18:58:56 RRSAgent has joined #tagmem 18:58:57 DanC_ has joined #tagmem 19:01:25 +??P1 19:01:28 - +1.603.539.aaaa 19:01:29 + +1.603.539.aaaa 19:01:47 +Tim_Bray 19:01:59 + +1.714.658.aabb 19:02:00 zakim, ??p1 is me 19:02:00 +Stuart; got it 19:02:39 zakim, ++1.714 is Roy 19:02:39 sorry, Stuart, I do not recognize a party named '++1.714' 19:02:46 zakim, 714 is Roy 19:02:46 sorry, Stuart, I do not recognize a party named '714' 19:03:21 Chris has joined #tagmem 19:03:35 zakim, dial chris-work 19:03:35 ok, Chris; the call is being made 19:03:36 +Chris 19:04:00 + +1.514.200.aacc 19:04:01 +Norm 19:07:27 +DanC 19:09:58 TBray scribing 19:10:35 ... discussion of agenda... 19:12:49 PCotton had made a point of coming to this meeting because provisional agenda said we were going to be discussing extensibility 19:13:02 Letting it slide has a very significant impact on our plan 19:13:29 PC: what is impact on downstream agendas of moving extensibility off this week? 19:15:30 RESOLVED: accept July 28 and Aug 4 minutes 19:16:08 (we decided in Vancouver to cancel 1Sep) 19:16:14 Next two meetings have large numbers of regrets 19:16:27 SW: suggest next meeting 8 September 19:16:38 RESOLVED: next meeting 8 September 19:17:05 yes, 3pET, Chris. 19:17:10 ACTION: SW to review work plan from Vancouver F2F to help with schedule 19:17:46 TBL: Possible conflict with other F2F meetings Sep 8 19:17:51 TBL: Might affect IJ too 19:18:26 FYI: 8 Sep was to focus on namespaceDocument-8 19:18:28 (I haven't starting making travel arrangements for Bristol and still have conflicts and don't know how they'll be resolved.) 19:18:40 SW: Should he arrange a single hotel for Bristol? 19:19:11 DC: Consider net access 19:19:29 ACTION: SW to make a suggestion re hotel on email 19:19:38 ---------------------- 19:19:46 XML Binary Workshop: anything further 19:19:58 CL: those who are going should go, but not as TAG reps 19:20:04 SW: OK to answer questions on where TAG is at 19:20:23 PC: +1 19:20:35 ----------------------------- 19:21:06 + +1.250.629.aadd 19:21:27 Zakim, aadd is DOrchard 19:21:27 +DOrchard; got it 19:21:34 ------------------------ 19:21:44 Proposed new issue, see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Jul/0022.html 19:22:43 aye. 19:22:57 Discuss 19:23:08 - +1.714.658.aabb 19:23:12 discuss 19:23:14 discuss 19:23:15 discuss 19:23:45 + +1.714.658.aaee 19:23:55 Zakim, aaee is Roy 19:23:55 +Roy; got it 19:24:27 DOrchard: raises same issue re extensibility as PC did above 19:25:59 TBL: Deep issue 19:26:08 TBL: Cuts across many SW, RDF, CG, TAG issues 19:26:22 TBL: Risk of philosophical ratholes 19:26:37 TBL: BOF at Budapest conference, need to get this written down 19:26:49 TBL: IMHO need to write down how to interpret 19:26:54 TBL: Easy in RDF 19:27:41 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Jul/0022.html 19:28:57 TBL: confusion re 'denote'/'mean' etc 19:29:20 TBL: how are RDF/HTTP/OWL tied together 19:29:33 TBL: when you deref a predicate's URI, you can use the URI to get more info about it 19:30:21 +Roy_Fielding 19:30:25 -Roy 19:31:15 TBL: discussions need to make sure they use URIs the way the rest of the Web does 19:31:47 SW: need TAG input? 19:31:47 If P means that given binary relation is *asserted* then thats ok, but that it *holds* is a different level of social meaning 19:32:06 TBL: Yes, TAG is 50% implicated 19:32:55 Roy has joined #tagmem 19:32:58 DC: history accurate, but missed technical issue 19:33:20 q+ to say that I feel poorly qualified to help RDF people & OWL people sort out their disagreements 19:33:39 ack TBray 19:33:39 TBray, you wanted to say that I feel poorly qualified to help RDF people & OWL people sort out their disagreements 19:34:04 TB: having trouble understanding the issue 19:34:21 SW: task force? 19:34:51 DC: Possible outcome: text in webarch saying how URIs are shared 19:35:11 DC: If you connect protocols to logic, you have answered the question of meaning 19:35:15 the architecture is that a single meaning is given to each URI (such 19:35:15 as P), that the URI ownership system makes statements by owners 19:35:15 authoritative weight, despite what other documents may say. 19:35:42 TBL: confusion between mean/denote 19:37:00 TBL: we agree that it's good for URIs to produce information 19:37:19 CL: you are claiming that if someone makes an assertion that a URI means X, that can never be changed 19:37:58 TBL: if I'm sesnding an RDF assertion to order a coat, and I have a URI for Pantone #1003, then when I dereference that I should get a colour chart 19:38:04 and who is 'someone' and what exacty is that meaning and where is it written and to what degree of precision 19:38:21 TBL: so to avoid disputes in future, that URI is authoritative 19:38:38 q+ to point out edge flaws of TimBLs example 19:39:04 TB: OK, but what's RDF-specific? 