01-minutes
29.1 KB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html lang='en' xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en">
<head>
<meta name="generator" content=
"HTML Tidy for Cygwin (vers 1st September 2004), see www.w3.org" />
<title>W3C Technical Architecture Group Face to Face Meeting - 1st
June 2007 (Friday am) -- 1 Jun 2007</title>
<link type="text/css" rel="STYLESHEET" href=
"http://www.w3.org/StyleSheets/base.css" />
<link type="text/css" rel="STYLESHEET" href=
"http://www.w3.org/StyleSheets/public.css" />
<link type="text/css" rel="STYLESHEET" href=
"http://www.w3.org/2004/02/minutes-style.css" />
<meta content=
"W3C Technical Architecture Group Face to Face Meeting - 1st June 2007 (Friday am)"
name="Title" />
<meta content="text/html; charset=us-ascii" http-equiv=
"Content-Type" />
</head>
<body>
<p><a href="http://www.w3.org/"><img src=
"http://www.w3.org/Icons/w3c_home" alt="W3C" border="0" height="48"
width="72" /></a></p>
<h1>- DRAFT -</h1>
<h1>W3C Technical Architecture Group Face to Face Meeting - 1st
June 2007 (Friday am)</h1>
<h2>1 Jun 2007</h2>
<p><a href=
'http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2007/05/29-agenda'>Agenda</a></p>
<p>See also: <a href="http://www.w3.org/2007/06/01-tagmem-irc">IRC
log</a></p>
<h2><a name="attendees" id="attendees">Attendees</a></h2>
<div class="intro">
<dl>
<dt>Present</dt>
<dd>Stuart, Raman, TimBL, DanC, DaveO, Rhys, Henry, Noah</dd>
<dt>Regrets</dt>
<dd>Norm</dd>
<dt>Chair</dt>
<dd>Stuart</dd>
<dt>Scribe</dt>
<dd>Rhys, _Rhys</dd>
</dl>
</div>
<h2>Contents</h2>
<ul>
<li><a href="#agenda">Topics</a>
<ol>
<li><a href="#item01">Agenda</a></li>
<li><a href="#item02">Self Describing Web</a></li>
</ol>
</li>
<li><a href="#ActionSummary">Summary of Action Items</a></li>
</ul>
<hr />
<div class="meeting">
<p class='irc'><<cite>edit</cite>> ScribeNick: Rhys</p>
<h3 id="item01">Agenda</h3>
<p class='phone'><cite>SW:</cite> Describes agenda</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>NM:</cite> Half an hour for Virtual worlds
discussion</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>SW:</cite> Asks about versioning</p>
<h3 id="item02">Self Describing Web</h3>
<p class='phone'><cite>NM:</cite> Asks that people read the draft
now</p>
<p class='irc'><<cite>edit</cite>> ScribeNick: _Rhys</p>
<p class='irc'><<cite>Noah</cite>> We are going to discuss
draft on Self-Describing Web at <a href=
"http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/selfDescribingDocuments.html">http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/selfDescribingDocuments.html</a></p>
<p class='irc'><<cite>Noah</cite>> For the record, the dated
URI for this is: <a href=
"http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/selfDescribingDocuments-2007-05-24.html">
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/selfDescribingDocuments-2007-05-24.html</a></p>
<p class='irc'><<cite>DanC_lap</cite>> superfluous comma.
