IRC log of tagmem on 2003-08-18

Timestamps are in UTC.

18:58:56 [RRSAgent]

RRSAgent has joined #tagmem

18:58:57 [DanC_]

DanC_ has joined #tagmem

19:01:25 [Zakim]

+??P1

19:01:28 [Zakim]

- +1.603.539.aaaa

19:01:29 [Zakim]

+ +1.603.539.aaaa

19:01:47 [Zakim]

+Tim_Bray

19:01:59 [Zakim]

+ +1.714.658.aabb

19:02:00 [Stuart]

zakim, ??p1 is me

19:02:00 [Zakim]

+Stuart; got it

19:02:39 [Stuart]

zakim, ++1.714 is Roy

19:02:39 [Zakim]

sorry, Stuart, I do not recognize a party named '++1.714'

19:02:46 [Stuart]

zakim, 714 is Roy

19:02:46 [Zakim]

sorry, Stuart, I do not recognize a party named '714'

19:03:21 [Chris]

Chris has joined #tagmem

19:03:35 [Chris]

zakim, dial chris-work

19:03:35 [Zakim]

ok, Chris; the call is being made

19:03:36 [Zakim]

+Chris

19:04:00 [Zakim]

+ +1.514.200.aacc

19:04:01 [Zakim]

+Norm

19:07:27 [Zakim]

+DanC

19:09:58 [TBray]

TBray scribing

19:10:35 [TBray]

... discussion of agenda...

19:12:49 [TBray]

PCotton had made a point of coming to this meeting because provisional agenda said we were going to be discussing extensibility

19:13:02 [TBray]

Letting it slide has a very significant impact on our plan

19:13:29 [TBray]

PC: what is impact on downstream agendas of moving extensibility off this week?

19:15:30 [TBray]

RESOLVED: accept July 28 and Aug 4 minutes

19:16:08 [DanC_]

(we decided in Vancouver to cancel 1Sep)

19:16:14 [TBray]

Next two meetings have large numbers of regrets

19:16:27 [TBray]

SW: suggest next meeting 8 September

19:16:38 [TBray]

RESOLVED: next meeting 8 September

19:17:05 [DanC_]

yes, 3pET, Chris.

19:17:10 [TBray]

ACTION: SW to review work plan from Vancouver F2F to help with schedule

19:17:46 [TBray]

TBL: Possible conflict with other F2F meetings Sep 8

19:17:51 [TBray]

TBL: Might affect IJ too

19:18:26 [Norm]

FYI: 8 Sep was to focus on namespaceDocument-8

19:18:28 [DanC_]

(I haven't starting making travel arrangements for Bristol and still have conflicts and don't know how they'll be resolved.)

19:18:40 [TBray]

SW: Should he arrange a single hotel for Bristol?

19:19:11 [TBray]

DC: Consider net access

19:19:29 [TBray]

ACTION: SW to make a suggestion re hotel on email

19:19:38 [TBray]

----------------------

19:19:46 [TBray]

XML Binary Workshop: anything further

19:19:58 [TBray]

CL: those who are going should go, but not as TAG reps

19:20:04 [TBray]

SW: OK to answer questions on where TAG is at

19:20:23 [TBray]

PC: +1

19:20:35 [TBray]

-----------------------------

19:21:06 [Zakim]

+ +1.250.629.aadd

19:21:27 [TBray]

Zakim, aadd is DOrchard

19:21:27 [Zakim]

+DOrchard; got it

19:21:34 [TBray]

------------------------

19:21:44 [TBray]

Proposed new issue, see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Jul/0022.html

19:22:43 [DanC_]

aye.

19:22:57 [TBray]

Discuss

19:23:08 [Zakim]

- +1.714.658.aabb

19:23:12 [Norm]

discuss

19:23:14 [Stuart]

discuss

19:23:15 [Chris]

discuss

19:23:45 [Zakim]

+ +1.714.658.aaee

19:23:55 [TBray]

Zakim, aaee is Roy

19:23:55 [Zakim]

+Roy; got it

19:24:27 [TBray]

DOrchard: raises same issue re extensibility as PC did above

19:25:59 [TBray]

TBL: Deep issue

19:26:08 [TBray]

TBL: Cuts across many SW, RDF, CG, TAG issues

19:26:22 [TBray]

TBL: Risk of philosophical ratholes

19:26:37 [TBray]

TBL: BOF at Budapest conference, need to get this written down

19:26:49 [TBray]

TBL: IMHO need to write down how to interpret

19:26:54 [TBray]

TBL: Easy in RDF

19:27:41 [Stuart]

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Jul/0022.html

19:28:57 [TBray]

TBL: confusion re 'denote'/'mean' etc

19:29:20 [TBray]

TBL: how are RDF/HTTP/OWL tied together

19:29:33 [TBray]

TBL: when you deref a predicate's URI, you can use the URI to get more info about it

19:30:21 [Zakim]

+Roy_Fielding

19:30:25 [Zakim]

-Roy

19:31:15 [TBray]

TBL: discussions need to make sure they use URIs the way the rest of the Web does

19:31:47 [TBray]

SW: need TAG input?

