IRC log of tagmem on 2003-05-05

Timestamps are in UTC.

18:47:40 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #tagmem
18:47:56 [Ian]
invite Zakim
18:47:59 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #tagmem
18:48:03 [Ian]
Zakim, this will be TAG
18:48:03 [Zakim]
ok, Ian; I see TAG_Weekly()2:30PM scheduled to start 18 minutes ago
18:49:28 [DanC]
DanC has joined #tagmem
18:50:22 [Ian]
Ian has changed the topic to: Agenda
18:57:24 [DanC]
eek! issue 9 is in the "intends to discuss" part of the agenda
18:58:17 [Zakim]
TAG_Weekly()2:30PM has now started
18:58:23 [Zakim]
18:58:32 [Ian]
zakim, call Ian-BOS
18:58:32 [Zakim]
ok, Ian; the call is being made
18:58:34 [Zakim]
18:59:48 [Chris]
Chris has joined #tagmem
19:00:31 [Chris]
when were the (re) appointments to the tag made, can't see the announcement
19:00:47 [Norm]
Uhm, about the same time as the voting
19:01:02 [Zakim]
19:01:10 [Norm]
zakim, ??P1 is Roy
19:01:10 [Zakim]
+Roy; got it
19:01:11 [Ian]
zakim, ??P1 is Roy
19:01:11 [Zakim]
sorry, Ian, I do not recognize a party named '??P1'
19:01:20 [Norm]
zakim, who's on the phone?
19:01:20 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Norm, Ian, Roy
19:01:30 [Ian]
Chair: NW, Scribe: IJ
19:01:48 [Ian]
Regrets: TB, PC, SW.
19:02:43 [Zakim]
19:03:04 [Zakim]
19:03:13 [Zakim]
19:03:34 [Zakim]
19:07:01 [Ian]
zakim, who's here?
19:07:01 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Norm, Ian, Roy, DanC, Chris
19:07:02 [Zakim]
On IRC I see Chris, DanC, Zakim, RRSAgent, Norm, Ian
19:08:04 [Ian]
IJ: I think TBL not available.
19:08:26 [DanC]
regrets from timbl; he's in LA
19:08:35 [Ian]
Resolved: 28 Apr teleconf minutes accepted
19:08:45 [Ian]
19:09:15 [Ian]
This agenda:
19:09:19 [Zakim]
19:09:21 [Ian]
Next meeting 12 May (with Voice WG).
19:09:38 [Ian]
Regrets: NW likely to be late.
19:09:46 [Ian]
But NW does plan to attend.
19:09:50 [DanC]
I'm available 12May
19:09:54 [Ian]
DO: Possible regrets.
19:10:33 [Ian]
19:11:03 [Ian]
Action SW 2003/04/14: Propose meeting times, structure to TAG.
19:11:08 [Ian]
[Not completed]
19:11:50 [Ian]
1.2 W3C Track Presentation
19:11:59 [Ian]
Action PC 2003/04/14: Propose TAG's WWW2003 report to TAG.
19:12:06 [Ian]
[Not completed]
19:13:38 [Ian]
IJ: I think next week last real chance to look this over as a group before track.
19:14:12 [Ian]
NW: I think we should schedule Voice Browser WG meeting to start at 3:45, so we have time to discuss presentations.
19:14:39 [Ian]
Agenda next week: (1) Review presentations (WWW2003, AC mtg) 3pm to 3:45 (2) Voice stuff after that.
19:14:45 [Ian]
1.3 TAG report at AC meeting
19:14:54 [Ian]
Action DO, CL: Present TAG's AC meeting report to TAG. Due 5 May
19:15:05 [Ian]
CL: Progress. Let's look at this next week.
19:15:12 [Ian]
19:15:38 [Ian]
CL: One thing we agreed to add on report was TAG role at tech plenary. What was the take-home message.
19:15:48 [Ian]
CL: Do people here wish to note something in particular?
19:16:20 [DanC]
(I remember some debrief discussions; I'd have to review the minutes of our meetings just after the TP)
19:16:34 [Ian]
DO: General constructive interaction to be noted.
19:16:40 [Ian]
19:17:10 [Ian]
* whenToUseGet-7
19:17:10 [Ian]
o Solicit review of revised draft finding from IJ?
19:17:10 [Ian]
o IJ proposal: Take into account DC's comments and then solicit review.
19:18:40 [Ian]
IJ: I propose to accept DC's proposed simplifications (talk about "read"/"write") and put out for review.
