IRC log of tagmem on 2006-05-16

Timestamps are in UTC.

17:01:54 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #tagmem
17:01:54 [RRSAgent]
logging to
17:01:56 [Norm]
zakim, this is tag
17:01:56 [Zakim]
ok, Norm; that matches TAG_Weekly()12:30PM
17:02:03 [Norm]
zakim, who's here?
17:02:03 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Raman, [IBMCambridge], Ed_Rice, Vincent, Norm
17:02:06 [Zakim]
On IRC I see RRSAgent, Zakim, EdR, Vincent, raman, Norm, noah, DanC
17:02:08 [noah]
zakim, [IBMCambridge] is me
17:02:12 [Zakim]
17:02:12 [Norm]
zakim, [IBM is noah
17:02:14 [Zakim]
+noah; got it
17:02:18 [Zakim]
sorry, Norm, I do not recognize a party named '[IBM'
17:03:16 [Zakim]
17:03:25 [DanC]
DanC has changed the topic to: TAG 16 May; scribe: TVR; agenda:
17:03:56 [raman]
Scribe: Raman
17:04:37 [noah]
+1 to cancelling next week. I almost surely can't make it. I.e. at risk -> regrets
17:05:01 [raman]
Resolution: No Call next week
17:05:02 [DanC]
I seem to be available 30 May
17:05:16 [EdR]
I'm available next week.
17:05:20 [timbl]
timbl has joined #tagmem
17:06:00 [raman]
No call May 23, next call will be May 30
17:06:13 [raman]
Ed will be scribe for May 30 call
17:06:36 [DanC]
close enough for me
17:07:08 [raman]
Meeting minutes from last week approved
17:08:32 [DanC]
(it's not "just giving a name" to the issue; it's deciding to add something to our issues list, which is non-trivial.)
17:15:21 [timbl]
17:15:37 [raman]
Q: Should tag have a meeting in Jan in Cambridge?
17:15:43 [raman]
Dan: Yes but not strongly
17:15:45 [raman]
Ed: NO
17:15:59 [raman]
Noah: Not instead of December meeting and not unless there is sinergy
17:16:16 [raman]
Norm: TAG owes it to the community to be available to meet
17:16:20 [raman]
Raman: No
17:17:05 [raman]
Tim: Will go with anything happening in Cambridge, no strong feelings either way
17:17:24 [raman]
Vincent: Not necessarily interested in the Jan meeting.
17:18:35 [raman]
Vincent to report back to Steve that TAG is not strongly interested in a shared Jan meeting
17:20:58 [raman]
Topic: F2F Agenda
17:21:09 [raman]
Security -- Possibily on the second day.
17:21:11 [DanC]
-> draft June agenda
17:21:13 [raman]
17:21:22 [raman]
Multiple content types for the same URI
17:22:34 [raman]
Possibly continue discussion of Noah's MetaData finding
17:22:41 [raman]
Aspects of SemWeb Architecture
17:23:56 [DanC]
(indeed, "finishing a document" and "starting a document" are patterns)
17:27:23 [DanC]
(yes, I like targetting the boxes; it tends to be worth nailing those down as a group; sometimes the finding has to come first, and sometimes it can come after.)
17:28:20 [DanC]
q+ to try provoking a bit
17:28:32 [Vincent]
ack danc
17:28:32 [Zakim]
DanC, you wanted to try provoking a bit
17:29:16 [noah]
I wonder whether the versioning discussion is important to Dave at the F2F?
17:29:56 [noah]
17:31:39 [Vincent]
ack noah
17:32:57 [DanC]
(I think the connection from metadataInURI-31 to semweb arch is pretty arbitrary too.)
17:33:24 [timbl]
(Norm, when it comes to NamespaceDocument-8 , it is worth saying in lots of places that any program should basically look namespace documents up one, maybe on installation, or maybe every few months, and keep it in a persistent cache. This is so the servers (at for example) don't get drowned in just re-requests for namespace documents. has a problem wit hDTD lookups no. )
17:33:55 [Norm]
(Hmmm. I see.)
17:35:40 [DanC]
(I am profoundly uninspired when it comes to security. It seems important, but darned if I can say anything specific about it.)
17:36:51 [noah]
topic: metadatInURI-31
17:36:59 [noah]
Dated draft:
17:37:35 [DanC]
(were any reviewers assigned? I read the whole thing pretty closely. I'm tempted to say we should go thru the boxes one by one.)
