16:51:59 RRSAgent has joined #tagmem 16:51:59 logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/08/23-tagmem-irc 16:52:14 zakim, this is tag-weekly 16:52:14 sorry, masinter, I do not see a conference named 'tag-weekly' in progress or scheduled at this time 16:52:21 zakim, this is tag 16:52:21 ok, masinter; that matches TAG_Weekly()1:00PM 16:52:36 zakin, who's here? 16:52:45 zakim, who's here? 16:52:45 On the phone I see Masinter 16:52:46 On IRC I see RRSAgent, Zakim, masinter, timbl_, timbl, ht, plinss, trackbot, Yves 16:55:37 JeniT has joined #tagmem 16:55:55 +TimBL 16:58:57 +??P5 17:01:41 noah has joined #tagmem 17:02:09 +Noah_Mendelsohn 17:02:21 zakim, Noah_Mendelsohn is me 17:02:21 +noah; got it 17:02:58 Ashok has joined #tagmem 17:03:20 +Jonathan_Rees 17:03:41 zakim, who is here? 17:03:41 On the phone I see Masinter, TimBL, JeniT, noah, Jonathan_Rees 17:03:43 On IRC I see Ashok, noah, JeniT, RRSAgent, Zakim, masinter, timbl_, timbl, ht, plinss, trackbot, Yves 17:03:52 +Ashok_Malhotra 17:04:19 jrees has joined #tagmem 17:05:59 -Jonathan_Rees 17:06:22 +Jonathan_Rees 17:06:27 trackbot, start telcon 17:06:28 ACTION-33? 17:06:29 RRSAgent, make logs public 17:06:31 Zakim, this will be TAG 17:06:31 ok, trackbot, I see TAG_Weekly()1:00PM already started 17:06:32 Meeting: Technical Architecture Group Teleconference 17:06:32 Date: 23 August 2012 17:06:34 ACTION-33 -- Henry Thompson to revise naming challenges story in response to Dec 2008 F2F discussion -- due 2012-09-01 -- OPEN 17:06:37 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/33 17:06:41 ScribeNick: JeniT 17:06:44 zakim, who is here? 17:06:44 On the phone I see Masinter, TimBL, JeniT, noah, Ashok_Malhotra, Jonathan_Rees 17:06:46 On IRC I see jrees, Ashok, noah, JeniT, RRSAgent, Zakim, masinter, timbl_, timbl, ht, plinss, trackbot, Yves 17:08:00 Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/08/23-agenda 17:08:10 noah: approval of minutes of 12th July? 17:08:13 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/07/12-minutes 17:08:26 minutes approved 17:08:40 noah: minutes from 2nd August aren't available yet 17:08:52 ... we will have a call next week (30th) but not the following week (6th Sept) 17:08:54 jar has joined #tagmem 17:08:57 Topic: London F2F 17:09:04 +??P16 17:09:18 Regrets for 8/30 call 17:09:31 zakim, mute ht 17:09:31 ht should now be muted 17:09:51 The TAG will meet at BCS, The Chartered Institute for IT (I.e. the British Computer Society), in London, UK, 7-9 October 17:10:44 noah: who will be there? 17:10:45 yes 17:10:47 yes 17:10:48 Yes 17:11:35 Likely regrets for F2F 17:11:36 yes 17:11:51 ashok: will be there 17:12:17 possible afternoon attendance by phone 17:12:46 ACTION-720? 17:12:46 ACTION-720 -- Noah Mendelsohn to make sure we have somewhere to meet in London 7-9th October -- due 2012-06-20 -- PENDINGREVIEW 17:12:46 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/720 17:12:52 close ACTION-720 17:12:52 ACTION-720 Make sure we have somewhere to meet in London 7-9th October closed 17:13:49 noah: please look at your actions to see what can be brought to the F2F 17:13:58 Topic: ISSUE-25 (deepLinking-25): Can publication of hyperlinks constitute copyright infringment? 17:14:24 we had a hiccup 17:14:38 ashok: I published on 15th: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/publishingAndLinkingOnTheWeb-2012-08-15.html 17:14:56 ... Larry made changes, published on 17th: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/publishingAndLinkingOnTheWeb.html 17:15:21 Changes are minor 17:15:21 ... I don't think there's any significant differences 17:15:48 To do: snap a new dated version 17:16:12 i fixed some markup problems due to respec pipeline issues 17:16:19 ashok: we two telcons, Larry, JAR & I 17:16:33 ... discussed what we should be talking about 17:16:47 ... I've edited this, and I'm comfortable with it 17:16:54 ... let me talk about the edits 17:17:05 ... changed the abstract, according to JAR's preferences 17:17:09 ... edited the intro 17:17:18 ... added intra-document pointers 17:17:49 ... particularly to point to the technical mechanisms 17:18:03 ... the other big thing was to take out the best practices 17:18:09 q+ Technical means are not necessarily "best" (there are differences of opinion about desirability of DRM) 17:18:09 ... JAR wasn't comfortable with them 17:18:22 ... the text goes into a lot of detail 17:18:24 q? 17:18:26 q+ jar 17:18:33 ... we can put them back in if people disagree 17:18:48 ... we'd like to publish this version as FPWD 17:19:00 ack next 17:19:08 q+ to ask about swapping 1.1 and 1.2 17:19:18 q+ to raise concerns about terminology 17:19:18 jar: what are we trying to accomplish in this session? 