19:19:22 [Ian]
Resolved: IJ can publish get7 finding with DC's suggestions.
19:19:30 [Ian]
Action IJ: Publish revised get7 finding with modifications.
19:19:33 [Ian]
19:19:53 [Ian]
19:19:53 [Ian]
* Solicit review of draft finding from IJ?
19:19:53 [Ian]
* Completed action SW, NW 2003/04/17: Read Client handling of MIME headers. If +2, then IJ will send to www-tag. (Done)
19:20:23 [Ian]
19:20:30 [Ian]
Action IJ: Send email to the Voice Browser WG.
19:21:08 [Ian]
IJ: I deleted the word "culprit" from second scenario.
19:21:13 [Ian]
19:21:21 [DanC]
19:21:28 [Ian]
# uriMediaType-9
19:21:28 [Ian]
* Action DC 2003/02/06: Start discussion on, but not urgent
19:21:28 [Ian]
* IANA appears to have responded to the spirit of this draft (see email from Chris Lilley).What's required to close this issue?
19:21:37 [Ian]
DC: I propose to withdraw that action.
19:22:02 [Ian]
DC: Chris pointed out in email that looks like battle over.
19:22:10 [Ian]
19:22:11 [Chris]
nearly over
19:22:23 [Chris]
I gave specific feedback on how to complete it
19:22:30 [Ian]
DC: But in minutes of 13 March IETF/W3C teleconf,
19:22:54 [Ian]
some relevant actions taken.
19:23:30 [Ian]
RF: I'm not sure that IETF finished the tasks that CL requested.
19:23:47 [Ian]
CL: It might be handy if the TAG confirmed my position.
19:24:11 [Ian]
CL: I suggest the following changes
19:24:11 [Ian]
a) The first column should be the subtype string, as now, and should
19:24:11 [Ian]
always link to
19:24:11 [Ian]
19:24:21 [Ian]
CL: b) The second column should contain, as now, the name of the format,
19:24:21 [Ian]
which is or should be provided for all types.
19:24:35 [Ian]
RF: I don't think they would disagree; question of resources perhaps.
19:24:47 [Ian]
CL: c) The third column, which does not seem super necessary and could
19:24:47 [Ian]
be omitted, would be a link to the person that registered that type
19:24:47 [Ian]
or wrote the rfc that registered it or wrote the email that
19:24:47 [Ian]
registered it or whatever. I don't see a lot of use for this,
19:24:47 [Ian]
19:25:02 [Ian]
CL: We could also point out that these changes would address a lot of what DanC talks about in his internet draft.
19:25:16 [Ian]
RF: You could suggest changes to the RFC : How they should maintain their site.
19:25:41 [Ian]
DC: Next sync point for W3C/IETF is 17 June.
19:25:55 [Ian]
DC: I propose we withdraw my action and check in 17 June.
19:27:01 [Ian]
Resolved: DC's action withdrawn on this issue.
19:27:53 [Ian]
Action CL: Propose CL's three changes to registration process to Ned Freed. [What forum?]
19:28:27 [Ian]
DC: You can find out who's editor of MIME spec that talks about registration. You could write editors and cc public-ietf-w3c.
19:28:42 [Chris]
19:28:47 [Ian]
DC: I'll likely ping Ned on this (e.g., one week before) 17 June IETF/W3C meeting.
19:30:32 [Ian]
IJ: Sounds like we're not quite ready to move issue 9 from pending.
19:30:34 [Ian]
DC: Indeed.
19:30:44 [Ian]
19:30:56 [Ian]
19:30:56 [Ian]
* See issue description from David Orchard
19:31:08 [Ian]
19:31:21 [Ian]
Second Draft of summary of TAG issue abstractComponentRefs-37
19:32:10 [Ian]
DO: One issue from SW has to do with getting type info out of the URI. Question of "no metadata in URI".
19:32:40 [Ian]
DO: Little traffic (publicly or privately) expressing preference for various mechanisms.
19:32:46 [Ian]
CL: I commented on syntax ; use of xpointer.
19:33:35 [Ian]
DO: I understand that there's some question about whether it's a desirable requirement that the type info be in the URI.
19:34:22 [Ian]
CL: Example in schema: "#" followed by "float".
19:34:46 [Ian]
RF: If you're dealing with polymorphic operators where function distinguished by type, then you would need something.