19:40:31 TBL: meaning of statement is determined by predicate 19:40:50 TBL: which you can find out more about by dereferencing 19:41:54 TB: so do you want to say that when you identify things in RDF, you should make the URIs yield useful information 19:41:55 what TimB says is true, but is not reallt the issue at hand it seems to me. 19:42:40 q+ to say that I don't understand potential outcomes well enough yes to say "yes" to issue 19:43:02 ack Chris 19:43:02 Chris, you wanted to point out edge flaws of TimBLs example 19:43:41 ack DanC 19:43:41 DanC_, you wanted to point out what folks might think is in the RDF spec that is, in fact, not there any more. 19:43:58 DC: current RDF spec makes no linkage between use of URIs in RDf and their use in HTTP 19:44:00 some of the statements in section 3 of TimBLs email are, to me, self evidently false 19:44:06 DC: It used to, but people objected 19:44:10 ack TBray 19:44:10 TBray, you wanted to say that I don't understand potential outcomes well enough yes to say "yes" to issue 19:45:24 TB: seems that situation described by Dan is indeed bogus 19:45:24 There are hundreds of different uses of URI in HTTP 19:46:03 straw poll pls 19:46:29 SW: straw poll 19:46:32 yes there is clearly an issue, and we should take it up 19:46:34 yes, I think there's an issue that's worth the TAG's time. 19:46:34 yes 19:46:37 abstain 19:46:38 Abstain for now, but would like to ask a couple quewstions 19:46:40 PC: abstain 19:46:51 the chair will please read the IRC responses 19:47:13 TBL: yes 19:47:20 yes because needs more discussion 19:48:12 DO: leaning to "no" because there's probably an issue here, but in past when the issue-raiser hasn't been clear enough, we will say "we don't get it, more info please" 19:48:36 q+ to ask politics question 19:48:56 Zakim, aaaa is TimBL 19:48:56 +TimBL; got it 19:49:01 ack timbl 19:49:04 ack aaaa 19:49:12 ack +1.603.539.aaaa 19:50:09 TBL: reprises last para of his email referenced above 19:50:29 oops, actually reprises whole email 19:50:30 that seems like an open-ended list to me 19:52:05 ack TBray 19:52:05 TBray, you wanted to ask politics question 19:53:03 I'm content to accept the issue, but I have real concerns that TimBL is suggesting an attempt to "legislate morality". If I own a URI for my car and I assert my car is Blue, that doesn't make it true. And if eleven other people assert that it's Green, the fact that they're other people doesn't make their assertions false. 19:53:20 interesting point, norm. 19:53:20 TB: suppose we do nothing, toss it back, what happens? 19:53:26 My car is, in fact, green. A pretty ugly green, in fact. :-) 19:53:56 TBL: they might build a consistent logic system with nothing to do with the web 19:54:16 CL: want to take it up although SW people might not like the answer 19:54:16 well said, norm 19:54:27 yes, issue for the TAG 19:54:31 ack Dan 19:54:35 DC: if we do nothing, discussions will go on diffusely, do we want to be at center 19:54:36 abstain 19:54:38 Yes 19:54:39 yes 19:54:43 yes 19:54:43 yes it is an issue but I request a clearer problem statement or statements 19:54:50 PC: abstain 19:54:53 TBL: Yes 19:55:09 DO: abstain 19:55:49 RESOLVED: issue accepted 19:56:15 rdfURIMeaning 19:56:23 issue 42? 19:56:27 lol 19:56:28 RESOLVED: RDF-URI-Meaning-[++Ian] 19:56:34 ** please *** 19:56:55 SW: approach SWCG for joint meeting? 19:57:15 ACTION: DC to take this back to SWCG 19:57:55 TBL: not clear that SWCG people are the right people 19:58:05 DC: which time slot? 19:58:09 various: their slot 19:58:25 where "their slot" means "not the TAG slot" 19:58:43 FYI: it appears to be issue 39 19:58:51 PC: need to discuss how this issue affects progress to last call 19:59:02 PC: does this go to top of list? 19:59:05 q+ 19:59:26 PC: one reason I abstained is that I'm concerned about adding items to worklist 19:59:30 q+ timbl 19:59:34 q+ TBL 19:59:41 ack danc 19:59:41 DanC_, you wanted to set expectations to resolve this in Q1 2004 19:59:44 ack TBray 19:59:46 TB: don't see this one on path to last call 19:59:49 DC: spring 2004 19:59:53 ack timbl 19:59:57 ack TBL 20:00:30 The advantage of meeting on their time is that it doesn't have to step on our time as we progress towards last call 20:00:37 ------------------------------------------------------------ 20:00:39 Webarch 20:01:30 SW: RF's action item on sect3 re-write? 