W3C | TAG | Previous: 18 Aug
teleconf | Next: 15 Sep 2003 teleconf
Minutes of 8 September 2003 TAG teleconference
Nearby: IRC log | Teleconference details · issues list (handling new
issues)· www-tag
archive
1. Administrative (15min)
- Roll call: TB, PC, SW (Chair), DO, NW (Scribe), CL. Regrets: RF, DC,
IJ, TBL
- Accepted the minutes of the 18
Aug teleconf
- Accepted this agenda
- Next meeting 15 Sep teleconf. Regrets: CL
1.1 Scheduling
Completed action SW 2003/08/18: Review work plan from Vancouver F2F to
help with schedule (done)
See below for information about Arch Doc
scheduling.
- [Norm]
- SW: Hope for TR page publication of WebArch before Oct f2f Prospect
for interrum editors draft on 17 Sep per Ian
- PC: Looking at .../0037.html, thought we would swap 8 Sep and 22 Sep.
So use 22 Sep for editor's draft review?
- SW: Yes
- PC: So I need to have NSDocument8 done by next Monday (15 Sep)
Suggest extensibility today, NS for 15 Sep, editors draft review on 22
Sep
- TBray: Commits to 15 Sep
- SW: Sounds good to me
- PC: Extensibility may pop up again
- SW: Review comments by email before 22 Sep if IJ gets draft out in a
timely fashion. I don't want to start at the beginning of the document
Want commitment from TAG to submit comments in advance of the
meeting
- Accepted
- SW: On 29 Sep, we'll catch up on findings
- TAG congratulates Roy on his recent nuptuals
- SW: No idea how we're going to generate text for interaction
section
- RF: No comments at this time.
[Norm]
- SW: What should we do about I18N. They haven't told us anything
officially.
- TBray: They accepted many of our comments, but rejected our big one
to split document.
- PC: Why did they reject it?
- TBray: They thought it would take too much time. But perhaps they put
more thought into it than the record would suggest
- SW: I could enter the dialog or leave it in DC's hands
- PC: I'd prefer that SW enter the dialog. Them saying no doesn't help
us understand why.
- TBray: I agree, and I would add that we could note that the extreme
delay in getting around to something as simple as addressing the
commentary illustrates the problem
- PC: +1 References were on tag-only, not publicly. We should say "the
TAG has noted that..." and that will open the discussion
- SW: I'm inclined to keep it within the thread that started it
- Action SW: Follow up on the status of our
CharMod comments
- [TBray]
- I'd like the record to reflect that the TAG still feels that the Web
community is in urgent need of the results of their excellent work
- [Norm]
- TAG agreement
1.2 Bristol meeting planning (6 - 8 Oct)
See meeting page for
information about suggested hotels.
Completed action SW 2003/08/18: Suggest hotel (done)
- [Norm]
- SW: I hope folks feel they have what they need. The purpose and
motivation of the meeting is to do another cycle on the WebArch to get
to LC. I assume that's what folks still want us to do
- TBray: Agreed
- SW: What about a hired car from LHR?: NW, PC, TBray, DO are
interested
- NW: Why doesn't everyone post arrival times and we'll work it out in
email
- SW: Julie will collate and contact the car company
- PC: What about returns
- SW: IJ wants to leave midday on Wednesday.: It is possible to get
flights back late afternoon, if they wanted to
2. Technical (75min)
Status of work on namespaceDocument-8.
- Action TB 2003/04/07: Prepare RDDL Note. Include in status section that
there is TAG consensus that RDDL is a suitable format for representations
of an XML namespace. Clean up messy section 4 of RDDL draft and
investigate and publish a canonical mapping to RDF. From 21 July ftf
meeting, due 31 August.
- Action PC 2003/04/07: Prepare finding to answer this issue, pointing to
the RDDL Note. See comments
from Paul regarding TB theses. From 21 July ftf meeting, due 31 August.
- Refer to draft TAG opinion
from Tim Bray on the use of URNs for namespace names.
- [Norm]
- TBray: you've had the bad news
- SW: How much of this work affects the WebArch doc?
- PC: Don't know, but will try to include that in the finding
- TBray: Volume of material in the WebArch document is modest
- PC: Yes, but it would still be useful to provide the WebArch
changes
- Action PC: Provide finding and proposed
WebArch text
2.2 Versioning and extensibility
- Completed Action NW, DO 2003/08/21: Finding on extensibility, due 15 August 2003 (done)
[Norm]
- SW: Thanks for working on it.
