29 rrsagent, draft minutes 15:14:29 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/11/11-awwsw-minutes.html jar 15:27:47 rrsagent, pointer 15:27:47 See http://www.w3.org/2008/11/11-awwsw-irc#T15-27-47 15:35:00 disconnecting the lone participant, Jonathan_Rees, in TAG_(AWWSW)9:00AM 15:35:03 TAG_(AWWSW)9:00AM has ended 15:35:05 Attendees were +1.617.538.aaaa, dbooth, jar, Jonathan_Rees 15:35:29 alanr has joined #awwsw 16:34:40 Zakim has left #awwsw