See also: IRC log
Next telcon is 5 Sep 2006
Dan is at risk.
Scribe for next week: TV
Approve minutes of 8 Aug 2006
<DanC> +1 approve 8 Aug minutes http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2006Aug/att-0068/08-tagmem-minutes.html
Approve minutes of 15 Aug 2006
<DanC> likewise +1 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2006/08/15-minutes.html
Accept this agenda?
DanC: Is there a list of outstanding actions?
Vincent: Not handy; will be ready for 5 Sep 2006.
<Noah> Comments from Noah: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2006Aug/0117.html
TAG reviews Noah's comments.
Noah: In 2.3.1, "Pointers to alternative content are encoded as link
elements, and the same mechanism is used within RSS/ATOM feeds to
advertize permalinks and other pointers to make them discoverable."
Noah: This seems to assume the reader is familiar with RSS/Atom
TV: That's intended to demonstrate that we're not inventing something new.
<DanC> (defining it in terms of Atom has some appeal; Atom is perhaps the first standards-track take on "this verion" vs "latest version")
Editorial suggestions for clarity accepted.
Noah: Chapter 3: "When creating a
multiplicity of URIs for a given canonical resource, ensure
that the relationship amongst these multiple URIs is captured
in a machine-readable form."
... I don't think you mean "machine readable", you mean "crawl through a fully linked graph"
Noah: I didn't propose alternate
text, but suggest something along the lines of "reachable, at
least transitively, through links"
... More editorial comments, but we don't need to discuss them
TV: One of the top level concerns we had was that some of the issues of discoverability hadn't been called out very explicitly. I tried to fix that. Success?
Noah: I think if you're comfortable, I'm comfortable...
Some discussion of editorial process for publishing dated copies
Dan: It comes through except in the conclusions.
<Zakim> DanC, you wanted to go over the "bumper sticker" conclusions; the 1st one doesn't say anything explicit about alternative/generic stuff
Noah: I thought the conclusions were a bit short, to the point where they can be read several ways. I think they could be a little more explicit.
DanC: The bumper sticker versions are what I actually use in discussions elsewhere
<DanC> "each representation of interest should get its own URI"
<DanC> er... rather "each alternative of interest should get its own URI"
Noah: I'd prefer something like
"each representation of interest should get it's own URI and
there should be one additional URI representing the resource
... "And the generic one should normally be used when sending references", or something like that.
... The other thing is, make sure that they're linked so you can find them all.
TV: Would a diagram be helpful?
<DanC> +1 a diagram
<Noah> neutral on diagram
DanC: I think a diagram would help.
<DanC> a diagram of the N+1 URIs of one of the scenarios, I suggest
<DanC> (I prefer that the conclusions be revised before the TAG approves it.)
<DanC> (but I think it's already in the right direction.)
TV: I'll have a revision ready by mid-September.
<scribe> ACTION: TV to produce a new revision of generic-Resources-53 by 15 Sep 2006 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/08/29-tagmem-minutes.html#action01]
<Noah> +1 to waiting for Dave for Item 3
HT: No progress. Won't have anything ready before 19 Sep 2006.
Vincent: That's ok, I just wanted to make sure we could schedule the discussion.
DanC: The Semantic Web Life Sciences IG is meeting in Amsterdam, 3-4 Oct 2006
DanC: There are a number of agencies looking to the IG for information.
<DanC> October 3 to 4, Amsterdam, The Netherlands http://www.w3.org/mid/0C13B2E4-1971-4C80-A960-DD0754EF7D7D@teranode.com
DanC: Looks like the Amsterdam
meeting will be substantive but not decision making.
... I'd like to have a draft ready before that IG meeting.
HT: Noted. I agree.
DO: I don't think I'll get to it before that time frame.
HT: I'll take a look and make a proposal.
<DanC> (AMS meeting cited from semweb-cg schedule, fyi. http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/CG/#future . RDF and iCalendar versions also available there.)
Vincent: I would just like a chance to get a quick update and see where we are.
DO: Sure. We discussed this about
three weeks ago and I promised to have a draft out a few days
ago, which I haven't managed to do. I'm about half way through
... In the meantime, a few more comments have arrived.
<DanC> ACTION: DanC to review definitions of partial understanding, backward compatible, and forward compatible [CONTINUES] (progress report: 21 Aug http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2006Aug/0084.html ) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/08/29-tagmem-minutes.html#action02]
DO: I'm hoping to have another
draft out in a couple of weeks (at the earliest).
... That's where I'm at right now.
Noah: Are you guessing that you'd incorporate my comments in that draft?
<Noah> Noah published extensive comments on the Versioning finding last night at: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2006Aug/0111.html
Noah: I don't think I'm entirely happy with all the conceptual foundations.
<DanC> (I'm thrashing on this issue; I can only find time to get swapped in and then I get preempted before I make any substantive progress.)
Noah: I've tried to both consider
things from the draft perspective as well as make some notes
about how it could be layered differently.
... This is a heads up to anyone I can encourage to look at my note.
Where is the public discussion?
Apparently on public-versioning (as opposed to www-tag)
<DanC> (the question of which list didn't come to a clear conclusion to me.)
Noah: I don't think we have a
crystalized group consensus on versioning.
... For example, I think it would be good to separate constraints from the definition of a language.
TV: This finding is also trying to do *a lot* which is also possibly making it slow going.
Noah: I see it as what information is conveyed, can the receiver use it, is it what the sender meant.
<DanC> (I agree that versioning is a huge issue; I don't see an obvious way to split it up, though.)
<Norm> (I'm in the same camp as DanC on dividing it up)
<DanC> (brief visit from Schleiff, Marty <firstname.lastname@example.org> )
<DanC> (oh yeah... we need to get DI review before we approve the genericResource finding.)
<scribe> ACTION: Vincent to contact DI group in the next few days [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/08/29-tagmem-minutes.html#action03]
Noah: I'm starting to try to think about these terms in application-indepenendent ways. There's a layer there. Then there are layers above that.
<DanC> (that's exactly what comes up in the definition of backward/forward compatible, I think.)
Noah: There's a question about, for example, is "you'll display it in my web browser" good enough?
Vincent: Anything else on XML versioning?
DanC: Not for today, but, there
are a number of places where one group is saying "that belongs
to us" (when another group is doing it a different way).
... c.f., SVG 1.2 became a CR over objection from HTML about line breaking strategy.
... I'm hoping the TAG gets to look into that kind of stuff.
Vincent: I'll put it on my list of issues to be addressed "soon"