s/information,/information/</p>
<p class='irc'><<cite>DanC_lap</cite>> (self-reference in the
abstract... I've never been fond of that. "This finding ...")</p>
<p class='irc'><<cite>DanC_lap</cite>> hmm... "used should
themselves be described in machine readable form" ... I was
expecting that the examples that followed would be turing-complete
stuff, like browser extensions or plug-ins. hmm.</p>
<p class='irc'><<cite>timbl</cite>> Grammar: all bullets
should match te same production. "Supporting ad-hoc exploration is
a goal of the Web." is not a senetnce but the ones befroe and above
are</p>
<p class='irc'><<cite>timbl</cite>> (label point 3 into
"context independence"?</p>
<p class='irc'><<cite>timbl</cite>> )</p>
<p class='irc'><<cite>DanC_lap</cite>> "This finding
addresses TAG issue XXXX (to be opened)" hmm... who is our customer
here? who are we advising/helping?</p>
<p class='irc'><<cite>timbl</cite>> s/What may be less clear
is that//</p>
<p class='irc'><<cite>DanC_lap</cite>> "The Web is global"
... hmm... the web scales up to global scale, and there is one
global web, but the web also scales down, and [the rest of this
comment is easier said with a whiteboard]</p>
<p class='irc'><<cite>DanC_lap</cite>> under "three
characteristics that distinguish it from many other shared
information spaces", I don't see how the 3rd one is novel to the
web</p>
<p class='irc'><<cite>dorchard</cite>> There's an implication
that XML without namespaces is not self-describing, yet that was
alleged of XML from the start. Perhaps self-describing but not on
the self-describing web?</p>
<p class='irc'><<cite>Rhys</cite>> RL: Not sure that the good
practice in section 2 automatically follows from the previous
paragraph. It feel like I want to say that just using widely
deployed standards doesn't automatically guarantee the kind of
semantic completeness you desire</p>
<p class='irc'><<cite>timbl</cite>> "Furthermore, when such
documents are linked together, the Web as a whole can support
reliable, ad hoc discovery of information." is great in the
abstract but non sequitur in the intro.</p>
<p class='irc'><<cite>DanC_lap</cite>> s/It seems fairly
obvious that//</p>
<p class='irc'><<cite>Rhys</cite>> RL: Section 3 seems to
have echoes of the "top down interpretation of XML docs" from
Henry's elaboration of infosets paper</p>
<p class='irc'><<cite>timbl</cite>> Section 2. Scond para
wanders off i think, diverts us fro the path.</p>
<p class='irc'><<cite>Rhys</cite>> RL: last para of 3
s/discusses/discuss</p>
<p class='irc'><<cite>DanC_lap</cite>> the 1st GPN, "...
widely deployed standards." seems out of place. The para above it
argues for good titles and such.</p>
<p class='irc'><<cite>DanC_lap</cite>> it might fit better
after "The simplest way to achieve this is if the document is
encoded using widely deployed standards and conventions."</p>
<p class='irc'><<cite>timbl</cite>> I would prefer, rather
than using english and words and 26 chars, to give examples of
actual formats used on the web and stabdradized by W3C, such as
HTML, SVG, PNG, (JPEG), RDF.</p>
<p class='irc'><<cite>DanC_lap</cite>> "bits (octets) " er...
rather be "bytes (octets)"?</p>
<p class='irc'><<cite>Rhys</cite>> RL: Section 4 beginning
"The RDDL document in turn... " I merely note that processing
instructions in XML documents can achieve processing at the user
agent and wonder if there is anything to say here about that or to
contrast the use of GRDDL for this as opposed to XML PI.</p>
<p class='irc'><<cite>timbl</cite>> For "The Content-Type
header is generally the appropriate means " write "The Content-Type
header is THE ONE AND ONLY means"</p>
<p class='irc'><<cite>DanC_lap</cite>> in section 3, I was
pretty lost until I got to "In short, a user agent can work step by
step, starting with knowledge of the HTTP protocol and its headers,
to determine the full intended interpretation of this example
representation. ". I suggest moving that up, and maybe using an
itemized list or something.</p>
<p class='irc'><<cite>Rhys</cite>> RL: Good practice on RDFa:
Some language designers [:-)] might want to do something similar
with RDFa for new languages. Can we extend the practice or add
another one to cover that?</p>
<p class='irc'><<cite>timbl</cite>> I don't feel that this
