IRC log of tagmem on 2002-10-21

Timestamps are in UTC.

18:29:04 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #tagmem
18:55:46 [DanCon]
Zakim, Chris sends regrets
18:55:47 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'Chris sends regrets', DanCon
18:59:35 [Norm]
Norm has joined #tagmem
18:59:57 [Norm]
zakim, this istag
18:59:58 [Stuart]
Stuart has joined #tagmem
18:59:58 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'this istag', Norm
19:00:01 [Norm]
zakim, this is tag
19:00:02 [Zakim]
ok, Norm
19:00:07 [Norm]
zakim, who's here?
19:00:08 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Norm
19:00:09 [Zakim]
On IRC I see Stuart, Norm, RRSAgent, Zakim, Ian, DanCon
19:00:47 [Zakim]
19:00:49 [Zakim]
19:00:49 [Zakim]
19:01:16 [Stuart]
zakim, ??p2 is me
19:01:17 [Zakim]
+Stuart; got it
19:01:19 [PaulC]
PaulC has joined #tagmem
19:01:36 [Norm]
Hi PaulC!
19:01:57 [PaulC]
Hi Norm. Thanks again for your email re diff WDs.
19:02:03 [Ian]
19:02:06 [Ian]
Ian late...
19:02:09 [Ian]
19:02:49 [Zakim]
19:02:51 [Zakim]
19:03:44 [Ian]
Regrets: Chris.
19:03:50 [Zakim]
19:05:08 [Stuart]
zakim, who is here
19:05:09 [Zakim]
Stuart, you need to end that query with '?'
19:05:13 [Stuart]
zakim, who is here?
19:05:15 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Norm, Stuart, Ian, PCotton, DanC
19:05:16 [Zakim]
On IRC I see PaulC, Stuart, Norm, RRSAgent, Zakim, Ian, DanCon
19:05:35 [Ian]
DC: TBL sent regrets.
19:05:46 [DanCon]
well, he didn't send them; I'm relaying them.
19:06:29 [Zakim]
+ +1.604.785.aaaa
19:06:39 [Norm]
Come back, PaulC, Tim's here!
19:06:47 [DanCon]
Paulc, Tim Bray is here.
19:07:11 [PaulC]
Yes I am trying to get David O.
19:08:05 [Ian]
DC: I move to approve meeting record from 7 Oct.
19:08:07 [Ian]
TB: Me too
19:08:13 [Ian]
19:08:57 [Ian]
Roll call: SW (Chair), DC, TB, PC, IJ, NW
19:09:08 [Ian]
Missing so far: DO, RF.
19:09:11 [Ian]
Regrets: TBL, CL
19:09:24 [Zakim]
19:09:27 [Ian]
Resolved: Accept 7 Oct minutes.
19:09:56 [Ian]
SW: Comments on agenda?
19:10:44 [Ian]
19:10:58 [Ian]
[No noise to move new items forward in agenda.]
19:11:03 [DanCon]
agenda review: re "Deadline 30 Sep" for my action on uriMediaType-9: I think I said it would take longer a few weeks ago.
19:11:14 [Ian]
Next meeting: 28 October.
19:11:21 [Ian]
PC: Possible regrets.
19:11:23 [DanCon]
I'm available 28Oct
19:12:16 [Ian]
19:12:22 [Ian]
Meeting planning for AC meeting.
19:12:51 [Ian]
AC mtg agenda
19:12:52 [Ian]
19:13:16 [DanCon]
IJ: TAG is the headliner at the AC meeting, after all the warm-up bands.
19:13:21 [Ian]
19:14:24 [Ian]
IJ: 1 hour slot. Scheduled to maintain interest. 30 minutes presentation (at most), 30 minutes discussion (at least).
19:14:25 [DanCon]
IJ: we're slotted for 4-5pm, on hour, but the next slot is "hot topics", which we might be able to use.
19:14:32 [Ian]
DO: I expect to be leaving earlier in the afternoon.
19:14:57 [PaulC]
19:16:08 [Ian]
[There is support for moving slot to Tuesday; more people could attend the AC slot.]
19:16:19 [DanCon]
several: I'm not likely to stay for Wednesday afternoon, maybe even weds am
19:16:37 [Stuart]
19:16:46 [Ian]
TB: I am ok with Weds morning. I am presenting twice at another conf on 19 Nov.
19:17:16 [Ian]
PC: What about two slots; one for arch doc, one for report.
19:18:44 [Ian]
TB: Weds before 3pm better for me.
19:18:51 [Ian]
[TB: Tues might also work]
19:19:01 [PaulC]
I think these notes re AC planning need to be member-only visible.
19:19:31 [Ian]
Action IJ: Ask SB how TAG slot might be rescheduled (based on TAG ftf meeting schedule).
19:19:32 [Zakim]
19:20:22 [PaulC]
Fine with Paul.
19:20:25 [Zakim]
19:20:53 [Ian]
19:21:14 [Ian]
SW: We are planning an update report and arch doc report. (Two) volunteers?
19:21:17 [DanCon]
gee, why bother with the mundane report? writing is fine for that, no?
19:22:01 [PaulC]
Here is the URL for my TAG presentation that I used 10 days ago:
19:22:26 [Zakim]
19:23:09 [Norm]
19:23:09 [Zakim]
19:23:33 [Stuart]
19:23:45 [Stuart]
ack paulc
19:23:47 [PaulC]
19:23:50 [Ian]
DC: This is a unique opportunity for social interaction.
19:23:59 [Stuart]
ack DanCon
19:24:22 [Ian]
DC: An example: How can the TAG help the AC plan for new work.
19:24:24 [PaulC]
19:24:42 [PaulC]
But the AC has to approve our Arch Doc and this is too good a chance to get early input.
19:24:48 [Ian]
DC: When we say "X" and another WG says "Y", who says who's right and wrong? We should expect questions like that.
19:25:17 [Ian]
DC: I'd like to dispense with the mundane report; give that in writing.
19:25:47 [Ian]
19:25:54 [Ian]
ack PaulC
19:26:05 [DanCon]
I said X and not(X), by the way.
19:26:35 [Ian]
SW: We have received little feedback on summaries? Are they useful?
