IRC log of swbp on 2006-01-30

Timestamps are in UTC.

13:54:29 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #swbp
13:54:29 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2006/01/30-swbp-irc
13:54:36 [RalphS]
Meeting: RDF-in-XHTML TF
13:54:42 [RalphS]
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2006Jan/0062.html
13:54:52 [RalphS]
RalphS has changed the topic to: RDF-in-XHTML TF 1400 UTC Monday agenda in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2006Jan/0062.html
14:00:24 [benadida]
benadida has joined #swbp
14:00:50 [Zakim]
SW_BPD(rdfxhtml)9:00AM has now started
14:00:57 [Zakim]
+Ralph
14:00:57 [Zakim]
+Ben_Adida
14:02:06 [RalphS]
Previous: 2006-01-24 http://www.w3.org/2006/01/24-swbp-minutes.html
14:05:39 [MarkB_]
MarkB_ has joined #swbp
14:05:52 [Zakim]
+[IPcaller]
14:06:05 [RalphS]
zakim, ipcaller is Jeremy
14:06:05 [Zakim]
+Jeremy; got it
14:06:21 [jeremy]
jeremy has joined #swbp
14:06:29 [MarkB_]
s/later/late/
14:07:10 [Zakim]
+??P9
14:07:16 [MarkB_]
zakim, i am ?
14:07:16 [Zakim]
+MarkB_; got it
14:07:59 [RalphS]
Ralph: I've been writing RDF/A pages
14:08:34 [RalphS]
... had trouble with bnode references in meta and link
14:08:44 [RalphS]
Jeremy: bnodes should be implemented, but not well tested
14:09:27 [Steven]
Steven has joined #swbp
14:12:45 [RalphS]
[PENDING] ACTION: Ben to draft full response to Bjoern's 2004 email [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/24-swbp-minutes.html#action03]
14:13:03 [RalphS]
Ben: nearly done but there's a specific issue about rdf:Bag I'd like to discuss
14:13:24 [RalphS]
[DONE] ACTION: contact WG and chairs to notify of mistake and prepare the new version. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/24-swbp-minutes.html#action01]
14:13:33 [RalphS]
[DONE] ACTION: Mark to send Ben his latest XML version of the Primer [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/24-swbp-minutes.html#action02]
14:13:37 [Steven]
zakim, dial steven-617
14:13:37 [Zakim]
ok, Steven; the call is being made
14:13:38 [Zakim]
+Steven
14:14:04 [RalphS]
[PENDING] ACTION: All in the TF to look at http://www.w3.org/2005/05/hrel/ to decide whether it's ready for WG review [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/17-swbp-minutes#action03]
14:14:26 [RalphS]
Mark: I did a bit more, found some more issues than I'd recalled from previous discussions
14:14:50 [RalphS]
... it will take a more thorough review and discussion
14:15:31 [RalphS]
[DONE] ACTION: All in the TF to look at http://www.w3.org/2005/05/hrel/ to decide whether it's ready for WG review [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/17-swbp-minutes#action03]
14:15:55 [RalphS]
Ralph: from Mark's comments, hrel is clearly not ready for WG review
14:16:21 [RalphS]
[CONTINUES] ACTION: Ben start separate mail threads on remaining discussion topics [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/12/06-swbp-minutes#action04]
14:16:32 [benadida]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2006Jan/0061.html
14:16:34 [RalphS]
Ben: I've done some threads but a few more to do
14:17:01 [RalphS]
-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2006Jan/0061.html REMINDER: Look at Issues Threads
14:17:14 [RalphS]
0061 points to the 3 remaining issues for discussion
14:18:02 [RalphS]
[DONE] ACTION: Ben to draft a new example of RDF/A as an XHTML document that is its own RSS feed [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/17-swbp-minutes#action05]
14:18:12 [RalphS]
Ben: Ian found a bug, so that's good
14:19:19 [RalphS]
[CONTINUES] ACTION: Jeremy followup on <head about=...> edge case [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/12/06-swbp-minutes#action03]
14:19:32 [RalphS]
[CONTINUES] ACTION: Jeremy followup with Mark on the question of multiple triples from nested meta and add to issues list [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/12/06-swbp-minutes#action01]
14:19:56 [RalphS]
[CONTINUES] ACTION: Jeremy propose wording on reification [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/12/06-swbp-minutes#action02]
14:21:03 [RalphS]
Topic: Discussion of latest SWBPD points on proper use of URIs
14:21:36 [benadida]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2006Jan/0157.html
14:22:07 [jeremy]
q+ to give long diatribe ...
