18:04:03 Ian has changed the topic to: W3C TAG 29 Jul: http://www.w3.org/2002/07/29-tag 18:54:04 TimBL has joined #tagmem 18:54:28 Zakim, who is here? 18:54:29 sorry, TimBL, I don't know what conference this is 18:54:30 On IRC I see TimBL, Zakim, Ian, RRSAgent 18:54:48 Zakim, this will be tag 18:54:49 ok, TimBL, I see TAG_Weekly()2:30PM already started 18:54:59 cool, zak. 18:55:05 Why 2:30? 18:55:06 so who's here? 18:55:10 I guess we have the bridge 30 mins in advance 18:55:27 Yes, by my request so people could get sorted out before the meeting began. 18:55:37 +Ian 18:56:15 Zakim, who is here? 18:56:16 On the phone I see TimBL, Ian 18:56:17 On IRC I see TimBL, Zakim, Ian, RRSAgent 18:56:19 tel://+1.617.761.6200:0824/# 19:01:19 Then if you want to go nuts Vancouver is just laced with dazzling 12-star hotels with 19:02:56 +DOrchard 19:03:26 Chris has joined #tagmem 19:03:35 Roy has joined #tagmem 19:04:03 TBray has joined #tagmem 19:04:25 +??P8 19:04:44 zakim, ??P8 TimBray 19:04:45 zakim, ??p8 is TBray 19:04:45 I don't understand '??P8 TimBray', Ian. Try /msg Zakim help 19:04:45 +ChrisL 19:04:46 +TBray; got it 19:05:03 Posisbly PaulC 19:05:15 Expecting Roy on the phone 19:05:20 Expecting DanC on the phone 19:05:32 +??P7 19:05:40 zakim, ??P7 is Roy 19:05:41 +Roy; got it 19:05:49 Let's assume regrets from PC. 19:05:50 zakim, mute me 19:05:51 ChrisL should now be muted 19:05:57 zakim, mute me 19:05:58 TBray should now be muted 19:06:02 is that better? 19:06:06 Regrets from Norm and Stuart 19:06:17 we hear ya 19:06:18 DanC has joined #tagmem 19:06:34 we'll getstarted 19:06:36 Scribe: IJ 19:06:46 I expect Paul & DaveO will show up together from Redmond 19:06:47 Confirming scribe -- Ian. confirmed 19:06:50 Roll: DO, TBL, TB, CL, IJ, RF 19:06:57 RRSAgent, pointer? 19:06:57 See http://www.w3.org/2002/07/29-tagmem-irc#T19-06-57 19:07:04 meeting si now in progress 19:07:10 Regrets: SW, NW, PC 19:07:19 +DanC 19:07:22 Accept 22 July minutes? 19:07:26 zakim, unmute me 19:07:27 TBray was not muted, TBray 19:07:58 http://www.w3.org/2002/07/22-tag-summary 19:08:10 zakim, mute me 19:08:12 TBray should now be muted 19:08:17 22 July minutes accepted. 19:08:26 Accept this agenda? 19:08:31 http://www.w3.org/2002/07/29-tag 19:08:49 zakim, unmute me 19:08:50 TBray was not muted, TBray 19:08:59 zakim, unmute me 19:09:00 ChrisL was not muted, Chris 19:09:26 Regrets all canadians and DanC. 19:09:29 5 August: Regrets: DO, DC (likely), TB (likely) 19:09:49 5 August: CL regrets 19:09:51 ...CL 19:10:00 zakim, mute me 19:10:01 ChrisL should now be muted 19:10:25 Still echo 19:10:31 5th cancelled. 19:10:37 I'm available 12Aug 19:10:52 12th no regrets except for DO 19:10:54 DO: regrets 12Aug 19:11:02 ... and CL 19:11:03 12 August: Available: DC, TB, RF, IJ, TBL. Regrets: DO, CL 19:11:11 Next meeting: 12 August 19:11:14 Wwe on for next meeting 12th august 19:11:50 you can do "Zakim, I am ChrisL" 19:12:48 1. Action SW 2002/07/22: Persuade TimBL to write an exposition of his position on httpRange-14. 19:12:49 Done. 19:13:02 I have just posted a snapshot of chapter 2 in progress 19:13:02 TBL Submission: http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/HTTP-URI 19:13:12 planned to comit to cvs but not done before call 19:13:39 Agenda accepted. 19:13:42 action item was for *tomorrow* so this is early ;-) 19:13:58 good Chris, give him a cookie 19:15:04 "The TAG expects to include these findings in the TAG's Architectural Recommendations" -- http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/findings 19:15:24 IJ: Right - not sure if they will be incorporated wholesale. 19:15:35 IJ: But I agree that there is an expectation about inclusion. 