12:54:01 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #awwsw
12:54:01 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/04/12-awwsw-irc
12:59:23 <jar> zakim, this will be awwsw
12:59:23 <Zakim> ok, jar; I see TAG_(AWWSW)9:00AM scheduled to start in 1 minute
13:01:19 <Zakim> TAG_(AWWSW)9:00AM has now started
13:01:26 <Zakim> +jar
13:02:02 <Zakim> +DBooth
13:02:03 <dbooth> dbooth has joined #awwsw
13:02:25 <dbooth> zakim, who is here?
13:02:25 <Zakim> On the phone I see jar, DBooth
13:02:26 <Zakim> On IRC I see dbooth, RRSAgent, Zakim, jar, harry, webr3, trackbot
13:02:34 <dbooth> Meeting: AWWSW
13:02:41 <dbooth> Chair: Jonathan Rees
13:08:24 <dbooth> Topic: Draft of http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/awwsw/issue57/latest/
13:08:42 <dbooth> jar: wanted to make a decision on the draft today, but can't with only two people on the call
13:11:40 <jar> let's look at this diagram: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-awwsw/2011Apr/0045.html
13:15:50 <jar> the rhetorical question is: Can awww:representations have metadata such as DC, CC REL, FOAF, RDFS?
13:16:45 <jar> i.e. are we willing to use reprs. with those relations?  TimBL & TAG would say no - I think - but not sure
13:22:19 <jar> the diagram reflects the way the report is currently written
13:23:33 <dbooth> dbooth: Diagram looks reasonable, but not needed for this document.
13:25:43 <dbooth> jar: The diagram explains the problem with the Ian Davis's proposal.
13:26:20 <dbooth> dbooth: I see nothing fundamentally wrong with Ian's proposal.  It will cause problems for some apps and not others.
13:27:51 <dbooth> dbooth: so you feel that there has already been an expectation set in this community that there would not be ambiguity along this access (i.e., IR vs non-IR axis).
13:28:04 <dbooth> s/)./)?/
13:28:09 <dbooth> jar: yes
13:28:32 <dbooth> dbooth: i think that's a legitimate complaint.
13:28:41 <jar> has nothing to do with IR vs. non-IR.  it's whether the URI refers to the IR at that URI, or to something else
13:30:36 <dbooth> I think there would be debate about how firmly that expectation was established in the community.  Some (I think) may claim that it has not been well established.
13:31:00 <dbooth> jar: it has succeeded so well that it is hard to find people against it -- see Cool URIs for SW, etc.
13:31:10 <jar> pedantic-web
13:33:18 <dbooth> dbooth: agreed.
13:36:34 <jar> 1. Reps are not IRs  (TimBL)
13:37:07 <jar> 2. Metadata subjects ~ IRs
13:37:37 <jar> 3. Metadata can be true of reps (JAR)
13:41:04 <harry> Zakim, what's the code?
13:41:04 <Zakim> the conference code is 29979 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.26.46.79.03 tel:+44.203.318.0479), harry
13:43:53 <Zakim> +??P4
13:43:59 <harry> Zakim, ??P4 is hhalpin
13:43:59 <Zakim> +hhalpin; got it
13:45:07 <harry> Reading it - the nice picture :)
13:45:37 <harry> that diagram looks about right.
13:45:47 <jar> two problems with the diagram:   what boxes are needed, and what they're called.
13:46:03 <harry> except for maybe that the metadata itself will likely have a URI with versions, representations, etc :)
13:46:43 <harry> the TAG will understand it, programmers won't. 
13:46:54 <harry> but the programmers should be the *goal*.
13:47:17 <dbooth> jar: This document is to get the discussion goign w Giovanni, Ian, kingsley, etc.
13:47:48 <dbooth> harry: When they publish metadata, they need a clear, easy recipe.
13:48:20 <harry> Fielding way with resources being functions over representations in time...
