IRC log of swhack on 2001-08-03

Timestamps are in UTC.

00:11:06 [googler]

googler has quit

00:11:06 [sbp]

sbp has quit

00:11:21 [googler]

googler has joined #swhack

00:11:21 [sbp]

sbp has joined #swhack

00:20:27 [sbp]

sbp has quit

00:36:53 [sbp]

sbp has joined #swhack

00:48:11 [sbp]

lol! http://www.metafilter.com/comments.mefi/6048

00:51:24 [sbp]

Are you happy Aaron? :-)

00:51:24 [sbp]

Oh man, some of the people on that thread are real down-to-earth jerks. I mean, just total bastards

00:52:45 [sbp]

But it has to win comedy of the week award. It'd be one of those things I'd print out and hang on my wall

00:52:58 [sbp]

"hey, look what this idiot advised me to do"

00:53:33 [sbp]

I'm undecided about which is the funniest comment

00:54:32 [sbp]

Oh, it has to be the first capn_stuby comment. That just kicks-ass

00:55:00 [sbp]

Then again, I also like "How many weeks of allowance does it take to buy 5+ domain names?"

00:56:23 [sbp]

"If certain posters on this thread are exemplars of proper social development, I hope the kid sticks to his XML."

00:56:49 [sbp]

Socializing with assholes, or hacking XML... I chose T.V.

00:57:15 [sbp]

Oh this bit's brilliant too: "Don't tell me that a group of 25 year old XML monkeys or a group of 14 year old supergeniuses is a good representative model of society that will give the child a sense of how to act in the world."

00:57:28 [sbp]

Love it!

00:58:14 [sbp]

"Ooh, my world is full of scary monsters and shit, and if you don't interact with a tonne of piss-heads, and drug dealers, you'll never learn how to get through life, blah blah blah"

00:59:57 [sbp]

"All of them were Mensa meterial and super smart, but sociopaths to the 19! degree."

01:00:12 [sbp]

See, the problem is, he's talking about clever people there, not intelligent people

01:00:34 [sbp]

"Kids are messy, destructive, snotty, candy-snarfin', soda-swillin' leisure monsters." - so are adults

01:00:46 [sbp]

s/candy/coffee

01:00:58 [sbp]

s/soda/beer

01:01:09 [sbp]

s/leisure/sex

01:01:46 [sbp]

"one (being smart) doesn't automatically preclude the other (fucking around)." - damn straight!

01:02:24 [sbp]

"Actually the kid's very socially adjusted." - pfffffffffffff

01:03:35 [sbp]

anyway, I love it

01:05:12 [sbp]

And I'm very proud to know the "kid" who has an entire Metafilter thread devoted to him... it just makes me dran proud :-)

01:05:22 [sbp]

s/dran/darn

01:05:34 [sbp]

Hmm... I seem to have problems typing the word "darn"

01:05:57 [sbp]

I could ask the OED to change it to dran. Maybe if I slipped them £10 or something

01:17:38 [AaronSw]

Hey, good news!

01:17:44 [sbp]

What? What?

01:17:48 [AaronSw]

I was just at a bookstore and guess what I saw?

01:17:56 [sbp]

My book?

01:17:57 [AaronSw]

s/?/./

01:18:01 [AaronSw]

You guessed it!

01:18:07 [sbp]

Really?! Yay!

01:18:10 [AaronSw]

I was going to buy it, but it was too expensive.

01:18:24 [sbp]

Heh! Yeah, it is a bit costly. Did you at least read it?

01:18:30 [AaronSw]

It was sort of surprising -- they didn't have any Python books, but oh, sure, they had your book.

01:18:37 [AaronSw]

We were sort of in a hurry so I skimmed it.

01:18:44 [AaronSw]

Did you write the chapter on the W3C also?

01:18:59 [sbp]

Nah... just the Accessibility thingy

01:19:11 [AaronSw]

It seemed pretty good... a lot of good advice.

01:19:42 [sbp]

thanks

01:20:13 [sbp]

Don't forget to buy one in future, and one for all your friends, etc.

01:20:28 [AaronSw]

Right, right.

01:20:40 [sbp]

Anyway, in the meantime, I've remembered to let you know about the SWAG UTIL thing

01:20:48 [sbp]

http://purl.org/swag/util#

01:21:21 [AaronSw]

what about it?

01:21:43 [sbp]

Is it any good? If so, could you release it

01:21:50 [sbp]

(back into the wild)

01:22:06 [AaronSw]

isn't it already in the wild?

01:22:17 [sbp]

not yet

01:22:52 [AaronSw]

how so?

01:26:04 [sbp]

sbp has quit

01:35:25 [sbp]

sbp has joined #swhack

01:35:46 [sbp]

it hasn't yet been released onto the plains of the SW mailing lists

01:36:23 [AaronSw]

hmm

01:37:03 [sbp]

And another thing... you mihgt be really impressed with this, or you might not be

01:37:22 [sbp]

XNote

01:38:49 [AaronSw]

XNote? xWebL in a nutshell?

01:39:14 [sbp]

I dunno. It started out as something completely different, or rather, a sideline to xWebL

01:39:16 [AaronSw]

It looks pretty good at first glance.

01:39:40 [sbp]

and grew into something that can do something a lot like xWebL, but with a slightly different scope

01:40:15 [AaronSw]

swag/util looks good (aside from the #)

01:41:00 [sbp]

I want to keep the "#", because there's no harm at all in using it - i.e. what have you got to lose?

01:41:23 [AaronSw]

well, when the new regime comes, it won't work

01:41:32 [sbp]

pardon me?

01:41:33 [AaronSw]

all the properties aren't resources

01:41:42 [AaronSw]

it's not even a URI

01:41:46 [sbp]

er, what?

01:42:01 [AaronSw]

The usual # problems

01:42:25 [sbp]

Oh, right. But this is RDF, so the MIME type... do I have to go on?

