IRC log of tagmem on 2004-02-23

Timestamps are in UTC.

19:57:47 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #tagmem
19:57:56 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #tagmem
19:57:58 [Ian]
zakim, this is TAG
19:57:59 [Zakim]
Ian, I see TAG_Weekly()2:30PM in the schedule but not yet started. Perhaps you mean "this will be TAG".
19:58:03 [Ian]
zakim, this will be TAG
19:58:03 [Zakim]
ok, Ian; I see TAG_Weekly()2:30PM scheduled to start 28 minutes ago
19:59:07 [Zakim]
TAG_Weekly()2:30PM has now started
19:59:15 [Zakim]
19:59:35 [TBray]
TBray has joined #tagmem
19:59:49 [Zakim]
20:00:00 [DanC_desk]
DanC_desk has joined #tagmem
20:00:07 [timbl]
timbl has joined #tagmem
20:00:26 [Chris]
Chris has joined #tagmem
20:00:27 [TBray]
zakim, call me
20:00:27 [Zakim]
I am sorry, TBray; I do not know a number for me
20:00:35 [TBray]
zakim, call TBray
20:00:35 [Zakim]
I am sorry, TBray; I do not know a number for TBray
20:00:43 [Zakim]
20:00:43 [TBray]
zakim, call TimBray
20:00:44 [Zakim]
I am sorry, TBray; I do not know a number for TimBray
20:00:50 [Ian]
Tim, I'll do that....
20:00:55 [TBray]
20:01:06 [Zakim]
20:01:12 [Ian]
zakim, call TB-TAG
20:01:12 [Zakim]
ok, Ian; the call is being made
20:01:13 [Zakim]
20:01:25 [Zakim]
20:01:42 [Zakim]
20:01:55 [Stuart]
zakim, who is here?
20:01:55 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Stuart, DOrchard, Ian, Mario, TB, Chris, Roy
20:01:56 [Zakim]
On IRC I see Chris, timbl, DanC_desk, TBray, Zakim, RRSAgent, Stuart, mario, Norm, Ian
20:02:00 [Ian]
TimBray, thanks for offering to scribe.
20:02:15 [TBray]
20:02:27 [Zakim]
20:02:55 [Zakim]
20:02:55 [Stuart]
zakim, who is here?
20:02:56 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Stuart, DOrchard, Ian, Mario, TB, Chris, Roy, TimBL, PCotton
20:02:57 [Zakim]
On IRC I see Chris, timbl, DanC_desk, TBray, Zakim, RRSAgent, Stuart, mario, Norm, Ian
20:02:58 [Stuart]
zakim, who is here?
20:02:58 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Stuart, DOrchard, Ian, Mario, TB, Chris, Roy, TimBL, PCotton
20:03:02 [Zakim]
On IRC I see Chris, timbl, DanC_desk, TBray, Zakim, RRSAgent, Stuart, mario, Norm, Ian
20:03:54 [Chris]
zakim, who is talking?
20:04:05 [Zakim]
Chris, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Stuart (42%), DOrchard (14%), TimBL (9%)
20:04:52 [Zakim]
20:05:42 [timbl]
Zakim, who is here?
20:05:42 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Stuart, DOrchard, Ian, Mario, TB, Chris, Roy, TimBL, PCotton, Norm
20:05:44 [Zakim]
On IRC I see Chris, timbl, DanC_desk, TBray, Zakim, RRSAgent, Stuart, mario, Norm, Ian
20:05:55 [TBray]
Roll Call: All - DC
20:06:07 [TBray]
SW: Feb 9 minutes? Anybody look?
20:06:09 [Ian]
20:06:11 [TBray]
PC: Looked fine
20:06:20 [TBray]
RESOLVED accept Feb 9 minutes
20:06:22 [Norm]
NW: Fine by me too
20:06:39 [TBray]
SW: Accept agenda?
20:06:44 [Ian]
20:07:05 [Zakim]
20:07:33 [Ian]
zakim, drop DanC
20:07:33 [Zakim]
DanC is being disconnected
20:07:34 [Zakim]
20:07:36 [Ian]
Voice mail
20:07:57 [TBray]
RESOLVED to accept agenda
20:08:09 [TBray]
next meeting: F2F March 2nd
20:08:16 [TBray]
Regrets: TB, TBL
20:08:43 [Ian]
20:08:48 [Zakim]
20:09:06 [TBray]
IJ: we have phone-in capability for France F2F
20:09:14 [TBray]
IJ: Schedule TBD
20:09:23 [TBray]
SW: propose we don't meet March 8, next mtg 15th
20:09:29 [TBray]
20:09:47 [TBray]
SW: PC August/Ottawa?
