See also: IRC log
<scribe> ScribeNick: Roy
<scribe> Scribe: Roy Fielding
VQ: Next teleconference is scheduled for 29 Nov [cancelled below]
regrets for 29 Nov: Vincent, Henry
at risk for 29 Nov: Dan, Tim
Ed: let's see if we can get through the F2F agenda today first
VQ: we'll revisit this topic at the end of the call
... any additions to agenda? [none]
... Minutes of 8 November [thanks to Dan]
... any objection to approving the minutes of 8 Nov? [none]
RESOLUTION: minutes of 8 November are approved
HT: we have a 45 minute slot... I have prepared some slides (about 10 minutes) and then the rest of the session will be spent on discussion
... please review the slides.
VQ: we mentioned the issue of gathering educational material and, IIRC, someone requested that you ask AC reps to send information to us as part of slides
HT: I forgot... I will add that
... Dan, do you have material to add?
<noah> The dynamic version of the slides clips off the bottom if your font is set to large. In particular, the navigators disappear. Might this be an accessibility problem?
HT: the dynamic version is only for presentation during the event
RF: remember to update the TAG background slide before event
NM: I suggest something lighter than "Almost never!" for when is a new URI scheme justified.
HT: I will try to put this to bed by Monday
NW: please add namespaceDocument-8 to the agenda
... I hope to have a new draft done by then
... most likely will be in attendance on Tuesday
VQ: who is able to attend the F2F?
NM: We should postpone XMLVersioning-41 if Dave is unable to attend
<noah> Actually, I also mentioned that we might have a productive discussion of general issues around versioning, even without Dave, picking up for the whiteboard discussion in Edinburgh.
<noah> I don't think we can do justice to a detailed review of Dave's versioning draft if he's not in the meeting.
VQ: I will check with Dave
RF: I would like to add the mimerespect finding
... which touches TAG issues contentTypeOverride-24, putMediaType-38, and portions of errorHandling-20
<DanC> "# RF to update Authoritative Metadata finding to include resolution of putMediaType-38" -- http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2005/03/action-summary.html
RF: I am in mid edit -- it will be updated before F2F
HT: I am writing some thought pieces for several issues [scribe missed which ones]
VQ: please send me pointers to add to the agenda
... please continue to review the agenda and send comments in the next few days via email or at the AC meeting
... How about scheduling times for the meeting? 9-5 each day?
RF: I will need to leave earlier on Tuesday to catch 6:10pm flight at BOS
<DanC> I'd like to accept the dinner invitation, Noah. (remind me which day? monday 5 Dec?)
NM: please send ack to indicate if you plan on attending monday dinner hosted by IBM
HT: background on this is from our discussion at Edinburgh F2F, when I was surprised to find a lack of examples at W3C.
... found an example in the Apache WSRF toolkit
HT: example was too detailed, so I trimmed it down and changed the domain -- validated the example to be sure it would run
<Zakim> noah, you wanted to ask more about where EPRs come from
<ht> Mark Baker's point was that the bit that's left out of all the specs, he believes, is how you know to POST the SOAP message to the wsa:Address from the EPR
NM: as I understand it, typical use of EPR is more like a cookie and is related to reply-to style of functionality, where the WSDL is no longer needed for the headers
HT: need WSDL to determine what the service needs for the body
... the EPR is effectively used as a URI
NM: we need to ask the experts what they are doing do get a clearer picture
<noah> I think the specific question is: specifically in the WSRF case, to what extent will EPRs be used only in a cookie-like scenario, where they are minted by the resource owner, and to what extent will clients mint their own.
RF: I have seen this stuff before ... URA and URC discussions on URI WG... I have no advice other than to say that they are doomed to failure
<DanC> URCs... heh... meanwhile, RDF/OWL descriptions are pretty much the same thing
<noah> The spec seems to invite anyone to create their own, but some of the "experts" I've spoken to suggest that this is not currently the intended use case.
<scribe> ACTION: Noah to send this example to WSA experts and ask them to clarify and/or poke holes in it [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/11/22-tagmem-irc]
<ht> So I misunderstood google's own advertising of, http://www.google.com/base/a/15753386180997773819
<timbl> Labels are any keywords or phrases --- such as recipe, event, or product --- that can be used to classify or describe your item.
<timbl> Attributes are words or phrases that help describe the characteristics and qualities of your items. You may enter multiple values for a particular attribute separated by commas.
HT: reading their blurb it seems like they are hosting, but they are really only hosting metadata and links
<ht> or gifs or jpgs
RF: it is a mini-publishing system, with expiration times on items (max 31 days)
... I think it will be used like classified ads
... I am having difficulty seeing why this is relevant to the TAG
NM: just an example of current technology use of the Web and metadata
VQ: Any more agenda items? [none]
VQ: Is anyone else not available?
HT: will be on plane
VQ: will be on plane
... I suggest we just skip the next telecon. Any objections? [none]
<ht> Tim, please have a quick look at http://www.w3.org/2005/Talks/1201-TAG-report/
<ht> If you can -- thanks
VQ: next meeting will be Dec 5th F2F at MIT