01:43:04 [sbp]

Er... you're writing the MIME spec for RDF, aren't you? Don't forget to say what the fragment bits mean :-)

01:43:07 [AaronSw]

well you know my argument... it's just not a resource

01:43:20 [sbp]

It is according to RDF M&S

01:43:26 [AaronSw]

pffft

01:43:40 [sbp]

well then, don't use HTTP. That's the only option

01:43:50 [AaronSw]

Umm, no!

01:44:26 [sbp]

if you start using HTTP resources as RDF terms, you lose a way to address the HTTP resource as a network retrievable entity

01:44:39 [sbp]

case in point: your logicerror.com stuff

01:45:07 [sbp]

@prefix : <http://logicerror.com/> . :AaronSw :writtenBy :AaronSw .

01:45:11 [AaronSw]

use ?

01:45:18 [sbp]

Pardon?

01:45:47 [AaronSw]

Well that needs to be sorted out, but # is not the solution.

01:46:04 [AaronSw]

the network retrievable entity never had the URI

01:46:15 [sbp]

Precisely, it needs to be sorted out. HTTP URIs can't identify two different resources. So, either "#" or "urn"

01:46:15 [AaronSw]

HTTP is very clear on this: a URI represents a Resource, which can be anything

01:46:25 [AaronSw]

the server just sends back a bag of bits which is somehow a resource.

01:46:30 [AaronSw]

err related to the resource

01:46:51 [AaronSw]

The easy solution is for the bag of bits to say what the resource is

01:47:19 [sbp]

So how do I identify the bag of bits, given that that is what people usually associate with a URI?

01:47:28 [AaronSw]

No it's not.

01:47:31 [sbp]

Practically speaking, it won't work

01:47:43 [AaronSw]

That's not true, hardly anyone associates a bag of bits with a URI.

01:47:52 [AaronSw]

They associate a URI with a concept, which expresses itself as a bag of bits.

01:47:54 [sbp]

bag of bits => I mean, the page itself

01:48:04 [AaronSw]

like http://aaronsw.com/ is the concept of "my homepage"

01:48:19 [AaronSw]

the bag of bits changes over time, and in the future may be an amusement park or something

01:48:23 [AaronSw]

but it is still my homepage

01:48:38 [sbp]

<http://aaronsw.com/> log:includes "Aaron Swartz" .

01:48:52 [sbp]

There, now that's referring to the bits... even CWM does it

01:49:33 [AaronSw]

[:date "2001-08-02" ; :resource <http://aaronsw.com/> ; :protocol :HTTP ] log:includes "Aaron Swartz" .

01:50:10 [sbp]

that's just not practical

01:50:22 [AaronSw]

well, log:includes is a shorthand for that

01:50:32 [AaronSw]

with the parameters set to the default

01:51:17 [sbp]

as TimBL said, you can't ask for Dan over HTTP

01:51:51 [AaronSw]

Of course not!

01:52:14 [AaronSw]

what's your point

01:52:30 [sbp]

you can't identify Dan in HTTP space

01:52:41 [sbp]

because he's not there

01:52:45 [AaronSw]

That's not true.

01:53:03 [AaronSw]

HTTP identifies resources, of any sort.

01:53:12 [AaronSw]

But it can't return resources, no protocol can.

01:53:31 [AaronSw]

Amazon is an implementation of the isbn: scheme

01:53:48 [AaronSw]

but it doesn't return the resource behind isbn:, it returns an entity -- a book

01:53:51 [sbp]

URIs can map many to one, I don't care about that

01:54:10 [AaronSw]

That's not my point.

01:54:14 [AaronSw]

I never said that.

01:54:16 [AaronSw]

Interesting: http://home.snafu.de/castor/projects/pyx/

01:54:22 [sbp]

I care that you're trying to represent Dan in HTTP space, when that's impossible

01:54:29 [AaronSw]

why is it?

01:54:35 [AaronSw]

what in the spec implies that?

01:54:43 [sbp]

Try readint the HTTP specification

01:54:53 [AaronSw]

Yeah, I have.

01:55:50 [sbp]

PyX: that's clever. They take the worst feature of Python, and add it with a metalanguage that no one in the world really understands (or very few people)

01:56:07 [AaronSw]

Worst feature of Python? Not so.

01:56:17 [AaronSw]

And how many people understand HTML?

01:56:18 [sbp]

significant whitespace? Eek

01:56:29 [sbp]

very few... perhaps none

01:56:33 [AaronSw]

exactly

01:56:41 [AaronSw]

Hmm, I sort of like StructuredText better.

01:56:46 [AaronSw]

err ZopeStructuredText

01:56:50 [sbp]

anyhoo, back to Dan over HTTP

01:57:24 [AaronSw]

right, can i have a spec quote?

01:57:59 [sbp]

I have to cite this bit... just have to:-

01:58:00 [sbp]

[[[

01:58:03 [sbp]

It is important, on the Semantic Web, to be clear about what is identified. An http: URI (without fragment identifier) necessarily identifies a generic document. This is because the HTTP server response about a URI can deleiver a rendition of (or location of, or apologies for) a document which is identified by the URI requested. A client which understands the http: protocol can immediately conclude that the fragementid-less URI is a generic document. This is true e

01:58:08 [sbp]

]]] - http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Fragment

01:58:12 [sbp]

now onto the specifications...

01:58:35 [AaronSw]

Fragment is blantantly false, IMHO.

01:59:19 [sbp]

* sbp remembers the latest RFC for HTTP; does Aaron?

01:59:21 [sbp]

:-)

01:59:23 [sbp]

RFC 2616

01:59:29 [AaronSw]

good job. ;-)

02:00:02 [sbp]

Point me to the acceptable return code for a query on Dan

02:00:11 [sbp]

http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/Dan

02:00:34 [AaronSw]

200

02:00:49 [AaronSw]

200 OK

02:01:26 [sbp]

10.2.1 200 OK

02:01:27 [sbp]

The request has succeeded. The information returned with the response

02:01:27 [sbp]

is dependent on the method used in the request, for example:

02:01:27 [sbp]

GET an entity corresponding to the requested resource is sent in

02:01:27 [sbp]

the response;

02:01:33 [sbp]

what entity should be returned?

