IRC log of tagmem on 2003-02-24
Timestamps are in UTC.
- 20:04:17 [RRSAgent]
- RRSAgent has joined #tagmem
- 20:04:23 [C3s]
- rrsagent, pointer?
- 20:04:23 [RRSAgent]
- See http://www.w3.org/2003/02/24-tagmem-irc#T20-04-23
- 20:05:03 [C3s]
- zakim, agenda?
- 20:05:04 [Zakim]
- I see nothing on the agenda
- 20:05:35 [DanC]
- DanC has joined #tagmem
- 20:06:26 [Zakim]
- +DanC
- 20:06:44 [C3s]
- wondering where the log got to
- 20:07:11 [TBray]
- Norm chairs; TBray scribes
- 20:07:25 [TBray]
- Feb 17 telcon minutes?
- 20:07:29 [TBray]
- Accepted
- 20:07:32 [TBray]
- ===============================
- 20:07:34 [TBray]
- mods to agenda?
- 20:08:06 [TBray]
- accepted
- 20:08:07 [TBray]
- ===========================
- 20:08:19 [TBray]
- 3 March mtg canceled, 10 March is next meeting
- 20:08:37 [TBray]
- =======================
- 20:08:40 [DanC]
- RRSAgent, pointer?
- 20:08:40 [RRSAgent]
- See http://www.w3.org/2003/02/24-tagmem-irc#T20-08-40
- 20:08:46 [TBray]
- Meeting planning
- 20:08:58 [TBray]
- Chris can do alternate Budapest dates
- 20:09:12 [TBray]
- put dates in IRC please?
- 20:09:25 [TBray]
- Proposed 22, 23, 24 May (2003/02/17)
- 20:09:43 [TBray]
- suggest alternate May dates of 22 (All day), 23 (Morning), 24 (Morning). DO, TB, PC, NW, IJ can meet those days. CL not sure yet.
- 20:09:43 [C3s]
- agenda http://www.w3.org/2003/02/24-tag.html
- 20:10:48 [TBray]
- DanC: might not be able to make dev-day session
- 20:11:27 [TBray]
- Stuart may have trouble with 24th too
- 20:11:31 [C3s]
- I can juggle my dev day presentation most likely to avoid a clash
- 20:12:49 [TBray]
- No input from TimBL on these dates yet, need to get it
- 20:13:22 [TBray]
- Holding May dates open a little longer...
- 20:13:26 [TBray]
- =============================
- 20:13:38 [TBray]
- Nov. in Tokyo?
- 20:13:42 [TBray]
- Proposed 14-15 Nov Japan, Fri-Sat preceding AC meeting
- 20:13:52 [Roy]
- okay by me
- 20:14:08 [TBray]
- Need input from DC & TBL
- 20:14:12 [TBray]
- DanC: not aware of any conflicts
- 20:14:22 [TBray]
- Leave these open, try to close on 10th of March
- 20:14:27 [timMIT]
- timMIT has joined #tagmem
- 20:14:34 [TBray]
- Keio can host us on those dates
- 20:14:36 [Chris]
- we did get confirmation from keio that they could host us
- 20:14:55 [Norm]
- timMIT: are you dialing in?
- 20:15:30 [timMIT]
- yes, i will.
- 20:16:07 [Zakim]
- +TimBL
- 20:17:37 [DanC]
- "May dates of 22 (All day), 23 (Morning), 24 (Morning). DO, TB, PC, NW, IJ can meet those days. CL not sure yet." -- http://www.w3.org/2003/02/24-tag
- 20:18:49 [Chris]
- but CL is sure now
- 20:18:57 [TBray]
- Both questions left open till 10 March.
- 20:19:59 [TBray]
- =====================
- 20:20:04 [TBray]
- Tech Plenary presentations?
