W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > August 2012

Minutes of 2012-08-23 TAG telcon

From: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2012 09:22:52 +0100
Message-Id: <3BEA0DD2-F6A2-418D-ADEE-0D6FCCAB9EC2@jenitennison.com>
To: "www-tag@w3.org List" <www-tag@w3.org>

Draft minutes from the TAG telcon of 23rd August are available at:


and below.



P.S. (Thanks for the poke, Henry.)

      [1] http://www.w3.org/

                               - DRAFT -

   This is version has not been approved as a true record of the
   TAG's meeting and there is some risk that individual TAG
   members have been misquoted. This transcript should typically
   not be quoted, except as necessary to arrange for correction
   and approval.

              Technical Architecture Group Teleconference

23 Aug 2012


      [2] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/08/23-agenda

   See also: [3]IRC log

      [3] http://www.w3.org/2012/08/23-tagmem-irc


          Larry_Masinter, Tim_Berners-Lee, Jeni_Tennison,
          Noah_Mendelsohn, Ashok_Malhotra, Jonathan_Rees

          Peter_Linss, Robin_Berjon, Yves_Lafon

          Noah Mendelsohn

          Jeni Tennison


     * [4]Topics
         1. [5]Administrivia
         2. [6]London F2F
         3. [7]ISSUE-25 (deepLinking-25): Can publication of
            hyperlinks constitute copyright infringment?
         4. [8]Linked data and RDF
         5. [9]Pending Review Items
         6. [10]Open Actions
     * [11]Summary of Action Items

   <trackbot> Date: 23 August 2012

   <scribe> ScribeNick: JeniT

   <scribe> Scribe: Jeni Tennison


   noah: approval of minutes of 12th July?

   <noah> [12]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/07/12-minutes

     [12] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/07/12-minutes

   minutes approved

   noah: minutes from 2nd August aren't available yet
   ... we will have a call next week (30th) but not the following
   week (6th Sept)

   <Ashok> Regrets for 8/30 call

London F2F

   <noah> The TAG will meet at BCS, The Chartered Institute for IT
   (I.e. the British Computer Society), in London, UK, 7-9 October

   noah: who will be there?

   <timbl_> yes


   <noah> Yes

   <jar> Likely regrets for F2F

   <ht> yes

   ashok: will be there

   <jar> possible afternoon attendance by phone

   <noah> ACTION-720?

   <trackbot> ACTION-720 -- Noah Mendelsohn to make sure we have
   somewhere to meet in London 7-9th October -- due 2012-06-20 --


     [13] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/720

   <noah> close ACTION-720

   <trackbot> ACTION-720 Make sure we have somewhere to meet in
   London 7-9th October closed

   noah: please look at your actions to see what can be brought to
   the F2F

ISSUE-25 (deepLinking-25): Can publication of hyperlinks constitute
copyright infringment?

   <masinter> we had a hiccup

   ashok: I published on 15th:
   ... Larry made changes, published on 17th:

     [14] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/publishingAndLinkingOnTheWeb-2012-08-15.html
     [15] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/publishingAndLinkingOnTheWeb.html

   <noah> Changes are minor

   ashok: I don't think there's any significant differences

   <noah> To do: snap a new dated version

   <masinter> i fixed some markup problems due to respec pipeline

   ashok: we two telcons, Larry, JAR & I
   ... discussed what we should be talking about
   ... I've edited this, and I'm comfortable with it
   ... let me talk about the edits
   ... changed the abstract, according to JAR's preferences
   ... edited the intro
   ... added intra-document pointers
   ... particularly to point to the technical mechanisms
   ... the other big thing was to take out the best practices
   ... JAR wasn't comfortable with them
   ... the text goes into a lot of detail
   ... we can put them back in if people disagree
   ... we'd like to publish this version as FPWD

   jar: what are we trying to accomplish in this session?

