IRC log of tagmem on 2004-02-09

Timestamps are in UTC.

16:00:56 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #tagmem
16:01:14 [Norm]
Zakim, list conferences
16:01:14 [Zakim]
I see MM_MMI()11:00AM, Team_Comm()9:30AM, T&S_Team()10:00AM, QA_QAWG()11:00AM, WAI_SC()9:45AM active
16:01:16 [Zakim]
also scheduled at this time are TAG_(video)11:00AM, AB_()11:00AM, WS_Team()11:00AM, XML_QueryWG()11:00AM
16:01:23 [Norm]
Zakim, this is tag
16:01:23 [Zakim]
Norm, I see TAG_(video)11:00AM in the schedule but not yet started. Perhaps you mean "this will be tag".
16:01:30 [Norm]
Zakim, this will be tag
16:01:30 [Zakim]
ok, Norm; I see TAG_(video)11:00AM scheduled to start now
16:01:36 [Norm]
Zakim, what's the passcode?
16:01:36 [Zakim]
the conference code is 0824, Norm
16:01:45 [Zakim]
TAG_(video)11:00AM has now started
16:01:52 [Zakim]
16:02:23 [DanC_jam]
DanC_jam has joined #tagmem
16:03:20 [DanC_jam]
16:03:32 [DanC_jam]
Zakim, CSAIL holds TimBL, IanJ, DanC
16:03:34 [Zakim]
sorry, DanC_jam, I do not recognize a party named 'CSAIL'
16:03:34 [Norm]
Ian-MIT, I'll only make it by audio
16:04:03 [Ian-MIT]
zakim, cancel AB
16:04:03 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'cancel AB', Ian-MIT
16:04:22 [Ian-MIT]
zakim, what's the code?
16:04:22 [Zakim]
the conference code is 0824, Ian-MIT
16:04:26 [Zakim]
16:04:44 [Norm]
Norm can now here you
16:04:46 [Ian-MIT]
zakim, Microsoft holds Paul and David
16:04:46 [Zakim]
sorry, Ian-MIT, I do not recognize a party named 'Microsoft'
16:04:48 [Norm]
Uh, some of you
16:04:53 [Ian-MIT]
zakim, [Microsoft] holds Paul and David
16:04:53 [Zakim]
+Paul, David; got it
16:04:54 [timbl]
timbl has joined #tagmem
16:05:11 [timbl]
617 761 6200
16:05:28 [Zakim]
16:05:46 [Zakim]
+ +49.772.3.aaaa
16:06:18 [Norm]
Zakim, mute me
16:06:18 [Zakim]
Norm should now be muted
16:06:31 [Zakim]
16:07:56 [Norm]
Zakim, unmute me
16:07:56 [Zakim]
Norm should no longer be muted
16:08:44 [Norm]
Zakim, mute me
16:08:44 [Zakim]
Norm should now be muted
16:08:49 [timbl]
Zakim, list
16:08:49 [Zakim]
I see WS_Team()11:00AM, TAG_(video)11:00AM, MM_MMI()11:00AM, Team_Comm()9:30AM, QA_QAWG()11:00AM, WAI_SC()9:45AM active
16:08:51 [Zakim]
also scheduled at this time are AB_()11:00AM, XML_QueryWG()11:00AM
16:09:00 [timbl]
Zakim, this is video
16:09:00 [Zakim]
timbl, this was already TAG_(video)11:00AM
16:09:01 [Zakim]
ok, timbl; that matches TAG_(video)11:00AM
16:09:05 [Mario]
Mario has joined #tagmem
16:09:12 [Mario]
16:09:16 [Ian-MIT]
16:09:20 [timbl]
Hi, Mario!
16:09:22 [Mario]
Hi Ian!
16:09:24 [Mario]
Hi Tim!
16:09:30 [Mario]
I managed to get on the phone bridge.
16:09:32 [Zakim]
16:09:41 [Norm]
Zakim, unmute me
16:09:41 [Zakim]
Norm should no longer be muted
16:09:42 [Mario]
Unfortunately, I cannot reach PC via his mobile phone.
16:09:45 [Ian-MIT]
zakim, ??P14 is Mario
16:09:45 [Zakim]
+Mario; got it
16:09:47 [timbl]
Zaki, ??P14 must be Mario
16:09:57 [Mario]
Can I post the number of my vid conf equipement here?
16:10:06 [Zakim]
16:10:28 [Mario]
16:10:44 [Mario]
zakim, mute me
16:10:44 [Zakim]
sorry, Mario, I do not see a party named 'Mario'
16:10:44 [Stuart]
mario it's going to be hard/impossible to program you into the video call at this late hour.
16:11:06 [Norm]
Zakim, who's here?
16:11:06 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Norm, [Microsoft], +49.772.3.aaaa
16:11:07 [Zakim]
[Microsoft] has Paul, David
16:11:08 [Zakim]
On IRC I see Mario, timbl, DanC_jam, RRSAgent, Zakim, Stuart, Norm, Ian-MIT
16:11:15 [Mario]
Irgh ... my bad. But I haven't got the number earlier.
16:11:25 [Norm]
Zakim, unmute me
16:11:25 [Zakim]
Norm was not muted, Norm
16:12:38 [timbl]
Sounds good to us in MIT Norm
16:13:00 [paulc]
paulc has joined #tagmem
16:13:03 [Norm]
Stuart sounds very muffled to me
16:13:07 [Norm]
Hello Paulc
16:13:13 [Mario]
Hi PaulC
16:13:45 [DanC_jam]
SW: ChrisL called... flight troubles.
16:13:46 [paulc]
Sounds like AF and AC are trying to kill the TAG video con.
16:14:24 [DanC_jam]
mario? should we count you as present?
16:14:28 [Norm]
Mario, can you hear Paul speaking?
16:14:28 [timbl]
Mario, if you are there can you say so on the phone?
16:14:37 [timbl]
Ok, we heard that.
16:14:43 [Ian-MIT]
Roll call: SW, TBL, PC, DO, DC, IJ, MJ, NW
16:14:46 [Ian-MIT]
Delayed: CL
16:14:48 [Ian-MIT]
Missing: RF
16:14:53 [paulc]
Regrets from TB.
16:15:10 [Ian-MIT]
16:15:12 [Ian-MIT]
16:15:16 [timbl]
[The chair noted that Chris Lilley took off from Nice flew around and landed there again]
16:15:17 [Ian-MIT]
16:15:26 [Ian-MIT]
16:15:26 [Ian-MIT]
# Proposed to accept minutes of the 2 Feb teleconf
16:15:29 [Ian-MIT]
PC: Look fine
16:15:36 [Ian-MIT]
16:15:45 [Ian-MIT]
Resolved: Minutes accepted.
16:15:52 [Ian-MIT]
Accept this agenda?
16:15:57 [Ian-MIT]
16:16:22 [paulc]
Agenda looks fine to me.
16:16:42 [paulc]
Do we want to change the order?
16:17:10 [paulc]
To have Chris L here for I18N and GRDDL topic?
16:17:12 [Ian-MIT]
DC: I have some input -
16:17:22 [Ian-MIT]
DC: Getting LC comments is important to me.
16:17:39 [Mario]
zakim, mute me
16:17:39 [Zakim]
sorry, Mario, I do not see a party named 'Mario'
16:17:47 [Norm]
Zakim, who's on the call?
