IRC log of tagmem on 2005-09-22

Timestamps are in UTC.

08:16:41 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #tagmem
08:16:41 [RRSAgent]
logging to
08:16:44 [DanC_lap]
DanC_lap has joined #tagmem
08:17:00 [Roy]
Roy has joined #tagmem
08:17:09 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #tagmem
08:17:23 [ht]
Meeting: TAG f2f
08:17:34 [ht]
Chair: Vincent Quint
08:17:42 [ht]
Scribe: Henry S Thompson
08:17:47 [ht]
ScribeNick: ht
08:17:54 [ht]
Topic: Agenda review
08:18:07 [ht]
Agenda+ XML Versioning
08:18:15 [ht]
Agenda+ Namespace_8
08:18:39 [ht]
Agenda+ NamespaceState_48
08:18:51 [noah_away]
noah_away has joined #tagmem
08:20:48 [ht]
next agendum
08:20:59 [ht]
Topic: XML Versioning
08:22:50 [ht]
VC: Resuming discussion from yesterday -- we started from Dave Orchard's draft, shifted to building a diagram based on Noah's comments on that draft, synthesised on the whiteboard by DanC and others
08:23:52 [ht]
Discussion of how to add versioning to this diagram
08:24:31 [Vincent]
08:26:33 [ht]
TBL: Producers of instances of serialisations _commit_ to the _meaning_ of those serialisation
08:27:21 [ht]
... wrt the langauge of the serialisation
08:28:50 [ht]
... A backward-compatible language means that the serialization is also a member of that language
08:31:45 [ht]
Debate ensues about the relationship between 'serialization' and 'instance' and their relationship with languages
08:32:16 [ht]
NM: producers produce instances wrt a language, consumers consume wrt (possibly different) language
08:34:31 [ht]
HST thinks this means it's a 'production' or a 'consumption' which has a language property
08:36:09 [ht]
NM: Producers produce instances, I don't think we have to say what language they have in view, good practice may be to indicate the language, but not required. . .
08:36:49 [ht]
... E.g. I wrote some VCard stuff, with a particular understanding of what VCard constraints are at that time
08:37:31 [ht]
... Then Dave processes it, based on expectations from a range of sources, wrt some, possibly different, understanding of what VCard constraints and meaning are
08:37:48 [dorchard]
dorchard has joined #tagmem
08:38:13 [ht]
q+ to try to fix this
08:38:41 [ht]
DC: We need to have some point at which we say how the thing gets a meaning
08:41:40 [ht]
HST: Suggested accommodating all this by shifting to 1 Production of an instance, multiple Consumptions of an instance, Productions and Consumptions have a Language their _producer_ resp. _consumer_ had in view to constrain/determine its syntax and semantics
08:44:39 [ht]
NM: Instances do not necessarily indicate their own language
08:44:49 [ht]
TBL: WebArch says they should
08:47:01 [ht]
DanC: There's no difference left between Instance and Serialization, let's get rid of it
08:47:12 [ht]
TBL, NM: Agreed, settle on Serialization
08:47:19 [ht]
HST: Nervous, but go ahead
08:47:58 [ht]
DanC: Working on example now
08:52:08 [ht]
TBL, HST: Then add something such as _intent_ from Production to Information and _impact_ from Consumption
08:52:28 [ht]
... to Information
08:54:26 [ht]
DC: In the example we have two Consumptions wrt different Languages of the same Serialization/Instance
08:56:43 [ht]
TBL: Fred (producer) only commited to I1 (interpretation wrt POL1 (PurchaseOrderLanguage v.1)), Barney (consumer) consumes wrt POL2, now we can talk about backward compatibility
08:57:41 [ht]
DC: So I2 (interp wrt POL2) implies I1 when POL2 is backwards compatible with POL1
08:58:01 [timbl]
08:58:09 [timbl]
ack ht
08:58:09 [Zakim]
ht, you wanted to try to fix this
08:58:22 [ht]
NM: Uncomfortable with this, defining e.g. backward compatibility too soon
08:59:01 [ht]
DC: miscommunication is reading and writing in different languages
08:59:21 [ht]
NM: Our formal use of language so far can't say that, because language is just a set of strings
08:59:31 [Vincent]
ack timbl
09:00:52 [ht]
TBL: Important that Fred not saying anything about middle name, but Barney reads that wrt a different interpretation which makes him conclude that there *is* no middle name, that's a bug
09:01:17 [noah_away]
What I tried to say is: we've "hijacked" the term "language" to be a set of strings, along with their correct interpretations. That's OK, but it's also interesting to talk about the set of strings. Why? Because then I can talk about the strings that are "accidentally" in two languages, and thus subject to undetected misinterpretation.
