- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 15:33:27 -0500
- To: www-tag@w3.org
TAG Weekly 31 May 2005
hypertext: http://www.w3.org/2005/05/31-tagmem-minutes.html
plain text follows...
Attendees
Present
noah, Ht, Vincent, DanC, TimBL, DaveO (part)
Regrets
RF, NDW
Chair
Vincent Quint
Scribe
DanC
Contents
1. [3]Convene, take roll, review records and agenda
2. [4]fn:escape-uri
3. [5]Reviewing some pending action items
4. [6]Reviewing some commitments re fragmentInXML-28,
SchemeProtocols-49
5. [7]httpRange-14
6. [8]AC meeting prep
See also: [9]Agenda, [10]IRC log
[9] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2005/05/31-agenda.html
[10] http://www.w3.org/2005/05/31-tagmem-irc
_________________________________________________________________
Convene, take roll, review records and agenda
regrets NDW [11]http://norman.walsh.name/2005/itinerary/05-21-xtech
[11] http://norman.walsh.name/2005/itinerary/05-21-xtech
DO to arrive later. no news re ER
<scribe> Scribe: DanC
upcoming scribes...
<Vincent> Scribe list: NDW, DC, ER, RF, NM, DO, HT
VQ: comments on the agenda?
[none just now]
Date of Next telcon? 7 June conflicts with AC meeting
HT not available 7 Jun
<timbl> I would not be there
next meeting seems to be ftf in Cambridge
RESOLVED to cancel 7 Jun telcon; meet next in Cambridge
RESOLVED to approve [12]3 May minutes and [13]10 May minutes.
[12] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2005May/att-0033/03-tagmem-irc.html
[13] http://www.w3.org/2005/05/10-tagmem-minutes.html
(item 2 AC prep deferred pending DO's arrival)
fn:escape-uri
(weird...
[14]http://www.w3.org/2005/04/12-tagmem-minutes.html#action01 pointer
gone bad)
[14] http://www.w3.org/2005/04/12-tagmem-minutes.html#action01
DanC: I asked if it was OK to drop "DanC to draft comment about
splitting fn:escape-uri into separate" from 12 Apr...
... relates to ftf prep; I hope to discuss XQuery namespaces
VQ: yes... speaking of which, I'm a bit behind on our ftf agenda; any
feedback would be best in the next day or two
DanC: I suppose we have enough overlap with XQuery/XPath, with HT and
Norm... do they need any heads-up?
HT: not really
DanC: TimBL, do you still think fn:escape-uri needs splitting?
TimBL: well, yes, different task... one of them is invertible, the
other is not
<timbl> TimBL: Yes, I do - into0 one ifnormation-losinga nd one
reversible function.
VQ: merits ftf time?
HT: yes, but cap at 30min
VQ: ok.
DanC fails to withdraw his action. it continues.
NM: pls make the ftf agenda have good background pointers; danc points
out a broken link
VQ: will do
Reviewing some pending action items
looking at NDW to work with HT, DO on namespaceState [recorded in
[15]http://www.w3.org/2005/02/22-tagmem-minutes#action04]
[15] http://www.w3.org/2005/02/22-tagmem-minutes#action04
HT: no progress; sorry.
looking at Tim to provide a draft of new namespace policy doc
([16]http://www.w3.org/1999/10/nsuri) and start discussion on www-tag
[recorded in
[17]http://www.w3.org/2005/03/08-tagmem-minutes.html#action04]
[16] http://www.w3.org/1999/10/nsuri)
[17] http://www.w3.org/2005/03/08-tagmem-minutes.html#action04
TBL: I discussed this internally a bit, I think...
... it still has the "note" in it [that shouldn't be there]
... I should follow that up, yes.
action continues.
looking at NDW to take GRDDL/RDDL discussion to www-tag to solicit
feedback on directions for namespaceDocument-8 [recorded in
[18]http://www.w3.org/2005/04/05-tagmem-minutes.html#action03]
[18] http://www.w3.org/2005/04/05-tagmem-minutes.html#action03
VQ: I don't see progress there.
[19]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/webarch/errata.html
[19] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/webarch/errata.html
[20]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webarch-comments/
[20] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webarch-comments/
VQ: I gather NDW has made some progress on this... made a list.
