IRC log of tagmem on 2002-11-04

Timestamps are in UTC.

19:43:21 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #tagmem
19:43:24 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #tagmem
19:43:44 [Stuart]
So what is the magic incantation to get these two along?
19:45:08 [Ian]
"/invite Zakim"
19:45:12 [Ian]
"/invite RRSAgent"
19:51:06 [Ian]
Ian has changed the topic to: W3C TAG 4 Nov
19:54:19 [Stuart]
I tried that without success... got "INVITE :Not enough parameters" in the notices window
19:54:44 [Stuart]
Maybe you need operator priv's too...?
19:57:29 [timmit]
You need to specify the channel name explicitly in mIRC
19:57:43 [DanConn]
DanConn has joined #tagmem
19:57:47 [Stuart]
19:58:14 [timmit]
"/invike Zaim #tagmem"
19:58:21 [timmit]
19:58:24 [RRSAgent]
19:58:25 [Stuart]
Dan, do you have a a long-distance carrier this week ;-)
19:58:30 [timmit]
Zakim, this is tag
19:58:31 [Zakim]
ok, timmit
19:58:36 [DanConn]
RRSAgent, stop
19:58:42 [DanConn]
RRSAgent, start
19:58:47 [DanConn]
RRSAgent, pointer?
19:58:47 [RRSAgent]
19:58:51 [Norm]
Norm has joined #tagmem
19:59:15 [Zakim]
19:59:19 [Zakim]
19:59:19 [Zakim]
19:59:20 [DanConn]
yes, phone problem got cleared up later that day, Stuart
19:59:53 [Stuart]
zakim, ??P2 is me
19:59:54 [Zakim]
+Stuart; got it
20:00:03 [timmit]
Zakim, who is here?
20:00:04 [Zakim]
On the phone I see TimBL, Stuart
20:00:05 [Zakim]
On IRC I see Norm, DanConn, Zakim, RRSAgent, Stuart, timmit, Ian
20:00:10 [DanC]
DanC has joined #tagmem
20:00:15 [timmit]
Zakim, where is everyone?
20:00:15 [Zakim]
sorry, timmit, I do not understand your question
20:00:17 [DanCon]
DanCon has joined #tagmem
20:01:36 [Zakim]
20:01:59 [Zakim]
20:02:11 [Ian]
Regrets: DO, CL
20:03:29 [Zakim]
20:03:31 [Ian]
zakim, who's here?
20:03:32 [Zakim]
On the phone I see TimBL, Stuart, Ian, Norm, DanC (muted)
20:03:33 [Zakim]
On IRC I see DanCon, DanC, Norm, DanConn, Zakim, RRSAgent, Stuart, timmit, Ian
20:03:52 [Zakim]
20:04:06 [Ian]
zakim, ??P5 is Paul
20:04:07 [Zakim]
+Paul; got it
20:05:32 [Zakim]
20:05:40 [Ian]
zakim, ??P6 is TBray
20:05:41 [Zakim]
+TBray; got it
20:06:30 [Ian]
Unknown: RF
20:06:35 [Ian]
Regrets: DO, CL
20:06:48 [Ian]
Present: TBL, SW (Chair), DC, PC, TB, NW, IJ
20:07:00 [Ian]
28 Oct minutes accepted:
20:07:01 [Ian]
20:07:18 [DanC]
DanC has left #tagmem
20:07:28 [Ian]
20:08:37 [DanCon]
re today's agenda, my action denoted "* Action DC 2002/09/26" was actually from 26Aug, not 26Sep. threw me off for a bit.
20:08:47 [Ian]
20:08:52 [Ian]
20:08:54 [Ian]
Meeting prep
20:09:00 [Ian]
Confirm TAG summary:
20:09:01 [Ian]
20:09:05 [TBray]
TBray has joined #tagmem
20:09:13 [Ian]
PC: Ok by me.
20:09:17 [Ian]
20:09:52 [Ian]
TB: I approve as well.
20:09:55 [DanCon]
looks ok to me. $Date: 2002/11/01 13:55:55 $
20:10:01 [Ian]
SW: Ok by me.
20:10:06 [Ian]
Summary accepted.