09:01:25 [ht]
... HTML2/4 example
09:03:23 [ht]
s/a bug/not backward compatibility/
09:03:45 [ht]
NM: People want to build bounded risk incompatibility
09:04:22 [timbl]
09:04:31 [timbl]
q+ Norm
09:05:13 [ht]
DO: Syncing on Production and Consumption
09:05:32 [ht]
... What we don't have yet is the whole space of Constraints -- syntactic, semantic, textual
09:06:15 [ht]
TBL: syntactic constraints are on the board at the moment as Syntax
09:07:41 [ht]
DO: Semantic constraints are just as important for compatibility
09:09:00 [ht]
... Languages have Constraints, subcategorized as Syntax or Semantics
09:09:06 [ht]
q+ to back up Noah
09:09:56 [Vincent]
ack norm
09:10:45 [ht]
NW: Not the way I've used backwards compatibility -- PO1 grammar, first and last, PO2 adds lineage to distinguish senior from junior, this is backwards compatible because all the old instances are valid
09:10:56 [ht]
DC: Do they mean the same thing
09:10:59 [ht]
NW: Yes
09:11:08 [ht]
DC, others: Then you're cool
09:11:33 [Vincent]
ack ht
09:11:33 [Zakim]
ht, you wanted to back up Noah
09:13:12 [ht]
TBL: This is precisely where this often catches people
09:15:20 [ht]
HST: NM was right to complain as more relations were added to Language -- Languages are *just* a set of strings, if we were being careful we would distinguish between that and a DefinedLanguage or an InterpretedLanguage, which includes constraitns and interpretation rules
09:15:54 [ht]
... But we could elide this distinction
09:15:56 [dorchard]
dorchard has joined #tagmem
09:17:56 [ht]
TBL, others: Lets use Language for the latter and StringSet for the former
09:21:16 [ht]
RF: We're getting too far from anything anyone will understand, stick to terms from XML
09:21:29 [ht]
HST: Can we agree to restrict ourselves to XML languages?
09:21:40 [ht]
Others: No
09:22:31 [ht]
HST: How about Document (for Serialization) then?
09:22:57 [ht]
DO: No, I want to talk about parts of things, not just whole documents
09:23:04 [ht]
DC: Expression?
09:23:16 [ht]
DO: I wanted Component
09:24:43 [ht]
NW: I'm happy with Document, I can use it for parts as well as the whole
09:25:14 [ht]
NM: Then we add a para saying don't assume this means the whole thing
09:27:34 [ht]
DC: Back to HTML2 vs. HTML4
09:29:22 [ht]
TBL: Take <SPAN STYLE='color: green>...</SPAN> in a document produced by Fred in language HTML4
09:30:19 [ht]
... with intent I4,
09:30:24 [noah_away]
scribe: noah
09:30:52 [noah_away]
DC: What's relationship between i4 and i2:
09:30:56 [noah_away]
TBL: I4 > I2
09:31:02 [noah_away]
DC: I4 includes I2
09:31:15 [noah_away]
TBL: I2 follows from I4
09:31:28 [noah_away]
NW: Bothered by the example
09:31:45 [noah_away]
TBL: I call this weakly forwards compatible
09:33:10 [noah_away]
NM: What do you mean follows from? One guy knows it's green, one doesn't.
09:34:23 [noah_away]
DC: right, using implication for this doesn't fit quite right.
09:36:40 [noah_away]
TBL: Note that there are no syntactic's just that H2 says the interpretation of style="color:green" is no impact
09:37:03 [noah_away]
TBL: one definition of compatiblility is: anything you miss doesn't matter.
09:37:16 [noah_away]
scribe: ht
09:37:32 [noah_away]
s/scribe: noah/scribe: noah_away/
09:37:50 [ht]
DC: WebArch comes in to play when we look at specification documents
09:37:56 [ht]
DO: Kind of constraint
09:38:04 [ht]
09:38:19 [ht]
DC: ref. RDFMeaning_??
09:39:32 [ht]
... Schema documents can be compatible with one another in various way
09:39:59 [ht]
TBL: [W3C XML] Schema documents contain semantic info?
09:40:44 [ht]
HST: XML Schema language provides a place for semantic assertions to be packaged up with the syntax which is its primary focus
09:41:15 [ht]
NM: That gets used, but at least as often the semantics is elsewhere
09:42:00 [ht]
DC: Want to encourage this, it's closer to the self-describing 'follow-your-nose' goal of the Web
09:43:32 [ht]
NW: Consider the case where I produce some HTML2 and include, because I can, the span tag for my own purposes, then later HTML4 overtakes me
09:43:39 [ht]
DC: Your bad
09:45:19 [ht]
HST: Would like to come back to the fact that for XML documents, syntax and semantics are (almost always) compositional, and that gives us a lot of leverage
09:46:01 [ht]
TBL: Produces graphic of the example. . .
09:48:29 [ht]
[coffee break]
09:51:59 [timbl]
09:56:02 [Norm]
Norm has joined #tagmem
10:07:07 [dorchard]
dorchard has joined #tagmem
10:07:11 [dorchard]
10:07:16 [dorchard]
scribe: dorchard
10:10:51 [dorchard]
ACTION: Dave O to update finding with ext/vers
10:12:09 [DanC_lap]
DanC_lap has joined #tagmem
10:12:28 [ht]
next agendum
10:12:34 [dorchard]
topic: namespace document 8
10:14:27 [timbl]
10:15:50 [timbl]
q+ to say that the question of languages for namespace documents esp in the achine-proc area is very open area of development, and we shoul understand that currently OWL is a very useful and relevant langauge which should also be suppoorted. So while leaving the door open for OWLK and possibly others, we should recommend GRDDL for systems which are not machine processable to the same extendt.
10:16:29 [dorchard]
ht: everything on namespace and grddl file is sensible but without language ontology and it's relationship to namespaces, nervous to issue ns-8.
10:17:22 [timbl]
10:17:23 [dorchard]
norm: don't think that follows, ns can say "here's some stuff".
10:17:35 [Vincent]
ack TimBL
10:17:35 [Zakim]
timbl, you wanted to say that the question of languages for namespace documents esp in the achine-proc area is very open area of development, and we shoul understand that currently
10:17:38 [Zakim]
... OWL is a very useful and relevant langauge which should also be suppoorted. So while leaving the door open for OWLK and possibly others, we should recommend GRDDL for systems
10:17:41 [Zakim]
... which are not machine processable to the same extendt.
