W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > March 2008

TAG Telcon: Draft minutes for 20th March 2008 available for review.

From: Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol) <skw@hp.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 18:59:04 +0000
To: "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
CC: Leo Sauermann <leo.sauermann@dfki.de>, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Message-ID: <9674EA156DA93A4F855379AABDA4A5C611A1D56FAA@G5W0277.americas.hpqcorp.net>

Draft minutes from the TAG telcon of 20th March 2008 are available for review at:


Plain textversion attached below.


Stuart Williams
Hewlett-Packard Limited registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN
Registered No: 690597 England


                               - DRAFT -

                              TAG Weekly

20 Mar 2008


      [2] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2008/03/20-agenda

   See also: [3]IRC log

      [3] http://www.w3.org/2008/03/20-tagmem-irc


          Tim_Berners-Lee, Henry_Thompson, Stuart_Williams,
          Jonathan_Rees, Norman_Walsh, T.V._Raman, Ashok_Malhotra,
          Leo_Sauermann, Richard_Cyganiak

          Noah_Mendelsohn, Dave_Orchard, Dan_Connolly

          Stuart Williams

          Jonathan Rees


     * [4]Topics
         1. [5]httpRedirections-57 (ISSUE-57)
         2. [6]abbreviateURI-56 (ISSUE-56)
     * [7]Summary of Action Items

   <Stuart> Scribe: Jonathan Rees

   <Stuart> scribenick: jar

   <leobard> hi, joining chat for the momment, phoning in in 10

   stuart: we are expecting guests to talk about httpRedirections-57
   ... agenda accepted
   ... no objections or abstentions re minutes of 13 march
   ... next meeting 27 march. ashok to scribe
   ... noah regrets for 27 march
   ... approval of feb f2f minutes to be tabled pending completion of
   all days

   Resolution: Approve 13 March 2008 minutes at

      [8] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2008/03/13-minutes

   Richard Cyganiak has joined the call

   Leo is in IRC and is expected on the call

httpRedirections-57 (ISSUE-57)

   stuart: Welcome Leo
   ... Hoping that today, we can see clear to the end of this document
   ... To discuss: diagram and conneg + redirection

   leo: State of SWEO - finishing in 1 week, end of March. Cool URIs
   has been in progress for 1 year. Must be published within 1 week, if
   it's to be a note
   ... hoping for no feedback
   ... We received a big review from Tim in Feb, and changed the doc.
   No ack yet.


      [9] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sweo-ig/2008Mar/0052.html

   Tim: 16th of March...


     [10] https://gnowsis.opendfki.de/repos/gnowsis/papers/2006_11_concepturi/html/cooluris_sweo_note.html#r303gendocument

   leo: Tim's suggestion has been added as an alternative

   Tim: It's important which one you should do
   ... we want generic documents when appropriate, and not when not

   leo: Look at 4.3, second paragraph
   ... Do you suggest we remove 4.2 ?

   <leobard> remove 4.2?

   Tim: No, 4.2 is appropriate when the HTML has more information than
   the RDF

   <Stuart> Editorial question: should 4.2 have a more expansive
   heading than "303 URI"?

   Tim: If one is more powerful than the other, then it is a different
   document & must have different URI

   <timbl_> 303 URIs with documents with different information.

   Tim: how about "redirects to documents with different information"

   [scribe's possible inaccuracy in quoting tim]

   Tim: Probably more common is HTML automatically generated from RDF
   ... When RDF has been scraped, then they're clearly different
   ... There's nothing about CN, is there.

   Leo: CN near beginning, in 2.1, but not detailed

   <leobard> link to q - qs plz?

   tim: if html is from rdf, the rdf should be preferred

   stuart: There was a Richard/Tim exchange [in IRC]

   <timbl_> qs(rdf) > qs(html) if the html is generated from the html.

   tim: crucial point was where we changed tabulator in with firefox,
   which has a choice between html and rdf
   ... there is a loss when you generate html from rdf
   ... problems with rules like "if the client can take rdf, give it
   rdf" (similarly html)

   <Stuart> My concern is where this (qs/qc) can be fixed in time for
   an LC publication tomorrow and a 1 week review cycle?

   leo: Is this written down somewhere?

   tim: No

   (q / qs relates to CN algorithm - quality)

   <timbl_> qs = the amount by whichhte qualty of this is presevced (1)
   or degraded (<1)

   (scribe having difficulty transcribing Tim)

   leo: Can you give example of correct server behavior?

   <timbl_> If the RDF is dscarped (lossily) from hte HTML, the q(rdf)
   < q(html)

   tim: Quality measure should take direction of scraping into account

   (Tim explaining CN quality parameters using images as an example)


     [11] http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.0/content-negotiation.html

   <leobard> cygri sees a problem with server side of q-values, it
   seems not specified

   leo: The client/server quality interaction is not specified in
   ... Apache does a particular thing, but this seems obscure
   ... This presents a problem for the document
   ... Nothing to cite

   tim: Fair enough. Maybe explain what to do specifically for Apache

   stuart: Maybe a simple reference to apache doc would help?

   richard: Explain it in general terms - say that you should bias
   [using quality params] in the right direction?
   ... Point to apache as one example

   <timbl_> In the case in which for example an HTML file has been
   generated from the RDF file, then the HTML has lost some
   information, so the RDF should be deleivered for clients whcih
   accept boethr RDF and HTML with similar q levels (see HTTP sec).