19:26:44 [Ian]
SW: Do we tell them a story about a controversial issue?
19:27:29 [Ian]
SW: How are findings working?
19:27:49 [DanCon]
yes, let's tell the stories of get7/SOAP, XLink, maybe one other.
19:27:58 [Ian]
SW: TAG role in chartering process?
19:29:02 [Ian]
IJ: On last point, I would think the TAG would only pipe up on charters when arch issues drive them to.
19:29:11 [Ian]
SW: Example of XLink WG charter revision.
19:29:17 [Stuart]
19:29:56 [Ian]
TB: Another approach: tell the AC what we think is important. Ask the AC what they want to talk about.
19:30:05 [Ian]
TB: Focus on issues and findings.
19:30:11 [Ian]
DC: My list of three:
19:30:16 [Ian]
a) Success story of get7/SOAP
19:30:23 [Ian]
b) XLInk (still doing)
19:30:28 [Ian]
c) IETF liaison around URIs for media types.
19:30:49 [Ian]
DC: I don't want to discuss process in the abstract. I want to discuss sort-of process to interesting technical issues.
19:31:04 [Norm]
19:31:07 [Ian]
PC: I support DC's idea; this was my experience from a recent presentation I gave on the TAG.
19:31:54 [Ian]
TB: I think we should also send a pointer to our issues list.
19:32:05 [DanCon]
yeah; let's do a written "mundane report" and call for input
19:32:49 [DanCon]
stu, I'd like to know who's gonna present before we move on; and a backup if it's Bray, since he's at risk.
19:32:54 [DanCon]
stuart, sorry.
19:33:29 [Ian]
PC: I'd like to do most update in written form.
19:35:10 [Ian]
19:36:43 [Ian]
TB: I recommend that if we are to get substantive discussion of arch doc, that they have the TOC in front of them.
19:37:05 [Ian]
ack DanCon
19:37:06 [Zakim]
DanCon, you wanted to suggest get7/SOAP, XLink, IETF liaison around URIs for media types
19:37:32 [Ian]
IJ: What's in mundane report?
19:37:43 [Ian]
DC: Process stuff.
19:37:50 [Ian]
TB: Tone of monthly summaries ok.
19:37:57 [Ian]
PC: Tell the AC of the election schedule.
19:38:51 [Ian]
IJ: I think a paragraph about 'how we are doing' would also be good (see ftf meeting discussion on this).
19:39:03 [Ian]
[support from DC and TB on IJ proposal]
19:39:31 [Ian]
Volunteers: DO, TB, DC, SW.
19:39:46 [DanCon]
can I take the arch doc/TOC?
19:39:48 [Ian]
NW: Me too, if I can be there.
19:40:08 [Ian]
Action IJ: write draft of mundane report for TAG review.
19:40:30 [Ian]
SW: We could work URIs/IETF into discussion of the arch document.
19:40:41 [Ian]
TB: Yes, arch doc well-baked parts focus on URI space.
19:41:38 [Ian]
DC: I volunteer for arch doc.
19:41:43 [Ian]
19:41:58 [Ian]
SW: I can do xlink.
19:42:04 [Ian]
TB: I'm happy to do arch doc, too.
19:42:10 [DanCon]
I could do get7/SOAP or duck out.
19:42:32 [DaveO]
DaveO has joined #tagmem
19:42:42 [DanCon]
I could do get7/SOAP or duck out.
19:43:23 [Ian]
IJ: Should TAG use a piece of the Web services discussion?
19:43:26 [Ian]
[No support for this.]
19:43:26 [DanCon]
DaveO, what do you want to present?
19:43:44 [Ian]
ack IJ
19:43:56 [DaveO]
I can do the GET/XMLP
19:44:02 [Ian]
PC: Let's rehearse the day before the meeting.
19:44:06 [Ian]
DC: I don't think that's a great idea.
19:44:07 [DaveO]
Or arch doc
19:44:18 [DaveO]
But not xlink/xhtml!
19:44:33 [DanCon]
who's gonna present XLink?
19:44:48 [Stuart]
I will do xlink
19:45:13 [Ian]
Summarizing: SW (Xlink), TB (arch doc; DC if unavailable), DO (get7/SOAP).
19:45:46 [DaveO]
PaulC, look at your IRC messages..
19:45:49 [Ian]
[Discussion of when presentations should be available.]
19:46:24 [DanCon]
Stuart: propose to have presentation materials available <=11Nov
19:46:31 [Ian]
[No regrets for 11 November from those present.]
19:47:25 [Ian]
ack Ian
19:47:37 [Ian]
TB: Since we're trying to be brief, one week in advance my suffice.
19:47:55 [Ian]
DC: I prefer a week review; but if we can't let's be clear.
19:48:11 [Ian]
Resolved: Try to have slides ready for TAG review by 11 November.
19:48:18 [DanCon]
(i.e. email review, mostly)
19:48:29 [Ian]
19:48:39 [Ian]
1. deepLinking-25
19:48:43 [Ian]
19:48:51 [Ian]
TB: Substantive feedback; I haven't yet incorporated. Mostly editorial.
19:48:58 [Ian]
19:49:00 [Ian]
Finding versioning
19:49:08 [Ian]
19:49:08 [Ian]
1. SW 2002/09/09: Discuss with IJ versioning of findings. Pending. SW and IJ have discussed latest accepted v. latest draft.
19:49:11 [Ian]
SW: No progress.
19:49:56 [Ian]
TB: I think we need something in writing.
19:49:59 [Ian]
IJ: I agere.
19:50:02 [Ian]
19:50:05 [Ian]
19:50:07 [Ian]
Arch doc
19:51:00 [Ian]
IJ: I can turn to this now. I will summarize comments on arch document for TAG review.
19:51:07 [Ian]
19:53:06 [Ian]
19:53:06 [Ian]
19:53:06 [Ian]
6. Action NW 2002/09/25: Write some text for a section on namespaces (docs at namespace URIs, use of RDDL-like thing).
19:53:13 [Ian]
NW: Not done.