20:10:17 [DanCon]
20:10:18 [Ian]
20:10:27 [Ian]
SW: Slides due next week!
20:10:33 [Ian]
20:10:45 [Ian]
TAG ftf meeting agenda?
20:10:56 [Ian]
SW: Four segments: namespace documents.
20:11:27 [Ian]
TB: Bad news is that Jonathan won't attend meeting; Good news is that JB and I have reached agreement and I will be posting something about RDDL in the next few days.
20:12:01 [Ian]
SW: Second segment - review material for AC meeting.
20:12:09 [Ian]
SW: 3? 4?
20:12:24 [DanCon]
umm... yeah... chapter 3 on doc formats.
20:12:27 [Ian]
SW: Please email me input to the ftf agenda by the end of this week.
20:13:07 [Ian]
DC: Arch doc doesn't say much about a self-describing Web (following your nose from one doc to another to build context).
20:13:30 [Ian]
DC: TBL, do you believe this is web arch doc? Can we discuss this at the ftf meeting? TBL can you write something in advance of the ftf meeting?
20:13:45 [Ian]
SW: See RF's posting from today, which I think touches on this topic somewhat.
20:14:02 [Ian]
DC: I hadn't read it from that angle.
20:14:22 [Ian]
RF posting:
20:14:30 [Ian]
DC to TBL: Have you written on this?
20:14:56 [timmit]
20:15:10 [DanCon]
i.e. on learning what document X means by following links from X->Y, where you know what Y is.
20:15:19 [Ian]
Action TBL: Find or write something about the self-describing Web.
20:15:36 [Ian]
TBL: I think that's captured by "grounded documents" in "Meaning".
20:15:36 [timmit]
"Grounded documents" in the above
20:15:59 [Ian]
Action TBL deleted.
20:16:12 [Ian]
Action DC: Review TBL's text to see if there's any part of self-describing Web for the arch doc.
20:16:21 [Ian]
20:16:27 [Ian]
* Potential TAG issue re consistency XQuery/XSchema from Tim Bray
20:16:31 [Ian]
20:16:34 [Ian]
See reply from PC:
20:16:59 [Ian]
(tag only)
20:17:00 [Ian]
20:17:43 [Ian]
[TB summarizes his issue.]
20:18:20 [Ian]
TB: I have some technical issues with directions proposed by Query WG. Sharpest aspect is that parts of Query require XML Schema semantics.
20:18:43 [Ian]
TB: I sent info to XML Query WG; received a short reply; since then I've received longer replies from individuals of the group.
20:18:54 [Ian]
TB: My latest message is an attempt to break down the problem:
20:19:32 [timmit]
20:20:22 [Ian]
20:20:32 [Ian]
ack DanCon
20:20:33 [Zakim]
DanCon, you wanted to ask timbl about formats
20:20:47 [Ian]
TB: This may be a process issue rather than an arch issue.
20:21:54 [Ian]
TB: We are moving beyond DTDs (after decades) into new territories of schemas. It seems to me at this point highly architecturally unsound for any really important Recommendation to bet the farm on a particular schema language.
20:22:43 [Ian]
TB: XQuery is bigger than it needs to be. The WG has done the sensible thing of defining Basic Query (leaving out most of schema bits). There needs to be architectural pressure on groups to do less; ship sooner; ship simpler.
20:23:24 [Ian]
ack Ian
20:24:02 [Ian]
PC: Sorry for not replying in a more timely fashion to TB's points.
20:24:30 [TBray]
20:24:48 [Ian]
PC: On the topic of required integration: WG chartered (twice) to use XML Schema.
20:25:06 [Ian]
PC: There haven't been comments prior saying that this is a bad thing.
20:25:24 [Ian]
PC: If this dependency is to be changed, then Query WG needs to be rechartered.
20:25:31 [timmit]
Firstly, I am surprised that TimBray is not encouraging interdependence between w3c specs - see HTML and Xlink discussion - PC
20:26:06 [timmit]
PC: This makes this a process issue
20:26:25 [Ian]
PC: IMO, the primary concern in public fora is not dependency on xschema. But rather whether update language is critical (public split 50/50)
20:26:59 [Ian]
PC On living in a multiple-schema world:
20:27:53 [Ian]
Just because someone waves a standards banner does not mean that
20:27:53 [Ian]
the XML Query WG has to change its plans and delay its work to pay
20:27:53 [Ian]
attention to such a banner waver.