10:17:55 [noah]
q+ to say why can't we write a short finding that's quite open in what a namespace doc can say?
10:18:15 [dorchard]
timbl: owl and owlk are useful, lots of innovation happening.
10:18:41 [DanC_lap]
q+ to ask some mechanical questions about namespace document vocabulary... rddl:purpose and rddl:nature relationship to rdf:type and rdf properties
10:18:55 [ht]
q+ to object to privileging any particular description
10:19:48 [dorchard]
timbl: should recommend owl. ?scribe didn't catch all
10:19:59 [dorchard]
dave: don't we say human readable in web arch?
10:20:05 [dorchard]
ht: should be agnostic.
10:21:14 [DanC_lap]
(double-checking, yes, we did say that, dave... " The owner of an XML namespace name SHOULD make available material intended for people to read and material optimized for software agents in order to meet the needs of those who will use the namespace vocabulary")
10:21:54 [dorchard]
timbl: if using owl, then provide owl.
10:22:22 [Vincent]
10:22:48 [dorchard]
ht: for argument sake, should put xml schema because it's widely adopted, well understood and closed world.
10:24:14 [Vincent]
ack noah
10:24:14 [Zakim]
noah, you wanted to say why can't we write a short finding that's quite open in what a namespace doc can say?
10:24:25 [ht]
ack ht
10:24:25 [Zakim]
ht, you wanted to object to privileging any particular description
10:25:30 [dorchard]
noah: minting new formats for ns documents is somewhat similar to minting new uri schemes.
10:25:40 [dorchard]
noah: if owl on the merits won..
10:26:03 [timbl]
10:27:07 [DanC_lap]
q+ to say I'm sympathetic to Henry's concern that people will read into the namespaceDocument-8 finding overly simple versioning implications
10:27:14 [DanC_lap]
ack danc
10:27:14 [Zakim]
DanC_lap, you wanted to ask some mechanical questions about namespace document vocabulary... rddl:purpose and rddl:nature relationship to rdf:type and rdf properties and to say I'm
10:27:16 [Vincent]
ack danc_lap
10:27:18 [Zakim]
... sympathetic to Henry's concern that people will read into the namespaceDocument-8 finding overly simple versioning implications
10:29:28 [dorchard]
ht: for stylesheet, if view purchase order then purpose is view on mobile phone,
10:29:43 [dorchard]
ht: why purpose AND nature.
10:29:55 [dorchard]
ht: schema is bad because they are the same, validation.
10:30:14 [dorchard]
ht: could have nature is stylesheet, purpose could be html browser view.
10:33:32 [timbl]
q+ to suggest we tell teh OWL + presentation style sheet story as well as the RDDL one
10:33:47 [ht]
<rddl:resource xlink:role="...#stylesheet" xlink:arcrole="...#mobileview" xlink:href=""/>
10:34:04 [ht]
DC: What's the RDF for this. . .
10:34:54 [Roy]
10:34:59 [Roy]
10:35:31 [timbl]
Thanks Roy
10:42:14 [dorchard]
muchos discussion on rddl:purpose, nature, etc.
10:43:18 [dorchard]
norm: rddl:purpose is a subtype of rdf:property
10:45:26 [dorchard]
ht: people won't be looking at this for what they need, if they don't know the purpose then they are toast.
10:50:45 [timbl]
Note re diagram above, the table in it was suppose to read something like:
10:50:45 [timbl]
r1 r2
10:50:45 [timbl]
back-compatible =
10:51:05 [timbl]
weakly forward compatible subset
10:51:14 [timbl]
10:51:35 [timbl]
10:51:59 [dorchard]
<povocab> rddllibstylesheet <mobile.css>; mobileView <mobile.css>; rddlib:stylesheet <desktop.oss>; desktopview <desktop.css>;
10:54:23 [dorchard]
norm: validation <x.xsd>; validation <x.rng>; rddlib:xsd <x.xsd>; rddlib:relaxng <x.rng>;
10:58:20 [dorchard]
ht: original design was right. In the absence of multiple resources of same nature, you can infer purpose from the nature.
10:58:40 [dorchard]
ht: what's missing from rddl is the tabulation is the default mapping
10:59:54 [dorchard]
ht: better example
11:00:15 [dorchard]
ht: might have 2 resources of nature html, one is purpose normative reference the other is non-normative reference.
11:00:26 [dorchard]
norm: could have normative reference to pdf
11:00:42 [timbl]
Tim: This is clearly a good example of the translation as a predicate
11:02:51 [dorchard]
henry: found a nature not in table
11:03:05 [dorchard]
dan: go looking for nature.
11:03:27 [timbl]
DanC: In the tranlation, i could look up the defautl purpose for a given nature by looking the nature up at its URL.
11:04:25 [dorchard]
noah: what about installation instructions? If at that granularity, then whats the purpose? the range is so wide..
11:05:09 [timbl]
Tim: So we need a relationship between a nature and its default purpose?
11:06:31 [dorchard]
norm: need to normative to one and non-normative to another, can't just say both references.
11:07:49 [dorchard]
dan: If a link has been made, then there is a relationship
11:08:25 [dorchard]
timbl: you are making a change in rddl spec, to if there is nothing specified then there is nothing specified, not infer as currently says.
11:08:49 [dorchard]
timbl: spec says you can infer on absence of arcrole.
