IRC log of tagmem on 2008-12-11

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:16:54 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #tagmem
14:16:54 [RRSAgent]
logging to
14:17:07 [ht]
Meeting: TAG f2f, Thursday morning
14:17:20 [ht]
ScribeNick: ht
14:17:26 [ht]
Scribe: Henry S. Thompson
14:17:39 [ht]
Chair: Stuart Williams
14:17:50 [ht]
14:19:09 [DanC_lap]
DanC_lap has joined #tagmem
14:19:21 [DanC_lap]
Zakim, agenda?
14:19:21 [Zakim]
I see 1 item remaining on the agenda:
14:19:22 [Zakim]
4. URNsAndRegistries-50 (ISSUE-50) [from DanC_lap]
14:19:55 [DanC_lap]
agenda + dummy 5
14:19:59 [DanC_lap]
agenda + dummy 6
14:20:11 [DanC_lap]
agenda + uriBasedPackageAccess-61 (ISSUE-61)
14:20:19 [DanC_lap]
agenda + Self Describing Web
14:20:41 [DanC_lap]
agenda + tagSoupIntegration-54 (ISSUE-54)
14:21:16 [DanC_lap]
agenda + AWWSW update (action-201 on issue-57)
14:21:25 [DanC_lap]
Zakim, agenda?
14:21:25 [Zakim]
I see 7 items remaining on the agenda:
14:21:26 [Zakim]
4. URNsAndRegistries-50 (ISSUE-50) [from DanC_lap]
14:21:27 [Zakim]
5. dummy 5 [from DanC_lap]
14:21:27 [Zakim]
6. dummy 6 [from DanC_lap]
14:21:29 [Zakim]
7. uriBasedPackageAccess-61 (ISSUE-61) [from DanC_lap]
14:21:30 [Zakim]
8. Self Describing Web [from DanC_lap]
14:21:31 [Zakim]
9. tagSoupIntegration-54 (ISSUE-54) [from DanC_lap]
14:21:32 [Zakim]
10. AWWSW update (action-201 on issue-57) [from DanC_lap]
14:22:36 [DanC_lap]
close item 4
14:22:39 [DanC_lap]
item -5
14:22:43 [DanC_lap]
agenda -5
14:22:45 [DanC_lap]
agenda -6
14:22:47 [DanC_lap]
Zakim, agenda?
14:22:47 [Zakim]
I see 4 items remaining on the agenda:
14:22:48 [Zakim]
7. uriBasedPackageAccess-61 (ISSUE-61) [from DanC_lap]
14:22:49 [Zakim]
8. Self Describing Web [from DanC_lap]
14:22:51 [Zakim]
9. tagSoupIntegration-54 (ISSUE-54) [from DanC_lap]
14:22:52 [noah]
noah has joined #tagmem
14:22:52 [Zakim]
10. AWWSW update (action-201 on issue-57) [from DanC_lap]
14:22:57 [DanC_lap]
14:22:58 [DanC_lap]
14:23:00 [DanC_lap]
Zakim, agenda?
14:23:00 [Zakim]
I see 4 items remaining on the agenda:
14:23:01 [Zakim]
7. uriBasedPackageAccess-61 (ISSUE-61) [from DanC_lap]
14:23:02 [Zakim]
8. Self Describing Web [from DanC_lap]
14:23:03 [Zakim]
9. tagSoupIntegration-54 (ISSUE-54) [from DanC_lap]
14:23:04 [Zakim]
10. AWWSW update (action-201 on issue-57) [from DanC_lap]
14:24:05 [DanC_lap]
Zakim, close item 7
14:24:05 [Zakim]
agendum 7, uriBasedPackageAccess-61 (ISSUE-61), closed
14:24:06 [Zakim]
I see 3 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
14:24:07 [Zakim]
8. Self Describing Web [from DanC_lap]
14:24:50 [ht]
Topic: Widget packaging reprise
14:24:52 [jar]
jar has joined #tagmem
14:25:41 [ht]
Action: Stuart to query WebApps whether external access to widgets via URIs is ever expected
14:25:41 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-206 - Query WebApps whether external access to widgets via URIs is ever expected [on Stuart Williams - due 2008-12-18].
14:26:39 [ht]
zakim, take up agendum 8
14:26:39 [Zakim]
agendum 8. "Self Describing Web" taken up [from DanC_lap]
14:28:52 [ht]
NM: [reviews the review history]
14:29:09 [ht]
NM: TBL suggested using the notion of "grounded in the Web"
14:29:20 [ht]
... I've attempted to include that in this draft
14:29:44 [DanC_lap]
-> 3 Dec cover note for Self-Describing Web draft
14:30:10 [ht]
NM: So where do we go with this?
14:31:03 [ht]
DC: Take some time to read it?
14:33:42 [DanC_lap]
struggling to read, in the abstract: "each representation is provided explicitly within the representation"
14:39:38 [DanC_lap]
hmm... this seems to start at the wrong end: "Even though this document is of media type application/xhtml+xml [XHTMLMediaType], which is not a member of the RDF family of media types, an RDFa-enabled user agent can extract RDF from this document."
14:41:01 [DanC_lap]
but the right story is told in a para below ("So, taken together, these specifications...") so it's not a critical problem.
14:44:02 [DanC_lap]
I was reading too fast in the abstract. never mind.
14:45:30 [Stuart]
Stuart has joined #tagmem
14:50:03 [ht]
DC: Starting with RDFa example - HST, are you satisified that NM's new approach is complete wrt the chain ?
14:51:24 [DanC_lap]
- 5.1 Using RDFa To Produce Self-describing HTML
14:51:32 [ht]
HST: That paragraph (at the end of section 5.1) looks good to me
14:51:43 [ht]
... I would like to check the xhtml namespace doc't one more time. .. .