02:01:49 [sbp]

is has to be a representation of Dan. That's impossible

02:02:05 [AaronSw]

A page that states, the URI you have requested represents Dan Connolly and gives a description of him, etc.

02:02:08 [AaronSw]

a representation?

02:02:12 [AaronSw]

it doesn't say that!

02:02:21 [AaronSw]

it says: "an entity corresponding to the requested resource"

02:02:28 [AaronSw]

that's what's being returned, my friend

02:02:58 [sbp]

Well, I'm very unhappy about it. I'd say that it's information *about* Dan, not Dan himself

02:03:34 [AaronSw]

Well it corresponds to the resource, no?

02:03:39 [AaronSw]

I mean, I don't want to give you Dan.

02:03:47 [AaronSw]

Perhaps I should send you a Not Authorized?

02:03:58 [AaronSw]

Don't take away my Danny-boy!

02:05:22 [sbp]

I think you're twisting what HTTP should be able to do... it's a hypertext transfer protocol: transferring data suitable for HyperText systems. That's just data, MIME an' all

02:05:35 [AaronSw]

I never contradicted that.

02:05:42 [AaronSw]

I don't disagree.

02:06:00 [sbp]

er... so you agree?

02:06:11 [AaronSw]

Yes, I agree that's what HTTP Is supposed to do.

02:06:22 [sbp]

* sbp wonders why you didn't save a few characters

02:06:26 [AaronSw]

But there's also a social contract, of sorts, involved.

02:06:36 [sbp]

It's a very weak social contract

02:06:39 [AaronSw]

If I request a resource, I want something related back.

02:06:52 [AaronSw]

Otherwise URIs wouldn't be very useful.

02:07:03 [sbp]

404

02:07:05 [AaronSw]

I'd give you one but it'd be something different every time you visited it.

02:07:17 [sbp]

sometimes they're not... 200 O.K. is a wonderful

02:07:30 [sbp]

er..

02:07:33 [sbp]

hang on

02:08:34 [sbp]

Ah, bollocks. Conceptually, I should concede. But practically and intuitively, it seems very wrong

02:09:07 [AaronSw]

Why?

02:09:18 [sbp]

:AaronSw :wrote :AaronSw .

02:09:19 [AaronSw]

Perhaps you should read whats-his-name's thesis.

02:09:25 [AaronSw]

See, that's wrong.

02:09:29 [AaronSw]

We need to be careful.

02:09:34 [AaronSw]

It's the "Mona Lisa Problem".

02:09:57 [sbp]

I know what's wrong, I know how to correct it

02:10:05 [sbp]

I'm saying that most people don't, and won't

02:10:22 [AaronSw]

And using # will correct that?

02:10:58 [sbp]

It'll stop them from getting confused. A URN scheme would clearly be better

02:11:35 [AaronSw]

OK, so let's go with URNs then... or TAG/TANN/RAKJKS.

02:11:56 [AaronSw]

But don't try and screw with implemented Web Architecture!

02:12:44 [sbp]

Fine, let's go with URNs

02:12:51 [sbp]

You can help me with the PTS scheme

02:13:31 [sbp]

http://infomesh.net/2001/07/urn/urn-pts.txt

02:14:10 [sbp]

RAKJKS?

02:14:22 [AaronSw]

I was thinking of PTS, couldn't remember the name, tho

02:14:26 [sbp]

:-)

02:14:33 [AaronSw]

What do you need help with?

02:14:48 [sbp]

I basically haven't got a clue what I'm doing

02:15:11 [AaronSw]

How so?

02:15:53 [sbp]

in that the RFC track scares the shit out of me. I'm not sure what format it has to be in, or who to send it to, because the IETF documents appear to be in conflict

02:16:22 [AaronSw]

Well, put my name on it and we'll do it together. ;-)

02:16:24 [sbp]

the registration documents for URNs, and the IETF registration details... all so complex and stupid. And the damn text-formatting

02:16:28 [sbp]

O.K., fine

02:18:13 [sbp]

refresh it

02:18:47 [AaronSw]

OK, i'm with you.

02:19:41 [AaronSw]

err, and at the bottom of the page

02:19:57 [AaronSw]

Can't you capitalize email?

02:20:22 [sbp]

Where?

02:20:30 [AaronSw]

email address: <mailto:sean@mysterylights.com>

02:20:44 [AaronSw]

and why doe the * go before the term in your BNF?

02:20:56 [sbp]

O.K., done it

02:21:07 [sbp]

* before: er... perhaps that's an ABNF thing

02:21:21 [AaronSw]

It seems really strange.

02:21:28 [AaronSw]

are you sure?

02:21:48 [sbp]

* sbp checks

02:22:07 [sbp]

path_segments = segment *( "/" segment )

02:22:11 [sbp]

from the URI RFC

02:22:13 [AaronSw]

oddd

02:22:14 [AaronSw]

and why no email addresses?

02:22:25 [sbp]

no email addresses where?

02:22:27 [AaronSw]

in pts

02:22:30 [AaronSw]

only domain names

02:22:40 [sbp]

ah yes: couldn't be bothered

02:23:16 [sbp]

domain names are just as easy to get as email addresses, anyway

02:23:29 [AaronSw]

not true

02:23:33 [AaronSw]

email addresses are free

02:23:35 [AaronSw]

domain names are not

02:23:46 [sbp]

yes true. it includes subdomains, and I know places that give away subdomains

02:24:03 [AaronSw]

good point...

02:24:22 [AaronSw]

hmm, not sure if that is a good idea or not...

02:24:29 [AaronSw]

who owns foo.blogspot.com

02:24:32 [AaronSw]

or foo.weblogs.com

02:24:50 [sbp]

who owns blargh@yahoo.com?

02:25:05 [AaronSw]

ok, i take the point

02:25:28 [sbp]

that's part of the pain-in-the-arse about URIs and security

02:26:25 [sbp]

the only odd bit in the specification is:-

02:26:26 [sbp]

For example, if Fred Bloggs owns the domain example.org for the

02:26:26 [sbp]

entire month of May, in the year 2002, then he acquires the right

02:26:26 [sbp]

to create names under the authority component (<authority>):-

02:26:26 [sbp]

example.org,2002-05

02:26:26 [sbp]

This is a non-transferable right. Persons or entities MUST NOT

02:26:28 [sbp]

create URNs using authority components (<authority>) that they do

02:26:31 [sbp]

not own based upon the rules above.

