Draft minutes from 2008-05-13

http://www.w3.org/2008/05/13-awwsw-minutes.html
and also below in plain text.

------------------------------------------------------------

   [1]W3C

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

                               - DRAFT -

                                 AWWSW

13 May 2008

   See also: [2]IRC log

      [2] http://www.w3.org/2008/05/13-awwsw-irc

Attendees

   Present
          Jonathan_Rees_(jar), David_Booth, Stuart_Williams

   Regrets
   Chair
          Jonathan Rees

   Scribe
          dbooth

Contents

     * [3]Topics
         1. [4]Activities proposed
         2. [5]Next meeting
     * [6]Summary of Action Items
     _________________________________________________________


   hi stuart. i just emailed jonathan. zakim doesn't seem to know aobut
   our conf call today.

   <jar> hello

   <Stuart> don't know if we are meeting today

   <Stuart> Zakim has allowed me in

   <jar> neither do i. i will get on the phone and let's decide whether
   to meet

   <Stuart> zakim this is awwsw

   oh, i guess i did it too soon. zakim wasn't ready yet.

Activities proposed

   jar: Two proposals: 1. Look at FRBR (... bibliographic references).
   2. ABC (a followon to FRBR?) harmony.

   <jar> [7]http://metadata.net/harmony/JODI_Final.pdf

      [7] http://metadata.net/harmony/JODI_Final.pdf

   <jar> denrie

   jar: ANother is denrie, from Oboe. They think they need a decent ont
   for information: lab reports, clinical records, etc. So they're
   thinking about provadence.
   ... Another direction is to work with what we have: make a catalog
   of other onts that we have so far, and then maybe we can pick a def
   of IR out of that.

   Stuart: Almost like a brainstorming .... get the whole spectrum on
   the table, then develop relations between them, similarties,
   differences, etc., though not necessarily any one of them would be
   exactly the term we want.

   dbooth: FRBR, ABC and denrie seem to be more specific than what
   we've put on the table.

   jar: Want to be able to look at an example and decide whether it
   should be an IR. Is a journal article an IR? Given the answers that
   Tim has given, I now have my doubts.

   Stuart: Need Tim on the call for that, and need the scribe to
   capture exactly what he says on this day.
   ... Looking a FRBR sounds like a good idea.

   <jar> [8]http://www.ifla.org/VII/s13/frbr/

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

   Stuart: Is FRBR related to INDEX?

   <Stuart> INDECS

   dbooth: This sounds like a long route to get to an agreed def of IR.

   <jar> dbooth: no doubt in my mind how info resource has to be
   defined.

   <Stuart>
   [9]http://www.doi.org/topics/indecs/indecs_framework_2000.pdf

      [9] http://www.doi.org/topics/indecs/indecs_framework_2000.pdf

   jar: For journal article example, the AWWW def makes it sound like
   an IR, but that def is vague.
   ... But from what TimBl says i'm not sure. Maybe the URI from which
   you get the article denotes what the article served, but not the
   actual article.
   ... But dbooth's def is concrete (a function).

   dbooth: If you want to capture only the info in that article, then
   the function inputs are constant and it can be an IR. But if you're
   denoting a more abstract notion of the "the journal article", then
   it is NOT an IR.

   <jar> My assessment of httpRange-14's value: It forces us to decide
   whether the URI denotes the document or the thing - and forbids it
   from denoting both

   <jar> "Information resource" exists in part to support this aim.

   stuart: I think a valuable outcome of the decision is that it
   settles the question of whether you can use http names to name
   arbitrary things. There was a time earlier when timbl argued that
   you could not if the url didn't contain a hash. The decision settled
   that.

   <jar> But httpRange-14, in my view, doesn't exist in order to tell
   you that something is an information resource.

   <Stuart> Having trouble finding concrete references to INDECS but
   there are plenty of mentions in the DOI Glossary:
   [10]http://www.doi.org/handbook_2000/glossary.html

     [10] http://www.doi.org/handbook_2000/glossary.html

   jar: the issue is that i'm looking at lots of journal articles and
   need to know if i'm allowed to give a 200 response.

   <Stuart> Concrete example, what does the doi 10.1002/cpe.1233 (ie:
   [11]http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cpe.1233) identify?

     [11] http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cpe.1233)

   dbooth: if you ask "is this an IR" you're asking the wrong way
   around. If you want to denote something that fits into the def of IR
   as a fn, then it is an IR. It's a matter of choice.
   ... by jar's description, it sounds like he wants to denote
   something (a journal article) that is *not* just information.

   stuart: we have the same problem with numbers. is a number an IR?

   jar: seems similar to exclude journal article from the def of IR.

   dbooth: I'm happy to denote my journal article as a fn, even if jar
   is denoting an abstract concept of a journal article.

   jar: the intent of webarch is to allow lots of kinds of things to be
   IRs. and i think the intent was to admit what i'm talking about
   (journal article).

   dbooth: I don't see another way of defining IR than the way either
   Roy or I has defined it.

   jar: Maybe IR should just be defined by example. part of the goal is
   to bring people to understanding this issue.
   ... Another way to go is to treat is as an ont issue and just use
   303's for journal articles. But i don't like that because it puts up
   a wall between web things and journal articles.

   dbooth: You give something, you get something.

   Stuart: Would be useful to get to the bottom of: earlier, the
   majority of the TAG didn't need to maek this distinction. But one
   TAG member was looking at the URI to see if it started with "http:"
   aand having not hash and making an important artitectural decision
   from that, and i've never understood why.
   ... The AWWWW was published with issue 14 left open, and
   intentionally phrased to permit the answer to go either way. The
   term IR got introduced to try to address an issue Pay Hayes raised,
   and introduction of the term satisfied an issue he brought.

   jar: There's more than one issue, but not very many. One is can an
   http URI denote a person. Once the answer is yes, that raises a
   second question of whether a potato can have a representation.
   ... Tim always dismisses this as a gray area. But to me it's not. As
   the SW grows you're goingn to talk more and more about information,
   so i see a real collision between webarch and the ont community and
   people who wish to talk about providence.

   <Stuart> Partial genesis of the term "Information Resource"
   [12]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webarch-comments/2004
   JulSep/0131.html

     [12] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webarch-comments/2004JulSep/0131.html

   dbooth: Sounds like we need more discussion about how to choose
   between denoting a journal article as an IR or non-IR.

   jar: Most people are probably going to just do what they do and
   won't care about this issue, but I overlap both the TAG and Science
   Commons.
   ... I agree you need to ask what role IR plays in the architecture.
   It isn' inherently interesting. It is only interesting in its
   architectural role.

Next meeting

   jar: Use FRBR as a starting point.

Summary of Action Items

   [End of minutes]
     _________________________________________________________


    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [13]scribe.perl version 1.133
    ([14]CVS log)
    $Date: 2008/05/13 14:02:53 $
     _________________________________________________________

     [13] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
     [14] 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 [15]http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002
/scribe/

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

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

No ScribeNick specified.  Guessing ScribeNick: dbooth
Inferring Scribes: dbooth
Default Present: Jonathan_Rees, DBooth
Present: Jonathan_Rees_(jar) David_Booth Stuart_Williams
Got date from IRC log name: 13 May 2008
Guessing minutes URL: [16]http://www.w3.org/2008/05/13-awwsw-minutes.ht
ml
People with action items:

     [16] http://www.w3.org/2008/05/13-awwsw-minutes.html

   End of [17]scribe.perl diagnostic output]

     [17] 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, 13 May 2008 14:57:33 UTC