14:51:57 [timbl]
14:52:57 [Stuart]
minor editorial, but suggest that "...use of XHTML with RDFa" should be the other way around "...use of RDFa with XHTML"
14:53:11 [ht]
HST has checked the NS document, and it looks OK as it is at the moment
14:53:36 [ht]
JR: The mutability of that doct is a bit worrying
14:54:22 [ht]
TBL: The HTML WG works on behalf of the community, and will only make changes which benefit the Web community
14:54:33 [ht]
JR: But there is no explicit change policy in that document. . .
14:54:40 [ht]
TBL: That would be a good idea
14:54:47 [DanC_lap]
(I think JR asked rather than stating, but ok)
14:55:16 [ht]
DC: So, we're happy with the new work in 5.1
14:55:31 [DanC_lap]
-> 3 Dec cover note for Self-Describing Web draft
14:55:47 [jar]
I don't think any reasonable person will be misled into thinking the namespace doc is either less stable or more stable than it is.
14:56:09 [ht]
DC: Moving on to section 6, Grounded in the Web
14:56:54 [ht]
TBL: I like the basic exposition in section 6
14:57:01 [ht]
... There's an error in the Abstract
14:57:06 [ht]
DC: Push that as editorial
14:58:03 [timbl]
Insert "We say the resource is grounded in the Web"
14:58:05 [ht]
TBL: Before 'web grounding reduces ambiguity',
14:59:03 [ht]
TBL: Turning to section 6
14:59:44 [ht]
... last para in 6.0, first sentence, should say documents not representations
14:59:48 [timbl]
In last para of 6.0
14:59:57 [ht]
HST: There's a terminological discussion we need to have of wider scope
14:59:59 [DanC_lap]
(I think 6.1 Grounding New Specifications in the Web is good)
14:59:59 [timbl]
s/Representations/Documents/ in first line
15:00:35 [timbl]
s/represnentation documents/documents/ in te middle
15:01:00 [timbl]
6.1 bullet 1
15:01:01 [ht]
TBL: 6.1, bullet 1
15:01:38 [ht]
... wrt registries, make this "Currently, these are the ones we know of"
15:02:02 [ht]
... And that there a costs to the community to maintain these
15:02:32 [DanC_lap]
(this seems like a request for emphasis, hence editorial, but tim introduced it as substantive. hmm.)
15:02:44 [ht]
... and the cost to the developer to getting through the process
15:03:02 [ht]
HST: Balanced by the benefit to the community of the review which is part of that process
15:03:30 [ht]
TBL: Use of the word 'core', i.e. the core specifications of the Web
15:03:37 [ht]
... needs a subsection
15:03:43 [ht]
NM: 4.1 is that subsection
15:04:01 [ht]
TBL: The core is the bootstrap set
15:04:24 [ht]
NM: Correction, it's in 2, last paragraph
15:04:34 [ht]
TBL: That's not the point
15:05:01 [ht]
... When you talk about an engineer, you say that the URI spec is the only thing they need _a priori_
15:05:24 [ht]
... but turning to a machine we need more, maybe
15:05:56 [ht]
... Things are different depending on whether or not the machine has GRDDL, or has RDFa, capability
15:06:33 [ht]
NM: Actual automatic nose-following takes us further than I was planning to go
15:08:21 [ht]
HST: I think anf is out of scope for this document
15:08:24 [timbl]
q+ to say that the sepc should point out at the end of the RDFa section "and so the data in te document is uncovered automatically by any client for whom RDFa is in the core spec set supported" and same for s/RDFa/GRDDL/
15:08:43 [ht]
DC, TBL, NM: yes it is, it's what 5 is about
15:09:53 [DanC_lap]
(aha... there's "nose following" and "automatic nose following". ok, the automatic version is something I'm happy to leave out)
15:11:09 [ht]
HST: OK, we're in the agreement that anf, that is, machines finding machine-interpretable information about how to _implement_ e.g. GRDDL, is out of scope
15:11:35 [ht]
TBL: But it _is_ in scope to say that a (SemWeb) core-aware agent must understand GRDDL
15:11:49 [ht]
NM, TBL: discussion about two uses of word 'core'
15:11:56 [jar]
15:12:19 [ht]
TBL: Last para of 5.1
15:12:57 [ht]
This shows that the specs are all tied together adequately _for humans_
15:13:06 [ht]
s/This/... This/
15:13:29 [ht]
... Now consider what a _machine_ needs to tie this all together
15:14:09 [ht]
... I don't see a comparable crisp statement for machines to what you have in 5.1 for people
15:14:16 [ht]
NM: 5.2 does this
15:14:44 [ht]
TBL: I think it needs to be more explicit about exactly what's involved: HTTP, HTML, XML, ...
15:15:24 [DanC_lap]
q+ to ask tim if he has ever drafted his own answer to his request
15:15:25 [ht]
NM: So I missed another level of abstraction: packages of core software/suites which given communities buy into
15:15:30 [DanC_lap]
ack timbl
15:15:30 [Zakim]
timbl, you wanted to say that the sepc should point out at the end of the RDFa section "and so the data in te document is uncovered automatically by any client for whom RDFa is in
15:15:33 [Zakim]
... the core spec set supported" and same for s/RDFa/GRDDL/
15:16:08 [ht]
NM: I.e. there's a community on the web which agrees a set of software that they will use
15:17:13 [ht]
HST: I like this story because there's a non-semweb parallel, i.e. xml-stylesheet, XML, XSLT, HTML -- specs on the one hand and software on the other
15:17:19 [DanC_lap]
(3 ppl just agreed on something...)