19:15:41 -------- 19:15:41 Arch doc 19:15:45 1. Action CL 2002/07/08: Propose text for section 2 (Formats). Deadline 30 July. Done 19:16:05 which action item is it? 19:16:23 tthe 'repost' or the 'write chapter 2' 19:16:24 2.1 1 1 19:16:24 8. 19:16:24 Action TB: Send info about hotels to TAG. 19:16:24 Done 19:16:25 " 1. Action CL 2002/07/08: Propose text for section 2 (Formats). Deadline 30 July." 19:16:32 ok, in progress 19:16:50 TBL: Why to tag not www-tag? 19:17:59 {Probably http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2002/0701-intro} 19:18:19 Action CL: Save in another place, IJ will merge with next draft. 19:18:41 I hear no echo now 19:19:19 2) Action DC 2002/07/08: Ask Michael Mealing when IETF decided not to use HTTP URis to name protocols. Awaiting reply 19:19:30 zakim, mute me 19:19:31 ChrisL should now be muted 19:19:44 DC: Not done. Please chagne to IESG 19:19:45 ... should be "ask IESG" 19:20:32 # Action DC: 2002/07/15: Generate tables of URI scheme props from RDF. (Take another stab?) 19:21:09 DC: I propose to withdraw. 19:21:18 TBL: I think the table is useful (pointers to specs, for example). 19:21:31 DC: I don't like the table as is. 19:21:48 Action transferred to TBL. 19:21:55 # 19:21:55 4. Action IJ 2002/07/08: Produce WD of Arch Doc. Harvest from DanC's URI FAQ. Deadline 30 August. 19:22:32 IJ: Sorry. Will have something this week. 19:22:37 2. 19:22:37 * Action PC 2002/07/08: Propose alternative cautionary wording for finding regarding IANA registration. Refer to "How to Register a Media Type with IANA (for the IETF tree) " 19:22:47 (PC not here) 19:23:45 -------------------- 19:23:58 1. httpRange-14 19:23:58 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#httpRange-14 19:24:03 See doc posted by TBL: 19:24:11 http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/HTTP-URI 19:24:13 And history by RF: 19:24:18 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Jul/0253.html 19:24:35 TBL: In my doc, I explain why the alternatives don't work. 19:24:52 DO: I'd like a week to read up on this. 19:25:00 DaveO has joined #tagmem 19:25:23 I have been on mute, except when speaking :-) 19:25:33 TB: If TBL convinces us that HTTP URIs are for docs only, where would we write this? What are the practical consequences? 19:25:37 heavy echo 19:25:39 Zakim, please mute ChrisL 19:25:40 q? 19:25:40 ChrisL should now be muted 19:25:51 I was already muted, in fact 19:25:52 Zakim, please unmute ChrisL 19:25:53 ChrisL was not muted, TimBL 19:25:54 zakim, mute me 19:25:55 Ian should now be muted 19:26:05 zakim, mute ChrisL 19:26:06 ChrisL should now be muted 19:26:13 TB: Where would this show up in the arch document if we agreed with TBL? 19:26:41 TBL: s/resource/document, for example. 19:27:03 TBL: So representations don't apply to mailboxes, e.g.. 19:27:08 zakim, unmute me 19:27:09 Ian should no longer be muted 19:27:15 Zakim, who is talking? 19:27:26 TimBL, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: TBray (42%), ChrisL (73%) 19:27:29 TB: It would certainly add focus to the debate if we had some actual practical consequences. 19:27:33 Zakim, please mute ChrisL 19:27:34 zakim, must ChrisL 19:27:34 ChrisL should now be muted 19:27:35 http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/HTTP-URI seems to equate 'document' and 'any collection of bits' 19:27:35 I don't understand 'must ChrisL', Ian. Try /msg Zakim help 19:27:46 zakim, mute me 19:27:47 TBray should now be muted 19:27:50 q? 19:27:53 very nice DanC voice, Tim. 19:28:14 I think echo situation improved when I muted myself 19:28:22 TBL: Practical consequences - 19:28:28 Zakim, who's talking? 19:28:37 1) RDF Core would have to stop using doc-looking URIs to refer to some classes. 19:28:40 DanC, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: TimBL (66%), ChrisL (39%) 19:29:10 RF: I am certain Dublin Core doesn't need to change. 