   noah: I assume it's to decide whether to publish

   jar: I should have submitted comments earlier

   noah: what are your comments? we can decide what to do

   jar: I think it's getting there, much improved
   ... there was something missing from the introduction
   ... it talks about the complexity, that we have transforming,
   caching, archiving and so on
   ... a naive reaction is to get rid of complexity and make it
   more like print publishing
   ... so there needs to be justification for all the things that
   are going on
   ... the propaganda would be to say that it's about innovation
   ... it's good that people are doing these things
   ... just a sentence to defend against that attack

   <masinter> I don't think we need to defend against attacks we
   haven't received

   <masinter> most people accept that the web is complicated for
   good reason

   ashok: there's a section on caching, would you like a couple of
   sentences talking about why caching is part of the

   jar: no, just one general sentence, I don't know where, that
   says that the reason we have this complexity is that people are
   ... and that's a good thing
   ... we need to defend the complexity, and why it's different
   from print publishing

   <masinter> the "Tussle" paper gives that framework, perhaps
   just expanding that reference

   ashok: we could talk about that before the Tussle paper

   jar: it's very similar to the Tussle point
   ... that's a small thing, just a plug
   ... also, where it talks about T&Cs
   ... about where browsing indicates acceptance of the terms
   ... there's some precedent that suggests that's understood

   <masinter> i think rewriting the citation, "Clark et.al.
   [TUSSLE] characterize the Internet as a system where different
   kinds of entities interact, often with conflicting goals.
   Managing these conflicts, they call them "tussles", they argue
   is crucial to the harmonious development of the internet."

   noah: Well, the fact that you don't see copyright notices until
   you've gotten at least one page is a technical characteristic
   of the system. We could talk about that.

   jar: I think there are some legal precedents about that being

   ashok: jar, you and I may have some offline conversation about

   jar: I would be direct and say that the person who puts the
   T&Cs there has something in mind
   ... also, set of bullets under scope of the document
   ... the fourth bullet puts us out on a legal limb
   ... we can't say how to meet any legal restrictions

   <noah> "describe the technical measures that websites can take
   to reinforce any restrictions that they place on the use of
   content they make available on the web"

   <noah> How about s/ensure/attempt to/

   <masinter> suggestion for intro last paragraph: The Web is a
   complex system in which different kinds of entities interact;
   often they have conflicting goals. These conflicts, called
   "tussles" in [[TUSSLE]], lead to conflict. This document
   explores some of the conflicts in the area of publishing and

   <masinter> "might attempt to"

   jar: we can't tell people what they should do to meet legal
   ... it's what they can do if they want to be cooperative
   ... what you do if you're trying to cooperate
   ... the bullet before that also raises a red flag
   ... it's not to reinforce restrictions, it's to implement the
   restrictions that they want to place on the content
   ... basically you're talking about DRM here
   ... you're basically saying how you can do DRM

   <ht> "which may enable them to meet"

   <noah> How about: "Describe some of the technical mechanisms
   that can be used for controlling access to restricted material"

   <ht> +1 to "implement"

   <jar> wha sites can do to *implement* the restrictions that
   they want to impose on visitors

   <masinter> can we try to get FPWD out soon after these edits?
   Can we agree by email, or do we have to wait until next wewek?

   noah: there's passwords and logins and so on

   jar: that's DRM in my opinion

   <Ashok> jar: "Technical mechanisms to implement restrictions on

   ht: it also covers things like not providing links to things
   you don't want linked to to things

   ashok: the emphasis is on technical means

   jar: I don't think we should take a position on how to do it

   <noah> Hmm. From a terminology point of view, I tend to
   separate login restrictions from DRM. Login restrictions keep
   me from getting something; DRM tends to limit my ability to
   send to others or freely use content I have obtained"

   <Zakim> noah, you wanted to ask about swapping 1.1 and 1.2 and
   to suggest clarification of note on Silk/Mini and to ask about
   swapping 1.1 and 1.2

   noah: looking at section 1, background and scope
   ... there's a huge amount of background, and I wanted to know
   about what the document was about
   ... maybe swap 1.1 and 1.2 and maybe add a little introductory
   sentence to the Scope of the Document section

   ashok: I'll look at that

   <Ashok> noah: Swap 1.1 and 1.2 and add intro para

   <Zakim> ht, you wanted to raise concerns about terminology

   <Zakim> ht2, you wanted to prefer to wait on FPWD

   <jar> Please not to take a position on whether technical
   barriers are preferable to legal ones or vice versa. That's out
   of scope. But we can talk about tradeoffs, or make people aware
   of options that they might not have been aware of.

