13:50:58 RRSAgent has joined #tagmem 13:50:58 logging to http://www.w3.org/2007/03/06-tagmem-irc 13:52:47 Zakim has joined #tagmem 13:52:56 zakim, this is tag 13:52:56 Stuart, I see TAG_f2f()9:00AM in the schedule but not yet started. Perhaps you mean "this will be tag". 13:53:59 DanC_lap has joined #tagmem 13:55:07 I will be there in 6 minutes :-) 13:55:40 timbl has joined #tagmem 13:55:40 ht, am in the boardroom already -- 14:08:10 apologies; I'm detained for a few minutes... 14:08:25 eta? 14:09:10 Vincent has joined #tagmem 14:10:14 Noah has joined #tagmem 14:10:56 scribenick rhys 14:11:10 scribenick: rhys 14:11:29 Zakim? 14:11:44 Zakim, what conference will this be? 14:11:44 I don't understand your question, timbl. 14:11:46 topic: agenda review 14:12:05 stuart reviews the agenda 14:12:46 noah points out that dave won't be available until later and suggests that we do Henry's item first 14:13:46 Stuart describes the work he's done trying to organise themes for the tag and reviewing the issues list 14:14:57 TVR we might want to finish a little later today than tomorrow 14:15:19 SW That is the plan. 14:16:01 TimBL we should remember that we've had a year of doing rather fragmented things and we should try and be more focussed on getting text out and pulling things together. 14:17:32 Topic: Administrivia 14:17:57 Regrets from Dave Orchard but hoping to be here via phone/shared whiteboard 14:18:13 Regrets also from Ed Rice 14:18:50 DanC_lap has changed the topic to: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2007/03/06-agenda 14:20:00 Topic: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2005Jun/0039.html 14:20:41 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2007Feb/0029.html 14:22:07 Minutes duely approved 14:22:21 Topic: Administrivia 14:23:52 SW proposal for next face to face is May 30 to Jun 1 14:24:02 " I propose that 14:24:02 we schedule our next F2F meeting 30th May-1st June 2007 in the San 14:24:02 Francisco Bay Area with apologies to Henry." 14:25:40 TVR has volunteered to host 14:26:36 TVR would like to confirm today to be able to sort logistics 14:27:39 NM points out that there are limits on flights from SF eastwards for US and Europe 14:28:09 SW points out that earlier in the week is difficult because of public holidays 14:28:31 HT points out that he has a family conflict but may well be able to attend 14:28:45 TVR asks whether we need 3 days for the meeting or not 14:29:28 NM we need to be able to resolve this now because of flight bookings 14:30:13 There is some willingness for some people to stay longer 14:33:47 Norm has joined #tagmem 14:33:47 ndw_ has joined #tagmem 14:35:38 Stuart proposes the 30th to the 1st 14:36:07 2.5 days works for me 14:36:08 Discussion about the availability of flights. Proposal to start as early as possible to get the most value from the third day 14:36:51 Flight AA194 14:36:51 TVR points out that it is easy to start at 8 and that we can have breakfast during the meeting 14:37:02 AA194 1410--2245 14:37:06 No dissent 14:37:12 SFO-BOS 14:37:22 Resolved to meet May 30th to June 1st 14:37:28 half day on 1 Jun 14:37:44 NW What about dates beyond that 14:38:14 SW TimBL has proposed a two day meeting in Southampton in September 14:38:44 SW Dave has a preference to avoid the Monday 14:39:02 TimBL I have a meeting that is scheduled for the Wednesday. I could look at it. 14:39:16 SW we'll come back to that one 14:40:47 SW reviews notes taken during calls with TAG members. Suggests using this as a basis for reflection. 14:41:04 SW invites Henry to comment on recent peer to peer meeting 14:41:42 HT Peer to peer has come up a number of times in previous discussions about TAG work 14:42:11 HT Similar questions to web services. Is peer to peer part of the web. Does webarch need to be changed to accomodate it 14:42:44 HT maybe its outside the web. I don't have a particular opinion on this. 14:42:50 q+ to sy that lookibg at things on the fri nges of web acrh is important, and very much support P2P as a topic. 