13:48:39 <harry> type-token relationship
13:48:43 <harry> type-realization
13:48:57 <harry> share some abstract amount of information
13:49:02 <harry> "about" the same thing.
13:49:05 <dbooth> harry: Re "representation", there are different ways of thinking about it.  Can also think of it as a type-token realization.  Theyre' not manufactured randomly, but they're about the same thing.
13:49:12 <dbooth> jar: Like i say about metadata.
13:49:27 <harry> wonderful theoretical theory of semantic information
13:49:34 <dbooth> harry: I think that's timbl's intuition also.
13:50:33 <jar> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/awwsw/ir-axioms/
13:51:34 <harry> ah I hvaen't seen that.
13:53:17 <harry> +1 as a separate document
13:53:48 <dbooth> dbooth: I think the CC license use case is the best one for motivating that discussion  w Giovanni, Ian, Kingsley, etc.  
13:55:15 <harry> Appendix 7
13:55:17 <harry> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/awwsw/issue57/latest/#ir
13:55:35 <jar> move appendix 7 out to a separate document ?
13:55:51 <harry> 1) Maybe merge that appendix
13:55:56 <harry> 2) Move the glossary to back
13:56:05 <harry> 1) Maybe merge into appendix another doc about IRs.
13:57:03 <dbooth> harry: I would want the following changes to make me happy: 1. merge appendix into another doc about IRs.  2. move glossary to the back.
13:57:32 <jar> if you didn't care about IRs, you'd just use 200, and skip 303
13:57:42 <harry> 1) applicaton/rdf+xml (plus future RDF types that do not mix in with human-readable documents like HTML) 
13:57:54 <harry> should just be assumed that the URI they are referring to in that document
13:58:06 <harry> is not the document itself.
13:58:10 <harry> That's the RDFa case.
13:58:16 <dbooth> harry: One option i'd like listed: doc of application/rdf+xml and future types that do not mix human-readable documents, should be taken as the the URI def
13:59:00 <jar> RDFa is different from rdf/xml
13:59:05 <harry> RDFa it makes perfect sense for that refer to the document.
13:59:17 <dbooth> harry: RDFa is different from rdf/xml because it mixes RDF and human doc.
14:00:20 <dbooth> jar: That's still a problem for CC license.  I first have to GET the doc, and make sure that it is one of the RDF-only doc types.
14:00:48 <harry> So if the URI returns rdfa+html then you would assume that takes priority.
14:01:04 <harry> Can you make a normative algorithm for sorting this out
14:01:17 <dbooth> dbooth: if you get a mixed RDF+human doc type then it is potentially ambiguous.
14:01:18 <jar> algorithm:  Do a GET , conneg for rdf/xml turtle manchester preferred
14:01:33 <jar> if you get rdf, then URI i sdefined by doc
14:01:39 <jar> otw, URI refers to IR
14:01:44 <dbooth> s/by doc/by doc only/
14:01:50 <dbooth> s/otw/otherwise/
14:01:54 <harry> but even if you got rdf/xml
14:02:00 <harry> via a conneg preference
14:02:12 <harry> then if those rdf/xml statements things like "dc:creator BenAdida"
14:02:44 <harry> then the interpretation of that staments, one thing would match would be the document
14:02:48 <harry> yes it could.
14:03:03 <harry> that's the risk of using model-theoretic interpretation in risk.
14:03:40 <harry> "dc:creator BenAdida"
14:03:49 <harry> so many documents that Ben Adida actually created.
14:04:24 <harry> accessibeVia
14:04:28 <harry> "accessibleVia"
14:06:46 <harry> retract 303
14:06:50 <harry> there should be more options
14:06:56 <harry> do not requrire .htaccess
14:07:11 <harry> 1) add a vocabulary make it clear
14:07:20 <harry> 2) make the MIME-types clearer
14:08:47 <dbooth> jar: Harry's proposal is covered in 5.6
14:09:21 <dbooth> jar: I'd like to see the proposal drafted as an actual algorithm.