- 20:20:11 [TBray]
- Only NW got his together in time
- 20:20:32 [TBray]
- Suggest review Tue evening at dinner in Boston
- 20:20:40 [Chris]
- My slides are half done but not on server yet
- 20:20:48 [TBray]
- SW: will try to have them done this week
- 20:20:50 [TBray]
- CL: half done
- 20:21:01 [TBray]
- NW: please before end of week so can look at them before Tue
- 20:21:12 [Chris]
- review slides at dinner on Tuesday
- 20:21:15 [TBray]
- ===========================
- 20:21:46 [TBray]
- Mailing list managemment
- 20:22:00 [TBray]
- SW: has action item outstanding to update policy & publish it
- 20:22:14 [TBray]
- SW: made an interim intervention, which seems to have helped
- 20:22:45 [Norm]
- ack DanC
- 20:22:46 [Zakim]
- DanC, you wanted to re metadata thread
- 20:23:40 [TBray]
- Dan: post-f2f, we did everything wrong; flameburst following on TimBL's post with TBL on vacaation
- 20:25:32 [TBray]
- SW: wait for my action item?
- 20:27:59 [Chris]
- we can ask for better quoting discipline; three pages of quoted matter without comment is not acceptable
- 20:29:17 [TBray]
- Proposal from someone: ask people not to post more than once per day without reply
- 20:29:40 [Chris]
- prefer leading by example to constraining by rules
- 20:30:17 [TBray]
- TBray: don't like doing by policy, it's an individual judgement
- 20:30:54 [TBray]
- TBray: propose offline intervention with people causing problems
- 20:31:52 [TBray]
- Dan: some people are way out into the territory of wasting everyone's time; perhaps a private email to them?
- 20:33:45 [TBray]
- Norm: SW will finish action item, and when individuals get out of line, it's appropriate for the chair to intervene
- 20:34:06 [TBray]
- DanC: of course this may take days to get to
- 20:34:21 [TBray]
- Norm: of course TAG members could send direct email to chair acting for intervention
- 20:34:30 [TBray]
- ===============================
- 20:35:31 [TBray]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Feb/0093.html
- 20:35:45 [TBray]
- new issue? Site metadata hook
- 20:35:46 [Norm]
- Ian is on vacation today
- 20:36:20 [Roy]
- favicon.ico
- 20:36:53 [TBray]
- with only 3 thiings, not too bad a prob, but this is a slippery slope
- 20:36:56 [TBray]
- q+
- 20:36:56 [Chris]
- reserved urls /robots.txt, /w3c/p3p, /favico
- 20:37:05 [Roy]
- q+
- 20:37:39 [TBray]
- TBL reviews points in his posting referenced above
- 20:37:47 [Chris]
- guys, stop putting technical discussion in /me
- 20:39:46 [Norm]
- ack TBray
- 20:39:48 [Chris]
- is the question : given a uri x, how to get metadata about x?
- 20:40:00 [Chris]
- or is it given a site s, get metadata?
- 20:40:22 [timMIT]
- q+ to define site in the context of this issue proposal only
- 20:40:47 [Chris]
- q+ to talk about subsites, tenants, server sharing etc
- 20:41:56 [Norm]
- ack roy
- 20:42:06 [TBray]
- TBray: 1. support adopting the issue
- 20:42:26 [Chris]
- one persons data is another persons metadata
- 20:42:37 [timMIT]
- HTTP DNA domain metadata could well include delegation information giving actual notional "sites"
- 20:42:38 [TBray]
- TBray 2. web arch currently doesn't have notion of a "site" and to the extent it does it's coupled to host (e.g. robots.tx); so this is new but might be good
- 20:42:54 [TBray]
- TBray: recent proposal along same lines from (I think) Roger Costello
- 20:43:04 [TBray]
- TBray: TBL said HTTP "tag" meant header
- 20:43:12 [TBray]
- Roy: robots.txt isn't necessarily a file
- 20:43:22 [Norm]
- q?