14:43:24 HT invite to MS cambridge was because they are doing lots of things around peer to peer and they would like to know the answer to that question too 14:43:45 HT which aspects of the Old Fashioned Web are appropriate for peer to peer 14:44:22 TVR Looking at lots of things like bit torrent and others, the mechansims are outside the web, but the discovery and publishing is via HTTP 14:44:53 NM That suggests that we do have a role in aspects of peer to peer. 14:45:08 q+ to agree with TVR that p2p is orthogonal to some point, with 2 exceptions: (1) naming, (2) who gets to say what's the right answer to a get/fetch 14:45:50 TimBL We do have a role in looking for the potential cracks between different aspects. Supports doing things on the fringes. Supports the idea of doing peer to peer specifically. 14:45:59 Rhys, please write: 14:46:03 TimBL: We do have a role... 14:46:19 the tools will help more if you put the colon in there 14:46:35 q? 14:46:58 TimBL: HTML should go in a peer to peer direction. 14:47:15 s/HTML should go/HTTP should go/ 14:47:35 NM: I want the links to work as expected. I don't expect to need to supply information about the user agent to use 14:47:56 q+ 14:48:11 q? 14:48:15 http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/p2p_notes.html 14:48:36 SW: I didn't keep a close eye on the queue. Please prompt me 14:48:51 Topic: Peer-to-Peer 14:48:53 ack danc 14:48:53 DanC_lap, you wanted to agree with TVR that p2p is orthogonal to some point, with 2 exceptions: (1) naming, (2) who gets to say what's the right answer to a get/fetch 14:49:20 ack timbl 14:49:20 timbl, you wanted to sy that lookibg at things on the fri nges of web acrh is important, and very much support P2P as a topic. 14:49:46 q- 14:50:31 ack Vincent 14:50:43 DC: where it interacts with web architecture are naming who gets to say what the answer is when you do a fetch 14:51:32 VQ not only can you discover what you want on peer to peer, but also there can be web-based interaction to perform additional function while you are accessing the peer to peer content 14:51:44 s/VQ/VQ:/ 14:52:33 VQ: Boundary between peer to peer and web is more difficult to establish than for, say, bit torrent. Streamed TV is a good example. 14:53:55 HT: These are my notes of meetings with individuals. Goes through them 14:54:56 re uplink bandwidth... and universities... NAT vs IPV6? 14:56:51 HT: No, NAT is not an issue, it is uplink bw 14:57:11 HT: p2p needs to be more like the OFW with respect to proxies, chunking. There are special purpose proxies that capture and redistribute content. 14:57:27 OFW = Old-Fashioned Web, it seems 14:57:28 HT: encryption defeats this. 14:57:44 hmm... encryption... again, IPV6 gets in the way? 14:58:16 HT: Lot's of metadata, but not standardised, so can't be shared. No interest in sharing metadata 14:58:27 TVR: Privacy is one reason why this doesn't happen 14:59:05 HT: p2p support is built in to Windows XP and later 14:59:36 HT: There are legitimate reasons for encryption, beyond hiding the fact that copyright material is being exchanged 15:00:02 SW: The industry might want to protect its content by encryption 15:00:41 TimBL: This happened in the satellite industry when uplinks used to be in the clear. Once peopole discovered how to access the feeds, encryption was used to protect them 15:01:50 HT: There are security issues during legitimate p2p. There are possible attacks, including DoS. 15:02:32 the name "sybil" attack makes sense to me, in the context of "Sally Field gives an outstanding award-winning performance as Sybil, a disturbed young woman who suffers from multiple personality behavior." http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1800124802/info 15:03:16 HT: There are multiple ways of structuring torrents, including ones based on random numbers 15:03:30 TimBL Akamai works in a similar way 15:04:48 HT: Clients can be download only, which is antisocial 15:05:03 TimBL: But some places don't have the bandwidth for upload 15:05:15 ("the venice project" and "joost" are synonyms in my brain. Am I conflating distinct things?) 15:05:32 HT: That is one of the issues with the Venice project. 