19:31:47 [Chris]

If P means that given binary relation is *asserted* then thats ok, but that it *holds* is a different level of social meaning

19:32:06 [TBray]

TBL: Yes, TAG is 50% implicated

19:32:55 [Roy]

Roy has joined #tagmem

19:32:58 [TBray]

DC: history accurate, but missed technical issue

19:33:20 [TBray]

q+ to say that I feel poorly qualified to help RDF people & OWL people sort out their disagreements

19:33:39 [Stuart]

ack TBray

19:33:39 [Zakim]

TBray, you wanted to say that I feel poorly qualified to help RDF people & OWL people sort out their disagreements

19:34:04 [TBray]

TB: having trouble understanding the issue

19:34:21 [TBray]

SW: task force?

19:34:51 [TBray]

DC: Possible outcome: text in webarch saying how URIs are shared

19:35:11 [TBray]

DC: If you connect protocols to logic, you have answered the question of meaning

19:35:15 [Chris]

the architecture is that a single meaning is given to each URI (such

19:35:15 [Chris]

as P), that the URI ownership system makes statements by owners

19:35:15 [Chris]

authoritative weight, despite what other documents may say.

19:35:42 [TBray]

TBL: confusion between mean/denote

19:37:00 [TBray]

TBL: we agree that it's good for URIs to produce information

19:37:19 [TBray]

CL: you are claiming that if someone makes an assertion that a URI means X, that can never be changed

19:37:58 [TBray]

TBL: if I'm sesnding an RDF assertion to order a coat, and I have a URI for Pantone #1003, then when I dereference that I should get a colour chart

19:38:04 [Chris]

and who is 'someone' and what exacty is that meaning and where is it written and to what degree of precision

19:38:21 [TBray]

TBL: so to avoid disputes in future, that URI is authoritative

19:38:38 [Chris]

q+ to point out edge flaws of TimBLs example

19:39:04 [TBray]

TB: OK, but what's RDF-specific?

19:40:31 [TBray]

TBL: meaning of statement is determined by predicate

19:40:50 [TBray]

TBL: which you can find out more about by dereferencing

19:41:54 [TBray]

TB: so do you want to say that when you identify things in RDF, you should make the URIs yield useful information

19:41:55 [Chris]

what TimB says is true, but is not reallt the issue at hand it seems to me.

19:42:40 [TBray]

q+ to say that I don't understand potential outcomes well enough yes to say "yes" to issue

19:43:02 [Stuart]

ack Chris

19:43:02 [Zakim]

Chris, you wanted to point out edge flaws of TimBLs example

19:43:41 [Stuart]

ack DanC

19:43:41 [Zakim]

DanC_, you wanted to point out what folks might think is in the RDF spec that is, in fact, not there any more.

19:43:58 [TBray]

DC: current RDF spec makes no linkage between use of URIs in RDf and their use in HTTP

19:44:00 [Chris]

some of the statements in section 3 of TimBLs email are, to me, self evidently false

19:44:06 [TBray]

DC: It used to, but people objected

19:44:10 [Stuart]

ack TBray

19:44:10 [Zakim]

TBray, you wanted to say that I don't understand potential outcomes well enough yes to say "yes" to issue

19:45:24 [TBray]

TB: seems that situation described by Dan is indeed bogus

19:45:24 [Roy]

There are hundreds of different uses of URI in HTTP

19:46:03 [DanC_]

straw poll pls

19:46:29 [TBray]

SW: straw poll

19:46:32 [Chris]

yes there is clearly an issue, and we should take it up

19:46:34 [DanC_]

yes, I think there's an issue that's worth the TAG's time.