17:37:48 [raman]
Topic: Noah/MetaData Finding
17:39:18 [raman]
Noah: looking for the high-order bit answer : Is this in the right direction
17:39:48 [raman]
Raman: suggest publishing after the F2F to get community feedback
17:43:06 [EdR]
Ed: Noah, I think at the 30,000ft level.. I like the format and structure and find it very clear.
17:46:56 [DanC]
(hmm... I think if I had started with the 2nd box, it might have done better. "Guess information from URIs only when the consequences of an incorrect guess are acceptable.")
17:47:10 [raman]
Reviewers for Noah's document: Raman, Ed
17:47:19 [raman]
ACTION: Vincent to send reminders
17:47:22 [DanC]
(that one is short, suite, and compelling.)
17:47:26 [raman]
Tim might also review.
17:47:31 [DanC]
17:47:43 [noah]
(Interesting: I originally had that first, and thought: gee, everyone's been so concerned that the main thought is "don't infer metadata", that I figured I better lead with that.)
17:48:15 [noah]
(I'm very sympathetic to trying to find tighter wording for that constraint. Will work on it.)
17:48:17 [DanC]
(yes, I think that one needs to go first, but it's not worded as well; it doesn't provoke immediate "yes, I agree" nor "no, I disagree" responses.)
17:48:49 [DanC]
# Issue abstractComponentRefs-37
17:48:51 [raman]
Topic: Abstract Component Refs Issue 37
17:48:52 [noah]
(sounds like a plan, I'll try and tighten it)
17:49:26 [EdR]
17:50:09 [DanC]
17:50:10 [DanC]
Can you confirm that this URI...
17:50:10 [DanC]
17:50:10 [DanC]
17:50:19 [DanC]
17:50:29 [DanC]
17:52:18 [timbl]
q+ to ask whether RDF/A would help
17:52:26 [Vincent]
ack TimBL
17:52:26 [Zakim]
timbl, you wanted to ask whether RDF/A would help
17:56:37 [raman]
by the way I have a hard stop in 4 minutes; could someone else scribe for the final 30 minutes?
17:56:54 [noah]
q+ to ask about conneg on the representations
17:59:04 [timbl]
<#wsdl.interface(SparqlQuery> rdfs:describedBy <>.
17:59:38 [DanC]
do you mean rdfs:definedBy ?
17:59:44 [raman]
On the other hand, RDF/A is the closest we have to something working in xhtml, so let's not knock it.
17:59:53 [timbl]
<#wsdl.interface(SparqlQuery)> rdfs:describedBy <>.
18:00:06 [timbl]
18:00:23 [DanC]
huh? I have tons of stuff working with GRDDL that doesn't use RDFa, raman. RDFa is much less close.
18:01:14 [raman]
need to leave
18:01:19 [Zakim]
18:01:23 [noah]
Are we losing our scribe?
18:01:26 [timbl]
18:01:49 [Norm]
ScribeNick: Norm
18:02:03 [Norm]
Norm becomes scribe
18:03:02 [Norm]
Some discussion of relative merits of "a href" and "rdfs:seeAlso"
18:03:25 [Norm]
timbl: For a machine that's "seeAlso aware", the namespace document is useful
18:03:31 [noah]
TBL: I'm hoping the TAG will eventually set out guidance on which things, like rdfs:see also, a machine should follow
18:03:45 [Norm]
danc: What sort of machine are we talking about? The consumer of .wsdl is a web services toolkits.
18:04:03 [Norm]
DanC: They could be taught to follow see also links, but I'm not sure what the value would be.
18:04:06 [Vincent]
ack noah
18:04:06 [Zakim]
noah, you wanted to ask about conneg on the representations
18:05:58 [Norm]
noah: We could start with a RDDL document and later add RDF with conneg.
18:06:20 [Norm]
noah: That led to a discussion of whether or not conneg should be used to serve alternate formats.
18:06:40 [Norm]
noah: But these are secondary resources and I'm not sure we have a good story for talking about links with fragids in this context.
18:06:54 [Norm]
noah: Does the link with fragid represent the same thing if RDF and HTML are conneg'd?
18:06:58 [Norm]
noah: I'm not sure we ever decided that.
18:07:26 [Norm]
DanC: Yes, that's the state of play, and we have the same problem in other areas, like QT functions and operators.
18:07:37 [Norm]
noah: I think I'd like the answer to be "yes" for better or worse.
18:07:58 [Norm]
noah: We've established '#'s for some things and they're out in the wild so they better work.
18:08:17 [Norm]
noah: I think if I want a prose explanation I should be able to get that and if I want an RDF explanation, I should be able to get that too.
18:08:58 [Norm]
timbl: What's the relationship between the pieces
18:09:01 [DanC]
(I'd like a name for the analog of 404 in #-space... when you get a representation and it has nothing matching that fragment. Anybody got a suggestion? unbound fragment ref?)