14:09:26 <harry> My point is that 303 is only one way to make the distinguishment.
14:10:10 <jar> if you allow a definition AND a 200, you get wrong answers... so not just a question of providing "more ways"
14:10:12 <harry> For one instance, IR ->303-> IR
14:11:02 <harry> well if you got http://www.example.org -> www.example.org/document/index.html
14:11:17 <harry> "http://www.example.org" doesn't also just refer to a document or does it refer to Paris?
14:11:40 <dbooth> harry: Two more points about 303: 1. With 303 you could connect an IR to another IR, and there's no way of knowing whether that also doesn't just refer to a document.
14:11:40 <harry> http://www.example.org/document/index.html
14:11:48 <harry> http://www.example.org
14:11:51 <harry> inherently ambiguous
14:11:55 <harry> by nature of how 303 can be used
14:12:07 <harry> http://www.example.org/resource/Paris
14:12:08 <jar> i don't get it
14:12:10 <harry> is inherently ambiguous
14:12:20 <harry> http://www.example.org/document/Paris.html isn't.
14:12:29 <harry> so what does 303 gives you really
14:12:58 <harry> its also hard to index things like have status codes
14:13:06 <dbooth> http://www.example.org/resource/Paris --303--> http://www.example.org/document/Paris.html
14:13:27 <jar> the assumption for 303 is that if you get a 303 then it has no versions (not dereferenceable)
14:13:38 <harry> nothing says that "http://www.example.org/resource/Paris" is not an information resource
14:13:46 <jar> at that URI at least
14:14:58 <dbooth> dbooth: The 303 rule could be that the URI refers to the primarySubjectOf the document at the redirect URI
14:16:44 <jar> 200 enables metadata.  if you don't enable particular metadata, you can't do 200.  so, 404, 303, 100, etc instead
14:16:55 <dbooth> jar: 200 enables metadata, so if you want to prevent the metadata from being written, then you return 404 or 303.
14:17:02 <harry> www.example.org/resource/Paris and just rdf/xml documents.
14:17:18 <harry> thats that document somehow overrides to publish data
14:17:50 <harry> that could be solved by a normative argument.
14:18:25 <dbooth> harry: we might promote more RDF published by making it easier than requiring 303
14:18:50 <dbooth> jar: but there is a cost if we make an incompatible change -- existing metadata will be called into question.
14:19:15 <dbooth> ... Yes there's a benefit, but also a cost.
14:19:43 <harry> DC.terms 
14:19:55 <dbooth> harry: I think the cost is not huge.
14:19:56 <harry> that you could make a normative algorithm 
14:20:26 <harry> that says "given the space that can returned" figure out if it's an IR or not.
14:20:44 <dbooth> jar: It's not IR vs NIR, but *which* IR it is.
14:21:44 <harry> 1) we need normative algorithm something like Web Linking
14:21:53 <dbooth> jar: we have the 303 guideline in place, but people like you and Ian are taking pot shots at it.  how do we get process around this?
14:22:36 <harry> 2) as regards 303, we need 2 or 3 more options
14:22:41 <dbooth> harry: 303 is a creative hack that is hurting deployment.  my interest is in increasing deployment.
14:23:05 <harry> 3) I would punt this at the RDF WG
14:23:11 <harry> it's already been chartered
14:23:25 <dbooth> jar: I'm concerned about the process. I want to dialog about this.
14:24:07 <dbooth> jar: TAG is willing to take issue-57 to rec track.
14:24:25 <harry> "s p o"
14:24:32 <harry> that means we're talking LISP don't interepret
14:24:38 <harry> "s p o" p2 o2
14:24:43 <harry> well, one way is to say
14:24:45 <dbooth> harry: Re quoting thing: tim says let's put an RDF graph in quotes.  
