14:00:07 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #awwsw
14:00:07 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2007/11/27-awwsw-irc
14:00:15 <alanr> rrsagent, this is awwsw
14:00:15 <RRSAgent> I'm logging. I don't understand 'this is awwsw', alanr.  Try /msg RRSAgent help
14:00:27 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #awwsw
14:00:39 <alanr> zakim, this is awwsw
14:00:39 <Zakim> sorry, alanr, I do not see a conference named 'awwsw' in progress or scheduled at this time
14:00:55 <jar> jar has joined #awwsw
14:01:10 <jar> hello.  looks like you've got the robots with you
14:01:10 <alanr> hi jonathan - amazingly enought I am awake
14:01:18 <jar> amazingly. how's the kid.
14:01:34 <alanr> sleeping. hopefully purged of the devil
14:01:42 <jar> i need to dial in
14:02:24 <alanr> zakim, call me at +17818742433
14:02:24 <alanr> nope
14:02:24 <alanr> :)
14:02:25 <Zakim> sorry, alanr, I don't know what conference this is
14:02:26 <jar> phone# 761-6200, yes?
14:02:36 <alanr> yes
14:02:55 <alanr> there are uk numbers too...
14:03:32 <dbooth> dbooth has joined #awwsw
14:03:47 <Stuart> Stuart has joined #awwsw
14:03:49 <jar> foo! doesn't recognize conference code
14:03:59 <alanr> blast invalid passcode
14:04:26 <jar> i didn't reserve - thought it was all set up already. now what, should i ask for admin assistance? guess so
14:04:52 <jar> passcode should have been AWWSW
14:05:01 <Stuart> you might have some luck on the sysreq channel 
14:05:01 <jar> dialing in again, will *0 this time
14:05:19 <Noah> Noah has joined #awwsw
14:05:51 <Noah> zakim, who is here?
14:05:51 <Zakim>  has not yet started, Noah
14:05:53 <Zakim> On IRC I see Noah, Stuart, dbooth, jar, Zakim, RRSAgent, alanr, trackbot-ng
14:06:17 <Stuart> http://www.w3.org/Guide/1998/08/TeleconferenceHowTo.htm
14:06:59 <Noah> Am I the only one having Zakim trouble?  Doesn't know the dialin code.
14:07:05 <Stuart> What time is it in Boston?
14:07:09 <Noah> 9 am
14:07:39 <alanr> blast. I asked for biweeky zakim but on review it looks like they did a one shot
14:07:54 <jar> "please hold for an operator"
14:07:58 <alanr> hello, 
14:07:59 <alanr> I wasn't sure if this should be attributed to the TAG, but I couldn't find "AWWSW." Let me know if it should be attributed to a different group. Otherwise, you're all set.
14:08:01 <alanr> TAG_(AWWSW)
14:08:03 <alanr> TAG
14:08:05 <alanr> Tuesday, 13 November
14:08:07 <alanr> 9:00am-10:00am/ 14:00-15:00 UTC
14:08:08 <alanr> Zakim Bridge +1.617.761.6200, conference 29979 ("AWWSW")
14:08:10 <alanr> 8 participants
14:08:11 <alanr> TAG <www-tag@w3.org> 
14:08:13 <alanr> http://www.w3.org/Guide/1998/08/teleconference-calendar.html#s_2815 
14:08:15 <alanr> - Josh 
14:08:17 <alanr> At 04:19 PM 11/5/2007, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
14:08:19 <alanr> Dear Admins,
14:08:20 <alanr> This is a request for booking Zakim.
14:08:21 <alanr> 1. Day(s): Tuesday
14:08:23 <alanr> 2. Date(s): 2007-11-13
14:08:25 <alanr> 3. Time: from 09:00 to 10:00 EST (Boston Time)
14:08:26 <alanr> 4. One Time or Recurring. Recurring biweekly
14:08:28 <alanr> 5. Number of participants: 8
14:08:29 <alanr> 6. Name of teleconference group (OR subgroup): AWWSW
14:08:31 <alanr> 7. Preferred conference code (4 or 5 digits): 29979
14:08:32 <alanr> Thank you,
14:08:34 <alanr> On behalf of the TAG
14:08:36 <alanr> Alan Ruttenberg
14:08:49 <alanr> scrambling for a freeconference dial in . hang on
14:08:59 <jar> no operator yet. 
14:09:28 <Noah> Hmm.  From http://www.w3.org/1998/12/bridge/Zakim.html :
14:09:36 <Noah> W3C Zakim Teleconference Bridge Status
14:09:36 <Noah> 2007-03-28T1800Z - The Zakim phone bridge is in service but not with full port capacity.
14:09:45 <jar> did whatever you did enable dialin? can't tell whether to hang on fr operator
14:09:50 <jar> no operator yet.
