IRC log of tagmem on 2012-05-03

Timestamps are in UTC.

16:57:15 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #tagmem
16:57:15 [RRSAgent]
logging to
16:57:17 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
16:57:17 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #tagmem
16:57:19 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be TAG
16:57:19 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see TAG_Weekly()1:00PM scheduled to start in 3 minutes
16:57:20 [trackbot]
Meeting: Technical Architecture Group Teleconference
16:57:20 [trackbot]
Date: 03 May 2012
16:57:27 [JeniT]
Scribe: Jeni Tennison
16:57:30 [JeniT]
ScribeNick: JeniT
16:57:40 [JeniT]
Chair: Noah Mendelsohn
16:59:24 [Larry]
Larry has joined #tagmem
16:59:35 [Zakim]
TAG_Weekly()1:00PM has now started
16:59:42 [Zakim]
17:00:13 [Zakim]
17:00:15 [Ashok]
Ashok has joined #tagmem
17:00:26 [JeniT]
Regrets: Robin Berjon, Yves Lafon
17:00:30 [Zakim]
17:01:02 [Zakim]
17:01:32 [Zakim]
17:02:06 [jar]
jar has joined #tagmem
17:02:34 [Zakim]
17:05:51 [ht]
I suggest someone in the US call Noah and ask what's up
17:05:56 [noah]
noah has joined #tagmem
17:06:05 [Zakim]
17:06:16 [Zakim]
17:06:23 [noah]
zakim, who is here?
17:06:23 [Zakim]
On the phone I see JeniT, Masinter, plinss, Ashok_Malhotra, Jonathan_Rees, Noah_Mendelsohn
17:06:26 [Zakim]
On IRC I see noah, jar, Ashok, masinter, Zakim, RRSAgent, JeniT, ht, timbl, trackbot, plinss, Yves
17:06:52 [JeniT]
Topic: Convene
17:07:02 [Zakim]
17:07:12 [JeniT]
Regrets: Robin, Yves, Tim
17:07:30 [JeniT]
Present: Jeni, Larry, Peter, Ashok, Jonathan, Noah
17:07:58 [JeniT]
noah: I am probably not available next week
17:08:11 [JeniT]
Ashok: could you create the agenda?
17:08:18 [masinter]
i volunteer to chair if Noah can't make it
17:08:29 [JeniT]
... I could then chair if you weren't available
17:08:51 [JeniT]
noah: the meeting will be going ahead 10th May
17:08:56 [noah]
17:09:06 [JeniT]
Topic: Approve minutes of prior meeting(s)
17:09:52 [JeniT]
noah: these are noted as being a draft
17:10:06 [JeniT]
masinter: I was using the minutes as a privacy example
17:10:32 [JeniT]
noah: Larry, please look at actual text if you want it to be changed
17:10:52 [JeniT]
masinter: that text is fine
17:11:17 [masinter]
did anyone else care?
17:11:29 [noah]
ACTION: Noah to put health warning in "Booth Script" for formatting minutes
17:11:29 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-703 - Put health warning in "Booth Script" for formatting minutes [on Noah Mendelsohn - due 2012-05-10].
17:11:30 [JeniT]
RESOLUTION: Minutes of 2012-04-26 are approved
17:11:38 [noah]
17:11:48 [jar]
as a use case, the interesting thing is what the health warning should say, to set an example for other health warnings
17:11:51 [JeniT]
Topic: Administrative items
17:12:10 [JeniT]
noah: we should review the DANE work
17:12:16 [masinter]
i've been talking to Philip Hallem-Baker (sp?)
17:12:23 [JeniT]
... Larry had suggested getting invited experts
17:12:27 [jar]
based on what I know of TAMI etc. I think it could say a different thing… will follow up in email
17:12:34 [Ashok]
17:12:41 [JeniT]
masinter: I've been talking to Philip, who has a paper on an alternative method, and is critical of DANE
17:12:55 [JeniT]
noah: we'd need someone in addition to him, to be an advocate for DANE, right?
17:13:18 [JeniT]
... Larry, would you sort out who should come and talk to us?
17:13:24 [JeniT]
masinter: yes
17:13:30 [noah]
ack next
17:13:47 [JeniT]
Ashok: I've been following this, and it's still ongoing
17:13:55 [JeniT]
... it looks like there's hardly any agreement on direction
17:14:03 [JeniT]
... I'm wondering if it's too early to look at this
17:14:06 [masinter]
push date of action-697 out a couple more weeks
17:14:43 [jar]
action-697 due 2012-05-16
17:14:43 [trackbot]
ACTION-697 prepare overview of DANE for TAG consideration due date now 2012-05-16
17:15:02 [JeniT]
masinter: it is early to come to conclusions
17:15:29 [JeniT]
... but even so, if it's chaos it's not unreasonable for us to see if we could contribute to resolving it
17:15:37 [JeniT]
Ashok: then you would ask a couple of people?