16:17:48 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Norm, [Microsoft], +49.772.3.aaaa
16:17:48 [Zakim]
[Microsoft] has Paul, David
16:17:54 [Norm]
Zakim, aaaa is Mario
16:17:54 [Zakim]
+Mario; got it
16:17:56 [Ian-MIT]
DC: If 8 and 35 merge; that would be ok
16:18:02 [Norm]
Zakim, mute mario
16:18:02 [Zakim]
Mario should now be muted
16:18:12 [Norm]
Zakim, unmute mario
16:18:12 [Zakim]
Mario should no longer be muted
16:18:19 [Mario]
zakim, mute mario
16:18:19 [Zakim]
Mario should now be muted
16:18:20 [Norm]
I wonder if that's really you or if that's Stuart...
16:18:23 [Ian-MIT]
DC: Propose to take LC commnets first.
16:18:25 [paulc]
Doing last call first is okay with Paul.
16:18:46 [Norm]
Dave/PaulC, you need to mute too!
16:18:48 [Mario]
+49 7723 ... should be me.
16:18:54 [Norm]
right. I worked that out :-)
16:19:02 [Mario]
Thanks to Norm.
16:19:09 [Ian-MIT]
TBL: Let's do LC comments under tech section
16:19:14 [Ian-MIT]
(exchange 2.1 and 2.4)
16:19:55 [timbl]
16:20:07 [DanC_jam]
(we're reviewing the agenda)
16:20:18 [Norm]
Thank you, DanC_jam
16:20:39 [timbl]
Order will be 2.4 2.2 2.1 2.3 ...
16:21:08 [timbl]
Order will be 2.4 2.1 2.2 2.3
16:22:03 [Ian-MIT]
16:22:08 [Ian-MIT]
Proposed next meeting: 23 Feb
16:22:19 [paulc]
23 Feb is fine with Paul C.
16:22:28 [Ian-MIT]
No regrets for 23 uttered
16:22:39 [paulc]
TB will still be away on 23 Feb.
16:22:56 [Ian-MIT]
IJ is at risk for 23 Feb. not suure yet but has an appt in NYC.
16:22:59 [Ian-MIT]
16:23:03 [Ian-MIT]
1.1 Technical Plenary
16:23:11 [Ian-MIT]
Scheduling plan:
16:23:14 [paulc]
Roy received my travel info and confirmed it was okay. I have not heard from him but the receptionist knows where the meeting is.
16:23:15 [Ian-MIT]
16:24:12 [Ian-MIT]
[On meeting with HTML WG]
16:24:26 [paulc]
Are we meeting with XML Core twice? The schedule lists them twice on Tues.
16:25:07 [Ian-MIT]
DC: Doesn't seem odd to me if we meet with HTML WG even if there's a task force.
16:25:11 [Norm]
CoreWG would prefer to meet on Monday
16:25:34 [paulc]
If they don't want to meet then let's meet and do our work.
16:25:42 [Ian-MIT]
TBL: Where does "RDFinHTML" meeting happen?
16:25:46 [Ian-MIT]
DC: In TAG meeting, I hope.
16:25:51 [Ian-MIT]
TBL: Can TAG meet with the taskforce?
16:26:22 [timbl]
Task force - dom + ??? from HTML WG
16:27:58 [paulc]
RDFinXHTML-35: Dan mentioned a TF? What is the background on this?
16:28:36 [paulc]
16:28:37 [Ian-MIT]
SW Proposal:
16:28:41 [Ian-MIT]
- Take HTML WG off of our agenda
16:28:56 [Ian-MIT]
- Propose to hold the RDF in HTML discussion in Sem Web BP meeting
16:29:01 [Ian-MIT]
- Invite HTML WG to that meeting
16:29:23 [Stuart]
16:29:41 [Ian-MIT]
16:30:05 [Ian-MIT]
PC: How to adjust schedule w.r.t. xml core
16:30:22 [DanC_jam]
(I'm sorry, I'm collecting my thoughts on the tech plenary real-time here; I could perhaps make better use of the group's time after a break)
16:30:59 [DanC_jam]
Semantic-Web Best Practices and Deployment (SWBPD) Working Group
16:30:59 [DanC_jam]
Kick-off meeting Tech Plenary Cannes, 4-5 March 2004
16:31:05 [paulc]
Half day as TAG is great at TP on Tues.
16:31:36 [Ian-MIT]
SW: I will keep the schedule up-to-date as people make commitments.
16:32:00 [Ian-MIT]
16:32:07 [Ian-MIT]
tech plenary day topics
16:32:57 [Ian-MIT]
SW: Volunteers?
16:33:16 [Ian-MIT]
DC: I'm ok if TAG participates in other panels throughout the day.
16:33:24 [Ian-MIT]
SW: Only one at this moment is mixed languages panel.
16:33:42 [Ian-MIT]
SW: Also PC's participation in section on querying the Web
16:34:08 [Ian-MIT]
SW: Planning committee would like TAG to use one hour for itself
16:34:20 [Ian-MIT]
16:34:27 [Ian-MIT]
[Draft agenda]
16:34:40 [Ian-MIT]
SW: I had suggested Web ids as one possible topic.
16:34:49 [Ian-MIT]
- qnames, I18N, ...
16:35:07 [Ian-MIT]
DC: namespace 8 has been discussed in the Team recently.
16:35:22 [Ian-MIT]
DC: including when and if the TAG should hand off follow-up to another group.
16:35:51 [Ian-MIT]
DC: That topic would take up 20 minutes easily.
16:36:01 [Ian-MIT]
PC: What about versioning and extensibility?
16:36:06 [Ian-MIT]
SW: That fits with mixed languages.
16:37:17 [paulc]
Ian, how do I put David O on the speaker queue on IRC?
16:38:18 [paulc]
We can hear MIT and Bristol
16:38:50 [paulc]
David O broke it.
16:38:57 [Norm]
16:39:03 [Norm]
I can hear DaveO
16:39:37 [timbl]
Pual, zoom yourselves in a bit?
16:39:38 [DanC_jam]
I think extensibility and versioning are related to language mixing, but merits additional time on its one. (yeah, what DaveO is saying)
16:39:46 [Stuart]
16:39:49 [DanC_jam]
s/its one/its own/
16:39:52 [Ian-MIT]
DO: To cover extensibility and versioning would require more time.
16:40:08 [Ian-MIT]
SW: namespace 8 and versioning.
16:40:14 [paulc]
What if we do Ext and Vers first and then mixed namespace later in the day?
16:40:21 [DanC_jam]
stuart, I'm happy to help too.
16:40:54 [Ian-MIT]
DC: I volunteer to motivate discussion for namespace 8.
16:41:04 [paulc]
Chris L volunteered to help with TAG issues discussion at our last meeting.
16:41:16 [Ian-MIT]
SW: Roy did as well.
16:41:28 [Ian-MIT]
SW: We also have our regular TAG intor/report.
16:41:32 [Ian-MIT]
16:41:45 [paulc]
16:41:56 [DanC_jam]
ACTION DanC: motivate discussion of namespaceDocument-8 at the Weds tech plenary
16:42:25 [paulc]
What do fragment identifiers mean???? Roy?
16:42:48 [paulc]
q- DaveO
16:43:05 [Norm]
Everything has gone quiet...
16:43:06 [Ian-MIT]
TBL: If we are to discuss frag-ids, please schedule at a time when I can dial in.