18:09:15 [Norm]
noah: For the Schema data types, you can have <baseuri>#integer, <baseuri>#double, etc.
18:09:30 [Norm]
noah: I don't think we have complete closure about what's identified by <baseuri>
18:09:54 [Norm]
noah: I take it as an abstraction for the namespace. The things that seem like documents are representations of that resource, I think.
18:10:08 [Norm]
noah: I believe timbl's position is that the <baseuri> refers to the document-ey thing I get back.
18:10:24 [DanC]
(I think the 2 positions noah are describing aren't observably distinguishable.)
18:10:30 [Norm]
timbl: There's a pun in URIs used for two things; syntactically it's used as the prefix. But by itself it identifies the namespace document.
18:10:45 [Norm]
timbl: I think information resources always identify documents.
18:10:58 [Norm]
DanC: I didn't think that's where we landed.
18:11:34 [Norm]
timbl: Representations are the actual bitstreams. If the resource is a list of things, I'm happy to have the list in different orders if they're unordered.
18:11:41 [DanC]
what timbl actually said was "... I use information resource only for things that have a beginning, middle and end"
18:11:59 [DanC]
and I meant to ask "really? that doesn't sound like things that can be posted to."
18:12:16 [Norm]
Thanks for the correction, DanC
18:13:03 [Norm]
noah: The resource is the potentially infinite collection.
18:13:54 [Norm]
timbl: (reference to information theory) when you look this thing up, you're going to be more informed. An information resource to me is that information, not the subject of the information.
18:14:16 [Norm]
noah: would it be reasonable for me to define a resource which is all the square roots of all the integers.
18:14:29 [Norm]
noah: blah-blah-blah#144 refers to the number 12.
18:14:47 [Norm]
noah: Or "/", I'm just talking about the infiniteness of the set.
18:14:58 [Norm]
noah: One representation si a java program that computs the squre roots
18:15:19 [Norm]
timbl: For me, a representation is a string of bits and some metadata. What you get in http.
18:15:33 [Norm]
timbl: Those bits, in the given language convey the information that was the information resource.
18:15:56 [Norm]
noah: If the table wasn't infinite; if it was the square roots of the first 100 integers. I could then just give you an HTML page that conveyed it as a table.
18:16:25 [Norm]
timbl: No. The representation of the set must have a different URI. An information resource isn't a set of numbers.
18:16:41 [Norm]
timbl: The statement that the set contains these numbers is an information resource, but that's distinct from the set.
18:16:57 [Norm]
noah: I would have thought they could be conveyed as information.
18:17:19 [Norm]
timbl: We played with the words a lot
18:17:38 [DanC]
(where timbl says "it's improtant to distinguish between the set of numbers and the description of it", I'm not yet convinced. I agree that you _can_ distinguish, but I don't know why it's important to.)
18:18:45 [Norm]
timbl: It's not coherent not to distinguish between them.
18:19:37 [Norm]
noah: I want to distinguish them, but I think they're both information resources.
18:19:58 [Norm]
noah: What I hear timbl saying is that the only one I'm happy to call an information resource are the ones that are documenty
18:20:29 [Norm]
timbl: It's really important because the web is about communication and when I give you a URI I expect you to be able to get information with that URI.
18:21:30 [Norm]
noah: If you ask people what a namespace is, I don't think they'll say "document". It's more set like.
18:21:57 [Norm]
noah: Once we say "I've got that" now at some level, by the time we get to representations, everyone agrees that what we get is a document.
18:22:29 [Norm]
noah: The problem is that given a namespace in my left hand, there are lots of different kinds of documents that I might like to write; in RDF, in HTML, in English, in French, etc.
18:23:00 [Norm]
noah: But that leaves us in the position of asking what is the fundamental document that the namespace URI names (because I have to pick one). But then we trip over how one is a representation of the other.
18:23:09 [DanC]
(I find timbl's position mildly more appealing, but the argument seems to be by assertion. It's maybe good enough to convince me, but it's not at all good enough for me to take and convince other people.)
18:23:16 [Norm]
noah: What's really fundamental is the set; how can we use webarch to say that that is on the web?
18:23:36 [Norm]
timbl: we could make it clearer by having a 303 response.
18:24:24 [Norm]
timbl: As a result, the only thing that's identified by the URI is some collection of documents.
18:24:56 [Norm]
timbl: It's not neat and tidy, but none of the processes that get the URI really need the abstraction.
18:25:06 [Norm]
noah: I could say that I control that namespace, yes?