   <timbl_> In the case in which the RDF file has only a subset of the
   information in the HTML file, and teh client handles with, then the
   server should have a preference for the HTML in the content
   negotiation algortithm

   <timbl_> See for example the Apache content negotiation [ref].

   Tim: You can do it with typemap files, but not with multiviews.
   Apache bug.

   <timbl_> You can do this with a type-map file but not with
   multiviews, as there are no qs specified in the config file for

   <leobard> the replaced diagram is here:

     [12] https://gnowsis.opendfki.de/repos/gnowsis/papers/2006_11_concepturi/html/cooluris_sweo_note.html#r303gendocument

   stuart: What is the effect on the diagrams of this discussion?

   <leobard> diagram:

     [13] https://gnowsis.opendfki.de/repos/gnowsis/papers/2006_11_concepturi/html/img20071212/303conneg.png

   tim: It's simplistic about CN

   <timbl_> "application/rdf+xml wins"?

   richard: it should be changed

   raman: Can you add a pointer to the tag finding i wrote last year?

   richard: yes


     [14] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/alternatives-discovery.html

   raman: in the section on generic resources

   stuart: general agreement on switching 4.2 and 4.3


     [15] https://gnowsis.opendfki.de/repos/gnowsis/papers/2006_11_concepturi/html/cooluris_sweo_note.html#distinguishing

   tim: It's not a disinction between web documents and things. Web
   documents *are* things

   richard: but this is covered in the first sentence

   raman: Too vague - strike it out

   discussing 'err on the side of caution'

   <Stuart> from my POV the httpRange-14 questions was "what kinds of
   thing can be named with an http URI" and we said "...anything..."
   even in the case where there is no '#' in the URI.

   tim: end of 3.1 will confuse people.

   <timbl_> It is not necessary to make that distinction, to define
   from first priciples what a douemnt is or is not.

   ht: Agree with the goal of this section - advise people when they
   have a certain class of problems
   ... Everything would follow if section title were "URIs for things
   not on the web"

   <timbl_> You can say, "We have demonstrated how URIs can be given to
   things, and to the documents about those things, and how they

   tim: Doesn't have to be "real world objects"

   ht: Need to judiciously change the rhetoric - we don't need to
   descend into argument

   richard: But this argument has been going on for 5 years
   ... There is a problem, I have something sitting in front of me, can
   I return a 200 or not?
   ... The question [of what is an IR] matters

   timbl: No one will think a telephone is a web document

   jar: But is a representation a web document? Or the number 3?

   <Stuart> jar... do you mean the number or a numeral?

   ht: There are clear cases and hard cases

   <cygri> seems i dropped from the call ... will rejoin

   <raman> lots of static on the line

   timbl: It's important that we not go there - questions like is 3 an

   <leobard> decision is needed on whether remove 3.1 or keep it

   timbl: Propose 3.1 be removed

   <timbl_> Note that URIs of people amd the documents abou them sould
   not be confused: For example the person Alice is described on her in
   an information resource, Alice's homepage. Bob may not like the look
   of the homepage, but fancy the person Alice

   <timbl_> +1 for remove 3.1

   <ht> I'm happy with 3.1 as it stands, with one small modification

   <ht> First sentence should be changed to "Above we assumed that
   there is a distinction between web documents and everything else"

   <ht> and similarly to the title of the section

   <timbl_> as

   ht: Thinks only one small change is needed - don't remove 3.1
   ... Only problem is "real world object"
   ... Summary is helpful

   <timbl_> Note that URIs of people and the documents abou them sould
   not be confused: For example the person Alice is described on her
   homepage. Bob may not like the look of the homepage, but still like
   the person Alice.

   tim: "Not everything is a web document" - 303 is perfectly fine for
   web documents

   ht: Can I ask the authors, do you understand why we're opposed to
   setting up an opposition between web documents and real world


   ht: Can you rewrite this? It's going to be too hard to redraft the
   paragraph on this call

   we've rewritten it 5 times already

   timbl: 303 and # work in all cases, IR and non-IR
   ... non-IR is not an interesting category

   <timbl_> Distinguishing between things and the web documents about

   <timbl_> We have discussed ways of giving URIs to all kinds of

   <timbl_> so that the client can find out the URIs of documents
   between them.