15:17:34 [ht]
NM: OK, I can do that
15:17:40 [ht]
TBL: Crisper
15:17:45 [ht]
NM: What terminology?
15:17:57 [ht]
TBL: 'Client technology', maybe
15:20:34 [jar]
q+ jar to talk about status of 'semantic web' in this doc
15:20:36 [ht]
HST: Crisper means we have in 5.1 a short characterisation of the registry story, and a concluding demonstration of how this works for the RDFa case _for people_
15:22:27 [ht]
... Doing the same for what we're talking about is a brief intro to the idea of Client Technologies which match the spec. sets, tied together the way the registries say they should be, and for RDFa a specific example of what the specific CTs are
15:23:13 [ht]
TBL: We have the basic stuff written 'by sweaty hands': uri, xml, rdb/xml, http, GRDDL
15:23:34 [ht]
... then above there it's _very_ different, then things _can_ happen automatically
15:24:13 [ht]
... The line above the must-be-built-in bit is really important
15:25:03 [ht]
... So e.g. and RDFa/XSLT stylesheet is not below the line, and the triples it builds likewise
15:25:08 [Stuart]
15:25:14 [ht]
s/and RDFa/an RDFa/
15:25:33 [Norm]
Norm has joined #tagmem
15:26:42 [ht]
TBL: There are two stories that could be told here
15:27:05 [ht]
... What do we say to people that they should implement: GRDDL or RDFa as such?
15:27:16 [DanC_lap]
(break now? advice in irc, anyone?)
15:28:19 [ht]
[NM, TBL discussion, scribe didn't follow]
15:28:20 [DanC_lap]
ack jar
15:28:20 [Zakim]
jar, you wanted to talk about status of 'semantic web' in this doc
15:29:03 [ht]
JAR: So the messaging of this doc't is important, and there's a lot I agree about here
15:29:40 [ht]
... I feel like the semantic web is balkanised
15:29:53 [ht]
... Look just before 5.1
15:30:06 [DanC_lap]
"Because its model is uniform, because all of its self-description is provided in the same model as the data itself, and because all RDF information is linked into the Web as a whole, RDF provides uniquely powerful facilities for dynamic integration of a self-describing Web."
15:30:22 [ht]
JAR: That sentence should be the topic sentence for section 5
15:31:22 [ht]
... RDF is a language, it's a way to communicate -- it has a special role, alongside natural language, because we're taking steps to put RDF in a similar place
15:32:19 [ht]
... This needs to be made more forcefully--not to change the technology, but to reframe it
15:32:43 [ht]
... The words 'semantic web' shouldn't appear -- this is just the Web, getting richer
15:32:55 [ht]
NM: Well, I got asked to add it explicitly
15:33:31 [ht]
... Indeed it's not just a bump on the Web, it can talk about more than its own business
15:34:32 [ht]
TBL: So I agree with a lot, but why not use the words "Sem Web"
15:34:59 [ht]
JAR: Because it encourages the view that the SW is a ghetto -- call it RDF and the Self-Describing Web
15:35:44 [ht]
NM: But isn't this standard W3C terminology/perspective?
15:36:02 [ht]
JAR: Yes, that's my point, we should be taking a broader/more careful perspective
15:36:11 [ht]
NM: Well, there's a tension here
15:36:56 [ht]
JAR: Well, even if there were a Semantic Web, it wouldn't belong here, this isn't what this document is about
15:37:23 [ht]
... We're talking about RDF in the service of the self-describing Web -- or is it just a use case?
15:37:29 [ht]
HST: I think so
15:37:34 [ht]
JAR: Why this one?
15:37:38 [ht]
HST: He was asked to
15:37:53 [ht]
TBL: What do you mean 'if' there was a Semantic Web
15:37:57 [ht]
JAR: A long story
15:38:26 [ht]
NM: Just as the Web is part of the Internet, the SemWeb is part of the Web
15:39:06 [ht]
... buying into these specs grows the Web in a particular way
15:39:15 [ht]
DC: Break to the top of the hour
15:39:21 [ht]
NM: Are we coming back to this?
15:39:28 [ht]
DC: I think so, talk to the chair
15:40:26 [jar]
Just proposing removing the word 'semantic web' from the doc, so that RDF doesn't become balkanized. Not saying anything against it - just that RDF is stronger without the implication that the semweb is separate from the web
15:40:33 [ht]
NM: HST, please help me to ensure that the record shows what I've been asked to do
16:04:50 [htt]
htt has joined #tagmem
16:05:07 [htt]
16:05:48 [htt]
DC: I read 6.1 because it's the part I care most about
16:05:59 [htt]
... I think it says the right thing
16:06:26 [htt]
... There are two main bullet points: Use standards, and ground new specs in the Web
16:06:50 [htt]
... I hoped that we could just ship this, because those two points are now well enough made
16:07:49 [ht]
NM: are you still looking to ship, or has the discussion changed that
16:07:58 [ht]
DC: Still looking to ship
16:08:37 [DanC_lap]
16:08:50 [DanC_lap]
ack danc
16:08:50 [Zakim]
DanC_lap, you wanted to ask tim if he has ever drafted his own answer to his request
16:09:34 [ht]
DC: I asked TBL if he has ever drafted his own answer to his request, and he said no over the break
16:10:26 [ht]
HST: Five points, with some overlap: 1st Principle: resource->representation?
16:10:26 [ht]
Xref WebArch for resource/repr terminology?
16:10:26 [ht]
Use 'content' for 'resource representation' throughout?
16:10:26 [ht]
Serving xHTML as text/html is not best practice, is it?
16:10:26 [ht]
4.2.1 Atom example: but how do I know this is Atom at all?
16:10:27 [ht]
4.2.2 vCard or hCard?