19:53:39 [Ian]
19:53:49 [Ian]
1. xlinkScope-23
19:53:54 [Ian]
19:53:56 [DanCon]
arch doc: not much progress, but we're now clearly tilted forward. 1/2 ;-)
19:54:06 [Ian]
Yes! Momentum building. :)
19:54:09 [Ian]
Action SW: Draw up a neutral proposal (due 21 Oct) summarizing threads and debating points on xlinkScope-23. Pending.
19:54:10 [Ian]
19:54:20 [DanCon]
er... "work in progress" = Done?
19:54:31 [DanCon]
yes, pls link it from the record.
19:54:33 [Ian]
TAG only:
19:56:04 [Ian]
TB, PC: Please wait until we comment on this before linking to it.
19:56:18 [Ian]
TB: I have a couple of comments on the summary.
19:56:30 [Ian]
a) I don't think it needs to cover historical ground. [SW: Already gone.]
19:58:59 [Ian]
DC: HTML WG has no obligation to participate on www-tag. We can certainly invite them to participate as a WG.
19:59:16 [Stuart]
19:59:33 [PaulC]
19:59:48 [Ian]
DC: Our original email went to the HTML WG; we are awaiting a reply from the HTML WG.
20:00:01 [Ian]
DC: SW can talk to the Chair and ask for a reply; or continued discussion on www-tag.
20:00:52 [Ian]
ack PaulC
20:01:19 [Ian]
PC: I think we need to ask whether we still hold the same opinion having seen the input.
20:02:05 [Ian]
PC: I expect this to be back on our agenda. I don't disagree with DC - getting more consolidated input on different perspectives would be useful.
20:02:09 [Stuart]
20:02:38 [Ian]
TB: I'm not sure what the appropriate path forward is, process-wise.
20:02:56 [Ian]
[TAG notes that relevant threads have slowed down here and on xml-dev.]
20:03:16 [DanCon]
thanks, Tim Bray, for reading all this email.
20:03:28 [Ian]
TB: I think most of the substantive talk on xml-dev was also sent to www-tag (prompted by TB).
20:04:19 [Ian]
PC: The summary should include some of what we discussed at the FTF meeting. Otherwise, the summary is disconnected.
20:04:36 [PaulC]
20:04:36 [Ian]
DC: E.g., my reasons for using XLink are not in SW's summary.
20:05:31 [Ian]
DC: PC's document ("why we decided what we did, who (dis)agrees and why") is interesting.
20:05:34 [Ian]
TB: I did this:
20:05:43 [Ian]
20:06:06 [Ian]
TB: I think that some of the rationale is in that email.
20:06:18 [Ian]
[DC notes that this is cited from SW's summary.]
20:07:43 [Ian]
PC: I think we can engage in more useful discussion and debate by demonstrating where agreement/differences are.
20:07:51 [DanCon]
my position at the ftf meeting was mostly: let's share technology where we can; one linking technology is likely better than 2, unless the 1 is 1000% worse than either of the 2.
20:08:20 [Ian]
DC: I agree that PC's document would be handy.
20:08:36 [Ian]
[Support for SW adding more on TAG rationale to summary.]
20:10:33 [Ian]
IJ: These are called "findings."
20:11:04 [Ian]
DC: An interesting place to start this summary is when this was raised in the TAG.
20:11:34 [Norm]
20:12:10 [Ian]
DC: It would have been an abuse of process to squash the HLink WD.
20:12:13 [Stuart]
ack PaulC
20:12:39 [Ian]
DC: I'd like this to go back to the genesis of the issue; reported journalistic style.
20:12:53 [Ian]
DC: This started because the Director observed a disconnect; this was not at the request of the WGs involved.
20:15:01 [Stuart]
20:15:15 [Stuart]
ack Norm
20:16:23 [Ian]
TB: SW tried to cite the arguments and to summarize them. That's tricky, but if done well, that's a service to the community. Perhaps we could revise the summary along these lines:
20:16:27 [Ian]
a) We were asked to consider this.
20:16:34 [Ian]
b) We said this [ref]
20:16:42 [Ian]
c) People disagreed [ref, reasons]
20:16:58 [Ian]
TB: Perhaps point/counter-point can be dropped, and follow along historical lines.
20:17:42 [Ian]
DC: I'm conflicted. This was a huge time-saver. I think the summary is interesting of the discussion (even if not connected to our decision).
20:17:52 [Ian]
DC: It would be a shame to lose what SW has done.
20:18:26 [Ian]
TB: The imposition of point/counter-point approach might grate some. But I would be satisfied with SW approach and more connection to our decision.
20:18:40 [Ian]
SW: I will gladly take input on mailing list for the next couple of days.
20:20:00 [Ian]
DC: If SW and any other TAG participant say ok to go public, ok by me.
20:20:01 [Ian]
TB: +1
20:20:03 [Ian]
NW: +1
20:21:02 [Ian]
Action SW: Edit the summary, take comments for a couple of days, make public shortly thereafter.
20:21:38 [Ian]
20:21:43 [Ian]
# namespaceDocument-8
20:21:47 [Ian]
20:21:58 [Ian]
TB: This turns out to be harder than we thought.
20:22:04 [Ian]
TB: We are working on this.
20:22:07 [Ian]
20:22:16 [Ian]
Status of URIEquivalence-15.
20:22:22 [Ian]
20:22:38 [Ian]
20:22:43 [Ian]
20:22:49 [Ian]
# rdfmsQnameUriMapping-6
20:22:57 [Ian]
20:22:57 [Ian]
1. Action DC 2002/09/24: Write to Schema WG to say that TAG is interested in progress on this issue. Copy Jonathan Borden and Brian McBride.
20:23:11 [Ian]
DC: Done. The Schema WG is making progress; they will get back to us when they're done.
20:23:13 [DanCon]
20:23:14 [DanCon]
* TAG interested in progress on URIs for schema components (NUNs) Dan Connolly (Thu, Oct 17 2002)
20:23:14 [DanCon]
o Re: TAG interested in progress on URIs for schema components (NUNs) C. M. Sperberg-McQueen (Fri, Oct 18 2002)
20:23:14 [DanCon]
+ Re: TAG interested in progress on URIs for schema components (NUNs) Dan Connolly (Fri, Oct 18 2002)
20:23:15 [DanCon]
20:23:19 [DanCon]
20:23:40 [Ian]
COMPLETED that action.