finding makes it clear that there is ONE defined anc ommon
algorithm for following these steps of dereferencing a URI.</p>
<p class='irc'><<cite>DanC_lap</cite>> well, not THE ONE AND
ONLY means; it's the standard means. I think it's worth putting
some more orange cones in our media type finding to acknolwedge
certain exceptions.</p>
<p class='irc'><<cite>timbl</cite>> (One constantly
changing)</p>
<p class='irc'><<cite>Rhys</cite>> RL: Good practice on using
GRDDL with XML: Where an XML language (XHTML 2 family for example)
already has facilities for explicitly linking semweb information we
perhaps don't need to specify GRDDL</p>
<p class='irc'><<cite>DanC_lap</cite>> this GPN relies too
much on context; it's hardly worth putting in a box: "Web resource
representations SHOULD, to the extent practical, be
self-describing."</p>
<p class='irc'><<cite>Noah</cite>> s/mandate GRDDL/specify
GRDDL/</p>
<p class='irc'><<cite>DanC_lap</cite>> "Dynamic discovery of
specifications is necessary because of the ever changing nature of
the information on the Web" seems like the conclusion of an
argument, but it comes at the beginning of section 4</p>
<p class='irc'><<cite>timbl</cite>> After section 4, para 1,
a para would be useful that says that in these cases, it is good to
use a common data model and syntax, RDF, so that the
custom-specific knowledge necessary is delegated to an ontologty,
and much of the serializing and deserializing and even querying and
visualization can be done by generic systems.</p>
<p class='irc'><<cite>timbl</cite>> I want a diagram in
here</p>
<p class='irc'><<cite>DanC_lap</cite>> I prefer to not refer
to the group except in the status section. "The W3C TAG is
currently working on a finding that will ..."</p>
<p class='irc'><<cite>DanC_lap</cite>> I think in the
2001/vcard-rdf/3.0# namespace, fn is capitalized.</p>
<p class='irc'><<cite>timbl</cite>> "A user agent processing
an XML document can retrieve representations of the namespaces used
in that document, and can use that retrieved information to
determine how to correctly process the XML markup. " MUST mention
heer that you sould cache stuff for very long times, and not look
up every time</p>
<p class='irc'><<cite>timbl</cite>> "Most likely, the finding
will recommend the use of [RDDL] as a preferred means of providing
machine readable documentation of namespaces. " EXCEPT FOF RDF
SYSTEMS</p>
<p class='irc'><<cite>timbl</cite>> s/in an important sense,
//</p>
<p class='irc'><<cite>timbl</cite>> Refer to the N3 primer I
wondr as well as the RDF one? hmmmm</p>
<p class='irc'><<cite>timbl</cite>> s/(typically the
value/(the value/</p>
<p class='irc'><<cite>timbl</cite>> s/means of describing
particular uses of RDF/means of describing particular predicates
and classes/</p>
<p class='irc'><<cite>timbl</cite>> needs an into to what a
class is too i think</p>
<p class='irc'><<cite>timbl</cite>> s/sameAS/sameAs</p>
<p class='irc'><<cite>timbl</cite>> Example here: Painter and
Creator.</p>
<p class='irc'><<cite>timbl</cite>> Drk/Nadia example: Norm
and are on the hook for te lonhg version f that</p>
<p class='irc'><<cite>timbl</cite>> could ref it and
summarize</p>
<p class='irc'><<cite>timbl</cite>> it</p>
<p class='irc'><<cite>Noah</cite>> OK</p>
<p class='irc'><<cite>timbl</cite>> s/self-describing
HTML/data in HTML</p>
<p class='irc'><<cite>edit</cite>> ScribeNick: Rhys</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>NM:</cite> First question is is this
approach ok, and we just need to pick through the details? Then
also could we pick out the comments in the IRC log</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>SW:</cite> suggests a quick trip round the
table for initial impressions</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>NM:</cite> Would like not to get
rat-holed</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>DC:</cite> Not sure who the audience is. The
'boring first part' is too long and there is not enough in the
second part</p>
<p class='phone'>Dan, could you write what you'd like to see in the
minutes for that?</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>TBL:</cite> First part is less interesting
because its too simple. Don't worry about using english, forcus on
the standards of the web.</p>
<p class='irc'><<cite>DanC_lap</cite>> I wrote more above.