15:05:56 VQ: It's 300 megabytes per hour, which is ok within regular ADSL 15:06:13 HT: Admits a misunderstanding on the numbers 15:07:07 HT: Hashes are an issue for security on p2p 15:08:09 q? 15:08:10 DanC: Elaborates that old PCs can be employed for collaborating in caching 15:08:31 TimBL: This works for particular communities 15:08:53 DanC: LOCKSS Lots of Copies Keeps Stuff Safe 15:09:17 DanC: LOCKSS is operations research. How to do the caching with low maintenance 15:10:10 The whole desigtn assumes that a set of agents are collaborating to gain the benefit of sharing resources, but this sort of things tends not to work for one global comunity including very diverse people, like teens and libraries. I have not seen systems which make communities first class objects with explict commitment and membership. 15:10:17 HT: LOCKSS assumes that noone is doing the sybil attack and reducing the value 15:11:34 Mentioning Oceanstore (http://oceanstore.cs.berkeley.edu/). Seems similar insofar as it's (I think) a giant peer-to-peer store in the sky, similar in that it has some sort of Byzantine agreement rather than central admin, different (I think) in that it's not fundamentally a front end to the Web, but a store of its own. You know when you're putting things into Oceanstore. All this is based on my vague recollections of what I heard about the project. 15:11:45 HT: Last block problem is that most people who are downloading anything obscure are also downloading it. Most don't have all of the file you want. Not last chronologically, the last that completes the file for you. 15:12:47 HT: There is a solution based not on the blocks that you have, but on linear combinations 15:13:05 NM: It's spread spectrum for p2p 15:13:48 HT: There is no way to request a range from current cache implementations. It's in HTTP 1.1, but implementations don't (?) 15:14:16 HT: Could be useful to be able to query cache metadata. 15:14:33 SW: interesting concept for something that is meant to be transparent 15:14:48 TVR: Could be that there is no way to query what is in the cache 15:15:10 HT: No way to identify specific blocks within a file 15:15:43 TVR: Donkey (?) does use URNs for identifying blocks. 15:16:01 HT: eMule is similar 15:16:22 TVR: This has been working well for a few years 15:17:02 TimBL: HTTP URIs have an owner you can go back to, and this is useful. It would be nice to have a p2p system that supports the social system where people own URIS 15:18:27 TVR: It's possible for multiple versions of a resource to differ very slightly differently but by using the MD5 hash as a block identifier, you can still get the right block 15:19:26 NM: In certain contexts, MD5 is a tradeoff. 15:20:18 HT: p2p and HTTP get are both pull mechanisms. Should be able to have them cooperate. 15:20:52 HT: If blocks had names, then an HTTP get would be able to retrieve blocks. 15:21:53 HT: If it's not in the cache, the name must be able to let the cache locate the data necessary 15:22:25 HT: Could traditional caches be elaborated to switch into p2p mode for some set of names at least 15:22:49 q+ ramin 15:23:05 HT: Need to be able to do the equivalent of virtual hosting to host things that you don't own. Looks like that is not currently possible because of NAT and port 80 limits 15:23:15 ack ramin 15:23:33 q+ to suggest refereer caching 15:23:37 TVR: Could envisage a world where p2p is actually the way that the internet works. 15:23:47 s/refereer/referrer/ 15:23:59 HT: that is the way some people would like to see things develop 15:24:29 DanC: What about the point Tim raised about community 15:24:31 dorchard has joined #tagmem 15:25:08 TVR: If you let the p2p graph technology do its thing, you get the caching for free 15:25:32 ok 15:25:38 SW: We've gone quite deep 15:26:15 HT: One line left - Apache already have a module to convert HTTP get of very large files into p2p 15:26:18 we'll be there in a moment david 15:26:55 TimBL: I've heard that there is an extension that will fall back to something like bit torrent for large files 15:27:23 HT: So not just a server side component but also needs a piece in the client too 15:27:55 what kind of protocol operation do they use to get chunks of the file? 15:28:35 TimBL: Assumption is that the only place to look for the missing pieces is the community of people who are also looking for the same stuff 15:29:02 TimBL: I'd be interested in solutions based on the hypertext graph 15:30:35 Secifically, that if a n HTTP request fails then one can try the referer as a nexttry, for caching or seeding or metadaata leading to these. 