- 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