- 20:43:25 [TBray]
- Roy: this isn't metadata it's just data about a resource
- 20:43:28 [Chris]
- any resource is not necessarily a file
- 20:43:29 [Norm]
- ack timMIT
- 20:43:31 [Zakim]
- timMIT, you wanted to define site in the context of this issue proposal only
- 20:43:36 [Roy]
- no, data about a site
- 20:43:40 [Roy]
- not a resource
- 20:43:51 [Chris]
- ok
- 20:43:56 [TBray]
- Roy: we need to manage this whole area of per-site names
- 20:44:16 [Chris]
- there is no way to give a URI of a site as opposed to a URI for a welcome page for it
- 20:44:41 [Chris]
- hmm... sites are significant resources, no? so they should have URIs.....
- 20:44:51 [Roy]
- /
- 20:45:01 [TBray]
- TBL on lack of distinction between data/metadata
- 20:45:12 [TBray]
- TBL on whole family of interesting metadata you could have about a site
- 20:45:22 [Norm]
- q?
- 20:45:27 [TBray]
- TBL: need a hook to hang this stuff
- 20:45:28 [Norm]
- ack chris
- 20:45:29 [Zakim]
- Chris, you wanted to talk about subsites, tenants, server sharing etc
- 20:45:34 [Roy]
- q+
- 20:45:36 [TBray]
- No, "/" isn't the site it's the server, they're not the same things
- 20:46:42 [timMIT]
- Server isn't a perfect name eitehr ... tends to be a computer.
- 20:46:48 [TBray]
- Chris: echoing problem of site/server disconnect, bad architecture to require everyone to write one file
- 20:47:07 [TBray]
- Chris: if a Site is an important thing, it should have a URI; right now there's no such thing
- 20:47:27 [TBray]
- Chris: per our axiomms
- 20:48:08 [TBray]
- Roy: When robots.txt was invented.. (Chris: everyone had their own server) .. the idea was to knock politely on some part of a naming authority's domain
- 20:48:17 [TBray]
- Roy: haven't seen a proposal yet with equivalent semantics
- 20:48:19 [TBray]
- q+
- 20:48:27 [Norm]
- ack roy
- 20:48:38 [Chris]
- it has had excellent expressive power at ultra low implementation cost
- 20:48:39 [timMIT]
- q+ to explain to roy where this fits in
- 20:49:04 [Norm]
- ack TBray
- 20:50:11 [Norm]
- ack timMIT
- 20:50:13 [Zakim]
- timMIT, you wanted to explain to roy where this fits in
- 20:50:19 [TBray]
- TBray: wants to introduce a new notion called "site" a collection of resources (on one server?)
- 20:50:41 [TBray]
- TBray: "Site" has a URI, which could be provided in an HTTP header and an HTML <link>
- 20:50:49 [TBray]
- TBray: could contain robotrs policies, RSS feed, all sorts of stuff
- 20:51:01 [Norm]
- I can't see how you're going to give site a URI independent of the pages on the site...
- 20:51:33 [TBray]
- Roy/TBL: Problem because many sites consider the root URI to be revenue-significant and don't want robots to go there
- 20:51:51 [timMIT]
- A head would work
- 20:51:55 [TBray]
- Roy: but likes TBL's idea
- 20:52:01 [timMIT]
- a HEAD would work.
- 20:52:11 [TBray]
- Roy: wants the issue to be tightly circumscribed
- 20:52:38 [TBray]
- Roy: i.e. we're just solving /robots.txt (but that cat's out of the bag) or more generally, algorithm for determining appropriate metadata for a site
- 20:52:51 [TBray]
- TBL: but doesn't like metadata/data distinction
- 20:53:06 [TBray]
- TBL: how would we design robots.txt if we were doing it now or ina couple years
- 20:53:56 [TBray]
- Bray: propose we accept SiteData-NN
- 20:53:58 [timMIT]
- SiteData-$int(ian++)
- 20:54:06 [TBray]
- Chris: does that include defining notion of a site?