19:29:11 no echo ! 19:29:21 TBL: The URI of title has no hash, so is confusable between document/resource. 19:29:26 RF: It doesn't matter. 19:29:29 61# works. zakimbot is broken 19:30:17 TBL: Before RDF, people haven't used URIs to refer to other things than web pages. 19:30:21 Never understood the RDF way of using # to mean "not za fragment identifier" 19:30:22 DC: There are namespace names. 19:30:47 people do indeed use URI to refer to things other than web pages 19:30:47 TBL: If it doesn't affect the software, it's irrelevant philosophy. 19:30:48 q+ 19:30:54 q+ 19:31:00 q+ 19:31:30 q- 19:31:47 No, the *definition* of dc.title has that length 19:31:52 q? 19:32:11 DC: I would note that the XML Schema WG used URI refs to talk about data types. They use hash marks in them. 19:32:23 q- 19:32:37 RF: What about POST? 19:32:42 q+ RF 19:32:49 "aren't fragment identifiers"??? 19:32:54 CL: This use of "#" as non fragment id's has always struck me as odd. 19:32:57 ack ChrisL 19:33:26 CL: Why is a fragment special? 19:34:05 TBL: With and without a hash is fundamentally different. A URI Ref is a completely different animal than a URI. Need to look at another spec. 19:34:25 CL: But the history is that these were the same thing. 19:34:33 TBL: No, defined in same spec, but not the same thing. 19:35:23 TBL: When you use "#" in an HTML doc, not a huge effect. But in RDF, a huge difference - takes you into abstract space. 19:35:59 CL: I don't like the implication that non-RDF languages are non-semantic. 19:36:21 CL: What is good practice for using the "#"? 19:36:32 TBL: You define that in the format spec, part of MIME registration. 19:36:41 q? 19:37:39 CL: Most specs other than RDF use sense of "fragment" (whether temporal or element-based). 19:37:49 really? there are ways to refer to 7 seconds into a video? I've been waiting for those, but haven't seen them. 19:37:52 q+ 19:37:54 good summary, ian 19:37:56 ack RF 19:37:59 yes 19:38:47 @@@@@ dropped response to Chris 19:38:50 [yet somehow, magically, calling it a "Document" precludes cars. Pls pick one side of your mouth to speak out of, timbl] 19:39:24 q+ 19:39:26 TBL: Ambiguity about owner's intent of what is identified. 19:40:03 WebCGM fragment syntax http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-WebCGM/REC-03-CGM-IC.html 19:40:04 DC: What if it's ambiguous but two things identified are identical? 19:40:37 SVG fragment identifiers http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG/linking.html#SVGFragmentIdentifiers 19:41:05 DC: Can you point to a car that's also a web page? 19:41:10 TBL: For me that's incoherent. 19:41:17 q+ 19:41:25 DC: But in common sense, you can't post to documents. 19:41:36 TBL: Documents are inanimate. Cars are animate. 19:41:44 TBL: They have a physical presence. 19:43:25 TBL: No way I can determine whether I can use the URI to talk about a Web page since owner may have not meant it that way. 19:43:26 http://www.w3.org/TR/smil20/smil-timing.html#Timing-HyperlinkingTiming 19:43:29 RF: You can do this with RDF. 19:43:30 what Roy said 19:43:36 Hyperlinking and timing 19:43:36 A hyperlink into or within a timed document may cause a seek of the current presentation time or may activate an element (if it is not in violation of any timing model rules). 19:43:39 TBL: But this won't retrofit to 10 billion existing web pages. 19:43:40 q- 19:43:58 RF proposal: 19:44:11 - Given lack of any other assertions, you can assume that a URI refers to a document. 19:44:33 RF: You are saying that because you don't have a default, therefore the entire HTTP namespace should be your lowest common denominator. 19:44:56 Seconded. 