17:16:06 [JeniT]
masinter: yes, I think so, I haven't yet understood enough to know how to bring it to the TAG
17:16:22 [JeniT]
... so let's meet this week and see if we can make sense of it together
17:16:24 [JeniT]
Ashok: ok
17:17:26 [JeniT]
noah: ok, Larry will take next step with ACTION-697
17:17:29 [JeniT]
Topic: Close pending Actions without discussion
17:17:43 [masinter]
s/let's/let's (Ashok and I)/
17:18:24 [JeniT]
noah: ACTION-636
17:18:43 [masinter]
I did move the document I was working on to the WIki
17:18:43 [JeniT]
... updating product page which closes out Mime and the Web work for now
17:19:39 [JeniT]
no objections
17:19:50 [JeniT]
agreed noah can close ACTION-636
17:20:27 [noah]
17:20:27 [trackbot]
ACTION-670 -- Noah Mendelsohn to update product priority list to mark MIMEWeb completed after final product page available -- due 2012-05-08 -- OPEN
17:20:27 [trackbot]
17:22:24 [JeniT]
Topic: ACTION-680: review of (note: should be the -06 version)
17:22:33 [noah]
17:22:40 [masinter]
i think -06 made changes in response to our comments
17:22:55 [JeniT]
masinter: I think they have responded to our comments
17:23:06 [JeniT]
... the changes between -05 and -06 were the edits in response to our suggestions
17:23:06 [noah]
Could we briefly list the things they did in response to our requests?
17:23:23 [JeniT]
... we need to publish Jeni's document as an RFC or an Architectural Recommendation on best practices for media type registrations
17:23:44 [JeniT]
noah: this (media type regs) is a IETF document that will become a RFC or BCP, right?
17:23:49 [JeniT]
masinter: yes, right
17:23:56 [JeniT]
noah: do we need to do something else?
17:24:03 [JeniT]
masinter: we started on best practices to fragment identifiers
17:24:11 [JeniT]
... we wanted them to refer to that normatively, but there wasn't time
17:24:16 [JeniT]
... but we still need to finish that document
17:24:23 [noah]
17:24:23 [trackbot]
ACTION-690 -- Jeni Tennison to sort next steps on Fragment Identifiers and Mime Types -- due 2012-04-17 -- OPEN
17:24:23 [trackbot]
17:24:29 [JeniT]
noah: right
17:24:45 [JeniT]
... Jeni has the action on what we should do
17:24:51 [JeniT]
masinter: my opinion is we should finish it
17:25:07 [masinter]
and get it published as an architectural recommendation or else an IETF BCP
17:25:25 [noah]
JT: The discussion for item 6 on the agenda is about how to take that forward, and what its scope should be.
17:25:32 [masinter]
i also had two other items with regard to media types which aren't currently covered
17:25:47 [noah]
JT: I think at present it's got description, but the "best practices" aren't pitched right.
17:26:06 [masinter]
a) file extensions, which *are* a part of web architecture, mentioned in MIME reigistrations, but the registration process isnt currently useful
17:26:24 [noah]
JT: I was going to propose to refocus on what should be put into mime type registrations relating especially to fragment identifiers
17:26:31 [masinter]
b) 'magic numbers', since sniffing is part of web architecture, but the MIME registry of magic numbers isn't
17:26:50 [ht]
q+ to say yes, but don't lose back-story
17:27:15 [noah]
ack next
17:27:16 [Zakim]
ht, you wanted to say yes, but don't lose back-story
17:27:18 [JeniT]
noah: ok, let's talk about TAG work, and then jump back to mime draft
17:27:42 [JeniT]
ht: yes, I think what Jeni volunteered to do would be great
17:27:59 [JeniT]
... but don't lose the back story, put it in another document and reference it from the Best Practices document
17:28:06 [JeniT]
noah: I agree, keeping the back story is good
17:28:07 [masinter]
i would be glad to help
17:28:32 [noah]
NM: Do we need to set priorities relative your other work, Jeni?
17:28:58 [noah]
JT: How to prioritize relative to copyright and linking
17:29:11 [jar]
copyright + linking more important
17:29:14 [noah]
LM: Both important. I'm willing to help with MIME draft if that will help
17:29:17 [JeniT]
masinter: they're both important, I'm willing to help on mime draft, but I'll want direction
17:29:41 [JeniT]
ht: since Ned won't reference the fragment identifier document, it takes the time pressure off
17:29:54 [JeniT]
noah: he's reluctant to reference it because it's not there
17:30:17 [masinter]
what's the shortest time we could publish this?
17:30:29 [JeniT]
... the more we do things slowly, the more we're not good partners
17:30:43 [JeniT]
... this feels like something we could get something concrete out rapidly
17:31:14 [masinter]
I think the fragment identifier document is nearly done
17:31:45 [ht]
I'm OK either way
17:31:53 [JeniT]
JeniT: feels to me like we could do something moderately rapidly, good timing with media type reg. document
17:31:58 [JeniT]
noah: any objections?
