IRC log of awwsw on 2011-03-01

Timestamps are in UTC.

13:43:00 [RRSAgent]

RRSAgent has joined #awwsw

13:43:00 [RRSAgent]

logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/03/01-awwsw-irc

13:56:22 [dbooth]

dbooth has joined #awwsw

13:57:18 [dbooth]

zakim, who is here?

13:57:18 [Zakim]

TAG_(AWWSW)9:00AM has not yet started, dbooth

13:57:19 [Zakim]

On IRC I see dbooth, RRSAgent, Zakim, jar_, webr3, trackbot

13:57:28 [dbooth]

Meeting: AWWSW

13:57:35 [dbooth]

zakim, this will be awwsw

13:57:35 [Zakim]

ok, dbooth; I see TAG_(AWWSW)9:00AM scheduled to start in 3 minutes

13:58:26 [jar_]

agenda+ nathan please add links to http://www.w3.org/wiki/HttpRange14Webography

13:58:36 [Zakim]

TAG_(AWWSW)9:00AM has now started

13:58:43 [Zakim]

+DBooth

13:59:39 [Zakim]

+jar

14:00:59 [jar_]

agenda+ TAG issue tracking

14:01:24 [jar_]

agenda+ next steps on www-tag (doc review, or a call of some kind)

14:01:56 [Zakim]

+[IPcaller]

14:02:09 [webr3]

Zakim, i am +[IPcaller]

14:02:09 [Zakim]

sorry, webr3, I do not see a party named '+[IPcaller]'

14:02:14 [jar_]

agenda+ toward consensus doc from awwsw - maybe the 'requirements'?

14:03:22 [jar_]

agenda?

14:04:48 [webr3]

scribenick, webr3

14:05:02 [webr3]

Zakim, scribenick: webr3

14:05:02 [Zakim]

I don't understand 'scribenick: webr3', webr3

14:07:18 [webr3]

scribe: nathan

14:07:48 [dbooth]

scribenick: webr3

14:08:42 [jar_]

this one: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/awwsw/ir-axioms/

14:10:03 [webr3]

action: nathan to add links to wiki

14:10:03 [trackbot]

Created ACTION-41 - Add links to wiki [on Nathan Rixham - due 2011-03-08].

14:10:19 [dbooth]

Topic: Requirements doc

14:10:35 [jar_]

zakim, take up item 1

14:10:35 [Zakim]

agendum 1. "nathan please add links to http://www.w3.org/wiki/HttpRange14Webography" taken up [from jar_]

14:10:54 [webr3]

Scribe: webr3

14:11:15 [jar_]

zakim, take up item 2

14:11:15 [Zakim]

agendum 2. "TAG issue tracking" taken up [from jar_]

14:12:02 [webr3]

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2011Feb/0150.html

14:12:36 [jar_]

http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/534

14:12:54 [jar_]

here's the relevant email re 57: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2011Mar/0000.html

14:13:39 [jar_]

Change title to: "Mechanisms for obtaining information about the intended

14:13:40 [jar_]

meaning of a given URI"

14:14:37 [webr3]

jar: does anybody object to the title

14:14:42 [webr3]

all: no objections

14:14:46 [jar_]

(no particular input from group)

14:15:03 [jar_]

nathan thinks that's a good title

14:15:43 [webr3]

zakim, take up item 3

14:15:43 [Zakim]

agendum 3. "next steps on www-tag (doc review, or a call of some kind)" taken up [from jar_]

14:16:01 [webr3]

jar: i had two questions

14:16:14 [webr3]

... 1: next step on the broader continuation of uri-meaning work

14:16:38 [webr3]

... if you guys want to give input, you can

14:17:01 [webr3]

dbooth: this is tag work yes, seems like we need to get a draft for tag review

14:17:33 [webr3]

jar: there are two things going on here, consensus doc for issue-57 review, and awwsw tf report

14:17:43 [webr3]

... two different docs, w/ intertwining paths

14:18:02 [webr3]

dbooth: it seems ambitous to do two docs

14:18:12 [webr3]

jar: i think we need 2 or 3 docs

14:18:21 [webr3]

dbooth: so a report of where we're at or?