16:43:16 [paulc]
I think Roy in absentia.
16:43:18 [Mario]
zakim, unmute mario
16:43:18 [Zakim]
Mario should no longer be muted
16:43:46 [Mario]
zakim, mute mario
16:43:46 [Zakim]
Mario should now be muted
16:44:08 [Ian-MIT]
ACTION SW: Find a volunteer to discuss identifiers at Tech Plenary
16:46:20 [Ian-MIT]
16:46:23 [Ian-MIT]
1.2 TAG meeting schedule in 2004
16:46:29 [Ian-MIT]
16:47:18 [Norm]
I can hear MIT and Redmond
16:47:27 [paulc]
I can hear MIT and Bristol
16:48:15 [paulc]
I can hear MIT and Bristol.
16:48:49 [Ian-MIT]
Would like to resolve proposals for July (28-30th, Ottawa) and November (around W3C AC meeting, Boston).
16:48:55 [Ian-MIT]
[Question of July date]
16:49:40 [Ian-MIT]
TBL: Bad weekend for me (Jul 28-30)
16:49:50 [Ian-MIT]
TBL: Following three weeks ok for me to go to Ottawa.
16:50:37 [Norm]
Following or preceding?
16:50:45 [paulc]
16:51:03 [Ian-MIT]
16:51:04 [paulc]
The week before is WS-I meetings and the week after is Extreme XML in Montreal.
16:51:12 [DanC_jam]
I'm not aware of any constraints with 28-30July Ottawa; booting up my calendar to make a reservation
16:52:16 [DanC_jam]
I'd like to go to extreme, but a TAG meeting would take priority for me.
16:52:38 [DanC_jam]
(it might not be productive, but I don't see any better way to go about this)
16:53:18 [Ian-MIT]
TBL: My preference for AUgust in order: 9, 16, 2
16:53:21 [Norm]
Extreme is in danger of failing, I'm inclined this year to give it priority if possible.
16:53:31 [Norm]
16:53:42 [timbl]
August 9th, 16trhm 2nd
16:53:48 [timbl]
August 9th, 16th 2nd
16:54:09 [Norm]
Is anything in July workable for TIMBL?
16:54:18 [timbl]
16:54:24 [paulc]
I can do any of these in Ottawa. The TAG just has to decide.
16:54:33 [timbl]
July is competly out.
16:54:50 [Norm]
16:55:04 [DanC_jam]
I suggest that the way this game is played is that somebody makes a proposal (like PaulC did) and anybody who doesn't like that owes the group a counter-proposal
16:56:44 [Ian-MIT]
PC reiterates May proposal
16:57:16 [Ian-MIT]
PC: 12-14 May in New York.
16:57:24 [Ian-MIT]
[W-F before AC meeting]
16:58:10 [Ian-MIT]
[No volunteers to host]
16:58:47 [paulc]
We could do it in Boston?
16:59:26 [Ian-MIT]
TBL: I offer to host the TAG in Boston 13-13
16:59:30 [Ian-MIT]
16:59:32 [Ian-MIT]
16:59:40 [Zakim]
16:59:42 [Norm]
16:59:53 [Norm]
Hi Roy. We're discussing a meeting in Boston 12-14 May
16:59:56 [DanC_jam]
any in favor of May 12-14 May?
17:00:00 [Norm]
17:00:05 [paulc]
Paul supports the proposed meeting in May.
17:00:28 [Mario]
Mario also support the proposed meeting in May.
17:00:32 [DanC_jam]
any objections to 12-14 May in Boston?
17:00:44 [DanC_jam]
(straw poll)
17:01:01 [Ian-MIT]
IJ: I can be there.
17:01:01 [paulc]
Paul can attend in may.
17:01:03 [Stuart]
regrets for 12-14 May
17:01:03 [Ian-MIT]
TBL: I can be there
17:01:07 [Norm]
Norm confirms
17:01:11 [Ian-MIT]
DC: I cannot confirm today
17:01:20 [Ian-MIT]
DC: But ok if group meets then.
17:01:48 [paulc]
Unknowns are TB and CL.
17:02:14 [Ian-MIT]
[We will hold onto the straw proposal for 12-14 May in Boston]
17:02:59 [Ian-MIT]
Action PC: Propose meeting date(s) for August.
17:03:08 [Ian-MIT]
17:03:29 [Ian-MIT]
1.3 W3C/IETF Meeting
17:03:29 [Ian-MIT]
* Update from recent meeting? (Dan?)
17:03:35 [Ian-MIT]
[Moving on]
17:03:48 [Ian-MIT]
17:03:51 [Ian-MIT]
2.1 Web Architecture Document Last Call (90min)
17:05:11 [Ian-MIT]
17:06:04 [Ian-MIT]
Action DO:
17:06:09 [Ian-MIT]
Point WSDL WG to resolution of issue 6.
17:06:31 [Ian-MIT]
DC: Best thing is for WSDL WG to send in an LC comment.
17:06:37 [Ian-MIT]
DO: There are three people who are reviewing it.
17:06:50 [Norm]
Audio just dropped again
17:06:54 [Norm]
Audio back
17:07:01 [DanC_jam]
yeah, DO's action is done to my satisfaction
17:07:11 [Ian-MIT]
Resolved: DO's action is completed.
17:07:15 [paulc]
no objection to the withdrawal.
17:07:30 [Ian-MIT]
17:07:30 [Ian-MIT]
Review 14 Jan draft of Qname Finding.
17:07:30 [Ian-MIT]
* accepted on 26 Jan 2004
17:07:36 [Ian-MIT]
17:07:42 [Ian-MIT]
DC: Not done.
17:07:45 [Ian-MIT]
DC: Apologies.
17:07:47 [Ian-MIT]
TBL: I read it.
17:07:55 [DanC_jam]
I get XML markup at
17:08:01 [Ian-MIT]
14 Jan finding draft:
17:08:03 [Norm]
Add .html
17:08:04 [Ian-MIT]
17:08:19 [Ian-MIT]
TBL: The gist is right; could be written in a less confusing fashion.
17:08:55 [Ian-MIT]
TBL: Starts off saying there's no std way of defining what prefix the ns maps to. But then goes on to talk about the "normal way" of doing it.
17:09:06 [Ian-MIT]
TBL: So there is really one way of doing it (for elements, attributes).
17:09:27 [Ian-MIT]
NW: XPointer uses a completely different mechanism.
17:09:35 [Ian-MIT]
TBL: There is an original way; xpointer has deviated from that wya.
17:10:08 [Ian-MIT]
TBL: Please mark my action item as completed.
17:10:11 [Norm]
Yes, xpointer has deviated, so there is no longer one way.
17:10:28 [paulc]
Unclear to me if TBL wants changes?
17:10:46 [timbl]
My conclusion is that really that is a mess. The finding does explain that. The fact that there is a fidning deosn't mean the architectrue is clean.
17:10:56 [Ian-MIT]
IJ: It is my understanding that to close this issue, we need to approve the finding.
17:11:24 [Ian-MIT]
DC: Schema WG seems relevant here.
17:11:38 [DanC_desk]
DanC_desk has joined #tagmem
17:11:46 [Ian-MIT]
DC: I wouldn't consider our LC successful if we haven't heard from the Schema WG.
17:11:55 [Ian-MIT]
DC: I want to approve the finding AND here from the other groups.