14:09:55 <jar> on hold
14:10:08 <alanr> 	 1-712-432-2500
14:10:15 <dbooth> zakim, code?
14:10:15 <Zakim> sorry, dbooth, I don't know what conference this is
14:10:17 <Stuart> Hummm... alan beat me to it... I sent in:
14:10:18 <alanr> 696446
14:10:22 <dbooth> zakim, this is awwsw
14:10:22 <Zakim> sorry, dbooth, I do not see a conference named 'awwsw' in progress or scheduled at this time
14:10:47 <alanr> OK. Shall we use freeconference? It is scheduled for 9:15
14:11:13 <Stuart> Dear Admins,
14:11:13 <Stuart> This is a request for booking Zakim.
14:11:13 <Stuart> 1. Day(s): Tuesday
14:11:13 <Stuart> 2. Date(s): 2007-11-27
14:11:13 <Stuart> 3. Time: 09:00am to 10:33am EST (Boston Time) 
14:11:14 <Stuart> 4. Recurring (every 2 weeks) 
14:11:16 <Stuart> 5. Number of participants: <12 
14:11:18 <Stuart> 6. Name of teleconference group (OR subgroup): AWWSW (affiliate to HCLS and TAG) 
14:11:20 <Stuart> 7. Preferred conference code (4 or 5 digits): 29979
14:11:22 <Stuart> I'm sending this request in on behalf of Jonathan Rees who chairs this group.
14:11:24 <Stuart> Many thanks
14:11:26 <Stuart> Stuart Williams
14:11:28 <Stuart> co-chair W3C-TAG
14:11:40 <jar> stuart will have to pay higher rate for freeconference
14:11:52 <jar> still holding for operator
14:11:53 <Stuart> ??
14:12:03 <alanr> OK. Shall we use freeconference? It is scheduled for 9:15. 	 1-712-432-2500 x696446
14:12:20 <jar> (sorry, i was trying to think why we shouldn't use freeconference, stuart, are you ok calling a different US number?)
14:12:46 <Stuart> yup
14:13:05 <Noah> So, should I dial that?
14:13:13 <Stuart> though w3c does have a local number in the UK
14:13:16 <alanr> ok. I am there now
14:13:24 <jar> ok, we'll do it.  the 712 number. i'm going there now 
14:15:55 <dbooth> Present: Jonathan, Noah, Stuart, DBooth, Alan
14:16:13 <dbooth> Meeting: AWWSW
14:16:20 <dbooth> Chair: Jonathan
14:18:14 <alanr> zakim, mute me
14:18:14 <Zakim> sorry, alanr, I don't know what conference this is
14:19:30 <jar> http://esw.w3.org/topic/AwwswTopicsBrainstormPage
14:19:35 <alanr> Alan is scribe
14:19:47 <dbooth> ScribeNick: alanr
14:20:02 <alanr> Jonathan: Interested in what stuart has to say 
14:20:16 <Noah> Noah has joined #awwsw
14:20:31 <jar> there's more than just 200 or 303
14:20:33 <Noah> Sorry, could you please (re)paste link to what we're discussing.
14:20:42 <dbooth> http://esw.w3.org/topic/AwwswTopicsBrainstormPage
14:20:59 <alanr> Stuart: Wondering how much we feedback we can give the ietf  as they own the spec
14:21:05 <Noah> tnx
14:21:20 <alanr> Stuart: Infer the absolute minimum in anything from these codes?
14:22:22 <alanr> Stuart: aware that httpRange14 sanctions 200 response => information resources. Heard it questioned whether 303 => rdf response
14:22:52 <dbooth> q+ to say we do not have to limit our inferences to what 2616 says, because we can build upon it for SemWeb arch.
14:23:16 <jar> q+ jar re layered protocol
14:23:45 <dbooth> q+ jar to talk about layered protocol
14:23:46 <alanr> Noah: Reading both http spec for 303 and for rdf relation seealso. Do they say the same thing?
14:23:49 <alanr> q?
14:24:15 <alanr> Noah: Leave each alone. If it works for you does it work both ways?
14:24:20 <dbooth> 2616 doesn't give any machine-processable rules
14:24:25 <alanr> ack dbooth
14:24:25 <Zakim> dbooth, you wanted to say we do not have to limit our inferences to what 2616 says, because we can build upon it for SemWeb arch.
14:25:04 <alanr> dbooth: don't have to limit to what 2616 says because we can build upon it for SW + we need machine understandable
14:25:10 <Noah> I do think we need to limit ourselves to what 2616 says in a specific sense:  that is the normative spec for HTTP.  We have to be consistent with it.  We can do additional things that are consistent with it.
14:26:19 <Stuart> http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/#ch_seealso
14:26:35 <dbooth> 2616 doesn't give any RDF, so in some sense whatever we do will be building on top of it.
14:27:35 <dbooth> q?