17:19:25 noah: I assume it's to decide whether to publish 17:19:35 zakim, who is here? 17:19:35 On the phone I see Masinter, TimBL, JeniT, noah, Ashok_Malhotra, Jonathan_Rees, ht (muted) 17:19:38 On IRC I see jar, jrees, Ashok, noah, JeniT, RRSAgent, Zakim, masinter, timbl_, timbl, ht, plinss, trackbot, Yves 17:19:47 jar: I should have submitted comments earlier 17:19:50 q+ ht2 to prefer to wait on FPWD 17:20:00 noah: what are your comments? we can decide what to do 17:20:05 jar: I think it's getting there, much improved 17:20:15 ... there was something missing from the introduction 17:20:29 ... it talks about the complexity, that we have transforming, caching, archiving and so on 17:20:44 ... a naive reaction is to get rid of complexity and make it more like print publishing 17:20:52 ... so there needs to be justification for all the things that are going on 17:20:56 q+ to suggest clarification of note on Silk/Mini 17:21:00 ... the propaganda would be to say that it's about innovation 17:21:02 q+ to ask about swapping 1.1 and 1.2 17:21:06 ... it's good that people are doing these things 17:21:07 q+ 17:21:08 q+ noah2 to suggest clarification of note on Silk/Mini 17:21:12 q+ ht0 to ask about target audience, and thus level 17:21:15 ... just a sentence to defend against that attack 17:21:22 I don't think we need to defend against attacks we haven't received 17:21:44 most people accept that the web is complicated for good reason 17:21:47 ashok: there's a section on caching, would you like a couple of sentences talking about why caching is part of the architecture? 17:22:10 jar: no, just one general sentence, I don't know where, that says that the reason we have this complexity is that people are innovating 17:22:13 ... and that's a good thing 17:22:23 the "Tussle" paper gives that framework, perhaps just expanding that reference 17:22:26 ... we need to defend the complexity, and why it's different from print publishing 17:22:37 ashok: we could talk about that before the Tussle paper 17:22:42 jar: it's very similar to the Tussle point 17:22:53 ... that's a small thing, just a plug 17:23:25 ... also, where it talks about T&Cs 17:23:39 ... about where browsing indicates acceptance of the terms 17:23:40 i think rewriting the citation, "Clark et.al. [TUSSLE] characterize the Internet as a system where different kinds of entities interact, often with conflicting goals. Managing these conflicts, they call them "tussles", they argue is crucial to the harmonious development of the internet." 17:23:52 noah: I'd like to see that fixed before the publication 17:24:19 jar: the person who puts it in the T&Cs *hopes* it will be treated like that, but whether it is is a legal argument 17:24:30 ... there's some precedent that suggests that's understood 17:24:42 ashok: jar, you and I may have some offline conversation about this 17:24:45 Actually, what was said was: 17:25:01 jar: I would be direct and say that the person who puts the T&Cs there has something in mind 17:25:08 ... also, set of bullets under scope of the document 17:25:12 NM: Well, the fact that you don't see copyright notices until you've gotten at least one page is a technical characteristic of the system. We could talk about that. 17:25:21 JAR: I think there are some legal precedents about that being understood 17:25:23 ... the fourth bullet puts us out on a legal limb 17:25:35 ... we can't say how to meet any legal restrictions 17:25:48 describe the technical measures that websites can take to reinforce any restrictions that they place on the use of content they make available on the web 17:25:49 "describe the mechanisms by which websites that reuse material can ensure they meet known restrictions on the use of that material, for example through attribution" 17:25:55 suggestion for intro last paragraph: The Web is a complex system in which different kinds of entities interact; often they have conflicting goals. These conflicts, called "tussles" in [[TUSSLE]], lead to conflict. This document explores some of the conflicts in the area of publishing and linking." 