17:12:13 [Ian-MIT]
17:12:16 [Ian-MIT]
17:12:24 [Ian-MIT]
Action DC
17:12:32 [Ian-MIT]
Provide TAG with pointers into WS specs where issue of safe operations is manifest.
17:12:47 [Ian-MIT]
DC: The more relevant bit is that someone asked for clarification about what the finding says about WebServices.
17:12:56 [Ian-MIT]
DC: Please continue
17:13:29 [Norm]
Ah. Thank you Ian-MIT
17:13:46 [Ian-MIT]
17:13:46 [Ian-MIT]
Ask WSDL WG to look at finding; ask them if marking operations as safe in WSDL is one of their requirements.
17:13:49 [Ian-MIT]
17:13:52 [Ian-MIT]
17:14:27 [Ian-MIT]
DO: I have not heard back; I was at the WSDL ftf meeting and the issue did not come up while i was there.
17:14:44 [Ian-MIT]
DO: I don't recall it being on the agenda.
17:15:00 [Ian-MIT]
DO: I will either prompt the WG again or report the results.
17:15:12 [Ian-MIT]
SW: Ok; we can clean this up when we meet with them if not sooner.
17:15:13 [Ian-MIT]
17:15:26 [Ian-MIT]
17:15:47 [timbl]
Put another way, Norm, my suggetsion is that the document should treat the way the elements and attribute prefixes are bound as being special, as it was the original one defiend in eth NS spec which introduced the colon in the first place.
17:15:57 [Ian-MIT]
IJ: On my to do list in light of comments from SW and RF on latest draft.
17:16:16 [timbl]
It isn't true to say that there is no one algo. It is true to say that various specs have defiend their own ones.
17:16:24 [Ian-MIT]
17:16:34 [Ian-MIT]
Last call comments on Web Arch Document
17:16:41 [Zakim]
17:16:47 [Ian-MIT]
17:17:02 [Norm]
timbl: the sublty is that folks want to throw away namespace bindings that they don't "know" they need.
17:17:37 [DanC_jam]
yes, let's break
17:17:38 [Ian-MIT]
17:17:47 [Norm]
Five minutes?
17:18:00 [Zakim]
17:27:02 [paulc]
Aspirin is not strong enough for TAG meetings - you need codeine.
17:27:11 [Zakim]
17:27:40 [Norm]
This call is very, very hard to follow remotely
17:27:47 [Zakim]
17:28:20 [Norm]
17:28:26 [Norm]
What have we decided to do about lunch?
17:29:19 [paulc]
How about breakfast?
17:29:27 [Norm]
Your meal of choice then
17:29:32 [paulc]
17:29:35 [DanC-AIM]
DanC-AIM has joined #tagmem
17:29:43 [Stuart]
I think take it as you find it!
17:29:49 [DanC-AIM]
I can't get back into the video room.
17:29:54 [paulc]
Norm: I just sent you an email re Aug meeting choices.
17:30:01 [DanC-AIM]
I dunno where timbl and ian went.
17:30:03 [Norm]
I saw it arrive, reading now
17:30:05 [mario]
mario has joined #tagmem
17:31:44 [DanC-AIM]
Timbl and ian aren't on video, are they Stuart? Paul?
17:32:03 [Stuart]
No they are not... you're all overdue on 5mins
17:32:10 [DanC-AIM]
There they are.
17:32:29 [Stuart]
So you're abandoning video?
17:32:39 [Ian-MIT]
[Roy Fielding joins meeting]
17:32:59 [DanC-AIM]
DanC-AIM has left #tagmem
17:33:00 [Ian-MIT]
[TBL and IJ were working on May logistics at MIT]
17:33:10 [Ian-MIT]
RF, are you available 12-14 May in Boston
17:33:11 [Ian-MIT]
17:33:42 [Zakim]
17:34:51 [mario]
zakim, mute mario
17:34:51 [Zakim]
Mario should now be muted
17:35:10 [Stuart]
17:35:57 [Ian-MIT]
17:36:02 [Ian-MIT]
# Tony Hammond "Initial Feedback on Web Arch W-D"
17:36:08 [Ian-MIT]
17:36:09 [timbl]
Hi, sorry we are late ... we wanted to put into motion boooking rooms for may
17:36:34 [Ian-MIT]
17:36:35 [timbl]
17:38:13 [Ian-MIT]
DC: I don't seem to be able to convince people to use term "representation" OR "data format"
17:38:16 [Ian-MIT]
17:38:30 [Ian-MIT]
On whether to use other schemes than HTTP in stories.
17:39:02 [Norm]
paulc, when you talk, I can't hear MIT!
17:39:23 [Ian-MIT]
DC, TBL: Not worth using other uri schemes in stories.
17:40:13 [Ian-MIT]
Sect 5 - Term Index. Maybe missing some terms?
17:40:18 [Ian-MIT]
TBL: In future version.
17:40:38 [Ian-MIT]
IJ: +1 to WWW, World Wide Web, URI
17:40:41 [Ian-MIT]
(as cross-refs)
17:40:42 [timbl]
We need in the next version a glossary with a model - an ontology
17:40:44 [Stuart]
17:40:47 [Ian-MIT]
17:41:03 [Ian-MIT]
Sect 6 - References. Still minded to have a division between normative and
17:41:03 [Ian-MIT]
informative refs.
17:41:43 [Ian-MIT]
[No proposal; no movement to change]
17:42:17 [Ian-MIT]
IJ: I will double check that all refs appear in the body.
17:42:30 [DanC_jam]
17:42:48 [Stuart]
Bristol staring at a black hole too....#
17:43:04 [Norm]
"Fade to black..."
17:43:06 [mario]
zakim, unmute me
17:43:06 [Zakim]
Mario was not muted, mario
17:43:30 [Zakim]
17:43:40 [Norm]
Zakim, ??p8 is Stuart
17:43:40 [Zakim]
+Stuart; got it
17:44:14 [Zakim]
17:44:15 [DanC_jam]
a goal of mine, for each comment, is to recruit somebody from this meeting to respond in substance. any volunteers to respond to Hammond?
17:44:28 [Zakim]
+ +1.617.258.aabb
17:44:44 [timbl]
Zakim, +1.617.258.aabb is MIT
17:44:44 [Zakim]
+MIT; got it
17:45:19 [timbl]
Zakim, who is on the phone?
17:45:19 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Norm, Mario (muted), Stuart, MIT
17:45:27 [Norm]
Yes, I'll reply to hammond
17:46:37 [Ian-MIT]
ACTION NW: Prepare response to Hammond review in light of TAG's discussion.
17:46:42 [DanC_jam]
thanks much for the summary, norm
17:46:54 [DanC_jam]
on that basis, I'm inclined to accept your offer. Shall I, stuart?
17:47:29 [Zakim]
17:47:39 [Norm]
That's amazing feedback!
17:47:41 [timbl]
We are muted
17:47:46 [Zakim]
17:47:49 [DanC_jam]
norm, would you prefer to draft something for review by the TAG or write straight to Hammond? I prefer the latter, in this case where there are no changes to the webarch doc.
17:48:09 [timbl]
We ar enot transmitting in any form
17:48:10 [Norm]
I'm happy to do either
17:48:15 [timbl]
now we are
17:49:31 [Ian-MIT]
"Sect 2.4, last para, last sentence - 'When an agent does not handle a new
17:49:31 [Ian-MIT]
URI scheme, it cannot retrieve a representation.' This seems prejudicial"
17:50:12 [timbl]
17:51:22 [Ian-MIT]
RF: Only time a URI scheme wouldn't be handled is during dereference.
