14:31:30 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #awwsw
14:31:30 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2010/01/05-awwsw-irc
14:31:57 <mhausenblas> I think there is a class of tasks that need metadata to operate properly
14:31:58 <dbooth> jar, perhaps the killer app for metadata is content-type.
14:32:14 <mhausenblas> from discovery to trust
14:32:34 <mhausenblas> not sure if I understand dbooth - example?
14:32:46 <mhausenblas> or do you mean the HTTP header?
14:33:04 <mhausenblas> haha
14:33:12 <dbooth> yes, exactly
14:33:18 <mhausenblas> sorry, you don't know the context
14:33:25 <mhausenblas> I criticised it recently via Twitter
14:33:33 <mhausenblas> RSS vs RDF etc.
14:33:34 <dbooth> link?
14:34:10 <mhausenblas> see http://twitter.com/mhausenblas/status/7244707353
14:34:31 <jar> ok, so metadata in regard to "core web functions" is an angle i hadn't thought about
14:34:48 <jar> i was thinking more along the lines of itunes
14:34:56 <mhausenblas> and Geoffrey was so nice explaining it http://twitter.com/gsnedders ;)
14:35:13 <mhausenblas> jar, please define core Web functions :)
14:35:16 <jar> but data re "core web functions" is not the same as metadata.
14:35:25 <jar> not is data generally (e.g. linked data)
14:35:41 <jar> my term for what you were saying... let me find it
14:35:53 <mhausenblas> hm, this sounds like an artificial distinction to me "but data re "core web functions" is not the same as metadata."
14:36:21 <jar> metadata is very clearly data about data.  canonical example is DC
14:36:27 <jar> metadata is a subset of all data
14:36:33 <mhausenblas> agree
14:36:42 <jar> molecular weight is not metadata, nor is a user's public key
14:36:52 <mhausenblas> but there is also data about other things such as services
14:36:56 <mhausenblas> what is a WSDL file?
14:37:04 <jar> i don't consider that metadata.
14:37:15 <dbooth> wsdl is not metadata.  it's data about a service
14:37:25 <jar> that's why i suggested "data related to core web functions"
14:37:32 <jar> some of which is metadata, some of which isn't
14:37:33 <mhausenblas> wow, then you have a very very very focused definition of metadata. Mine is broader ;)
14:37:43 <jar> google define:metadata
14:37:48 <jar> mine is the majority view
14:38:04 <mhausenblas> ok, jar, I believe you ;)
14:38:16 <dbooth> but content type seems to me to be exactly metadata: it allows a string of bytes to be re-interpreted for a particular use.
14:38:17 <mhausenblas> still, what are the core Web functions?
14:38:29 <mhausenblas> may I ask what a DOAP description then is?
14:38:56 <mhausenblas> (that is http://trac.usefulinc.com/doap)
14:39:14 <mhausenblas> it's data about a project
14:39:23 <mhausenblas> aka metadata
14:39:34 <mhausenblas> or am I totally wrong?
14:40:13 <jar> i'm fudging in order to characterize what i perceived was your interest.  core web functions would include HTTP, authentication, web services, content-type, site-meta, link:, POWDER
14:41:01 <jar> there's tons of metadata; data about a project qualifies, i think, although there is a slippery slope from the data to the social process that created / will create it
14:41:46 <jar> i.e. a journal is a data source (social institution), but it corpus to date is data
14:42:32 <mhausenblas> ok, thanks for the clarification
14:42:39 <jar> in a proper ontological treatment the two would be distinct entities... but no need to get into that, we could take data sources to be honorary data, if pressed
14:42:52 <mhausenblas> so, back to your draft 282
14:43:07 <mhausenblas> how about to start with this sort of definition for metadata
14:43:16 <mhausenblas> and then discuss the core Web functions
14:43:24 <mhausenblas> and then list examples for each of these domains?
14:43:47 <jar> i think we need to start with a menu of potential efforts, listing 3-4 of them, and then pick one effort, and dive in
14:43:48 <mhausenblas> (if I agree or not re your definition doesn't matter for now )
14:44:02 <mhausenblas> agree
14:44:08 <mhausenblas> but why only dive into one?
14:44:21 <jar> (1) semweb, (2) data re core web functions, (3) classic metadata a la XMP / DC, (4) ...
14:44:28 <mhausenblas> drop (1)
14:44:30 <jar> because the topic is too big.  ocean-boiling.