20:23:43 [Ian]
20:23:51 [Ian]
# uriMediaType-9
20:23:55 [Ian]
20:24:06 [Ian]
Action DC 2002/08/30: Write a draft Internet Draft based on this finding (Deadline 30 Sep). This action probably subsumes the action on TBL to get a reply from the IETF on the TAG finding.
20:24:42 [Ian]
DC: There is an Internet draft on this, but I need to revise some of my language. My guess is that it will take me another month or so.
20:24:47 [Ian]
DC: I do think that this is the right direction.
20:24:56 [Ian]
SW: We've had some saber-rattling about IETF liaisons.
20:25:03 [Ian]
DC: I have noted input from Larry Masinter.
20:25:12 [Ian]
20:25:23 [Ian]
Status of URIEquivalence-15.
20:25:28 [Ian]
20:25:39 [Ian]
TB: We need to put a stake in the ground; schedule a meeting for this.
20:26:14 [Ian]
DO: On uriMediaType-9: I've been having discussions with Donald Eastlake; he plans to revise his draft.
20:26:31 [Ian]
20:26:54 [Ian]
* Potential TAG issue in re consistency, Schema, etc. from Tim Bray
20:26:58 [Ian]
20:27:03 [Ian]
DC: Should we add to the issues list?
20:27:16 [Ian]
DC: TB's mail convinced me that we have an issue.
20:27:37 [Ian]
NW: I'm also willing to support this as an issue.
20:28:54 [Ian]
Action TB: Reformulate issue for next week's meeting; we will decide then whether to add to the issues list.
20:29:17 [Ian]
20:29:26 [Ian]
Another pending issue: IRIs everywhere?
20:29:30 [Ian]
DC: Is this part of issue 15?
20:29:32 [Ian]
TB: Yes, probably.
20:29:46 [Ian]
20:29:49 [Zakim]
- +1.604.785.aaaa
20:29:58 [Ian]
Action IJ: Put in the new issues zone for next week.
20:30:27 [Ian]
[Possible connection to issue15 as well.]
20:31:37 [Ian]
20:31:47 [Zakim]
20:31:48 [Ian]
RRSAgent, stop
20:00:37 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'is probably me', Stuart
20:00:39 [Zakim]
20:00:40 [DanCon]
Zakim, ??P3 is DanCon
20:00:41 [Zakim]
+DanCon; got it
20:00:45 [Norm]
zakim, aaaa is Norm
20:00:46 [Zakim]
+Norm; got it
20:00:51 [Stuart]
zakim, is me
20:00:52 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'is me', Stuart
20:01:03 [Stuart]
zakim, is me
20:01:04 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'is me', Stuart
20:01:07 [Norm]
zakim, ??p1 is Stuart
20:01:08 [Zakim]
+Stuart; got it
20:01:22 [Zakim]
20:01:30 [DanCon]
Zakim, who's talking?
20:01:41 [Zakim]
DanCon, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Stuart (30%), Norm (14%), DanCon (50%), ChrisL (59%)
20:01:47 [DanCon]
Zakim, who's talking?
20:01:58 [Zakim]
DanCon, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Stuart (15%), DanCon (80%), ChrisL (60%)
20:02:15 [Norm]
zakim, mute chrisl
20:02:16 [Zakim]
ChrisL should now be muted
20:02:24 [Norm]
zakim, unmute chrisl
20:02:26 [Zakim]
ChrisL should no longer be muted
20:02:40 [Norm]
Chris: you're going to dial back in again, isn't that what you said?
20:02:50 [DanCon]
Zakim, mute ChrisL
20:02:51 [Zakim]
ChrisL should now be muted
20:02:55 [Zakim]
20:03:09 [Chris]
yes, i said that
20:03:20 [Chris]
and that is what I am doing
20:03:32 [Zakim]
20:04:04 [Ian]
Regrets: PC.
20:04:14 [Zakim]
20:04:37 [Chris]
any better?
20:04:41 [Zakim]
20:04:48 [Chris]
Zakim, unmute ChrisL
20:04:49 [Zakim]
ChrisL was not muted, Chris
20:04:52 [Ian]
zakim, who's here?
20:04:53 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Stuart, Norm, DanCon, Ian, DOrchard, ChrisL, ??P8
20:04:54 [Zakim]
On IRC I see Ian, Chris, Zakim, Stuart, DanCon, Norm, RRSAgent
20:05:14 [DanCon]
regrets: TimBL
20:05:26 [Chris]
zakim, who's talking?
20:05:37 [Zakim]
Chris, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Stuart (40%), DOrchard (50%), ??P8 (35%)
20:05:50 [Chris]
ok, no 60% ChrisL this time
20:06:19 [Ian]
Roll: TB, DC, CL, SW, DO, IJ, NW
20:06:23 [Ian]
Regrets: PC, TBL
20:06:37 [Ian]
Accepted 21 Oct minutes
20:06:48 [Ian]
20:07:08 [Ian]
Accept this agenda?
20:07:30 [DanCon]
Ian, next time, if an action has a home elsewhere in the agenda, I recommend *not* listing it under the 1.2 competed action deely.
20:08:07 [Ian]
Dan, there's redundancy, as you'll see.
20:08:08 [Chris]
I have a conflict
20:08:18 [Ian]
Next meeting: 4 Nov. Regrets DO.
20:08:19 [Chris]
SVG f2f meeting in Ottawa
20:09:06 [Ian]
20:09:09 [Ian]
Meeting plans
20:09:16 [Ian]
* We are part of Tuesday slot at AC meeting.
20:09:48 [Ian]
* Draft summary of TAG work
20:10:02 [Ian]
20:10:19 [Ian]
20:11:10 [Ian]
SW: I glanced at it, will respond by email.
20:11:28 [Ian]
IJ: Deadline for this is 8 November.
20:11:36 [Ian]
TB: I think that silence = agreement in this case.
20:11:50 [DanCon]
i.e. delegate to Ian and PaulC
20:11:58 [Ian]
IJ: I'd like to finalize this on 4 November.
20:12:10 [Ian]
20:12:12 [Ian]
20:12:19 [Ian]
SW: We have another 2 weeks. I haven't started mine.