17:52:21 [timbl]
q+ to suggest we discuss teh info URI scheme
17:52:25 [Ian-MIT]
Revised ACTION NW: Prepare response to Hammond review in light of TAG's discussion; send draft to TAG
17:53:14 [Ian-MIT]
Action IJ: Take into account pure editorial comments from people.
17:53:26 [Ian-MIT]
TBL: I'd like to flag the fact that he has brought up the "info" URI scheme.
17:54:05 [Ian-MIT]
TBL: I think reviewer is asking whether the arch doc is wrong or whether the info scheme is not that useful. Please put that question on our stack.
17:55:00 [Ian-MIT]
agenda+ info URI scheme.
17:55:27 [timbl]
agenda1 = Info URI scheme
17:55:33 [Ian-MIT]
17:55:38 [Ian-MIT]
# Bob DuCharme "comments"
17:55:43 [Ian-MIT]
17:56:10 [Ian-MIT]
1.1 "at least" : editorial
17:56:26 [Ian-MIT]
1.1.3 "elements" : editorial
17:58:01 [Norm]
Bob writes well, I concur
17:58:06 [Ian-MIT]
[TAG concludes that these comments are largely editorial; IJ to attend to.]
17:58:11 [Ian-MIT]
DO: I concur as well.
17:58:25 [Ian-MIT]
Action IJ: Handle Bob's comments.
17:58:32 [Ian-MIT]
# Tom Worthington "Simplify the text and separate the W3C politics"
17:58:37 [Ian-MIT]
17:59:06 [Ian-MIT]
PC: I disagree with this one.
17:59:55 [Ian-MIT]
PC: I think the document has right level of examples.
18:00:13 [Ian-MIT]
RF: We are presenting more of an architectural justification than a mere description.
18:00:57 [Ian-MIT]
Action PC: Respond to T. Worthington, talking about arch doc / findings balance, and pointing out that we are not creating a point-form architectural thesis.
18:01:23 [Ian-MIT]
# David Booth "Definition of "Web agents", "URI ownership" and typo"
18:01:28 [Ian-MIT]
18:01:55 [Ian-MIT]
DC: I'm inclined to change Web agent to "party".
18:02:01 [Ian-MIT]
SW: Reluctant to introduce new terms.
18:02:07 [DanC_jam]
new term?
18:02:26 [Ian-MIT]
PC: I did not find DB's survey very compelling.
18:02:49 [timbl]
(Paul I wonder whetehr you could also tr to answer the callers question about iMode HTML in the previous one)
18:03:29 [Ian-MIT]
SW: I'm ok with another term, I just want consistency.
18:03:34 [DanC_jam]
prefer which, DaveO?
18:03:52 [Ian-MIT]
DC: I need a term that includes "software and people"
18:04:08 [DanC_jam]
I'm ok with "agent" or "party"
18:04:17 [Ian-MIT]
TBL: An agent is "something that does things"
18:04:33 [Stuart]
I am happy with agent being inclusive of people.
18:04:51 [Ian-MIT]
From COllaborative International Dictionary of English: "One who exerts power, or has the power to act; an actor.
18:04:51 [Ian-MIT]
18:05:04 [Ian-MIT]
DC: I need these things to agree to things, initiate communications, ....
18:05:16 [Stuart]
I am equally happy with agent being exclusive of people and that we say "people and software" or "people and agents".
18:05:31 [Ian-MIT]
DC: I can live with party including software and people.
18:05:36 [Ian-MIT]
18:05:54 [timbl]
I think the word 'party" is obscure
18:06:52 [Ian-MIT]
DO: I agree with David's position on this one.
18:07:28 [Ian-MIT]
IJ: We use "software', "agent", and "people"
18:08:50 [timbl]
"agent or human" doesn't work, it would have to be "agent or social entity"
18:09:34 [timbl]
plus a convention that one look at the tv ;-)
18:10:09 [Ian-MIT]
Support for changing usage of agent?
18:10:13 [Ian-MIT]
Yes: DO
18:10:19 [Ian-MIT]
Norm: RF
18:10:28 [mario]
zakim, unmute m
18:10:28 [Zakim]
Mario was not muted, mario
18:10:36 [Norm]
Norm: RF?
18:11:03 [Ian-MIT]
RF: "Agent" has too many loaded meanings. I had proposed "components" [things in the system that are doing things] and "connectors" [things that assist communication; pass-throughs]
18:11:17 [Ian-MIT]
RF: I'd just remove the parentheticals.
18:11:25 [Stuart]
18:11:51 [Norm]
18:12:02 [mario]
RF+1. I also don't like the term "agent" very much. Due to it's overloaded meaning. Agent also sounds some kind overloaded within the AI enviroment.
18:12:02 [Ian-MIT]
DO: Do we have a summary of our reasoning and alternatives to offer to readers?
18:12:50 [DanC_jam]
mario, any alternatives to suggest?
18:13:40 [timbl]
18:14:07 [DanC_jam]
3 options: (1) accept somebody's offer to defend the status quo [timbl?] (2) accept an action to change webarch to say something else.
18:14:13 [DanC_jam]
(3) [now I forget]
18:14:35 [Ian-MIT]
DO: I"m ok with current language; I support complementary materials to explain our choice.
18:14:44 [timbl]
18:15:10 [timbl]
: being, body, creature, homo, human, human being, individual, life, man, mortal, person, personage, soul. See BEINGS. 5. One who participates: actor, participant, player.
18:15:22 [timbl]
18:15:42 [Ian-MIT]
Action TBL: Respond to DB on TAG's choice of agent - the status quo.
18:16:03 [timbl]
How about "mortal" as it summs up what people have in common with software?
18:16:32 [Ian-MIT]
Proposed: Defend the status qou.
18:16:40 [Ian-MIT]
Abstain: DO, RF
18:16:47 [Ian-MIT]
No objections.
18:16:55 [Ian-MIT]
Resolved; Defend the status quo usage of "agent".
18:17:02 [Ian-MIT]
18:17:20 [Ian-MIT]
2.2 URI Ownership:
18:17:20 [Ian-MIT]
Following the lessons of the "deep linking" debacle, it might be good to
18:17:20 [Ian-MIT]
say explicitly what rights "URI ownership" does or does not confer. This
18:17:20 [Ian-MIT]
is somewhat addressed later, but it might be good to say something in this
18:17:20 [Ian-MIT]
18:17:30 [mario]
mario has joined #tagmem
18:17:57 [Stuart]
wrt to agent I also think it would be useful to the defnintion that Dan found in November.
18:18:09 [Ian-MIT]
TBL: I have tried to eliminate this concept and failed.
18:18:28 [Ian-MIT]
DC: I like the text that's in here currently.
18:18:41 [Ian-MIT]
[Reference draft is 9 Dec LC document]
18:19:24 [Ian-MIT]
DC: I can live without "The social implications of URI ownership are not discussed here."
18:20:20 [Ian-MIT]
PC : Propose we forward link from 2.2 to 3.6.3.
18:20:37 [Ian-MIT]
RF: "Authority responsible for" is redundant.