14:22:23 [RalphS]
Ben: it seemed the point being made was that if you have a URI that resolves to an HTML document then you cannot use that URI with a #fragID to refer to a non-Information resource
14:22:40 [RalphS]
Mark: yes, there are two related issues
14:22:57 [RalphS]
... the same URI cannot refer to both a Person and [that person's] home page
14:23:16 [RalphS]
... also if a URI refers to something known to be an HTML document ...
14:23:36 [RalphS]
... Alistair? felt this might be an unnecessary restriction
14:23:46 [RalphS]
Jeremy: Pat Hayes has wonderful things to say on this topic
14:23:56 [RalphS]
Mark: but how do you know it's an HTML resource at the start?
14:24:10 [Steven]
q+
14:24:20 [RalphS]
... the conversation that goes on between the agent and the server
14:24:29 [RalphS]
... seems to be a mess in the RDF world
14:24:31 [Zakim]
jeremy, you wanted to give long diatribe ...
14:24:46 [RalphS]
Jeremy: this problem goes deep into the heart of Web Architecture, which is why it's a hard one
14:25:02 [RalphS]
... AWWW and particularly Tim's thinking is influenced by a view that there is a right answer
14:25:06 [RalphS]
[laughter]
14:25:12 [RalphS]
Jeremy: that's a modernist viewpoint
14:25:27 [RalphS]
... part of a whole philosophy that "if we do things right we can get to a right answer"
14:26:11 [RalphS]
... in a post-modern world we go with whatever is right for now and deal with ambiguity
14:26:30 [RalphS]
... AWWW claims, I think, that URIs should not be ambiguous; a URI identifies *a* resource
14:26:47 [RalphS]
... and there's an attempt to identify some URIs as identifying documents; in particular, URIs without a '#'
14:27:33 [RalphS]
... when we make the jump from an abstract resource to a document representation
14:27:58 [benadida]
q+
14:28:06 [RalphS]
... and blur the fragment id as either a fragment of an HTML document or a fragment of an XML document and not something else as well
14:28:32 [RalphS]
... the point of view Pat was articulating is that language is full of ambiguities like these and it doesn't matter; we cope with the ambiguity in context
14:28:53 [RalphS]
... one way forward for Web Architecture is to accept and embrace this ambiguity rather than fight against it
14:29:24 [RalphS]
... I agree with Pat's point of view
14:29:46 [RalphS]
... the resolution about 303's deals with #-less URIs
14:29:58 [RalphS]
... but still leaves open what URIs with # really mean
14:30:32 [RalphS]
... if you get 200 OK plus an information resource, is the secondary resource identified by # also necessarily an information resource?
14:30:38 [RalphS]
... this flies against Tim's practice
14:31:08 [RalphS]
Ben: doesn't Tim use a #frag in his FOAF file, where the URI does resolve to a document?
14:31:15 [RalphS]
Jeremy: yes
14:32:27 [RalphS]
... one philosophy says it's ok to be inconsistent -- deal with it, another philosophy says it's a failing to be inconsistent and we should work to correct it
14:32:51 [RalphS]
... there are some deep philosophical issues involved in [this URI#frag discussion] that go throughout our society
14:33:25 [benadida]
http://dig.csail.mit.edu/breadcrumbs/blog/4
14:33:40 [benadida]
http://dig.csail.mit.edu/breadcrumbs/node/71
14:36:16 [RalphS]
-> http://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/card.n3#i Tim Berners-Lee
14:36:35 [RalphS]
Steven: a home page or a FOAF file is not the same thing as a Person
14:36:54 [RalphS]
... people who hold opposing point of view won't be swayed by a content negotiation argument
14:37:13 [RalphS]
... each content type says what is meant by the frag id
14:37:40 [RalphS]
Ben: but what should a URIref with a # resolve to if it's not an information resource?