16:10:28 [noah]
scribenick: noah
16:11:59 [noah]
HT: Five points are pasted above. Phrase resource representation is problematic, Tim said representation -> doc. You should either crossref Web Arch and say terms are used as in Web Arch. Either content or document would do just fine. You should not mix the two.
16:12:34 [noah]
TBL: I agree with Henry.
16:13:47 [noah]
HT: I was slightly surprised by the ATOM example. It never told me how I knew that this was ATOM at all, or that the rel attribute is a URI.
16:13:59 [Stuart]
I often finds document ambiguous as it used to refer to resource (stateful) like things and to representation (message) like things.
16:14:12 [Stuart]
I would prefer document for representation like things and content for representation like things.
16:14:36 [Stuart]
(correction) I would prefer document for resource like things and content for representation like things.
16:14:51 [noah]
NM: Would a fix just mentioning served with media type application/whatever-atom-uses do it?
16:14:52 [noah]
HT: Yes.
16:16:25 [noah]
HT: Next example was confusing because you said in 4.2.2 things about vcard and hcard is confusing.
16:16:37 [noah]
NM: I will change to say hcard spec says use class vcard.
16:16:44 [noah]
HT: That does it, thank you.
16:17:45 [noah]
HT: I'm sympathetic at the high level to saying, at a high level, in addition to "this is what a human needs", "this is what a machine needs". E.g. Client technology packages.
16:18:39 [noah]
HT: That goes a bit less far than Tim went with the above/below the line stuff. Modulo the feeling it would be better to include that, I think this does what it needs to do.
16:19:30 [noah]
HT: With respect to major question raised by Jonathan, I guess I'm content that this document does adopt the same relationships on semweb terminology that other docs do. I think surgery not worth doing.
16:21:12 [noah]
NM: Do you think doing the client technology package stuff has net cost/benefit or just benefit.
16:21:20 [noah]
HT: Cost/benefit. Do it in another round.
16:21:24 [ht]
scribenick: ht
16:22:16 [ht]
JAR: I've tried to write something which gets what I want to say carefully:
16:23:10 [ht]
... There are order 20 occurrences of "Semantic Web" in the document. I propose to wordsmith these out of existence, failing which a definition should be provided.
16:23:41 [ht]
... I think the document would not only read better but do its job better if the wordsmithing were done
16:24:47 [ht]
... Consider the last para of the introduction "how to publish self-describing Semantic Web data"
16:24:56 [ht]
TBL: What about 'linked data'?
16:25:04 [ht]
JAR: Yes, perhaps
16:25:09 [ht]
HST: Capitalised?
16:25:13 [ht]
[no reply]
16:25:34 [ht]
JAR: I think owl:sameAs is not a good example, I'll propose an alternative
16:25:50 [ht]
NM: I would be glad for help to give you an alternative
16:26:11 [ht]
s/help to give you an alternative/help with alternative examples/
16:26:45 [ht]
JAR: My concern about this is that its use of owl:sameAs is incompatible with Owl-DL
16:28:00 [ht]
JAR: Section 6, para beginning "In fact according", last sentence: I disagree with the last sentence -- a) it would be up to a court; b) I don't think the specifications get us there.
16:28:18 [ht]
... There are other explanations for how this message might have come to be sent
16:28:27 [ht]
... Which the publisher could trot out
16:29:01 [ht]
HST: I'm sympathetic, but I'd like to understand why
16:30:03 [ht]
TBL: There's an uninteresting set of objections (e.g. the spec. prose is ambiguous), but there are more interesting ones
16:30:14 [ht]
... In particular, that the publisher has asserted the claim
16:30:37 [ht]
NM: Something such as "a page with this assertion has been published on the Web"
16:30:47 [Stuart]
q+ to ask jar a question
16:30:56 [ht]
JAR: A page with the information that the senator is. . .
16:31:31 [Stuart]
q+ to ask jar which step in the chain of logic that he is not able to make.
16:31:32 [jar]
"have indeed said the senator is"
16:32:03 [jar]
"have indeed delivered the message that the senator is"
16:32:21 [noah]
how about: a document has been served including the statement "the senator..."
16:32:52 [ht]
HST: That's too weak
16:33:05 [ht]
JAR: It's true, but it's too legalistic
16:33:27 [noah]
scribenick: noah
16:33:38 [timbl]
"Whatever the other legal arguments about the case, the interpretation of the document cannot be disputed"
16:34:06 [timbl]
"Whatever the other legal arguments about the case, the interpretation of the document is well defined"
16:34:43 [noah]
DC: OK, we aren't closing on resolving this.
16:34:48 [noah]
DC: Ashok?
16:35:25 [noah]
DC: Jonathan, what's your net?
16:36:07 [noah]
JR: The things I'd have trouble signing up to here are fairly small. We could add things, but probably better to get it out.
16:38:49 [noah]
AM: In section 5.1 that starts "With luck,..." What's luck got to do with it? I think you want to say to "here's what you do"
16:39:12 [noah]
NM: But, however we say it, what you get back may not helpful.
16:39:15 [DanC_lap]
("With luck," appeals to me)
16:39:18 [noah]
AM: I think you should spell it out.
16:39:29 [noah]
DC: Not too sympathetic to the comment.
16:39:42 [jar]
I may not have been clear earlier... my problem with the "according to the pertinent specifications" sentence is one of attribution and context - is it the publisher who is saying this, or someone else? Is this an old archived piece of writing, or something they still believe now?
16:40:14 [noah]
NM: Are we going to resolve?
16:40:18 [noah]
DC: Maybe later, not now.