02:26:36 [sbp]

I couldn't think of an easy way around it

02:26:45 [AaronSw]

What's odd about that?

02:29:36 [sbp]

sbp has quit

02:37:46 [sbp]

sbp has joined #swhack

02:38:05 [AaronSw]

I'm just cleaning up the PTS spec now...

02:38:10 [sbp]

Cheers

02:38:32 [sbp]

note the spelling mistak

02:38:37 [sbp]

lol

02:38:42 [sbp]

s/mistak/mistake

02:38:44 [AaronSw]

multiple ones.

02:38:45 [sbp]

in the draft:-

02:38:51 [sbp]

s/curent/current

02:38:56 [sbp]

yep, it's just a draft

02:40:37 [sbp]

in the script, could you replace:-

02:40:37 [sbp]

auth = m[0]

02:40:37 [sbp]

auth = string.replace(auth, ",", "/")

02:40:37 [sbp]

path = m[1]

02:40:41 [sbp]

with:-

02:40:55 [AaronSw]

I'm taking out the script, since it's rather self-evident

02:40:58 [AaronSw]

Do you mind?

02:41:06 [sbp]

auth = string.replace(m[0],",","/")

02:41:27 [sbp]

path = string.replace(m[1],":","/")

02:41:30 [sbp]

no, fine...

02:42:32 [sbp]

Hmm... perhaps that second line should be an error. ":" shouldn't convey any sense of structure by default

02:42:47 [sbp]

But then again, neither should "/" :-)

02:42:53 [AaronSw]

;-)

02:43:29 [sbp]

are your cleanup results WWW available yet?

02:43:33 [sbp]

s/WWW/HTTP

02:43:35 [AaronSw]

almost

02:45:16 [sbp]

oh crap, change:-

02:45:18 [sbp]

month ::= "0" | digitx0 | "10" | "11" | "12"

02:45:20 [sbp]

into:-

02:45:25 [sbp]

month ::= digitx0 | "10" | "11" | "12"

02:45:28 [AaronSw]

What do you think of:

02:45:30 [AaronSw]

Process for identifier resolution:

02:45:30 [AaronSw]

It is possible (but not required) that the identifiers may be

02:45:30 [AaronSw]

resolved by converting the authority into a request using the

02:45:30 [AaronSw]

HTTP protocol. In such a method, all commas (,) and hyphens (-)

02:45:30 [AaronSw]

are replaced with slashes (/). The colon (:) separating the

02:45:31 [AaronSw]

authority and the name is also replaced with a slash.

02:45:33 [AaronSw]

02:45:35 [AaronSw]

For example:-

02:45:37 [AaronSw]

02:45:39 [AaronSw]

urn:pts:example.org,2002-05:foo/bar

02:45:41 [AaronSw]

02:45:43 [AaronSw]

would become:-

02:45:45 [AaronSw]

02:45:47 [AaronSw]

http://exam

02:45:49 [AaronSw]

ple.org/2002/05/foo/bar

02:45:51 [AaronSw]

02:45:54 [AaronSw]

Obviously such a mechanism of resolution would not be persistent.

02:46:06 [AaronSw]

...Heh, month 0

02:46:15 [sbp]

fine, apart from the fact that foo/bar is not a valid instance of that component

02:46:21 [sbp]

try foo:bar

02:46:21 [AaronSw]

really?

02:46:33 [sbp]

name ::= *( char [ ":" ] )

02:46:33 [sbp]

char ::= 1*( unreserved | escaped ) ; [RFC 2396]

02:46:55 [AaronSw]

oops

02:47:02 [AaronSw]

perhaps we should add slash?

02:47:25 [AaronSw]

shouldn't it be:

02:47:29 [AaronSw]

char | ":"

02:47:30 [AaronSw]

?

02:47:42 [sbp]

That was one of the first things that I thought of, but I think people would be too hung up on directory structures

02:47:47 [sbp]

er, yes, I think it should

02:48:06 [sbp]

no, actually, it isn't

02:48:26 [sbp]

because otherwise it would allow urn:pts:example.org,2002-05:::::::blargh:::::

02:48:52 [AaronSw]

umm, ok

02:49:34 [sbp]

take my word for it

02:49:46 [AaronSw]

OK, so:

02:49:47 [AaronSw]

For example:-

02:49:47 [AaronSw]

02:49:47 [AaronSw]

urn:pts:example.org,2002-05:foo:bar

02:49:47 [AaronSw]

02:49:47 [AaronSw]

would become:-

02:49:50 [AaronSw]

02:49:51 [AaronSw]

http://example.org/2002/05/foo/bar

02:50:05 [sbp]

yeah, that's absolutely fine

02:50:38 [AaronSw]

and how about this:

02:50:38 [AaronSw]

Rules for Lexical Equivalence:

02:50:38 [AaronSw]

Two PTS URNs are equivalent if the strings are

02:50:38 [AaronSw]

character-for-character equivalent.

02:50:52 [sbp]

fine

02:51:23 [AaronSw]

OK: http://logicerror.com/ptsURN

02:52:26 [sbp]

Yep, that's neat

02:52:40 [AaronSw]

And spell checked.

02:52:47 [AaronSw]

Should I submit it?

02:53:07 [sbp]

Hmm... take out the "::" in the BNF... that's ABNF

02:53:23 [AaronSw]

What should I replace it with?

02:53:32 [sbp]

delete it

02:54:26 [AaronSw]

OK, now?

02:54:52 [sbp]

The <hostname>, <unreserved> and <escaped> tokens are imported

02:55:03 [sbp]

check that out! Must have copied and pasted it from a former draft

02:55:04 [AaronSw]

so?

02:55:15 [sbp]

there are no tokens of those names!