17:26:13 How about s/ensure/attempt to/ 17:26:14 jar: we can't tell people what they should do to meet legal restrictions 17:26:28 "might attempt to" 17:26:59 jar: it's what they can do if they want to be cooperative 17:27:02 "which may enable them to meet" 17:27:10 ... what you do if you're trying to cooperate 17:27:26 ... the bullet before that also raises a red flag 17:27:43 How about: "Describe some of the technial mechanisms that can be used for controlling access to restriced material" 17:27:43 ... it's not to reinforce restrictions, it's to implement the restrictions that they want to place on the content 17:27:50 +1 to "implement" 17:27:52 ... basically you're talking about DRM here 17:28:12 wha sites can do to *implement* the restrictions that they want to impose on visitors 17:28:34 ... you're basically saying how you can do DRM 17:28:36 can we try to get FPWD out soon after these edits? Can we agree by email, or do we have to wait until next wewek? 17:28:39 noah: there's passwords and logins and so on 17:28:45 jar: that's DRM in my opinion 17:28:46 jar: "Technical mechanisms to implement restrictions on visitors" 17:28:54 ht: it also covers things like not linking to things 17:29:14 ashok: the emphasis is on technical means 17:29:24 jar: I don't think we should take a position on how to do it 17:29:29 Hmm. From a terminology point of view, I tend to separate login restrictions from DRM. Login restrictions keep me from getting something; DRM tends to limit my ability to send to others or freely use content I have obtained" 17:29:31 ack next 17:29:32 noah, you wanted to ask about swapping 1.1 and 1.2 and to suggest clarification of note on Silk/Mini and to ask about swapping 1.1 and 1.2 17:29:35 s/not linking/not providing links to thinks you don't want linked to/ 17:29:41 s/thinks/things/ 17:29:42 q? 17:29:59 noah: looking at section 1, background and scope 17:30:11 ... there's a huge amount of background, and I wanted to know about what the document was about 17:30:31 ... maybe swap 1.1 and 1.2 and maybe add a little introductory sentence to the Scope of the Document section 17:30:34 ack next 17:30:35 ashok: I'll look at that 17:30:36 ht, you wanted to raise concerns about terminology 17:30:44 ack ht2 17:30:44 ht2, you wanted to prefer to wait on FPWD 17:30:44 Please not to take a position on whether technical barriers are preferable to legal ones or vice versa. That's out of scope. But we can talk about tradeoffs, or make people aware of options that they might not have been aware of. 17:30:49 ack ht0 17:30:49 ht0, you wanted to ask about target audience, and thus level 17:31:14 ht: I read this through to the beginning of section 3 very carefully 17:31:15 q- 17:31:37 q+ to point to http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-barnes-blocking-considerations 17:31:46 noah: Swap 1.1 and 1.2 and add intro para 17:31:51 ... I have copious notes 17:32:04 ... I need clarification about what the target audience is 17:32:16 ... a lot of my comments depend on what level of sophistication we're assuming 17:32:40 ... Larry, Ashok, is this meant for my mother in law? my colleagues who know nothing about the web but are computer scientists? 17:32:43 ashok: yes, the latter 17:33:04 ... it's meant for people who are going to write legislation and to work on legal things 17:33:16 masinter: I don't want to educate US representatives 17:33:36 maybe their informed staffers 17:33:46 ht: representatives don't write legislation, their staff does 17:33:54 ... and they're not computer scientists 17:34:16 my view of goals is: minimum requirement is to make something interesting to W3C 17:34:19 ... that's what I thought, in which case it's hard because we know this vocabulary backwards, and it's hard to write for an audience we don't represent 17:34:27 q+ to speak about audience 17:34:37 ... it's not a problem for going to FPWD, we can refine as we go along 17:34:47 ... I just think we need to be on the same page about who that audience is 17:34:55 ... my most important point is about terminology 17:35:02 ... because the terminology doesn't connect up well to itself 17:35:10 ... it's the one thing I think we have to fix before we publish 17:35:27 ... although I think we talked about whether to stick with this terminology, at the F2F 17:35:44 ... I have strong reservations of terminology as it stands, because it gets in the way of what we're trying to achieve 17:36:01 ... I want to ask: do people agree that we need to get a terminology that we're happy with before we go to FPWD? 17:36:10 ... I think changing it after FPWD would be confusing 17:36:14 ashok: an example? 17:36:22 ht: the use of the term 'file' 17:36:35 ... I have a lengthy list 17:36:41 ashok: would it be clarification? 17:36:48 ht: there are some things I'd like to discuss with the group 17:36:58 ... like why to have 'resource' and 'web document' and 'file' 17:37:04 s/to/you/ 17:37:08 wow... "file" is central to the presentation. 