See also: IRC log
<scribe> Scribe: DanC
NDW: yes, TV, I'm able to read your document
PROPOSED: to meet again 20 June
TBL: I seem to have conflicts 20, 27 June
VQ: so that's 3 missing for 20 June
... we'll decide later
<timbl> We quiet often miss the teleconf afterthe face to face meeting
<DanC_> minutes 30 May
DC/VQ: we could have done better with the TOC of 30 May minutes....
DC: but they're close enough
RESOLUTION: to accept minutes 30 May
(wondering what became of my action to contact Misha; ah... it's there... http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/actions_owner.html#DC )
<scribe> ACTION: DanC to Contact Misha to follow up on f2f discussion on CURIEs at AC meeting [CONTINUES] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/06/06-tagmem-irc]
HT: on urns/registries... agenda+ please
VQ: ok
<DanC_> [DRAFT] Agenda of TAG face-to-face meeting, 12-14 June 2006, Amherst, MA, USA
VQ: meant to make more progress on the
agenda...
... ETA tomorrow afternoon France time
NDW: [confirms lots of logistics]
DC: phone times?
VQ: we have all day 9-5 reserved all 3 days
... yes, we'll do the stuff most interesting to tlr on Tue AM
<DanC_> The MWI device repository, tbl to www-tag 3 May
TimBL: if it's multiple repositories, that's
one thing, but if it's one repository, I have more concerns
... it's not clear to me why phone data isn't just published by the
manufacturers 1st hand.
... is this a case where a central iana-style registry is merited?
HT: I see "logical" repository in the abstract; maybe it's federated?
(the doc says "The Device Vendor makes available and maintains for accuracy device descriptions for public usage, e.g. by Content Providers." )
DanC: the doc says "The Device Vendor makes available and maintains for accuracy device descriptions for public usage, e.g. by Content Providers." that seems OK to me. I have also heard strange things about reluctance on the part of device vendors, but if that's the plan of record, it's OK by me
Noah: there's a spectrum of centralization... on the one hand, IANA-like centralized, and on the other RDDL, which is a format that anybody can use anywhere in the web
<timbl> 2.1.5: 4. Using the identity of the device the Content Provider queries the DDR to determine one or more capabilities supported by the device.
<timbl> http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-DDR-requirements-20060410/#iddiv3233209928
<DanC_> (ok, 2.1.5 Normal Flow is the sort of thing that merits review.)
TimBL: perhaps due to OEM rebranding etc., the business of building phones is disconnected from the business of running web sites about phones
<Zakim> timbl, you wanted to ask whether this (2.1.5) should be SPARQL.
DO: why would the TAG say SPARQL as opposed to
SOAP or WSDL?
... why not XQuery?
TimBL: SPARQL includes an HTTP/URI-based protocol
DanC: somebody in the SPARQL WG (DAWG) already has an action to look at this [I'm pretty sure]
DO: isn't SPARQL more detailed than the level of thing the TAG advocates?
TimBL: I regard SPARQL as pretty generic
NM: I think it's appropriate to advocate using existing standards; if they're re-inventing existing stuff, we should be concerned, but they should choose the best fit for their needs.
[er... something like that.]
TimBL: perhaps they've got a fixed schema for
which XML Schema/XQuery are a good match...
... but if their schema is "object/property/value", then that's reinventing
RDF.
VQ: I'm not sure about the current work, but CC/PP data was in RDF at one point...
TimBL: yes, the original architecture was pretty good, until they hit this social issue of device vendors running web sites
VQ: so... back to the one repository/many... how shall we proceed?
DC: invite somebody from that group to explain it to us? that's most convenient for me.
<scribe> ACTION: VQ to invite a DD WG person to a TAG meeting to discuss DDR requirements [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/06/06-tagmem-irc]
DO: no strong preference
DC: feels like two or three issues, to me... but I'm not clear on what they are, so I'm OK to just muddle along for a bit
DO: if it's to be a new issue, let's make it a short one [?] like versioning
NM: actually, I think the finding is suffering from that sort of broad approach, as I said in my comments
VQ: there doesn't seem to be a critical mass of sentiment in any particular direction; we'll have more data after the current round of reviews.
<ht> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/URNsAndRegistries-50.html#authority
HT: I expect to send mail calling for review
tomorrow.
... I'd like ftf time to finish it.
... I persued the idea of an http/dns alternative to info: ... and in fact http://lccn.info/2002022641 is
live.
VQ: note "reviewing URNs, Namespaces and Registries -- reviewers: DanC, Ed" -- http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2006/06/12-agenda.html
HT: so review should please wait just one more day
NM: my attempts to have for the F2F a new draft of metaDatainURI-31 continues to be at risk.
<noah> metaDatainURI-31
ADJOURN.
<Norm> See you all in six days! :-)