17:32:07 [Ashok]
17:32:10 [JeniT]
... none heard, so do fragid / media type higher priority
17:32:40 [JeniT]
... please bring product pages up to date
17:32:51 [JeniT]
... especially if I can put it in the report
17:33:04 [JeniT]
JeniT: I will try to do that in next couple of days
17:33:28 [JeniT]
masinter: do we need to push back on media fragments group?
17:33:50 [JeniT]
... at the web conference, I talked to Thomas, and they were saying it was a mistake when the group was chartered
17:34:08 [JeniT]
... we have a draft from a WG that the folks from the IETF thought was laughable
17:34:12 [noah]
Please remind me what the concern was -- I wasn't at the meeting where this was discussed
17:34:12 [JeniT]
... there's a disconnect there
17:35:04 [JeniT]
noah: what's the concern with what they've done?
17:35:19 [JeniT]
masinter: they propose that fragids have a meaning that applies to all registrations of a top-level type
17:35:34 [JeniT]
... and that idea doesn't jibe with the folks who run the media type registries, and what they could enforce
17:36:30 [noah]
17:36:36 [masinter]
it relates to item 7, in that if we expect all future registrations of image/* to use the media fragments fragmentID scheme, the mime registration document should say so
17:37:00 [noah]
q+ to talk about XML vs. image
17:37:06 [noah]
ack next
17:37:07 [Zakim]
noah, you wanted to talk about XML vs. image
17:37:26 [JeniT]
noah: we might have something to say here, which is analogous to the generic processing debate
17:37:57 [masinter]
at one point, the rtsp scheme wanted to define fragment identifiers for URIs for taht scheme
17:37:58 [JeniT]
... we could say that there's a choice for the media type registrations to reference that spec
17:38:09 [JeniT]
... but if you do that, you can't have generic processors that understand all images
17:38:27 [JeniT]
... with XML, which is a +xml type which is slightly different, we wanted to share specs, but also have generic processing
17:38:33 [JeniT]
... with specific understanding of the subtype
17:38:46 [JeniT]
... that story, that trade-off, without choosing sides, might be useful
17:39:01 [JeniT]
... to point out that if it's just buy-in of media types one-by-one, you lose generic processing
17:39:09 [JeniT]
... because other media types might choose differently
17:39:29 [JeniT]
ht: Yves story as Jeni described it is not consistent with the remarks in the current version of Jeni's document
17:39:36 [JeniT]
... about the possibility of inheritance from the top
17:39:56 [JeniT]
... the fact that Yves doesn't think it means that, and it's clear that it caused an aversion reaction from the IETF community
17:40:12 [JeniT]
... I think it's worth keeping in view the possibility of inheritance as in principle a coherent position
17:40:35 [JeniT]
noah: it's interesting to talk about this in terms of the major type and the +ext syntax
17:40:43 [noah]
17:40:45 [JeniT]
... certainly there's generic processing you could do on text for example
17:40:57 [ht]
s/inheritance as/inheritance 'from the top' as/
17:41:00 [noah]
17:41:23 [JeniT]
noah: the media fragment spec made some statements about web architecture that I found surprising
17:41:28 [JeniT]
... sent in email earlier
17:41:30 [masinter]
fragments don't have media types
17:41:43 [JeniT]
... they said fragments have the same media type as the original representation
17:41:50 [JeniT]
... I'd welcome getting comments back on this
17:41:57 [JeniT]
masinter: fragments don't have media types
17:42:07 [masinter]
fragments aren't "retrieved"
17:42:09 [JeniT]
noah: that spec says they do!
17:42:09 [noah]
Quoting media types draft: A further requirement put on a URI fragment is that the media type of the
17:42:09 [noah]
retrieved fragment should be the same as the media type of the primary
17:42:09 [noah]
17:42:29 [masinter]
"retrieved fragment" doesn't have a media type
17:42:33 [ht]
Fragments _could_ have media types, if the parent media type registration specifies that they do
17:42:35 [JeniT]
... I agree with Larry that they don't have a media type
17:42:48 [JeniT]
... it might be worth going through the spec to look at these
17:42:53 [masinter]
we went through this with http Range
17:43:18 [JeniT]
JeniT: I could have a look as part of the fragid & media type work
17:43:19 [noah]
17:43:19 [trackbot]
ACTION-698 -- Noah Mendelsohn to schedule discussion of how to take forward the TAG concerns with respect to managing fragment identifer schemes, inheritance and overlap -- due 2012-05-01 -- PENDINGREVIEW
17:43:19 [trackbot]
17:43:24 [masinter]
byte range retrieval... (need to look up)
17:43:26 [noah]
close ACTION-698
17:43:26 [trackbot]
ACTION-698 Schedule discussion of how to take forward the TAG concerns with respect to managing fragment identifer schemes, inheritance and overlap closed
17:43:31 [noah]
17:43:31 [trackbot]
ACTION-690 -- Jeni Tennison to sort next steps on Fragment Identifiers and Mime Types -- due 2012-04-17 -- OPEN
17:43:31 [trackbot]
17:43:52 [noah]
ACTION-690 Due 2012-05-05
17:43:52 [trackbot]
ACTION-690 sort next steps on Fragment Identifiers and Mime Types due date now 2012-05-05
17:44:12 [masinter]
17:44:18 [JeniT]
noah: anything else on the media type registration draft?
