- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 07:32:08 -0500
- To: Thomas Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>
- Cc: SW Best Practices <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>
* Thomas Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de> [2006-02-14 09:13+0100]
>
> SWBPD VM 2006-02-14 telecon agenda
>
> Tuesday, 15:00 UTC (16:00 Berlin)
Likely regrets (other commitments)
Dan
> http://www.w3.org/Guide/1998/08/teleconference-calendar#D20060214
> Zakim: +1-617-761-6200
> Conference code 8683# ('VMTF')
> irc://irc.w3.org:6665/vmtf
>
> Recent telecons
> -- 2006-01-24: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2006Jan/0125.html
> -- 2006-02-01: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2006Feb/0028.html
> -- 2006-02-07: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2006Feb/0056.html
>
> Next telecons (weekly)
> -- 2005-02-21 Tue 1500 UTC http://www.w3.org/Guide/1998/08/teleconference-calendar#D20060221
>
> Regrets: Alistair
>
> AGENDA
>
> -- Current draft ("cookbook") is
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/VM/http-examples/2006-01-18/
>
> -- Confirm process (as of BPD telecon of Feb 6) for publishing
> cookbook as a Working Draft -- see [1], appended as text below.
>
> -- Outstanding technical issues? (See "recent telecons", above)
>
> -- Any new text to add? (See below)
>
> -- Testing
> ACTION: Ralph to test recipes with W3C configuration.
>
> -- Frequency of VM telecons
> Once Working Draft is out, chair proposes we hold conferences every
> second week for awhile (instead of weekly).
>
> -- Longer-term issue: alignment of content-negotiation ideas
> in the cookbook with TAG:
> -- http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html#namespaceDocument-8
> -- Associating Resources with Namespaces
> Draft TAG Finding 13 December 2005
> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/nsDocuments-2005-12-13/
>
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2006Feb/0049.html
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> SWBPD VM 2006-02-06 Task force update
>
> The Vocabulary Management Task Force would like to propose
> "Best Practice Recipes for Publishing RDF Vocabularies"
> [1] for publication as a Working Draft.
>
> In recent VM telecons [2], we have been discussing the reviews
> provided by David Booth and Andreas Harth. We would like
> to ask David and Andreas now to look at our notes (below)
> and let us know if they agree with our request to publish a
> Working Draft.
>
> We just discussed this request on the Feb 6 SWBPD telecon
> and agreed on the following timetable:
>
> -- David Booth would like to propose some words on how to select
> which type of URI to use. We have asked him to provide this
> before the VM telecon of Feb 14.
>
> -- Next VM telecons are on Feb 7 and Feb 14 [3].
>
> -- Having heard back from David and Andreas and received text
> from David, by Feb 17 we post a proposal to the list to
> publish as a Working Draft.
>
> -- In the Feb 20 telecon, SWBPD takes a decision.
>
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/VM/http-examples/2006-01-18/
> [2] Recent telecons
> 2006-01-24: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2006Jan/0125.html
> 2006-01-31: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2006Jan/0180.html
> [3] Next telecons (weekly)
> 2005-02-07 Tue 1500 UTC http://www.w3.org/Guide/1998/08/teleconference-calendar#D20060207
> 2005-02-14 Tue 1500 UTC http://www.w3.org/Guide/1998/08/teleconference-calendar#D20060214
>
> ----
>
> Responses to reviews
>
> -- David Booth review
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Dec/0124.html
> -- Global suggestions
> G1. To discuss trade-offs between hash and slash URIs
> Response: Ralph has addressed this with added text in the
> introduction. David has not yet indicated whether he is
> satisfied.
>
> G2. To avoid purl.org recipes, which violate TAG resolution
> with 302 redirect code.
>
> Problem with purl.org: It is not enough to change all 302s to
> 303s because 302 is appropriate for most URIs. So the purl.org
> maintainers would have to implement a feature for users to
> specify that some resource is a non-information resource.
> This would require changes to the database. Are there any
> options to do a double redirection? I.e. if purl returns a
> 302 redirect, then my own server does a 303. On Jan 17, decided
> to clarify with TAG whether inferences are supposed to be made
> already on the initial response code.
>
> ACTION (DONE Jan 17): Alistair drafted the question (i.e., that only the
> initial response code matters) for discussion in BPD, then to send to TAG:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2006Jan/0076.html
> This draft note to TAG
> -- suggests they coin a URI for class "resource"
> (tag:informationResource) so that things like rdfs:Class,
> owl:Class, and rdf:Property could be declared disjoint with it.
> -- requests clarification on what implication one can draw when
> 303 is returned as opposed to 200 ("X is a tag:infoResource").
>
> (Note: In follow-up, David Booth suggested
> a draft "HTTP URI-Identity-Algorithm",
> out of scope for the VM TF per se:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2006Jan/0116.html
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2006Jan/0165.html)
>
> ACTION - DONE: Alistair put the purl.org material into an Appendix.
>
> -- Specific recipes
> Recipe 3. Interpretation of a fragment identifier in the
> presence of 303 redirects is unclear, so recipe
> should note that browser may or may not apply
> fragment identifier to secondary URI.
>
> -- Editorial suggestions
> E1. Shorter URIs in the examples would be better.
> Alistair would rather leave the longer URIs for now because
> a UK server is configured to support them, see
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2006Jan/0034.html.
> Ralph suggests using w3c URIs in the final version (with
> shorter URIs for the examples).
>
> E2. At the beginning of each recipe, say what the URIs would return.
>
> Alistair proposes to illustrate this graphically, so added images
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2006Jan/0034.html.
> David Booth actually intended simply to spell out which URIs
> are redirected to. Ralph wonders whether the images really add any
> new information.
>
> On Jan 18, Alistair reorganized recipes 1 and
> 2, adding short description of outcomes as
> per Booth suggestion. Added examples with
> expected outcomes for purpose of testing.
> Wants to organize the rest like this when
> IE6 bug resolved.
>
> -- Andreas Harth review
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2006Jan/0004.html
> -- The document has too many choices - suggests
> cutting down to 3 or 4 covering 80% of the cases.
> -- Suggests content negotiation instead of mod_rewrite
> modules. Response at:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Dec/0016.html
> -- Suggests mod_alias instead of mod_rewrite.
> -- Maybe put purl.org examples into an appendix.
>
>
>
> --
> Dr. Thomas Baker baker@sub.uni-goettingen.de
> SUB - Goettingen State +49-551-39-3883
> and University Library +49-30-8109-9027
> Papendiek 14, 37073 G?ttingen
>
Received on Tuesday, 14 February 2006 12:32:15 UTC