18:21:11 [Ian-MIT]
RF: Change to "The authority for"
18:21:14 [Ian-MIT]
IJ: Hmm.
18:21:27 [Stuart]
Are 'authority' and 'ownership' synonymous?
18:22:00 [Ian-MIT]
18:22:11 [Ian-MIT]
SW: Maybe eliminate one term.
18:22:33 [DanC_jam]
stuart, you're not happy with [[ The phrase "authority responsible for a URI" is synonymous with "URI owner" in this document. ]] ?
18:22:43 [paulc]
18:23:10 [Stuart]
No Dan I think I'd be happy with that.
18:23:34 [DanC_jam]
why "would", stuart? are you or are you not?
18:23:44 [DanC_jam]
I'm quoting from webarch 9Dec
18:24:15 [Ian-MIT]
Action IJ: Include forward link from 2.2 to 3.6.3.
18:24:34 [Ian-MIT]
DC: We are treating "URI ownership" as editorila as well.
18:24:44 [Ian-MIT]
18:24:46 [Ian-MIT]
# Tim Goodwin "Comments on 9 December 2003 draft"
18:24:51 [Ian-MIT]
18:25:43 [Ian-MIT]
Editorial, as the reviewer indicates.
18:25:50 [Ian-MIT]
Action IJ: Take these comments into account.
18:26:51 [Ian-MIT]
18:26:57 [Ian-MIT]
# Patrick Stickler "Comments on "Architecture of the World Wide Web, First Edition"
18:27:06 [Ian-MIT]
18:28:04 [Ian-MIT]
DC: I support his first example.
18:28:44 [Ian-MIT]
18:31:10 [Ian-MIT]
IJ: There was, in a previous draft of the arch doc, a statement a long the lines of "URIs without frag ids are more useful"; e.g., frag ids don't make it through proxies.
18:31:18 [Ian-MIT]
(Section 3.3.1, para 2:)
18:32:24 [Ian-MIT]
"Question: are the methods PUT, POST or DELETE meaningful for
18:32:24 [Ian-MIT]
URI references with fragment identifiers, in terms of interacting
18:32:24 [Ian-MIT]
with the state of the secondary resources denoted?"
18:32:30 [Ian-MIT]
TBL: The answer is "no".
18:32:34 [Ian-MIT]
TBL: Nor is "GET"
18:32:52 [Ian-MIT]
18:32:55 [Ian-MIT]
18:33:28 [Ian-MIT]
TBL: I read this as "Can I delete an anchor in an HTML file?"
18:33:31 [Ian-MIT]
DO: I do too.
18:33:33 [Ian-MIT]
DC: I don't
18:34:31 [Ian-MIT]
RF: I think the reviewer wants us to point out this observation about the Web.
18:36:16 [Ian-MIT]
DC: DO is right, we don't address this point currently in the arch doc.
18:36:36 [Ian-MIT]
TBL: Web of conceptual objects build on a layer of another Web of conceptual objects.
18:37:11 [Ian-MIT]
DO: Is there a hole in the architecture that a client can't talk to the server about secondary resources?
18:37:26 [Ian-MIT]
TBL, DC: I don't regard that as a hole.
18:38:11 [timbl]
18:38:25 [Ian-MIT]
RF: I hear the proposal that we should include this discussion in the document.
18:39:18 [Ian-MIT]
DC: I don't see any line between this discussion and httpRange-14. I think we can respond "We agree that this is not treated well in this version of the arch doc."
18:39:55 [Ian-MIT]
PC: What about "The use of URIs with frag identifiers for PUT/POST/DELETE"?
18:40:24 [timbl]
Issue14-complete. We hope to address this more fully in the next edition
18:40:28 [Ian-MIT]
RF: In RFC2616, frag id not allowed in request.
18:40:38 [Ian-MIT]
RF: This is intentional; it must be handled at the client.
18:40:41 [DanC_jam]
18:40:48 [Ian-MIT]
RF: So it's an error to try to use DELETE with a URI with a frag id.
18:40:51 [timbl]
Roy: A frgament is not allowed in teh URI in an HTTP request.
18:40:55 [Ian-MIT]
RF: This is described in the URI spec.
18:41:08 [Stuart]
I think the commentator is complaining that the first step in deferenncing a U#F is to actually deference a different URI, ie U. I think here he is *just* asking us to be clearer about what it means to deference U#F (operationally).
18:41:40 [Ian-MIT]
PC: RFC 2616 says "MUST NOT" incliude a fragment.
18:42:01 [Stuart]
The paragraph he's complaining about starts "Per [URI], in order to know the authoritative interpretation of a fragment identifier, one must dereference the URI containing the fragment identifier."
18:42:11 [timbl]
q+ to note that DAWG may address this in the distant future when the secondary resurce is an RDF node.
18:42:46 [Ian-MIT]
RF: The Web library won't allow this either (libwww)
18:43:04 [Ian-MIT]
RF: The frag ids are only used for comparison.
18:43:12 [Ian-MIT]
RF: And for assertion.
18:43:17 [DanC_jam]
(did RF say libwww? he maintains another web library)
18:43:24 [DanC_jam]
ack timbl
18:43:24 [Zakim]
timbl, you wanted to suggest we discuss teh info URI scheme and to note that DAWG may address this in the distant future when the secondary resurce is an RDF node.
18:43:28 [Ian-MIT]
IJ stands corrected re: libwww
18:44:26 [Ian-MIT]
DAWG: Data Access Working Group
18:44:36 [DanC_jam]
(I heard RDF)
18:45:04 [DanC_jam]
18:46:46 [Ian-MIT]
DO: The specs talk about how a client deals with a secondary resource on the client side. But I can't do any server-side operations on secondary resources.
18:47:06 [Ian-MIT]
DO: I can't put info in a URI, I have to put info (about secondary resource) in the message.
18:47:36 [Ian-MIT]
TBL: You do have that today: You can do a GET, do operations on the client side, and PUT data back to the server.
18:48:02 [timbl]
18:48:08 [DanC_jam]
(this discussion shows to me that the terms "primary resource" and "secondary resource" are handy to have; I have had doubts about whether they were worth having)
18:48:29 [Ian-MIT]
DO: People are talking about doing operations on secondary resources.
18:49:32 [Ian-MIT]
SW: I volunteer to think about it some more.
18:50:06 [Ian-MIT]
Action SW: Propose to the TAG a reponse to P. Sticker's comment re: PUT etc. on server side.
18:51:29 [Ian-MIT]
"Parties that draw conclusions about the interpretation of a fragment identifier without retrieving a representation do so at their own risk; such interpretations are not authoritative.
18:51:29 [Ian-MIT]
18:55:04 [Ian-MIT]
TBL: I disagree with PS.
18:56:10 [Ian-MIT]
RF: You cannot infer the properties of the frag id by retrieving the representation. Things change over time.
18:56:27 [Ian-MIT]
DC: We address persistence elsewhere. I disagree with RF's point.
18:57:15 [Ian-MIT]
18:59:06 [Ian-MIT]
"Per [URI], in order to know the authoritative interpretation of a fragment identifier, one must dereference the URI containing the fragment identifier. T"
18:59:08 [Ian-MIT]
18:59:19 [Ian-MIT]
18:59:31 [Ian-MIT]
18:59:37 [Ian-MIT]
q+ to talk about feedback loop with mime finding
18:59:42 [Stuart]
No... I think that the TAG was saying it was ok. to construct identifiers in frag-id space... I don't think that the TAG said anything about running it backward - interpreting the frag id.