17:44:37 [JeniT]
masinter: there are two things in my original analysis that aren't within this
17:44:55 [JeniT]
... one is file extensions, which aren't part of the web, they're mentioned in several specifications
17:44:56 [noah]
What do you think we/they should say about file extensions?
17:45:10 [JeniT]
... a recent thing in HTML5 in file upload that talks about file extensions
17:45:25 [JeniT]
... the media type registration lists extensions, but the lists don't correspond to what people use
17:45:34 [JeniT]
... this is a gap that neither W3C or IETF is working on
17:45:36 [jar]
4.12. Additional Information
17:45:43 [JeniT]
noah: do you have a concrete suggestion about what should be done?
17:45:53 [jar]
SHOULD File name extension(s) commonly used on one or more platforms to
17:45:54 [jar]
indicate that some file contains a given media type.
17:46:00 [jar]
(quoting the draft)
17:46:04 [JeniT]
masinter: I've been worried about this for years, and I'm trying to see if anyone else on the TAG is interested in pursuing this?
17:46:49 [masinter]
that the MIME registry for file extensions is incomplete, not useful,e tc. but W3C specs use file extensions, and they're getting *more* used in specs
17:47:11 [JeniT]
noah: it's part of the work we just closed out on Mime and the Web
17:47:27 [masinter]
another thing in the same category are the 'magic numbers'
17:47:44 [JeniT]
jar: is there a registry of file extensions?
17:47:55 [JeniT]
masinter: there's no official registry of file extensions in IETF or W3C
17:48:04 [ht]
q+ to mention 'file'
17:48:05 [JeniT]
... the packaging spec includes file extensions for use within packaged documents
17:48:22 [noah]
(and of course, different OS's have at least somewhat different constraints on extensions, e.g. 3 char vs unbounded.)
17:48:23 [JeniT]
... we have a best practice that HTTP URIs with file extensions shouldn't mean anything
17:48:42 [JeniT]
... the media type registrations should include extensions
17:48:56 [JeniT]
jar: would this be an IANA considerations thing? a request to make a registry?
17:49:01 [JeniT]
masinter: we could make a registry
17:49:21 [JeniT]
ht: there already is a registry, a hugely complex registry
17:49:29 [JeniT]
... in linux
17:49:41 [masinter]
there are multiple registries, apache filetypes
17:49:43 [JeniT]
noah: that's not cross-OS
17:49:56 [JeniT]
ht: there's an enormous degree of overlap, except with Windows
17:50:05 [JeniT]
... all the unix variants buy into it, including the Macs
17:50:12 [JeniT]
noah: Windows has its own, and people hack it
17:50:24 [JeniT]
ht: there is a registry, it's just not an IANA one
17:50:41 [masinter]
17:50:49 [JeniT]
noah: the IETF has a loose form, in that media type registrations can list extensions
17:50:52 [masinter]
is a web site dedicated to registering file extension
17:50:57 [JeniT]
... I just wonder if they might be checked for consistency with others
17:51:02 [JeniT]
jar: that's not going to happen
17:51:14 [JeniT]
noah: you mean if I gave a file extension of 'jpeg' then they wouldn't object?
17:51:36 [JeniT]
masinter: there's a website
17:51:57 [JeniT]
jar: the way I see these registraties is that the truth comes from IETF and IANA just does administration
17:52:04 [noah]
FILExt is a database of file extensions and the various programs that use them. I
17:52:14 [JeniT]
... we could under IANA considerations ask them to start keeping a registry
17:52:17 [masinter]
i'm just pointing out that this is a part of "how the web works" that isn't standardized, and that disagreements about cause problems
17:52:23 [JeniT]
... I'm not saying it's a good idea, just it might logically make sense
17:52:30 [masinter]
and that use from W3C specs is increasing
17:52:30 [JeniT]
... but if the information is in other places, maybe it doesn't
17:52:37 [JeniT]
noah: what should we do about this as the TAG?
17:52:51 [masinter]
put it on our list of "things we should do later" ?
17:53:15 [JeniT]
masinter: maybe we need a list of things that webarch doesn't talk about
17:53:23 [JeniT]
noah: what was the other one you had, Larry?
17:53:29 [JeniT]
masinter: magic numbers and sniffing
17:53:44 [JeniT]
... I'm bringing these up because they are both in the media type reg document as something you could say
17:53:52 [JeniT]
jar: they have a SHOULD, you have to justify not saying them
17:54:01 [JeniT]
masinter: but it doesn't tell you why you would say it, or what the best practice is
17:54:13 [JeniT]
noah: does the TAG need to engage on this?