02:55:27 [AaronSw]

err, yes there are

02:55:32 [sbp]

er... of hostname there aren't

02:55:37 [AaronSw]

domain = hostname ; [RFC 2396]

02:55:40 [sbp]

oops, sorry

02:55:41 [AaronSw]

and it's imported

02:56:00 [sbp]

yep, my mistake

02:56:21 [sbp]

O.K., it's fine. But not formatted correctly yet

02:56:34 [AaronSw]

That's OK, that's what RFC Editors are for.

02:56:35 [AaronSw]

;-)

02:56:55 [sbp]

Ahh, RFC editors

02:58:15 [AaronSw]

OK, so you want to send it or should I?

02:58:25 [sbp]

you can... but now? really?

02:58:31 [AaronSw]

Yes! Why not?

02:58:42 [AaronSw]

If not now, never.

02:58:59 [sbp]

Well, we haven't asked Sandro, or read the URN materials (well, I have)

02:59:20 [AaronSw]

Well that's what the 2-week discussion period is for.

02:59:30 [sbp]

correct:-

02:59:30 [sbp]

Registration date: 2001-07-21

02:59:36 [sbp]

and thne send it :-)

02:59:53 [AaronSw]

Should you send it or should I?

03:00:19 [sbp]

you can, if you really really want to

03:00:33 [AaronSw]

well i'm not the declared registrant

03:00:40 [sbp]

send it from seanaaron@blogspace.com :-)

03:01:01 [AaronSw]

No, seriously.

03:01:25 [sbp]

Oh fuck, just change the registration details then!

03:01:31 [AaronSw]

Thank you.

03:02:14 [sbp]

That part of the registration form is actually a bit bizarre

03:02:22 [AaronSw]

Why?

03:02:26 [sbp]

Registration date: 2001-07-21

03:02:29 [sbp]

oops

03:02:56 [sbp]

URNs are supposed not to change, and this particular scheme delegates away the authority according to a strict algorithm

03:03:18 [sbp]

how can one "own" an algorithm, and why the feck would one want to?

03:03:52 [sbp]

anyway... have you sent it yet? Who did you send it to? Can you CC it to www-archive if you haven't sent it already?

03:04:10 [AaronSw]

urn-nid, uri@w3.org, sandro, tim kindberg, you

03:04:15 [AaronSw]

do we really need www-archive too?

03:04:19 [sbp]

Wow... nope

03:04:39 [sbp]

It's 2001-08-03

03:04:52 [sbp]

:-)

03:04:58 [AaronSw]

Not where I am. ;-)

03:05:06 [sbp]

He he he

03:05:08 [AaronSw]

And I'm registering it.

03:05:15 [AaronSw]

sent

03:05:19 [sbp]

Cool!

03:06:11 [AaronSw]

It's been two weeks since http://lists.research.netsol.com/pipermail/urn-nid/2001-July/000253.html

03:06:15 [AaronSw]

What should we do now?

03:06:31 [sbp]

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/uri/2001Aug/0000

03:07:01 [sbp]

we could send it to the proper registration email address, but there's no point if we move PTS through

03:07:18 [AaronSw]

Isn't that the proper registration address?

03:07:25 [AaronSw]

Pfft - Tim Kindberg is blocking my mail!

03:07:49 [sbp]

No, you've got to send it to some other address when the review period is up

03:07:53 [sbp]

let me find it...

03:09:21 [AaronSw]

internet-drafts@ietf.org?

03:09:29 [sbp]

nope

03:09:41 [sbp]

After suggestions for clarification of the registration

03:09:42 [sbp]

information have been incorporated, the template may be

03:09:42 [sbp]

submitted to:

03:09:42 [sbp]

iana@iana.org

03:09:42 [sbp]

for assignment of a NID.

03:10:12 [sbp]

interestingly, the original SWAG NID request contained errors, so the urn-nid list is not doing its job

03:10:29 [AaronSw]

But the iana@iana.org address is for informal registrations

03:10:34 [AaronSw]

This is a formal one.

03:10:59 [sbp]

Oh, you're right

03:11:21 [sbp]

Yes, whatever the email address is to start upon the long road to RFC status then

03:11:42 [sbp]

informational: shouldn't take all that long... will it?

03:11:48 [AaronSw]

I hope not

03:12:14 [AaronSw]

This should go through pretty quickly

03:12:35 [sbp]

Phew

03:13:03 [sbp]

Quite a milestone in the history of the Semantic Web, I hope

03:13:09 [AaronSw]

me too

03:13:35 [sbp]

Just got the email...

03:14:43 [sbp]

So, aren't you going to ask me the obvious question?

03:14:49 [AaronSw]

Which is?

03:14:57 [sbp]

What does PTS stand for?

03:14:58 [AaronSw]

Am I the youngest RFC author?

03:15:04 [sbp]

Ooh, that's a good one too

03:17:42 [AaronSw]

OK, so i'll bite

03:17:47 [AaronSw]

what does PTS stand for?

03:17:54 [sbp]

I have no idea

03:18:01 [AaronSw]

heh

03:18:21 [AaronSw]

I always thought it was Person Time System/Stamp

03:18:36 [sbp]

I thought up some acronym, and decided it was quite good... but then I forgot the expansion

03:18:56 [sbp]

Call it what you want; although I think it's nice giving it a bit of "mysteriousness"

03:19:06 [AaronSw]

Hmm, the PIN URN is interesting

03:19:10 [AaronSw]

RFC 3043

03:19:20 [AaronSw]

guess who's urn:pin:1

03:20:01 [sbp]

No idea

03:20:39 [AaronSw]

Michael Mealing!

03:20:50 [sbp]

aha!

03:21:03 [AaronSw]

Jan keeps reminding me that urn:pin is illegal in England, so you can't have one.

03:21:22 [sbp]

illegal in England???

03:21:54 [AaronSw]

Yeah, he says that assigning a persistent identifier to a person is illegal due to privacy laws.

03:21:57 [AaronSw]

Pretty silly if you ask me.

03:22:30 [sbp]

it's illegal?

03:22:37 [AaronSw]

that's what he says

03:22:48 [sbp]

illegal? As in, against the law? really?

