<Stuart> Scribe: Ashok Malhotra
<scribe> scribenick: Ashok
<Stuart> Welcome Larry and John
Ashok: Can we discuss the WS-RA WG. Next week or if we have time this week?
<DanC> +1 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/01/08-minutes 2009/01/13 15:15:35
Stuart moves, Ashok seconds to approve minutes from 12/18. Approved w/o objection
Next call Jan 23. DOrchard scribe
Congratulations to Larry Masinter and John Kemp on election to the TAG!
<masinter> "Now Ollie, look what you've done."
Stuart: Confirms f2f meeting March 3-5, 2009
<masinter> URL of draft finding? I'm looking at issue but don't see draft
Noah: Introduces SDW
<masinter> link in http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/51 ?
<DanC> yes, 51. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/selfDescribingDocuments.html
<DanC> the tracker's not very good at answering "where's the current draft on this issue?" unfortunately, Larry
Noah: Discussion abt use of 'Semantic Web' in SDW
Stuart: I am supportive of Jar's comments
... I support the spirit of the change.
<DanC> (did I hear correctly... roughly 3 for "make the change" 4 for "no, let's not")
<DanC> (the 4 includes noah, I think)
<DanC> (3 = jar, ht, skw; 4 = dan, noah, ?, ?)
<DanC> (3 = jar, ht, skw; 4 = dan, noah, tim, ?)
Stuart: If we go with that it leaves us with the status quo
<DanC> (3 = jar, ht, skw; 4 = dan, noah, tim, daveo)
Ashok: I also supported the status quo
<DanC> (I find http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2009Jan/0034.html )
<DanC> -1 "add a link to the W3C Semantic Web activity statement"
<DanC> I concur that the "The goal of the Semantic Web initiative is as broad as that of the Web" suffices as a definition
Stuart: Suggest we ask Jonathan and Noah to work together and handle this editorially
... Would anyone object to saying Action 207 is done and results in no change to the document
Action 211 on Dan
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - 211
<Stuart> close action-207
<trackbot> ACTION-207 Try to wordsmith to get rid of 'Semantic Web' and submit for review closed
DanC: Larry, what's current thinking on x-tokens
<DanC> case in point x-www-urlencoded
<DanC> yes, that's how x- tokens have been used
Larry: goal was to lower the bar for registration ... did not work out very well
Dan: I will collaborate with Larry on this
<masinter> sorry, RFC 4288 section 3.4 http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4288.txt
Dan: I will find IETF position on x-tokens
Dan: On squatting, my poster child case is when Google introduced .... and there was a standard the next day ... rel="nofollow"
<DanC> action-211 due 19 Jan 2009
Dan: I would like that in the draft but not sure abt timing
Noah: I wd like to invite the TAG to review the document and see if their concerns are addressed
<DanC> I think it s http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/selfDescribingDocuments.html#grounding 6 Accountability and Grounding Information in the Web
Noah: This is section 6
... I think the issue re. 'libel' are addressed by my rewording
<DanC> (is a diff-marked copy already done? don't bother to make one if not, but there is one, I'd like to look at it)
<masinter> IMHO, I think TAG findings shouldn't make claims about legal standing without review by W3C Legal
Noah: Explains it's a story not a legal statement
jar: Can we use something less controversial, like Sen. Smith has put his house for sale
Noah: This may raise other issues
jar: How abt 'might be useful' instead of 'can be really useful'
Noah: Is it broken or can we make it better.
<masinter> Personally, I doubt that the specifications of the Web have any relevance or utility at all in proving anything in court
jar: It still seems a bit like making a legal statement
<masinter> just IMHO
<DanC> +1 s/very// (on general strunk-and-white grounds)
...jar: 'might be useful'
<masinter> Some people may think that it might possibly be useful in some situations
Larry: Doubt that legal claims can be made on web content
<DanC> (was Larry's point about web content or web standards?)
<masinter> My point was about scope of TAG covering giving legal advice or suggestion
<DanC> close action-208
<trackbot> ACTION-208 Work on "attribution of libel" concern with Stuart closed
Noah: Suggest 208 as resolved ... remove the word 'very'
<DanC> (can you just commit it without announcing it?)
