W3C TAG Teleconference of 19 December 2006

19 Dec 2006



Noah mendelsohn, Henry Thompson, Norm Walsh, Vincent Quint, Ed Rice, Tim Berners-Lee, David Orchard
T.V. Raman
Vincent Quint
Noah Mendelsohn


Next Teleconference

VQ: Next teleconference is 2 January 2007.
... I proposed Henry as scribe, but think it may be inconvenient.

HT: Right.

VQ: Dave?

DO: Probable regrets.

VQ: I have regrets from TV Raman, Henry Thompson, and probable regrets from Dave Orchard.
... Any other regrets?


VQ: Norm, can you scribe?

NW: Yes, I will scribe on 2 January.

Next Face-to-Face Meeting

VQ: I have summarized (W3C Members only) everyone's availability.
... Strong "no's" for Feb. are from T.V. Raman and candidate Rhys Lewis.
... I know Dave has strong preference for Feb.
... For early March I have several preferences, and the only "no" is from Dave Orchard

HT: I have a preference but not an outright conflict with March. I will be there.

TBL: OK with either.

<DanC> (HT, are you forgetting TV's conflict?)

HT: We have one 'can't make' for each date. I think newcomer gets preference.

NM: Important to have new members there. Conflicts cancel. Preferences seem to lean toward March.

DC: Seems equal both ways. I'll flip a coin.

NM: Prefer we not flip.
... Prefer either March, or waiting for the election, because I'd prefer to give priority to newly elected candidates. Having them get involved F2F is important.

HT: I like Noah's proposal

NM: Do you mean March or waiting?

<ht> DanC, you're right, I missed TVs objection

NW: I have preference for Feb, but Noah's analysis makes sense.

HT: Also, TV can't do Feb., which is another vote for March.

VQ: I think I hear a consensus for March.
... Dave, is that acceptable?

DO: Well, as I said I can't attend. I won't object.

RESOLUTION: The TAG will meet at MIT in Cambridge on the 6th and 7th of March, 2007

<DanC> with regrets from DaveO

Future Face to Face Meetings

<DanC> (I thank Tim for starting the discussion of Sep ftf schedule, but let's please not discuss it further today)

VQ: Tim has sent a message suggesting he could host in Southampton in Sept. Not sure we should discuss now?

DO: The TAG seems to have picked up in the middle of one-to-one conversation between Stuart and Tim.

TBL: Yes.

NW: Works for me.

HT: Works for me.

<DanC> (I can't confirm without specific dates, and maybe not even then.)

TBL: About 1 1/4 hours from Heathrow.

VQ: I've put on the group page the proposal for Southampton 17th & 18th of Sept, but that's tentative, pending the election and participation of new members.

<Noah> Noah notes that Southampton on the proposed dates is fine with him.

Minutes of the F2F of 11-13 October 2006

VQ: There have been some misques on editing due to CVS conflicts.

<DanC> (I confirm VQ's edits are minor; cvs -n diff -u -r1.5 -r1.14 11-minutes.html )

VQ: Thanks to those who contributed improvements.

<DanC> (yes, and I prefer to do it now.)

VQ: Due to edit conflicts, the latest copy of the minutes for the 11th are at http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2006/12/11-minutes-noahmerge.html for the moment.

<DanC> diffs between VQ's 11-minutes.html and Noah's 11-minutes-noahmerge.html are huge; trying tidy...

<Noah> Differences are big only because I edited most lines of Ed's sections. Suspect best way to resolve is to copy 11-minutes-noahmerge.html as base, which will pick up all of those changes, then reapply the few changes Vincent made.

<DanC> revision 1.5

<DanC> date: 2006/12/18 19:17:24; author: connolly

VQ: Dan is doing the merge.
... I changed at least one broken <br>
... That will give us minutes for Monday.
... Tues minutes?

DC: I think they're done

<DanC> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2006/12/12-tagmem-minutes 1.5 Mon Dec 18 17:56:52 2006

Draft Tuesday minutes at: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2006/12/12-tagmem-minutes 1.5 Mon Dec 18 17:56:52 2006

VQ: Dan also worked on Wed. minutes?

DC: Yes.

TBL: Thank you!

<DanC> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2006/12/13-morning-minutes 1.5 Mon Dec 18 19:20:31 2006 UTC

VQ: What do you think about Wed.?

DC: Says draft, otherwise good.

NM: I haven't read Tues/Wed yet.

DC: Delaying would be for a long time

VQ: We can patch later.

DO: I haven't had a chance to read and approve.

ED: Me too.

VQ: We can defer.
... Send email to the list.

<DanC> yes, PROPSED: to approve, provided nobody objects by email by Fri, 22 Dec

NM: Any value in saying "silence is approval" by, say, Friday, so Vincent can announce minutes before holidays?