03:22:53 [AaronSw]

yep

03:23:01 [AaronSw]

* AaronSw finally gets the URN submission

03:23:18 [sbp]

as in jail time if you set one up or used it? illegal?

03:23:32 [AaronSw]

probably not jail time: more like a fine, i'd expect

03:23:51 [sbp]

Aha, I see where you got urn:pin:1 from now

03:25:24 [AaronSw]

;-)

03:29:49 [sbp]

Wow, we're good at selling this. We should have sold these things

03:30:11 [AaronSw]

Get your persistent, lifetime URN!

03:30:28 [sbp]

only $17.99!

03:30:36 [AaronSw]

A month. ;-)

03:30:37 [sbp]

per year... that'd fox 'em

03:30:40 [sbp]

yes!

03:30:50 [AaronSw]

* AaronSw laughs

03:33:26 [sbp]

sbp has quit

05:05:10 [AaronSw]

AaronSw has changed the topic to: <> a irc:Channel ; irc:topic "It's not illegal..." .

14:52:15 [sbp]

sbp has joined #swhack

14:52:37 [sbp]

Change that topic, boy!

14:52:56 [sbp]

'this a irc:Channel; irc:topic "It's not illegal..." .'

14:53:00 [sbp]

But yes, very funny

15:01:01 [sbp]

sbp has quit

15:11:05 [sbp]

sbp has joined #swhack

15:50:44 [sbp]

* sbp writes a homepage for PTS URNs

15:55:35 [AaronSw]

AaronSw has changed the topic to: this a irc:Channel ; irc:topic "It's not illegal..." .

15:55:41 [sbp]

:-)

15:55:43 [sbp]

Hi Aaron

15:55:48 [AaronSw]

Hi Sean

15:56:25 [AaronSw]

So, the PTS homepage? urn:pts:w3.org,1990-01:pts

15:56:32 [sbp]

lol

15:56:36 [sbp]

Try: http://infomesh.net/2001/08/pts/

15:57:07 [AaronSw]

ooh, that's a no-no!

15:57:13 [AaronSw]

you're supposed to use last month

15:57:24 [sbp]

Heh... it's a URL, not a URN

15:57:33 [sbp]

anyway, I noticed an error in the specification (oops)

15:57:35 [sbp]

month = digitx0 | "10" | "11" | "12"

15:57:41 [sbp]

should be:-

15:57:48 [sbp]

month = "0" digitx0 | "10" | "11" | "12"

15:57:58 [AaronSw]

Huh?

15:58:06 [sbp]

2001-01 rather than 2001-1

15:58:15 [AaronSw]

Oh...

15:58:16 [sbp]

YYYY-MM

15:58:51 [sbp]

my mistake: I had originally put "0" | digitx0, and I got you to remove the '"0" |" rather than just the "|"

16:00:17 [AaronSw]

want to email a fix?

16:00:25 [sbp]

Yeah, I'll do it

16:01:59 [AaronSw]

I'll edit the one on logicerror.com

16:02:15 [AaronSw]

I suppose this is version 2, now

16:03:24 [sbp]

Yes

16:03:29 [sbp]

Gotta run (to send the email!)

16:03:31 [sbp]

sbp has quit

16:12:23 [sbp]

sbp has joined #swhack

16:12:56 [sbp]

Hmph: the only slow bit is logging back onto OPN. I'm having real difficulties getting through

16:13:09 [sbp]

I had to load up 8 windows and try 8 different servers earlier!

16:13:19 [AaronSw]

heh

16:13:36 [sbp]

sagan and carter seem to be fairly good

16:16:20 [sbp]

another thing that needs clarifying in the specification:-

16:16:29 [sbp]

s/for a calendar month,/for a calendar month (UTC),

16:16:41 [sbp]

Picky, but it needs to be said...

16:18:23 [AaronSw]

good point

16:19:09 [AaronSw]

* AaronSw fixes the logicerror copy

16:19:58 [AaronSw]

Do we require the full month?

16:20:11 [sbp]

What do you mean?

16:20:39 [AaronSw]

Upon ownership of a certain approved domain name for a *full* calendar month (UTC)

16:20:46 [sbp]

Er... yeah, that's a good point

16:20:51 [sbp]

It's only in the example at the moment

16:21:12 [AaronSw]

We could do it for the last day, you know, or when the month switches or something...

16:21:17 [AaronSw]

this is pribably simpelr tho

16:21:42 [sbp]

Small updates: http://infomesh.net/2001/08/pts/

16:21:55 [sbp]

last day?

16:22:13 [sbp]

Oh, like who owns it on midnight on the 1st?

16:22:24 [AaronSw]

right

16:22:52 [AaronSw]

Actually, the first day would be better.

16:23:09 [sbp]

That gives people more change to fudge it, by signing a domain over for one second to someone and then signing it back... I think the "own for a month" gives credibility to the authority compoenent

16:23:09 [AaronSw]

RIght, then you could use that PTS the whole month (as you're already doing)

16:23:30 [sbp]

But then the person who owns it for the rest of that month isn't going to be a happy bunny...

16:23:53 [AaronSw]

why not?

16:24:23 [sbp]

Because people will be creating PTSs in 2001-08 (say), but they can publish stuff on the Website at /2001/08/ just fine

16:24:48 [AaronSw]

Oh, I see...

16:25:09 [sbp]

I think that a month proves stability for that particular component

16:25:16 [AaronSw]

ok

16:25:25 [sbp]

(actually, that's a problem with tag:)

16:25:44 [AaronSw]

"""the IETF hands these particular components out""" - i thoughit it was IANA

16:25:46 [sbp]

it was even worse for TANN! They had microseconds...

16:25:54 [sbp]

Hmm...

16:26:15 [sbp]

So did I: I thought they did the nid-x things

16:26:45 [sbp]

Yeah, they do

16:26:55 [sbp]

IANA do nid-x, and IETF do nid

16:27:02 [sbp]

That's a bit weird

16:27:25 [sbp]

BTW: note that really people only ever need one authority component

16:27:38 [sbp]

As long as they're good with namespace management :-)

16:28:24 [AaronSw]

:-)

16:28:49 [sbp]

I'll bet that most people will use the current month just to be on the safe side though... coul dhelp when large companies are using them. Although, of course, large companies could split the names up based on employee name/ref or something

16:29:05 [sbp]

But then, they should be using sub domains for that, I think

16:29:11 [AaronSw]

You mean the previous month.