15:30:42 SW: I'd like to go through the notes I had from discussing things with the TAG members. 15:31:14 Topic: New Members, Charter Review, Purpose and Direction 15:31:47 SW: Technical Agenda - desire to get long standing issues finished. 15:32:34 SW: Big topics - extensibility and versioning, tag soup integration, mixed languages composition 15:33:10 SW: Semantic web, web services (one web or two), mobile, 15:34:00 SW: Comment on tag soup situation persisting could be damaging to the web/w3C. One way of addressing this might be a set of best practice guides, if authored quickly 15:34:43 SW: We will make things easier if there is a clear focus and direction 15:35:51 SW: is TAG role to get ahead of the game or clear up the issues left by work of other groups 15:36:39 SW: Last time, the AWWW was the 'drum beat' for TAG work. Is there another rec track item that could provide that again? 15:37:31 SW: Not clear that TAG findings have an impact. Are we being ignored? 15:37:40 thanks, stuart, for doing the rounds of calls. 15:38:25 SW: Should we be concensus driven, and is this barring us from being controversial? 15:38:49 HT: Don't remember being held up by the need for concensus 15:39:32 NM: Could be that more recently there has not been so much of an issue 15:40:15 SW: Like the consensus approach and thinks its viable for such a small group 15:40:33 SW: invites comments about TAG going forward 15:41:02 TVR: Want to see more findings and communicating what we do to a wider audience 15:43:08 NW: Would like to see more focus and is optimistic about how things may go 15:44:26 NM: We're much closer to having some happy goal than 2 years ago. Worth trying, but we shouldn't force a new goal where it's not ready to be done. 15:44:56 NM: If setting a big goal helps us get individual items done, that's great 15:45:18 NM: It's ok to be a bit ahead, or a bit behind, but shouldn't be too far 15:46:04 NM: We are the architecture group, and part of our role is to highlight architectural principles to people 15:46:21 NM: Should keep looking for architecture 15:47:55 HT: Hard to find out what the TAG is working on and why it's important 15:48:12 (re "what's hot", I'm interested in a 'planet tag' blog aggregator) 15:49:39 HT: There are two documents on which I'm blocked. Mode of operation has been to assign findings to specific people and the rest review. We should change to behaving more like a working group for at least some findings. 15:50:02 TVR: Agrees 15:50:07 NM: Agrees 15:50:22 Other people indicated agreement 15:51:35 DanC: Language evolution stuff is particularly interesting and appropriate for the TAG 15:51:38 I think it's not just more links on our home page, I think we could do a home page that really is a gateway for people learning about Web architecture and about what we as a group do. It should be a destination that, for certain purposes, people seek out. 15:51:53 Right now, I think it's a necessary evil to get through it on the way to some bit of information. 15:52:06 Who knows, maybe there's a Web Arch web site as well as a Web Arch finding? 15:52:50 The other problem in explaining TAG work is that thanks to our date-based URI scheme (which i dislike immensely) everything we do looks like it was done in 2001. 15:52:52 VQ: Need more help for people to find out what we are doing and what's important. We don't expect the entire community to be directly interested in our work. TAG is mainly focused on W3C working groups 15:53:18 I actually got asked this with respect to the finding I authored last year for example -- gist: "this looks like something from 2001, " 15:53:21 VQ: Not sure what our public face should be and it involves work 15:54:01 Raman, I think if we have the right Web site, fewer people will be looking at the URIs, and more will be working through, e.g. our page on naming or identifying things on the Web. That could give high level tuturial, with links to the finding in context. We could have a page on XML-related issues, etc. 15:54:09 VQ: We have too many individual issues open and it's hard to prioritise and then get the momentum for progress 15:55:25 (hmm... do I hear that the TAG wants to design a web site? oh my. let's make a rock band instead. the politics are simpler.) 