19:34:52 [Norm]
ack danc
19:34:52 [Zakim]
DanC, you wanted to respond to opacity and constraints
19:34:57 [Ian]
DC: Opacity has to do with freedom of choosing URIs.
19:35:10 [Chris]
19:35:23 [Ian]
DC: E.g., if you require first path component to be WSDL type, then you restrict what server manager can do.
19:35:31 [Ian]
DC: If you are making up URIs, then you can say "this part of it is the type"
19:36:31 [DanC]
haven't we agreed that things that have #'s in them are URIs too?
19:36:48 [Ian]
NW, CL: See also TB email on Apple Music Store and use of URI schemes instead of headers
19:37:10 [Ian]
DC: We don't have much good motivation for making new URI schemes. Apple folks did it and people seem to be happy.
19:37:37 [DanC]
for *not* making new URI scheems.
19:38:32 [Ian]
DC: Which of DO's options is likely to bite me if I ignore it? Has the WSDL WG picked one?
19:38:40 [Ian]
DO: They picked the one they suggested - namespace + fragid
19:38:52 [Ian]
(DO option 8)
19:38:57 [Chris]
8. Use namespace name and new fragment identifier syntax. This is the
19:38:57 [Chris]
current WSD proposal.
19:39:12 [Ian]
DC: I don't hate option 8 all that much.
19:39:43 [Ian]
The sample URI is
19:39:43 [Ian]
19:39:43 [Ian]
19:40:09 [Ian]
RF: Hash marks are usually left to people who have no choice, not for designers of the media type.
19:40:59 [Ian]
DC: I don't agree that this is a "violation of URI fragment identifier rules that fragment identifiers are
19:40:59 [Ian]
based upon the media type of the dereferenced content."
19:41:28 [Ian]
DO: If somebody puts a RDDL doc instead of a WSDL doc, the URI producer will have to use a different URI, depending on the media type.
19:41:37 [Ian]
DC: The answer then is don't put a RDDL document there.
19:42:11 [Ian]
DC: You can use this syntax and be consistent with the URI spec; but you can't have all your cakes and eat all of them (i.e., can't also be able to put a RDDL doc with this same syntax).
19:42:26 [Ian]
NW: If you are relying on use of a frag id, then you'd better expect to get back a RDDL doc.
19:42:47 [DanC]
all roads lead to issue 8. there is no other issue 1/2 ;-)
19:42:49 [Ian]
DO: The consequence is tight coupling between URI syntax and WSDL doc.
19:43:37 [Chris]
so, we need a sort of double dereference - from a namespace to a (part of) a rddl document to whatever that part points to///
19:43:43 [Ian]
DO: If you don't use fragids, you might have other probs but not this particular one.
19:44:54 [DanC]
hmm... http://airline.wsdl/ticketagent/TicketAgent/listFlights/listFlightsRequest
19:44:59 [Ian]
RF: Slash characters can't be used for something other than hierarchy.
19:46:12 [Ian]
[Discussion of option 10]
19:46:40 [DanC]
option 10 (http://airline.wsdl/ticketagent/TicketAgent/listFlights/listFlightsRequest) is inconsistent with timbl's position on issue 14, which I sympathize with
19:47:26 [Ian]
RF: Use of parens is problematic (e.g., if relative URIs used within 2 ref items).
19:47:39 [DaveO]
DaveO has joined #tagmem
19:48:09 [Ian]
DC: TBL's position on issue 14 is that if you want to refer to a non-doc thing, you need to have a "#" in the URI.
19:49:29 [DaveO]
Roy, I think you are saying you'd change "http://airline.wsdl/ticketagent/input(TicketAgent/listFlights/listFlightsRe
19:49:29 [DaveO]
19:50:00 [DaveO]
to "http://airline.wsdl/ticketagent/input/TicketAgent/listFlights/listFlightsRequest" or
19:50:06 [DaveO]
19:50:09 [Ian]
DC: It's antisocial to constrain Web site managers to use URIs in a particular way in order to use your format.
19:51:21 [Ian]
DC: Don't tell me, e.g., that I have to put all WSDL files at the server root.
19:52:14 [Ian]
NW: The proposal would said that the WSDL doc could go anywhere on the server, but the "/input...." is controlled by the WSDL spec; not really "on your web server"; these are parameters to the service.
19:52:25 [Ian]
[Some agreement from DO, DC, NW that that's reasonable]
19:53:16 [Ian]
19:53:28 [Chris]
19:53:36 [Zakim]
19:53:38 [Zakim]
19:53:48 [Ian]
NW: Is it reasonable to say that wsdl docs and expected interactions are something server manager would be controlling, not just any user.
