- From: Thomas Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>
- Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 18:39:30 +0100
- To: SW Best Practices <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>
I can attend Monday's SWBP telecon but will arrive late,
circa 18:30-18:45 UTC.
I have attached the agenda for tomorrow's VM telecon, with
an up-to-date summary of where things stand. Note that we
will henceforth meet one hour later than before.
Tom
----------------------------------------------------------------------
SWBPD VM 2006-01-24 telecon agenda
Tuesday, 15:00 UTC (16:00 Berlin)
http://www.w3.org/Guide/1998/08/teleconference-calendar#D20060124
Zakim: +1.617.761.6200
Conference code 8683# ('VMTF')
irc://irc.w3.org:6665/vmtf
Recent telecons
-- 2006-01-10: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2006Jan/0005.html
-- 2006-01-17: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2006Jan/0079.html
Next telecons (weekly) - note change of time:
-- 2005-01-31 Tue 1500 UTC http://www.w3.org/Guide/1998/08/teleconference-calendar#D20060131
AGENDA
1. Editor's Draft
"Best Practice Recipes for Serving RDFS and OWL Vocabularies"
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/VM/http-examples/2005-11-18/
1.1. Status: We want to go for "note" status [4] within the
charter period for the BPD working group. BPDWG will
probably be extended by three months, so there will
be an opportunity to make revisions.
1.2. Name of the cookbook is "Best Practice Recipes for
Serving RDFS and OWL Vocabularies". This was decided
on Jan 17. Since then, Frank Manola has argued for
"shorter is better"
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2006Dec/0065.html.
Dan suggests pushing the metaphor to a sub-heading; referring
just to "RDF vocabs" instead of RDFS and OWL, and "publishing"
instead of "serving",
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2006Dec/0068.html.
2. Responses to reviews
On Jan 10, we decided that in January we would discuss
reviewer comments and formulate responses to reviewers
on the list.
2.1. 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: Alistair draft the question (i.e., that only the
initial response code matters) for discussion in VM, then
send to TAG. Done on Jan 17:
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").
ACTION: Alistair to 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.
2.2. 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.
3. Default response
RDF as the default response was discussed in
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Dec/0022.html
Alistair finds that conditional redirects work different
with Mozilla and IE6 because the two browsers send different
Accept headers with an HTTP GET request. Hence if we want
URIs to be clickable in IE, either we
(a) leave the recipes as they are and ask IE to send more headers, or
(b) change the recipes around and ask RDF toolkits to send more
headers.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2006Jan/0069.html
Alistair proposes to make the recipes IE friendly and serve HTML content
as the default response where content negotiation is configured.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2006Jan/0071.html
Initial tests show that this works as desired.
4. TAG httpRange-14 decision [10]
There have been recent comments on the list about the TAG
decision by David Booth: [11] summarizing best practice
issues around the decision, [12] on minting http URIs,
and [13] on 302 versus 303 redirects; by David Wood: [15]
with a use case for RDF; and and by Jacco van Ossenbruggen
[14], reviewing the comments by David Wood and David Booth.
In BPD, the idea arose to write a TAG-like "finding"
to explain the impact of the httpRange-14 decision.
David Booth and David Wood wrote drafts independently.
Probably not enough time in BPD to start a new document,
so could they be incorporated into cookbook? David Booth
agreed to go to propose a short section for us to consider.
General agreement that we should avoid getting too
historical -- just cover practical results. Some of
what David Booth has written could plausibly be recast
as introductory material on how to choose reasonable
namespace names.
5. Testing
ACTION: Ralph to test recipes with W3C configuration.
6. xml:base and hash URIs
On Jan 20, Alistair discovered that if you put a hash at the end
of the base URI, e.g.:
xml:base="http://example.com/foo#"
the hash is ignored when constructing relative URIs. Discussion followed.
[10] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2005Jun/0039.html
[11] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Dec/0055.html
[12] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Dec/0056.html
[13] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Dec/0123.html
[14] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Dec/0085.html
[15] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Sep/0010.html
--
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 Göttingen
Received on Monday, 23 January 2006 17:37:19 UTC