What should go in the minute is what the meeting heard, not what I
said or meant to say.</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>TBL:</cite> First part is less interesting
because its too simple. Don't worry about using english, forcus on
the standards of the web. Diagram would be good.</p>
<p class='irc'><<cite>DanC_lap</cite>> (TimBL just said "this
is for web devopers" which is starting to answer my "who is our
audience" question, but isn't specific enough)</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>NM:</cite> Is the split ok? 1- standards are
good. 2- there is an algorithm</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>TBL:</cite> Chapter 4: Ok, makes sense. In
RDF you should give an example of simple inference. TBL describes a
possible example</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>TVR:</cite> Nothing much to add</p>
<p class='irc'><<cite>timbl</cite>> Like using Inverse
Functional property.</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>SW:</cite> Agree with Dan. Not sure about
the message and audience.</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>NM:</cite> Do you mean that you are not
clear about why we are doing this finding</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>SW:</cite> Yes<br />
... Worry about the particular use of MUST, SHOULD etc. in the good
practices. Looks like there are no principles at the moment<br />
... Not all GPNs are actually good practices</p>
<p class='irc'><<cite>timbl</cite>> - This expains how the
web works. It explains how to extend it , where the flexibility
points are. You intriduce an new (uri scheme, conetn type, encoding
type, xml namespace, RD ontology) ... should understand afetr
readng the document that it is better to do th higher level things
than the lower.</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>TVR:</cite> Would like to see some coverage
of Atom publishing protocol and how Google uses them<br />
... For rels that are defined, they use the standard ones. For
Google-specific ones, they use qualified rels</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>SW:</cite> sec 4.2 Good practice about
contributing to the self describing web doesn't sound like a
GPN<br />
... Doesnt sound like a practice</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>NM:</cite> Thought we had others like
this<br />
... Agrees its a problem.</p>
<p class='irc'><<cite>raman</cite>> for a GData specific
term, it uses:</p>
<p class='irc'><<cite>timbl</cite>> - This document also
documents flexibilit points (rel-nofollow) which are not
delf-describing or whos use is not standard and well-docuemted or
universally deployed. Also classes in micrpfromats</p>
<p class='irc'><<cite>raman</cite>> <category
scheme='<a href=
"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#kind'">http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#kind'</a>
term='<a href=
"http://schemas.google.com/photos/2007#album'%3E">http://schemas.google.com/photos/2007#album'></a></p>
<p class='irc'><<cite>raman</cite>> </category></p>
<p class='phone'><cite>HT:</cite> I found the NM example unhelpful
in the first couple of sections.<br />
... However an img/svg example in a few lines could help by showing
what else there could be</p>
<p class='irc'><<cite>raman</cite>> For a link tag to a feed
we use <link rel='<a href=
"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#feed'">http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#feed'</a>
type='application/atom+xml' href='<a href=
"http://picasaweb.google.com/data/feed/api/user/tv.raman.tv/albumid/5067768426093754961'%3E">
http://picasaweb.google.com/data/feed/api/user/tv.raman.tv/albumid/5067768426093754961'></a></p>
<p class='irc'><<cite>raman</cite>> </link></p>
<p class='phone'><cite>HT:</cite> It's in section 3<br />
... Term qualified name is dodgy, expanded names would be better.