14:18:37 [webr3]

jar: produce some kind of ontology, or vocabs or

14:19:21 [jar_]

series #1: awwsw reports/notes (consensus within awwsw, reporting to tag & community)

14:19:46 [jar_]

series #2: tag reports/notes (consensus in TAG and/or in community)

14:20:07 [jar_]

this TF is responsible for #1

14:20:53 [jar_]

#2 would tag finding and/or rec track

14:21:11 [dbooth]

s/would/would be/

14:22:27 [jar_]

jar thinks intent to do #2 should be announced sooner rather than later, since otherwise situation will continue to fray

14:23:21 [jar_]

dbooth: wants #1 note in hand before going to www-tag. awwsw consensus

14:23:35 [jar_]

db: need to get over barriers of terminology and confusion

14:24:14 [jar_]

jar: framing the tag issue?

14:24:21 [jar_]

oar background?

14:24:52 [jar_]

nathan: 1) summary of space and views 2) consensus in awwsw re interoperability 3) axioms or ontology

14:26:12 [jar_]

dbooth: don't try to be too ambitious re #1... too comprehensive gets out of control... but need to say something

14:26:42 [jar_]

... #3 could be separate

14:26:55 [jar_]

(agreement that #3 stands on its own)

14:27:18 [jar_]

#1 & #2 are a second document

14:27:58 [webr3]

nathan: can we do 3 until 2 is done?

14:28:02 [jar_]

dbooth #3 can be helpful in getting clarity... work on them in parallel

14:28:16 [webr3]

all: general agreement - sounds like a plan

14:28:24 [jar_]

jar: how quickly can we do this?

14:28:59 [jar_]

... what do we need to do to get there?

14:30:15 [jar_]

dbooth: start with ir-axioms doc & owl

14:30:27 [jar_]

... doesn't solve issue 57 of course

14:31:31 [dbooth]

http://dbooth.org/2009/lifecycle/

14:31:48 [dbooth]

http://dbooth.org/2010/ambiguity/

14:33:06 [webr3]

jar: we want documents as short as possible

14:33:17 [dbooth]

Those documents both address the social obligations involved

14:33:53 [dbooth]

but we could start with those documents in addressing issue-57

14:35:45 [jar_]

port 80 means http, without a marker...

14:36:03 [jar_]

200 is supposed to mean IR without a marker... but the obligation is being resisted

14:36:07 [jar_]

implied obligation

14:39:17 [jar_]

Plan A = refer to IR using its URI, refer to thing-described-by-doc using 303 URI, #, .well-known, tdb: etc

14:39:41 [jar_]

Plan B = refer to tdb using 200 URI, refer to IR *** UNKNOWN *** (maybe IRW or ir-axioms)

14:40:00 [jar_]

1) summary of space and views

14:40:32 [jar_]

we need a vocab that doesn't assume either plan...

14:42:09 [jar_]

two classes of things, OVERLAPPING. IR, and thing-described-by-document.

14:43:02 [jar_]

maybe instead IR, it's IR-with-reps-available-at-URI

14:45:47 [jar_]

agenda?

14:45:50 [dbooth]

Topic: Axioms doc

14:46:16 [dbooth]

http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/awwsw/ir-axioms/

14:48:04 [jar_]

a simple IR is like a representation, except that it's an IR

14:50:47 [jar_]

simple IR is like content-location:

14:51:53 [jar_]

dbooth: unseasy with simple IR

14:52:32 [webr3]

and REST: ''Some resources are static in the sense that, when examined at any time after their creation, they always correspond to the same value set.''

14:52:36 [jar_]

a simple IR is one that has only one representation (fixed resource)

14:53:47 [jar_]

dbooth: instead of trinity, we have 4 things, URI, IR, simple IR, representation

14:54:54 [jar_]

jar tbd: A simple IR has only one representation... by definition

14:55:20 [jar_]

the writeup says this, but not clearly enough. will fix

14:56:47 [webr3]

both returning the same int - /mary/age vs /bob/age

14:57:27 [jar_]

TimBL says these are different IRs with the same representation

14:58:43 [jar_]

"have different meaning"

15:00:17 [jar_]

dbooth: How to make this more palatable?