16:41:03 [noah]
AM: Regarding the example in 6. We have spoken about it. I like Tim's sentence start "Whatever the other legal arguments about the case, t"
16:41:05 [timbl]
16:43:22 [noah]
TBL: I am sympathetic to getting rid of the "with luck". Communities will tend to converge and not much luck will be needed. I don't like the style of it.
16:43:39 [Stuart]
Noah: FYI just noticed that you are treating foaf as a '#'d namespace, AFAIK it is actually a '/' namespace.
16:44:09 [noah]
TBL: "Because FOAF is widely understood...."
16:44:17 [Stuart]
ie. should be (likewise #mbox etc.)
16:45:01 [noah]
NM: I as editor can accept instruction do try and draft something to replace "with luck"
16:45:06 [noah]
DC: Do it.
16:46:06 [noah]
s/DC: Do it.//
16:46:15 [jar]
Attention Noah and Tim: I'm happy with Tim's suggested wording "Whatever the other legal arguments ..."
16:46:16 [ht]
scribenick: ht
16:46:52 [ht]
TBL: Change should get smaller, and happy to ship it rather than get stuck
16:46:57 [ht]
16:47:46 [ht]
TBL: I don't like talking about "reducing ambiguity"
16:47:53 [ht]
... instead, say something positive
16:48:11 [skw]
skw has joined #tagmem
16:48:26 [ht]
... e.g. "unifying ... of ..specifications, recursively ... on the Web"
16:48:49 [ht]
... remove the "by whom"
16:49:08 [ht]
... Like the Good Practice note
16:49:23 [ht]
... Enumerate the registries we knew about, rather that inventing new ones
16:50:29 [ht]
... Intro could be a bit sharper, by removing point 1 and the previous sentence, so point 2 begins the document
16:51:02 [ht]
NM: Happy to make these changes if others are happy
16:51:25 [ht]
TBL: "in an important sense" should be removed
16:51:50 [ht]
DC: How about passing the redlined document to NM?
16:52:00 [ht]
... Hmm, too difficult
16:52:17 [ht]
TBL: Do these and ship it
16:53:05 [ht]
... Including [the whiteboard-based Client Tech stuff]
16:53:11 [ht]
NM: That last is real work
16:53:26 [skw]
16:55:30 [ht]
NM: As an individual member (i.e. not editor), we don't know how to wrap these things up -- I'm not happy with the work practices around these things. THere's an opportunity cost to continuously making these things better and better.
16:56:03 [ht]
... I was convinced that the web grounding change, which was big, was worth doing.
16:56:18 [ht]
... I feel less clear that that's the case with the bigger stuff we've heard today
16:56:58 [ht]
SKW: I reviewed the draft before KC, and at that time I thought it could be published
16:57:18 [ht]
... And I still think that's true
16:57:33 [DanC_lap]
ack next
16:57:35 [Zakim]
Stuart, you wanted to ask jar a question and to ask jar which step in the chain of logic that he is not able to make.
16:58:05 [ht]
SKW: Coming back to the senator example -- where does the chain break down?
16:58:12 [ht]
JAR: I put it in IRC. . .
16:58:35 [ht]
JAR: my problem with the "according to the pertinent specifications" sentence is one of attribution and context - is it the publisher who is saying this, or someone else? Is this an old archived piece of writing, or something they still believe now?
17:00:08 [ht]
HST: I agree -- there's a tiny bit of case law, but the specs don't say as between the person who wrote the document, or whoever manages the server, or whoever owns the domain name, is the legally responsible person
17:00:14 [noah]
"Whatever the other legal arguments about the case, the interpretation of the document is well defined"
17:00:14 [noah]
<noah> DC: OK, we aren't closing on resolving this.
17:00:30 [noah]
s/ <noah> DC: OK, we aren't closing on resolving this.//
17:01:07 [ht]
DC: So NM's quote above is from TBL, and we can live with that?
17:01:11 [DanC_lap]
everybody seems to like that one.
17:01:15 [ht]
NM: It is pretty limp
17:02:16 [ht]
SKW: FOAF URIs are wrong
17:02:35 [ht]
... You have treated it as if it's hashed, but it's slashed
17:02:48 [ht]
NM: I thought I copied it out of their Primer
17:03:07 [DanC_lap]
17:03:08 [DanC_lap]
no #
17:03:12 [ht]
TBL: Could the two examples (RDF/XML and RDFa) be the same?
17:03:26 [DanC_lap]
there should be no #
17:03:32 [ht]
NM: they used to be closer
17:03:32 [DanC_lap]
the FOAF community uses a URI with no #
17:04:51 [ht]
SKW: The use of the word 'document' in place of 'representation' was suggested, I'm not so happy with that, document to me is like resource, use 'content' for a friendly word for representation
17:05:40 [jar]
Small issue: Examples in 5 and 5.1 differ along two axes (1) what triples (2) RDF/XML vs. RDFa. Might be better if they had same triples and differed only in form. (recording conversation between Tim and Noah)
17:06:23 [noah]
In that conversation, I said I thought there was benefit to aligning the examples, I'm not convinced net cost/benefit at this point. I'd probably leave it.
17:06:29 [ht]
DC: OK, so, all this input
17:09:55 [ht]
Candidate review-then-publish lists:
17:10:22 [Ashok]
[TimBL, Jonathan]
17:13:00 [dorchard]
dorchard has joined #tagmem
17:13:22 [Zakim]
TAG_f2f()9:00AM has now started
17:13:29 [Zakim]
17:13:40 [Stuart]
q+ to note that we have rarely been successful of recruiting the entire TAG to review a document.
17:13:45 [ht]
Dave, we're at the tail end of discussing SDW
17:13:50 [dorchard]
17:13:52 [ht]
Do you want to get in on the meta discussion?