16:29:22 [sbp]

er... yes

16:29:24 [sbp]

* sbp ducks

16:29:36 [AaronSw]

Sean jumpts the gun..

16:29:38 [sbp]

I meant the "current valid month"

16:30:06 [AaronSw]

:Aaron :creator <urn:rfc:3xxx> .

16:30:10 [AaronSw]

Woohoo!

16:30:29 [AaronSw]

;-)

16:30:29 [sbp]

<urn:rfc:3xxx> dc:creator :Sean, :Aaron .

16:30:42 [sbp]

Yeah, I wonder if you will be the youngest author?

16:31:26 [AaronSw]

Hmm...

16:31:47 [AaronSw]

See, I'll start with URNs and media types, work my way up to RDF metadata spec,

16:31:51 [sbp]

* sbp wonders where one goes to find that sort of information out

16:31:58 [AaronSw]

until I replace the world with Semantic protocols!

16:32:08 [AaronSw]

Why you ask the semantic web, of course! ;-)

16:32:23 [sbp]

What URI do I use?

16:32:39 [AaronSw]

swag:dateOfBirth

16:33:00 [sbp]

* sbp begins to wonder what Aaron's talking about

16:33:09 [sbp]

Anyway, so, to get back to our original arguement

16:33:29 [AaronSw]

Which one is that?

16:33:38 [sbp]

We should use urn:pts:swag.semanticweb.org,2001-07:util: for the SWAG UTIL namespace

16:33:50 [AaronSw]

ok

16:34:04 [sbp]

* sbp can only just believe that to resolve one of our petty arguments, we wrote an RFC

16:34:13 [sbp]

:-)

16:34:23 [AaronSw]

Wow, that worked well... ;-)

16:34:38 [sbp]

Yeah! We should argue more often

16:35:11 [sbp]

(you're meant to say, "no we shouldn't")

16:35:22 [AaronSw]

:-)

16:35:37 [AaronSw]

Someone at the SWWS (was it Eric?... no I think it was Hendler)

16:35:49 [AaronSw]

had this plan for a Semantic Web Service where'd you give it your preferences

16:35:58 [AaronSw]

and tell it, say, I

16:36:02 [AaronSw]

and tell it, say, I'm in the mood to argue today!

16:36:11 [AaronSw]

And it would find someone to argue with you.

16:36:20 [AaronSw]

Reminded me of that Monty Python skit...

16:36:21 [sbp]

no it wouldn't

16:36:34 [AaronSw]

Anyway, I already have one of those. ;-)

16:36:43 [sbp]

Yeah: IRC!

16:38:05 [sbp]

It's a bummer we have to wait two weeks for the old URN list to do nothing, when we know we're not going to recieve any comments

16:38:36 [AaronSw]

You don't think Sandro will file a lawsuit?

16:39:23 [sbp]

Well, I did try to ping him about it on IRC, but no reply. So tough, really. PTS is sufficiently different from TAG and TAG registration has been sufficiently slow that I don't think they'll care

16:40:10 [sbp]

and if they do, they are quite free to voice their concerns. I don't think there's any that they can raise that will force us to abandon PTS though

16:40:52 [sbp]

PTS URNs are necessarily persistent, with tag: URIs, you can't tell. That's the main difference

16:41:03 [AaronSw]

Why can't you tell?

16:41:25 [sbp]

Because for some reason (to get out of using URNs) they said that tag: URIs can have temporary denotations

16:41:34 [AaronSw]

ick\

16:41:35 [sbp]

try: http://www.taguri.org/ at the bottom

16:45:12 [sbp]

should PTS always be capitalized, in your opinion?

16:45:27 [AaronSw]

Why do you say that?

16:45:47 [sbp]

For consistency

16:48:55 [AaronSw]

Is it just me or is taguri.org down?

16:50:32 [sbp]

correct

17:01:12 [AaronSw]

Hmm, I'm not sure if the context of the topic is an IRC channel... i don't think that's true

17:01:26 [AaronSw]

AaronSw has changed the topic to: <irc://irc.openprojects.net/swhack> a irc:Channel ; irc:topic "It's not illegal..." .

17:07:11 [sbp]

sbp has quit

17:15:25 [sbp]

sbp has joined #swhack

17:21:35 [sbp]

sbp has quit

17:59:18 [sbp]

sbp has joined #swhack

18:13:01 [sbp]

sbp has quit

18:22:40 [sbp]

sbp has joined #swhack

18:24:01 [sbp]

and :W3CUniverse rdfs:subClassOf :WWW .

18:24:19 [AaronSw]

this a :MatterOfSomeDispute .

18:24:41 [sbp]

:-)

18:25:31 [sbp]

sbp has quit

19:36:30 [sbp]

sbp has joined #swhack

19:39:31 [AaronSw]

Hello.

19:39:46 [sbp]

Hello?

19:39:50 [sbp]

Oh, hello

19:53:25 [AaronSw]

AaronSw has changed the topic to: <irc://irc.openprojects.net/swhack> a irc:Channel ; irc:topic "It's not illegal...yet." .

19:53:37 [sbp]

N.B., if you hug me, I'm going to attempt to lift you up above my head... so be prepared

19:54:17 [AaronSw]

OK

19:54:23 [sbp]

Hey, cool: FYI. We, at NIST, have been following the development of EARL and are going to

19:54:23 [sbp]

try a couple of examples of the output of our WebSAT tool ( that does some

19:54:23 [sbp]

usability checking) represented in EARL

19:54:33 [sbp]

[end quote]

19:57:00 [sbp]

Well... if they haven't got some persistent Webspace, then they will feck it up

19:57:29 [sbp]

That seems to be the biggest problem with ATR: they're currently using example.org on all the output... people don't seem to understand about URIs and persistence

19:57:49 [AaronSw]

ick

19:57:51 [sbp]

Which is annoying, because they just about get RDF, and really quickly too. I'm amazed how fast Chris picked it up

19:58:17 [sbp]

But without persistent decentralized terms, EARL is pointless. You may as well use a database

19:59:14 [sbp]

Perhaps we could register a nid-<n> really quickly, if it'll be of any help... this is a very crucial reason why I want [ daml:oneOf (:TAG :PTS) ] to go through.