20:13:10 [DanCon]
ack DanCon
20:13:12 [Zakim]
DanCon, you wanted to note ftf conflict
20:13:26 [Ian]
Proposed: Invite Jonathan Borden to ftf meeting to talk about RDDL.
20:13:28 [Ian]
[Support for this]
20:13:51 [Ian]
DC: I'm not available first half of day at ftf meeting.
20:14:44 [Ian]
DC: I prefer if Jonathan can attend in the afternoon.
20:14:51 [Ian]
Action TB: Invite Jonathan.
20:15:34 [Ian]
DC: Will we have new publication before ftf?
20:15:41 [Stuart]
20:16:33 [Ian]
IJ: I have incorporated changes from the ftf meeting, but don't have new chunks of text from others.
20:17:03 [Chris]
Chris will complete his once the &^*@# test suite gets released (supposed to have been last thursday)
20:17:32 [Ian]
Action IJ: Publish a new public draft in TAG space that incorporates TAG resolutions (today).
20:18:25 [Ian]
IJ: I will label "Ian's attempt to incorporate TAG resolutions; not for TR page."
20:18:25 [Chris]
its a snapshot
20:18:28 [Chris]
not a WD
20:19:10 [Ian]
20:19:12 [Ian]
New issues
20:19:18 [Ian]
* Use of frags in SVG v. in XML
20:19:18 [Ian]
o Action DC 2002/09/26: Describe this issue in more detail for the TAG
20:19:22 [Ian]
DC: Please continue it.
20:19:23 [Chris]
Use of frags in SVG v. in XML
20:19:36 [Ian]
CL: Please describe briefly.
20:19:39 [Chris]
interested in a brief summary
20:19:53 [Ian]
DC: Do frags in SVG refer to circle elements or circles?
20:19:54 [Chris]
clearly they point to elements
20:20:02 [Ian]
DC: I thought I saw both in the SVG spec.
20:20:23 [Ian]
CL: The intent is to point to elements.
20:20:38 [Roy]
Roy has joined #tagmem
20:20:46 [Ian]
CL: In svg, the goal is to be able to refer to parts of a representaion; not abstract circles.
20:21:07 [Chris]
this is *not* a "pointing to a car" example
20:21:11 [Ian]
CL: I don't think that SVG should be cited as an example of using a URI to point to an abstraction (e.g., a car, a circle).
20:21:17 [Ian]
20:21:21 [Chris]
CL will report the vague language to the SVG WG for discussion
20:21:23 [Ian]
# Potential TAG issue re consistency XQuery/XSchema
20:21:26 [Chris]
20:21:30 [Ian]
Potential TAG issue re consistency XQuery/XSchema
20:21:31 [Ian]
20:21:37 [Zakim]
20:21:58 [Ian]
TB: PC is preparing a written response; I am inclined to postpone discussion until Paul has a chance to respond by email.
20:22:15 [DanCon]
Zakim, ??P6 is RoyF
20:22:16 [Zakim]
+RoyF; got it
20:22:17 [Chris]
Zakim, ??P6 is Roy
20:22:17 [Ian]
[No objection to postponing discussion on this new issue until next week.]
20:22:18 [Zakim]
sorry, Chris, I do not recognize a party named '??P6'
20:22:24 [Ian]
zakim, who's here?
20:22:25 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Stuart, Norm, DanCon, Ian, DOrchard, ChrisL, ??P8, RoyF
20:22:26 [Zakim]
On IRC I see Roy, Ian, Chris, Zakim, Stuart, DanCon, Norm, RRSAgent
20:22:38 [Ian]
20:22:38 [Ian]
# IRIs everywhere (including XML namespaces)
20:22:42 [Zakim]
20:22:48 [Ian]
IRIs everywhere (including XML namespaces)
20:22:48 [Ian]
20:23:29 [Ian]
NW: The Core WG has drafts that say URI; we are thinking of s/URI/IRI. There has been a request that the TAG issue a finding that we move towards IRIs.
20:23:44 [Ian]
20:23:54 [Ian]
CL, DC: I agree that this is an issue.
20:23:58 [Ian]
ack DanCon
20:23:59 [Zakim]
DanCon, you wanted to ask about WD update and to agree, this is an issue. I've lost plenty of sleep over it.
20:24:06 [Ian]
SW: Is this a separate issue from URIEquivalence-15?
20:24:10 [Ian]
CL: Yes.
20:24:15 [Ian]
DC: Seems the same to me.
20:24:36 [Chris]
Its a separate issue to URIEquivalence; it clearly affects the latter, but is not identical to it
20:24:38 [Chris]
20:24:41 [Ian]
DC: The test case that comes up is URI with andré in it (with e-accent-aigue)
20:25:21 [Ian]
DC: In one RDF doc you include real character, in another, escaped version. The RDF core WG says these are different. We want to make sure XML Namespaces WG is doing the same thing (they are).
20:25:59 [Ian]
CL: I agree with DC but it's not the whole story. It's related to URIEquivalence-15 but has other parts. I think we should track this as another issue.
20:26:21 [Ian]
[CL gives example of a schema, you can have a space between list of URIs, but IRIs allow spaces.]
20:26:46 [DanCon]
yes, that example belongs in the TAG test suite. We do have a test suite, don't we? 1/2 ;-)
20:27:01 [Ian]
20:27:12 [Ian]
- accept this as new issue IRIEverywhere-##.
20:27:13 [Chris]
if IRIs allow escaped spaces, is that the same as an escaped space between two parts of a space-separated list?
20:27:28 [Ian]
Action IJ: Tell Jonathan and ask him if there's urgency in resolving this.
20:28:00 [Ian]
Reassign the action to NW: Ask Core WG their opinion on haste required for this issue.
20:28:16 [Chris]
the 'copy and paste' ma have helped get consensus but is not a good long termstrategy
20:28:49 [Chris]
A TAG test suite might be a good idea, in fact
20:28:50 [Ian]
IJ: Should we say "URI means interntionalized URIs" in the arch doc?
20:28:52 [Ian]
[Lots of no's]
20:29:20 [Ian]
RF: IRIs are not URIs; they are an intermediate step towards URIs.
