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]
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]
01:00:58 [sbp]
01:01:09 [sbp]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
01:37:03 [sbp]
And another thing... you mihgt be really impressed with this, or you might not be
01:37:22 [sbp]
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]
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 stuff
01:45:07 [sbp]
@prefix : <> . :AaronSw :writtenBy :AaronSw .
01:45:11 [AaronSw]
use ?
01:45:18 [sbp]
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 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]
<> 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 <> ; :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]
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]
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]
]]] -
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]
02:00:34 [AaronSw]
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]
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]
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]
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]
02:14:10 [sbp]
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]
02:20:30 [AaronSw]
email address: <>
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]
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
02:24:32 [AaronSw]
02:24:50 [sbp]
who owns
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 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],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]
02:38:32 [sbp]
note the spelling mistak
02:38:37 [sbp]
02:38:42 [sbp]
02:38:44 [AaronSw]
multiple ones.
02:38:45 [sbp]
in the draft:-
02:38:51 [sbp]
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]
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]
02:43:35 [AaronSw]
02:45:16 [sbp]
oh crap, change:-
02:45:18 [sbp]
month ::= "0" | digitx0 | "10" | "11" | "12"
02:45:20 [sbp]
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],2002-05:foo/bar
02:45:41 [AaronSw]
02:45:43 [AaronSw]
would become:-
02:45:45 [AaronSw]
02:45:47 [AaronSw]
02:45:49 [AaronSw]
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]
02:46:33 [sbp]
name ::= *( char [ ":" ] )
02:46:33 [sbp]
char ::= 1*( unreserved | escaped ) ; [RFC 2396]
02:46:55 [AaronSw]
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,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],2002-05:foo:bar
02:49:47 [AaronSw]
02:49:47 [AaronSw]
would become:-
02:49:50 [AaronSw]
02:49:51 [AaronSw]
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]
02:51:23 [AaronSw]
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]
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]
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 :-)
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]
03:02:26 [sbp]
Registration date: 2001-07-21
03:02:29 [sbp]
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,, 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]
03:05:19 [sbp]
03:06:11 [AaronSw]
It's been two weeks since
03:06:15 [AaronSw]
What should we do now?
03:06:31 [sbp]
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]
03:09:29 [sbp]
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]
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 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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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?,1990-01:pts
15:56:32 [sbp]
15:56:36 [sbp]
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]
15:58:06 [sbp]
2001-01 rather than 2001-1
15:58:15 [AaronSw]
15:58:16 [sbp]
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
16:02:15 [AaronSw]
I suppose this is version 2, now
16:03:24 [sbp]
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]
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:
16:21:55 [sbp]
last day?
16:22:13 [sbp]
Oh, like who owns it on midnight on the 1st?
16:22:24 [AaronSw]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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,2001-07:util: for the SWAG UTIL namespace
16:33:50 [AaronSw]
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]
16:41:35 [sbp]
try: 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 down?
16:50:32 [sbp]
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://> 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]
19:39:46 [sbp]
19:39:50 [sbp]
Oh, hello
19:53:25 [AaronSw]
AaronSw has changed the topic to: <irc://> 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]
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 on all the output... people don't seem to understand about URIs and persistence
19:57:49 [AaronSw]
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 []
topic is: <irc://> a irc:Channel ; irc:topic "It's not illegal...yet." .
20:20:39 []
Users on #swhack: logster sbp googler AaronSw
20:20:44 [AaronSw]
Hello logster
20:21:08 [sbp]
Who's them?#
20:21:14 [AaronSw]
20:21:28 [sbp]
the who, who are they?
20:21:32 [AaronSw]
20:21:49 [sbp]
The Who, you know, with Pete Townshend
20:22:32 [sbp]
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
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]
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]
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:
22:15:55 [sbp]
logicians tend to be isolated from the real world
22:16:47 [sbp]
interesting nroffing
22:25:24 [AaronSw]
22:25:34 [sbp]
22:32:23 [AaronSw]
Heh, Google uses Python:
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]
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]
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]
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]
23:21:29 [sbp]
Will do
23:21:34 [sbp]
23:21:47 [AaronSw]
See you then.
23:43:29 [sbp]
sbp has quit