   <Zakim> ht0, you wanted to ask about target audience, and thus

   ht: I read this through to the beginning of section 3 very
   ... I have copious notes
   ... I need clarification about what the target audience is
   ... a lot of my comments depend on what level of sophistication
   we're assuming
   ... Larry, Ashok, is this meant for my mother in law? my
   colleagues who know nothing about the web but are computer

   ashok: yes, the latter
   ... it's meant for people who are going to write legislation
   and to work on legal things

   masinter: I don't want to educate US representatives

   <masinter> maybe their informed staffers

   ht: representatives don't write legislation, their staff does
   ... and they're not computer scientists

   <masinter> my view of goals is: minimum requirement is to make
   something interesting to W3C

   ht: that's what I thought, in which case it's hard because we
   know this vocabulary backwards, and it's hard to write for an
   audience we don't represent
   ... it's not a problem for going to FPWD, we can refine as we
   go along
   ... I just think we need to be on the same page about who that
   audience is
   ... my most important point is about terminology
   ... because the terminology doesn't connect up well to itself
   ... it's the one thing I think we have to fix before we publish
   ... although I think we talked about whether to stick with this
   terminology, at the F2F
   ... I have strong reservations of terminology as it stands,
   because it gets in the way of what we're trying to achieve
   ... I want to ask: do people agree that we need to get a
   terminology that we're happy with before we go to FPWD?
   ... I think changing it after FPWD would be confusing

   ashok: an example?

   ht: the use of the term 'file'
   ... I have a lengthy list

   <jar> wow... "file" is central to the presentation.

   ashok: would it be clarification?

   ht: there are some things I'd like to discuss with the group
   ... like why you have 'resource' and 'web document' and 'file'
   ... what the value of that is
   ... I'd like to just use 'web document' unless there's work
   being done by the distinction

   <masinter> i'd rather note HT's issues in a NOTE and still
   FPWD, rather than getting everything right

   noah: is this stuff easy to fix?

   ht: I think it's easy to fix

   ashok: if you've got stuff written up, could you send it out?

   ht: I was hoping to get further before I sent it
   ... and you could talk me out of this
   ... I was wondering why the distinction between resources and
   web documents

   <masinter> note: note
   ions also

     [16] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-barnes-blocking-considerations

   ashok: I inherited it

   JeniT: A Web document was intended to be specifically an HTML
   page, which your browser will typically open in a certain way;
   resource also encompasses things like spreadsheets.

   ht: it seems to be drawing a distinction in an odd place
   ... I can hand you a URL for an image and your web browser will
   display it

   noah: ...and for spreadsheets, for that matter, depending on
   user agent configuration

   timbl: that's not the point, we're talking about how things
   ... it's not a property of the thing, it's how it's used in the

   ht: web documents are used within other web documents, using
   iframes for example
   ... the distinction between include, embed and link is really
   ... but that's where the distinction belongs, not at the level
   of things that servers serve
   ... I think it's clearer to focus on how things are used
   ... it's harder to give a definition of the different kinds of
   things that has clarity to it
   ... arguing that an image is different from an HTML page or a
   PDF, which of those are web documents isn't intrinsically clear
   ... inclusion, embedding and linking is very clear
   ... anyway, that's the direction I'd like to go with this
   ... should I write a clean set of terms?