- 20:54:08 [TBray]
- Bray: yes
- 20:54:15 [TBray]
- Roy: rather empower authors to define their own site
- 20:54:27 [TBray]
- Roy: rather than define for them what it is
- 20:54:32 [Chris]
- q+ to clarify
- 20:54:45 [Norm]
- ack DanC
- 20:54:46 [Zakim]
- DanC, you wanted to support the issue as proposed in Proposed issue: site metadata hook http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Feb/0093.html
- 20:54:48 [Norm]
- ack Chris
- 20:54:49 [Zakim]
- Chris, you wanted to clarify
- 20:55:07 [Stuart]
- Just found "What if I can't make a /robots.txt file?" at http://www.robotstxt.org/wc/faq.html#noindex
- 20:55:14 [TBray]
- Chris just wants to make sure we don't leave undefined terms like "site" hanging
- 20:55:23 [TBray]
- Roy: can we define it reflectively
- 20:55:24 [Norm]
- q?
- 20:55:28 [TBray]
- TBray doesn't understand Roy
- 20:55:33 [Roy]
- aww
- 20:55:34 [TBray]
- Norm: any objection?
- 20:55:45 [TBray]
- Resolved: accept issue
- 20:55:53 [TBray]
- Chris: owner?
- 20:55:59 [Roy]
- all resources on "site" point to same "site URI"
- 20:56:08 [TBray]
- what roy said
- 20:56:49 [TBray]
- Issue owner: TBL
- 20:57:04 [TBray]
- Action item: proposal to close it
- 20:57:12 [TBray]
- TBL: not till after discussion
- 20:57:26 [Stuart]
- q+
- 20:57:30 [TBray]
- q+
- 20:57:43 [Norm]
- ack Stuart
- 20:58:00 [Roy]
- next number is 36
- 20:58:01 [TBray]
- I think this is SiteData-36
- 20:59:06 [Norm]
- q?
- 20:59:10 [Norm]
- ack tbray
- 20:59:56 [TBray]
- Action: TBL to summarize discussion & recast issue
- 21:00:01 [TBray]
- Action: TBray to post a strawman proposal
- 21:00:09 [TBray]
- Actions accepted
- 21:00:12 [TBray]
- ===========================================
- 21:01:26 [TBray]
- Paul: issue raised in respect to WSDL
- 21:01:42 [TBray]
- In regards their email Feb. 3rd
- 21:02:00 [TBray]
- This is regards to our issue #6
- 21:02:12 [TBray]
- Dan; Still have an outstanding action
- 21:02:17 [DanC]
- 4. rdfmsQnameUriMapping-6 affects WSDL too (score: 117) (2,068 bytes)
- 21:02:17 [DanC]
- Author: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, Date: 25 Nov 2002 12:26:15 -0600 List: Public/www-tag
- 21:02:23 [DanC]
- http://www.w3.org/2002/02/mid/1038248776.5180.181.camel@dirk;list=www-tag
- 21:03:06 [TBray]
- Paul: let's make sure this gets on our March 10 agenda
- 21:03:19 [TBray]
- ====================================
- 21:04:37 [TBray]
- Deeplinking-25: Done
- 21:04:41 [TBray]
- ========================
- 21:06:56 [Norm]
- ack DanC
- 21:07:11 [TBray]
- NamespaceDocument-8
- 21:07:29 [TBray]
- Bray: proposal: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Feb/0213
- 21:07:41 [TBray]
- Very minimal, see exegesis in my covering email
- 21:07:51 [TBray]
- Dan: this isn't XHTML, they own the syntax (Chris doesn't agree)
- 21:07:52 [Norm]
- q+
- 21:08:00 [Norm]
- ack norm
- 21:08:13 [TBray]
- Dan: would prefer a custom XML or RDF language, but not enough to object; would abstain
- 21:08:42 [TBray]
- Norm: you really think that HTML-WG has to approve any attributes in any namespaces
- 21:08:45 [TBray]
- Dan: yes
- 21:08:52 [TBray]
- Chris: flabbergasted
- 21:08:59 [Norm]
- I'm a bit flabbergasted as well
- 21:09:05 [TBray]
- Dan: doesn't like it but thinks that's the way it is
- 21:09:19 [Chris]
- Actually to clarify - they DO own the syntax, no argument; the syntax of the HTML namespace. Attributes in other namespaces they do not own and this was what I objected to in Dan's statement
- 21:09:38 [TBray]
- Bray: what about modularization
- 21:09:43 [TBray]
- Dan: then you have to change the DOCTYPE
- 21:09:49 [TBray]
- Chris: if you want it to be valid
- 21:10:00 [Chris]
- if you want it to be valid you would need to change the doctype and write a driver dtsd for it etc
- 21:10:03 [TBray]
- Bray: Granted
- 21:10:40 [Chris]
- q+ to correct TimB
- 21:10:48 [DanC]
- chris, there aren't any XHTML documents that aren't valid XML, are there?