14:27:39 <jar> q-
14:27:41 <Noah> q+
14:27:48 <Stuart> q+
14:27:50 <Stuart> q-
14:29:19 <Stuart> concur with Noah...
14:29:39 <jar> jar's 3 possible stances: (1) interpret 2616 as rdf, add nothing
14:29:43 <Stuart> I am also troubled by the quantifiers:
14:29:44 <dbooth> i disagree with noah.  how could we ever build on anything that way?
14:29:47 <jar> (2) 'best practices' a la awwsw
14:30:04 <jar> (3) layered protocol - give it a name & talk about conformance to layered spec
14:30:11 <Stuart> "for all http applications" or "for all semantic web applications"
14:30:20 <dbooth> there is no sense of contradicting 2616 in RDF, because 2616 does not give an RDF
14:30:27 <Noah> q-
14:30:28 <dbooth> q+
14:30:30 <alanr> alanr has joined #awwsw
14:30:31 <Noah> What I just said was:
14:30:37 <alanr> looks like I'm back
14:30:39 <alanr> ?
14:30:43 <alanr> q?
14:30:53 <jar> example of layered protocol: SOAP on HTTP
14:31:08 <alanr> dbooth: Can't contract 2616 in RDF because 2616 doesn't say anything about rdf
14:31:19 <alanr> noah: semantics contradict
14:31:20 <alanr> q?
14:31:23 <Noah> I don't think we can avoid the fact that when we claim that an RDF statement necessarily doesn
14:31:30 <Noah> doesn't conflict with the RDF specification
14:31:56 <alanr> alan: noah please tell us about interacting with 2616 standardization effort
14:32:26 <alanr> noah: need to be prepared for lack of interest on 2616 author parts
14:33:24 <Noah> Let's say we made an RDF statement that a status code 200 meant that there was no representation provided.  That would clearly contradict RFC 2616.  So, we need to admit that when we make any RDF statement about the meaning of, say, 303, we risk contradicting RFC 2616.
14:33:32 <alanr> alan: look at jonathan's proposal - layered protocol. E.g use a header to say "Member of the SW tribe"
14:33:44 <alanr> dbooth - means we have to abandon 303?
14:33:50 <Noah> If we're going to, in that sense, rewrite the HTTP RFC, then we need to do it with the cooperation of the community that owns it.
14:34:02 <alanr> JAR- no.  conventions allow us to retrict what 303 means in this context
14:34:15 <Noah> I also said that I had some doubts as to whether key members of the community responsible for 2616 would all view that as a worthwhile exercise.
14:34:17 <dbooth> where is the layered approach described?  uri please?
14:34:37 <alanr> irc://awwsw
14:34:46 <jar> i'm just kicking the idea around.
14:35:02 <alanr> stuart: Big protocol. Subgroup says we want to use it in a specific way
14:35:33 <alanr> x-header: mot + response: 200 => information resource
14:36:04 <alanr> stuart: Not just external knowledge, like some rdf statements? 
14:36:11 <alanr> jar: Not necessary
14:37:38 <alanr> alan: Not sure that it is not necessary - how to know given some rdf statement - which URIs have dopplegangers that play by the rules
14:38:16 <alanr> someone: what is 2)
14:38:28 <alanr> jar: following lead of AWWSW
14:38:33 <Stuart> s/someone/stuart
14:38:50 <alanr> jar 2) says it would be nice if you did this thing
14:38:59 <alanr> jar 3) you can actually tell if someone is doing it
14:39:16 <alanr> stuart: for the most part likes 3
14:39:50 <alanr> stuart: reason for backing off from inferring from response codes - do for general versus more narrowly for SW applications
14:40:03 <dbooth> q+
14:40:08 <alanr> jar: is there a difference between sw and non-sw applications? Tim might argue about that
14:40:11 <alanr> q?
14:40:45 <jar> noah: social issue of who owns the spec
14:40:56 <alanr> noah: Feelings are close to stuart. But there is a social issue on who can say something about how the protocol works. What do you do when there are conflicts. Who gets to resolve
14:41:45 <jar> option (4) we take a major role in new http spec
14:41:50 <alanr> noah: who wins 1) Community believes that this is so important that we will get consensus on what to go. Don't object on principle. But practically may be too difficult
14:42:18 <alanr> noah: If we decide to layer then we give precedence to what 2616 says. If we contradict then we lose. 
14:42:25 <alanr> Jar: that's what layered means to me
14:42:30 <dbooth> q+ to say that our RDF ontology for HTTP can be viewed as a representation of the HTTP spec.
14:42:38 <alanr> q?
14:43:09 <jar> q-
14:43:10 <alanr> jar: start with HTTP which comes out of one community. Take it as a given and say that's what we're building on, recognizing that it is what it is
14:43:18 <Noah> I was asked my thoughts on the 3 options.  My answer is mainly:  I think we have to be careful about who owns these specs and how conflicts would be resolved.  In principle, one could rewrite 2616 to include RDF normatively, in which case the community owning that spec resolves conflicts.  I doubt that will go over well in the short term.
