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

Draft minutes from 29-Mar-2011 teleconference

From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 16:40:32 -0400
To: AWWSW TF <public-awwsw@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1301431232.2904.11037.camel@dbooth-laptop>
and below in plain text.


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

                               - DRAFT -


29 Mar 2011

   See also: [2]IRC log

      [2] http://www.w3.org/2011/03/29-awwsw-irc


          jar, DBooth, mhausenblas

          Jonathan Rees



     * [3]Topics
         1. [4]Draft document
     * [5]Summary of Action Items

Draft document [6]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/awwsw/issue57/latest/

      [6] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/awwsw/issue57/latest/

   jar: Still trying to learn what to do on this doc before sending for
   wider review.
   ... heart of the doc is sec 5.5. and 5.6


      [7] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/awwsw/issue57/latest/#chimera

   michael: In the glossary, the def of "deref". Why URIs with fragIDs
   are not dereferenceable? You remove the fragid and then deref.

   jar: HTTP doesnt' let you put the fragid in the request, so in that
   sense the URI isn't dereferenceable. Also, look at 3986 and see how
   they use the term.

   dbooth: need to distinguish between direct and indirect
   dereferencing? Indirect is FYN.

   <jar_> The fragment's format and resolution is therefore

   <jar_> dependent on the media type [RFC2046] of a potentially

   <jar_> representation, even though such a retrieval is only
   performed if the

   <jar_> URI is dereferenced.

   <mhausenblas> [[

   <mhausenblas> A URI is dereferenceable if it may be used with a
   standard access mechanism to retrieve information, or to perform
   some other action on an associated resource ([rfc-3986] section
   1.2.2). URIs possessing fragment identifiers (#) are by definition
   not dereferenceable. http: URIs without fragment identifiers are
   dereferenceable if some HTTP method (or equivalent) is successful
   (2xx response). Some URIs belonging to some other URI schemes are

   <mhausenblas> dereferenceable.

   <mhausenblas> ]]

   jar: Could clarify def in glossary.

   dbooth: Sounds good. Suggest using the term "directly
   dereferenceable" throughout.

   jar: Another possibility is to change "URI" to "fragmentless URI"
   where appropriate.

   <jar_> 'slash URI' or 'fragmentless URI'


   jar: "hashless"?

   <mhausenblas> +1

   dbooth, michael: good

   jar: I can define "hashless URI" in the glossary.

   dbooth: I have reservations about this trying to address protocols
   other than HTTP.

   jar: larry masinter is on the TAG, and he'd want to see other
   schemes included.

   michael: what did you mean by this in 2.2:


   [This use case keeps coming up (e.g. tdb:) but I don't think anyone
   is seriously interested in it. Need text to admit that it's
   important but not important enough to talk about.]


   jar: whether in the LD world, do you ever have a 303 redirect that
   does not contain the URI being defined.

   dbooth: [8]http://thing-described-by.org/ does cover this case.
   ... I think the topic maps people may do that.

      [8] http://thing-described-by.org/

   jar: you get different answers whether you assume that the URI
   refers to the primary topic or not.

   dbooth: I think this issue comes up more when the definition is
   expressed in natural language -- not when it is expressed in RDF.
   ... If the def is expressed in RDF I don't think there is a reliable
   way to distinguish between cases 2.1 and 2.2.

   jar: the question is whether we need to cover case 2.2 -- whether
   anyone is using this technique.

   Michael: Not sure how the structure of sec 3 relates to the use
   cases in sec 2.

   jar: Section 3 is related to use case 2.1. It doesn't seem to use
   the word "somehow" any more.

   dbooth: would be helpful to make the questions explicit in the use
   case, e.g., "Where should Alice publish the def?"
   ... sec 3.1, what does "Put the definition in the document in which
   the URI occurs. " mean?
   ... give names to documents that are mentioned, to be clear about
   which one is meant.
   ... The doc seems to talk both about the mechanics of how a def is
   provided and obtained, and about the semantics of what a URI means,
   as 5.6 talks about IRs.

   jar: 5.6 needs to talk about both, to make sense.
   ... looking at 5.5

   dbooth: Statements like "Carol can straighten this out" suggest that
   there is a problem that *needs* to be straightened out. But if Ch
   can both have foo:mass and have a dc:creator, then there is no
   problem to be straightened out.

   <jar_> DB and I have been arguing about this for years and have
   never managed to communicate

   And in an *application*, which is the point of doing this, a CH can
   perfectly fine have both.

   wow, still 404 after 12 minutes:

      [9] http://www.w3.org/2011/03/29-awwsw-minutes.html

Summary of Action Items

   [End of minutes]

    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [10]scribe.perl version 1.135
    ([11]CVS log)
    $Date: 2011/03/29 20:36:32 $

     [10] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
     [11] 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 [12]http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002

     [12] 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: jar, DBooth, mhausenblas
Present: jar DBooth mhausenblas
Got date from IRC log name: 29 Mar 2011
Guessing minutes URL: [13]http://www.w3.org/2011/03/29-awwsw-minutes.ht
People with action items:

     [13] http://www.w3.org/2011/03/29-awwsw-minutes.html

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.

   End of [14]scribe.perl diagnostic output]

     [14] 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, 29 March 2011 20:41:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:07:22 UTC