- 21:10:53 [Norm]
- ack chris
- 21:10:54 [Zakim]
- Chris, you wanted to correct TimB
- 21:11:05 [TBray]
- Bray: not sure what the correct term is
- 21:11:13 [TBray]
- Chris: It's an XHTML-family doc, which is a defined term in the XHTML spec
- 21:11:29 [TBray]
- Bray: in technical terms, it's XHTML + 2 attributes, which is easy to understand and implement
- 21:11:38 [timMIT]
- q+ to express the concern that teh semantics are notwell defined in rddl
- 21:11:40 [timMIT]
- 3
- 21:12:09 [TBray]
- Norm: want to change proposal?
- 21:12:11 [TBray]
- Bray: no
- 21:12:18 [Stuart]
- q?
- 21:12:20 [TBray]
- Dan: does proposal want to change DOCTYPE
- 21:12:23 [Norm]
- ack timMIT
- 21:12:24 [Zakim]
- timMIT, you wanted to express the concern that teh semantics are notwell defined in rddl
- 21:12:25 [TBray]
- Bray: silent on that subject
- 21:12:30 [TBray]
- Paul: we're open to suggestions
- 21:12:46 [Chris]
- got it
- 21:12:47 [Chris]
- http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xhtml-modularization-20010410/conformance.html#s_conform_document
- 21:13:08 [TBray]
- TBL: covering letter said RDF wouldn't give semweb people what they wanted; ?
- 21:13:45 [DanC]
- thx, chris. that's new to me. but it does involve changing the doctype... "A conforming XHTML family document is a valid instance"
- 21:13:47 [TBray]
- TBL: suggests that RDDL semantics be given in RDF terms, as classes & properties
- 21:15:16 [Norm]
- q?
- 21:15:25 [timMIT]
- 1. The cover note suggets the RDDL document does not meet its SWeb goals. In what way?
- 21:17:12 [TBray]
- Bray: Various RDF instantiations either fail to capture the linkage to the namespace as a resource, or are really complex
- 21:17:34 [TBray]
- Bray: prepared to believe that RDF-defined semantics are a agood idea, who's going to write it down?
- 21:17:46 [TBray]
- Dan: I would, but I wouldn't use XHTML, I'd use RDf anyhow
- 21:18:08 [Norm]
- q+
- 21:18:13 [TBray]
- TBL: if introducing a thing called "nature", if you make it an RDF Class then that explains it to a lot of people and you don't need to say anything more
- 21:18:14 [Norm]
- PC+
- 21:18:18 [Norm]
- q+ PaulC
- 21:18:27 [Norm]
- ack Norm
- 21:18:37 [TBray]
- q+ to say that I don't know what an RDF class is
- 21:18:51 [TBray]
- Norm: proposal could be left alone and people who wanted to do the RDF definition could do so
- 21:18:59 [Norm]
- ack PaulC
- 21:19:00 [TBray]
- TBL: no, interoperability suffers
- 21:19:17 [TBray]
- Paul: pushing back on Dan's thesis that we should use RDF
- 21:19:24 [TBray]
- Paul: we agreed that NS doc should be human readable
- 21:19:41 [TBray]
- Paul: and there were other issues with regards to using RDF in XML
- 21:20:11 [TBray]
- Dan: RDF can be as human-readable as you like
- 21:20:16 [TBray]
- Dan: consumer is a machine not a human
- 21:20:21 [TBray]
- Paul: disagrees strongly
- 21:20:40 [TBray]
- Paul: we have two objectives, hard to achieve both
- 21:20:52 [Norm]
- q?