Reviewing some commitments re fragmentInXML-28 SchemeProtocols-49
looking at Henry to monitor [RFC3023bis wrt fragmentInXML-28] and
bring back up when time is appropriate. [recorded in
[21]http://www.w3.org/2005/02/07-tagmem-minutes.html#action12]
[21] http://www.w3.org/2005/02/07-tagmem-minutes.html#action12
HT: I've made some progress, talking with various people.
... the process is kinda complicated.
(hmm... this relates to
[22]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html?type=1#standardizedFieldVal
ues-51 )
[22] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html?type=1#standardizedFieldValues-51
HT's action is done.
looking at: Noah to own draft skeleton of SchemeProtocols-49 finding
and send around for comments. [recorded in
[23]http://www.w3.org/2005/03/08-tagmem-minutes.html#action02]
[23] http://www.w3.org/2005/03/08-tagmem-minutes.html#action02
NM: things above this on my todo list are done-ish, and I've started
on it...
... I see some difference of opinion
... if you have input, now would be a good time to send it to me (via
www-tag)
... it might merit ftf time
HT: I've talked with NM about this a bit... it's subtle and complex,
and yes, it does seem to merit ftf time
NM motivates the issue to the point where TBL is tempted to discuss in
substance... VQ is convinced it merits ftf time.
httpRange-14
<Zakim> DanC, you wanted to swap in unanswered mail from HT
[24]making progress on httpRange-14 -- yet another suggestion
[24] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2005May/0010.html
<ht> DanC: dc:title is the URI that's mentioned in the SWBPG message
to us
<ht> It's a hashless URI for a non-information-resource, i.e. an RDF
property
<ht> But you don't get a 200 if you try to retrieve it.
<ht> you get a redirect. . . They're evidently sensitive to claiming
dc:title has representations. So a hashless URI is more trouble when
it comes to publishing in that way. If they didn't set up a redirect,
a 200 from a hashless URI is a claim that the web page is identical to
the RDF property, which causes trouble for some consumers.
<ht> DanC: When asked how to choose/publish RDF properties, I say --
pick a part of webspace, divide it up, slap a hash on the end, that's
your name, then put something useful at the URI w/o the #
<ht> NM: [missed the question]
<ht> DanC: leads to confusion about e.g. 'author' assertions about
that property vs. 'author' assertions about the document describing it
<ht> NM: Indeed my concern was about 200 codes
NM: so far we've talked about dividing between InformationResources
and others...
... so if I get a 200 response for /noah , that seems kinda fishy,
since I didn't really contact Noah, but rather a proxy for [or
description of] Noah.
... [missed some...] but consider { ?SOMETHING measures:wieghtInLbs
200 } ...
<Zakim> ht, you wanted to ask what you _get_ with your 200
NM: consider an actual computer...
... that responds to HTTP GETs about itself
... in the case of a computer, though it's clearly not an
InformationResource, the 200 OK response doesn't seem to introduce
ambiguity
<ht> 200 for dc:title amounts to identifying the property with the
page, which is a realistic confusion
<ht> [that was DanC]
<ht> DanC: 200 for computer is not confusing, because everything true
about the computer is true about [what]????
<Zakim> timbl, you wanted to say that a computer is not an information
resource, 200 would be innapropriate.
TBL: to me, it's quite clear: the computer is not an information
resource, and hence a hashless http URI for it, and a 200 OK response,
is inappropriate.
NM: ok, so this conversation confirms that there are a couple ways to
look at this which are each internally consistent...
<ht> Towers of abstraction are a long-standing problem for
AI/Knowledge Representation
where HT wrote "not confusing" I meant to say "not formally
contradictory". I do think it's confusing.
[missed some...]
<ht> Right, Roy favours the "far context" approach to disambiguation,
i.e. information about the RDF property of the triple in which the URI
appears
NM: what about documents about documents?
TimBL: sure... <a> and <b>. <a#foo> might denote <b>.
resuming with [25]HT's msg
[25] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2005May/0010.html
<ht> "far context" is from [26]my initial message
[26] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2005Apr/0086.html
DC: as to "OK -- why do we need or want to maintain that notion of
identity across the SemWeb/OFWeb boundary?" I think webarch speaks to
the value of a global space. I'm somewhat conflicted about this; I
wonder if the principle has limitations.
TBL: [missed]
NM: this is an easy one for me, the traditional
Metcalf/economy-of-scale arguments convince me.
