See also: Agenda, IRC log
PROPOSED: to meet again 16 July, Raman to scribe
RESOLUTION: to meet again 16 July, Raman to scribe
for next week: regrets: David, Rhys, Henry
SKW: I may cancel if we're thin on agenda
PROPOSED: to accept http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2007/07/02-minutes as a true record
RESOLUTION: to accept http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2007/07/02-minutes as a true record
SKW: withdraw 2 and continue 3 actions?
discussing ACTION: DC accepted on 8 Aug 2006 Review definitions of partial understanding, backward compatible, and forward compatible.
DanC made progress 21 May http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2007May/0040.html
DO: I answered that...
<Stuart> " Indeed. All 3 reviewers have asked this key question. How about "I1 is
<Stuart> compatible with I2 if all of the information in I1 does not replace or
<Stuart> contradict any information in I2."
DanC: sounds like
... I'll have to think about it.
<scribe> ACTION: DC Review definitions of partial understanding, backward compatible, and forward compatible. [CONTINUES] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2007/07/09-tagmem-minutes#action01]
DaveO: ... now text-set has a
[different relationship] to syntax...
... I changed the diagram.
DaveO reviews changes... faster than the scribe can summarize
DaveO: the reviewers seemed to catch many of the same things
<Zakim> DanC, you wanted to ask about diagram source
DaveO: yes, I checked in .violet
... note violet has been updated; it's an eclipse plug-in. quite convenient since I use eclipse for W3C spec editing
<dorchard> I just checked in the .violet v6..
SKW: [something from a recent review message...]
ball seems to be with NDW on XML strategies
<scribe> ACTION: SKW complete review of terminology section of of 4 July versioning draft [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2007/07/09-tagmem-minutes#action02]
<trackbot-ng> Sorry, couldn't find user - SKW
DaveO: I addressed a bunch of "add a link here" editorial comments on the strategies stuff...
DaveO: section 6, case studies,
is now one table. (http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/versioning-strategies-20070704.html#iddiv194353056
... there's a new strategy 2.5 "some go in a new namespace, some go in an existing namespace"
... to capture the pattern where [something about ##any and ##other]
... I also mentioned XSLT [i.e. its versioning policy?]
<dorchard> XSLT documents versioning, not versioning XSLT itself from XSLT 2.0 to >2.0.
SKW: a process question... should we aim for last call on this material?
DanC: umm... sounds good... last call after review of peer groups such as HTML
DaveO: yeah, HTML, XML Schema, XML Core
raman: and CSS, and XHTML 2
DanC: yes, I'd like to think more about the CSS versioning strategy
NDW: yes, I'm working on reviewing "strategies" and the XML part
<scribe> ACTION: NW Produce some information about NVDL for the finding. [CONTINUES] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2007/07/09-tagmem-minutes#action03]
NDW: by 23 July
... maybe some for the 16 July meeting
(trackbot groks due dates, but the scribe doesn't know how to get it to do it)
<scribe> ACTION: Stuart to review "Cool URIs for the Semantic Web" [DONE] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2007/07/09-tagmem-minutes#action04]
<scribe> ACTION: Norm to review "Cool URIs for the Semantic Web" [WITHDRAWN] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2007/07/09-tagmem-minutes#action05]
DanC: SKW, any impact from your review on our httpRange-14 finding?
SKW: not really; there's stuff
they suggest [in "Cool URIs for the Semantic Web"] as best
practice that goes beyond what the TAG decided.
... OK, Dan, on to your formal description of webarch slides...
<Stuart> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/fdesc54/slides 2003/11/24
(scribe is hardly even trying to capture the discussion as he leads it)
DanC: HT's msg on terminology covers some of the same ground; it's just a few minutes/hours old...
<DanC_> HT on terminology
HT: in the case of the Oxaca weather report and [some common fairy tale scribe already forgot], the french and english have roughly the same relationship to the resource; not so for french and english versions of Moby Dick
DanC: is the question of whether the translation is authorized relevant?
HT: not really
SKW: ... generic resources finding relevant... ?
HT: only trivially. [?]
... english version of The Wasteland, by T. S. Eliot has special status. e.g. conneg...
<Zakim> dorchard, you wanted to mention that translations sometimes don't hold is in GEB as well, the example being russian book (can't remember which author) translation should perhaps be
DanC: this is _exactly_ the authorized translation question. In conneg, the publisher is making claims. if the publisher says, using conneg, "these are equivalent for my purposes", then they're equivalent for his/her purposes
DaveO: [scribe was totally behind and let himself get distracted]
<dorchard> translations sometimes don't hold is in GEB as well, the example being russian book (can't remember which author) translation should perhaps be Dickens
HST: The somewhat surprising tentative conclusion is that you can't be a responsible Webmaster until you've taken a position on the issue of "The nature of The Work of Art"
DanC walks through Frag Identifier Diagram
HST explains indexicals: "I'm right and you're wrong!"... a phase we can both locally agree because it means different things to both of us.
SKW: Dan, in your investigation, where does 303 come in?
DanC: it's sort of a noop, as far as knowledge exchange, in my thinking. Tim's idea that it constrains things is new to me; I'm still thinking about it
SKW: and Rhys, does this help with httpRange-14?
Rhys: I'm learning a lot about backgrounds that readers bring
SKW: is httpRange-14 a comfortable place for this discussion?
Raman: no, it's opaque
DanC: oops; you're right
SKW: terminology for webarch2?
DanC: that doesn't narrow it down; does that help? hmm... yes, let's noodle on this a bit
<scribe> ACTION: RL to revise Dereferencing HTTP URIs finding in response to F2F discussion. [CONTINUES] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2007/07/09-tagmem-minutes#action06]
SKW: I did one half of my action,
contacting the chairs
... that's going well...
<DanC_> SKW to POWDER/WAF chairs
SKW: on technical comments, I wrote up the 2 we discussed and added several more based on reading and discussion; are those others better as TAG comments or as my own?
DanC: tactically, separate
messages for separate subjects
... I don't know enough to endorse #6
DO: likewise; can't say yes nor no
SKW: OK, I'll send the ones we discussed (1 and 2) as from the TAG and the others personally
SKW: perhaps we did this last week, but just to be sure:
RESOLUTION: to cancel 23rd, 30th July and 6th Aug
SKW: if we're to meet 13 Aug, I need help with agenda prep; I'll just be returning from holiday.
a few others will be in a similar position
NDW: OK, I'll prepare an agenda (or cancellation notice) for 13 Aug