20:01:39 RF: if not done by Aug 18, won't get done for a while 20:01:58 Create an illustration of two resources, one designated by URI without fragment, and one designated by same URI with fragment... 20:02:14 please someone point me to a whiteboard photo, then i can draw it 20:02:48 I felt so good after the planning session in Vancouver; ah well, "life is what happens when you're making other plans" 20:02:50 They'll be in the photosummary I iposted, Chris 20:03:52 ACTION TB: bring meeting photos to Ian's attention 20:04:03 I can edit the ftf record, as can chris 20:04:30 modify action item, point mailing list at photos 20:04:39 i.e. I am technically capable; my question is: May I? ah... yes, stuart answered. thx. 20:05:18 Action item to CL: in re bullleted-list re SVG reference 20:07:32 ... discussion of various action items ... 20:08:22 TB/CL action item on "text-based" done 20:08:35 TB "xml-based" not done 20:09:08 NW: WIll get to his actions this week 20:10:03 redraft of Moby Dick section? 20:10:43 leave it pending 20:11:14 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/webarch-20030801 20:11:58 DC: .../tag/webarch/tim 20:12:42 "Integrate findings"? 20:13:07 TB will make himself available to IJ to work on this 20:14:00 q+ 20:14:07 ----------------------------------------------------------- 20:14:13 Rewrite of intro 20:14:58 RF: Need to be able to change sections of the document 20:15:11 RF: not worth working on if it's not open to change 20:15:26 ack TBray 20:17:39 TB: Roy was trying to make a technical point about def'n of Web. That aside, I thought he prior language was a bit clearer 20:17:56 TB: obviously OK to change doc, but we need to have better feeling as for what parts of the doc are cooked 20:18:07 RF: still need to address problem of def'n of web. 20:18:24 RF: currently starts out by defining things as an information system, & follows on to resources from there 20:18:51 RF: but that leaves out SW, need to start from further back and then work forward to the description of the current browser-centric hypertextual web 20:19:39 RF: the web isn't an "information system" , it's the space of resources that are interconneected 20:19:40 q+ 20:20:07 in what way is a space of resources not a system? 20:20:09 RF: depending how you define the web constrains hwo you define what resource means 20:20:11 ack TBray 20:21:01 TB: def'n excludes software components? 20:21:31 RF: yes, because components change & are used depending on what you're doing 20:21:38 DO: 20:21:45 acl TimBL 20:21:48 (re-starting discussion of what the web is doesn't speak well for our hopes for last call) 20:21:54 ack TimBL 20:22:02 RF: My dissertation explicitly limits itself to the information system 20:22:24 TBL: not productive to go back and argue about what web really, really is 20:23:04 TBL: one subset is what you can get at with HTTP GET 20:23:14 q+ 20:23:35 TBL: email is part of the information space, but HTTP is very different from SMTP 20:23:55 TBL: could say info space (includes|doesn't include) things like email and HTTP 20:24:18 TBL: so don't need to spend time on Web "for purposes of this document" 20:25:01 TBL: ... fuzzy edges of what the Web is ... 20:25:13 TBL: the only way to get a handle is to write an ontology 20:25:50 q+ DO 20:25:57 ack tbray 20:26:35 ack DO 20:26:59 TB: happier with a definition that includes the software as part of the web, but acknowledges that you might be able to start with a definition based purely in information 20:27:59 DO: webservices people have wrangled over what a web service is at length, settled on a definition explicitly limited to the doc they're writing, admit their may be things outside that are considered web services but that's not what we're talking about 20:28:17 ack DanC 20:28:17 DanC_, you wanted to say yes, let's focus on the interaction between the terms we've using/defining in our doc... I hadn't appreciated the connection between 'Web' and 'Resource' 20:28:20 ... that Roy points out, but I dunno what to do about it off the top of my head 20:30:39 TB: Aug 1st text is getting pretty close in quality to July 16 text, modulo my specific suggestions (in particular see notes on "effect of following web architecture") 20:31:15 DC: neither July nor August version is acceptable to all the TAG as of now 20:31:56 -DOrchard 20:31:58 20:31:58 -Tim_Bray 20:31:58 -Roy_Fielding 20:31:59 -TimBL 20:32:00 Roy has left #tagmem 20:32:47 -Norm 20:35:20 RRSAgent, stop