W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > May 2005

TAG minutes 2005-05-31 for review [fragmentInXML-28, SchemeProtocols-49, httpRange-14]

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 15:33:27 -0500
To: www-tag@w3.org
Message-Id: <1117571607.19175.100.camel@localhost>

TAG Weekly 31 May 2005

hypertext: http://www.w3.org/2005/05/31-tagmem-minutes.html

plain text follows...


          noah, Ht, Vincent, DanC, TimBL, DaveO (part)

          RF, NDW

          Vincent Quint



    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,
    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)


   [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

   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

     [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

   VQ: I don't see progress there.


     [19] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/webarch/errata.html


     [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

   HT: I've made some progress, talking with various people.
   ... the process is kinda complicated.

   (hmm... this relates to
   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

   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
   ... 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.


   <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

   <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

   <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

   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


     [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

   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

   <ht> We got good feedback on our binary message [good work Ed and

   <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

   <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

   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

   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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:08 UTC