14:38:24 [RalphS]
... e.g. for example.com/#me to be a Person, what should example.com/ resolve to?
14:38:39 [jeremy]
http://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/card#i
14:38:45 [jeremy]
is tim's URI for himself
14:38:48 [jeremy]
and
14:38:51 [jeremy]
http://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/card
14:39:01 [jeremy]
resolves either to N3 or RDF/XML but not HTML
14:39:18 [RalphS]
Mark: Tim's FOAF file is saying there's a pure abstraction and it's RDF
14:39:36 [RalphS]
... he appears to be saying that the only pure abstraction is RDF
14:39:49 [jeremy]
whereas http://norman.walsh.name/knows/who
14:39:52 [jeremy]
resolves to html
14:40:26 [RalphS]
Mark: if an RDF processor knows how to extract triples from a document, why should the processor care what the content type is?
14:40:35 [jeremy]
http://norman.walsh.name/knows/who#norman-walsh is hence either a part of a document
14:40:43 [jeremy]
or a non-information secondary resource
14:41:14 [Zakim]
RalphS, you wanted to correct #-less URIs
14:41:22 [benadida]
RalphS: Jeremy hit the root problem
14:41:45 [benadida]
... there's a deep philosophical difference, and this discussion has been ongoing
14:41:52 [MarkB_]
q+
14:42:12 [benadida]
... (personal hat) it's unfortunate that TAG has been annointed to determine what is correct
14:42:22 [benadida]
... it would have been better to acknowledge the debate
14:42:33 [benadida]
... httpRange 14 issue is actually not fully resolved
14:42:50 [benadida]
... not sure if they intend to fully write it up
14:43:26 [benadida]
... the 303 question is not fully explained, but this re-raised point about frag IDs, they should take up.
14:43:34 [benadida]
... we could raise this issue with the TAG
14:43:53 [benadida]
... there are 2 TFs that care about this, us and VM
14:44:16 [benadida]
... VM is trying to publish a doc that gives people Apache recipes for dealing with the 303 issue
14:44:24 [benadida]
... specifically for namespaces, not for other abstract non-information resources
14:44:35 [benadida]
... we care more about that second set of resources that are not RDF classes and properites
14:44:41 [benadida]
s/properites/properties
14:44:57 [benadida]
... how do we proceed?
14:45:24 [RalphS]
Jeremy: I think a way forward is to concentrate on the "secondary resources"
14:46:21 [RalphS]
... with the secondary resources (#frag), one can argue that the content negotiation gives you "an appropriate part of" the thing you got back but it is not necessary the same type as the primary resource
14:46:50 [RalphS]
... what we find in the primary resource if we get RDF back is a description of a secondary resource; e.g. Norm Walsh's FOAF file
14:47:16 [RalphS]
... the architectural idea that we get back a representation of the resource holds only for "primary" resources -- resources without fragment identifiers
14:47:38 [RalphS]
... what the #frag identifies is MIME-type specific
14:48:19 [RalphS]
Ralph: I think this interpretation of #frag is exactly consistent with the MIME type identifier
14:48:45 [RalphS]
Steven: what the #frag identifies is indeed MIME-type specific but do the specifications allow this to be of a different type than the primary resource?
14:48:58 [RalphS]
Jeremy: Tim's card.n3 URI is an information resource
14:49:38 [RalphS]
... but the fact that card.n3#i happens to return parts of an information resource yet can refer to a non-information resource
14:49:52 [RalphS]
... so he's relying on the MIME type to say that #i is not an information resource
14:50:56 [RalphS]
Ben: if I go to example.com/#me and example.com/ resolves to an HTML document that happens to have an ID 'me', which of these is an identifier for a Person?
14:51:49 [jeremy]
q+ to talk about consensus process on http-range-14
14:53:06 [RalphS]
Ben: whichever way the issue is resolved on #-less URIs, we can express both in RDF/A with equal ease
14:53:32 [RalphS]
Mark: so what is a #-less URI that represents a Person?