20:29:38 [Ian]
DC: Who wishes to own this issue?
20:29:45 [Ian]
NW: I can own this.
20:29:58 [DanCon]
go Norm!
20:30:16 [Ian]
SW: I think a summary of URI Equivalence would be helpful.
20:31:40 [Ian]
Action DC: Resend redraft of arch doc section 2.2.1 on URIEquivalence-15.
20:31:47 [Ian]
go DanC!
20:31:56 [DanCon]
I sent it during that magic dead spot between when the agenda goes out on thursday and when the meeting happens on monday.
20:31:57 [Ian]
20:32:05 [Ian]
# Findings versioning
20:32:05 [Ian]
1. SW 2002/09/09: Discuss with IJ versioning of findings. Pending. SW and IJ have discussed latest accepted v. latest draft.
20:32:36 [Ian]
IJ: I wrote a proposal. SW read it.
20:32:47 [Ian]
Action IJ: Send versioning proposal to the TAG.
20:32:51 [Ian]
20:32:55 [Ian]
Arch Doc
20:33:01 [Ian]
# Action RF 2002/09/25: Propose a rewrite of a principle (rationale -> principle -> constraint) to see whether the TAG prefers this approach. It was suggested that the example be about HTTP/REST, as part of section 4.
20:33:19 [Ian]
RF: I have sent URI spec to the IETF; now I can get to this.
20:33:58 [Ian]
# Action TBL 2002/09/25: Propose text on information hiding. (From 24-25 Sep TAG ftf: "The principle of information-hiding is contrary to global identifiers....Shall we put in the document something about information hiding/independent design of orthogonal specs? You should should not be able to write an xpath to peek into http headers....") [Done]
20:34:02 [Ian]
20:34:13 [Ian]
20:34:49 [Ian]
Action IJ: Include some form of TBL's text in next draft.
20:34:54 [Zakim]
20:35:12 [Ian]
# Action CL 2002/09/25: Redraft section 3, incorporating CL's existing text and TB's structural proposal (see minutes of 25 Sep ftf meeting on formats).
20:35:25 [DanCon]
which test suite? SVG?
20:35:36 [Ian]
CL: SVG Test suite not out yet. Hope that will be done soon. Main issue with section 3
20:35:57 [Ian]
[TAG encourages TAG to make up some answers.]
20:36:28 [Stuart]
20:36:32 [Ian]
20:36:37 [Stuart]
ack Ian
20:36:48 [Chris]
ack Chris
20:37:19 [Ian]
Action NW 2002/09/25: Write some text for a section on namespaces (docs at namespace URIs, use of RDDL-like thing).
20:37:26 [Ian]
NW: Please continue; will do for this week.
20:37:38 [Ian]
1. Finish discussion of feedback on arch document. Action IJ: Summarize remaining review comments (Done TAG-only)
20:37:47 [Ian]
20:38:20 [Ian]
From Graham Klyne
20:38:20 [Ian]
20:38:30 [Ian]
Why use the term "agent" instead of "program"?
20:39:07 [Chris]
20:39:45 [Ian]
CL: I think it's fine to stick with "agent" (e.g., User Agent Guidelines).
20:39:54 [Ian]
CL: This is not an "intelligent agent" (artificial intelligence)
20:40:02 [Chris]
but not an AI 'autonomous agent'
20:40:10 [Ian]
DC: I think of an agent as a program communicates. People talk about these things as agents.
20:40:19 [Ian]
TB: Also "user agent headers".
20:40:24 [Chris]
HTTP UserAgent headers
20:40:31 [Ian]
Resolved: No s/agent/program.
20:41:19 [Ian]
RF: The standard is "Internet Media Type", which was changed 7 years ago.
20:41:26 [Chris]
20:41:30 [Ian]
(not "content type")
20:41:34 [Chris]
summary: rtfm ;-)
20:41:46 [Ian]
IJ: Any interest in distinguishing types from packaging?
20:41:54 [Ian]
RF: HTTP does not encapsulate MIME objects.
20:42:00 [DanCon]
google says 2,290,000 hits on internet media type...
20:42:12 [DanCon]
1,100,000 on MIME type
20:42:40 [Ian]
IJ: Use 2045 as the primary reference for MIME?
20:42:45 [Ian]
RF: Whichever is the current one...
20:43:18 [Ian]
2045: Bodies
20:43:21 [Ian]
2046: Media types
20:44:04 [Ian]
IJ: I'll use the right spec/term.
20:44:39 [Ian]
Resolved: Mention "MIME" parenthetically (somewhere in the spec; not necessarily in the Intro).
20:45:03 [Ian]
CL: This is already done.
20:45:25 [Chris]
say "colloquially, MIME"
20:45:28 [Ian]
DC: Make sure that "MIME" refers to appropriate thing.
20:46:06 [Ian]
a) egarding "All important resources SHOULD be identified by an
20:46:07 [Ian]
absolute URI reference."
20:46:16 [Ian]
DC: This comment out of date since we are s/absolute URI ref/URI
20:47:03 [Ian]
[RF on URI spec: BNF still contains absolute URI reference; I expect pushback on this. It's a massive change.]
20:47:18 [Chris]
1.5.1 case insensitivity - yes, that should be a MUST NOT
20:47:36 [DanCon]
pushback is on on the BNF; it's on the change to "URI" that Roy plans to do in the next Internet Draft.
20:47:50 [Chris]
zakim, who is here?
20:47:51 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Stuart, Norm, DanCon, Ian, DOrchard, ChrisL, RoyF, TimBray
20:47:52 [Zakim]
On IRC I see Roy, Ian, Chris, Zakim, Stuart, DanCon, Norm, RRSAgent
20:47:56 [Roy]
expect pushback on later changes for absURIref --> URI
20:48:14 [Ian]
b) Graham thinks #3 and #7 are good practice, not principles.
20:48:33 [Ian]
IJ: I suggest that we hold on this until RF does redraft in terms of contraints.
20:49:00 [Ian]
TB: I think these are arguably principles. We don't have a procedures for deciding. Until we decide, I don't think we should move around.
20:49:12 [Ian]
[Agree to no change for now.]