14:44:33 <mhausenblas> ok
14:44:38 <mhausenblas> still, drop 1 ;)
14:45:01 <mhausenblas> sorry to say this, but this is something 89% of the audience is not interested in
14:45:03 <jar> fine, but many people will drag it back in that direction (molecular weight), so it needs to be *explicitly* listed and then dropped
14:45:13 <mhausenblas> hehe, I see your point
14:45:14 <jar> "this"?
14:45:23 <mhausenblas> this = Semantic Web at large
14:45:43 <mhausenblas> when we talk about concrete technologies, say RDFa or URIs, fine
14:45:53 <jar> oh. right. i think we agree.
14:46:08 <mhausenblas> within certain use cases such as GoodRelations in RDFa yielding a new sort of SEO then people are interested
14:46:11 <mhausenblas> ouch
14:46:40 <jar> SEO = ?
14:46:49 <mhausenblas> Search Engine Optimisation
14:46:54 <jar> don't know GoodRelations
14:47:10 <mhausenblas> wanna show up in Google on first place? use GR and RDFa ;)
14:47:25 <jar> ok.  so this is why i want it to be content-oriented and application-oriented, not technology-oriented
14:47:27 <mhausenblas> http://www.webofdatablog.com/articles/2009/12/11/use-rdfa-get-more-traffic
14:47:32 <jar> sorry
14:47:33 <mhausenblas> perfect
14:47:35 <mhausenblas> I agree
14:47:50 <jar> so rdf and rdfa are just generic subroutines you invoke when needed.
14:48:16 <jar> as is XMP
14:48:32 <mhausenblas> yeah, sort of - for certain tasks usable but not always and everywhere
14:48:47 <mhausenblas> or if you contrast Atom with RDF, etc,
14:49:05 <mhausenblas> ok, so we agree to have it content/app oriented
14:50:23 <mhausenblas> what is the list of the efforts, now?
14:50:40 <mhausenblas> 1.  data re core web functions such as HTTP, auth, trust, etc.
14:50:52 <DanC> I have very little interest in the "what is metadata?" question. I'm more interested in models of HTTP that help with anarchic scalability; i.e. models that help independently-developed apps work together.
14:51:37 <mhausenblas> sorry, DanC, this is a bit confusing. I was sort of hijacking this telco into 282 action of jar 
14:51:44 <jar> i'm thinking about what you (mh) said, covering the union of "core web data" (the web as application?) and metadata sensu stricto (itunes exemplar)... i dislike documents that don't have unique focus... but maybe could live with one that is admittedly bifocal; or with two;   or with finding some common thread
14:52:16 <mhausenblas> aha, yes, I see
14:52:23 <jar> the question is not "what is metadata", it's "what problem do we want to work on"
14:52:35 <jar> the latter masquerades as the former
14:52:47 <mhausenblas> and +1 to DanC's distributed app on Web-scale approach
14:53:19 <mhausenblas> jar was sort of briefing me re metadata, so forget about the question what is metadata, please :)
14:53:31 <jar> of course.  but no open metadata apps are emerging that i can see.  so why bother.
14:53:59 <mhausenblas> hm. wouldn't OpenCalais Freebase and the like fall into this category?
14:54:30 <mhausenblas> is 1. ok with you jar?
14:54:32 <jar> freebase open & anarchic??
14:54:42 <mhausenblas> open sort of
14:54:51 <DanC> no one project is anarchic; it's the whole that's anarchic
14:54:58 <mhausenblas> anarchic (maybe internally ;)
14:55:06 <mhausenblas> yup, agree, DanC
14:55:25 <DanC> as to why bother: some proposals get the "aboutness" bit wrong. that means a web site owner can't use that technology along with others.
14:55:36 <mhausenblas> no single entity can be but the collective operations. but one can create rules that allow or disallow certain behaviour
14:55:49 <jar> well, mosaic both exploited and encouraged anarchy, that's what i meant.  you don't need an architecture if there are no integration points
14:56:16 <mhausenblas> DanC, not sure what you're talking about. Concrete example, please?
14:56:16 <DanC> integration points for freebase are clients that use it.
14:56:36 <DanC> i.e. clientXYZ wants to use freebase _and_ OpenCalais
14:56:46 <mhausenblas> ok, so?
14:57:09 <DanC> so if freebase and OpenCalais have conflicting models, clientXYZ has a hard life.
14:57:13 <jar> you think there is or soon will be demand? or that the TAG can be effective at promoting things like this somehow?