19:53:56 [Ian]
zakim, who's here?
19:53:56 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Norm, Ian, DanC, Chris, David_Orchard, ??P3
19:53:57 [Zakim]
On IRC I see DaveO, Chris, DanC, Zakim, RRSAgent, Norm, Ian
19:54:18 [Ian]
zakim, ??P3 is Roy
19:54:18 [Zakim]
+Roy; got it
19:54:36 [Roy]
Roy has joined #tagmem
19:54:46 [Ian]
IJ: In option 11, what is problem of "no hierarchy of names"
19:55:57 [Ian]
IJ: Can't that be captured in another parameter?
19:56:01 [Norm]
You could have ...ticketagent?service=/TicketAgent/listFlights/listFlightsRequest
19:56:12 [Ian]
DO: One advantage of putting in a query string is that you can use relative URIs.
19:56:56 [Ian]
CL: If I have a namespace, doesn't necessarily mean that everything "below" a piece of path is co-opted by the namespace.
19:57:15 [Ian]
CL: However, with the proposed URIs of option 10, that part of the path is co-opted.
19:57:27 [Ian]
DC: The same is true with RDF when used with namespaces.
19:58:08 [Ian]
DC: Doesn't blow away space, but allows short local names.
19:58:54 [Ian]
DC: There's an issue on our list about making URI from local name and namespace name.
19:58:57 [Ian]
(Issue 6)
19:59:05 [DanC]
cf rdfmsQnameUriMapping-6 : Algorithm for creating a URI from a QName?
20:01:37 [Chris]
Next steps?
20:01:50 [Chris]
drum up more feedback?
20:02:02 [Chris]
get evidence people have read it
20:02:25 [Ian]
DO: Need more input. Maybe straw poll, with deadline.
20:03:11 [Ian]
DC: Some of these are just hard issues...
20:04:20 [Ian]
DC: Some people have read some of the issues, even though we don't have consensus yet.
20:04:44 [Ian]
NW summarizing perceived state of affairs:
20:04:50 [Ian]
1) WSDL group ready to adopt option 8.
20:05:11 [Ian]
2) The TAG needs to register a comment/objection if the TAG doesn't think 8 is a good idea.
20:06:49 [Ian]
NW: Please be prepared (i.e., read proposals) for discussion (and I hope closure) at 26 May teleconf.
20:07:51 [Ian]
RF: Once I understand what the goal is, I should have a clearer position.
20:08:51 [Roy]
I do believe that balanced parens should be avoided
20:08:54 [Ian]
20:09:03 [Ian]
# namespaceDocument-8
20:09:09 [Ian]
[TB/PC not here]
20:10:10 [Ian]
20:10:23 [DaveO]
Roy, I'll go through the doc and ensure that there are options that do and don't have balanced parens, and list what I understand to be the cons of balanced parens.
20:10:33 [Ian]
20:10:46 [Ian]
Other issues?
20:11:35 [Ian]
NW: Apple Music store case is about putting metadata in a URI so that info available without retrieval.
20:11:52 [Ian]
DC: I think this is distinct from metadatainURI-31, but am willing to live with it there as long as not dropped.
20:13:04 [Ian]
20:13:11 [Ian]
2.2 Architecture document
20:13:21 [Ian]
1. Completed action DC 2003/02/06: Attempt a redrafting of 1st para under 2.2.4 of 6 Feb 2003 draft. See request from DanC to consider this subsumed based on 26 Mar 2003 Arch Doc text.
20:13:59 [Ian]
# Action DC 2003/01/27: write two pages on correct and incorrect application of REST to an actual web page design
20:14:12 [Ian]
DC: I would rather drop this.
20:14:36 [Ian]
Resolved: Dropped.
20:14:56 [Ian]
Action DO 2003/01/27: Please send writings regarding Web services to DO grants DC license to cut and paste and put into DC writing.
20:15:10 [Ian]
DO: In progress. I hope that it will be published by late next week.
20:15:37 [Ian]
Action DC 2003/03/17: : Write some text for interactions chapter of arch doc related to message passing, a dual of shared state.
20:15:49 [Ian]
DC: Please continue.
20:16:45 [DanC]
IJ: 26Mar draft is now more than a month old...