   <noah> I think I agree with Henry.

   masinter: it's ok to note things for ashok and myself

   ht: it's difficult to tell from my notes where I think we
   should end up

   <Zakim> masinter, you wanted to point to
   ions and to speak about audience

     [17] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-barnes-blocking-considerations

   noah: can we talk about timing? we want to get this out quickly
   ... we have a call next week, not the following week
   ... can we get this done for next week?

   ashok: I'm on vacation next week
   ... I can update it for the 13th call

   <masinter> i could work on it

   noah: it really fits well with the F2F to have something out
   early September, so we can get feedback for the F2F

   ht: I will get my comments written by midday tomorrow my time

   masinter: I can do it; I'm eager to get to FPWD
   ... if there are issues with the terminology, we'll try to fix
   ... and if we can't resolve it, we can write a note to warn
   people the terminology might change
   ... so we can get feedback from the intended audience rather
   than simply talking amongst ourselves

   ashok: Larry will attempt an update which you can talk about
   next Thursday
   ... and I'll do the following editing

   noah: the crucial thing is to pass it to Yves to publish as
   ... I'd like to get a decision on that next week

   <Zakim> noah2, you wanted to suggest clarification of note on

   noah: so I'm hoping that ashok & Larry will tell us if that's
   ... the note about 'split browsers'
   ... the intention is fine, I'm nervous about the word 'server'
   in that note
   ... I think we should reserve 'server' for HTTP server
   ... maybe use "execute on a centralised machine" or "host", or
   something that clarifies that the 'server' is not the same as
   the servers we were talking about before
   ... architecturally it's a user agent

   <masinter> "Split browsers (such as Opera Mini and Amazon Silk)
   where some software components execute on a server and some
   software components execute on a client device are not
   discussed further in this document. Since, in these cases, the
   client and the server are tightly coupled, they could be
   considered to be a single User Agent rather than a client and a

   <masinter> i don't see any problem with this

   ashok: can we replace 'server' with 'host'

   masinter: I like the wording as it is

   noah: elsewhere in the document where, until you put proxies
   in, the web consists of servers and clients
   ... the servers are providing content, and clients are running
   user agents
   ... this bit is talking about a user agent being implemented in
   a distributed way
   ... what Amazon is doing is running the back end of the user
   ... I don't know if they're using HTTP, they needn't be
   ... it could use a proprietary protocol
   ... for web architecture, the HTTP GET emanates from the Amazon
   ... and everything else could move tomorrow
   ... if you want to use 'server' to mean anything centralised
   ... and distinguish the servers that respond to GETs and POSTs,
   you could do that

   <masinter> "Server" is a generic term

   <masinter> just like "client" in "client/server"

   <masinter> We use more specific terms "web server" "proxy
   server" "origin server"

   <masinter> [18]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Server_(computing)

     [18] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Server_(computing)

   <masinter> We use the word "serveR" in its generic sense

   masinter: server is a generic term of art
   ... there are web servers and proxy servers and so on
   ... in the context of HTTP, we might say 'server' without
   saying 'HTTP server' but that's because of the context of the

   <masinter> the real problem is that the "note" is an excuse for
   not discussing something important

   noah: maybe add a phrase to say "(not typically the origin
   servers or proxy servers described here)"

   masinter: the problem is that the note was added to prevent
   talking about something we should be talking about
   ... I get the point and I'll add something qualifying term
   ... I had a pointer to another document


     [19] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-barnes-blocking-considerations

   <masinter> it's about one of the remedies used

   masinter: I wanted to point out that one of the ways to stop
   publishing/linking you don't like is blocking
   ... I'm not sure we can reference this document, but we might
   want to review it at some point

   noah: are you suggesting an action for someone to read it and
   prepare something for us?

   <masinter> it talks about related issues, i guess i'm looking
   for volunteers

   <noah> ok

   <masinter> i don't think we need to review before FPWD, but
   possibly ask for IAB review once we do have FPWD

   masinter: I don't think we need to review it before we get to
   ... once we have a FPWD, maybe we can reach out to communities
   working on similar issues

   noah: so you'll bring this back to us

   masinter: yes

   noah: informally, assuming the edits go well, can you indicate
   whether you will vote to go to FPWD next week?

   <ht> +1

   <masinter> optimistic +1 for FPWD


   <jar_> +1

   <Ashok> +1

   <timbl_> +1

   scribe: no dissent, that's good
   ... let's hope we have a quorum next week so we can do this

   <noah> ACTION-727?