19:45:02 third 19:45:28 zakim, pick a chair 19:45:29 I don't understand 'pick a chair', ChrisL. Try /msg Zakim help 19:45:36 q? 19:45:37 queue? 19:46:10 q+ 19:46:30 TB: A URI is a string you can compare. An HTTP URI can be dereferenced. The Web arch doesn't allow you to know what the resource is. This is why RDF is a good thing. Allows you to make such assertions. 19:46:31 how do we ACK the queue? 19:46:36 ack TBray 19:46:38 ack tbray 19:47:01 DaveO, when I get the floor, can I discuss with TimBL? 19:47:04 TB: Once you have RDF, I still don't see why you need to limit the range of HTTP URIs or other URI schemes. 19:47:09 ack ChrisL 19:47:15 Dan, sure. 19:47:16 my car is on the web. 19:47:24 CL: The car is a physical object, but it's not on the web. the concept is a title but is not on the web. 19:47:31 CL: You can point to the concept of "title". 19:47:40 CL: If you can point to "title", you can point to "car". 19:47:58 CL: I don't think you can point to a "title". You can point to a document where people say what they mean by title. 19:48:48 CL: Even with "#" you are pointing to a piece of a document. That piece may be an assertion. But could be pulled out and put in its own document, and I could refer to it without a "#". 19:48:54 q? 19:49:37 DC: You can always use the URI for a Web page. If the Webmaster has also said that that URI identifies a car, that's fine. 19:49:48 TBL: When I do an HTTP transaction, can I store the results in RDF? 19:49:49 DC: Yes. 19:50:07 DC: In the example of my Web page, the Web page is a car. 19:50:11 q+ 19:50:28 TBL: What if a Web page talks about another Web page that talks about a car? 19:50:59 http://myexample.org/mypage23 -> http://www.w3.org/mystuff -> car 19:51:36 TBL: As author of the first URI I assert that it identifies the second page. 19:51:45 TBL: I assert that they identify the same thing. 19:52:00 TBL: Not sure that identical if you get different pages back from the Web. 19:52:50 ack DanC 19:53:14 q+ 19:53:26 RF: The statement HTTP URIs identify documents is false. 19:53:49 TBL: We are working out a consistent set of terms. If "document" is the wrong term, that's fine; we can work out another. 19:53:57 TBL: I"m interesting in what machines can do. 19:54:08 I propose that Tim's definition of "document" is any bag of bits 19:54:12 ack Roy 19:54:46 RF: The software disagrees with you. I can't define proxies in your terms. 19:55:03 TBL: You can: where you say "resource", say "document". It's sufficiently generic to cover your proxies. 19:55:30 if timbl really means that roy could s/resource/document/g, it's much cheaper for timbl to s/document/resource/g. 19:55:46 heh 19:56:04 TBL: People think of the term "document" in a particular way, but that was the term as I originally intended (in an abstract sense). 19:57:11 q? 19:58:11 RF: What do "wais:" 19:58:15 URIs identify? 19:58:25 RF: Search services. 19:58:33 RF: It's an information retrieval protocol. 19:58:35 so they identify a search engine 19:58:42 btw... timbl mentioned the cyc ontology; it really does have a wealth of nifty and relevant stuff on this topic... http://www.cyc.com/cycdoc/vocab/info-vocab.html 19:58:46 RF: When you access a wais resource through a proxy. 19:58:47 , 19:58:54 timbl:Document = cyc:ConceptualWork, I think. 19:59:02 RF: you are saying - give me a representation of this resource through wais. 19:59:12 (this is the general gatewaying problem, which was established at Cern) 19:59:35 DO: This is a point that has been skirted around -use of proxies. 19:59:45 DO: Could RF write up something on proxies? 20:00:24 RF: I will read TBL's doc first. 20:00:28 ack TBray 20:01:16 TB: Suppose I believe that DC's car URI really denotes DC's car. Suppose I write a bunch of stuff in RDF about the car, and I have a carfinder service online to sift among cars out there. All that is logical and self-coherent and causes no heartburn. 