See also: IRC log
michael, are you joining the teleconference?
<mhausenblas> yup, sorry
jar: What is the relation between a resource (used as the subject of an RDF statement) that is denoted by URI, and some HTTP exchanges?
<mhausenblas> I figured one
dbooth: Two realms of answers to that question: 1. where you're talking about a web resource. 2. other resources.
<mhausenblas> rdfs:seeAlso :http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/06/http-semantics.pdf . should be rdfs:seeAlso <http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/06/http-semantics.pdf> .
jar: I'm talking about the web resource case -- when you get a 200 response.
dbooth: we're talking web architecture, and any architecture is a fabrication or a fiction, in a sense.
jar: yes, it's an ideal.
dbooth: That also means that various architecture possible. So then we need to decide which architecture to choose, i.e., which is preferable.
jar: we have an arch -- the arch embraced by the TAG -- the AWWW plus TAG findings and resolutions endorsed by the TAG.
dbooth: some parts of this arch are clearer than other parts.
jar: If you start with the central dogma of URI, resource, representation . . .
dbooth: That only applies to web resources though
jar: But that's a consequence of the arch, not an axiom. The distinction between web resources and others is not central.
dbooth: I agree, it isn't central.
michael: "web resource" == "awww:InformationResource"?
dbooth: Yes, pretty much but the definition in the AWWSW is flawed.
jar: I don't want to try to define it. I first want to account for 200 responses. Then if we have a way to talk about them, then the other stuff should follow.
dbooth: Michael, you were suggesting this as other interesting reading?
michael: Yes, see how it fits in
... It may have impact beyond SPARQL 1.1.
dbooth: Back to what we're doing here . . .
jar: I'm still struggling with what form our analysis should take and how to deal with time.
<mhausenblas> Michael: we could do a per-case study
<mhausenblas> 1. 303 Linked Data RDF/XML
<mhausenblas> 2. SPARQL endpoint
<mhausenblas> 3. embedded RDFa
<jar_> 4. fragid in Location:
dbooth: So when you're doing a
formalism the granularity is driven by the ways you wish to use
your formalism afterward. Time adds complexity that is not
needed for many simple uses.
... If we write n3 rules, who would use them, for what?
<jar_> e.g. the representation in a GET/200 response is a rep of the resource ...
dbooth: In other words: what questions do we want this formalism to answer?
michael: in RDFa there are two representations returned by one resource.
<jar_> For example: Are Tim's suggestions re SPARQL graphs consistent with our analysis of SPARQL?
jar: Using the arch to show contraditions would be useful.
dbooth: for #1, what are the possible contradictions?
<jar_> GET U/200 => RDF that says U is a person.
<jar_> GET U/200 => RDF that says U is not an information resource.
<jar_> contradiction between what it says, and the architecture.
dbooth: that would be a contradiction if persons are disjoint from informatino resources.
<mhausenblas> Michael: would it be a starting point to use http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/selfDescribingDocuments.html#AlgPicture and then refine the picture?
<scribe> chair: jar
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.135 of Date: 2009/03/02 03:52:20 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) No ScribeNick specified. Guessing ScribeNick: dbooth Inferring Scribes: dbooth WARNING: No "Topic:" lines found. Default Present: DBooth, jar, mhausenblas Present: Jonathan_Rees David_Booth Michael_Hausenblas Got date from IRC log name: 12 Oct 2010 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2010/10/12-awwsw-minutes.html People with action items: WARNING: No "Topic: ..." lines found! Resulting HTML may have an empty (invalid) <ol>...</ol>. Explanation: "Topic: ..." lines are used to indicate the start of new discussion topics or agenda items, such as: <dbooth> Topic: Review of Amy's report[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]