11:09:02 [timbl]
11:09:34 [timbl]
and danc suggests a change to the spec such that inference i snot possible epxlictly from the absence of an arcrole
11:10:15 [dorchard]
<povocab> rddl:ref <spec><tut>; rddl:normativeRef <spec>; rddl:informativeRef <tut>; spec> nature HTML. <tut> nature HTML.
11:12:49 [DanC_lap]
DanC_lap has joined #tagmem
11:12:57 [dorchard]
dbo: what does this mean?
11:14:18 [dorchard]
noah: Noah invents "better" rddl for his namespace, this works IF noah also creates a GRDDL xform that will also produce above statements.
11:17:59 [DanC_lap]
ACTION DanC: ask for "default nature" to be changed to "implicit nature" in RDDL spec
11:18:27 [DanC_lap]
DanC: draft a section on using XHTML 1.x (not RDDL) with GRDDL and relax-ng[continues]
11:18:38 [DanC_lap]
NDW: follow-up on namespaceDocument-8, based on DanC's vanilla XHTML example [CONTINUES]
11:23:38 [DanC_lap]
(my understanding of the namespaceState-51 issue is that it depends pretty heavily on versioning, so I'm surprised it's slated for closure today. taking a look at )
12:23:09 [timbl]
timbl has joined #tagmem
12:33:48 [noah_away]
noah_away has joined #tagmem
12:46:49 [RRSAgent]
12:50:28 [DanC_lap]
tim, got a suggestion for "commitment" in the following?
12:50:29 [DanC_lap]
{ ?WHO is :producer of [ :intent ?I ] } => { ?WHO :commitment ?I }.
12:53:02 [dorchard]
timbl: should each do writing chunks
12:53:33 [dorchard]
danc: go around the room and see what each people think is important
12:53:49 [dorchard]
danc: for me, versioning including namespaces, rdf meaning, component refs
12:54:51 [dorchard]
timbl: self-describing documents.
12:55:08 [dorchard]
timbl: can imagine with or without versioning.
12:55:16 [DanC_lap]
danc: for me, for the next year or so... [as above]
12:55:52 [dorchard]
roy: nothing in specific
12:58:19 [dorchard]
norm: like versioning - it's a cluster. Also media type and this may be part of self-describing
12:59:01 [Norm]
dave: I like the versioning stuff; I think that relates to componentRefs
12:59:18 [Norm]
dave: I'm quite interested in questions of state that we haven't worked on very much
12:59:27 [Norm]
...I think state is underrepresented/omnipresent part of webarch
12:59:42 [Norm]
...I still feel that we're missing something in getting people to use URIs where they could
12:59:50 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #tagmem
12:59:55 [Norm]
...GRID; P2P; etc.
13:00:17 [Norm]
dave: We need to focus on realistic aspects of what people are doing about state and how to expande the use of URIs in new technologies
13:00:31 [DanC_lap]
q+ to ammend my "what I want to do" with authentication (which is a common case of state)
13:00:43 [DanC_lap]
q+ to ammend my "what I want to do" with authentication (which is a common case of state)
13:00:54 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #tagmem
13:00:57 [DanC_lap]
q+ to ammend my "what I want to do" with authentication (which is a common case of state)
13:01:49 [dorchard]
vincent: namespaces including versioning, namespace document, abstract comp refs, namespace state.
13:02:39 [dorchard]
timbl: semantic web documents and pairing with somebody (norm and Noah express interest)
13:03:23 [timbl]
The Nadia and Dirk my first semantic web book
13:04:21 [Vincent]
13:04:22 [dorchard]
HT: doing a careful ontology of the xml space and moving downwards to xml documents and infosets
13:05:13 [dorchard]
HT: would be good to have a way of describing languages and relating them.
13:05:45 [DanC_lap]
(happiness... a while ago, I tried to write using terminology from our versioning draft finding and I got stuck. Using the terms from , I'm unstuck.)
13:06:10 [dorchard]
ht: semantic web isn't archeology so constraints aren't clear.
13:07:01 [dorchard]
noah: 3 piles. 1) Web exists.
13:07:30 [ht]
q+ to re-raise state/cookies/context/. . .
13:08:06 [dorchard]
noah: 2) web just progressing nicely isn't necessarily the future, ie multimedia
13:08:31 [ht]
q+ to mention persistence, diffidently
13:09:57 [dorchard]
noah: sometimes when you have a big goal, and you need big writing.
13:10:11 [dorchard]
noah: now we have to do stepwise work.
13:10:24 [timbl]
q+ to discuss integrity vs lots of little bits
13:11:39 [dorchard]
noah: willing to take on faith that self-describing is important.
13:11:48 [dorchard]
noah: suggesting that be separate from ext.
13:12:28 [dorchard]
noah: maybe we should talk about web of applications.
13:12:29 [DanC_lap]
(hmm... I think versioning is kinda boring if you don't connect languages to their specifications in the web. hmm.)
13:12:51 [DanC_lap]
13:12:51 [Vincent]
ack danc
13:12:51 [Zakim]
DanC_lap, you wanted to ammend my "what I want to do" with authentication (which is a common case of state)
13:13:51 [Vincent]
ack ht
13:13:51 [Zakim]
ht, you wanted to re-raise state/cookies/context/. . . and to mention persistence, diffidently
13:13:52 [ht]
ack ht
13:14:10 [DanC_lap]
timbl: yes, let's keep an active thread on security, esp failures like phising
13:15:45 [dorchard]
danc: security..