Could also trim the tutorial nature for this part</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>NM:</cite></p>
<p class='irc'><<cite>DanC_lap</cite>> TVR's example is a
*counter-example*. Google doesn't provide representations for
<a href=
"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005">http://schemas.google.com/g/2005</a></p>
<p class='phone'><cite>HT:</cite> Basically this is fine, and there
are some changes needed.</p>
<p class='irc'><<cite>raman</cite>> I know we provide the
schemas somewhere;-) but we dont provide it on the namespace
url</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>HT:</cite> 4.2 First sentence true only
because of the word data. It's too small and I missed it! Think it
needs more emphasis by editorial methods.</p>
<p class='irc'><<cite>DanC_lap</cite>> (noah is taking
notes-to-self; I'd appreciate a copy of those, perhaps for the
meeting record)</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>HT:</cite> End of 4.3 GPN about RDF seems to
conflict with earlier statements about HTML being self-describing.
Title may be misleading</p>
<p class='irc'><<cite>Stuart</cite>> From earlier in the log:
RL: Not sure that the good practice in section 2 automatically
follows from the previous paragraph. It feel like I want to say
that just using widely deployed standards doesn't automatically
guarantee the kind of semantic completeness you desire</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>DO:</cite> Agreed with previous comments on
2 and 3</p>
<p class='irc'><<cite>DanC_lap</cite>> ("the algorithm" is in
/TR/webarch already, no?)</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>DO:</cite> Having 'the' algorithm in section
3<br />
... IN self describing XML documents (sec 4) seemed interesting
that self desc XML seems to need namespaces.</p>
<p class='irc'><<cite>DanC_lap</cite>> (indeed,
<part-number> isn't self-describing in the sense of Web
Architecture)</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>DO:</cite> Should say whether or not this is
true. Dan said that XML wasn't self-describing, it was
self-similar</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>NM:</cite> For the definition of self
describing that I've used in this doc, I don't think that XML is
self describing</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>DO:</cite> Then I think you should define
that. Based on the explanation, I might still have a problem with
that<br />
... Other readers might too<br />
... Interesting that RDDL is emphasized, because of lack of
deployment</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>NM:</cite> what I hear you say that RDDL is
not essential for self description. There may be other ways.
Describe that it should be true, and then describe RDDL as a way to
do it, but it might not be the only way.</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>TBL:</cite> Reasonable to show the
example.</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>NM:</cite> Position the RDDL as a way to
achieve it</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>DO:</cite> Yes</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>TBL:</cite> But not for RDF</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>NM:</cite> This is the subject of
namespace-8</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>TBL:</cite> But you need to have a coherent
story here<br />
... Describes the technology approach</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>NM:</cite> Describes the way that
namespace-8 and this finding fit together</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>DO:</cite> 4.2 I have a problem about RDF
playing the preferred role for self describing web is not something
I can live with<br />
... There is a ton of stuff out there for self description based on
XML and schema</p>
<p class='phone'>TBL/TVR/DO discuss merits of XML/Schema and RDF
approaches to self description</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>NM:</cite> I think I had a request from the
TAG to ensure that use of triples was the preferred way to do self
description</p>
<p class='irc'><<cite>timbl</cite>> TBL: For RDF systems, the
namespace documents are in RDF.</p>
<p class='irc'><<cite>DanC_lap</cite>> (I don't remember
these instructions to noah; I'd appreciate a pointer to a
record)</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>NM:</cite> I'd like a clear instruction
about this from the TAG as a whole, because I'm hearing both.</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>TBL:</cite> Why not actually give the story
of both RDF and XML/Schema and show the pros and cons</p>
<p class='irc'><<cite>DanC_lap</cite>> (a microformats
example would be a counter-example.)</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>DO:</cite> 4.3 and RDFa was helpful, and I'm
looking forward to a RDDL example and a microformats example<br />
... We do need to say something about microformats and that they
probably are ok.</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>TVR:</cite> Need to factor out the business
of triples from the business of getting them into bits</p>
<p class='irc'><<cite>timbl</cite>> For any level of
(meta^n)discusssion, it is (sometimes^n) necessary to have
a(meta^(n+1)) discussion.</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>TVR:</cite> Problem is that when you say
RDF, people here RDF-XML and all the baggage rather than
triples</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>NM:</cite> Seems to be that most of the room