14:57:14 <mhausenblas> both have a linked data interface
14:57:49 <mhausenblas> or what model are you talking about? the schema? sorry, /me a bit dense as it seems
14:57:50 <DanC> right... but if one uses http://www.w3.org/ to refer to "the web consortium" and the other uses it to refer to "the home page of the web consortium", then life is hard for clientXYZ
14:57:57 <mhausenblas> ah!
14:58:28 <mhausenblas> anyway, shall we come back to the 4 domains for the 282, jar?
14:58:34 <jar> this is just RDF semantics.  does it need a champion? (not a rhetorical question)
14:59:18 <mhausenblas> my guess would be: no. the community will sort it out
14:59:20 <DanC> perhaps that was a bad example... but I think the aboutness stuff is a good example. Maybe not life-changing, but useful in that it keeps coming up on www-tag
14:59:40 <mhausenblas> I *love* aboutness
14:59:54 <jar> 4 domains.  i guess the sensible thing is to keep the 2 we've talked about, what i call "core web" and "metadata sensu stricto", but proceed in parallel with them.  maybe split to 2 docs later
15:00:19 <mhausenblas> my approach is simple: you'll always need a human in the loop (see http://sig.ma) to disambiguate
15:00:20 <jar> yes, aboutness is very important, it's the same problem as using URIs to refer, and is addressed by RDF model theory
15:00:29 <mhausenblas> agree jar
15:00:54 <mhausenblas> the question is: which ocean? :D
15:00:59 <jar> yes, i'm trying not to boil the ocean.  am desperate to gain focus
15:01:17 <jar> larry masinter favors the "metadata sensu stricto" ocean
15:01:21 <mhausenblas> ok, to a better term for "metadata sensu stricto" 
15:01:37 <jar> the TAG's usual audience would probably be more interested in "core web data"
15:01:55 <jar> they are just different i think, but with common subroutines
15:02:02 <mhausenblas> but "metadata sensu stricto" might be a bit over the top, can I have a more casual title for it, plz
15:02:20 <jar> i would just call it "metadata" except that this confuses everyone outside the library community
15:02:32 <DanC> umm... "metadata per se"? or "data about digital artifacts"?
15:02:43 <jar> how about "data about data"
15:02:59 <mhausenblas> how about bibilographic metadata
15:03:05 <mhausenblas> hm, to narrow maybe
15:03:12 <jar> itunes and flickr are bibliographic?
15:04:26 <mhausenblas> on the other hand digital articats reminds me on MPEG21
15:04:54 <mhausenblas> s/articats/artifacts
15:05:14 <jar> data about documents  (where 'document' is term of art including images, audio, video) ?
15:05:20 <DanC> sure
15:05:38 <mhausenblas> ok, I guess I can live with that
15:06:26 <mhausenblas> lemme quickly get the brainstorm generator hat ... what else ... digital media item, digital artefact, digital asset 
15:06:49 <mhausenblas> blech. let's stick with 'document' ;)
15:07:14 <jar> well we can figure this out later. that will do for now. so michael, i think we have a way forward, yes? how about this: 1 document with 3 parts (1) content and applications around data about documents-broadly-construed; (2) content and applications around data about "core web functions" (see above); (3) subroutines common to both
15:07:42 <mhausenblas> sounds like a plan!
15:07:44 <jar> with the focus on content and applications, e.g. Dan's example above
15:07:49 <mhausenblas> yup
15:08:15 <mhausenblas> will you draft that in http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/12/metameta.html and then I start to fill in, or ...?
15:09:17 <DanC> hmm... all 3? I thought you were trying to focus, jar.
15:09:28 <jar> hmm. i think i can do this in a day or two
15:09:48 <DanC> oh... it's mostly 2 areas.
15:09:52 <jar> i want to focus but am indecisive and i believe i'm being asked to do both... also mh is volunteering :)
15:10:17 <jar> any, 3 is common, so is properly part of 1 and 2, so really there are only 2 oceans
15:10:23 <mhausenblas> indeed
15:11:06 <mhausenblas> ok, I think I'm gonna call it a day (re IRC) and head out to my next meeting
15:11:13 <jar> ok me too.
15:11:22 <jar> rrsagent, make logs public
15:11:28 <jar> rrsagent, pointer
15:11:28 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2010/01/05-awwsw-irc#T15-11-28
15:11:52 <mhausenblas> thanks for the enlightening discussion and lemme know when I can start to input, jar, please 
15:12:00 <jar> ok will do
15:12:15 <mhausenblas> RRSAgent, draft minutes
15:12:15 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/01/05-awwsw-minutes.html mhausenblas
15:26:58 <dbooth> I have to leave.  bye!
16:32:18 <Zakim> Zakim has left #awwsw