17:37:08 ... what the value of that is 17:37:26 ... I'd like to just use 'web document' unless there's work being done by the distinction 17:37:34 i'd rather note HT's issues in a NOTE and still FPWD, rather than getting everything right 17:37:50 noah: is this stuff easy to fix? 17:37:53 ht: I think it's easy to fix 17:38:05 ashok: if you've got stuff written up, could you send it out? 17:38:15 ht: I was hoping to get further before I sent it 17:38:19 ... and you could talk me out of this 17:38:26 note: note http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-barnes-blocking-considerations also 17:38:36 ... I was wondering why the distinction between resources and web documents 17:38:51 ashok: I inherited it 17:39:55 JT: A Web document was intended to be specifically an HTML page, which your browser will typically open in a certain way; resource also encompasses things like spreadsheets. 17:40:07 ht: it seems to be drawing a distinction in an odd place 17:40:20 ... I can hand you a URL for an image and your web browser will display it 17:40:35 timbl: that's not the point, we're talking about how things work 17:40:41 NM: ...and for spreadsheets, for that matter, depending on user agent configuration 17:40:46 ... it's not a property of the thing, it's how it's used in the architecture 17:40:47 q? 17:41:02 ht: web documents are used within other web documents, using iframes for example 17:41:14 ... the distinction between occlude, embed and access is really important 17:41:25 ... but that's where the distinction belongs, not at the level of things that servers serve 17:41:31 s/occlude/include/ 17:41:33 :-) 17:41:34 ... I think it's clearer to focus on how things are used 17:41:47 ... it's harder to give a definition of the different kinds of things that has clarity to it 17:42:10 I think I agree with Henry. 17:42:17 ... arguing that an image is different from an HTML page or a PDF, which of those are web documents isn't intrinsically clear 17:42:27 ... inclusion, embedding and linking is very clear 17:42:34 HT: Where I said access above, I meant link. 17:42:41 ... anyway, that's the direction I'd like to go with this 17:43:00 ... should I write a clean set of terms? 17:43:25 masinter: it's ok to note things for ashok and myself 17:43:48 ht: it's difficult to tell from my notes where I think we should end up 17:43:48 q? 17:43:53 ack masinter 17:43:53 masinter, you wanted to point to http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-barnes-blocking-considerations and to speak about audience 17:43:58 noah: can we talk about timing? we want to get this out quickly 17:44:06 ... we have a call next week, not the following week 17:44:11 ... can we get this done for next week? 17:44:20 ashok: I'm on vacation next week 17:44:23 i could work on it 17:44:25 ... I can update it for the 13th call 17:44:45 noah: it really fits well with the F2F to have something out early September, so we can get feedback for the F2F 17:44:57 ht: I will get my comments written by midday tomorrow my time 17:45:36 masinter: I can do it; I'm eager to get to FPWD 17:45:46 ... if there are issues with the terminology, we'll try to fix them 17:45:59 ... and if we can't resolve it, we can write a note to warn people the terminology might change 17:46:21 ... so we can get feedback from the intended audience rather than simply talking amongst ourselves 17:46:51 ashok: Larry will attempt an update which you can talk about next Thursday 17:46:58 ... and I'll do the following editing 17:47:09 noah: the crucial thing is to pass it to Yves to publish as FPWD 17:47:20 ... I'd like to get a decision on that next week 17:47:32 ack next 17:47:33 noah2, you wanted to suggest clarification of note on Silk/Mini 17:47:36 ... so I'm hoping that ashok & Larry will tell us if that's appropriate 17:47:50 noah: the note about 'split browsers' 17:48:06 ... the intention is fine, I'm nervous about the word 'server' in that note 17:48:20 ... I think we should reserve 'server' for HTTP server 17:48:28 "Split browsers (such as Opera Mini and Amazon Silk) where some software components execute on a server and some software components execute on a client device are not discussed further in this document. Since, in these cases, the client and the server are tightly coupled, they could be considered to be a single User Agent rather than a client and a proxy." 