20:28:04 [timmit]
q+ to say that this is primarily an architectural issue in the sense of high-level modular design. It is a question of whether a flexible interface to the schema language should be provided. Of course the process and social issues are intertwined.
20:28:28 [Ian]
PC: Perhaps the XML world needs an abstraction that would include the various schema languages. I think there's a work item in the schema charter that covers this item.
20:28:54 [Ian]
From charter: "interoperability with other schema languages such as RELAX-NG and
20:28:54 [Ian]
20:29:00 [Ian]
20:29:52 [Norm]
20:30:22 [Ian]
PC: On item three on simplicity: We have worked hard to meet our requirements. To come along and say that the requirements are too big surprises me. I don't think that WGs at W3C should be constrained to pursuing only small specs.
20:31:31 [Ian]
PC: Basic Query handles Schema Part 2. If we publish Basic Query as our only deliverable, we would not meet our requirements. I don't think that at this point in time we should split our deliverables given the progress we've made on the document.
20:31:35 [Stuart]
20:32:43 [Ian]
PC: I think it's ok that the query spec is big. Some of the size has to do with clearer expectations about interoperability.
20:33:12 [Ian]
PC: TB has identified a long-term goal -- clearer relationships among schema specs -- but I don't think that this should affect Query 1.0.
20:33:53 [Ian]
PC: There are a number of XQuery 1.0 implementations, even prior to last call (both Member and non-Member implementers).
20:34:26 [Ian]
PC: So TB's arguments sway me less since we have so much implementation experience that suggests we are doing the right thing.
20:34:54 [Ian]
DC: Is PC arguing that this or is not a TAG issue?
20:35:28 [Ian]
PC: Could be that the TAG issue is on multiple schema languages. Perhaps we could synthesize an abstract model for PSVI processors.
20:36:00 [Ian]
DC: Is there an issue in the first place?
20:36:12 [Ian]
DC: I'm convinced there's an issue given the substantive email exchanged.
20:36:24 [Ian]
ack TBray
20:36:56 [Ian]
TB: Tie-in to XLink is a big bogus; the arguments in that case were purely technical, not about it being a W3C spec.
20:37:41 [Ian]
TB: In the community of Web designers, there is a wave of horror at the astounding complexity of schema and xpath 2.0. A strong feeling that something has gone amiss somewhere.
20:37:44 [Ian]
DC: I have heard similar.
20:38:01 [Ian]
TB: I am not simply running off at the mouth here, but I think accurately representing a feeling that's out there.
20:38:04 [Ian]
ack DanCon
20:38:05 [Zakim]
DanCon, you wanted to share concerns from the public about XML schema "leaking" into other specs; mostly XPath and to say that nearing last call is *exactly* the time to revisit
20:38:07 [Zakim]
... and confirm or reconsider requirements
20:38:09 [Ian]
ack timmit
20:38:10 [Zakim]
Timmit, you wanted to say that this is primarily an architectural issue in the sense of high-level modular design. It is a question of whether a flexible interface to the schema
20:38:12 [Zakim]
... language should be provided. Of course the process and social issues are intertwined.
20:38:34 [Ian]
TBL: The question is architectural (whatever the charter said).
20:39:25 [Ian]
TBL: Modularity is a good thing; can the specs be more modular?
20:39:54 [Ian]
TBL: PC and TB do talk to different people (and it's good to hear from all of those people).
20:40:07 [Ian]
TBL: It would be obviously costly to do anything to XQuery.
20:40:11 [TBray]
20:40:30 [TBray]
20:40:35 [Ian]
TBL: I read Xquery and it seemed pretty straightforward to me.
20:40:55 [Stuart]
20:40:58 [Ian]
TBL: PC's social point holds (cost of change).
20:41:19 [Norm]
Norm has joined #tagmem
20:41:23 [Ian]
TB: Query allows querying by types. Allowing query by those 19 data types seems reasonable.