17:14:16 [ht]
17:14:38 [Zakim]
17:14:55 [ht]
zakim, who is on the call?
17:14:55 [Zakim]
On the phone I see dorchard, MITStar
17:15:33 [DanC_lap]
ok, pls everybody type a critical issue or "no critical issues for me"
17:15:45 [DanC_lap]
no critical issues for me
17:16:13 [ht]
Client Technology package story for machines parallel to Spec chain story for humans
17:16:25 [noah]
I would probably make hyperlinks to Web Arch for terms like representation and resource, as suggested by Henry
17:16:28 [timbl]
no critical issues if no one else does but I would really like this text about automatic processing included.
17:16:54 [noah]
I accept as near editorial the Tim change relating to whether something has been published in Chapter 6
17:17:05 [noah]
I accept several of Tim's smaller edit's like "by whom"
17:17:24 [noah]
I accept change to get rid of With Luck.
17:17:29 [jar]
critical issue for me: resolving use of phrase "semantic web": choices: (a) add a definition, (b) wordsmith to get rid of it, (c) convince me that there's no problem and I'm just an outlier.
17:17:47 [Stuart]
1) attribution of libel; 2) machine oriented follow-your-nose (at least note the discontinutity).
17:18:29 [jar]
I am assuming some of things we seem to agree on are going to be taken care of, e.g. the "liar" sentence we just discussed.
17:19:00 [jar]
n.b. there are other issues but I don't call them critical... danc only asked for critical
17:19:12 [noah]
17:19:37 [noah]
I don't insist on changing any. I think the Webarch links are worth doing if group agrees no further review needed.
17:26:13 [ht]
...Action: Jonathan to try to wordsmith to get rid of 'Semantic Web' and submit for review
17:26:32 [ht]
Action: Jonathan to try to wordsmith to get rid of 'Semantic Web' and submit for review
17:26:32 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-207 - Try to wordsmith to get rid of 'Semantic Web' and submit for review [on Jonathan Rees - due 2008-12-18].
17:27:22 [DanC_lap]
ACTION Noah: work on "attribution of libel" concern with Stuart
17:27:22 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-208 - Work on \"attribution of libel\" concern with Stuart [on Noah Mendelsohn - due 2008-12-18].
17:28:32 [ht]
.Action: Henry S if necessary to take whatever TimBL does on the machine/Client Tech issue and try to improve it and submit for review
17:29:10 [DanC_lap]
ACTION Noah: attempt to address critical concerns from end of 11 Dec self-describing web discussion
17:29:10 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-209 - Attempt to address critical concerns from end of 11 Dec self-describing web discussion [on Noah Mendelsohn - due 2008-12-18].
17:29:48 [DanC_lap]
timbl posts
17:30:20 [timbl]
(a) goes at the end of sect 5.1
17:30:35 [timbl]
(B) goes at the end of section 5.2
17:30:49 [timbl]
(R) goes at the end of 5.0
17:30:57 [DanC_lap]
action-209: note
17:30:57 [trackbot]
ACTION-209 Attempt to address critical concerns from end of 11 Dec self-describing web discussion notes added
17:30:59 [noah]
HT: Tim's posting embodies such a critical concern.
17:31:26 [ht]
SKW: Thanks Amy van der Hiel for all her help in supporting this meeting
17:32:02 [ht]
Suspended until 1330EST
17:32:35 [DanC_lap]
17:32:54 [Zakim]
17:37:45 [timbl]
(R) goes at the end of 5.0 but BEFORE good practice note
18:23:12 [DanC_lap]
action-188 due 18 Dec 2008
18:23:13 [trackbot]
ACTION-188 Investigate the URL/IRI/Larry Masinter possible resolution of the URL/HTML5 issue. due date now 18 Dec 2008
18:28:11 [DanC_lap]
action-176: part of the trail
18:28:11 [trackbot]
ACTION-176 Work with Dave to draft comments on exi w.r.t. evaluation and efficiency notes added
18:29:01 [DanC_lap]
action-176: TPAC discussion notes
18:29:01 [trackbot]
ACTION-176 Work with Dave to draft comments on exi w.r.t. evaluation and efficiency notes added
18:32:26 [Zakim]
18:32:40 [DanC_lap]
action-143 due 15 Jan 2008
18:32:40 [trackbot]
ACTION-143 Review Raman's draft of webApplicationState-60 due date now 15 Jan 2008
18:32:48 [DanC_lap]
18:32:49 [DanC_lap]
18:32:49 [DanC_lap]
18:32:57 [DanC_lap]
Zakim, agenda?
18:32:57 [Zakim]
I see 3 items remaining on the agenda:
18:32:58 [Zakim]
8. Self Describing Web [from DanC_lap]
18:32:59 [Zakim]
9. tagSoupIntegration-54 (ISSUE-54) [from DanC_lap]
18:33:00 [Zakim]
10. AWWSW update (action-201 on issue-57) [from DanC_lap]
18:34:14 [DanC_lap]
scribenick: DanC_lap
18:35:13 [DanC_lap]
Zakim, take up item 8
18:35:13 [Zakim]
agendum 8. "Self Describing Web" taken up [from DanC_lap]
18:35:44 [DanC_lap]
NM: note TAG elections are in progress... that might affect people's thinking about timting
18:37:08 [DanC_lap]
HT: I expect 2 or 3 telcons is plenty
18:37:19 [Norm]
Zakim, what's the passcode?
18:37:19 [Zakim]
the conference code is 824323 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+ tel:+44.117.370.6152), Norm
18:37:20 [DanC_lap]
DC: do we have that many before the new TAG members come on?