20:49:19 [DanCon]
I think 3/7 are principles, but we haven't explained how/why
20:49:48 [Ian]
c) In #6, Graham suggests s/equivalent/about the same thing/
20:49:48 [Ian]
[See also editor's note at end of 2.2.5.]
20:49:54 [Ian]
IJ: The comment is that "equivalence" is too strong a term.
20:51:27 [Ian]
TB: I can see s/equivalent/consistent.
20:51:42 [Ian]
TB: I can also see providing some examples (e.g., myyahoo).
20:51:45 [Chris]
examples of wrong stuff, and 'surprising but right' would be good
20:51:53 [Ian]
SW: I think 2396 uses "consistent".
20:52:01 [DanCon]
there's a weather example in 2.6 that's relevant.
20:53:22 [Ian]
TB: I could also see leaving "equivalent".
20:53:32 [Ian]
TB: equivalent is not a binary condition.
20:53:36 [Chris]
20:53:53 [Ian]
RF: I don't like the term "equivalent" because people may think of byte or description equivalence.
20:54:21 [Ian]
RF: If you have a resource that is "my favorite new Web trick", it's hard to distinguish what's equivalent between multiple new Web tricks.
20:54:26 [Ian]
20:54:27 [Ian]
20:54:35 [Ian]
CL: Does this come into when to use redirection?
20:54:38 [Ian]
ack chris
20:56:09 [Chris]
'your weather"#temperature
20:56:17 [Chris]
I do that,and get temp in Antibes
20:56:28 [Chris]
someone else does it and gets temp in Ottawa
20:56:33 [Ian]
IJ: I understand 2.2.5 to be about multiple representations of the same resource.
20:57:04 [Ian]
TB: Consistency is the bottom line; but we want more than that.
20:57:06 [Chris]
if it did a 302, I could keep using the same uri but I could also refer someone in Ottawa to the temperature in Antibes
20:57:44 [Ian]
RF: My white paper uses term "equivalent", but it's less confusing in that context (since about variables, not formats).
20:58:07 [DanCon]
hmm... "sameness" is a nice informal word.
20:58:14 [Ian]
RF: I usually use term "sameness of resource" in this context.
20:59:14 [Ian]
TB: I'm beginning to think that this confusion of multiple representations is just another example of ambiguity problem.
20:59:50 [Ian]
IJ: I'm happy to include an example of PNG and GIF representations and that it would be ambiguous if they were clearly different.
20:59:56 [Ian]
RF: There's no ambiguity there.
21:00:30 [Ian]
RF: There's not ambiguity in terms of the system; just hard for authors.
21:00:47 [Ian]
TB: I propose that we lose this principle as an independent principle and move to the section on importance of unambiguity of resources.
21:00:50 [DanCon]
ooh; yes, stick it in that bucket.
21:01:02 [Ian]
Resolved: Try to work this into the arch doc this way.
21:01:29 [Chris]
1.5.1 case insensitivity - yes, that should be a MUST NOT
21:01:31 [Ian]
1.5 Summary of good practice notes
21:01:31 [Ian]
a) Graham suggests that #1 should be MUST NOT and a principle.
21:02:00 [Ian]
TB: Won't we have something out of this IRI issue?
21:02:11 [Chris]
yes - that, exactly
21:02:36 [Ian]
IJ: Is this harmful to the Web or only to oneself?
21:02:51 [Ian]
DC: Seems like good practice to me to not rely on "Hello" v. "hello".
21:02:59 [Ian]
TB: We are zeroing in on the IRI debate.
21:03:13 [Ian]
TB: Seems that if we are to have a blanket system, this is merely a special case.
21:03:26 [Ian]
RF: This is not a princple.
21:03:30 [Ian]
DC: This is not a principle.
21:03:34 [Chris]
I would like the IRI spec to actually state that the correct transform was to lower case hex and upper case hex was WRONG
21:03:42 [Ian]
TB: This is not a principle.
21:04:11 [Ian]
Action IJ: Include link to IRI issue from this point; leave as good practice note.
21:04:52 [Ian]
a) Question of use of "media type" v. "content type". Graham
21:04:52 [Ian]
21:04:52 [Ian]
The term "media type" is sometimes used to indicate only part of
21:04:52 [Ian]
the MIME content type; e.g. the "text" of "text/plain"; I
21:04:52 [Ian]
suggest "content type".
21:04:56 [Ian]
RF: "media type" is the whole thing.
21:05:03 [Ian]
[No change]
21:05:50 [Ian]
b) About: "Representations, when transferred by a Web protocol,
21:05:50 [Ian]
are often accompanied by metadata, usually based on [RFC2046]."
21:05:50 [Ian]
Graham writes: "RFC2046 defines some specific MIME content types:
21:05:50 [Ian]
do you mean metadata in this limited sense, or the more general
21:05:50 [Ian]
sense of (say) Content-language? I think RFC2045 may be a more
21:05:51 [Ian]
appropriate citation here."
21:06:05 [Ian]
RF: I don't see the need for "usually based on [RFC2046]".
21:06:17 [Ian]
RF: The metadata is distinct from the packaging format.
21:06:29 [Ian]
TB: But de facto, this is usually based on 2046.
21:06:40 [Ian]
RF: But HTTP is not based on 2046, except in loose sense of shared properties.
21:07:00 [Ian]
RF proposed: "Representations, when transferred by a Web protocol, are often accompanied by metadata."
21:07:14 [Ian]
TB: Should we say "We are talking about HTTP headers here."
21:07:22 [Ian]
RF proposed: "Representations, when transferred by a Web protocol, are often accompanied by metadata in the message."
21:07:52 [Ian]
Okayed: "Representations, when transferred by a Web protocol, are often accompanied by metadata in the message (for example, HTTP headers)."
21:08:36 [Ian]
21:08:40 [Ian]
Daniel Dardailler comments
21:08:46 [Ian]
21:09:32 [Ian]
Advice to editor: In intro, delete "small and nonexclusive" after protocols.
21:10:11 [Ian]
b) DD doesn't like identifiers/formats/protocols split.
21:10:11 [Ian]
Thinks formats subsumes protocols.
21:10:18 [Ian]
[No discussion]
21:11:22 [Ian]
IJ: Is there any discussion on this (e.g., design issues)?