17:54:23 [JeniT]
... couldn't an individual make comments on the draft?
17:54:39 [JeniT]
... what do you want them to do, and does it involve the TAG to get there?
17:54:52 [JeniT]
masinter: I see people building things that don't work well because of inconsistencies in these areas
17:54:59 [JeniT]
noah: but what should we do?
17:55:06 [JeniT]
masinter: I'm ok with moving on
17:55:14 [masinter]
I don't know what else to do with those
17:55:23 [noah]
17:55:23 [trackbot]
ACTION-680 -- Jeni Tennison to lead TAG telcon review (rescheduled) of -- due 2012-04-24 -- PENDINGREVIEW
17:55:23 [trackbot]
17:55:37 [noah]
close ACTION-680
17:55:37 [trackbot]
ACTION-680 Lead TAG telcon review (rescheduled) of closed
17:56:17 [JeniT]
Topic: ISSUE-57 (HttpRedirections-57), ISSUE-63 (metadataArchitecture-63) and ISSUE-14 (HttpRange-14): httpRange-14 — URI Documentation Discovery
17:56:46 [noah]
topic: httpRange-14 URI Documentation Discovery
17:56:46 [masinter]
At one point in an AC meeting I argued for more "fixing the potholes" vs. "building bridges to nowhere" and that file extensions and magic numbers are potholes in the web architecture
17:57:04 [noah]
17:57:13 [Ashok]
17:57:17 [Zakim]
17:57:19 [noah]
17:57:35 [jar]
17:57:39 [noah]
17:57:41 [ht]
q- ht
17:57:56 [noah]
ack next
17:58:53 [noah]
AM: Jonathan, I have a small quibble. I'm tempted to look at 3rd row, see 1 fail, and say "ah ah". Then I go to the proposals and see nothing matching the left hand column entry "New status code"
17:58:58 [noah]
JAR: Good point.
17:59:45 [JeniT_]
JeniT_ has joined #tagmem
17:59:55 [noah]
JAR: That's an omission. Wasn't formatted as a change proposal, but we did get the proposal. I'll put on my "to do list" to document. The proposal is for something like an HTTP 209 status code meaning "what I'm giving you is a description, not a representation"
18:00:02 [Zakim]
18:00:20 [masinter]
I'm still talking to jonathan about the scenarios and the underlying assumptions that they seem to make (to me)
18:00:33 [JeniT]
noah: have you got feedback on the matrix from the community?
18:00:40 [noah]
NM: You asked the community to vet this. I'm feeling like you didn't get a lot of responses?
18:00:54 [noah]
JAR: Yes, but for now, it only went to the www-tag list.
18:00:55 [JeniT]
jar: I only really asked the TAG, and haven't really got feedback except from a couple of TAG members
18:01:14 [JeniT]
Ashok: could you put in the left column a reference indicating the section in the other document?
18:01:42 [noah]
18:01:43 [JeniT]
jar: yes, I will try
18:02:26 [JeniT]
jar: if there are questions that people on this call have about the matrix, this might be a time to surface them, but email would also work
18:02:36 [JeniT]
... I'm not sure how to review this
18:03:06 [JeniT]
noah: ideally this should lead to making a proposal
18:03:15 [JeniT]
... it might be that not all failures are equally bad for the community
18:03:30 [JeniT]
... so you might push forward to narrow discussion to just two or three
18:03:43 [JeniT]
jar: we talked about forming a task group, and one has emerged
18:03:54 [JeniT]
... Henry, Jeni and I have been exchanging email for the past couple of weeks
18:04:02 [JeniT]
... we're working on a narrative for the issue behind the scenes
18:04:28 [JeniT]
... I have strong opinions about how to go at this
18:04:40 [JeniT]
... I'm trying to get support from Jeni and Henry on these ideas
18:04:51 [JeniT]
... they have strong opinions too, so we're going to try to get something between us
18:05:05 [JeniT]
noah: the other thing I missed in the matrix, I wondered if there were things that it doesn't cover
18:05:33 [JeniT]
... for example, aside from use case J, I was looking for something that would break if there was a new status code
18:05:39 [JeniT]
... are all these deployable to some degree?
18:05:48 [masinter]
"deployable" has a scope.
18:05:50 [JeniT]
jar: the question is who do we give veto power to
18:06:10 [JeniT]
noah: what do proxies do if they see a status code they haven't seen before?
18:06:17 [JeniT]
jar: I think it's specified in the HTTP spec
18:06:32 [JeniT]
noah: doing some due diligence on what running code actually does would be a good idea
18:06:39 [JeniT]
... to see if the options are actually viable
18:06:58 [JeniT]
... many of these have fallen down when we look at what ISPs can do
18:07:10 [JeniT]
jar: I don't know how to do that in the matrix
18:07:33 [JeniT]
noah: I'm not saying how to format it, I'm saying do analysis early enough
18:07:40 [JeniT]
jar: almost no one will accept a new status code
18:07:46 [JeniT]
noah: but why? we need to capture that
18:08:03 [JeniT]
... it makes architectural sense to me, you say it fails only one use case
18:08:11 [JeniT]
Ashok: browsers would have to implement it, right?