18:37:27 [Zakim]
18:38:09 [DanC_lap]
JR: I could do mine (ACTION-207) by [missed]
18:40:34 [DanC_lap]
(tim's wording?)
18:41:40 [Zakim]
18:41:43 [DanC_lap]
(It's alleged tbl has done action-208 re libel; scribe can't confirm)
18:42:10 [DanC_lap]
HT: I might have some availability to do some editing
18:43:57 [DanC_lap]
HT: ...
18:44:13 [DanC_lap]
NM: yes, I'd be happy [if somebody came up with a better RDFa example?]
18:47:12 [DanC_lap]
HT: how about in the 1st week of the new year, I check with Noah and then pick up the write token...
18:47:59 [DanC_lap]
[NM notes some doc production/xslt stuff; HT acks.]
18:49:47 [DanC_lap]
HT: yes, let's review tim's comments [in email] this thu [18 Dec 2008]
18:50:25 [DanC_lap]
action-209 due 15 Jan 2009
18:50:26 [trackbot]
ACTION-209 Attempt to address critical concerns from end of 11 Dec self-describing web discussion due date now 15 Jan 2009
18:50:36 [DanC_lap]
action-208 due 15 Jan 2009
18:50:36 [trackbot]
ACTION-208 Work on "attribution of libel" concern with Stuart due date now 15 Jan 2009
18:50:59 [DanC_lap]
Zakim, close this item
18:50:59 [Zakim]
I see a speaker queue remaining and respectfully decline to close this agendum, DanC_lap
18:51:04 [DanC_lap]
ack next
18:51:15 [DanC_lap]
18:51:20 [DanC_lap]
Zakim, next item
18:51:20 [Zakim]
agendum 9. "tagSoupIntegration-54 (ISSUE-54)" taken up [from DanC_lap]
18:51:26 [DanC_lap]
Zakim, take up item 57
18:51:26 [Zakim]
I only see 10 items on the agenda
18:51:29 [DanC_lap]
Zakim, take up item 10
18:51:29 [Zakim]
agendum 10. "AWWSW update (action-201 on issue-57)" taken up [from DanC_lap]
18:51:32 [jar]
18:53:00 [DanC_lap]
JAR: group not going smoothly; I wonder if a charter would help. "editor" role isn't clearly filled
18:53:34 [DanC_lap]
JAR: let's look at "Work in progress" ...
18:53:47 [Zakim]
18:54:01 [DanC_lap]
... AwwswQuestions is a good list, though I haven't looked at it recently...
18:54:48 [DanC_lap]
... AwwswVocabulary is something I started in the direction of a validator for this[?] protocol
18:55:17 [DanC_lap]
Zakim, who's making noise?
18:55:28 [Zakim]
DanC_lap, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: dorchard (39%), MITStar (15%)
18:55:59 [DanC_lap]
Zakim, mute dorchard
18:55:59 [Zakim]
dorchard should now be muted
18:57:10 [DanC_lap]
JAR: there are some themes under "Individual aims"; never mind what's attributed to me; I've made some peace with issues I saw before...
18:57:34 [DanC_lap]
... but in tim's, alan's, and stuart's statements, I see a theme: capture the semantics of http, i.e.
18:57:49 [DanC_lap]
... when someone sends a response, what can you hold them to?
18:59:21 [DanC_lap]
JAR: I see [some theorems] relating data: URIs and http responses... e.g. about the mime type
19:01:58 [DanC_lap]
JAR: for data: , you can tell that x is _not_ a representation; not with http:
19:02:14 [DanC_lap]
TBL: why would anybody try to prove x is _not_ a representation?
19:02:39 [DanC_lap]
JAR: e.g. in an audit, as discussed in individual aims: "If you were hired to audit a company's site to see whether they were adhering to Web/Semantic Web architecture, how would you do so?"
19:05:43 [DanC_lap]
JAR: so I'm close to seeing more clearly what problem I'd like the group to adopt as its charter
19:06:32 [DanC_lap]
[something about person vs server, which JAR relates to logics of delegation by Lampson et. al.; DanC says it sounds like BAN logic]
19:07:55 [DanC_lap]
(re "no charter", isn't there at least a paper trail back to the TAG meeting whence the taskforce came?)
19:11:18 [DanC_lap]
(found the genesis of the AWWSW mailing list/tf )
19:21:44 [DanC_lap]
JAR: there's some energy for exploring problems around "how to bind names" but I don't think that's where the group should head
19:22:58 [DanC_lap]
19:22:58 [trackbot]
ACTION-201 -- Jonathan Rees to report on status of AWWSW discussions -- due 2008-12-11 -- OPEN
19:22:58 [trackbot]
19:23:26 [timbl]
I post as RDFa of the RDF/XML exam ple, crodsourced to SWIG and supplied by bengee
19:23:37 [timbl]
19:24:39 [DanC_lap]
19:24:39 [trackbot]
ACTION-201 -- Jonathan Rees to report on status of AWWSW discussions -- due 2009-03-30 -- OPEN
19:24:39 [trackbot]
19:25:06 [DanC_lap]
DanC: note that this consumes TAG attention; i.e. competes with other stuff. Are we ok with that? I guess os.