15:55:32 VQ: Maybe it is time to look at another rec track document. Gives a single document whose progress can be followed. 15:56:47 DO: Lots of the comments were interesting and appropriate. I've been working on three findings currently. Hoping to finish two of those by the end of my TAG stint 15:57:32 DO: Would like the TAG to be slightly ahead and slightly behind in specific areas, as Noah said. 15:58:13 I think I'm feeling the TAG should be somewhat ahead, perhaps significantly ahead on core architectural issues, generally "behind" in helping to notice the architectural implications gleaned from codifying good practice. 15:58:33 DO: Peer to peer, wireless etc, are potential areas where we could be a bit ahead. Doing some findings in more of a WG style is also a good idea. 15:59:31 DO: Some findings are potentially very large topics and so there are lots of ways to go with a finding. That can imply a very different audience for the finding. 16:00:04 DO: Leads to churn in documents as potential audience changes. 16:00:16 (another point, re wider and wider audiences, is that in an attempt to please everybody, the document becomes mediocre for everybody and excellent for noone) 16:00:33 DO: Need to get back into the mode of writing and reviewing more regularly 16:01:05 TAG blog -> TAG wiki :-) 16:01:25 TimBL: Endorse lots of the comments about getting the message out, Brochure + Blog could satisfy this kind of thing. Brochure why important, blog for what's hot 16:01:49 (I tried to get the TAG to use a wiki in the beginning. maybe the time is right now? I'd sure like to try semantic mediawiki) 16:02:19 TimBL: We used to work on classification of the issues. We seem to have lost that. Defining the relationships will also help us get on the same page. 16:03:01 TimBL: One of the most important things we do is to pull together the bits of work done within W3C and between W3C and OMA - Quilt analogy, but more than 2D 16:04:09 TimBL: It's time for work on the Semantic Web. Because it's more rigorously defined there is a stronger framework in which to ask and answer the questions. 16:05:07 TimBL: Socially, I find it difficult to know how much to push for things and how much to sit back. Actually, same for everyone. 16:05:46 TimBL: Think the group has worked well, and that that is likely to continue. 16:06:51 TimBL: Hope I can convince the group that if we do Semantic web, I can convince the group that semantic web is an important piece of work for the TAG 16:07:24 TVR: Would like to try and get a stucture/classification to help Stuart 16:07:45 break 'till xx:25 16:08:43 NM: Advocates continuing this discussion after a break, perhaps tomorrow. 16:20:46 Dave... if you are there joining the virtual room might be help full https://www.rooms.hp.com/attend/default.aspx?key=EHLACVJXJ5 16:21:08 Others.... you should be able to join too. 16:28:12 Topic: Issues list 16:28:49 SW: Projects the issues list. 16:28:56 (TVR, I think your idea of talking about a table of contents for a document is a good one to mix into this discussion of the issues list) 16:29:46 SW: The issues list is long and it was hard to reconstruct the context. Took the dates of last discussion to try and identify those that were 'fallow' 16:30:38 TVR: Even as we look at the list, where things are marked as complete, we should review whether or not the results have been disseminated appropriately 16:31:07 TVR: There are documents hanging around in findings, but no context. 16:31:42 TimBL: Is there some pointer to 'what should I read to find the best information on a particular topic'. 16:32:28 DanC: We've also had the situation where we had made a decision but that we knew we had not connected with the appropriate community 16:32:41 DanC: What would be the desired outcome? 16:33:05 TVR: I'd like people to be able to find the information via, say, a Google search 16:33:28 DanC: Do you know how the community would formulate the query? 16:33:59 TVR: Not sure, but it seems that the TAG is the last place the community would look 16:34:39 NM: What about 'Architecture the Web Site'. More outreach. Maybe based on the AWWW document. 