18:08:19 [JeniT]
jar: they might treat it the same as a 200
18:08:37 [JeniT]
... one of the big complaints about the 303 is you have to do a song and dance around your server configuration, and that's what use case J is saying
18:08:52 [JeniT]
... maybe we should talk about the other goal
18:09:14 [JeniT]
... we have to think about how to generalise this
18:09:26 [JeniT]
... if this is an RDF-specific problem, we need to hand it off to people who care about RDF
18:09:37 [JeniT]
... draw some line to say what we think is good practice
18:09:57 [JeniT]
... there are some things that are TAG business, and others that are RDF business, and a lot of the proposals look like RDF business
18:10:11 [JeniT]
... we've been talking about use case M, HTTP consistency, which seems like a TAG issue
18:10:28 [JeniT]
... I have a proposal for how to do the hand off, but I want to wait for Henry and Jeni to agree or disagree about that
18:10:43 [JeniT]
... unless we want to talk about this on the call, maybe we should put it out to committee
18:10:49 [JeniT]
Ashok: is this really a RDF problem?
18:10:54 [JeniT]
jar: it depends on what you think the problem is
18:11:06 [JeniT]
... to me, it's a serious issue whether HTTP and RDF diverge
18:11:18 [JeniT]
... maybe it's ok if they diverge, but that suggests they should be careful in the language they use
18:11:25 [JeniT]
... so there isn't confusion about how web architecture works
18:11:28 [ht]
For the record, is the mailing list which manages the magicnumbers/extensions 'registry'---there is no website for this, the closest there is is the README file from the 'file' package, e.g.
18:11:35 [JeniT]
Ashok: suppose we took RDF off the table, here
18:11:40 [JeniT]
... what would we still have?
18:11:52 [JeniT]
masinter: I don't think there would be things left
18:11:57 [JeniT]
ht: there definitely would
18:11:59 [masinter]
i think this is a 'use of RDF' problem
18:12:07 [noah]
18:12:08 [masinter]
RDF doesn't have a problem, URIs don't have a problem
18:12:10 [JeniT]
... there are definitely things left that would matter
18:12:23 [JeniT]
... the language that important TAG members such as TimBL have used for years
18:12:27 [JeniT]
... is self-contradictory
18:12:38 [JeniT]
... if we care about clearing up a mess that we created, we have to fix that
18:12:44 [JeniT]
... and that would be true even if RDF didn't exist
18:12:48 [masinter]
it's people who want to turn "statements in RDF using URIs" into "statements about the real world" who want to take a URI and have it identify something in the real world
18:12:56 [JeniT]
noah: I think on general principles, and given the TAG had this resolution years ago
18:13:15 [JeniT]
... I think it would be helpful to explain why it's not our business, if it isn't
18:13:22 [jar]
18:13:25 [ht]
s/important TAG members/the TAG and TAG members/
18:13:40 [masinter]
and the problem is that URIs were never intended as a general mechanism for identifying things int he real world
18:13:42 [JeniT]
... for example, Larry and I disagree about what HTTP status codes are used for
18:13:54 [JeniT]
... explaining what that answer is is very much in TAG's scope
18:14:03 [JeniT]
... especially as our last solution was to use a status code
18:14:11 [masinter]
people building ontologies think an ontology is a mechanism for turning idnetifiers for web resources into identifiers of concepts
18:14:21 [JeniT]
... I'd like to explain what the limits are of web architecture and their applicability to this problem
18:14:32 [ht]
I also don't think we could just proffer a new status code as a solution without a story behind it
18:14:35 [JeniT]
jar: it would be nice to get any bit of consensus we can on this
18:14:43 [ht]
18:14:49 [noah]
s/Larry and I disagree/Larry and I didnt immedately agree/
18:14:59 [JeniT]
s/this/what's TAG business and what isn't/
18:15:16 [JeniT]
noah: if there are useful back-channel discussions happening, maybe we should hang loose for a while
18:15:29 [JeniT]
ht: I think we have to work a bit longer towards convergence
18:15:40 [JeniT]
... I'm the major bottleneck, probably, but I'd like another week
18:15:53 [masinter]
q+ to talk about another approach
18:15:54 [noah]
We're hearing that Jonathan, Henry and Jeni are working in the background to get some more clarity. Should we just hold off a couple of weeks and await progress?
18:16:00 [JeniT]
Ashok: Henry, you've spoken about the language around content negotiation and so on being self-contradictory
18:16:13 [JeniT]
... do you have an idea how to fix that?
18:16:23 [JeniT]
ht: no, I don't
18:16:35 [JeniT]
... I mentioned it because it's something I use to test proposed solutions
18:16:48 [JeniT]
... because I think 'it better solve this problem too'
18:16:51 [noah]
ack next
18:16:53 [Zakim]
masinter, you wanted to talk about another approach
18:16:58 [JeniT]
... the cardinality problem: how many resources are there?