18:25:25 [Norm]
timbl: Yes, you can talk about the document, but they all use the DC namespace to talk about how they're managed.
18:25:37 [Norm]
Scribe isn't sure he captured that
18:26:10 [Norm]
timbl: We don't have a way in rdf of saying that this property is in a namespace; we don't have the concept of a namespace.
18:26:18 [Norm]
timbl: The namespace concept is only used in common parlance.
18:26:52 [Norm]
Norm isn't sure that the fact that RDF doesn't need the concept means the concept isn't useful.
18:27:02 [noah]
Hmm. So if the URI with no sharp sign is for "the document(s) about the namespace", as opposed to the set of names, then maybe to talk about the set you need:
18:27:43 [Norm]
Vincent: DanC did you have a goal in mind?
18:28:02 [Norm]
DanC: Yes, that one of the documents would say that the SPARQL example is good or not.
18:28:17 [noah]
Well, I guess what I'm hung up on is that in practical terms, the namespace is an important thing. People talk about namespaces all the time. If we don't have a simple, first class way to give a Web name (I.e. URI) to the namespace itself, it seems we've lost something important.
18:28:21 [Norm]
vincent: I don't think we can go further today.
18:28:33 [noah]
Fodder for the F2F?
18:30:28 [Norm]
Noah: We don't have a clean simple story about what a namespace URI identifies that avoids a 20 minute discussion
18:31:09 [Norm]
Norm: I share Noah's concerns about the practicality
18:31:26 [Norm]
vincent: I'll plan to schedule discussion about abstractComponentRefs again when Dave is present.
18:32:01 [Zakim]
18:32:01 [Norm]
Vincent: Adjourned
18:32:02 [Zakim]
18:32:03 [Zakim]
18:32:04 [Zakim]
18:32:06 [Zakim]
18:32:12 [Norm]
rrsagent, set logs world-visible
18:32:18 [Norm]
rrsagent, draft minutes
18:32:18 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Norm
18:32:28 [timbl]
I note that DanC's point was different form Noah's. Dan C seemed to be asking whether something could be a set of names and alos a document. Noah and Tim seemed to agree that the set of terms and the document were distinct things, and just differ in which they were suggestsing was names by the NSURI.
18:33:01 [DanC]
I'm not interested to persue that point any more, fyi.
18:33:11 [DanC]
" whether something could be a set of names and alos a document"
18:33:15 [DanC]
18:33:22 [DanC]
well, maybe. I don't advocate it, in any case.
18:34:01 [DanC]
There's a clear-and-present question in the semweb best practices WG: can a wordnet word (synset) be an information resource?
18:34:07 [EdR]
RRSAgent, make logs public
18:34:31 [EdR]
Zakim, list participants
18:34:31 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been Raman, Ed_Rice, Vincent, Norm, DanC, noah, TimBL
18:34:49 [EdR]
RRSAgent, generate minutes
18:34:49 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate EdR
18:35:26 [DanC]
I tried to explain to them that </TR/webarch> log:notIncludes { InformationResource disjointWith WordNetWord }. but not matter what I wrote, they read positions from me, not clarifications on webarch, so I have stopped.
18:36:34 [DanC]
anybody interested to take this question to #swig?
18:36:42 [DanC]
timbl, by chance? ndw?
18:37:07 [Zakim]
disconnecting the lone participant, TimBL, in TAG_Weekly()12:30PM
18:37:09 [Zakim]
TAG_Weekly()12:30PM has ended
18:37:10 [Zakim]
Attendees were Raman, Ed_Rice, Vincent, Norm, DanC, noah, TimBL
18:38:00 [Norm]
How do you want to take that to #swig?
18:38:39 [DanC]
by "this question" I mean: { InformationResource disjointWith WordNetWord }
18:39:24 [DanC]
by disjointWith, I mean owl:disjointWith, i.e. the concept you learned in grade school...
18:39:57 [Norm]
DanC, the prevailing opinion in SWIG is that information resources and wordnet words *are* disjoint?
18:40:41 [DanC]
opinions seem to vary wildly
18:40:46 [Norm]
18:41:02 [Norm]
But your position is that webarch does not say that they are disjoint, yes?
18:41:35 [DanC]
yes; in fact, I'd rather not call that my opinion; it's a pretty readily-available fact.
18:41:48 [Norm]
18:41:57 [Norm]
Well, if you try, I'll attempt to back you up. How's that?
18:42:11 [DanC]
we'll see...
20:09:23 [Norm]
Norm has joined #tagmem
21:15:05 [raman]
raman has left #tagmem
23:29:06 [timbl]
timbl has joined #tagmem