says that it's the right story but there are problems, rather than
being the wrong message</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>SW:</cite> What is the message of the
document?</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>NM:</cite> The web aspires to achieve
certain things about exploring and combining information in various
ways, and that to do this a combination of linking and self
description is very valuable.<br />
... Will describe this and show how it is possible to do this.</p>
<p class='irc'><<cite>Zakim</cite>> DanC_lap, you wanted to
note that RDFa is only consistent with a self-describing web if the
HTML spec is rev'd to reference it.</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>TBL:</cite> Propose that the goal should be
that at the end the reader should know to use self description and
to use high level not low level descriptions</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>DC:</cite> Who are we writing for?</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>TBL:</cite> People about to write new
ontologies, people about to create a new rel='...'<br />
... Extend by making a new ontology rather than a new XML
language.</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>HT:</cite> That's Tim's comment but I would
be unhappy if that is how it makes it into the document because
it's too broad brush</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>NM:</cite> I thought the audience was those
plus almost anyone publishing content on the web.</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>DC:</cite> Microformats community says don't
reinvent the wheel, and we should treat them as part of the
audience<br />
... Agree with their view of not reinventing the wheel, but not how
they achieve that.<br />
... The writing won't appeal to that kind of audience</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>DO:</cite> There is an old-school view of
how the web works now, and also the new-school view of where this
is going in future</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>NM:</cite> I have a view that the audience
is very broad. Everyone creating a page should be asking themselves
whether they should be adding RDFa to a page they are creating</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>DC:</cite> But virtually no one actually
even thinks about whether they should put lang=en on pages</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>NM:</cite> Ok, actually I took it as
implicit that this happens via the tools creators<br />
... Objective is to get the content on the web in general
better.</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>DC:</cite> Maybe the term self-describing
could get in the way.<br />
... The clearest way to talk about this might be from the point of
URI. Microformats don't do this. Others do.</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>SW:</cite> When we get to unicode, what
counts as self describing at these very fine grained levels.</p>
<p class='phone'>General agreement that there will be a point at
which everyone just has to agree</p>
<p class='irc'><<cite>DanC_lap</cite>> (saying it [don't
label it text/html] again here is... maybe counter-productive)</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>NM:</cite> Sometimes, the answer is that the
stuff is so simple that you just know. These low level formats are
the bootstrap points for the use of these higher level
technologies<br />
... Intentially not trying to do all the turtles. At some point you
have to say 'let there be turtles'</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>HT:</cite> TBL said that you should create
an on<br />
... I'd be unhappy to see this go into the document. There are
situations where creating a new XML language is the right thing to
do</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>TBL:</cite> Sometimes there are benefits in
creating new languages, but where a new language fits the RDF data
model you should do an ontology</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>NM:</cite> So the interesting question is
when to do XML vs. RDF and is the XML/GRDDL approach second class
or is it a first class answer</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>TBL:</cite> Second class</p>
<p class='irc'><<cite>DanC_lap</cite>> [-- discussion is
curtailed, noting substantial disagreement -- ]</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>HT:</cite> Thinks that this is a genuine
disagreement point between us.<br />
... Example is xproc specification. Reason is that there are lots
of tools out there for it and clean mechanism for describing what
is and is not valid</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>DC:</cite> All true for RDF</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>HT:</cite> Not true. 1) can't use an XSLT,
2) Can't prevalidate (e.g. via pellet) and 3) Can't use an XML
parser as a front end to the implementation<br />
... RDF syntax is very flexible, which is good, but it prevents you
writing a stylesheet</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>TBL:</cite> why would you want to do
that</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>HT:</cite> So that a human being can get a
readable version of the information tailored to that information
and audience<br />
... Can produce and SVG diagram from an xproc, which is hugely
valuable. Possible with a constrained XML vocabulary but not with a