20:09:53 [TBray]
PC: Unanimous support, consider it on
20:10:08 [TBray]
SW: Liaison planning for Tech Plenary
20:10:34 [Stuart]
20:10:59 [Roy]
Roy has joined #tagmem
20:10:59 [TBray]
SW: SVG late Monday, could come forward if helpful to SVG
20:11:14 [TBray]
CL: looks fine at the moment
20:11:22 [TBray]
SW: Tue: F2F, with observers
20:11:33 [TBray]
SW: Tue PM liaisons with Core and Schema
20:11:47 [TBray]
SW: Wed plenary, Thu plenar with i18n and WSDL
20:11:57 [Chris]
q+ to offer to be atthe wsd-wg meeting if needed
20:11:58 [TBray]
... etc
20:12:13 [TBray]
SW: please tell who's going to be at each one of these
20:12:15 [TBray]
ack Ian
20:12:16 [Ian]
20:12:27 [TBray]
DC: interested in Schema, unavailable on Monday
20:12:47 [TBray]
DC: not avail Fri AM
20:13:00 [Chris]
I should probably try to slip out of SVG tues early pm for the xml core
20:13:11 [TBray]
SW: wants CL & DC @ i18n liaison
20:13:20 [Ian]
Regrets from IJ on Monday, Thursday, and Friday morning
20:13:54 [DanC_desk]
yeah verily
20:13:59 [TBray]
PC: Thanks to SW for all this stick-handling
20:14:00 [Norm]
20:14:03 [TBray]
20:14:07 [Roy]
/me +1
20:14:07 [timbl]
20:14:17 [TBray]
SW: Tech Plenary day
20:14:21 [Chris]
20:14:36 [Ian]
20:15:23 [TBray]
SW: will open with 10 minutes, DC will do namespace docs...
20:15:27 [TBray]
DC: some risk for DC
20:15:59 [TBray]
SW: idea is content-light, discussion-heavy
20:16:13 [TBray]
20:16:39 [DanC_desk]
(TBray, maybe I'll call you to think a little bit about this namespace documents discussion)
20:16:44 [TBray]
SW: DO to motivate extensibility/versioning
20:16:51 [TBray]
DO: short pres showing where we're at
20:17:04 [TBray]
DO: motivate discussion by asking hard question
20:17:28 [TBray]
DO: e.g. should Schema 1.1 fix this prob, should we introduce "must-understand" somewhere
20:17:39 [DanC_desk]
sounds good, DO
20:17:51 [TBray]
DO: will write up in email form, send to group to see if appropriately motivating
20:17:59 [TBray]
SW: also, web identifiers
20:18:22 [TBray]
TB: not enough time for three discussions
20:18:29 [TBray]
SW: can RF motivate identifiers?
20:18:40 [TBray]
RF: yes, but didn't understand hints. Given schedule...
20:18:48 [TBray]
RF: i.e. an indication of what I should prepare
20:19:24 [TBray]
DO: suggests complex identifiers for multi-processing-step docs
20:19:53 [TBray]
TB: have 2 discussions not 3
20:20:26 [TBray]
Drop namespace docs?
20:20:28 [TBray]
TB: boring
20:20:32 [TBray]
DC: audience still interested
20:20:43 [TBray]
SW: Mechanics? queue handling?
20:21:16 [TBray]
SW: I will aim to moderate, pick questions from floor & panel
20:21:47 [TBray]
SW: done for now?
20:22:00 [TBray]
SW: our own F2F agenda... only have a half-day
20:22:24 [TBray]
any other must-do topics?
20:22:38 [TBray]
20:22:47 [TBray]
SW: Chris, want to speak to actions?