- 21:20:56 [Norm]
- ack tbray
- 21:20:57 [Zakim]
- TBray, you wanted to say that I don't know what an RDF class is
- 21:22:33 [TBray]
- TBray: can we publish a XSLT or other code that would process a minimal-RDDL and emit the RDF that you'd like to see?
- 21:22:51 [TBray]
- Chris: user-agents, given XML & a stylesheet, typically don't work
- 21:23:05 [timMIT]
- q+ to wade into this one
- 21:23:05 [Norm]
- ack danc
- 21:23:07 [Zakim]
- DanC, you wanted to ask for a use case to focus on
- 21:23:11 [Norm]
- q+ PaulC
- 21:25:55 [TBray]
- Bray: Consider WordML; human perl programmer could dereference namespace name to figure it out
- 21:26:47 [DanC]
- ok, thanks for the use case.
- 21:26:54 [Norm]
- ack timMIT
- 21:26:56 [Zakim]
- timMIT, you wanted to wade into this one
- 21:26:58 [TBray]
- Bray: Also the desperate perl hacker could dispatch to code via RDDL to generate postscript etc
- 21:27:12 [TBray]
- Dan: but that's hard, subtle, hard to believe, given the experience of MIME dispatching
- 21:27:35 [TBray]
- TBL: agree that it's usable to have both;
- 21:27:49 [DanC]
- would people please stop saying "we've agreed to X"? I'm quite confident we have resolved *nothing* anywhere near this issue.
- 21:27:53 [TBray]
- TBL: consider high-volume applicatios, apps hitting this thousands of times a second, the architecture has to support this
- 21:28:27 [Norm]
- I'm not sure I agree it's infrequent...
- 21:28:31 [TBray]
- TBL: use case only appeals to fairly infrequent access
- 21:29:38 [TBray]
- TBL: If it doesn't have well-defined semantics people won't use it. Dan & I would both put RDF there.
- 21:29:49 [Norm]
- ack paulc
- 21:30:11 [Roy]
- scenario: human wants info about namespace (I don't care about automation here)
- 21:30:24 [timMIT]
- ?RDDL_based?
- 21:30:37 [TBray]
- Paul: perplexed how to handle at technical plenary, this has been going on for a long time and he hasn't seen statements from TBL, DC in public that non-RDF was unacceptable
- 21:30:43 [Chris]
- wondering about proposing reserved paths nsURI/rdf/ and nsURI/schema and so forth
- 21:31:13 [TBray]
- Dan: not saying "has to be RDF" - he's saying he would prefer RDF & would abstain on this proposal
- 21:33:02 [timMIT]
- I don't know what Paul meant by "RDDL-based" of all these various proposals for RDDL
- 21:35:21 [TBray]
- ... discussion of technial minutiae of how to make it valid, with DOCTYPE wrangling and so on ...
- 21:35:37 [Zakim]
- -Tim_Bray
- 21:35:38 [Zakim]
- -PaulC
- 21:35:39 [Zakim]
- -Norm
- 21:35:40 [Roy]
- Roy has left #tagmem
- 21:35:42 [Zakim]
- -Roy
- 21:35:42 [Zakim]
- -Stuart
- 21:35:43 [Zakim]
- -TimBL
- 21:35:52 [Zakim]
- -DanC
- 21:35:53 [Zakim]
- -Chris
- 21:35:54 [Zakim]
- TAG_Weekly()2:30PM has ended
- 21:36:07 [Chris]
- rrsagent, pointer?
- 21:36:07 [RRSAgent]
- See http://www.w3.org/2003/02/24-tagmem-irc#T21-36-07
- 21:36:20 [Chris]
- rrsagent, stop