particular RDF graph</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>TBL:</cite> Writes a table of xml vs RDF and
shows equivalent of parsing, stylesheet and xslt for the two
technologies</p>
<p class='phone'>Scribe notes that we need a picture of the table
that is on the board</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>TBL:</cite> describes the table</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>HT:</cite> So does that mean the W3C should
never create a new markup language?</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>TBL:</cite> No, there are cases where new
markup should be used.</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>HT:</cite> I think xproc is an example. For
example because sequence is important and</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>SW:</cite> adds treehugger and rdftwig as
entries and DC moves them to stylesheet row</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>TBL:</cite> asks if DC knows of an XSLT with
SPARQL embedded</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>NM:</cite> Want to add to the list of
reasons for using XML. Today, it could be a question of cost, since
the XML parsers and processors are available today. This might
tempt people to use XML today. Not offering an opinion, just that
if a customer asked today, the cost is something that needs to be
considered.<br />
... Also the tools are production quality today.</p>
<p class='irc'><<cite>DanC_lap</cite>> [yes, I think it would
have been better for XML Schema to follow DSD, i.e. the RDF-based
submission, though the cost of RDF was pretty high back then. It
would have been premature standardization. But heck... that didn't
seem to stop XSD in many other ways.]</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>NM:</cite> I would like balanced input on
this particular topic. However, I did hear two people who seemed
not to see value in proceeding. So should we continue with
this?</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>DC:</cite> I just want to pick an audience
and focus on them. Needs surgery before I would hand it to the
audience I envisage</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>NM:</cite> I think the audience I envisage
is broader than the one Dan envisages<br />
... I would add a comment to that effect to the document</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>DC:</cite> How do we get to them?</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>NM:</cite> we go to the product groups in
the big companies who create the tools that create this stuff.</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>SW:</cite> Want a pithy message, but didn't
find it.</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>NM:</cite> Do you think its in there but
unclear, or that it just is not there?</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>SW:</cite> I think its encouragement to use
self describing approaches</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>NM:</cite> About right and then to give the
specific guidance.</p>
<p class='phone'>TBL, SW, RL, confirm that they think NM should
continue</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>DO:</cite> Would like to see a bit more on
XML in this finding.</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>NM:</cite> Can you give an example?</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>DO:</cite> Take an example and show how to
progress it using both GRDDL and XML</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>NM:</cite> I think that a lot of people
would see that as trying to help the RDF community.</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>DO:</cite> could be that the level of self
description in RDF is deeper than in XML<br />
... I see more in the table around programming languages rather
than just XSLT, and so the happy face should be a happy face.</p>
<p class='irc'><<cite>DanC_lap</cite>> indeed, the main point
of this finding should be uri-based extensibility vs just using
<part-number /></p>
<p class='phone'><cite>TBL:</cite> Microformats have to be well
known to be useful</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>NM:</cite> Microformats go through a single
distribution point.</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>DC:</cite> Draft doesn't say that RDFa will
become part of the HTML specification.</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>NM:</cite> Should I write about both
paths?</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>DC:</cite> Yes</p>
<p class='irc'><<cite>DanC_lap</cite>> 2nd the proposal to
thank the hosts</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>SW:</cite> Extend our thanks to Google for
hospitality and meeting support</p>
<p class='phone'>Applause</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>SW:</cite> Thanks to Raman</p>
<p class='irc'><<cite>Norm</cite>> Safe travels everyone</p>
<p class='irc'><<cite>ht_google</cite>> rssagent, bye</p>
</div>
<h2><a name="ActionSummary" id="ActionSummary">Summary of Action
Items</a></h2>
<!-- Action Items -->
[End of minutes]<br />
<hr />
<address>Minutes formatted by David Booth's <a href=
"http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm">scribe.perl</a>
version 1.128 (<a href="http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/">CVS
log</a>)<br />
$Date: 2007/06/11 15:37:39 $</address>
<div class="diagnostics"></div>
</body>
</html>