W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-awwsw@w3.org > March 2011

Minutes from today's call

From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2011 12:14:17 -0500
To: AWWSW TF <public-awwsw@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1298999657.2525.10764.camel@dbooth-laptop>
Draft minutes from today's call, such as they are:
and below in plain text.



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

                               - DRAFT -


01 Mar 2011

   See also: [2]IRC log

      [2] http://www.w3.org/2011/03/01-awwsw-irc


          Jonathan_Rees, Nathan, David_Booth


          nathan, webr3


     * [3]Topics
         1. [4]Requirements doc
         2. [5]nathan please add links to
         3. [6]TAG issue tracking
         4. [7]next steps on www-tag (doc review, or a call of some
         5. [8]Axioms doc
     * [9]Summary of Action Items

   scribenick, webr3

   <scribe> scribe: nathan

   <dbooth> scribenick: webr3

   <jar_> this one: [10]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/awwsw/ir-axioms/

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

   <scribe> ACTION: nathan to add links to wiki [recorded in

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

Requirements doc

nathan please add links to

     [12] http://www.w3.org/wiki/HttpRange14Webography

   <scribe> Scribe: webr3

TAG issue tracking


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

   <jar_> [14]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/534

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

   <jar_> here's the relevant email re 57:

     [15] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2011Mar/0000.html

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

   <jar_> meaning of a given URI"

   jar: does anybody object to the title

   all: no objections

   <jar_> (no particular input from group)

   <jar_> nathan thinks that's a good title

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

   jar: i had two questions
   ... 1: next step on the broader continuation of uri-meaning work
   ... if you guys want to give input, you can

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

   jar: there are two things going on here, consensus doc for issue-57
   review, and awwsw tf report
   ... two different docs, w/ intertwining paths

   dbooth: it seems ambitous to do two docs

   jar: i think we need 2 or 3 docs

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

   jar: produce some kind of ontology, or vocabs or

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

   <jar_> series #2: tag reports/notes (consensus in TAG and/or in

   <jar_> this TF is responsible for #1

   <jar_> #2 would be tag finding and/or rec track

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

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

   <jar_> db: need to get over barriers of terminology and confusion

   <jar_> jar: framing the tag issue?

   <jar_> oar background?

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

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

   <jar_> ... #3 could be separate

   <jar_> (agreement that #3 stands on its own)

   <jar_> #1 & #2 are a second document

   nathan: can we do 3 until 2 is done?

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

   all: general agreement - sounds like a plan

   <jar_> jar: how quickly can we do this?

   <jar_> ... what do we need to do to get there?

   <jar_> dbooth: start with ir-axioms doc & owl

   <jar_> ... doesn't solve issue 57 of course

   <dbooth> [16]http://dbooth.org/2009/lifecycle/

     [16] http://dbooth.org/2009/lifecycle/

   <dbooth> [17]http://dbooth.org/2010/ambiguity/

     [17] http://dbooth.org/2010/ambiguity/

   jar: we want documents as short as possible

   <dbooth> Those documents both address the social obligations

   <dbooth> but we could start with those documents in addressing

   <jar_> port 80 means http, without a marker...

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

   <jar_> implied obligation

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

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

   <jar_> 1) summary of space and views

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

   <jar_> two classes of things, OVERLAPPING. IR, and

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

Axioms doc

   <dbooth> [18]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/awwsw/ir-axioms/

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

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

   <jar_> simple IR is like content-location:

   <jar_> dbooth: unseasy with simple IR

   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.''

   <jar_> a simple IR is one that has only one representation (fixed

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

   <jar_> jar tbd: A simple IR has only one representation... by

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

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

   <jar_> TimBL says these are different IRs with the same

   <jar_> "have different meaning"

   <jar_> dbooth: How to make this more palatable?

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

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

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

   <jar_> source URI is like provenance

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

   <jar_> provenance might or might not involve some URI

   <jar_> provenance is history and/or material context

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

   <jar_> rep may be shared, under different provenances, but

   <jar_> sorry scratch

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

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

   <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.

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

   <dbooth> "Does Mary authorize this?" vs "Does Bob authorize this?"

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

   <jar_> nathan: like having the question + the answer.

   <dbooth> GET on SIR1 yields: "yes"

   <dbooth> GET on SIR2 yields: "yes"

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

   <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.

   [[ 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). ]]

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

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

   <jar_> (intentional identity, not extensional)

   <jar_> two blank sheets of paper...

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

   <jar_> nathan: That seems fair

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

   <jar_> these are different resources...

   <jar_> If no host: then the requests would be identical

   <jar_> URIs have distinct meaning

Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: nathan to add links to wiki [recorded in

   [End of minutes]

    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [20]scribe.perl version 1.135
    ([21]CVS log)
    $Date: 2011/03/01 17:12:20 $

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

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

   [Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.135  of Date: 2009/03/02 03:52:20
Check for newer version at [22]http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002

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

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/would/would be/
Found Scribe: nathan
Found ScribeNick: webr3
Found Scribe: webr3
Inferring ScribeNick: webr3
Scribes: nathan, webr3
Default Present: DBooth, jar, [IPcaller]
Present: Jonathan_Rees Nathan David_Booth
Got date from IRC log name: 01 Mar 2011
Guessing minutes URL: [23]http://www.w3.org/2011/03/01-awwsw-minutes.ht
People with action items: nathan

     [23] http://www.w3.org/2011/03/01-awwsw-minutes.html

   End of [24]scribe.perl diagnostic output]

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

David Booth, Ph.D.

Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily
reflect those of his employer.
Received on Tuesday, 1 March 2011 17:14:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 1 March 2011 17:14:46 GMT