Agenda for 4 February 2002 TAG teleconference

Next: 12 February face-face >>

architecture administration

Nearby: TAG home teleconference details issues list

Any additions to the agenda? Problems with previous minutes (28 Jan)?


First let us look at raising ome issues, suggestions belowin bold (Any others?)

Architecture threads

This is a reference summary of threads In chronological order oldest to newest. Ian has collected them, and Tim has marked some with proposed status. Today we go quickly (2 minutes per) to raise issues where we have consensus

  1. Resource discovery: limits of URIs. Raised by Peter Pappamikail. Refer to TB's reply. "Why not have URNs?". See The Myth of Names and Addresses ...Needs arch document; not issue unless contentious.
  2. Why does the Web use mime types and not URIs?. Raised by Aaron Swartz. propose raise issue, low urgency. Refer Don Eastlake's work - should be homewhor before we address it.
  3. What's the proper terminology for distinguishing between the HTTP/HTML Web, things with URIs, the services Web, etc.? Alternately, what is the Web? . Raised by Aaron Schwartz.
  4. Do Web Architecture principles continue to make sense in a world with decentralized systems like Freenet and Mojo Nation?. Raised by Aaron Schwartz.
  5. URIs versus URI references. Raised by Mark Baker. See comments from Tim Bray about related issues:
  6. HTTP is not well understood . Raised by Mark Baker.
  7. System architecture document needed. Raised by David Orchard. A discussion between David and Roy follows. This also led to TAG home work on reading chapters of Roy's thesis. See comments from Graham Klyne on the thesis w.r.t. TAG work.
  8. XML Packaging mechanism needed. Raised by David Orchard.
  9. It would be beneficial to describe common profiles of XML processing. . Raised by David Orchard.
  10. What is the XML Processing model?. Raised by David Orchard.
  11. An XML Type Library would be useful. Raised by David Orchard.
  12. Is simplicity a useful architectural constraint?. Raised by Tim Bray. A long thread follows.
  13. Overlap of functionality between XSLT and XQuery. Raised by Graham Klyne. .
  14. Comments about comments by James Clark. Raised by Stephen van Egmond. See comments from Norm, Chris, Tim Bray, and more.
  15. Is testability a useful architectural constraint?. Raised by Chris Lilley. A long thread follows.
  16. Design Issues: is GET the only idempotent method?. Raised by Mike Dierken. Sounds from comments from TBL that this may have been addressed. See followup from Massimo Marchiori: Foundational Web Model(s). Possible technical development: QUERY method in HTTP. propose raise this., to address oustanding need. Pseudothreads include:
    1. Background information on GET and XForms (was: GET should be enco uraged...) Micah Dubinko (Thu, Jan 24 2002)
    2. RE: Background information on GET and XForms (was: GET should be encouraged...) Martin Duerst (Sun, Jan 27 2002)
  17. Design Issues: proactive distribution. Raised by Mark Dierken. No replies yet.
  18. Architecture doc issues Raised by Tim Bray, who disagrees strongly with: "The namespace document (with the namespace URI) is a place for the language publisher to keep definitive material about a namespace. Schema languages are ideal for this." I think some discussion around this will be useful, and I woul hope to have a TAg statement at the end of it -TBL. Propose raise issue
  19. Multiple namespaces. No issue raised by Paul Prescod. Just comments on mixing documents. However, I think there is a long-standing issue of validation for mixed namespaces. No issue
  20. Language bindings for extending functionality. "Language binding was explicitly dropped from XSLT 2.0, in the recognition that a common approach was required across the W3C." Raised by Jim Fuller. propose raise issue.
  21. TAG media type issues and XForms Last Call WDMark Nottingham (Thu, Jan 24 2002) Part of the iss . Mark needs TAG support IMHO.
  22. [rdfmsQnameUriMapping-6] Algorithm for creating a URI from a QName in RDF Model? Ian B. Jacobs (Tue, Jan 29 2002)

Issue for discussion today

Continuing XML mime types and namespaces. Issue 3, what is the relationship between MXL namespaces and media types? See 18 above. I have proposed a relationship. Simon St L has made a draft suggestingthat all NSs be visible. I would go along with the top level NS being visible in the MIME type.

We also have to settle that the outermost element of the document is critical, and the meaning of a document hangs on that, or if not, what you are supposed to do with a multi-namespace document.

Requests for liaison

Requests for review


Review outstanding action items

Topic Assigned to Assigned at Status
Verify that parameter names are local to each MIME type. Dan Connolly 28 Jan 2002 teleconf Done
Draft a response to Duane Nickull on www-tag with recommendation to contact Web Services Architecture Working Group. Paul Cotton 28 Jan 2002 teleconf Done. See mail to Duane
Get editable CVS space for TAG TBL 7 Jan teleconf Still Pending, sorry.
Summarize different approaches currently used for mapping URIs to media types. Roy 4 Feb teleconf Unknown

Upcoming meetings

Nearby: meeting information

How we work

Charter elaboration

Setting up a process for hearing appeal as described in the charter. We have to elaborate this.

Discuss briefly, possible subgroup. Volunteers?

Ian Jacobs, for TimBL
Last modified: $Date: 2002/02/12 18:04:44 $