<Zakim> ht, you wanted to ask about the history
HT: in some histories of RDF, RDF statements were metadata, i.e. data
about documents.
... nowadays, that's less emphasized, and RDF statements are more
about things in the world... biotech and such...
... in the "RDF is for metadata" world, yes, it's nutso not to take
the identifier spaces the same...
<Vincent> MarkN is Dave
<timbl> TBL: We have written about the importance of an unambiguous
identifier throughout the OFWweb, and the semantic web depends in it
throughout the SemWeb. We could, yes, have an architecture in which
the two were separated: the same URI string would identifying
different things as a OFURI and as a SWURI. That would mean putting a
membrane between the two worlds, never mixing them. [I think this
would be a major drawback and very expensive]
HT: but it's less obvious when you get to lifesci etc.
... have I got the history right?
TBL: in a sense; to me, RDF was always a generic thing, but the
initial motivation and funding was metadata. So yes, the "center of
gravity" has shifted.
<ht> Thanks, that helps
<noah> From AWWW:
Software developers should expect that sharing URIs across
applications will be useful, even if that utility is not initially
evident.
[27]webarch/#identification
[27] http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#identification
<timbl> But remember that pre RDF, there was MCF and various KR things
which were more general KR oriented.
<noah> I actually believe this.
<noah> This suggests that SemWeb and OFWeb should share an
identification space
AC meeting prep
DO: what are the logistics of creating AC slide presentations?
<noah> I seem to remember that Chris Lilley did this quite regularly?
(I have internal mail saying [28]http://www.w3.org/Talks/Tools/ says
how to do AC presentation materials)
[28] http://www.w3.org/Talks/Tools/
HT: if you can make vanilla HTML, with one h2 per slide, I can help do
the rest... we have a CSS+javascript thingy
DO: umm... how to set/meet slide review expectations?
DC: I'm happy to delegate to DO+VQ
<noah> +1 I don't need to review unless someone wants help
<timbl> +1
VQ: ok, DO will send a draft to tag@w3.org and folks can send comments
DO: I expect to be able to make a draft toninght or tomorrow... I'm
travelling...
VQ: so we'll wrap up and get them to Ian by the end of this week
DO: I don't have [29]http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tag-summary.html ] in
front of me...
[29] http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tag-summary.html
<ht> I like the idea of giving some time to the binary and XRI stuff
DO: how much time to spend on external communications e.g. XRI?
VQ: let's see... we have 45 minutes, so there seems to be plenty of
time
<ht> We got good feedback on our binary message [good work Ed and
Noah!]
<noah> Thanks.
yes, talk to the AC about XRI and XBC
NM: re XBC, note there's been discussion on member-xml-binary
... I hope folks are happy with what I sent there.
<noah> [30]a msg I wrote:
[30] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-xml-binary/2005May/0010.html
In messages in the thread starting at [$1\47], the question is
raised as to whether the TAG is asking that the benefits of binary
XML be quantified before or after the chartering of a new
workgroup. Though this is not an official TAG communication, I
think I am accurately conveying the sense of the TAG on this
question. Specifically, we believe that the TAG should emphasize
technical analysis in its work, and that where possible we should
leave process decisions to others. See for example the discussion
of Binary XML in the (as yet unapproved) minutes of our meeting of
10 May [$1\47], in which Dan Connolly quotes from the TAG charter
[$1\47]...
<ht> Noah, I thought your reply was well-judged
<noah> Thanks.
DO: FYI, I've requested a lightning talk so that I can explicitly put
on my BEA hat to speak of the XML binary stuff.
... it's traditional to ask questions to the AC. continue that
tradition?
TBL: I'm not inclined to ask the AC how the TAG should work...
<ht> That reminds me -- DO should say somethign about the education
material stuff
DanC: let's ask the AC "how have you used the webarch doc? not at all?
read it yourself? internal training?"
DO: good idea.
... slides on XRI, XBC, questions, educational stuff. something like
that.
ADJOURN. for 2 weeks, meet next in Cambridge.
_________________________________________________________________
DanC, for VQ and the TAG.
$Revision: 1.5 $ of $Date: 2005/05/31 20:29:13 $ Minutes formatted
by David Booth's [31]scribe.perl version 1.126
[31] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
--
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Tuesday, 31 May 2005 20:33:39 UTC