W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-awwsw@w3.org > May 2008

Draft minutes from 2008-05-27

From: Booth, David (HP Software - Boston) <dbooth@hp.com>
Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 14:38:08 +0000
To: "public-awwsw@w3.org" <public-awwsw@w3.org>
Message-ID: <184112FE564ADF4F8F9C3FA01AE50009FCF25E16DA@G1W0486.americas.hpqcorp.net>

http://www.w3.org/2008/05/27-awwsw-minutes.html
and below in plain text.

                -----------------------------------
   [1]W3C

      [1] http://www.w3.org/

                               - DRAFT -

                                 AWWSW

27 May 2008

   See also: [2]IRC log

      [2] http://www.w3.org/2008/05/27-awwsw-irc

Attendees

   Present
          Stuart, David, Alan, Jonathan

   Regrets
   Chair
          Jonathan Rees (jar)

   Scribe
          dbooth

Contents

     * [3]Topics
         1. [4]FRBR
     * [5]Summary of Action Items
     _________________________________________________________



   <alanr_>
   [6]http://www3.isrl.uiuc.edu/~junwang4/langev/localcopy/pdf/hurd95co
   mmunicationGame.pdf

      [6] http://www3.isrl.uiuc.edu/~junwang4/langev/localcopy/pdf/hurd95communicationGame.pdf

   <jar> Draft of my versioning memo:
   [7]http://sw.neurocommons.org/tmp/versioning.txt

      [7] http://sw.neurocommons.org/tmp/versioning.txt

   <alanr_> [8]http://www.frbr.org/

      [8] http://www.frbr.org/

FRBR

   FRBR document: [9]http://www.ifla.org/VII/s13/frbr/frbr.pdf

      [9] http://www.ifla.org/VII/s13/frbr/frbr.pdf

   Alan: An Item is an instance of a Manifestation class.

   jar: All the exemplars of a Manifestation have the same bits.

   (looking at diagram on page 13)

   jar: I would draw another arc to "PhsycalBitString".

   Alan: Two different printings with different covers would be
   different Manifestations.

   <jar> no, to bit string. the item is the physical thing

   Stuart: What if it were a play?

   Alan: You have an idea for a story, Romeo and Juliet, independent of
   language. Then an expression is a performance of it, such as the
   author writing a version of it or some people playing it out. The
   manifestation is something like the recording of it -- video or
   sound recording, or a book. Then the Item is a CD or a physical
   book.

   jar: What if it's PDF?

   Alan: With a lithograph, there are slight differences between each
   physical book, but not with a PDF.

   David: With a PDF, there doesnt' seem much difference between
   Manifestation and Item.

   <scribe> ACTION: Alan to prepare material on generically dependent
   continuum for next meeting [recorded in
   [10]http://www.w3.org/2008/05/27-awwsw-minutes.html#action01]

   <trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-5 - Prepare material on generically
   dependent continuant for next meeting [on Alan Ruttenberg - due
   2008-06-03].

   <jar> generically dependent continuant -- from BFO

   Alan: IEO = Information Entity Ontology

   <alanr_> digital entity and non realizable information entity

   <alanr_> BFO = basic formal ontology

   <alanr_> [11]http://ifomis.org/bfo

     [11] http://ifomis.org/bfo

   <jar> that was DENRIE

   <Stuart> [12]http://www.ifomis.org/bfo/1.0

     [12] http://www.ifomis.org/bfo/1.0

   Alan: What about FRBR?

   <alanr_>
   [13]http://ashby.csail.mit.edu//presentations/DenrieReport.pdf

     [13] http://ashby.csail.mit.edu//presentations/DenrieReport.pdf

   jar: People make names or catalog numbers for things and then they
   talk about them. If you look at FRBR, they dont' say whether they
   are classes or instances, but we talk about them adn there's somem
   world view, and I'm trying to come up w a method that allows any
   such world view to align w web semantics.
   ... That's the acid test for a theory of a web semantics: can it
   integrate someone else's view? Suppose Work is a class and Tim's IR
   is a class. Is Work a subclass of IR? You'd want to be able to
   answer that to know. Web semantics isn't a semantics unless you're
   on the road to being able to answer that.

   <alanr_> dropped. calling back in

   <alanr_>
   [14]http://neurocommons.org/page/Information_Entity_Ontology

     [14] http://neurocommons.org/page/Information_Entity_Ontology

   Stuart: I wonder if there are things that are IR that are Works, but
   perhaps not all IRs are Works.

   David: I think the question is the wrong way around.

   <jar> dbooth: semantic web arch is a model. you have a choice as to
   how you cast things into it.

   <jar> dbooth: not a question of is or isn't it an information
   resource, but how one chooses to make the correspondence

   <jar> dbooth: the owner of the uri gets to choose ...

   <jar> dbooth: question of work vs. nonwork is independent of IR vs.
   non-IR

   <jar> jar: what is not an information resource?

   <Stuart> I think that things that have mass are not information
   resources.

   <jar> dbooth: an IR is a function

   <jar> jar: IR's don't have mass. maybe we can agree on that.

   <jar> jar: boothian IRs don't have mass. good.

   <Stuart> FWIW: I think Roy's model is a model of the operation of
   Web Infrastructure in respect of an Information Resource - ie. the
   mechanism by which an IR is inspected by a GET operation and
   reported on in the form of a awww:representation.