20:23:14 [TBray]
CL: please close actions on action-item list that include links to emails that closed it
20:23:20 [TBray]
SW: liaise with Ian
20:23:35 [TBray]
IJ: TAG hasn't agreed they're closed maybe
20:23:41 [Norm]
Ian: I believe I've finished three of my four actions (all except asking the schema) and I should have a fifth/second: responding to Hammond's last call comment
20:23:42 [TBray]
CL: request action triage to close those that should be
20:23:52 [Ian]
20:23:55 [TBray]
20:24:06 [TBray]
SW: QnameAsID, close to accepting
20:24:19 [Ian]
20:25:08 [TBray]
SW: Pending input from TB & TBL
20:25:19 [TBray]
CL: I looked at it again, didn't see problems
20:25:40 [TBray]
TBL: don't want to hold it up
20:26:07 [TBray]
TB: likewise
20:27:08 [TBray]
... discussion trying to re-establish context...
20:27:10 [Chris]
q+ to raise a non-holdup technical point
20:27:13 [Ian]
20:27:22 [Ian]
[See comments at that meeting from TBL]
20:27:40 [DanC_desk]
20:27:40 [DanC_desk]
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."
20:28:04 [TBray]
20:29:17 [timbl]
"There is no single, accepted way to convert QNames into {URI, local-name} pairs or vice versa."
20:29:36 [timbl]
para n-3 in 4.1
20:29:39 [TBray]
CL: Revisiting this point...
20:31:03 [Chris]
xptr fails to inherit scope into the xpointer
20:31:05 [TBray]
NW: if you use a prefix in an xpointer and there is no xmlns thingie in the xpointer, you can't use the in-scope prefixes fo the xml doc
20:31:17 [Chris]
ach chris
20:31:23 [timbl]
q+ different case - not XML really frabnnkly xpointer i snot XML
20:31:24 [Chris]
ack chris
20:31:25 [Zakim]
Chris, you wanted to offer to be atthe wsd-wg meeting if needed and to raise a non-holdup technical point
20:31:28 [Stuart]
ack Chris
20:31:32 [timbl]
q+ to say: different case - not XML really frabnnkly xpointer i snot XML
20:31:55 [TBray]
TB: seems like NW has a factual statement of what things are like
20:32:04 [TBray]
TB: are we inclined to criticize it?
20:32:08 [TBray]
DC: seems that what XPointer did is right
20:32:34 [TBray]
TBL: XPointer is a mini-language can be used anywhere... nothing to do with XML in principle
20:32:51 [TBray]
20:32:51 [Chris]
if they had done it differently, you would need to rewrite an xpointer to move it to a different context
20:33:02 [TBray]
ack TBray
20:33:04 [TBray]
20:33:08 [DanC_desk]
quite, chris
20:33:32 [TBray]
TBL: problem would be if in another XML vocab e.g. WSDL they had another way of mapping...
20:33:45 [TBray]
TBL: e.g. by looking in a schema
20:33:57 [Norm]
20:34:20 [TBray]
TBL: there is an extra cost .. if you take Norm's statement literally this suggests that there shouldn't be a single way
20:34:30 [Chris]
q+ to relate another way to resolve them (that was rejected, and rightly)
20:34:32 [TBray]
TBL: lower cost if everyone uses the same one
20:35:00 [mario]
q+ to say: isn't the ns non-inheritance thing of XPtr conflicting with the inheritance mechanism present in XPath
20:35:37 [TBray]
NW: Don't think I said that. Should I modify to say that this is commonly used, and should be used
20:36:02 [Chris]
I see we are now getting discussion on this doc, brought on by the imminent decision to approve the finding
20:36:19 [Norm]
20:36:30 [Stuart]
20:36:31 [DanC_desk]
why is that remarkable, chris?
20:36:57 [Norm]
20:37:11 [timbl]
It is not as though we have a solution here.
20:37:12 [TBray]
TB: in the context of XML docs, it would be nuts to invent a new way of doing it, so the finding should say that
20:37:19 [Stuart]
q- timbl
20:37:25 [Stuart]
q- TBray
20:37:25 [TBray]
in particular it's OK for XPointer because it exists outside the XML context...
20:37:34 [TBray]
and the finding could usefully call that out too.