17:48:41 i don't see any problem with this 17:49:05 ... maybe use "execute on a centralised machine" or "host", or something that clarifies that the 'server' is not the same as the servers we were talking about before 17:49:13 ... architecturally it's a user agent 17:49:32 ashok: can we replace 'server' with 'host' 17:49:37 masinter: I like the wording as it is 17:49:58 noah: elsewhere in the document where, until you put proxies in, the web consists of servers and clients 17:50:00 "Server" is a generic term 17:50:07 ... the servers are providing content, and clients are running user agents 17:50:08 just like "client" in "client/server" 17:50:25 ... this bit is talking about a user agent being implemented in a distributed way 17:50:34 We use more specific terms "web server" "proxy server" "origin server" 17:50:46 jar_ has joined #tagmem 17:50:48 ... what Amazon is doing is running the back end of the user agent 17:50:55 ... I don't know if they're using HTTP, they needn't be 17:51:07 ... it could use a proprietary protocol 17:51:19 jar has left #tagmem 17:51:26 ... for web architecture, the HTTP GET emanates from the Amazon site 17:51:27 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Server_(computing) 17:51:32 ... and everything else could move tomorrow 17:51:36 We use the word "serveR" in its generic sense 17:51:51 ... if you want to use 'server' to mean anything centralised 17:52:03 ... and distinguish the servers that respond to GETs and POSTs, you could do that 17:52:10 masinter: server is a generic term of art 17:52:17 ... there are web servers and proxy servers and so on 17:52:36 ... in the context of HTTP, we might say 'server' without saying 'HTTP server' but that's because of the context of the document 17:53:11 the real problem is that the "note" is an excuse for not discussing something important 17:53:13 noah: maybe add a phrase to say "(not the origin servers or proxy servers described here)" 17:53:40 masinter: the problem is that the note was added to prevent talking about something we should be talking about 17:53:48 ... I get the point and I'll add something qualifying term 17:53:54 ack next 17:54:05 masinter: I had a pointer to another document 17:54:13 http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-barnes-blocking-considerations 17:54:30 it's about one of the remedies used 17:54:50 s/not the origin/not typically the origin/ 17:54:57 ... I wanted to point out that one of the ways to stop publishing/linking you don't like is blocking 17:55:09 ... I'm not sure we can reference this document, but we might want to review it at some point 17:55:23 noah: are you suggesting an action for someone to read it and prepare something for us? 17:55:37 it talks about related issues, i guess i'm looking for volunteers 17:55:41 ok 17:56:04 masinter: I don't think we need to review it before we get to FPWD 17:56:18 i don't think we need to review before FPWD, but possibly ask for IAB review once we do have FPWD 17:56:45 ... once we have a FPWD, maybe we can reach out to communities working on similar issues 17:56:56 q? 17:56:57 noah: so you'll bring this back to us 17:56:59 masinter: yes 17:57:15 zakim, who is here? 17:57:15 On the phone I see Masinter, TimBL, JeniT, noah, Ashok_Malhotra, Jonathan_Rees, ht (muted) 17:57:17 On IRC I see jar_, jrees, Ashok, noah, JeniT, RRSAgent, Zakim, masinter, timbl_, timbl, ht, plinss, trackbot, Yves 17:57:34 +1 17:57:37 optimistic +1 for FPWD 17:57:38 noah: informally, assuming the edits go well, can you indicate whether you will vote to go to FPWD next week? 17:57:40 +1 17:57:43 +1 17:57:43 +1 17:57:47 +1 17:57:53 ... no dissent, that's good 17:58:07 ... let's hope we have a quorum next week so we can do this 17:58:14 ACTION-727? 17:58:14 ACTION-727 -- Ashok Malhotra to with help from JAR and Larry to work on a plan for taking a slightly stronger version of the Copyright and Linking draft forward -- due 2012-07-17 -- CLOSED 17:58:14 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/727 17:58:42 ACTION-667? 17:58:42 ACTION-667 -- Noah Mendelsohn to check, when publishing and linking wraps, whether it's time to reinvest in http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/12/evolution/Registries.html -- due 2012-07-15 -- OPEN 17:58:42 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/667 17:58:55 ACTION-721? 17:58:55 ACTION-721 -- Noah Mendelsohn to update product index to target date on publishing & linking -- due 2012-06-20 -- OPEN 17:58:55 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/721 17:58:56 Larry, so you have the pen next week. I will pick it up after Labor Day 17:59:37 ACTION: Larry to prepare FPWD on Publishing and Linking - Due 2012-08-21 17:59:37 Created ACTION-732 - prepare FPWD on Publishing and Linking [on Larry Masinter - due 2012-08-21]. 