14:24:48 <harry> if you want to talk about a document
14:24:51 <harry> and you want to be very clear
14:24:57 <harry> variant on notational scheme
14:25:04 <harry> "http://www.example.org/Paris"
14:25:15 <harry> talking about JUST the rdf statements themselves, and not their interpretation
14:25:31 <dbooth> ... Then if you want to talk about a doc, then we can quote the RDF graph to say that we're talking about that graph and not their interpretation.
14:26:46 <jar> [:accessibleVia "..."]
14:26:46 <harry> "http://www.example.org/Paris/document"
14:27:09 <dbooth> dbooth: Not always talking about RDF graph -- sometimes it's an HTML page you want to distinguish.
14:27:17 <harry> 5.1 -> use quotes around URIs
14:28:07 <harry> http://www.example.org/Paris
14:28:12 <harry> will be used as a name URI of named graph
14:28:23 <harry> where the graph derferenced in a statement of RDF statements
14:28:36 <harry> currently the way you http://www.example.org/Paris ->http://www.example.org/Paris/document 
14:28:41 <harry> currently the way you http://www.example.org/Paris ->http://www.example.org/Paris/data
14:28:49 <harry> http://www.example.org/Paris/data is the RDF name itself.
14:29:07 <harry> 5.1 look at quoting mechanism
14:29:20 <harry> turn the document in latest version of 57
14:29:34 <harry> Rec should be FOR 303
14:29:36 <harry> not against 303
14:29:42 <harry> then explaining options to it
14:29:56 <harry> and then a normative algorithm that determines from the space interpretations gotten in consistent way
14:30:11 <harry> maybe fix fixed informaton resource -> representation
14:30:33 <harry> The data in the browser
14:30:49 <harry> did sometehing useful
14:31:43 <harry> joint task go named graph area
14:32:00 <mhausenblas> mhausenblas has joined #awwsw
14:32:24 <harry> > - intention of who?
14:32:34 <harry> your talked a URI means or refers to.
14:32:50 <harry> What its minter or owner or person who created metadata what they *intend* it to me.
14:33:23 <harry> "discovery problem"
14:33:59 <harry> figure out what the community means. 
14:34:03 <dbooth> dbooth: This is what http://dbooth.org/2009/lifecycle/ get into.
14:35:02 <dbooth> s/get/gets/
14:35:22 <harry> "discovery problem"
14:35:29 <harry> XRD, Simple Web Discovery, Web Linking
14:37:00 <harry> fixed information resource
14:37:53 <harry> "fixed information resource" = "version of information resource"?
14:38:19 <dbooth> dbooth: If you get into "meaning", then you need to define what you mean by "meaning", and that's a lot more difficult.  But if we just talk about the *mechanics* of getting a definition, then we don't need to get into it.
14:39:03 <harry> http://www.example.org/doc#
14:39:05 <harry> http://www.example.org/doc#_
14:40:09 <harry> #could be considered an indirection
14:40:24 <harry> RDFa crawls of Yahoo!
14:40:33 <harry> Facebook is brought up with RDFa
14:40:45 <harry> Hixie brings in HTML5 against using URIs in prefixes in general.
14:41:04 <harry> Hixie's objections to using URIs in prefixes and RDFa in general
14:41:12 <harry> his vote against it RDFa
14:42:44 <Zakim> -hhalpin
14:42:48 <harry> sorry for not being able to stay around longer!
14:54:07 <Zakim> -DBooth
14:54:09 <Zakim> -jar
14:54:10 <Zakim> TAG_(AWWSW)9:00AM has ended
14:54:10 <Zakim> Attendees were jar, DBooth, hhalpin
14:54:28 <dbooth> rrsagent, make logs public
14:54:42 <dbooth> rrsagent, draft minutes
14:54:42 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/04/12-awwsw-minutes.html dbooth
15:56:26 <Zakim> Zakim has left #awwsw
16:04:42 <dbooth> dbooth has joined #awwsw