20:41:45 [Ian]
[TBL summarizes that TB's concern is about the dependency on part 1 of XML Schema.]
20:41:49 [Ian]
ack Stuart
20:42:33 [Ian]
SW: Is the focus on a dependency on a single schema language or more specifically on XML Schema?
20:42:55 [Stuart]
20:43:08 [timmit]
20:43:16 [Ian]
TB: I think that PC is correct -- there's a key technical question about whether XML Schema is a cornerstone of future XML specs.
20:43:32 [DanCon]
well, tim, techincally, XML Schema part 2 depends on XML Schema part 1.
20:43:37 [DanCon]
20:43:55 [Zakim]
20:43:58 [Ian]
PC: I think the issue is more about multiple schema languages.
20:44:25 [Stuart]
20:44:27 [Norm]
20:45:02 [Norm]
20:45:25 [Ian]
zakim, ??P8 is Roy
20:45:26 [Zakim]
+Roy; got it
20:45:31 [timmit]
q+ to say that this sort of choice has to be made in each case on its merits.
20:45:33 [Ian]
ack timmit
20:45:34 [Zakim]
Timmit, you wanted to say that this sort of choice has to be made in each case on its merits.
20:46:04 [TBray]
20:46:16 [Roy]
Roy has joined #tagmem
20:46:18 [Ian]
TBL: I am concerned by extreme stances such as "one should one always use w3c specs"; each case is different.
20:46:45 [Ian]
TBL: Several good principles here - reuse stuff; modularity. Need to consider each case.
20:47:15 [Norm]
20:47:20 [Ian]
TBL: Just talking about the schema, case I think that it's not interesting to reset the Query WG. What is possible is for someone to find a clever way of achieving what is required.
20:47:31 [Ian]
TBL: I haven't understood whether "Basic" is what TB needs.
20:47:51 [Ian]
TBL: Is Basic what TB prefers, or is Basic not adequate (and needs tweaking).
20:48:21 [Ian]
SW: Please frame comments in terms so we can define this issue.
20:48:39 [Ian]
TB: I think that it's a good thing to have lots of schema languages out there since this area is new.
20:48:56 [Ian]
TB: We don't have enough experience to know what schema meets which needs.
20:49:04 [Ian]
(what schema language)
20:49:21 [Ian]
TB: I highly approve of XQuery Basic and would strongly recommend that the WG release that on a separate Rec track.
20:49:45 [Ian]
TB: It might even shorten time to Recommendation (for that part of the spec).
20:50:13 [Ian]
TB: I have argued (with specifics) about how query/schema can be decoupled. I haven't heard substantive replies to my specific syntax.
20:50:39 [Ian]
TB: issue proposal: "Schema languages: What can be said about multiple existing schema languages and their appropriate uses in W3C and the Web more generally?"
20:50:47 [Stuart]
20:50:53 [Ian]
TBL: More specific than "What can be said about...?"
20:51:00 [Stuart]
ack TBray
20:51:37 [Ian]
TB: "Given the existence of more than one XML schema languages; what architectural implications does the use of a particular language have? To what extent is it useful to bind to all schema languages or a particular one?"
20:52:08 [Ian]
DC: I'd be happy to consider "To what extent should schema be integrated into xpath and xquery?"
20:52:15 [Ian]
DC: That's the concern I hear at confs.
20:52:18 [Ian]
20:52:21 [DanCon]
xpath, that is
20:52:27 [Ian]
ack Norm
20:52:32 [Stuart]
ack Norm
20:52:43 [Ian]
NW: I have a lot of the same concerns as TB. Though I'm not sure what the issue is, exactly.
20:52:54 [Ian]
NW: I think the pragmatic issue will be setting the conformance levels right.
20:53:43 [Ian]
NW: Substitution groups and inheritence look like they'd be hairy to decouple.
20:53:52 [DanCon]
sigh. conformance levels are evil. This was a priniciple of XML 1.0 (which XML 1.0 didn't quite meet, actually) and it continues to be important.
20:54:39 [Ian]
PC: What about extending DC's proposal to xforms and wsdl?