18:17:21 [Zakim]
18:17:27 [JeniT]
masinter: I've been trying to pursue a different direction, where we have a mechanism for making statements in RDF
18:17:45 [JeniT]
... and an implicit assumption where you can use URIs to ground a statement in the real world
18:17:54 [JeniT]
... and the problem is the nature of the grounding is ambiguous
18:18:02 [JeniT]
... and we have given conflicting advice, using status codes and so on
18:18:22 [JeniT]
... the problems that we really want to talk about wrt publishing, linking, copyright, security, trust
18:18:38 [JeniT]
... are not easy to explain in a world where we presume that there is a common understanding about how a URI identifies something
18:18:52 [JeniT]
... and if you move to a different model, where you don't think about the truth of statement or their meaning
18:19:02 [JeniT]
... as something that's disembodied from the agent that is saying it or reading it...
18:19:07 [JeniT]
... and look at a speech act model
18:19:26 [JeniT]
... then you stop asking what the triple means, you look at intention
18:19:41 [JeniT]
... a speaker utters an RDF assertion using URIs, a receiver reads an interprets it, as a speech act
18:19:57 [JeniT]
... this is a different model, which is better suited to talking about the difference between copying something and linking to it
18:20:12 [JeniT]
... that you don't try to interpret statements independently of the context in which they are stated
18:20:31 [JeniT]
... this leaves httpRange-14 behind, because we're taking on a more complicated, less trusting model for communication
18:20:48 [JeniT]
... I've been trying to think about how to express the copyright & linking document we've been working on
18:20:55 [JeniT]
... if we were stating these things in RDF
18:20:57 [jar]
This is the "choose based on context" proposal in the chart
18:21:02 [JeniT]
... and that gets you beyond the status code
18:21:17 [JeniT]
noah: how much in RDF would have to be deprecated or turned off to use that new model?
18:21:34 [JeniT]
masinter: we have systems that assume trust between communicators
18:21:43 [JeniT]
... you can't do induction unless you assume that everything is true
18:21:55 [JeniT]
noah: so all the statements from DBPedia remain equally useful if we go down this path?
18:22:24 [JeniT]
masinter: you have to put them into context that DBPedia is using, where maybe they intended you to look at 303 codes and maybe used something else
18:22:28 [noah]
18:22:38 [JeniT]
... it's part of a larger framework
18:22:51 [JeniT]
noah: I'd be interested to see how far you could get on getting Tim to agree to this
18:23:01 [JeniT]
masinter: I think I'm making some progress on him
18:23:09 [JeniT]
jar: we have to figure out what problem we're trying to solve
18:23:15 [JeniT]
... we've had a hard time getting focus
18:23:31 [JeniT]
... these are all fine things to work on, but it's not what we started with
18:23:38 [JeniT]
... this isn't an issue for the linked data community
18:23:45 [JeniT]
masinter: I think when you get to linked data in the real world
18:23:50 [JeniT]
... with government agencies publishing data
18:23:54 [JeniT]
... we will need a better model
18:23:55 [JeniT]
18:24:00 [JeniT]
jar: but is that the TAG's problem?
18:24:11 [JeniT]
... that's a problem for linked data, and they will figure it out for themselves
18:24:20 [JeniT]
... right now we're doing design for nobody if we take this on
18:24:59 [JeniT]
noah: maybe if you change the ground rules, the solutions are different
18:25:08 [JeniT]
masinter: I think the question being asked isn't interesting
18:25:28 [JeniT]
jar: this is why I want to get it out of the TAG
18:25:40 [JeniT]
masinter: we can say we're working on something else which is more important
18:25:55 [JeniT]
noah: we have to be careful about how we do this after 8 or 2 years
18:26:11 [Zakim]
18:26:16 [JeniT]
... we could look really stupid, beating our heads on this for ages, and finally to say it's not our problem
18:26:21 [JeniT]
... I would have a problem with that
18:26:22 [masinter]
i think we should drop 'findings' more than 2 years old if we can't bring them to community consensus
18:26:31 [JeniT]
... why did this appear to be a problem for so long?