   <trackbot> ACTION-727 -- Ashok Malhotra to with help from JAR
   and Larry to work on a plan for taking a slightly stronger
   version of the Copyright and Linking draft forward -- due
   2012-07-17 -- CLOSED


     [20] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/727

   <noah> ACTION-667?

   <trackbot> ACTION-667 -- Noah Mendelsohn to check, when
   publishing and linking wraps, whether it's time to reinvest in
   l -- due 2012-07-15 -- OPEN

     [21] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/12/evolution/Registries.html


     [22] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/667

   <noah> ACTION-721?

   <trackbot> ACTION-721 -- Noah Mendelsohn to update product
   index to target date on publishing & linking -- due 2012-06-20
   -- OPEN


     [23] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/721

   <Ashok> Larry, so you have the pen next week. I will pick it up
   after Labor Day

   <noah> ACTION: Larry to prepare FPWD on Publishing and Linking
   - Due 2012-08-21 [recorded in

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-732 - prepare FPWD on Publishing and
   Linking [on Larry Masinter - due 2012-08-21].

Linked data and RDF

   noah: Ashok has pointed us to a discussion about linked data
   and RDF where there is some controversy around whether linked
   data has to use RDF or could be in other formats


     [25] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2012Aug/0027.html

   <noah> From David Booth:


     [26] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2012Aug/0028.html

   <noah> Discussion starts approximately here:


     [27] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2012Aug/0066.html

   <noah> Overview of messages:


     [28] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2012Aug/

   Ashok: we had a workshop late last year, and started the Linked
   Data Platform WG
   ... the idea as I understood it was to use REST
   ... which doesn't tell you how to deal with collections, or
   what you need to do when you have large quantities of data that
   you want to paginate
   ... and updates and stuff like that
   ... and we ought to update REST, possibly not with standards,
   but with usage guidelines
   ... then the WG started and they are focused on RDF
   ... a couple of the people that are part of the WG started
   saying that it was just data pointing to other pieces of data
   using URIs
   ... can't you do this in XML, or JSON?
   ... and we've had a spirited discussion on this
   ... and I was wondering what the wise people on the TAG think
   about it
   ... and I'm glad Tim is with us, as he has the principles of
   linked data
   ... I'm asking what people think about this

   timbl: we already have a word -- structured data -- for CSV and
   ... that's invaluable
   ... the new word -- linked data -- for stuff that links
   ... it's not just CSV that holds URIs with no explanation
   ... it has to be RDF to be interoperable
   ... if you make up your own format, or use hypertext
   ... we need to push for interop
   ... there are masses of cases where you can keep working in CSV
   up until the point you have to map into RDF
   ... and once it's there then people can link it
   ... so I think we should keep 'linked data' for stuff that's in

   <masinter> communication: multiple modes, content negotiation,
   but "least common denominator", need a lingua franca

   ashok: and 'structured data' for other formats

   timbl: and REST can use structured data that isn't linked data,
   and that's fine, but it's not linked

   masinter: for interoperability, you need a lingua franca, which
   everyone speaks
   ... right now linked data's lingua franca is RDF
   ... other systems can use other languages, that's ok
   ... you need a lingua franca or a common gateway

   noah: I see a circularity here which I want to ask about, how
   much is this the 'linked data' brand?
   ... this reminds me of the HTTP scheme and protocol on the web
   ... the architecture includes FTP, for example, and there's
   fuzziness about whether that's on the web
   ... when you use RDF you get powerful properties because of
   ... and sometimes the links will go to things other than RDF
   ... and depending on the context, that might feel like you're
   on the edges on the graph
   ... when you do that, is it still linked data? that sounds like
   a branding question
   ... there are good reasons to do it
   ... you could define the 'linked data' more widely, or
   arbitrarily tighter

   timbl: what you're missing is going back to the time when
   everything was FTP
   ... when people ask if a FTP server is a web server, the answer
   is 'no'
   ... if an RDF document mentions a CSV file
   ... the CSV file is mentioned in the linked data graph, but
   none of the data in the CSV is linked
   ... it's very important that people don't claim to use linked
   data when they have just published CSV