20:16:54 [Chris]
ij has comments on arch doc from timbl, will incorporate comments
20:16:57 [DanC]
... I got comments from timb; I responded, though some of them merit discussiong
20:17:00 [Ian]
graham klyne
20:17:05 [Chris]
graham kline also sent comments
20:17:34 [Chris]
ij recalls chris has text, chris not sure what this refers to
20:17:45 [Chris]
no momentum for new draft without new text
20:17:56 [Chris]
could incorporate draft findings, seems early though
20:18:12 [Chris]
not quiter at three month mark, but not ready for last call in june
20:18:27 [Ian]
IJ: What do people expect to generate for new text?
20:18:42 [Ian]
CL: I agree with IJ that once findings are reviewed/accepted, that putting conclusions in arch doc a good way to go.
20:18:51 [Chris]
adding conclusions from draft findings 9aftyer some discussion) is good
20:18:54 [Ian]
20:18:56 [Chris]
ack chris
20:19:20 [Ian]
DC: Suppose we tried being schedule driven rather than feature-driven: last call in June with what we've got?
20:19:31 [Ian]
DC: Can we wall off the parts where issues are not resolved?
20:20:11 [Ian]
CL: Let's go through issues list and try to gauge whether we expect to advance on these issues by the summer.
20:20:33 [Ian]
[Moving on to 2.3]
20:20:41 [Chris]
ie, which issues will make a summer 1.0 arch doc
20:20:51 [Ian]
20:20:56 [Chris]
20:21:02 [Ian]
CL, NW: Probably not for arch doc 1.0.
20:21:12 [Ian]
NW: I think we can probably proceed without that done for 1.0.
20:21:16 [Ian]
DC: Where does that hurt?
20:21:22 [Ian]
CL: Not static, but lots of dependencies.
20:21:59 [Chris]
To what extent should URIs be used in W3C specifications
20:22:02 [Ian]
20:22:14 [Chris]
20:22:29 [Ian]
CL proposes a new issue: URIEverywhere-38: " To what extent should URIs be used in W3C specifications?"
20:22:48 [Ian]
CL: I think that once this issue is closed, there will be some effects on IRIEverywhere-27.
20:23:29 [Ian]
CL: Goal is to separate (1) issues related to IRI spec (2) issues strictly tied to URIs.
20:23:39 [Ian]
DC: That's issue 15 - URIEquivalence.
20:23:43 [Ian]
CL: Related but not the same.
20:24:01 [Chris]
busy writing this up
20:24:13 [Ian]
NW: I'm uncomfortable with moving the arch doc forward without some sort of answer re: IRIs. But perhaps we coudl.
20:24:14 [Chris]
agree we should have something in this one for version 1.0
20:24:47 [Ian]
# URIEquivalence-15
20:24:57 [Ian]
DC: I hope we get this one nailed one for arch 1.0.
20:25:20 [Ian]
DC: I think nearly done.
20:25:34 [Ian]
NW: I think we can be optimistic that we can close this one soon.
20:26:02 [Ian]
DC: I think we need a test suite for URIs (e.g., for comparison).
20:26:18 [Ian]
[DC said this as URI CG co-chair]
20:26:29 [Chris]
agree that there should be testsuite for uris
20:26:34 [Ian]
DC: I don't have a mandate per the Activity Proposal to do a test suite for URIs, but I"m considering proposing that again.
20:27:03 [Ian]
RF: I think there may not be many volunteers for a test suite, but I think nobody would stop DC.
20:27:11 [Chris]
from forthcoming writeup
20:27:12 [Chris]
A fairly small group of such identifiers can be included in
20:27:12 [Chris]
specifications and in the associated test suite, with a great benefitr
20:27:12 [Chris]
to clarity. For example, see the cases listed at:
20:27:12 [Chris]
20:28:32 [Chris]
xmlIDSemantics-32 is now public, will announce right after the call
20:29:56 [Ian]
NW: XML Core WG is actively discussing how to deal with xml:id.
20:30:01 [Chris]
xml core is discussing how to deal with xml:id
20:30:31 [Ian]
Action NW: Point Core WG to CL finding once made public.
20:30:37 [Chris]
its at
20:30:53 [Ian]
20:31:03 [Ian]
Returning to arch doc.
20:31:16 [Ian]
NW: I think we should plan a last call for June, with whatever we've got.
20:31:32 [Ian]
20:31:37 [Zakim]
20:31:38 [Zakim]
20:31:39 [Zakim]
20:31:39 [Ian]
RRSAgent, stop