13:16:37 [timbl]
Cookies and state and sessiona dn the real world
13:16:55 [timbl]
Henry: Cookies and state and session and the real world
13:16:58 [dorchard]
ht: if you just read web arch, you'd find the use of cookies/state
13:17:27 [timbl]
... surprising.
13:21:23 [ht]
HT: So, persistence: First with the XRI stuff, and then when I went to a workshop on Persistent Identifiers [URL to come] run by the Digital Curation Centre, I see an awful lot of folks out there, some of whom are thoughtful and technically savvy, who just don't believe http: can do it for them
13:22:45 [ht]
... then there was the observation at the Web Science workshop that there's no easy widely recognised way to say "that URI, at this particular time"
13:23:17 [ht]
... So maybe we should do something about explaining how to get what these people want using http:/building on top of http:
13:24:03 [Vincent]
13:24:05 [ht]
RF: People just don't understand what names are, telling them again won't help
13:24:34 [ht]
DO: Well, my company provides services based on stateful use of URIs which outperform RESTful alternatives
13:25:05 [ht]
RF: In principle caching will always dominate any server-side speedup, and that's what REST buys you
13:25:28 [ht]
DO: but that only works for cachable transactions, and lots of ours aren't
13:25:37 [Vincent]
ack timbl
13:25:37 [Zakim]
timbl, you wanted to discuss integrity vs lots of little bits
13:25:37 [dorchard]
noah: henry made a good point, lots of people are doing this, either we say in more detail why they shouldn't or we should say what we learned.
13:25:39 [timbl] nneeds to be countered by info about how to use cookies, what inmformatio should b in a ccookie.
13:26:42 [ht]
DCC Persistent Identifiers Workshop:
13:26:46 [dorchard]
timbl: what about client side state
13:26:54 [dorchard]
timbl: and ajax
13:27:37 [DanC_lap]
(the best rule I know for what to put in the URI and what to put in the cookie is the 3rd grade grammar rule about "which" vs "that". restrictive clause stuff goes in the URI. non-restrictive clause stuff doesn't.)
13:29:06 [dorchard]
much discussion about ajax, how it could/should use uris.
13:31:08 [timbl]
Possible: Noah and DAve continue on versioning, Norm and Tim work on Sem Web Nadia & Dirk, DanC and Henry work on self-describing web
13:31:38 [dorchard]
also, I'm partway through a nadia and dirk story for state.
13:32:46 [noah_away]
13:32:51 [noah_away]
13:32:54 [noha]
13:32:57 [noha]
13:32:58 [timbl]
HT: Core should publish and ontology for the infoset
13:33:01 [dorchard]
ht: msmq has knot of anger about "element type"
13:33:49 [Vincent]
ack noah
13:33:53 [timbl]
the fact that "element type" is no longer a defined term the community can use
13:35:26 [noah]
13:35:34 [noha]
13:36:45 [ht]
25 min
13:36:50 [ht]
when's your plane, to where
13:38:03 [dorchard]
timbl: write a whitepaper on phishing..
13:39:16 [dorchard]
ht: here's why the arch is vulnerable, and fixing them would be throwing baby out with water.
13:39:49 [dorchard]
do: security is a spectrum.
13:44:37 [DanC_lap]
(ok, I'll let the TAG know what comes from team project review of some security/UI stuff)
13:46:15 [DanC_lap]
ACTION DanC: derive RDF/RDFS/OWL version of terminology from whiteboard /
13:47:13 [timbl]
ACTION Henmry make sure that what he is doing with ontology of XML inforset fits with what DanC is doing on ontology of Language etc
13:48:23 [timbl]
Transfer Versioning as action to DO and NM
13:50:21 [timbl]
ACTION DO and NM to continue and extrapolate the versioning work DO et al have been doing already, updating the terminology section.
13:51:47 [timbl]
ACTION TBL and NW to write a draft of Nadia and Dirk first semantic web book
13:54:52 [ht]
scribe: ht
13:55:03 [ht]
zakim, agenda?
13:55:03 [Zakim]
I see nothing on the agenda
13:55:13 [ht]
topic: End Point References (issue?)
13:56:08 [ht]
DO: Lots of WS-xxx (addressing, eventing, ...) we're using an XML structure, namely EPRs as identifiers, so we're outside WebArch
13:56:45 [ht]
... TAG could ask "Why can't you use URIs instead?" or say "Don't do that" or even embrace and extend . .. .
13:57:08 [ht]
... WS-Addressing is approaching/in/? CR, we're running out of time to push back if that's what we wanted to
13:57:38 [DanC_lap]
Web Services Addressing 1.0 - Core
13:57:38 [DanC_lap]
W3C Candidate Recommendation 17 August 2005
13:57:47 [DanC_lap]
-> ws-addr
13:57:58 [ht]
TBL: Dave Snelling from Tuesday left me thinking that many of the uses of EPRs could be reconstructed as URIs, but maybe not all
13:58:10 [DanC_lap]
(so indeed, the TAG should have already given its technical input)
13:58:30 [ht]
... Perhaps we're confusing two things, a name and a bundle of answers to a set of questions
13:59:10 [ht]
... One possibility is that the TAG try to tease these apart, and be clear about when you're doing what, so that you use the right tool for the job
14:00:15 [ht]
ACTION: VQ to write "Thank You" to Dave Berry, David Snelling, with cc to Malcolm Atkinson and Dave De Roure
14:01:28 [ht]
... Dave Berry <>,,
14:01:28 [ht]
Malcolm Atkinson <>,
14:01:28 [ht]
David De Roure <>
14:03:26 [ht]
NM: Some discussion of how WS-Addr got to CR while distancing itself from WebArch insofar as it does
14:04:30 [ht]
RF: When people say "What we're thinking of is an entirely different architecture", I give up on detailed criticism and just wish they would call it "XML Services"
14:05:49 [ht]
NM: Disk drive interrogation example -- message based, or couldn't a disk drive serve web pages
14:06:21 [ht]
... GET for what GET is good for, more service-oriented messages for other things
14:06:45 [ht]
RF: There's a lot of non-RESTful architecture out there, and that's just fine
14:06:55 [ht]
NM: So should the Web stop with REST?