   <jar_> Whether a CSV contains a link (URI), depends on whether
   it contains a link (URI). SOme do, some don't

   noah: when I use a FTP URI I don't get a media type back, isn't
   that analogous?

   timbl: how does that help?

   noah: it just seems like a matter of terminology

   timbl: it is a brand, yes, but it's an important brand and we
   should not dilute the brand with structured data

   noah: Ashok, do you want to go further?

   ashok: branding is very powerful, but what we're really doing
   is extending REST in different ways
   ... and once you extend REST, you can use it with XML data for
   ... you might say you can use extensions with structured data
   and with linked data

   <noah> I think the point is that you are using REST, but you
   are not buying strongly enough into the "Self-describing Web".
   Of the technologies mentioned, only RDF does tthat well.

   <Zakim> ht, you wanted to try to say what TimBL said in a
   different way. . .

   ht: ashok, that's true but it doesn't change the crucial core
   of Tim's point
   ... that without a way of knowing that a particular sequence of
   characters is a link, you don't have linked data
   ... you may have data that contains links, but you have no way
   of knowing that
   ... CSV by definition, well-formed XML by definition
   ... gives you no way of detecting links at all
   ... there's real blue water between HTML and RDF on one hand
   and everything else on the other
   ... in terms of its architectural standing
   ... that legitimises reserving 'linked data' to HTML+RDFa and


     [29] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/selfDescribingDocuments.html

   <masinter> there's no xml:base in json

   <noah> I think the TAG's writing on RDF and the Self-describing
   Web are pertinent:

     [30] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/selfDescribingDocuments.html#RDFSection

   <jar_> xml schema provides a way to distinguish link from

   ashok: but XML Schema can indicate where URIs are used

   ht: yes, but the scale of deployment is orders of magnitude

   noah: in HTML when you have a link, the link text is marked up
   ... there's nothing in XML Schema that tells you anything other
   than 'there is a URI here'
   ... anything you infer about relationship is not standardised
   ... so you have to know the schema
   ... you might guess at a relationship based on position in the
   XML tree

   <jar_> grumble

   <ht> Two levels: identifying URIs (outside RDF/HTML) is hard
   enough, identifying _links_ is even harder

   noah: but you'd be guessing, whereas in RDF you know
   ... we wrote about this in the Self Describing Web finding
   ... RDF is more strongly self-describing than other formats

   timbl: you could argue that you could use other technologies,
   but what we're trying to promote is to use the brand, to get
   interoperability between linked data publishers
   ... one of the things which the read/write linked data is going
   to do is not only provide those protocols, but to provide
   minimum requirements like understanding Turtle
   ... with the aim of getting better interoperability
   ... interoperability is what we're after


     [31] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/selfDescribingDocuments.html#standards

   <noah> Good practice: Web resource representations should be
   published using widely deployed standards and formats.

   noah: that's also in the Self-Describing Web finding

   <noah> Indeed, that was my point;.

   ashok: that was very useful, I have an idea about how various
   people are thinking about this, and that's what I wanted

   <noah> I think the GPN is trying to capture the spirit of Tim's
   comment: I.e. having one way of doing each thing is better than
   having everyone having to implement multiple ways

Pending Review Items

   <noah> ACTION-719?

   <trackbot> ACTION-719 -- Larry Masinter to reply to Hannes
   pointing to the minutes, summarizing the discussion, and asking
   him if he has any more specific questions. -- due 2012-06-20 --


     [32] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/719

   <noah> Open actions by person:

     [33] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/open?sort=owner

   <noah> close ACTION-719

   <trackbot> ACTION-719 Reply to Hannes pointing to the minutes,
   summarizing the discussion, and asking him if he has any more
   specific questions. closed


     [34] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/open?sort=owner

Open Actions

   <jar_> I think 704 needs attention

   noah: which of these need attention for F2F?

   <noah> ACTION-704?

   <trackbot> ACTION-704 -- Jonathan Rees to with help from Jeni
   and Henry to try to identify next steps for moving forward on
   httpRange-14 -- due 2012-08-14 -- OPEN


     [35] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/704

   <noah> Fragids?