19:01:23 [Stuart]
I volunteer to enlarge my action item and propose responses to more of Patrick's message.
19:02:15 [Ian-MIT]
Action SW: Enlarge action item accepted earlier to respond to more of PS's message.
19:02:37 [Zakim]
19:07:10 [DanC_jam]
19:10:33 [Zakim]
19:10:35 [Stuart]
19:11:47 [Ian-MIT]
19:11:55 [Ian-MIT]
19:11:55 [Ian-MIT]
19:11:55 [Ian-MIT]
+ Martin D?rst "Schedule for RFC2396bis" (and an LC Comment)
19:12:06 [Ian-MIT]
19:12:25 [Ian-MIT]
RF: I've made a majority of the changes he's suggested (in the past few days).
19:13:24 [Ian-MIT]
PC: I think our response is that we understand our dependency on this spec.
19:13:35 [Ian-MIT]
PC: We don't see what we can do to help the dependency.
19:13:47 [Ian-MIT]
PC: Question is whether we can move out of LC with normative dependence on RFC2396.
19:14:38 [Ian-MIT]
Action PC: Respond to MD that we ack the dependency.
19:14:39 [DanC_jam]
... respond, acknowledging the dependency.
19:14:59 [Ian-MIT]
19:15:40 [DanC_jam]
pls see "Presenting GRDDL"
19:16:21 [Ian-MIT]
19:16:40 [Ian-MIT]
[IJ notes he has to fix action item; not for 6 but for 18]
19:16:40 [paulc]
paulc has joined #tagmem
19:17:15 [Ian-MIT]
On Qname finding: I think NW should make more of the algorithm that one uses to determine the binding when looking at elems and attributes.
19:17:37 [Ian-MIT]
[IJ needs to fix action list under issue 6; overlaps with one for 18]
19:18:27 [Norm]
19:18:43 [timbl]
19:19:10 [Ian-MIT]
NW: Can TBL say more of what he's looking for?
19:19:37 [DanC_jam]
I find "Specifications that use QNames to represent {URI, local-name} pairs MUST describe the algorithm that is used to map between them." which is responsive to my comments.
19:19:48 [DanC_jam]
(it has indeed gone quiet)
19:19:58 [timbl]
Section 4.2 says:
19:19:58 [timbl]
Using a QName as a shortcut for a {URI, local-name} pair is often convenient, but it carries a price. There is no single, accepted way to convert QNames into {URI, local-name} pairs or vice versa. Different specifications have chosen different algorithms.
19:20:13 [Ian-MIT]
XML 1.1 is now a Rec:
19:20:16 [Ian-MIT]
19:20:22 [Ian-MIT]
19:20:27 [Norm]
That's Namespaces 1.1 (which is also a REC)
19:20:33 [Ian-MIT]
XML 1.1:
19:20:34 [Ian-MIT]
19:21:08 [Ian-MIT]
TBL: There *is* a single, special way. It's just not accepted.
19:22:02 [Ian-MIT]
TBL: I propose to change the spin: there is one way, but not always taken for a variety of reasons (some good, some bad).
19:23:12 [Norm]
19:23:12 [Ian-MIT]
TBL: The word "context" is vague. It's rather: they've used them for other things than elem and attrib names.
19:23:14 [Ian-MIT]
19:24:05 [Ian-MIT]
TBL: Two points (1) seems reasonable to use them to refer to other things, but issues such as QName v. URI arise. (2) they could have used the ns 1.0 algo and didn't.
19:24:17 [timbl]
19:24:33 [Ian-MIT]
NW: First of all, I think the word context is used to mean "environment" here.
19:24:55 [DanC_jam]
tbl: ah... I see
19:24:55 [timbl]
ok, i see
19:24:59 [Ian-MIT]
NW: I *do* think the context is the important issue here.
19:25:21 [Ian-MIT]
NW: Note that when XPointer tried to use the same mechanism, they were told not to use the same mechanism (by the Director).
19:26:38 [Ian-MIT]
TBL: XPointers have their own special set of problems.
19:26:52 [DanC_jam]
3rd? missed that, NDW
19:26:54 [timbl]
Norm, type it?
19:27:11 [Ian-MIT]
NW: XML Query uses a different mechanism as well - it's not in XML.
19:27:12 [Norm]
XML Query uses a third, different mechanism
19:28:04 [timbl]
Does this apply to N3?
19:28:17 [timbl]
I thought we had resplevd to make the title ".... XML content"
19:28:52 [Norm]
I don't recall that we agreed to that, though I do recall the discussion. In any event, I think this findning has to cover XML Query, and other non-XML specs, because they're clearly inseperable from XML
19:29:05 [timbl]
Norm, doe sthis note cover N3?
19:29:23 [DanC_jam]
(darn; audio connection between NDW and TimBL not up to the task)
19:30:34 [timbl]
I am not confused as to the cope of this document.
19:30:58 [timbl]
I had a relatively small change, but in the discussion now I am confused about the scope
19:31:02 [Ian-MIT]
SW: I'd like reviewers of the finding to send proposed changes by email.
19:31:04 [timbl]
19:31:05 [timbl]
19:31:10 [Norm]
19:31:49 [timbl]
19:32:00 [Ian-MIT]
SW: Can we move to issue 8?
19:32:04 [Ian-MIT]
DC: Rather not if only for 15 mins
19:32:43 [Ian-MIT]
PC: I'd rather look at RDFinXHTML-35
19:32:44 [timbl]
I now have no idea what the scope fo teh document is. If it was XML I had a small comeent. If includes non-xml things, then I would have to add a contratsing para about N3.
19:33:06 [Norm]
timbl, I now believe the scope is "wherever qnames are used"
19:33:45 [Ian-MIT]
19:33:53 [timbl]
Thanks norm. I'll go with that.
19:34:15 [timbl]
Stuart, please consider my action item w.r.t. the Qnames finding ongoing.
19:34:21 [DanC_jam]
19:34:50 [Ian-MIT]
[Slides from DC
19:34:51 [Ian-MIT]
19:36:02 [Ian-MIT]
"anyone can say anything about anything"
19:36:12 [Ian-MIT]
DC: some RDDL designs have not met this requirement.
19:37:11 [timbl]
(They did not allow one to state the subject of an assertion, it was always implicitly the current document)
19:38:52 [timbl]
<link rel="metadata" href="aboutfoo.rdf"/>
19:39:38 [Ian-MIT]
"HotComments": RDF in XHTML comments.
19:40:42 [Ian-MIT]
* Semantic Web CG, Hypertext CG start public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf
19:42:50 [Ian-MIT]
DC: Pattern is to use a specialized dialect of XHTML, write a program to extract data, link to that program from your document.
19:43:07 [Ian-MIT]
DC: Use the "profile" hook to ground the term "transformation".
19:43:47 [timbl]
Step 3 means "You should interpret a rel=transformation link along the lines of step 2".
19:43:56 [Stuart]
Does this use of <head> ie adding the profile attribute 'eat' the whole of <head>
19:44:29 [Stuart]
ie you couldn't have another <head> section with a different profile to extract different data?
19:44:31 [Ian-MIT]
IJ: Any reason not to use URI in META/name?
19:44:37 [Ian-MIT]
DC: GRDDL says it's the user's choice.