16:35:40 NM: If it were done well, could be every reason for the community to visit it. 16:36:42 TimBL: The DIG group web site and the WSRI web site could be linked. It's a new site so could take advice from the TAG. 16:37:33 NM: we should have a better web site for the TAG 16:37:54 NM: We should also have a site that is about the web architecture. 16:38:29 TimBL: Making our web presence Architecture not TAG is right. 16:39:07 TVR: We're coming at the same thing from two directions. We were talking about a compendium before the break and a site now. I view these as the same. 16:40:00 SW: Returning to the issues list, I also 'tagged' the items with 'themes' 16:40:22 TVR: Should we discuss the ones that are active? 16:40:48 SW: That's where I'm going. (Reviews the list and points out the catagorisation) 16:41:15 TimBL: Inactive in the list means what? 16:41:32 SW: We don't appear to have done anything substantial recently. 16:42:34 SW: It looks like new issues get a lot of discussion. 16:42:51 TVR: Also looks like older things sometimes morph into something else 16:44:21 TimBL: The AWWW document work helped us concentrate on getting the appropriate items moved on 16:45:40 TVR projects an editor buffer ready to create a table of contents to guide structure of TAG work 16:46:08 Group editing ensues 16:47:42 I don't see the doc :-( 16:49:27 NM: are we trying to make a TOC that would make sense to a reader, or a way to organise our work 16:49:37 TVR: The former 16:50:48 NM: It looks to me more like the latter. Readers need a different organisation 16:51:26 TimBL: I suspect that we'll find that the TOC this time around will look a lot like we had last time 16:52:16 TimBL: If we find that we can allocate section numbers from the existing AWWW then we should decide to do a version 2 of that document 16:53:19 NM: I agree. 16:55:27 HT: where is our defence of http the scheme fit? 16:56:42 HT: We have a draft finding called URN's and registries, which has become use http:. 16:57:17 TVR adds it to the section on Naming. 16:57:53 SW: Is there a major topic on applications? 16:57:59 NM: I agree 16:58:21 SW: That includes things like how to define URIs 16:59:36 s/define URIs/define URI spaces/ 16:59:57 TVR: There is a piece of this about making restful sites etc. 17:00:44 TVR: We could do this based on some existing application, like one from Google where these things are considered during design. 17:01:22 NM: We seem don't seem to be saying anyting about futures here. 17:03:07 TVR: I disagree that all we are only talking about is the 'old web'. The same old issues apply to new usages 17:04:29 TAG needs to produce youTube videos? 17:05:04 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gmP4nk0EOE&eurl= 17:06:48 TimBL: On the whiteboard I've tried out a way of organising topics algorithmically. It is the upper half of an n-dimensional matrix 17:07:03 DanC: It's a good QA check 17:07:20 TVR: where does security come up 17:07:54 DO: It comes up everywhere. People encode information in payload to ensure it's secure 17:09:08 1. URI 17:09:14 2 HTTP 17:09:19 2.1 HTTP URI 17:09:20 DanC: This cross cutting idea could be a way to deal with volume 2. Includes mobile, security, accessibility, internationalisation, 17:09:24 etc 17:09:32 TVR adds a new section to the TOC 17:10:11 NM: Suggests that there is an opportunity to look at use cases 17:10:48 DanC: Can we include massive interactive on-line games 17:13:21 TVR e-mails the current view of the TOC to the TAG list 17:14:54 TVR: One way to slice this would be to use the cross cutting chapter as the applications chapter 17:15:38 TVR: Could also pick a concrete application and discuss the issues in that context 17:16:29 TVR: It's like turning it upside down. 17:16:44 SW: Can we place the issues into the TOC? 17:17:01 TVR: I'd be happy to try and do that 17:17:15 Placing issues within the TOC ensues 17:18:42 HT: We need to remember that for particular communities the issues we have are the most important things that they are worrying about 17:24:24 NM: Should we have sections that address concepts that people actually regularly use, like site, document etc. 17:25:50 TVR: I asked a question about whether we are dealing with dynamic applications. With Web 2.0, the retrieved representation changes over time - the 'loading ...' example for a page being created dynamically 17:27:36 HT: I found that there wasn't a term for the thing that the user agent represents and the user interacts with 17:27:56 RL points out that there are some definitions that are in the DI Glossary 17:28:20 HT: That could be useful, but these are things that need to be in the Web arch glossary 17:28:41 Group adds a number of independencies as cross cutting concerns. 