- From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 14:35:06 -0400
- To: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
- Cc: nathan@webr3.org, AWWSW TF <public-awwsw@w3.org>
Draft minutes: http://www.w3.org/2011/08/16-awwsw-minutes.html
And below in plain text.
--------------------------------------------------------
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
- DRAFT -
AWWSW
16 Aug 2011
See also: [2]IRC log
[2] http://www.w3.org/2011/08/16-awwsw-irc
Attendees
Present
DBooth, jar, +1.716.810.aaaa, alanr
Regrets
Chair
Jonathan Rees
Scribe
dbooth
Contents
* [3]Topics
* [4]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________
<jar>
[5]http://masinter.blogspot.com/2011/08/expert-system-scalability-an
d-semantic.html
[5] http://masinter.blogspot.com/2011/08/expert-system-scalability-and-semantic.html
jar: There's stuff on the web and you want to be able to talk about
it. The role of the URi is that it helps one person communicate ...
helps you say what stuff you're talking about.
... If I make a statement about a document I get from a URI, you may
want to know what document I was talking about, so I may want to say
"the one at this URI".
... The URI is maybe part of what you need to explain what you are
talking about.
... You might talk about it with a pronoun with some
characteristics.
dbooth: Some metadata....
<jar> does the document contain the word "green"?
jar: At some point there will be enough info about what's being
discussed to have successful communication. E.g., if I talk about a
journal article you can narrow it down enough to be able to discuss
further question, such as "does this article contain the word
'green'?"
<jar> might be able to identify using sha1, or author/title/date
<jar> but not adequate always for answering the "green" question
jar: Author and title may be enough to identify the doc but not
adequate for discussing aspects of its content.
alan: The identification process is the step needed to acquire the
doc.
<jar> do I know enough about what they're talking about to be able
to answer word-containment questions?
jar: A class of strings would be defined by an invariant, e.g., same
author.
<Zakim> dbooth, you wanted to ask Isn't identification the ability
to know which thing is intended?
jar: But that's not useful, becuse you need an operational test.
dbooth: You want to confirm the identity enough to ensure correct
communication?
jar: And i verify that by checking: if they say the document
contains the word green, then I see if it is.
<jar> class of strings
<jar> satisfying some invariant
jar: lets talk about classes of strings instead of documents.
... I'm talking about some class of strings, and you don't yet know
what class it is. I tell you that if it is in this class then it was
written by this person and has this title.
... Or maybe it goes the other way around. I ask you something that
follows from that. Here's the author-title-date . . .
<jar> game: Alice gives restrictions (invariants) for a class of
strings C, she calls the class "C"
jar: You're giving property invariants for a class of strings. Alice
calls the class "C" and tells Bill restrictions on members of C.
<jar> Alice tell Bill these restrictions on members of C
<jar> Alice queries Bill on some restriction, see whether he answers
correctly
jar: Then Alice queries Bill on some restriction and sees whether
Bill answers correctly.
<jar> Alice tells Bill, title, author, date.
<jar> Alice asks Bill, does every member of C contain the word
"green"
dbooth: Does the fact that it contains "green" logically follow from
the metadata that Alice gave?
jar: No, not necessarily. There has to be some other communication
channel, e.g., the web, the library, background knowledge.
... There are many ways that a URI might be used in a restriction to
help out like this. A URi may be the location where you GET the
string.
alan: Or a GET may retrieve the hash.
jar: Or it could be a source of metadata.
... I'd like to have 10-20 different relationships between a URI and
a thing.
<jar> Scenario A. Entity is a string. URI is related to it ... not
sure how.
<jar> Scenario B. Entity is a class of strings. ...
<jar> TimBL case, scenario B, where URI is the one use to GET
strings...
<jar> Scenario C. Entity is a source of information (HTTP
endpoint)...
alan: Party 1 gives a word, and party 2 says yes or no, the class of
strings contains that word
dbooth: you've got two axes: what scenario (A, B, C) and what kinds
of statements are being made about it?
jar: We've looked at the special case of using a URI to help tell
someone what thing you're talking about.
... The timbl case is when the URI is adequate to identify the
document -- the sole piece of information you have about it.
... But there are other cases where you may need to consider time,
or transclusion.
dbooth: example using only strings?
<jar> Alice says, S has SHA1 hash H. Then asks Bill, does S contain
"green"?
jar: Alice says s has a sha1 hash, then asks bill does s contain
"green"?
<jar> similar to
<jar> Alice says D is a generic resource timbl-identified-by URI.
Asks, does D contain "green"?
dbooth: So Alice provides some characteristic about the thing, and
asks if it has some other characteristic.
<jar> is being related to URI U predictive of anything?
dbooth: I think an issue here is that URIs are being used both at
the meta level (as an arbitrary identifier) and at the concrete
level as an attribute of something.
<jar> problem is putting the URI-relates-to-thing opportunity in
perspective
alan: You've got a <URI, thing> pair, and you don't necessarily know
how they're connected.
... And one party knows what thing it is i assume.
... Or knows some tru propositions about the thing, and those
propositions may or may not include the URI.
<jar> Situations where, if Alice does *not* divulge a URI, then Bob
willl not be competent
alan: Party A is in posession of a URI and some questions. They have
a comm channel. They have some communications of mutual expected
benefit.
... And if the sem web works ideally, then the first thing A would
say is "the URI is u". B follows its nose. Then A asks "is having
the word green a property of it". and B says yes. And they convince
themselves that they've been successful in communicating.
... Another scenario: A tells B "you know that person who has red
hair and lives at so-and-so?" Here's a URI, and give it to another
person, and that person gives you a URI of the thing.
dbooth: How does that convince A and B that the've communicated
successfully?
<jar> (competence test)
alan: That second URI allows them to answer any questions about the
thing.
<jar> flickr case: the relationship between the landing page URI and
the image
<jar> jamendo: the relationship between the landing page URI and the
music
<jar> jamendo says, the music "with" URI U, has license L
<jar> "with" relationship is .... ?
Summary of Action Items
[End of minutes]
_________________________________________________________
Minutes formatted by David Booth's [6]scribe.perl version 1.136
([7]CVS log)
$Date: 2011/08/16 18:32:55 $
_________________________________________________________
[6] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[7] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Scribe.perl diagnostic output
[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.136 of Date: 2011/05/12 12:01:43
Check for newer version at [8]http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/
scribe/
[8] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/
Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)
Succeeded: s/benefit/mutual expected benefit/
No ScribeNick specified. Guessing ScribeNick: dbooth
Inferring Scribes: dbooth
WARNING: No "Topic:" lines found.
Default Present: DBooth, jar, +1.716.810.aaaa, alanr
Present: DBooth jar +1.716.810.aaaa alanr
Got date from IRC log name: 16 Aug 2011
Guessing minutes URL: [9]http://www.w3.org/2011/08/16-awwsw-minutes.htm
l
People with action items:
[9] http://www.w3.org/2011/08/16-awwsw-minutes.html
WARNING: No "Topic: ..." lines found!
Resulting HTML may have an empty (invalid) <ol>...</ol>.
Explanation: "Topic: ..." lines are used to indicate the start of
new discussion topics or agenda items, such as:
<dbooth> Topic: Review of Amy's report
End of [10]scribe.perl diagnostic output]
[10] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
--
David Booth, Ph.D.
http://dbooth.org/
Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily
reflect those of his employer.
Received on Tuesday, 16 August 2011 18:35:30 UTC