yes

<mhausenblas> cool

<mhausenblas> oh ;)

Working on status report http://w3.org/2001/tag/awwsw/2011/status-2011-02.html

TAG status report

<dbooth> dbooth: Suggest removing or separating out the question of whether a journal article is an IR. Just say "suppose a 200 is returned"

<dbooth> dbooth: Also suggest keeping discussion of persistence separate.

<dbooth> dbooth: I also suggest adding the licensing scenario you posted yesterday: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-awwsw/2011Jan/0053.html

In general we do three kinds of analysis: empirical (current and

'best' practice), specification-based, speculative (future and future

'best' practice).

the 'R' and 'S' piece of writing is the bottom of this: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-awwsw/2011Jan/0045.html

<mhausenblas> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/awwsw/2011/status-2011-02.html

<webr3> ''am I being going to be held accountable?'' (being going)

dbooth: Do the motivating scenario. If that comes through clearly, it will engage people in the problem

(jar was saying that we only have 45 minutes)

(at the TAG meeting)

Request for JAR to send slideware to AWWSW for review pre meeting (which is ~Feb 9)

<dbooth> dbooth: I think the most important thing for you to cover at the TAG meeting is the motivating use case that we just discussed -- the licensing confusion.

questions for TAG? questions for TimBL?

<webr3> I do have one primary question at the minute - should we be focussing on and modelling messages (request to response w/ origin servers etc taken in to account), or representations (rep of a resource etc..) - unsure if that's worth asking for feedback on, or considering though

<webr3> (or both)

db: Bring some of the 'setup' RDF into the dialog part of the use case?

Some people aren't going to understand the RDF.... express them in English at the same time...

English, how Alice expresses it in RDF, how Bob expresses it in RDF ...

<dbooth> dbooth: Maybe the RDF in the motivating use case could also be expressed in English? That may help people understand it.

definition of xhtml:license says it does not distinguish...

<webr3> see: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/links.html#link-type-license

db: The ambiguity is orthogonal...

<mhausenblas> http://amundsen.com/hypermedia/

<mhausenblas> http://amundsen.com/hypermedia/hfactor/

<mhausenblas> http://amundsen.com/hypermedia/hfactor/

<mhausenblas> http://amundsen.com/hypermedia/hfactor/

<webr3>

<webr3> { a rel href }

webr3: link relations - is rel consistent?

<mhausenblas> I'm happy to submit what we have to TAG

very limited...

mh: Need the conditional element - "if you care"

it's a standard, so we have no choice

<webr3> why not AWWW 2 ?

but yes. we are not claiming we have authority

<scribe> scribe: No one in particular

This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.135  of Date: 2009/03/02 03:52:20  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

No ScribeNick specified.  Guessing ScribeNick: jar_
Found Scribe: No one in particular
Default Present: mhausenblas, jar, DBooth, [IPcaller]
Present: mhausenblas jar DBooth [IPcaller]
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-awwsw/2011Jan/0044.html
Got date from IRC log name: 01 Feb 2011
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2011/02/01-awwsw-minutes.html
People with action items: 

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.