Larry: Even if you remove 'very' it makes me uncomforatble. You use the word 'prove'. Perhaps 'signify' or 'indicate'.
<jar> +1 proving -> establishing
Noah: Remove 'prove' with 'establish' ?
Noah: I sent a draft a week ago. Did I miss anything?
Dan: I need to check Tim's concerns
<DanC> (I'm looking for 3-word technical capsules of tim's concerns)
Noah: Tim made some handwritten comments. I took a picture and I have acted on all I could.
<DanC> "<hst> Client Technology package story for machines parallel to Spec chain story for humans"
Noah: I adopted text from Tim pretty much as is.
Dan: Henry can spk for himself
<DanC> (it's done to my satisfaction; I think ht can speak for himself in reply to NM's msg of ... ~8 Jan )
Stuart: I will ask Henry to review
<DanC> close action-209
<trackbot> ACTION-209 Attempt to address critical concerns from end of 11 Dec self-describing web discussion closed
Stuart: Close 209 ... I will prod Henry
Noah: I have made the 2 changes requested
<DanC> close action-212
<trackbot> ACTION-212 Change two good practice notes in sections 5.1 and 5.2 of Self-describing Web closed
Noah: states the changes
<DanC> (oh... we could file those 2 remaining under action-208)
Stuart: Can we put the question contingent on the changes. Or ask someone to do a final review
Dan: How about doing by email
Stuart: I will make clear we will put question next week. People who have given regrets shd respond by mail.
<DanC> (there are 2 actions remaining. one on me and one on noah. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/51 )
<trackbot> ACTION-208 -- Noah Mendelsohn to make 2 tweaks re "attribution of libel" concern from 15 Jan telcon -- due 2009-01-19 -- OPEN
<DanC> (odd; tracker missed the msg; it's not on http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/202 )
<DanC> (found ashok's msg: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Jan/0024.html )
<jar> (Eran's response: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-talk/2009JanFeb/0007.html )
<DanC> action-202: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Jan/0024.html
<trackbot> ACTION-202 Review http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-site-meta-00 notes added
<Zakim> DanC, you wanted to ask ashok to tell us a story about how this site-meta stuff is expected to be used
Ashok: Explains the story of site-meta draft
<masinter> suggest asking MNot
<DanC> please do, masinter
<DanC> aha! single-sign on... now I know some stories around there...
Mnot was copied on my response but did not response
<Zakim> DanC, you wanted to ask if there's more specific problem that's expected to drive deployment of this new mechanism
<noah> FYI: I have just republished the Self-Describing Web draft with changes requested today. See: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/selfDescribingDocuments-2009-01-15.html or http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/selfDescribingDocuments.html
<noah> New status section says:
<DanC> close action-208
<trackbot> ACTION-208 make 2 tweaks re "attribution of libel" concern from 15 Jan telcon closed
<DanC> (a story that starts "oh no; not another password to manage" and gets to the site-meta draft would be greatly appreciated, jar)
Stuart: A note re. the problems that these folks are solving would be great!
<DanC> ACTION-200 due next week
<trackbot> ACTION-200 Revise "Uniform Access to Metadata" (needs title change) to add XRD use case due date now next week
<DanC> ACTION-184 due 29 Jan 2009
<DanC> ACTION-181 due next week
<trackbot> ACTION-181 Update versioning formalism to align with terminology in versioning compatibility strategies due date now next week
<DanC> ACTION-165 due next week
<trackbot> ACTION-165 Formulate erratum text on versioning for the web architecture document due date now next week
<DanC> ACTION-183 due next week
<trackbot> ACTION-183 Incorporate formalism into versioning compatibility strategies due date now next week
Noah: It is in my queue
<DanC> ACTION-176 due 29 Jan 2009
<trackbot> ACTION-176 send comments on exi w.r.t. evaluation and efficiency due date now 29 Jan 2009
<DanC> "There are 0 overdue actions."
Ashok: The WSRA-WG addresses metadata access for services. These use Endpoint References
Stuart: End of Agenda
... Thanks to Larry and John for joining us