17:29:37 DanC: I was thinking about agents for change and dampers on change as cross cutting concerns 17:30:55 SW: Can we get a list of those that are teetering on the brink of completion 17:31:54 toc23.html is on the Web site, will need the readable bit set. 17:32:37 DanC, could you set the perms bit? 17:32:49 will do... 17:33:08 Zakim has left #tagmem 17:33:09 SW: What do we do with the TOC next? 17:33:31 fyi, Raman , you can set the ACL yourself at http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/toc23.html,access 17:33:36 RL: Hanging the issue list items into the toc seems like a good next step 17:33:58 there. it's 200 now. 17:34:46 TVR: How about Stuart and I working on proposals about where to hang the open, active issues within the TOC 17:48:00 timbl_ has joined #tagmem 18:24:54 DanC_lap has joined #tagmem 18:35:06 http://www.amazon.com/Master-Commander-Side-World-Widescreen/dp/B0001HLVS2/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-1903036-8371356?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1173205978&sr=1-1 18:37:13 Topic: Self-describing web 18:37:18 ScribeNick: DanC_lap 18:38:30 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/selfDescribingDocuments.html 18:39:26 NM recaps history of "self-describing web" discussion in the TAG back to EDI 1.5years ago 18:40:29 NM: punch line: simple story about self-description... 18:40:40 ... you always need some rules to interpret something... 18:40:53 ... even with paper documents, there's the alphabet, left-to-right conventions, ... 18:41:35 ... and that way, what the author intended gets conveyed. [?] 18:42:38 ... then, focussing on the web, since communication is not just point-to-point, but where readers are encouraged to explore documents not written specifically to them... 18:43:25 ... if the contents of the web aren't we labelled, we don't communicate well. 18:43:56 NM: Then I was talking with Dan, and he said "yes, that's the simple part, but the more interestinig bit is dynamically picking up new terms via URIs" 18:44:38 q+ to suggest that the self-descibing document is one part of the architecture story which is a mapping from URI to intehet. It is the part in which the representation relates to intent. What is specifically interesting is the way you can boostrap yourself into find the necessary stuff indirectly eg through namespace document lookup. 18:44:55 q+ rmin 18:44:56 NM: so now... we could pick over the text, but perhaps it's better to review goals: what does "self-describing web" mean to various tag members? 18:44:59 q+ david 18:45:05 q+ raman 18:45:15 q- rmin 18:45:16 q+ to review goals and talk about dereferencing and how much is inline vs outofline 18:45:19 q? 18:45:33 Zakim has joined #tagmem 18:45:37 NM: [something connected to xmlFunctions that I missed] 18:45:44 Queue = danc, timbl, raman, dvido 18:45:58 Queue= danc, timbl, raman, davido 18:46:25 NM: then I heard from tim... [ rdf... owl ...] 18:47:03 ... and one sense of self-describing web is to extract RDF from XML and HTML, a la GRDDL. [?] 18:47:29 q+ timbl-sw to say getting triples is half the story: then the self-describing nature of triples is a very interesting second part. 18:47:46 ack danc 18:47:52 q+ to say that limit to machine readability/follow-your-nose -- not "communicate to human" 18:47:55 q+ to mention "follow your nose" 18:49:41 ack timbl 18:50:14 DanC: there's (1) the case for standards, and (2) the story of how to introduce a new format, using widely-deployed html/http/uris + natural-language + programming languages 18:51:12 TimBL: we told a story in webarch about how to get from a URI thru the stack of specs, to what the URI refers to 18:51:33 replay: 18:51:33 [13:44] q+ to suggest that the self-descibing document is one part of the architecture story which is a mapping from URI to intehet. It is the part in which the representation relates to intent. What is specifically interesting is the way you can boostrap yourself into find the necessary stuff indirectly eg through namespace document lookup. 