18:26:41 [JeniT]
... we should have figured out a long time ago that this wasn't our problem, if it's not
18:26:54 [JeniT]
... I think the answer is about how to use HTTP "properly"
18:26:59 [JeniT]
... and that is the TAG's problem
18:27:01 [timbl]
18:27:17 [JeniT]
timbl: sorry for arriving late
18:27:23 [noah]
ack next
18:27:37 [JeniT]
... having discussed this with jar just yesterday
18:27:52 [JeniT]
... I think the hope has been, for me, that the TAG would be able to describe an architecture that included linked data
18:28:04 [JeniT]
... the original architecture didn't: it was a hypertext system, it didn't include RDF
18:28:20 [JeniT]
... the problem has been partly that there's a small overlap between the TAG and the RDF community
18:28:39 [JeniT]
... a relatively small overlap in general between linked data and people doing things with HTTP
18:28:54 [JeniT]
... I think RDF should use HTTP properly
18:29:07 [JeniT]
... it may be that the niceties of how RDF works can't be discussed with non-RDF people
18:29:32 [JeniT]
... so we end up with an architecture that is consistent with HTTP, but is more detailed and refined
18:29:44 [Zakim]
18:29:49 [JeniT]
noah: one of the proposals that seems to have a low number of downsides is to use a new status code
18:30:05 [JeniT]
... I would have thought that the TAG should explain whether that's architecturally appropriate
18:30:15 [JeniT]
... the RDF community might separately settle on whether they want to do that
18:30:22 [JeniT]
... do you think that's more than what the TAG should be doing?
18:30:33 [JeniT]
timbl: if the TAG can solve this, great, write it up
18:30:45 [JeniT]
... I regard httpRange-14 and the 303 header as a compromise
18:30:52 [JeniT]
noah: we're discussing jar's matrix
18:31:26 [JeniT]
... one of the proposals is to use a new status code
18:31:30 [jar]
207, 208, 209
18:31:56 [jar]
refresh the page
18:31:57 [JeniT]
... I'm just probing because you seemed to be saying the TAG should back off because the communities were separate
18:32:15 [JeniT]
... I would say the TAG has a role to play to say whether it's an appropriate to use a status code for this
18:32:44 [JeniT]
timbl: there are a lot of issues here where it's only the TAG who are chartered to do this
18:32:57 [JeniT]
... but I think it would also be reasonable to just make this work for linked data
18:33:24 [JeniT]
... if we had a new status code, we would have to explain how to do so, maybe push towards hash more strongly
18:33:36 [JeniT]
... still have to deal with simple OGP as well
18:33:47 [JeniT]
... there's valuable work to be done here
18:33:55 [JeniT]
noah: we're at time
18:34:16 [JeniT]
... Jonathan, Henry and Jeni have been talking behind the scenes to move towards more clarity
18:34:24 [JeniT]
... I'm inclined to wait a week or two and see what happens
18:34:31 [JeniT]
jar: agreed
18:34:47 [JeniT]
timbl: I'd be happy to be brought up to date offline
18:35:02 [JeniT]
masinter: when they come to a conclusion, they should bring it to us
18:35:13 [noah]
18:35:14 [trackbot]
ACTION-691 -- Jonathan Rees to prepare table as described in 2012-04-04 minutes, for TAG review -- due 2012-04-24 -- PENDINGREVIEW
18:35:14 [trackbot]
18:35:22 [noah]
close ACTION-691
18:35:22 [trackbot]
ACTION-691 Prepare table as described in 2012-04-04 minutes, for TAG review closed
18:35:53 [JeniT]
masinter: eliminate from consideration all but three rows
18:36:01 [JeniT]
jar: I'm not sure we have standing to do that
18:36:05 [JeniT]
noah: you could do it as a proposal
18:36:13 [noah]
. ACTION: Jonathan with help from Jeni and Henry to try to identify next steps for moving forward on httpRange-14
18:36:34 [noah]
. ACTION: Jonathan with help from Jeni and Henry to try to identify next steps for moving forward on httpRange-14 - Due 2012-05-15
18:36:38 [noah]
ACTION: Jonathan with help from Jeni and Henry to try to identify next steps for moving forward on httpRange-14 - Due 2012-05-15
18:36:38 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-704 - with help from Jeni and Henry to try to identify next steps for moving forward on httpRange-14 [on Jonathan Rees - due 2012-05-15].
18:36:48 [JeniT]
masinter: come back with the same number of rows as the number of people in the subgroup
18:37:19 [Zakim]
18:37:23 [masinter]
I don't like any of the proposals, because I don't like the question
18:37:24 [noah]
We are ADJOURNED. Informal discussion can continue.
18:37:37 [JeniT]
rrsagent, draft minutes
18:37:37 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate JeniT
18:37:52 [Zakim]
18:37:54 [Zakim]
18:37:55 [masinter]
but at least if you're going to continue to ask the same question, come back with at most N rows, where N is the size of the subgroup
18:37:55 [Zakim]
18:38:01 [Zakim]
18:38:09 [Zakim]
TAG_Weekly()1:00PM has ended
18:38:10 [Zakim]
Attendees were JeniT, Masinter, ht, plinss, Ashok_Malhotra, Jonathan_Rees, Noah_Mendelsohn, TimBL
18:38:54 [masinter]
s/the same number of rows/at most the number of rows/
18:52:50 [JeniT]
JeniT has joined #tagmem
19:11:50 [JeniT]
JeniT has joined #tagmem
20:30:37 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #tagmem
21:01:03 [JeniT]
JeniT has joined #tagmem
21:28:57 [jar]
jar has joined #tagmem
23:31:30 [jar]
jar has joined #tagmem