14:08:05 [ht]
RF: No, absolutely not -- the Web information space is much more than the software of web clients and servers, whose effective interaction is what REST tries to explain/describe. Lots of other architectures can interact with the Web information space in other ways
14:09:15 [DanC_lap]
ack danc
14:09:15 [Zakim]
DanC_lap, you wanted to ask timbl about "an epr could just be an rdf/owl bnode"
14:09:18 [Vincent]
ack DanC
14:09:59 [ht]
DC: EPR is a little description of properties and their values == RDF?
14:10:34 [ht]
TBL: Yes, looks a lot like N3 with [] around it
14:10:55 [ht]
DC: So should we ask WS-Addressing to do a model-theoretical semantics of EPR
14:11:05 [Roy]
What is important to me in the Web Services design space is that, when services of any kind create information that becomes a resource, that the resource be assigned a URI and supplied to the service's client such that it builds on and improves the Web
14:11:33 [timbl]
[ ref 3425; withRerspectTo 1235421345; sentoBy ex:Joe; status 9]
14:12:36 [ht]
HST,NM: OT discussion of formalizing XML Schema
14:13:37 [Roy]
EPR := end point reference
14:14:42 [ht]
TBL: EPR is not built to a requirements spec -- it will have the SOAP header problem, someone will say "here is a reference extension property which tells you how to decode the value of other properties", i.e. no guarantee of monotonicity or independence of interpretation
14:15:12 [ht]
NM: Most uses are much more private than you're envisaging, the only person who interprets them is the person who mints them
14:15:38 [ht]
... It has structure because I find that useful, that's all
14:16:36 [ht]
TBL: Contract of opacity, then, right? Note URI you have a server and a client, but for EPRs they get minted, passed around, packaged and unpackged, .. .
14:17:44 [ht]
NM: Yes, packed in SOAP, but not quite opaque, because at reply time the responder has to crack it to fine the address property of the ReplyTo EPR
14:17:50 [Vincent]
ack danc
14:17:50 [Zakim]
DanC_lap, you wanted to say so supposed we accept that the time for technical input is closed; what can we do to help QA? what's the test experiment for an EPR? is there such a
14:17:53 [Zakim]
... thing as an invalid EPR? or an incorrect handling of an epr?
14:17:54 [ht]
14:18:51 [ht]
HST: Well, not replying as Noah described would be an incorrect use
14:19:02 [ht]
NM: Checking that what I said is in the spec. . ..
14:19:47 [ht]
TBL: You could fail to unpack the EPR into the returning SOAP header as required. . .
14:20:05 [ht]
NM: right
14:20:20 [ht]
TBL: How do we demonstrate interop
14:21:25 [ht]
NM: Transport indepencence, one dimension, how do I transport over SOAP, so expect a test case that if there are n properties with values in the reply epr, they have to come back as n attributes in the soap header
14:21:31 [ht]
ack DanC
14:21:31 [Zakim]
DanC_lap, you wanted to ask about the rot13 thing in such a test case
14:22:19 [ht]
NM: I don't think so, the client's only responsibility is to echo everything but the address back
14:22:50 [Norm]
So these really are just cookies?
14:23:02 [ht]
TBL: Client has no obligation to interpret or process the EPR
14:23:17 [ht]
DC: No way to say "Everyone who looks at this must ..."?
14:23:23 [ht]
NM, TBL: No.
14:23:41 [ht]
NM: So the fact that this is so private that there's no reason for WebArch to care
14:24:09 [ht]
TBL: But if you hide a document behind one of these, it's usurping the role of a URI, but it's not "on the Web" anymore
14:24:19 [ht]
q+ to ask TBL to elaborate
14:24:48 [DanC_lap]
(I now can't see what there is to do in this space. I'm OK to withdraw this issue)
14:25:06 [Vincent]
ack ht
14:25:06 [Zakim]
ht, you wanted to ask TBL to elaborate
14:26:32 [ht]
HST: How do you hide a document
14:28:03 [ht]
TBL: Remember David Snelling's example of using an EPR in a client->server message to a generic URI to determine what you get back from your request. .
14:28:07 [Vincent]
14:28:24 [ht]
HST: That's a completely different kind of use than the scenario you and NM were just talking through
14:28:37 [ht]
TBL: Yes, but nothing in WS-Addressign stops them doing that
14:29:06 [ht]
VQ: Getting to consensus that there's nothing here to spend more time on
14:29:14 [ht]
NM: I don't think I'm there yet
14:29:26 [ht]
DC: I am happy with that, i.e. withdrawing the issue
14:31:12 [noah]
FYI: here's the part of the WSA spec that I think more or less bears out what I said about refparms being echo'd in a reply, with the reply destination coming from the replyTo address:
14:32:01 [ht]
DC: Not in order to withdraw the issue in DO's absence. . .