RESOLUTION: To give Vincent permission to publish the minutes as approved on Friday, accepting along the way any suggested edits he deems desirable

<DanC> yes, that's what we agreed.

Reviewing Actions from F2F

VQ: Henry to copy edit passwords in the clear draft within next 24 hours -- see Passwords in the Clear 2006/12/12


VQ: Dan you reviewed this.

DC: (in IRC comment) don't remember reviewing it.

NM: It was about Dan's request at the F2F to put in a reference to the RFC. I noted in the edited minutes of the 11th that the RFC reference was added.

VQ: Ed, have you looked at Henry's work?

<Ed> yes, I looked at Henry's great work.. much appreciated.


Ed Rice to alert Web Security Context Working Group (chair Mary Ellen Zurko) to content of passords in clear draft, to negotiate a review by them, and to the fact that we are working toward publication.

ED: Will do.


Noah and Dave to write a position paper outline for the TAG by the 18th of Dec.

Email announcing the outline: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2006Dec/0038.html

Draft outline: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2006Dec/att-0038/EnterpriseWSTag.html


VQ: Noah to update status to make metadataInURI an approved finding

NM: Yes, in next few days.

VQ: Then I publish, but note I'm off next week.

NM: Me too, will try to get done before then.


VQ: Vincent will notify all TAG nominees of March meeting when nominations list becomes public. DONE

Review of draft submission to the Workshop on Web of Services for Enterprise Computing

VQ: Reviewing the draft at: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2006Dec/att-0038/EnterpriseWSTag.html

Announced in email at: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2006Dec/0038.html

<DanC> (I started to review it, discovered it was long, stopped)

DO: Like a lot of it.
... Seems likely that a submission like this would be selected for presentation. Issues are crucial to the meaning of the workshop.
... I thought outline + notes was effective.
... I think I agree with Ed that more time should be spent on use cases that motivate SOAP and Web Services.
... Suggest one could make the point stronger: talk about uses of WS* extensions. E.g. security, reliable delivery.
... Reliable messaging is key. Our customers want it. They're actually getting reliable transfer state, but still important.
... It's not entirely a request/response.

NM: So, SOAP has more robust header structure. Exploited by WS*.
... Enables qualities of service.
... Exchange patterns and timing varied.
... Timeframes are different. No 3rd parties.

DO: Use of description languages is important. Also scalability of number of operations that show up in tool.
... I can take a stab.

NM: Suggest we start with an outline.
... I will, perhaps only by first week of Jan. write first draft.
... Due Jan 10.
... Assuming earlier doesn't matter

<Zakim> DanC, you wanted to emphasize brevity

DC: Longer is not necessarily better
... Use case titles are named for architectural purity.

NM: I may be a little more sympathetic than Dan to pushing architectural principles, as long as we show they enable use cases.

DO: Want to make sure we are seen as grounded in real world.
... Don't want to ignore reasons people wouldn't want to do HTTP get

TBL: I second that.
... We talk about Web Arch. We can say what we think it is, and raise issues when we think they've made a mistake.
... When they're not doing "Web Architecture" we should listen rather than talk.
... We shouldn't have a blinkered view.
... With enterprise software, W3C needs to listen.
... Need to learn how people think about enterprise software.
... They may have needs which are met by other approaches.
... Shouldn't lecture REST good, WS bad.

DC: Web server in a printer would be a use case title.

NM: More input?

TBL: Giving a URI to a disk drive is a semantic web thing to do.

<DanC> (I think I'm done editing minutes; I removed DRAFT. so we have http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2006/12/11-minutes ,v 1.17 2006/12/19 19:01:02 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2006/12/12-tagmem-minutes 2006/12/18 17:56:52 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2006/12/13-morning-minutes 2006/12/19 18:59:20 and http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2006/12/11-agenda.html Revision: 1.38 of 2006/12/18 19:08:22 )

<DanC> (it's a feature that you blended into slides-think. I'm thinking more about slides than the report.)

TBL: Were you trying to say it's still good to use URIs even if you're a Web Services shop?

<DanC> (base on ftf discussion, I was expecting to see 2 stories: (a) a meat-and-potatoes coder is trying to use a REST service and gets overwhelmed by 17 parameters and horrible diagnostics, and (2) a developer is happy with his GUI/WSDL tools, but it takes query methods with a few scalar params and does a POST rather than a GET.)

NM: I think we bring depth in explaining the advantages of using URIs well, and of using HTTP well.

HT: We should be sensitive to other things, and indeed anxious to learn about them, but I also think it's where we have depth.
... I had good experience at the backplane workshop by representing myself and not taking too strong a stance on the right answers. I did write a short white paper.

NM: not sure appearance is right so if I don't represent either IBM or the TAG. Don't want to create the appearance that my employer is slipping lots or representatives in; that's not what's going on here. I thought the TAG asked me to represent them.