19:25:22 [Norm]
s/guess os/guess so/
19:25:24 [Stuart]
fyi "wget --debug" yields a redirection (302) to HTTP/1.0
19:25:24 [Stuart]
User-Agent: Wget/1.11.3
19:25:24 [Stuart]
Accept: */*
19:25:24 [Stuart]
19:25:24 [Stuart]
Connection: Keep-Alive
19:25:35 [ht]
HST does not believe that the class "information resource" does any useful work in GRDDL, as such. That is, its use in the GRDDL spec could not be put at risk by the decision that any particular resource was or was not an information resource. You could induce a partial definition of information resource from the GRDDL spec as "anything which has an XML representation is an information resource", but that a) begs the question of what a representation is and b) only c
19:25:52 [noah]
Tim's gotten someone to work up the correct example for converged self-descirbing Web update at
19:26:15 [noah]
Henry, please note that the above may be helpful if you are doing the next updates to the Self-Describing Web finding
19:26:17 [Stuart]
doh.... to ""
19:26:32 [DanC_lap]
Zakim, close this item
19:26:32 [Zakim]
agendum 10 closed
19:26:34 [Zakim]
I see 1 item remaining on the agenda:
19:26:35 [Zakim]
9. tagSoupIntegration-54 (ISSUE-54) [from DanC_lap]
19:27:25 [DanC_lap]
19:27:42 [DanC_lap]
q+ to ask timbl about notes from his TPAC talk
19:28:16 [Ashok]
Ashok has joined #tagmem
19:28:30 [timbl]
19:28:33 [DanC_lap]
HT: I was chatting with Noah about a notion of (X)HTML without document.write
19:29:22 [DanC_lap]
JAR: what is HTML5's story about evolution?
19:29:57 [DanC_lap]
19:30:00 [DanC_lap]
19:30:00 [trackbot]
ACTION-145 -- Tim Berners-Lee to add public prose around his slides at the AC meeting to make the case for extensiblity and flexible XML -- due 2008-12-11 -- OPEN
19:30:00 [trackbot]
19:33:37 [ht]
I asked Allen Brown about E and the pi calculus and he introduced his response with "E is to the pi calculus ro\
19:33:38 [ht]
ughly as Common Lisp is to the lambda calculus.
19:33:43 [ht]
19:36:11 [DanC_lap]
close action-145
19:36:11 [trackbot]
ACTION-145 Add public prose around his slides at the AC meeting to make the case for extensiblity and flexible XML closed
19:36:26 [DanC_lap]
TBL: yes, ok to finish publishing those TPAC notes
19:36:57 [DanC_lap]
19:36:57 [trackbot]
ACTION-7 -- Tim Berners-Lee to draft a position regarding extensibility of HTML and the role of the validator for consideration by the TAG -- due 2008-12-11 -- OPEN
19:36:57 [trackbot]
19:40:57 [DanC_lap]
close ACTION-7
19:40:57 [trackbot]
ACTION-7 draft a position regarding extensibility of HTML and the role of the validator for consideration by the TAG closed
19:42:12 [DanC_lap]
JAR: what's HTML5's versioning policy?
19:42:36 [DanC_lap]
DanC: no particular technical mechanism; just think hard at each setp
19:43:16 [DanC_lap]
... that's the sort of implicit policy; meanwhile, it's a formal open issue
19:44:33 [DanC_lap]
19:45:19 [DanC_lap]
SKW recalls 4 main topics from
19:49:18 [jar]
s/versioning policy/language versioning policy/
19:49:19 [dorchard]
zakim, unmute me
19:49:19 [Zakim]
dorchard should no longer be muted
19:51:38 [DanC_lap]
19:51:38 [trackbot]
ISSUE-27 -- Should W3C specifications start promoting IRIs? -- OPEN
19:51:38 [trackbot]
19:52:22 [DanC_lap]
SKW: so how are we doing on those 4 points?
19:52:37 [DanC_lap]
DanC: on HTML and URIs, I have an action (188)
19:52:49 [DanC_lap]
[eek. catch up on what I said]
19:53:07 [DanC_lap]
TimBL: TPAC discussion has persuaded me to change my position on IRIs...
19:54:21 [DanC_lap]
s/IRIs/the IRIEverywhere issue/
19:54:36 [ht]
There are strings out there with %## in them which can't be interpreted as UTF-8, or if so interpreted give the wrong answer
19:54:38 [DanC_lap]
TBL: I learned there are lots of URIs with %xx stuff in them which either...
19:54:47 [DanC_lap]
... don't convert to utf-8 or
19:55:07 [DanC_lap]
... if they're converted to utf-8, that misrepresents the intent of the person who created the URI...
19:55:16 [DanC_lap]
... these are the results of bookmarking form results, where...
19:55:27 [DanC_lap]
... the convention is to encode using the form document's encoding
19:55:36 [DanC_lap]
... [not always utf-8]
19:55:45 [DanC_lap]
s/encode/encode parameters/
19:56:34 [DanC_lap]
s/they're converted to utf-8/they're interpreted as utf-8 encoded/
19:57:02 [DanC_lap]
TBL: these aren't just old URIs; more are being made all the time
19:57:25 [DanC_lap]
(scribe note: topic/TOC should included IRIEverywhere)
19:57:36 [ht]
HST believes they are mostly arising in cyrillic and sino-japanese language areas
19:58:57 [DanC_lap]
TBL: re HTML work parts, there's modularity internal to W3C's work and then module boundaries with other orgs, e.g. IETF/URI/HTTP; the TAG has a bigger role in the latter
20:03:21 [ht]
RRSAgent, make logs world-visible
20:03:38 [ht]
TBL: Vote of thanks to Stuart for his contributions as chair
20:04:08 [Zakim]
20:04:09 [ht]
HST asks that we discuss internal module boundaries (i.e. SVG, MathML) with HTML5
20:04:36 [Zakim]
20:04:37 [Zakim]
20:04:37 [Zakim]
TAG_f2f()9:00AM has ended
20:04:38 [Zakim]
Attendees were dorchard, MITStar, Norm
20:05:16 [ht]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
20:05:16 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate ht
20:05:33 [timbl]
timbl has left #tagmem