   <timbl_> Note that URIs of things, say people, amd the documents
   abou them should not be confused: For example the person Alice is
   described on her homepage. Bob may not like the look of the
   homepage, but still like the person Alice.

   author: To fix this would require a lot of changes, not just here
   but throughout the document
   ... No time

   stuart: Let's try Henry's suggestion

   <ht> HST is sending Richard and Leo a suggested rewrite, copied to

   stuart: Tim, please review

   <Norm> noah, could you take a look at the minutes I sent you for
   review yesterday or the day before?

   timbl: Getting the document is more important than perfecting it

   stuart: Thanks for doing this. We all think it's a good document


abbreviateURI-56 (ISSUE-56)

   <ht> [16]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2008Mar/0069

     [16] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2008Mar/0069

   <noah> Norm - did you take the edited HTML I sent you on 2/29, or
   just rerun from the IRC log? Doing the latter is a real mistake. I
   did quite a bit of editing on a private copy of the log, then
   generated clean HTML. I >think< the text that's worrying you does
   not show up in the clean copy.

   i haven't been scribing. iw as talking

   my question is how strongly tag should come down against union of
   URI and [curie]

   <timbl_> xml2? URI2?

   noah: Would you be willing to commit to there never being a new URI
   syntax beginning with [ ?

   <Stuart> noah's question is targetted on the 'stewards' of the URI

   <Zakim> ht, you wanted to suggest a change to point 3

   ht: We're clearly talking about new context or new languages...
   maybe this isn't explicit enough
   ... The square brackets don't address this problem. It's not up to
   HTML 2 WG to say that URIs don't begin with [

   noah: Have they redefined the syntax of URIs?

   <Stuart> Norm.... pointer please to the transgression?

   <timbl_> They have not redefined URI, but they are defining a
   competing type which incldues URI and will only work if URI strings
   never start with '['

   raman: We need to create an environment where people can solve these

   norm: Then we should say yes

   <Norm> raman's x:foo example is different from javascript:void. The
   "x" isn't constant.

   tim: Precedent: transition from URI to IRI.

   <Stuart> see [17]http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/RDFa/syntax/#id102419

     [17] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/RDFa/syntax/#id102419

   <Stuart> example text is:

   <Stuart> "This document is licensed under a

   <Stuart> <a

     [18] http://creativecommons.org/licenses/

   <Stuart> rel="cc:license"

   <Stuart> href="[cclicenses:by/nc-nd/3.0/]">

   <Stuart> Creative Commons License

   <Stuart> </a>."


   <ht> Is that for HTML2 or XHTML 4.01?

   tim: There's no way URIs will start with square brackets...

   <Stuart> ht: don't know haven't read enought of the surrounding
   context... but assume RDFa in XHTML2

   tim: but that's not the problem. The problem is that as time goes on
   all URI parsers will be expected to handle these things

   <ht> If it's XHTML2, there's no problem -- they can define the
   content of href in a new language however they like

   <ht> the problem comes if they try to push this back into HTML4.01

   raman: How is this different from ability to handle new uri schemes
   (e.g. javascript:)?

   <Norm> that's not a useful distinction, ht, even if its only spec'd
   for xhtml2, if it's useful, it'll be back-formed into other specs

   (I think raman is making the same comparison I did, of [...] to a
   new URI scheme)

   ht: Browsers all already have plugin-based URI scheme handling
   ... I don't think this is ready to send

   <Norm> <a xmlns:http="[19]http://foo" href="[http:/bar]">bar?</a>

     [19] http://foo/

   ht: I hear a repeated willingness to engage constructively

   <noah> IF we go down this path, I think a key question is whether we
   suggest that existing formats MAY or SHOULD support CURIE | URI

   ht: Let's ask them questions about exactly where they see this being
   used and where not

   noah: Key missing piece: we should point a direction (may, should)

   ht: I disagree. This is a use for new contexts/languages going

   timbl: Not realistic

   <Norm> +1 to timbl_

   timbl: bad engineering

   <noah> SOm Henry says "MAY

   <Zakim> jar, you wanted to say that he thinks RDFa has been VERY
   careful not to allow href="[...]"

   <noah> SOm Henry says "MAY" and Tim says "SHOULD

   <ht> No, Henry says MUST NOT change parsers to accept CURIEs where
   existing W3C specs call for URIs

   <Norm> Indeed, jar, 2.1 does seem to be clear along the lines you

   <noah> Sorry to come late and then run, but I've got to go. Next
   week I will NOT be on the call. Please accept my regrets for that.

   <ht> ACTION: Henry S to post a redraft of comment (3) from
   [20]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2008Mar/0069 to
   tag@w3.org [recorded in

     [20] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2008Mar/0069
     [21] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2008/03/20-minutes.html#action01

   <trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-126 - S to post a redraft of comment
   (3) from [22]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2008Mar/0069 to
   tag@w3.org [on Henry S. Thompson - due 2008-03-27].

     [22] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2008Mar/0069

Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: Henry S to post a redraft of comment (3) from
   [23]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2008Mar/0069 to
   tag@w3.org [recorded in

     [23] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2008Mar/0069
     [24] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2008/03/20-minutes.html#action01

   [End of minutes]
Received on Wednesday, 26 March 2008 19:03:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:32:55 UTC