14:32:44 [noah]
Here's the part of the WSA that says when sending such a thing over SOAP in particular, each ref Parm turns into a SOAP header:
14:33:06 [ht]
DC: So what problem have we identified
14:33:25 [ht]
TBL: WSRF use of EPR to effectively identify a resource to be retrieved
14:33:50 [ht]
NM: So we can say EPRs can be misused, but not WSA is broken
14:34:39 [ht]
NM: I did miss that it does say that if you see [a property in an EPR] that you don't understand you can ignore it
14:34:57 [ht]
... That compromises my story that EPR content is largely opaque
14:35:02 [Vincent]
ack danc
14:35:02 [Zakim]
DanC_lap, you wanted to ask if timbl's problem description is something we have consensus on; I'm somewhat sympathetic, but I'm not sure it identifies a problem with ws-a
14:35:34 [noah]
s/[a property in an EPR]/[reference parameter] in an EPR/
14:36:00 [ht]
DC: So are we agreed that this is bad
14:36:33 [ht]
HST: Yes, with the above proviso, that WSA's use of EPR isn't broken, but it encourages others to do broken things
14:37:53 [ht]
NM: I think that's a bit too cheery, some WSA people did want to do all that 'bad' stuff, so expecting graceful positive response to asking for an appendix saying "the good things we do here with EPRs are all you should do with them, don't do bad things"
14:37:59 [ht]
RF: It's just another case of tunneling over http
14:38:34 [ht]
HST remembers that it's not just http -- EPRs also are intended for use via JMS or carrier pigeon
14:39:02 [ht]
DC/RF: We did say " for things that are resources, use URIs"
14:39:55 [ht]
HST: Comes back to TBL's point about making it easy to understand when you need a name and when you need a set of property/value pairs to help you get some job done
14:40:30 [noah]
s/I did miss/When I summarized my limited understanding of the WSA design, I did not remember that/
14:41:05 [ht]
TBL: are we resolved that "WSA's use of EPR is contrary to WebArch if it uses anything other than URIs to identify resources"
14:41:25 [timbl]
s/if/to the extent that/
14:42:11 [DanC_lap]
"those uses of WSA that use EPRs in ways that use parts of the EPR other than the URI for referring to resources are counter to the 'use URIs' principle of web architecture"
14:42:21 [noah]
NM : are we resolved that "It is contrary to WebArch to use [Reference Parameters] as opposed to only the URIs to identify resources"
14:42:38 [noah]
NM : are we resolved that "It is contrary to WebArch to use [Reference Parameters] as opposed to only the [Address] URI to identify resources"
14:42:48 [timbl]
For example, we note that WS-RF specification uses EPRs to identify information resources (such as for example experimental datasets in the Grid) which rpevents hypertext links from being made to them.
14:43:41 [ht]
NM: An EPR is (an XML EII) with an address and reference parameters, (all themselves EIIs) named with QNames
14:44:08 [DanC_lap]
(is an address a URI?)
14:46:35 [ht]
Candidate revision "Use of Reference Parameters as a replacement for URIs to identify resources is contrary to WebArch. For example, WSRF's use of Reference Parameters to identify experimental results"
14:47:05 [DanC_lap]
"those uses of WSA that use EPRs in ways that use parts of the EPR other than the URI for referring to resources are counter to the 'use URIs' principle of web architecture"
14:50:25 [timbl]
14:50:31 [DanC_lap]
"those uses of WSA that use EPRs in ways that use parts of the EPR other than the URI for identifying resources are counter to the 'use URIs' principle of web architecture"
14:50:39 [noah]
+1 modulo grammar tightening
14:50:46 [Norm]
14:50:55 [DanC_lap]
PROPOSED, contingent on DaveO's agreement
14:52:47 [noah]
Noah notes that WS-RF is a framework comprising a number of specs. I believe the spec in question here is actually WS Resource Properties (
14:53:32 [ht]
"Use of Reference Parameters other that <address> to identify resources is contrary to Web Architecture"
14:53:51 [DanC_lap]
yes, that says the same thing more concisely
14:53:52 [ht]
14:54:21 [Norm]
14:55:45 [ht]
"Use of the abstract properties of an EPR other than epr:address to identify resources is contrary to WebArch"
14:55:53 [DanC_lap]
+tim's example
14:55:54 [DanC_lap]
14:56:13 [Roy]
14:56:25 [ht]
14:56:36 [ht]
RESOLVED, pending DO's agreement, for discussion ASAP
14:56:46 [ht]
15:24:57 [ht]
Topic: NamespaceState_48
15:25:12 [Norm]
15:26:32 [ht]
NW: xml:id raised the "can you add names to a namespace" question, we did it and are not sure it would ever _not_ be OK
15:26:44 [noah]
Grammar issue: The antecedent of "they SHOULD" seems ambiguous.
15:27:08 [ht]
q+ HT to be unhappy about the ontology
15:28:08 [ht]
RF: XML should be extensible by default, so I don't like the assumption that you have to say something to make this true
15:28:09 [DanC_lap]
hmm... good point; in general, resources are allowed to change state; if someone wants to say otherwise, very well.
15:28:35 [Vincent]
ack ht
15:28:35 [Zakim]
HT, you wanted to be unhappy about the ontology
15:28:57 [noah]
15:29:31 [ht]
TBL: So we should make the HTML may/must ignore the default for everyone?
15:29:51 [noah]
Consider an element name <ns:width>. That's vocabulary that can be used in many languages.