19:46:34 [Norm]

yes

19:46:37 [Roy]

abstain

19:46:38 [TBray]

Abstain for now, but would like to ask a couple quewstions

19:46:40 [TBray]

PC: abstain

19:46:51 [DanC_]

the chair will please read the IRC responses

19:47:13 [TBray]

TBL: yes

19:47:20 [Stuart]

yes because needs more discussion

19:48:12 [TBray]

DO: leaning to "no" because there's probably an issue here, but in past when the issue-raiser hasn't been clear enough, we will say "we don't get it, more info please"

19:48:36 [TBray]

q+ to ask politics question

19:48:56 [DanC_]

Zakim, aaaa is TimBL

19:48:56 [Zakim]

+TimBL; got it

19:49:01 [DanC_]

ack timbl

19:49:04 [DanC_]

ack aaaa

19:49:12 [DanC_]

ack +1.603.539.aaaa

19:50:09 [TBray]

TBL: reprises last para of his email referenced above

19:50:29 [TBray]

oops, actually reprises whole email

19:50:30 [Chris]

that seems like an open-ended list to me

19:52:05 [Stuart]

ack TBray

19:52:05 [Zakim]

TBray, you wanted to ask politics question

19:53:03 [Norm]

I'm content to accept the issue, but I have real concerns that TimBL is suggesting an attempt to "legislate morality". If I own a URI for my car and I assert my car is Blue, that doesn't make it true. And if eleven other people assert that it's Green, the fact that they're other people doesn't make their assertions false.

19:53:20 [DanC_]

interesting point, norm.

19:53:20 [TBray]

TB: suppose we do nothing, toss it back, what happens?

19:53:26 [Norm]

My car is, in fact, green. A pretty ugly green, in fact. :-)

19:53:56 [TBray]

TBL: they might build a consistent logic system with nothing to do with the web

19:54:16 [TBray]

CL: want to take it up although SW people might not like the answer

19:54:16 [Chris]

well said, norm

19:54:27 [DanC_]

yes, issue for the TAG

19:54:31 [Stuart]

ack Dan

19:54:35 [TBray]

DC: if we do nothing, discussions will go on diffusely, do we want to be at center

19:54:36 [Roy]

abstain

19:54:38 [TBray]

Yes

19:54:39 [Norm]

yes

19:54:43 [Stuart]

yes

19:54:43 [Chris]

yes it is an issue but I request a clearer problem statement or statements

19:54:50 [TBray]

PC: abstain

19:54:53 [TBray]

TBL: Yes

19:55:09 [TBray]

DO: abstain

19:55:49 [TBray]

RESOLVED: issue accepted

19:56:15 [DanC_]

rdfURIMeaning

19:56:23 [Chris]

issue 42?

19:56:27 [Norm]

lol

19:56:28 [TBray]

RESOLVED: RDF-URI-Meaning-[++Ian]

19:56:34 [Chris]

** please ***

19:56:55 [TBray]

SW: approach SWCG for joint meeting?

19:57:15 [TBray]

ACTION: DC to take this back to SWCG

19:57:55 [TBray]

TBL: not clear that SWCG people are the right people

19:58:05 [TBray]

DC: which time slot?

19:58:09 [TBray]

various: their slot

19:58:25 [DanC_]

where "their slot" means "not the TAG slot"

19:58:43 [Norm]

FYI: it appears to be issue 39

19:58:51 [TBray]

PC: need to discuss how this issue affects progress to last call

19:59:02 [TBray]

PC: does this go to top of list?

19:59:05 [TBray]

q+

19:59:26 [TBray]

PC: one reason I abstained is that I'm concerned about adding items to worklist

19:59:30 [DanC_]

q+ timbl

19:59:34 [Stuart]

q+ TBL

19:59:41 [DanC_]

ack danc

19:59:41 [Zakim]

DanC_, you wanted to set expectations to resolve this in Q1 2004

19:59:44 [Stuart]

ack TBray

19:59:46 [TBray]

TB: don't see this one on path to last call

19:59:49 [TBray]

DC: spring 2004

19:59:53 [Stuart]

ack timbl

19:59:57 [Stuart]

ack TBL

20:00:30 [Norm]

The advantage of meeting on their time is that it doesn't have to step on our time as we progress towards last call

20:00:37 [TBray]

------------------------------------------------------------

20:00:39 [TBray]

Webarch

20:01:30 [TBray]

SW: RF's action item on sect3 re-write?

20:01:39 [TBray]

RF: if not done by Aug 18, won't get done for a while

20:01:58 [Chris]

Create an illustration of two resources, one designated by URI without fragment, and one designated by same URI with fragment...

20:02:14 [Chris]

please someone point me to a whiteboard photo, then i can draw it

20:02:48 [DanC_]

I felt so good after the planning session in Vancouver; ah well, "life is what happens when you're making other plans"

20:02:50 [TBray]

They'll be in the photosummary I iposted, Chris

20:03:52 [TBray]

ACTION TB: bring meeting photos to Ian's attention

20:04:03 [DanC_]

I can edit the ftf record, as can chris

20:04:30 [TBray]

modify action item, point mailing list at photos

20:04:39 [DanC_]

i.e. I am technically capable; my question is: May I? ah... yes, stuart answered. thx.