18:00:00 Topic: Linked data and RDF 18:00:42 noah: Ashok has pointed us to a discussion about linked data and RDF where there is some controversy around whether linked data has to use RDF or could be in other formats 18:01:04 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2012Aug/0027.html 18:01:19 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2012Aug/0066.html 18:01:27 From David Booth: 18:01:29 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2012Aug/0028.html 18:01:35 Discussion starts approximately here: 18:01:35 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2012Aug/0066.html 18:01:35 Overview of messages: 18:01:35 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2012Aug/ 18:01:44 Ashok: we had a workshop late last year, and started the Linked Data Platform WG 18:02:03 ... the idea as I understood it was to use REST 18:02:23 ... which doesn't tell you how to deal with collections, or what you need to do when you have large quantities of data that you want to paginate 18:02:28 ... and updates and stuff like that 18:02:39 ... and we ought to update REST, possibly not with standards, but with usage guidelines 18:02:50 ... then the WG started and they are focused on RDF 18:03:14 ... a couple of the people that are part of the WG started saying that it was just data pointing to other pieces of data using URIs 18:03:21 ... can't you do this in XML, or JSON? 18:03:24 q? 18:03:27 ... and we've had a spirited discussion on this 18:03:39 ... and I was wondering what the wise people on the TAG think about it 18:03:52 ... and I'm glad Tim is with us, as he has the principles of linked data 18:03:59 ... I'm asking what people think about this 18:04:23 timbl: we already have a word -- structured data -- for CSV and JSON 18:04:27 ... that's invaluable 18:04:35 ... the new word -- linked data -- for stuff that links together 18:04:44 ... it's not just CSV that holds URIs with no explanation 18:04:50 ... it has to be RDF to be interoperable 18:05:06 communication: multiple modes, content negotiation, but "least common denominator", need a lingua franca 18:05:07 ... if you make up your own format, or use hypertext 18:05:11 ... we need to push for interop 18:05:15 q+ 18:05:37 ... there are masses of cases where you can keep working in CSV up until the point you have to map into RDF 18:05:42 ... and once it's there then people can link it 18:05:52 ... so I think we should keep 'linked data' for stuff that's in RDF 18:05:58 ashok: and 'structured data' for other formats 18:06:13 timbl: and REST can use structured data that isn't linked data, and that's fine, but it's not linked 18:06:26 masinter: for interoperability, you need a lingua franca, which everyone speaks 18:06:34 ... right now linked data's lingua franca is RDF 18:06:47 ... other systems can use other languages, that's ok 18:06:48 q? 18:06:50 ack next 18:06:51 q+ 18:06:57 ack next 18:06:58 ... you need a lingua franca or a common gateway 18:07:15 noah: I see a circularity here which I want to ask about, how much is this the 'linked data' brand? 18:07:23 ... this reminds me of the HTTP scheme and protocol on the web 18:07:47 ... the architecture includes FTP, for example, and there's fuzziness about whether that's on the web 18:07:58 ... when you use RDF you get powerful properties because of self-description 18:08:04 ... and sometimes the links will go to things other than RDF 18:08:16 ... and depending on the context, that might feel like you're on the edges on the graph 18:08:24 q+ 18:08:26 ... when you do that, is it still linked data? that sounds like a branding question 18:08:33 ... there are good reasons to do it 18:08:56 ... you could define the 'linked data' more widely, or arbitrarily tighter 18:09:06 timbl: what you're missing is going back to the time when everything was FTP 18:09:16 ... when people ask if a FTP server is a web server, the answer is 'no' 18:09:32 ... if an RDF document mentions a CSV file 18:09:46 ... the CSV file is mentioned in the linked data graph, but none of the data in the CSV is linked 18:09:59 ... it's very important that people don't claim to use linked data when they have just published CSV 18:10:06 Whether a CSV contains a link (URI), depends on whether it contains a link (URI). SOme do, some don't 18:10:15 noah: when I use a FTP URI I don't get a media type back, isn't that analogous? 