IRC log of tagmem on 2012-08-23

Timestamps are in UTC.

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