20:54:51 [Ian]
DC: Not concerned about those as much as xpath, and xquery.
20:54:56 [Ian]
NW: I'd support DC's proposal
20:55:06 [Ian]
PC: I vote against the issue as proposed.
20:56:34 [Norm]
20:56:39 [Ian]
PC: XQuery 1.0 handles DTD and XML Schema. It's not been on the WG's work plan to handle other schema languages.
20:57:00 [Ian]
PC: And it seems that the XQuery WG charter has as a work item addressing additional schema languages.
20:57:14 [Ian]
PC: I don't understand why the TAG has to take this up since the WGs have items on their work plans.
20:57:38 [Ian]
NW: I don't think that there's evidence that xquery and xpath will support xml schema and dtds equally well.
20:58:56 [Ian]
RF: There seems to be an awful lot of support for Relax
20:59:23 [Ian]
Proposed: Adopt as a new issue "To what extent should xml schema be integrated into xpath and xquery?"
20:59:56 [Ian]
PC: I oppose this as an issue; I don't see what the architectural issue is from this wording.
21:00:26 [Ian]
For: DC, TB, NW.
21:00:35 [Ian]
Abstain: TBL, RF, SW
21:00:57 [Ian]
21:01:00 [Ian]
ack Norm
21:01:32 [Ian]
PC: If there an arch issue, I think it's about how schema languages interrelate. I'd like to take offline with TB and refine this.
21:03:07 [Norm]
Yes, please
21:03:33 [Ian]
[No action item assigned.]
21:03:38 [Ian]
21:03:54 [Ian]
* Use of frags in SVG v. in XML
21:03:54 [Ian]
o Action DC 2002/09/26: Describe this issue in more detail for the TAG. Done
21:03:59 [Ian]
21:04:23 [DanCon]
21:05:38 [Norm]
21:05:48 [Ian]
DC proposed issue: "Use of fragment identifiers in XML". I think that CL might disagree with me, but I take that as evidence that there is an issue.
21:07:11 [Ian]
TB: Is there not already an architectural slam dunk: RFC2396 says that what comes after # is up to the spec.
21:07:24 [Ian]
DC: There are cases where two specs define what happens.
21:07:44 [Ian]
DC: It seems to me that it means something, but it doesn't have to be exhaustive or exclusive.
21:07:57 [timmit]
21:08:31 [Ian]
TB: I could almost see a principle that says "When there is a language that might be served wtih one of multiple media types, inconsistencies in meaning for frag ids is harmful."
21:08:47 [Ian]
SW: RFC2396 also discourages inconsistency.
21:08:49 [Ian]
ack Norm
21:08:50 [Norm]
21:08:52 [Ian]
ack Timmit
21:10:26 [Ian]
TBL: We can ack the inconsistency in the architecture (e.g., when coneg is used). You can serve an HTML page as text/plan. You could serve up, similarly, a bag of bits using the appropriate mime type to give the meaning of a dog or car.
21:10:48 [Ian]
TBL: I have resisted bringing in mime types. I've become more comfortable with the idea of using mime types to give a particular view on data.
21:11:27 [Ian]
TBL: I think there is an issue here that we should write up. Fortunately, I think we can write it up and resolve it.
21:11:32 [Ian]
21:11:43 [Ian]
[Straw poll]
21:11:58 [Ian]
PC: I'm uncomfortable about doing this without Chris Lilley present.
21:12:36 [Ian]
DC: That doesn't convince me that we shouldn't call the question, see if there's support today, and moving on.
21:12:49 [Ian]
SW: Active support for the proposed issue?
21:12:56 [Ian]
For: NW, TBL, DC, SW, RF
21:13:01 [Ian]
Abstain: PC, TB
21:13:27 [Norm]
People would like to be able to inject processing instructions (not PIs, but semantics) into fragment identifiers. That's where I'm feeling the pain today.
21:13:35 [Ian]
Accepted: fragmentInXML-28.
21:13:41 [Ian]
Action IJ: Add to issues lsit.
21:14:02 [Ian]
21:14:04 [Ian]
Findings versioning
21:14:10 [Ian]
21:14:14 [Ian]
21:14:52 [Ian]
DC: Formalizing this is burdensome.