20:01:49 TB: Suppose RF doesn't believe it's a car but the URI identifies a Web page. He writes a bunch of other RDF that talks about the Web page. 20:02:11 TB: Our assertions are not interoperable but could be bridged with some metadata. But at the end of the day, so what? 20:02:31 TB: The idea that you will have universal agreement on what is identified is a chimera. 20:02:40 TB: But what's the difference? 20:02:54 (sounds like "do we assume all assertions are true") 20:03:26 TB: If we need to work together, we will do the work to understand each other. 20:03:30 q+ 20:03:54 TBL: Cataclysmic interoperability problem is the heartburn. 20:04:03 TB: That's the reality of life. You can't make it go away. 20:04:16 You CAN 20:04:55 given any identifier, I can make a webpage out of it 20:05:21 TB: Another spin: suppose I want to make assertions that the Web page is a standin for W3C. Are Josh's views and mine that inconsistent? Perhaps on the surface, and we would need to work together. But I don't believe this problem can go away. 20:05:41 TBL: You can make it go away. You can merge data when using same ontologies. 20:06:00 q? 20:06:21 TBL: The situation TB describes is frightfully messy to me. 20:06:40 TBL: Where you have to do a massive conversion when merging data. 20:06:55 x [ is fff of x ] 20:07:10 zakim, unmute me 20:07:11 Ian should no longer be muted 20:07:24 x -> [ is fff of x ] mapiing woul dhave to be introdde between 2 incompatible webs 20:07:27 ack ian 20:07:28 can't hear you ian... 20:07:31 is iamn there? 20:08:37 Si 20:09:00 si 20:09:19 or si ? 20:09:34 Si 20:09:46 (On the contrary it does mean that TimBL's stuff breaks when Roy's data is introduced) 20:10:20 then it is already too broken to use 20:10:42 q? 20:10:49 DanC has joined #tagmem 20:10:51 DC: TimBL wants a guarantee that someone will never find a car at the other end. 20:11:28 it's not "I can't know that". TimBL's saying "I consider that false." 20:11:38 RF: You need RDF to know what my URI identifies. 20:11:55 RF: If you want to be able to reason using this URI in an unambiguous manner, then you will need more information. 20:12:24 IJ: Then what does it mean that a URI means the same thing in any context? 20:12:30 isn't this an arcrole to say how much dereferencing is happening? 20:12:51 TBL: In general, there is an axiom that a URI identifies one thing in all cases. 20:12:51 I don't believe that axiom any more, btw, timbl. 20:13:08 TBL: If you use a URI in a relationship, it can indirectly refer to other things. 20:13:14 ack Ian 20:13:19 except in the trivial case - it identifies the resource that you get by dereferencing it 20:13:32 Chris, that's one (coherent) position: there are different ways to point. *p vs **p, in a sense. 20:13:41 Roy has said that he can't use TimBL's scheme because proxies won't work because he thinks tim's system has no difference between document an representation, but there he i swrong, presumbably because he hasn't read TimBL's stuff yet. 20:14:12 arcrole of "the organisation that published this page" 20:14:13 TB: I suggest we publish the logs and stand back and see what happens on wwwt-ag. 20:14:41 as opposed to, say, arcrole of "the isp that hosts this page" or any other such arc role 20:14:54 ack ChrisL 20:15:16 In AaronSw's reply to TimBL (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Jul/0319) I find much that I agree with. 20:15:41 Roy says that TimBL's document == resource and therefore it is confusing to call them documents 20:15:48 ============== 20:15:58 I cede the chair back to TimBL... 20:16:21 # 20:16:21 1. 