20:05:18 [TBray]

Action item to CL: in re bullleted-list re SVG reference

20:07:32 [TBray]

... discussion of various action items ...

20:08:22 [TBray]

TB/CL action item on "text-based" done

20:08:35 [TBray]

TB "xml-based" not done

20:09:08 [TBray]

NW: WIll get to his actions this week

20:10:03 [TBray]

redraft of Moby Dick section?

20:10:43 [TBray]

leave it pending

20:11:14 [TBray]

http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/webarch-20030801

20:11:58 [TBray]

DC: .../tag/webarch/tim

20:12:42 [TBray]

"Integrate findings"?

20:13:07 [TBray]

TB will make himself available to IJ to work on this

20:14:00 [TBray]

q+

20:14:07 [TBray]

-----------------------------------------------------------

20:14:13 [TBray]

Rewrite of intro

20:14:58 [TBray]

RF: Need to be able to change sections of the document

20:15:11 [TBray]

RF: not worth working on if it's not open to change

20:15:26 [Stuart]

ack TBray

20:17:39 [TBray]

TB: Roy was trying to make a technical point about def'n of Web. That aside, I thought he prior language was a bit clearer

20:17:56 [TBray]

TB: obviously OK to change doc, but we need to have better feeling as for what parts of the doc are cooked

20:18:07 [TBray]

RF: still need to address problem of def'n of web.

20:18:24 [TBray]

RF: currently starts out by defining things as an information system, & follows on to resources from there

20:18:51 [TBray]

RF: but that leaves out SW, need to start from further back and then work forward to the description of the current browser-centric hypertextual web

20:19:39 [TBray]

RF: the web isn't an "information system" , it's the space of resources that are interconneected

20:19:40 [TBray]

q+

20:20:07 [Chris]

in what way is a space of resources not a system?

20:20:09 [TBray]

RF: depending how you define the web constrains hwo you define what resource means

20:20:11 [Stuart]

ack TBray

20:21:01 [TBray]

TB: def'n excludes software components?

20:21:31 [TBray]

RF: yes, because components change & are used depending on what you're doing

20:21:38 [TBray]

DO: <missed question>

20:21:45 [Stuart]

acl TimBL

20:21:48 [DanC_]

(re-starting discussion of what the web is doesn't speak well for our hopes for last call)

20:21:54 [Stuart]

ack TimBL

20:22:02 [TBray]

RF: My dissertation explicitly limits itself to the information system

20:22:24 [TBray]

TBL: not productive to go back and argue about what web really, really is

20:23:04 [TBray]

TBL: one subset is what you can get at with HTTP GET

20:23:14 [TBray]

q+

20:23:35 [TBray]

TBL: email is part of the information space, but HTTP is very different from SMTP

20:23:55 [TBray]

TBL: could say info space (includes|doesn't include) things like email and HTTP

20:24:18 [TBray]

TBL: so don't need to spend time on Web "for purposes of this document"

20:25:01 [TBray]

TBL: ... fuzzy edges of what the Web is ...

20:25:13 [TBray]

TBL: the only way to get a handle is to write an ontology

20:25:50 [TBray]

q+ DO

20:25:57 [DanC_]

ack tbray

20:26:35 [Stuart]

ack DO

20:26:59 [TBray]

TB: happier with a definition that includes the software as part of the web, but acknowledges that you might be able to start with a definition based purely in information

20:27:59 [TBray]

DO: webservices people have wrangled over what a web service is at length, settled on a definition explicitly limited to the doc they're writing, admit their may be things outside that are considered web services but that's not what we're talking about

20:28:17 [Stuart]

ack DanC

20:28:17 [Zakim]

DanC_, you wanted to say yes, let's focus on the interaction between the terms we've using/defining in our doc... I hadn't appreciated the connection between 'Web' and 'Resource'

20:28:20 [Zakim]

... that Roy points out, but I dunno what to do about it off the top of my head

20:30:39 [TBray]

TB: Aug 1st text is getting pretty close in quality to July 16 text, modulo my specific suggestions (in particular see notes on "effect of following web architecture")

20:31:15 [TBray]

DC: neither July nor August version is acceptable to all the TAG as of now

20:31:56 [Zakim]

-DOrchard

20:31:58 [TBray]

</tag>

20:31:58 [Zakim]

-Tim_Bray

20:31:58 [Zakim]

-Roy_Fielding

20:31:59 [Zakim]

-TimBL

20:32:00 [Roy]

Roy has left #tagmem

20:32:47 [Zakim]

-Norm

20:35:20 [DanC_]

RRSAgent, stop