18:10:22 timbl: how does that help? 18:10:31 noah: it just seems like a matter of terminology 18:10:51 timbl: it is a brand, yes, but it's an important brand and we should not dilute the brand with structured data 18:11:02 q? 18:11:04 ack next 18:11:21 noah: Ashok, do you want to go further? 18:11:54 ashok: branding is very powerful, but what we're really doing is extending REST in different ways 18:12:03 ... and once you extend REST, you can use it with XML data for example 18:12:25 q+ to try to say what TimBL said in a different way. . . 18:12:27 ... you might say you can use extensions with structured data and with linked data 18:12:27 I think the point is that you are using REST, but you are not buying strongly enough into the "Self-describing Web". Of the technologies mentioned, only RDF does tthat well. 18:12:29 ack het 18:12:31 ack ht 18:12:32 ht, you wanted to try to say what TimBL said in a different way. . . 18:12:50 ht: ashok, that's true but it doesn't change the crucial core of Tim's point 18:13:03 ... that without a way of knowing that a particular sequence of characters is a link, you don't have linked data 18:13:12 ... you may have data that contains links, but you have no way of knowing that 18:13:13 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/selfDescribingDocuments.html 18:13:25 ... CSV by definition, well-formed XML by definition 18:13:35 ... gives you no way of detecting links at all 18:13:43 there's no xml:base in json 18:13:47 ... there's real blue water between HTML and RDF on one hand and everything else on the other 18:13:53 ... in terms of its architectural standing 18:14:14 ... that legitimises reserving 'linked data' to HTML+RDFa and RDF 18:14:15 I think the TAG's writing on RDF and the Self-describing Web are pertinent: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/selfDescribingDocuments.html#RDFSection 18:14:18 xml schema provides a way to distinguish link from non-link 18:14:33 ashok: but XML Schema can indicate where URIs are used 18:14:46 ht: yes, but the scale of deployment is orders of magnitude different 18:15:05 noah: in HTML when you have a link, the link text is marked up reliably 18:15:16 ... there's nothing in XML Schema that tells you anything other than 'there is a URI here' 18:15:24 ... anything you infer about relationship is not standardised 18:15:33 ... so you have to know the schema 18:15:47 ... you might guess at a relationship based on position in the XML tree 18:15:51 grumble 18:15:52 Two levels: identifying URIs (outside RDF/HTML) is hard enough, identifying _links_ is even harder 18:15:56 ... but you'd be guessing, whereas in RDF you know 18:16:11 ... we wrote about this in the Self Describing Web finding 18:16:21 ... RDF is more strongly self-describing than other formats 18:16:49 timbl: you could argue that you could use other technologies, but what we're trying to promote is to use the brand, to get interoperability between linked data publishers 18:17:17 ... one of the things which the read/write linked data is going to do is not only provide those protocols, but to provide minimum requirements like understanding Turtle 18:17:25 ... with the aim of getting better interoperability 18:17:31 ... interoperability is what we're after 18:17:32 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/selfDescribingDocuments.html#standards 18:17:39 Good practice: Web resource representations should be published using widely deployed standards and formats. 18:17:40 noah: that's also in the Self-Describing Web finding 18:17:59 q? 18:18:02 timbl: RDF is widely-deployed 18:18:10 Indeed, that was my point;. 18:18:26 ashok: that was very useful, I have an idea about how various people are thinking about this, and that's what I wanted 18:18:45 I think the GPN is trying to capture the spirit of Tim's comment: I.e. having one way of doing each thing is better than having everyone having to implement multiple ways 18:18:59 s/timbl: RDF is widely-deployed// 18:19:50 Topic: Pending Review Items 18:20:00 ACTION-719? 18:20:00 ACTION-719 -- Larry Masinter to reply to Hannes pointing to the minutes, summarizing the discussion, and asking him if he has any more specific questions. -- due 2012-06-20 -- PENDINGREVIEW 18:20:00 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/719 18:20:09 -Masinter 18:21:08 Open actions by person: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/open?sort=owner 18:21:08 +Masinter 18:21:31 close ACTION-719 18:21:31 ACTION-719 Reply to Hannes pointing to the minutes, summarizing the discussion, and asking him if he has any more specific questions. closed 18:21:37 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/open?sort=owner 18:22:13 Topic: Open Actions 18:22:23 I think 704 needs attention 18:22:26 noah: which of these need attention for F2F? 18:22:36 ACTION-704? 