HT: No, I think we encouraged you to go and make a presentation informed by the TAG's position, not to represent the TAG.

NM: Fine with me, but only if everyone's comfortable.

<Zakim> dorchard, you wanted to say that I explicitly want Noah to represent the TAG.

<DanC> (I'm reasonably comfortable wither way; my understanding from the ftf was more like what HT said, but I can go either way.)

DO: I disagree with Henry. I would like to have Noah represent the TAG. The TAG should be formally represented at a workshop like this.

<Noah> I probably heard at the F2F what people like Dave were saying. I think I'm fine either way, as long as other W3C members, the workshop organizers, and other participants are OK with whatever we do.

TBL: The danger is that we haven't written or thought in depth about Enterprise Computing.

<DanC> (in order for you to represent the tag, surely you need a minuted decision to do so.)

TBL: This could be perceived as a finding, people will pick it apart, perhaps quote parts out of context.

<DanC> (the risk of misquoting is there whether or not the TAG delegates to Noah.)

<Noah> Gee...I was hoping this was input to a workshop, not words from on high.

<Noah> Can't even the TAG work on that basis?

TBL: From that perspective, it's safer to have Noah there but not "representing the TAG".
... Tension is that if Noah represents the TAG, what we say gets taken too seriously or formally.

DO: I understand your concern. I think that the close scrutiny we'll get is good. I don't think we have to downplay the role of a "representative" like Noah. It's an opportunity.
... I think Noah's done a good job in outline of not looking like words from on high.
... We all know about the TAG findings and AWWW, but at end of the day the TAG has collectively opinions about things.

<Noah> I think I can make clear that the TAG typically speaks formally through findings and AWWW. This is just a position paper for discussion, which is how workshops work in my experience.

DO: I'm optimistic our work would be welcomed as a paper, I think it's on a good track. If we're asked to talk that's an opportunity. I'd like him to do it on behalf of the TAG.
... I want to give the material he submits the weight I think it merits.

<DanC> words like "just" and "not just from a desire for architectural purity" have the opposite effect of their literal meaning

<Zakim> DanC, you wanted to replay my favorite stories from ftf discussion

<DanC> (base on ftf discussion, I was expecting to see 2 stories: (a) a meat-and-potatoes coder is trying to use a REST service and gets overwhelmed by 17 parameters and horrible diagnostics, and (2) a developer is happy with his GUI/WSDL tools, but it takes query methods with a few scalar params and does a POST rather than a GET.)

<Zakim> Noah, you wanted to say each contributor to a workshop tends to bring their own strengths..that's understood.

DC: On official representation. Comfortable either way as long as recorded clearly.

<Zakim> dorchard, you wanted to talk about use cases

NM: I can do either way as long as I know which.

DO: I'm remembering use cases from F2F. Dan hit some. Think there was a 3rd. Can't remember.

<Noah> It would be really helpful to me to know before we run out of time whether we're resolved I'm representing the TAG or not.

<Noah> I think it's somewhat organizationally cleaner for me if I do represent the TAG formally.

DO: For the BEA position paper I need to tell some stories about why people use SOAP/WSDL, why you sometimes run into problems if you don't have description languages, etc.
... Maybe answer is for TAG to treat those lightly.

<Ed> for the minutes, I would support a resolution for Noah to represent the tag as it sends a message that the TAG is interested in services as well.

<dorchard> I strongly prefer to have a formal TAG representation to the workshop

VQ: I see some support for you representing the TAG, and others saying you should go as a TAG member but not representative.
... I don't hear consensus.

TBL: I could be persuaded either way.

<timbl_> TBL could be persuaded either way

VQ: Does anyone object to having Noah submit a paper formally on behalf of the TAG?
... Does anyone object to having Noah submit a paper formally on behalf of the TAG to the workshop on Web services?

<DanC> (if you want to know if I'm likely to object, you will please write down the proposal.)

<DanC> (I'm most likely to abstain, based on what I see/hear so far)

PROPOSAL: Noah will submit a paper formally on behalf of the TAG to the workshop on web services for enterprise.

VQ: Any objections?

DC: He gets a blank check?

DO: We're going to review it.

<Norm> I'm happy with the proposal.

<Ed> Ed: I vote for supporting Noah in this role.

<Ed> I need to drop off.

<Ed> (I'll stay on IRC)

PROPOSAL: Noah will prepare a paper intended to be submitted on behalf of the TAG to the workshop on web services for enterprise.

VQ: Approved without objection.

DC: abstain

RESOLUTION: Noah will prepare a paper intended to be submitted on behalf of the TAG to the workshop on web services for enterprise.

VQ: Early January
... Deadline is Wed. 10 Jan.
... We'll do things like sitedata on next call.
... Last call of the year. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

Good wishes all around.

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.126 (CVS log)
$Date: 2007/01/03 15:14:22 $