   <masinter> action-731?

   <trackbot> ACTION-731 -- Larry Masinter to and Ashok to remove
   the best practises parts of the P&L document -- due 2012-08-09
   -- OPEN


     [36] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/731

   <masinter> close action-731

   <trackbot> ACTION-731 And Ashok to remove the best practises
   parts of the P&L document closed

   <noah> JT: Let's try for a followup draft for F2F

   <noah> ACTION-704?

   <trackbot> ACTION-704 -- Jonathan Rees to with help from Jeni
   and Henry to try to identify next steps for moving forward on
   httpRange-14 -- due 2012-08-14 -- OPEN


     [37] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/704

   jar: I know people have been on vacation, I'm ready to get
   going again when Jeni & Henry are
   ... further progress was delegated to this group

   <ht> I'm ready as of today

   <masinter> i want to tell Jonathan that there is no http URI
   for the magna carta

   jar: we did a fair amount of that up until beginning of July
   ... then Henry and Jeni had vacations or other things to do

   noah: will we have something to discuss at F2F


     [38] http://www.legislation.gov.uk/id/aep/Edw1cc1929/25/9

   <timbl_> [39]https://www.w3.org/2007/awwsw/tracker/actions/40

     [39] https://www.w3.org/2007/awwsw/tracker/actions/40

   masinter, there is a URI for the Magna Carta

   <jar_> I want to ask Masinter to give me an example of
   something for which there *is* an http URI.

   <timbl_> [40]http://www.w3.org/wiki/AwwswDboothsRules

     [40] http://www.w3.org/wiki/AwwswDboothsRules

   timbl: I need to write mapping rules between the vocabularies

   <masinter> every http URI identifies a resource that has an
   http URI (by definition)

   <noah> TBL: I want to do this, but think I'll write the mapping
   rules rather than changing the tabulator

   <masinter> there's a 1-1 correspondence between
   resources-with-http-URIs and http-URIs

   <noah> ACTION-40?

   <trackbot> ACTION-40 -- Stuart Williams to send MEZ email
   asking for a joint meeting with the Security WGduring the
   Plenary -- due 2007-10-25 -- CLOSED


     [41] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/40

   <noah> ACTION-40: Align the tabulator internal vocabulary with
   the vocabulary in the rules
   [42]http://esw.w3.org/topic/AwwswDboothsRules, getting changes
   to either as needed.

     [42] http://esw.w3.org/topic/AwwswDboothsRules

   <trackbot> ACTION-40 Send MEZ email asking for a joint meeting
   with the Security WGduring the Plenary notes added

   <noah> ACTION-116?

   <trackbot> ACTION-116 -- Tim Berners-Lee to align the tabulator
   internal vocabulary with the vocabulary in the rules
   [43]http://esw.w3.org/topic/AwwswDboothsRules, getting changes
   to either as needed. -- due 2011-02-11 -- CLOSED

     [43] http://esw.w3.org/topic/AwwswDboothsRules


     [44] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/116

   <noah> Hmm, my phone just dropped.

   <noah> I suppose the easiest is to just say: WE ARE ADJOURNED.

   <timbl_> . @prefix http: <[45]http://example/httpspec#> .

     [45] http://example/httpspec#>

   timbl: the HTTP vocabulary David has used is not

   <noah> Sorry for the abrupt departure.

   <noah> We'll have call next week.

   <noah> Thank you all.

   timbl: I'll discharge the action by mapping the rules

   thank you, noah

   <timbl_> He uses http: as a prefix which doesn't help editing!

   <timbl_> nuf bout that

   <jar_> masinter, that's fine, but I was asking for an example.
   Can you give *one* http: URI, and then describe the resource it

Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: Larry to prepare FPWD on Publishing and Linking -
   Due 2012-08-21 [recorded in

   [End of minutes]

    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [47]scribe.perl version
    1.136 ([48]CVS log)
    $Date: 2012/08/28 08:18:58 $

     [47] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
     [48] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/

Jeni Tennison
Received on Tuesday, 28 August 2012 08:23:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:47 UTC