18:22:36 ACTION-704 -- Jonathan Rees to with help from Jeni and Henry to try to identify next steps for moving forward on httpRange-14 -- due 2012-08-14 -- OPEN 18:22:36 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/704 18:23:31 Fragids? 18:23:34 action-731? 18:23:34 ACTION-731 -- Larry Masinter to and Ashok to remove the best practises parts of the P&L document -- due 2012-08-09 -- OPEN 18:23:34 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/731 18:23:43 close action-731 18:23:43 ACTION-731 And Ashok to remove the best practises parts of the P&L document closed 18:24:04 JT: Let's try for a followup draft for F2F 18:24:20 ACTION-704? 18:24:20 ACTION-704 -- Jonathan Rees to with help from Jeni and Henry to try to identify next steps for moving forward on httpRange-14 -- due 2012-08-14 -- OPEN 18:24:20 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/704 18:24:49 jar: I know people have been on vacation, I'm ready to get going again when Jeni & Henry are 18:25:06 ... further progress was delegated to this group 18:25:10 I'm ready as of today 18:25:15 i want to tell Jonathan that there is no http URI for the magna carta 18:25:17 ... we did a fair amount of that up until beginning of July 18:25:28 ... then Henry and Jeni had vacations or other things to do 18:25:44 noah: will we have something to discuss at F2F 18:26:08 -Ashok_Malhotra 18:26:09 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/id/aep/Edw1cc1929/25/9 18:26:19 https://www.w3.org/2007/awwsw/tracker/actions/40 18:26:24 masinter, there is a URI for the Magna Carta 18:26:24 I want to ask Masinter to give me an example of something for which there *is* an http URI. 18:26:54 http://www.w3.org/wiki/AwwswDboothsRules 18:27:13 timbl: I need to write mapping rules between the vocabularies 18:27:13 every http URI identifies a resource that has an http URI (by definition) 18:27:28 TBL: I want to do this, but think I'll write the mapping rules rather than changing the tabulator 18:27:37 there's a 1-1 correspondence between resources-with-http-URIs and http-URIs 18:27:49 ACTION-40? 18:27:49 ACTION-40 -- Stuart Williams to send MEZ email asking for a joint meeting with the Security WGduring the Plenary -- due 2007-10-25 -- CLOSED 18:27:49 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/40 18:28:09 ACTION-40: Align the tabulator internal vocabulary with the vocabulary in the rules http://esw.w3.org/topic/AwwswDboothsRules, getting changes to either as needed. 18:28:09 ACTION-40 Send MEZ email asking for a joint meeting with the Security WGduring the Plenary notes added 18:28:40 ACTION-116? 18:28:40 ACTION-116 -- Tim Berners-Lee to align the tabulator internal vocabulary with the vocabulary in the rules http://esw.w3.org/topic/AwwswDboothsRules, getting changes to either as needed. -- due 2011-02-11 -- CLOSED 18:28:40 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/116 18:29:12 Hmm, my phone just dropped. 18:29:20 I suppose the easiest is to just say: WE ARE ADJOURNED. 18:29:23 . @prefix http: . 18:29:27 timbl: the HTTP vocabulary David has used is not dereferenceable 18:29:28 Sorry for the abrupt departure. 18:29:43 We'll have call next week. 18:29:48 Thank you all. 18:29:49 ... I'll discharge the action by mapping the rules 18:29:56 thank you, noah 18:30:30 He uses http: as a prefix which doesn't help editing! :-)) 18:30:36 nuf bout that 18:30:55 rrsagent, draft minutes 18:30:55 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/08/23-tagmem-minutes.html JeniT 18:31:02 masinter, that's fine, but I was asking for an example. Can you give *one* http: URI, and then describe the resource it identifies. 18:31:06 -JeniT 18:31:08 -Masinter 18:31:09 -TimBL 18:31:39 rrsagent, pointer 18:31:39 See http://www.w3.org/2012/08/23-tagmem-irc#T18-31-39 18:31:47 -ht 18:52:31 jar__ has joined #tagmem 19:08:50 jar_ has joined #tagmem 19:15:31 JeniT has joined #tagmem 19:36:36 ht has joined #tagmem 20:32:42 JeniT has joined #tagmem 20:42:09 new Apple URI I see: mailitem:215BA125-D7CC-4E1E-9A52-4896FCC77524?type=todo&action=showparent 20:59:45 -noah 21:04:45 disconnecting the lone participant, Jonathan_Rees, in TAG_Weekly()1:00PM 21:04:48 TAG_Weekly()1:00PM has ended 21:04:48 Attendees were Masinter, TimBL, JeniT, noah, Jonathan_Rees, Ashok_Malhotra, ht 21:21:32 JeniT has joined #tagmem 21:27:31 Zakim has left #tagmem