18:51:55 timbl queued to say "to suggest that the self-descibing document is one part of the architecture story which is a mapping from URI to intehet. It is the part in which the representation relates to intent. What is specifically interesting is the way you can boostrap yourself into find the necessary stuff indirectly eg through namespace document lookup." 18:52:20 DanC: the case for standards is shared between email and the Web, but email doesn't have the lookup mechanism for new MIME types, by design. IANA is _the_ registry of MIME types for email. 18:52:54 ack raman 18:52:54 raman, you wanted to say that limit to machine readability/follow-your-nose -- not "communicate to human" 18:52:55 TimBL: the recursive bootstratp nature is the interesting bit 18:53:07 q- timbl-sw 18:53:46 q? 18:53:54 TVR: this stuff about communicating "the same thing" seems somewhat of a distraction from the self-describing web story; it brings in styling etc., for one thing 18:54:26 q+ to sugggest not punting on human communication too early. 18:54:28 ... the interesting bit is the dynamic software configuration stuff, so that you can deploy new stuff in the web and it "just works" 18:54:32 ack dav 18:55:23 DO: the dynamic discovery is the interesting story to tell; let's not spend too much space/time on the static/shared background 18:55:30 [or something like that] 18:56:14 DO: I have heard a few examples/use cases of [darn; leaked out]. RDDL... [darn; missed examples; help?] 18:56:49 ex1: xml doc->namespace(s)->RDDL.... 18:56:53 q+ to add: a concrete problem for the Web to solve: relation between content types, namespaces, compound documents and language profiles 18:57:00 DO: perhaps contrast with stuff that's not self-describing, e.g. microformats. where do we look up class="fn" without a URI? 18:57:27 DO: another counter-example is some urn schemes, a la the urns/registries finding 18:57:36 ack ht 18:57:36 ht_mit, you wanted to mention "follow your nose" 18:57:38 ack ht 18:57:43 q+ microformats are in a namespace the so called anonymous I'm not a namespace namespace 18:58:46 HT: I want this finding to explain "view source" (ack Tim Bray) and "follow your nose (ack DanC) 18:59:04 "View Source" is very much human beings lookng things up. "Follow your nose" is most often done by machines. 18:59:27 HT: this should answer in detail "what do I have to know ahead of time to look at the Oxaca weather report?" 18:59:37 HT: there are 3 things you need to be able to look up: 19:00:11 ... (1) the charset from the Content-Type header, iso8859-1 or utf-8 19:01:11 HT notes complex discussion of definitive sources of charset info 19:01:34 SKW: is that stuck? 19:02:02 q? 19:02:06 HT: well, I have seen some progress, but it's been a year since the last progress point, so maybe time to rethink 19:02:58 HT: this is 3023bis, replacing "there is no fragid semantics for XML" with a ref to XPointer, and capturing negotiations about charset 19:03:21 TimBL: and XML ids? 19:04:02 HT: XPointer refers to xml ids in a way that agrees with specs that have come later 19:04:34 q? 19:04:49 NDW: XPointer says "if it's of type ID..." and the xml:id spec says "xml:id is of type ID", so the pieces fit 19:05:13 TimBL raises a deployment question/issue about xml:id ... 19:08:30 Topic: XBL2 and xml:id 19:09:16 is there a last call comment or issues list item or something that captures the XBL2/xml:id thing, please? 19:09:37 q? 19:09:49 q+ to respond to Noah that there are some commonalities across failures. 19:13:13 aha... "163. Last call comments on XML Binding Language (XBL) 2.0" 19:14:00 er... norm, I see "I'm entirely satisfied " from you in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-appformats/2007Feb/0114.html 19:15:03 | I have marked your request as a potential formal objection. 19:15:04 I doubt that it will come to that, but thank you for leaving the door 19:15:04 open. I will ask the WGs for whom I reviewed the document if they feel 19:15:04 strongly enough about the issue to make that objection. 19:15:06