20:37:46 [TBray]
e.g. take XPointer as an example
20:38:06 [TBray]
CL: This came up in the SVG development
20:38:32 [TBray]
CL: we had an attribute that pointed to another to animate it; could be in a different subtree/doc
20:38:51 [TBray]
CL: Question is: in which context do we do this, the pointer's context or the target's context
20:39:00 [Stuart]
20:39:08 [Stuart]
ack Chris
20:39:08 [Zakim]
Chris, you wanted to relate another way to resolve them (that was rejected, and rightly)
20:39:09 [TBray]
CL: and in this case, the right thing to do was in the context where the prefix actually was
20:39:23 [Stuart]
ack mario
20:39:23 [Zakim]
mario, you wanted to say: isn't the ns non-inheritance thing of XPtr conflicting with the inheritance mechanism present in XPath
20:39:59 [TBray]
MJ: when I embed in an XPath... the xpath inherits but an xpointer doesn't
20:40:06 [TBray]
NW: but then XPath expressions aren't URIs
20:40:14 [TBray]
PC: and XPath doesn't define that, XSLT does
20:40:47 [timbl]
q+ to quantify the cost: The ability (or not) to be able to re-generate prefixes, to be able to determine two document fragments to be the same, without application knowledge, but with schema knowledge.
20:40:52 [Chris]
reminds myself to ceck what dom3 xpath does by way of a host language
20:40:54 [TBray]
NW: XPath context has to be init'ed, XSLT & XQuery use mappings in containing doc
20:41:31 [TBray]
20:41:38 [TBray]
20:41:39 [Chris]
it might b euseful to capture some of these cases into the finding
20:41:53 [Chris]
if its unclear to us, its unclear to others too
20:42:03 [TBray]
TBL: might be useful to look at some of these cases and discuss the cost
20:42:50 [Stuart]
20:42:52 [Zakim]
20:42:54 [TBray]
TBL: might be able to rebind prefixes.....
20:42:54 [Stuart]
ack timbl
20:42:54 [Zakim]
timbl, you wanted to quantify the cost: The ability (or not) to be able to re-generate prefixes, to be able to determine two document fragments to be the same, without application
20:42:57 [Zakim]
... knowledge, but with schema knowledge.
20:43:00 [TBray]
NW: no; can't rebind prefixes in the general case
20:43:03 [DanC_desk]
(I gave up hope on rebinding prefixes long ago)
20:43:10 [Zakim]
20:43:48 [TBray]
TBL: can in some cases
20:43:57 [TBray]
NW: that special cases isn't large enough to call out
20:44:23 [TBray]
NW: will amend the wording from sim ple statement of fact to a recommendation to do the right thing
20:44:31 [TBray]
NW: and will have that done before Sat
20:44:41 [timbl]
(I rebind prefixes all the time in RDF of course)
20:44:45 [Stuart]
ack TBray
20:44:55 [Chris]
+1 for Norm's suggestion
20:45:05 [TBray]
TB: wordy +1
20:45:21 [TBray]
ACTION Norm to rewrite simple statement
20:45:24 [DanC_desk]
thanks, again, norm.
20:45:59 [TBray]
20:46:09 [TBray]
On to ContentOverride
20:46:14 [Roy]
I have read "Authoritative Metadata" draft 18 Feb 2004 and all of my concerns have been addressed. The document looks great. Thanks Ian!
20:46:20 [TBray]
20:46:56 [TBray]
SW: Anyone else seen it?
20:47:00 [TBray]
DC, TB: prepared to defer to Roy
20:47:20 [Zakim]
20:47:21 [Chris]
looks good to me
20:47:26 [Norm]
20:47:28 [Zakim]
20:47:30 [TBray]
SW: Resolve to accept?
20:47:42 [TBray]
RESOLVED to accept that finding
20:48:11 [TBray]
IJ: now I publish it, right?
20:48:30 [TBray]
IJ: wants some mods to webarch based on the good work done here
20:48:34 [Chris]
4.2 Self-describing data and Risk of Inconsistency
20:48:34 [DanC_desk]
hmm... arch doc changes? such as?
20:48:41 [Chris]
is very good, glad to see that
20:49:36 [TBray]
20:49:40 [TBray]
20:50:54 [TBray]
DC: I sent email to address comments
20:51:10 [Stuart]
20:51:56 [DanC_desk]
(my last message on this issue
20:52:09 [TBray]
TB: also unconvinced by pleas for XLink version
20:52:21 [TBray]
DC: asked for pointers to use cases for XLink version, thinks people sent them
20:52:23 [Stuart]
20:53:01 [DanC_desk]
yup, 0026 points to my XSLT/RDDL work
20:53:46 [timbl]
20:53:56 [TBray]
TB: missing PC's action item
20:54:05 [TBray]
TB: no interest in a normative RDDL note?