21:15:13 [Ian]
[DC: I feel differently for tech reports.]
21:15:29 [Ian]
SW: I didn't want people to refer to things that would change.
21:15:35 [Ian]
DC: Such is life.
21:15:40 [Ian]
DC: Do other people really want to do this?
21:15:52 [Ian]
SW: For me, this is what I'd like for findings.
21:15:53 [Ian]
PC: Works for me.
21:16:03 [Norm]
NW: It works for me, too.
21:16:26 [Ian]
IJ: Number of findings per year (6 in 2002) seems manageable.
21:16:30 [Ian]
SW: Ok, we
21:16:33 [Ian]
will run with this.
21:16:35 [Ian]
21:16:36 [Ian]
Arch Doc
21:16:59 [Ian]
Action IJ: Make this policy known to www-tag and link from findings page.
21:17:07 [Ian]
21:17:08 [Ian]
Arch Doc
21:17:17 [Ian]
29 Oct draft:
21:17:33 [Ian]
Is RF's action done?
21:17:38 [Ian]
1. 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.
21:17:49 [Ian]
21:18:04 [DanCon]
roy writes "I give up" as if to say "please withdraw this action" but I found his messag quite responsive to the action.
21:18:06 [Ian]
RF: Regarding earlier question: are xquery and xml schema orthogonal?
21:18:30 [Ian]
21:18:40 [Ian]
TB, DC: I found the approach appealing.
21:18:46 [Ian]
IJ, SW: Same here.
21:18:54 [Ian]
ack DanCon
21:20:18 [Ian]
IJ: "Change is inevitable, and therefore evolution should be planned."
21:20:31 [Ian]
IJ: Seems like "evolution shoudl be planned" is for agents, not the system.
21:21:03 [Ian]
IJ: Does "requirements" mean requirement on the designers or the system?
21:21:14 [Stuart]
ack Ian
21:21:23 [Ian]
RF: "The system needs to be be able to evolve since change is inevitable."
21:21:42 [Ian]
TB: "Evolution should be planned *for*; when change happens things should not fall apart."
21:21:55 [Ian]
RF: Regrets for 11 Nov.
21:22:12 [DanCon]
I'm avilable 11Nov
21:22:15 [Ian]
Next meeting: 11 Nov.
21:22:20 [Ian]
RF: Possible regrets for 18 Nov.
21:23:02 [Ian]
TBL action regarding info hiding done.
21:23:13 [Ian]
CL Action about chapter three not done.
21:23:13 [Ian]
NW: # Write some text for a section on namespaces (docs at namespace URIs, use of RDDL-like thing).
21:23:14 [Ian]
Not done.
21:23:23 [Ian]
# Action DC 2002/10/31: Resend redraft of arch doc section 2.2.1 on URIEquivalence-15. DC and IJ discussed on 30 October. Should IJ incorporate those comments in next draft?
21:23:35 [Ian]
DC: Yes, IJ please incorporate
21:25:52 [Ian]
IJ: What are our expectations for doc before AC meeting?
21:26:09 [Ian]
PC: I am more comfortable approving 29 Oct draft and approving a bigger change at the ftf meeting.
21:26:54 [Ian]
DC: I'd like IJ to get as much done as possible by 13 Nov, with approval with one other TAG participant's review.
21:28:18 [Ian]
Resolved: We might not get a doc out by 13 Nov, but ok for IJ + two other participants (for this draft) sufficient to get to TR page.
21:29:05 [Ian]
IJ: I will try to get a draft with some of RF's proposals by Thursday.
21:29:10 [DanCon]
if it's out by Thu, I intend to read it by Monday
21:29:14 [Ian]
TB, SW: Commit to read and give feedback.
21:29:21 [Ian]
21:29:28 [Ian]
SW: Next week agenda priority IRIEverywhere-27.
21:30:26 [Ian]
Action IJ: Invite Martin Duerst to the call next week.
21:30:42 [Ian]
21:30:45 [Zakim]
21:30:47 [Zakim]
21:30:48 [Zakim]
21:30:48 [Zakim]
21:30:49 [Ian]
RRSAgent, stop