14:53:56 [RalphS]
... my understanding is that you cannot use an HTML element to represent anything other than an HTML element
14:54:06 [jeremy]
q+ to mention lastminute.com
14:55:03 [RalphS]
Mark: if the TAG is saying there is something special about HTML IDs
14:55:29 [RalphS]
... i.e. the implication is that #ID on an HTML document is fair game for something other than an HTML element
14:55:36 [RalphS]
... this I strongly disagree with
14:55:46 [RalphS]
... this seems to fly in the face of what RDF is all about
14:55:51 [RalphS]
... not a very good solution
14:56:33 [RalphS]
... if that is what they're saying then we can't do any of the tricks in RDF/A we'd like to do with fragment identifiers in about=
14:56:39 [RalphS]
... we'd have to spell out full URIs all the time
14:57:23 [jeremy]
+1 to Mark
14:57:47 [benadida]
+1 to Mark
14:57:57 [RalphS]
... it seems that they've added to everyone's triple stores the statement that a fragment identifier on an HTML resource can *only* refer to a bit of HTML
14:58:11 [RalphS]
... and this is bad
14:58:45 [RalphS]
... also, what happens if you move a document around from one server to another?
14:58:56 [RalphS]
... it seems wrong that the location of a document determines what statements you are making
14:59:15 [RalphS]
... perhaps the statements about "this" document should really be about an anonymous node
14:59:31 [RalphS]
... when you move the document around these statements continue to say the same thing
14:59:42 [jeremy]
q+ to address base issue
15:00:21 [benadida]
zakim, ack me
15:00:21 [Zakim]
I see MarkB_, jeremy on the speaker queue
15:00:57 [Zakim]
jeremy, you wanted to talk about consensus process on http-range-14 and to mention lastminute.com and to address base issue
15:01:16 [RalphS]
Jeremy: the problem of moving documents around obviously impacts RDF/XML
15:01:23 [RalphS]
... the WebOnt group encouraged the use of xml:base
15:01:52 [RalphS]
... it is conceivable that even with an unfavorable resolution of the secondary resource question we could have different base URIs for each resource
15:02:18 [RalphS]
Mark: <head about=""> on head could go with <body about="#">
15:02:38 [RalphS]
Jeremy: the empty fragment does not occur in HTML so it's fair game -- but this would be awful
15:03:10 [RalphS]
Ben: please take a look at my RSS serialization mail
15:03:33 [RalphS]
ACTION: All prepare to discuss Ben's RSS serialization case for 6 Feb telecon
15:04:24 [RalphS]
Jeremy: to get the WD published we should put in a note that identifies which sections do not have consensus
15:04:37 [RalphS]
ACTION: Ben add lack-of-consensus notes to the RDF/A Primer
15:05:26 [Zakim]
-Ralph
15:05:28 [Zakim]
-MarkB_
15:05:29 [Zakim]
-Steven
15:05:29 [Zakim]
-Ben_Adida
15:05:31 [Zakim]
-Jeremy
15:05:36 [RalphS]
rrsagent, please make this log public
15:05:57 [Steven]
rrsagent, pointer?
15:05:57 [RRSAgent]
See http://www.w3.org/2006/01/30-swbp-irc#T15-05-57
15:06:08 [RalphS]
rrsagent, please draft minutes
15:06:08 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2006/01/30-swbp-minutes.html RalphS
15:07:30 [Zakim]
SW_BPD(rdfxhtml)9:00AM has ended
15:07:31 [Zakim]
Attendees were Ralph, Ben_Adida, Jeremy, MarkB_, Steven
15:07:33 [RalphS]
rrsagent, please draft minutes
15:07:33 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2006/01/30-swbp-minutes.html RalphS
15:14:44 [RalphS]
zakim, bye
15:14:44 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #swbp
15:14:51 [RalphS]
rrsagent, bye
15:14:51 [RRSAgent]
I see 2 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/30-swbp-actions.rdf :
15:14:51 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: All prepare to discuss Ben's RSS serialization case for 6 Feb telecon [1]
15:14:51 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/30-swbp-irc#T15-03-33
15:14:51 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Ben add lack-of-consensus notes to the RDF/A Primer [2]
15:14:51 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/30-swbp-irc#T15-04-37