15:29:54 [ht]
RF: That confuses X and Y
15:29:58 [Norm]
q+ to note that there are two XSL languages and they have the same namespace
15:32:22 [timbl]
15:33:21 [Norm]
15:33:53 [Vincent]
ack noah
15:34:09 [ht]
HST: I'm concerned this confuses namespaces and languages
15:34:32 [ht]
[more to be filled in, xml:banana question, HST's goal, tim and henry both true]
15:35:05 [ht]
NM: Back to namespace <-> language one-to-one point, there are many cases where it's true, but many cases where it isn't
15:35:32 [Norm]
15:36:01 [ht]
... It is often the case in particular that the root element of valid documents is usable to identify a language, but that's not true of all elements in all namespaces
15:36:28 [ht]
... That's not a corner thing, that's XML working as designed
15:36:50 [ht]
... I like to look at meaning, processing is doing the right thing per the meaning
15:37:11 [ht]
... Sometimes that's nearly context-independent, e.g. xml:id
15:37:47 [ht]
... But it can be richly context dependent, so e.g. f:width is _not_ the width of my parent, but something else
15:38:52 [ht]
... And again, that's XML, and it's good -- I can have something carefully documented to be a width, for use as a width, but the width of _what_ varies from language to language
15:38:54 [Vincent]
ack danc
15:38:54 [Zakim]
DanC_lap, you wanted to concur with RF: it's not essential to say "this may change". That it may change is implicit; caveat consumer. Producer *may* give a policy about the future,
15:38:58 [Zakim]
... which will likely encourage consumers to be happier.
15:39:03 [ht]
q+ to push compositionality
15:39:41 [ht]
DC: I now think this does connect to versioning, but let's not go there now. . .
15:40:01 [Vincent]
ack norm
15:40:06 [ht]
... I'm with RF on the point that it goes without saying that things may change, I shouldn't have to say so explicitly
15:40:37 [ht]
NW: Namespaces do only one thing, give you a way of differentiating one set of names from another
15:41:08 [ht]
DC: Idon't accept that, namespace documents do lots of things
15:41:40 [noah]
I'm pretty happy with what Norm is saying.
15:41:55 [ht]
NW: This isn't about the change of such documents, its about change in namespaces, it would work whether their was a namespace document or not
15:42:37 [ht]
DC: That's not the way anybody should behave, it's not consistent with WebArch
15:42:47 [Norm]
15:42:51 [Norm]
q+ to complete my thought
15:43:21 [ht]
HT: I want this to be a SHOULD whether there's a NS Doc or not
15:43:45 [ht]
TBL: Compromise: There SHOULD be an NS doc and it SHOULD be where you record the NS change policy
15:44:28 [ht]
NM: We've already said the first half of this,let's not say it again in another place
15:44:40 [Vincent]
ack norm
15:44:40 [Zakim]
Norm, you wanted to complete my thought
15:44:48 [DanC_lap]
DC: please let it say "those who coin namespaces SHOULD state, +in the namespace document+, a change policy"
15:45:27 [ht]
NM: You may know that four have been defined and used doesn't mean you can assume there will never be any more
15:46:10 [ht]
... All this finding is about is establishing that, and the ways you can be more explicit
15:48:11 [Vincent]
ack ht
15:48:11 [Zakim]
ht, you wanted to push compositionality
15:48:13 [ht]
DC: Talk about resource in the representaiton of the resource
15:49:02 [noah]
"those who coin namespaces SHOULD state, a change policy. If (as we have recommend elsewhere) you have a namespace document, then the policy SHOULD be stated there. "
15:49:17 [timbl]
HT: Compositional semantics: The meaning of the whole is a function of the meaning of the parts. Most things we have have this.
15:49:30 [timbl]
... This is good.
15:50:38 [noah]
q+ to point out reformulated proposal above.
15:51:54 [DanC_lap]
(I think HTML is not compositional; <blockquote> is semantically opaque)
15:52:05 [noah]
Does CSS break this?
15:53:32 [noah]
Restating so you can find it easily: "Those who coin namespaces SHOULD state, a change policy. If (as we have recommend elsewhere) you have a namespace document, then the policy SHOULD be stated there. "
15:54:09 [Vincent]
15:54:12 [noah]
15:54:37 [Norm]
In the absence of any statement, the owner can do what they want,
15:54:41 [ht]
NM: That seems close to consensus.
15:56:09 [DanC_lap]
(I gather we're resolved on noah's "those who coin..." above, and publication of the finding with that ammendment and one per Roy's note that owners have the right to change namespaces without notice. and I'm content to close this issue)
15:57:57 [ht]
RESOLVED: With the two changes requested above, this will be an Approved Finding
15:58:39 [ht]
NM: Will try to do this for 11 October
15:58:47 [ht]
VC: What happens next week?
15:58:56 [ht]
NW, HST, NM regrets
16:00:30 [ht]
RF will be home, but would prefer to skip
16:00:41 [ht]
VQ: 27 September is cancelled
16:01:15 [ht]
VQ: 4 October is next telcon
16:01:41 [ht]
RF to scribe 4 October
16:01:56 [ht]
Meeting adjourned 1700
16:02:09 [ht]
Thanks all around
16:02:16 [ht]
RRSAgent, please prepare minutes
16:02:16 [RRSAgent]
I'm logging. I don't understand 'please prepare minutes', ht. Try /msg RRSAgent help
16:02:28 [DanC_lap]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:02:29 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate DanC_lap
16:02:36 [DanC_lap]
RRSAgent, make logs world-access
16:02:36 [ht]
RRSAgent, make log public
16:04:52 [timbl]
20:27:31 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #tagmem