Re: [VM] Tuesday Jan 24 telecon agenda

Sorry Tom, I have a meeting at that time tomorrow and won't be able to
attend.

Libby

On Mon, 23 Jan 2006, Thomas Baker wrote:

>
> 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 19:22:41 UTC