20:16:21 # RFC3023Charset-21: 20:16:21 * Action CL: Send copy of information sent to tag regarding RFC3023Charset-21 to www-tag. 20:16:41 zakim, unmute ChrisL 20:16:42 ChrisL should no longer be muted 20:16:58 Chris: I will do. 20:17:12 ============== 20:17:13 brb 20:17:14 # Status of URIEquivalence-15. Relation to Character Model of the Web (chapter 4)? See text from TimBL on URI canonicalization and email from Martin in particular. See more comments from Martin. 20:17:38 TB: Martin has made a kind of overwhelming case that we are stuck with char-by-char equivalence. 20:18:23 TB: We should say "When composing URIs, don't use percent-encoding unless you have to, and use lower case when you do." 20:18:29 DC: If you mean the same thing, spell it the same way. 20:18:52 DC: Someone may use e and E differently, so you'd better have good information before considering them to be equivalent. 20:19:33 TB: the cost seems to be too high for considering %7e and 7%E to be different (see MD's arguments). 20:19:55 DC: The cost of having receivers convert things is astronomical. It's easy for us, on the other hand, to say "use lower case when you percent-escape." 20:20:34 action item discharged 20:20:58 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Jul/0323.html 20:22:29 (2) is always needed in HTTP, no? 20:22:32 DC: If you write href="~...", the client better put a "~" byte on the wire, and not a %7e 20:22:38 once it goes over the wire? 20:22:43 q? 20:23:09 TB: Regardless of this, I think we can easily achieve consensus that it's worthwhile to make this point in the arch document. And make the point that for max interoperability, don't %-escape unless you have to, and use lowercase when you do. 20:24:13 DC: If someone gives you a URI, don't screw with it. 20:24:34 TB: Maybe not true: If a user types in a URI that has a space, then you are required to %20 that. 20:24:48 DC: But in that case, the user didn't give a URI. 20:25:32 TB: Right - if given a URI, don't scree with it. if composing a URI, there are cases where must escape things, others where shouldn't, and if given a percent-escape, don't screw with. 20:26:21 CL: You percent-escape Kanji as late as possible. 20:27:08 DC: Spaces and Kanji characters -are they in scope here? 20:27:15 CL: I'm happy to co-write a finding with Martni. 20:28:27 q? 20:28:39 RF: The href attribute is CDATA (or whatever). 20:28:51 anyURI 20:29:12 RF: The attribute value has to be translated from xml entities to something that looks like a URI. If there's a space into it, it needs to be translated into a URI first. 20:29:40 DC: Test case: two documents fed to an xslt processor. One has space, the other %20. The namespaces spec says that these are URi references. 20:30:08 DC: One guy spells the namespace name with 7-bits, the other with more. 20:30:34 RF: Mozilla treats space as illegal char. IE treats as auto-conversion to %2e (for href's in general). IE sends out the space over the wire. 20:30:44 I have a feeling that there will probably some situation where the TAG has to say: stop, do it differently. 20:31:30 TBL: What's the next step? Continue from here? Or have someone go off and work on it? 20:31:32 my test case is from a question of interpretatoin sent to the XML Core wg (via xml-names-editor or xml-editor or some such). 20:31:48 Maybe we bneed a set of test cases. 20:32:02 that should be %20 20:32:52 (I'm not sure about my "if you mean the same thing, say it the same way" position, now that we get into the IRI territory) 20:32:53 CL: I'd like to see whether the "character model of the web" says this. 20:33:05 TBL: Please keep this on agenda for next time. 20:33:17 ADJOURNED 20:33:26 -TBray 20:33:28 bye 20:33:29 -DOrchard 20:33:34 -TimBL 20:33:36 bye 20:33:36 -Ian 20:33:37 -Roy 20:36:40 RRSAgent, stop