20:54:20 [TBray]
PC: Wrong. AC asked us to turn it into a note & give it normative status
20:54:31 [timbl]
and/or give it
20:54:36 [TBray]
CL: and we decided that RDDL wasn't always appropriate
20:54:51 [TBray]
DC: but that doesn't change the status of RDDL, which we officially think is useful
20:55:02 [timbl]
q+ to mention push-back agiuanst TAG doing rec track spec here.
20:55:05 [DanC_desk]
(not officially yet, actually)
20:55:08 [TBray]
PC: and the direction from the AC was that they wanted something to point to
20:55:28 [TBray]
q+ to volunteer what work I'm prepared to do
20:55:33 [DanC_desk]
(ah yes... bristol decision makes it official, I suppose)
20:55:49 [Stuart]
ack timbl
20:55:49 [Zakim]
timbl, you wanted to mention push-back agiuanst TAG doing rec track spec here.
20:55:51 [TBray]
TBL: within the team, there's been pushback against TAG doing rec-track work
20:56:13 [TBray]
TBL: members can't join in at will
20:56:40 [Stuart]
ack TBray
20:56:40 [Zakim]
TBray, you wanted to volunteer what work I'm prepared to do
20:57:11 [TBray]
TB: is prepared to go on editing RDDL as long as it stays reasonably simple
20:57:14 [Stuart]
20:57:57 [TBray]
PC: discomfort with team-only discussions; would like team concerns reported so he can address them, e.g. by pointing to our charter where it says we can do rec-track work
20:58:08 [Stuart]
ack Stuart
20:58:17 [TBray]
SW: we'd only really discussed taking this forward as a NOTE
20:58:39 [timbl]
20:59:15 [Chris]
suggest TimBray takes it if he is motivated
20:59:49 [TBray]
TB: we need the finding, Paul's not getting it done, does somebody else get it?
20:59:52 [timbl]
PC: To motivate the use of one or more formats.
21:00:01 [TBray]
DC: not interesting because webarch says enough
21:00:09 [DanC_desk]
(finding could talk about content negotiation, etc.)
21:00:11 [TBray]
PC: finding would provide more motivation and discuss alternatives
21:00:25 [timbl]
q+ to wonder about eth background to GRDDL document DanC wrote (pointer?)
21:00:49 [DanC_desk]
I don't think my GRDDL background document has much to offer on issue 8. it's more on issue 35
21:00:52 [TBray]
21:01:08 [TBray]
PC: but if webarch has enough, maybe we don't need finding?
21:01:37 [TBray]
TBL: could build DC's GRDDL stuff into a finding?
21:02:15 [TBray]
DC: yes it's a finding, but on issue 35 not 8
21:02:19 [timbl]
Ok, I accept that issues 35 and 8 have small overlap
21:02:48 [TBray]
PC: will write something for Friday so as to get on F2F agenda,
21:02:55 [timbl]
Maybe we should drop the finding, if the arch doc actually covers it.
21:02:59 [TBray]
PC: it'll be an outline-form thing, if people like it we'lll add the meat
21:03:32 [TBray]
TBL: this really worgh doing, not unnec work for PC?
21:03:37 [TBray]
PC, DC: seems worthwhile
21:03:52 [timbl]
I hope someone brings a video camera to the face-face, now TimBray and I will neither be there.
21:03:59 [TBray]
DC: people using XLink version, are we worried about that?
21:04:15 [Chris]
who was using it? eric van der vlist, as i recall
21:04:26 [TBray]
Just Eric as far as I know
21:04:31 [DanC_desk]
21:04:32 [DanC_desk]
In the meantime, I think that, and even (version 1) are goodexamples.
21:04:33 [DanC_desk]
21:05:01 [TBray]
Henry Thomson also using it....
21:06:01 [Stuart]
Henry's message
21:06:23 [Ian]
TBray: There are some benefits to the xlink version, but also more complex.
21:06:48 [TBray]
TB: it's a cost/benefit trade-off
21:07:10 [TBray]
TBL: if we make RDDL official, would JBorden make some commitments
21:07:37 [TBray]
TBL: we want a persistence commitmment, along the lines of keep it commitment or sign over to W3C, or to a trust or some such.