19:44:39 [timbl]
Step 2 means "You can interprest this document in RDF using this using this XSLT script"
19:45:45 [Ian-MIT]
SW: Can you use multiple profiles?
19:45:52 [Ian-MIT]
DC: Yes.
19:45:54 [Ian-MIT]
GRDDL XSLT service demo, example
19:46:09 [Ian-MIT]
DC: Different xslt scripts; one profile
19:46:20 [paulc]
q_ Daveo
19:46:21 [Stuart]
q+ DO
19:46:30 [Stuart]
ack DO
19:46:33 [timbl]
ack timbl
19:46:40 [timbl]
q- timbl
19:47:09 [Ian-MIT]
DO: Given that there's no std processing model for knowing when you are at intermediate or end processing, how do you know which kind of infoset you're supposed to reverse transform on?
19:47:39 [timbl]
q+ to discuss this one about post-transformed stuff
19:47:50 [Ian-MIT]
DC: GRDDL works on the xhtml it gets back from the HTTP server.
19:48:11 [Ian-MIT]
TBL: I'm the heretic about XML processing model: I think it's good to have only one.
19:48:58 [Ian-MIT]
TBL: Expand XInclude first.
19:49:02 [timbl]
I think this hsould happen *after* xinclude.
19:49:33 [timbl]
I think it should work on the result of XML-level stuff.
19:49:47 [Ian-MIT]
DO: My question is "on what thing do you start doing the reverse transform from."
19:49:58 [Ian-MIT]
DC: I had not considered that; I was just answering from the code we have written.
19:50:22 [Ian-MIT]
19:50:23 [Ian-MIT]
19:50:28 [Ian-MIT]
DC: copy paste bug
19:50:40 [timbl]
local link to further on
19:50:53 [Ian-MIT]
DC: GRDDL drawback: turing completeness
19:51:04 [Ian-MIT]
DC: Consumer may have to run untrusted code.
19:51:14 [Ian-MIT]
DC: But digital sig might be an approach.
19:51:34 [Ian-MIT]
DC: Well-known transformations might be another approach - recognition of well-known stuff.
19:51:59 [Stuart]
19:52:12 [Ian-MIT]
PC: I thought of Schema. Aren't you describing semantic processing that belongs in the schema?
19:52:16 [Ian-MIT]
DC: Wait two slides...
19:52:24 [Stuart]
q+ CL
19:52:29 [Ian-MIT]
DC: Principle of Least Power. hmm... belongs in webarch somewhere?
19:52:38 [Stuart]
q+ CL to ask about reusability
19:53:08 [Ian-MIT]
DC: GRDDL Semantics: explicit, grounded in the Web
19:53:20 [Ian-MIT]
DC: Whatever syntax is used, you can trace it back to URIs.
19:53:35 [Ian-MIT]
DC: We didn't finish our discussion of URI-based flexibility points before webarch last call. Let's resume, please!
19:53:50 [Ian-MIT]
DC: Grounding terms in the Web.
19:54:16 [timbl]
only if the q empties before the end of the meeting.
19:54:18 [Ian-MIT]
DC: I agree with PC - doing this on a per-document basis is suboptimal; would be better, e.g., at namespace level.
19:54:25 [Stuart]
ack CL
19:54:25 [Zakim]
CL, you wanted to ask about reusability
19:54:36 [Ian-MIT]
CL: How re-usable are these transformations?
19:54:56 [Ian-MIT]
DC: I intend to make 7-8 html dialects in the next few months.
19:56:15 [Ian-MIT]
DO: Some transformations are lossy. It would be interesting if you had some material on what kind of transformations are lossy. A simple example is a name - if you go from FirstName/FamilyName/Suffice/Etc., you have lost information.
19:56:23 [timbl]
q+ also to say that this puts ont the shopping list a safe subset of XSLT, and it might be worth mentioning in the arch doc next version.
19:56:44 [Stuart]
ack timbl
19:56:44 [Zakim]
timbl, you wanted to discuss this one about post-transformed stuff and to say that this puts ont the shopping list a safe subset of XSLT, and it might be worth mentioning in the
19:56:47 [Zakim]
... arch doc next version.
19:56:52 [DanC_jam]
(in short, GRDDL is not nearly as useful in anything lossy/fuzzy)
19:56:55 [Ian-MIT]
TBL: I think this is good stuff. It highlights the issue with the processing model.
19:57:09 [Ian-MIT]
TBL: Having a default processing model for XML would be nice.
19:57:22 [Ian-MIT]
TBL: That XInclude doesn't define that explicitly is a problem.
19:57:33 [DanC_jam]
(Chris, I'm still thinking thru your comments; I could think out loud here, but I see 3 minutes left in the meeting, unless we extend)
19:57:44 [Ian-MIT]
TBL: If you're going to use this mechanism "live" it'd be nice to have a safe subset of XSLT.
19:58:36 [Ian-MIT]
TBL: By safe here I mean that strictly a function of input data, doesn't let you write, limit processor memory usage, doesn't let you access info server is privy to, etc.
19:58:55 [Stuart]
dc, thats fine. it can be done in email
19:59:08 [Ian-MIT]
PC: Regarding this proposal - people will not want to pull a URI out of a document and execute code that's at the end of the URI.
19:59:39 [timbl]
q+ do, timbl
19:59:44 [Ian-MIT]
DC: We run an online service. It's not too bad so far. But I agree that this is the #1 problem with this approach.
20:00:01 [DanC_jam]
did I say problem? I meant drawback.
20:00:46 [Ian-MIT]
TBL: I note that MS products already run style sheets on the client that are specified by the author. This is "for humans".
20:00:57 [Ian-MIT]
TBL: The above proposal is the same, but for machines.
20:01:30 [Ian-MIT]
SW: Where should this discussion take place?
20:01:44 [Ian-MIT]
DC: I expect that HTML TF to be rolled into the Sem Web BP WG.
20:01:50 [Ian-MIT]
DC: The TF is just a mailing list.
20:02:36 [Ian-MIT]
SW: Please let the HTML WG know that this topic is on the agenda of the Sem Web BP WG meeting.
20:02:49 [Ian-MIT]
SW: Anyone with a stake, for that matter, should know.
20:03:50 [Mario]
Mario has joined #tagmem
20:04:03 [Stuart]
q+ CL
20:05:38 [Stuart]
ack do
20:05:41 [Stuart]
ack timbl
20:06:07 [DanC_jam]
DaveO, we have this coded up; I'm happy to discuss it any time. Feel awkward discussing at T+4min, where T is the scheduled adjournment time.
20:06:25 [Ian-MIT]
[IJ goes to another meeting]
20:08:29 [DanC_jam]
q+ to respond to Chris: I'd like an alogrithm for finding the RDF-meaning of any XML document which works for both SVG and XSLT.
20:08:34 [DanC_jam]
oh well.
20:08:34 [DanC_jam]
20:09:09 [Stuart]
TAG Thanks Microsoft for hosting the Video conference.
20:09:52 [Zakim]
20:09:58 [Mario]
20:10:24 [Zakim]
20:13:58 [Zakim]
20:15:12 [Zakim]
20:15:13 [Zakim]
TAG_(video)11:00AM has ended
20:15:14 [Zakim]
Attendees were Norm, Paul, David, +49.772.3.aaaa, Mario, Roy, Stuart, MIT, [Microsoft]