15:01:37 [jar_]

dbooth: model an IR as a function... a simple IR would be a constant function...

15:02:16 [jar_]

doc needs to say very plainly that a simple IR is one that has a single representation

15:03:15 [jar_]

nathan: Is the IRI / URI part of the simple IR? Does a simple IR 'know' its own URI?

15:03:44 [jar_]

source URI is like provenance

15:06:54 [jar_]

simple IR could be modeled as a pair (rep, prov) where rep is a represenation and prov is provenance

15:07:05 [jar_]

provenance might or might not involve some URI

15:07:49 [jar_]

provenance is history and/or material context

15:10:48 [jar_]

IR -> {simple IR = (rep, bits)} -> rep

15:11:03 [jar_]

rep may be shared, under different provenances, but

15:11:08 [jar_]

sorry scratch

15:11:19 [jar_]

IR -> {simple IR = (rep, provenance)} -> rep

15:11:51 [jar_]

rep (mathematical; bits) can be shared among multiple simple IRs (puns, coincidences)

15:14:37 [dbooth]

I'm trying to frame this in terms of IR as a function from (Time x Request) to Representation, and Simple-IR is a constant function from (Time x Request) to Representation.

15:14:47 [jar_]

can't model simple IR as a constant function AND have 2 simple IRs with same rep

15:16:49 [dbooth]

"Does Mary authorize this?" vs "Does Bob authorize this?"

15:17:31 [jar_]

SIR1, SIR2 both have same rep, but Mary authorizes one, Bob the other.

15:17:55 [jar_]

nathan: like having the question + the answer.

15:18:58 [dbooth]

GET on SIR1 yields: "yes"

15:19:10 [dbooth]

GET on SIR2 yields: "yes"

15:19:43 [jar_]

'speak for' is a better idea... does Mary authorize the resource to speak for her?

15:21:20 [dbooth]

I would say that SIR1 is bound to one URI U1, and SIR2 is bound to another URI U2, and that's how you know who authorized.

15:25:36 [webr3]

[[ Even given an enumeration of syntactic parts, a simple IR's identity is not determined - two simple IRs might have all the same parts yet have distinct origins (provenance). ]]

15:31:32 [jar_]

Maybe convince TimBL and others to agree that representations are information resources?... no way

15:32:12 [jar_]

TimBL says, that there can be two fixedresources (simple IRs) that have the saame representation, yet are different

15:32:45 [jar_]

(intentional identity, not extensional)

15:33:25 [jar_]

two blank sheets of paper...

15:34:46 [jar_]

suppose Bob's doc and Mary's doc come from the same server, different URIs...

15:35:56 [jar_]

nathan: That seems fair

15:36:37 [jar_]

Suppose one IP address, multiple domain names resolving to same IP...

15:37:10 [jar_]

these are different resources...

15:37:56 [jar_]

If no host: then the requests would be identical

15:40:43 [jar_]

URIs have distinct meaning

15:41:06 [jar__]

jar__ has joined #awwsw

15:41:27 [Zakim]

-[IPcaller]

15:41:31 [Zakim]

-DBooth

15:41:32 [Zakim]

-jar

15:41:32 [Zakim]

TAG_(AWWSW)9:00AM has ended

15:41:34 [Zakim]

Attendees were DBooth, jar, [IPcaller]

15:41:35 [jar__]

rrsagent, make logs public

15:41:41 [dbooth]

Present: Jonathan Rees, Nathan, David Booth

15:41:47 [dbooth]

rrsagent, make logs public

15:41:55 [dbooth]

rrsagent, draft minutes

15:41:55 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/03/01-awwsw-minutes.html dbooth

15:47:34 [jar_]

jar_ has joined #awwsw

15:48:39 [harry]

harry has joined #awwsw

16:30:54 [mhausenblas]

mhausenblas has joined #awwsw

17:12:09 [dbooth]

chair: Jonathan

17:12:15 [dbooth]

rrsagent, draft minutes

17:12:15 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/03/01-awwsw-minutes.html dbooth