   <Stuart> ie. modeling an IR as a function from time to sets of
   awww:representations isn't saying that an IR *is* such a function,
   but that a way of modeling a view of a resource as presented by web
   infrastructure in the form of awww:representations is as such a
   function.

   <jar> dbooth: work vs. IR (function) would be a pun

   <Stuart> jar... I wonder if it would be useful to run through the
   Journal Publication example in 1) FRBR and 2) as web resources

   <alanr_> worms r us

   <jar> dbooth: punning is inevitable

   <alanr_> ir = work, representation = expression?

   <alanr_> journal article = expression

   <alanr_> bound in a magazine = manifestation (each is an item)

   dbooth: Punning is undesirable but inevitable, because it is always
   possible to come up with a finer identity distinction.

   <jar> dbooth: undesirable but inevitable, because it's always
   possible, and sometimes necessary, to make finer distinctions

   <Stuart> jar... what is the thing in what you are discussing that
   motivates a possible change in URI?

   <jar> scenario: a FRBR adherent defines U to be a FRBR Work.

   <jar> that was 1.

   <jar> 2. they publish the work (or manifestation of it) on the web
   at U, with 200 response

   <jar> 3. apply for a $1M grant which is contingent on adhering to
   web architecture

   <jar> question: do they have to mint new URIs?

   <jar> stuart: answer might depend on what exactly they think U
   identifies

   <jar> stuart: the Work is abstract, and doesn't have representations

   Stuart: I think they don't necessarily have to change their URIs. It
   may depend on whether they think they are identifying a Work or
   Manifestation. They're clean if they thinnk they're publishing a URI
   of a Manifestation of a Work.

   <jar> stuart: it's not a concrete document as such...

   <jar> alanr: compare to Tim's bylaws example

   Alan: Tim say a generic document is like the by-laws of an org, and
   a representation is like a PDF.

   <jar> stuart: generic documents - you end up with a pdf or html -
   you also get an alternate URI that is more specific

   <jar> alanr: is moby dick not a generic document?

   (jar needs to leave)

   Dbooth: My answer is partially written up here:
   [15]http://dbooth.org/2007/splitting/#httpRange-14

     [15] http://dbooth.org/2007/splitting/#httpRange-14

   <alanr_> I.5a: Implement FRBR concepts to present related works
   hierarchically, pulling together all records related to a particular
   work (e.g., Moby Dick), diverse expressions of that work (e.g.,
   translations into German, Japanese and other languages), different
   versions of the same basic text (e.g., the Modern Library Classics
   vs. Penguin editions), and particular items (a copy of Moby Dick on
   the shelf).

   <alanr_> from [16]http://www.frbr.org/2006/01/24/rethink

     [16] http://www.frbr.org/2006/01/24/rethink

   <jar> jar will probably say: no one except web arch geeks *want* to
   talk about boothian function/IRs. so no classes of things that
   anyone wants to talk about will ever intersection function/IR. ergo
   no one will ever want to use 200-responding URIs to name anything
   that they want to talk about.

   <Stuart> The intention of webarchitecture is that a given URI
   consistently refer to the same thing.

   <Stuart> The harder part is saying with precision what thing that is
   - which I think is Pat's principle point.

   dbooth: The basic idea in [17]http://dbooth.org/2007/splitting/ is
   to show how to deal with situations in which a URI is minted and it
   later turns out that that URI is ambiguous. For example, a URI for
   AKT is minted as an instance, and it later turns out that there are
   three distinct things AKT1, AKT2 and AKT3. Architecturally, this is
   no different than when Mark Baker uses the same URI to denote
   himself and his web site. Hence, "the use of a URI to directly d

     [17] http://dbooth.org/2007/splitting/

   enote both an information resource and a non-information resource
   should be viewed as a violation of good practice, but not a
   violation of Web architecture".

Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: Alan to prepare material on generically dependent
   continuum for next meeting [recorded in
   [18]http://www.w3.org/2008/05/27-awwsw-minutes.html#action01]

   [End of minutes]
     _________________________________________________________


    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [19]scribe.perl version 1.133
    ([20]CVS log)
    $Date: 2008/05/27 14:27:05 $
     _________________________________________________________

     [19] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
     [20] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

   [Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.133  of Date: 2008/01/18 18:48:51
Check for newer version at [21]http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002
/scribe/

     [21] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/FRBR/FRBR document/
Succeeded: s/Entity/Item/
Succeeded: s/continuum/continuant/
Succeeded: s/basic formal ontology/BFO = basic formal ontology/
Succeeded: s/have/have to/
Succeeded: s/say/saying/
Succeeded: s/think/thing/
Succeeded: s/I thing/I think/
Succeeded: s/what think/what thing/
No ScribeNick specified.  Guessing ScribeNick: dbooth
Inferring Scribes: dbooth
Default Present: Jonathan_Rees, DBooth, Alan
Present: Stuart David Alan Jonathan
Got date from IRC log name: 27 May 2008
Guessing minutes URL: [22]http://www.w3.org/2008/05/27-awwsw-minutes.ht
ml
People with action items: alan

     [22] http://www.w3.org/2008/05/27-awwsw-minutes.html

   End of [23]scribe.perl diagnostic output]

     [23] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm



David Booth, Ph.D.
HP Software
+1 617 629 8881 office  |  dbooth@hp.com
http://www.hp.com/go/software

Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not represent the official views of HP unless explicitly stated otherwise.
Received on Tuesday, 27 May 2008 14:39:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 July 2008 07:55:27 GMT