21:11:35 [Ian]
DC: I think that this is an interesting point. I don't know that I could convince DD.
21:11:44 [Ian]
SW: Is this a religious issue?
21:11:48 [Ian]
DC: Or arbitrary...
21:12:00 [Ian]
TB: Observe the reality of the Web: there are format and protocol specs.
21:12:15 [Ian]
TB: It's a taxonomy that is coherent and matches reality.
21:12:29 [Ian]
DC: Also consistent with the way that groups organize and the way people do the work.
21:12:39 [Chris]
the model is not the territory - the best model depends on why you are asking the question
21:12:59 [Ian]
TB: Say we haven't seen any convincing arguments to the contrary.
21:13:01 [Chris]
but separating protocols fromformats seems very justified
21:13:08 [Ian]
[Agreement to keep 3-way split.]
21:14:03 [Ian]
Question: Does media type *entirely* govern the handling of fragment identifiers?
21:14:21 [Ian]
DC: Is media type exclusive of the charset?
21:14:32 [Ian]
CL: The media type tells you how to determine what the charset is.
21:14:55 [Ian]
DC: Media type metadata value might include charset (as in HTTP).
21:15:12 [Ian]
Action for editor: Delete "entirely".
21:15:19 [Ian]
IJ: Do we need to flesh out what we mean by media type?
21:15:21 [Ian]
TB: No.
21:15:43 [Ian]
About: "Representation retrieval is safe: Agents do not incur
21:15:43 [Ian]
obligations by retrieving a representation.
21:15:43 [Ian]
DD writes: "Could use more details on the meaning of safe and
21:15:43 [Ian]
obligation in this context."
21:15:58 [Ian]
DC: More details available in finding.
21:16:15 [Ian]
DC: We could move more of finding into the arch doc.
21:16:52 [Ian]
IJ: Should we change "Safe retrieval: Agents DO NOT incur obligations by
21:16:52 [Ian]
retrieving a representation" to "MUST NOT"?
21:17:02 [Ian]
RF: This is not a decision of the agent.
21:17:10 [Ian]
CL, DC, RF: No change.
21:17:58 [Ian]
About: 'Editor's note: Need to say something about difference
21:17:58 [Ian]
between assertions about a resource and assertions about a
21:17:58 [Ian]
representation. E.g., do not use the same URI to refer to the
21:17:58 [Ian]
resource "Moby Dick" and to the particular representation of that
21:17:58 [Ian]
resource, or do not use the same URI to refer to a person and to
21:17:59 [Ian]
that person's mailbox.'
21:18:17 [Ian]
DC: The minutes of the ftf meeting reflect this.
21:18:41 [Ian]
DC: I think you should write this up; it would take more than a sentence to write this up. Keep the editor's note for now.
21:19:06 [Ian]
DC: This is a piece of httpRange-14.
21:19:17 [Ian]
[Agreement not to create new issue; see httpRange-14]
21:20:03 [Ian]
21:20:03 [Ian]
Danny Ayers
21:20:03 [Ian]
21:20:03 [Ian]
"I suggest a change in the wording to "Unregistered URI schemes
21:20:03 [Ian]
SHOULD NOT be used on the public Internet"."
21:20:27 [Ian]
IJ: We say "Unregistered URI schemes MUST NOT be used on the public Internet."
21:20:40 [DanCon]
yeah, should not is probably good enough. whatever.
21:20:47 [Ian]
TB: You could make a case for the term "use". Are tests in your lab really production use?
21:20:54 [Ian]
CL: We could use the word "experiment."
21:21:08 [Ian]
Action editor: Clarify that this means "real world use."
21:21:32 [Ian]
Chris Lilley: Replacement text re: circle or spline
21:21:32 [Ian]
21:21:32 [Ian]
Support from Tim Bray, and Graham Klyne
21:21:32 [Ian]
Disagreement from DanC:
21:21:32 [Ian]
21:21:53 [Ian]
[No change for now; Connolly to raise an issue on this for SVG.]
21:22:05 [Ian]
That's all for today.
21:22:06 [DanCon]
thanks for assembling the list, Ian
21:22:18 [Zakim]
21:22:19 [Ian]
IJ: I expect to have this for the TAG tomorrow.
21:22:30 [Ian]
21:22:37 [Ian]
1. xlinkScope-23
21:22:37 [Ian]
1. Action SW 2002/10/21: Starting from email from SW to TAG, develop a summary of technical discussion and send to www-tag. Include more rationale for original TAG email to HTML WG.
21:22:37 [Ian]
2. Coordination with XML CG? See Notes from XML CG call 10 Oct 2002 (Member-only)
21:22:41 [Chris]
if its 'middle of tomorrow' i might getr a light editing of formats to you by then
21:23:01 [Ian]
SW: I would appreciate feedback on:
21:23:14 [Ian]
21:23:31 [Ian]
21:23:35 [Ian]
21:25:10 [Ian]
[Some discussion of proposal.]
21:25:24 [Ian]
SW: I put more history, rationale; would like feedback on that.
21:25:36 [Ian]
SW: I'd like to use this document to have discussion with HTML WG.
21:25:42 [Ian]
DC: The history section is responsive to my request.
21:26:12 [Norm]
21:26:25 [Ian]
21:26:30 [Ian]
ack Norm
21:27:15 [Ian]
SW: Who owns this one; seems like activity in different fora.
21:27:19 [Norm]
21:28:09 [Ian]
SW: I'd be happy to publish it; would like some feedback on my representation on TAG participant opinions is accurate.
21:28:21 [Ian]
SW: Please send email to me on that topic.
21:28:30 [Norm]
DanCon: Uh. No, I guess that URI didn't go to any public places
21:28:32 [Ian]
SW: I expect to circulate this on Weds.
21:29:42 [Ian]
21:29:42 [Zakim]
21:29:43 [Zakim]
21:29:44 [Zakim]
21:29:47 [Zakim]
21:29:48 [Zakim]
21:29:52 [Roy]
Roy has left #tagmem
21:29:57 [Zakim]
21:30:24 [Zakim]
21:30:25 [Zakim]
TAG_Weekly()2:30PM has ended
21:31:02 [Ian]
RRSAgent, stop