21:07:47 [TBray]
TB: ACTION TBray to check with Jonathan
21:08:36 [TBray]
TB: anyone here want to go back to XLink?
21:08:51 [TBray]
CL: it had more deployment than we thought, and we can make RDF equally well from eiither
21:09:39 [TBray]
DC: TBray, do plan to change to use the attribute version?
21:09:49 [TBray]
TB: yes
21:10:50 [TBray]
TBL: will the namespace doc at enable fetching the RDF
21:10:58 [TBray]
TB: yes
21:11:10 [TBray]
DC: mime-type issue is nontrivial
21:11:32 [TBray]
CL: if you serve as xhtml+xml, should be OK in modern browser
21:11:40 [DanC_desk]
(anybody got a handy test page for application/xhtml+xml ?)
21:11:48 [TBray]
PC: serve as what?
21:12:02 [TBray]
CL: application/xhtml+xml
21:12:13 [DanC_desk]
21:13:03 [TBray]
DC, CL: it's OK to use foreign namespace attributes in an xhtml+xml doc
21:14:31 [TBray]
q+ to get unlost
21:15:20 [Stuart]
ack TBray
21:15:20 [Zakim]
TBray, you wanted to get unlost
21:15:24 [TBray]
TB: I favor the shorter attribute-based syntax
21:16:01 [TBray]
TBL: can mention previous syntax?
21:16:11 [Ian]
21:16:21 [Ian]
PC to give points for potential finding
21:16:35 [Ian]
TB to continue working on draft and to get statement from Jonathan re: persistence at
21:16:46 [Ian]
TB to add pointer to previous syntax in the Note
21:16:48 [Ian]
21:17:09 [DanC_desk]
(we talked about the syntax of the document changing too, but that can be asynchronous)
21:18:01 [TBray]
PC: do we now go back and change the language in webarch about alternate forms
21:18:13 [TBray]
CL: yes, maybe
21:18:23 [TBray]
DC: yes, but in some cases the Owl doc is optimal
21:18:28 [TBray]
SW: likes the Bristol compromise
21:18:37 [DanC_desk]
yes, what's in the arch doc is right
21:18:50 [TBray]
TBL: likes the status quo
21:19:29 [TBray]
21:19:34 [Stuart]
21:19:41 [TBray]
SW: Re: Strickler's comments
21:19:53 [Stuart]
Section 4.5.4:
21:20:16 [Stuart]
It is disappointing to see the TAG continuing to promote the idea
21:20:17 [Stuart]
that any semantics associated with a URI used as a namespace name
21:20:17 [Stuart]
has any relation whatsoever to the semantics of terms grounded in
21:20:17 [Stuart]
that namespace.
21:22:22 [TBray]
DC: disagrees with the notion that nothing more need be said, because saying nothing has had negative consequences
21:22:53 [TBray]
TB: Patrick's position has for a long time been that namespaces are pure syntax/punctuation
21:23:13 [TBray]
PC: seems to disagree with our opinion that human-readable doc is useful
21:23:40 [TBray]
... discussion too fast for scribe...
21:24:03 [TBray]
is it the case that namespace is just another ersource
21:24:17 [TBray]
DC: I don't think we disagree with him, he's just saying that we don't want to discuss this at length
21:24:26 [TBray]
DC: but we think discussing it at length is useful
21:24:30 [Ian]
DC: Patrick's point has technical merit; but there is social benefit to explanation.
21:24:47 [TBray]
21:26:04 [Stuart]
Defn of NS Document from Webarch: Namespace document
21:26:04 [Stuart]
The resource identified by a namespace URI.
21:26:31 [Chris]
sounds like agreement to me
21:26:59 [DanC_desk]
hmm... indeed, the glossary entry is goofy
21:27:21 [Ian]
DC: Fix - it's what you get back when you dereference.
21:27:44 [TBray]
TB: strongly disagree with PS's paragraph beginning "Furthermore, because..."; I think that when you use a URI as a namespace name, you've created a resource and you better make sure it has something to do with the vocaublary
21:27:58 [TBray]
... discussion of the glossary entry....
21:28:12 [TBray]
TB: if you disagree with glossary entry, provide alternate text
21:30:53 [Chris]
the detailed reading is indeed gratifying
21:30:56 [Zakim]
21:30:59 [TBray]
21:31:03 [Zakim]
21:31:05 [Ian]
RRSAgent, stop