14:43:59 <alanr> dbooth: One way to view what rdf inferences can be inferred from rdf. one interpretation is http interpretation of the the http spec. maybe lossy but we can ??
14:44:10 <alanr> dbooth: both 2) and 3) sound like layered approaches.
14:44:12 <Noah> Given that we don't do that, then we can build a layered spec, but in that case it's crucial to say up front that in case of conflict, the new spec loses.  2616 is the normative spec for HTTP, and the specification for the RDF embodiment would have to ensure consistency with that.
14:44:24 <alanr> dbooth: Wary of ietf getting involved.
14:45:13 <jar> http mentions representations
14:45:44 <Stuart>    resource
14:45:45 <Stuart>       A network data object or service that can be identified by a URI,
14:45:45 <Stuart>       as defined in section 3.2. Resources may be available in multiple
14:45:45 <Stuart>       representations (e.g. multiple languages, data formats, size, and
14:45:45 <Stuart>       resolutions) or vary in other ways.
14:46:02 <Stuart>    representation
14:46:02 <Stuart>       An entity included with a response that is subject to content
14:46:02 <Stuart>       negotiation, as described in section 12. There may exist multiple
14:46:02 <Stuart>       representations associated with a particular response status.
14:46:15 <Stuart> both from: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2616.txt
14:46:34 <alanr> alan: would need to adopt language of 2616, e.g. entity body and make clear relation to representations
14:46:58 <alanr> dbooth: take our best guess at what 2616 says and then bounce it off them
14:47:22 <alanr> jar: Agree - we will need to work here. Interpret what it says.
14:47:23 <Stuart>    entity
14:47:23 <Stuart>       The information transferred as the payload of a request or
14:47:23 <Stuart>       response. An entity consists of metainformation in the form of
14:47:23 <Stuart>       entity-header fields and content in the form of an entity-body, as
14:47:23 <Stuart>       described in section 7.
14:50:05 <alanr> noah: elephant in the room. They are not trying to speak with quite the precision we are sometimes
14:50:33 <alanr> alan: points out resource: A network data object or service, not consistent with a resource can be a person
14:51:08 <alanr> noah: aimed at people who are trying http clients
14:51:20 <alanr> alan: This is an example of were we might try to interact
14:51:35 <Stuart> A great may early URI scheme spec use language of the form "URIs from scheme <X> are used to designate things of kind <Y>", which, as a defn, is somewhat open.
14:51:40 <alanr> noah: On the list of things worth doing, maybe not top.
14:52:09 <alanr> jar: what is homework for two weeks from now.
14:52:20 <alanr> tim not on call
14:52:44 <Noah> Please post a link to the "brainstorm page"
14:52:48 <alanr> stuart: All take review pass over brainstorm page and mail responses
14:52:48 <Stuart> http://esw.w3.org/topic/AwwswTopicsBrainstormPage
14:53:32 <alanr> alan: Could spend time on 2616 trying to gather important bits of definitions
14:53:45 <alanr> stuart: good paper on entities.
14:53:50 <alanr> Action: Stuart to send us a link
14:53:50 <trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-1 - Send us a link [on Stuart Williams - due 2007-12-04].
14:53:52 <dbooth> dbooth: In what way is TimBL's ontology http://www.w3.org/2006/gen/ont insufficient?  What else does it need?
14:53:52 <jar> jeff mogul hawaii
14:55:05 <alanr> Jar: Don't believe that http://www.w3.org/2006/gen/ont  is the real thing. Thinks tabulator has more. What was sent out was unsatisfying
14:55:14 <alanr> dbooth: what's wrong with it
14:55:28 <alanr> jar: doesn't talk about requests, responses, essences etc.
14:56:20 <alanr> alan: started to rework this in owl and some issues have come up already
14:56:32 <alanr> jar, dbooth: Alan should bring what he is comfortable on.
14:56:58 <dbooth> I thnk we should start putting RDF on the table to discuss.
14:57:21 <alanr> try again in two weeks. We will end now
14:57:22 <Noah> I've dropped off.  Please send email outlining any followup plans.  Thank you.
14:57:26 <alanr> bye
14:57:29 <Noah> bye
14:57:36 <dbooth> rrsagent, make logs public
14:57:47 <dbooth> rrsagent, draft minutes
14:57:47 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/11/27-awwsw-minutes.html dbooth
14:58:17 <alanr> rrsagent, set log world-readable
14:58:55 <jar> bye. thanks
15:34:45 <alanr> alanr has joined #awwsw
16:30:49 <jar> jar has joined #awwsw
16:48:03 <Zakim> Zakim has left #awwsw