20:02:10 [AaronSw]

It'd probably take just as long.

20:02:24 [sbp]

Yeah, probably

20:02:43 [sbp]

Although, informal registration should only take a few weeks

20:08:20 [AaronSw]

logger, off

20:08:27 [AaronSw]

logster, off

20:20:39 [logster]

logster has joined #swhack

20:20:39 [niven.openprojects.net]

topic is: <irc://irc.openprojects.net/swhack> a irc:Channel ; irc:topic "It's not illegal...yet." .

20:20:39 [niven.openprojects.net]

Users on #swhack: logster sbp googler AaronSw

20:20:44 [AaronSw]

Hello logster

20:21:08 [sbp]

Who's them?#

20:21:14 [AaronSw]

WHO?

20:21:28 [sbp]

the who, who are they?

20:21:32 [AaronSw]

huh?

20:21:49 [sbp]

The Who, you know, with Pete Townshend

20:22:32 [sbp]

Who?

20:22:34 [AaronSw]

Hmm, I didn't read the junk you put into the channel this morning...

20:22:55 [sbp]

What junk is that? Oh, the Metafilter thing? Man, that was funny!

20:23:27 [AaronSw]

Yes, the metafilter junk

20:23:45 [sbp]

Yep, that sure was funny

20:24:21 [sbp]

So, how many weeks allowance did it take to get 5+ domain names?

20:24:33 [AaronSw]

Well, they're only 8 bucks now...so...

20:24:55 [AaronSw]

4 wks

20:25:09 [sbp]

* sbp starts to work that out, and gives in

20:25:44 [sbp]

But I assume that you spend some money on candy and diet coke, right?

20:25:57 [AaronSw]

No!

20:26:19 [sbp]

And baseball cards, and Pokemon games, and so forth

20:26:32 [AaronSw]

I don't eat candy and won't have caffeine...except for some OpenCola which Tom brought to SWWS, but that was an exception

20:27:02 [sbp]

I love candy, and don't have caffiene and alcahol

20:34:13 [sbp]

So, Barry Bonds or Luis Gonzalez to win total home runs this season?

20:35:03 [sbp]

* sbp knows he may as well have asked, "which do you prefer, igpswjgpsrjo, or pirjgpip"

20:35:24 [AaronSw]

The one with the Bs in his name...

20:35:33 [AaronSw]

It sounds better.

20:38:04 [sbp]

sbp has quit

20:42:48 [sbp]

sbp has joined #swhack

20:43:11 [sbp]

Neither of them have the string "Bs" in them

21:39:48 [sbp]

sbp has quit

21:40:15 [sbp]

sbp has joined #swhack

21:58:22 [AaronSw]

I think a story is appropriate here...

21:58:33 [AaronSw]

When I was a little boy I wondered what foreign people would do with a dictionary.

21:58:44 [AaronSw]

They'd open it up, turn to a word and try and read the definition.

21:58:51 [AaronSw]

But the definition was made out of... more words!

21:58:59 [AaronSw]

So they'd quickly look those up, and see their definitions...

21:59:06 [AaronSw]

which had, of course, more unknown words

21:59:16 [AaronSw]

so they'd go around in loops and loops until they'd read the whole dictionary!

21:59:52 [AaronSw]

Similarly, a machine will never figure out what a URI means, since all it can find are other URIs.

22:00:02 [sbp]

Not unlike TimBLs thoughts...

22:00:10 [AaronSw]

URI? ;-)

22:00:36 [sbp]

http://logicerror.com/weavingTheWeb

22:01:02 [AaronSw]

TimBL is the only one who understands this stuff -- there are no semantics in the Semantic Web.

22:01:35 [sbp]

of course, the semantics are just interpretations

22:01:39 [sbp]

that's obvious

22:02:29 [AaronSw]

the logicians don't seem to get it...

22:15:14 [AaronSw]

Hmm, this looks helpful: http://www.rfc-editor.org/nroff.html

22:15:55 [sbp]

logicians tend to be isolated from the real world

22:16:47 [sbp]

interesting nroffing

22:25:24 [AaronSw]

SUBMIT-TWO-WEEKS-FROM-NOW ;-)

22:25:34 [sbp]

Yeah!

22:32:23 [AaronSw]

Heh, Google uses Python: http://www.google.com/jobs/openings.html#crawl

22:33:21 [sbp]

Heh, cool

22:33:31 [sbp]

and it seems that Python can handle TB of data then :-)

22:33:55 [sbp]

Imagine being entrusted with TeraBytes of data! Er... I lost a bit

22:34:07 [AaronSw]

Heh

22:41:47 [sbp]

sbp has quit

22:42:37 [sbp]

sbp has joined #swhack

22:43:16 [sbp]

Hmm... it would connect to sagan. directly, but it got to it through irc.

22:43:19 [sbp]

strange!

22:55:49 [AaronSw]

Sean, why does the tag draft use ::=

22:55:53 [AaronSw]

and ours doesn't?

22:56:01 [sbp]

they use ABNF

22:56:10 [AaronSw]

Nope:

22:56:10 [AaronSw]

The general syntax of a 'tag' URI, in BNF, is:

22:56:19 [sbp]

Yeah, I noticed that too

22:56:23 [sbp]

I think it's a typo

22:56:32 [AaronSw]

Tell Sandro

23:16:40 [AaronSw]

I'll be back 8:55 CST

23:16:54 [AaronSw]

Err, CDT

23:17:27 [AaronSw]

2001-08-03T20:55-0500

23:21:29 [sbp]

Will do

23:21:34 [sbp]

c'ya!

23:21:47 [AaronSw]

See you then.

23:43:29 [sbp]

sbp has quit