- PC: I've read most of it
- DO: Should we provide an overview
- NW: I'm scribing, DO, please lead
- DO: The purpose is to try to provide some firm guidance to
specification writers on what kinds of things they should do (or the
options and tradeoffs). In two areas: schemas and software. Finding
tries to provide a methodology to design specifications and software
such that backwards and forwards comaptible changes can be made to the
specification. So that we can have newer versions of specifications
rolled out in a well-defined manner. Obviously the topic of versioning
is difficult, but there are a number of things that can be done wrt
schemas and wildcards that can enable it. Document tries to explain why
you want to do this, what can you do, what problems arise, and then we
dive into what we suggest for W3C XML Schemas in particular. In
particular we discuss some of the problems that arise as a result of
determinisim in W3C XML Schema. Introduce notion about how you should
design a schema, why its done that way, the notion of extension in the
same and different namespaces. Talks about kinds of languages:
extensions, containers, etc. Discusses rules for design in some of
these language cases. Guidelines: you must specify a processing model,
describes what some options are. And then a lengthy discussion of some
alternative techniques. In works that this was somewhat derived from,
there was a lengthier discussion of the schema issues and what schema
could have done to make this a little easier, but that language has
been toned down considerably
- TBray: 1. It's a stupendous piece of work. Everything in here will
find a use. No matter how many times I read it, I think the defs. of
backwards and forwards compatibility are backwards. Did you have any
angst about that?
- NW/DO: Yes. Lots.
- DO: Tries to explain.
- NW: There's some angst. Maybe more explanation is needed.
- TBray: I think just a concrete example like the one you just gave
will help
- DO: This comes right from FOLDOC
- TBray: Let's lift a concrete example, it would help a lot. The most
valuable lession I learned in years of pub. systems, is the extreme
lack of consensus in the mental model of versioning. Your model is
probably violently incompatible with the model of the guy sitting next
to you. Words of caution is all I'm suggesting. I think that the thing
would partition cleanly into a extensibility forwards/backwards
compatibility policy note and a technical note about XmL Schema. One of
the reasons we embedded it is because XML Schema is the basis of most
of the W3C work. What I was worried about was that if we did it very
generally and left the schema stuff somewhere else, the developer would
see abstract stuff when what they really want is the technical stuff.
Lots of folks aren't using W3C XML Schema. For example, the RSS folks
would benefit from the policy note and don't care about the schema
stuff
- DO: Feedback understood. Let's think about that a little bit.
- PC: You aren't telling us what material you want to change in the
WebArch document. There's a section on extensibility, does it remain
the same?
- DO: We're not sure yet how much could be inserted into the
architecture document. I'd like to see an encapsulation in the WebArch
document. We thought it was important to find out if the TAG agrees
first.
- PC: The theme appears to be largely focussed around distributed
applications and web services. I was hoping you'd talk a lot more about
extensibility for the existing we developer today. Maybe that's the
point that the TBray was making. For example, some folks don't know
when to change a namespace URI. I would have thought that something
along those lines was what we wanted in the first architectecture
document. At the very end of Section 7, there's a paragraph that says
"As you can see..." That's the heart of the matter.
- DO: So you'd like to see some more emphasis on that rule about
reusing namespaces in a more general kind of manner
- PC: The places we can't get agreement today are things like when do
you change the namespace when you're working on a spec? At every draft?
Does it stop changing at Last Call? I think we need to say something
"simpler" or "more grounded in existing practice" in V1 of the WebArch
document. I wonder if Dan was saying the same thing in his initial
response.
- DO: I've read through most of them quite throughly.
- PC: I guess my emphasis is that I would tend to agree with TBray. For
example, how should I manage versioning of the namespace for the
F&O document in XQuery. It's just a namespace with a bunch of
function names. The general principles up front might apply, but you
haven't really helped me. I don't think you have enough to say on that
and way to much on Schema. Splitting it into two parts and making sure
the first part emphasises stuff more related to current practices would
allow us to generate material for V1 of the arch. document
- SW: I share some of the concerns of PC and TBray. Possibily a need to
distinguish between vocabulary and language. There are words that
appear here that might have archtectural import.
- DO: That's why I wanted to have those words defined in the WebArch
document
- TBray: I notice for example that the Namespaces Rec introduces the
notion of vocabulary without defining it
- PC: F&O vocabulary is actually a list of functions
- SW: Vocabulary is a list of terms and language draws on that
vocabulary. One thing that jumped out as a principle: 5.2: The
collorary that permision is required for extension in the same
namespace...". That kind of statement felt like it was something of
architectural merit. Most of the rest seemed like it was good practice
(particularly in a schema context). What weight is intended for the
rules? Are they, for example, bound for a Recommendation. Editorial
obs. Section 4 reads like an introduction.
- NW: Yes, it could have been cleaned up. But I insisted on publishing.
DO wanted to polish
- TBray: I'm on your side norm
- SW: What about making it public
- DO: How about we take another wack at it (organizationally) and then
make that public
- PC: What about the alternatives at the end
- PC: Are you saying that none of the other alternatives in Section 10
fit the bill?
- DO: Yes. You can't use type derivation or subst. groups in a bw/fw
compatible manner with zero changes at the other side
- PC: That's a pretty bold statement, you know.
- DO: But it's true. If you've got an older version of the software,
the only way it can know it's a backwards compatible version is to look
at th enew type. That means the older software has the newer type.
- PC: That's all about whether you live in an open or closed world.
That's one of the four remaining issues that Query is battling with. In
an open world, you can treat subtypes as a recognizable supertype.
That's going to leave you open to some really strong criticism. In
particular, you haven't subjectively described why your solution is
better than the others. You've just pointed out why some of the others
don't work.
- TBray: One hole: it is popular in designing languages to have a
version attribute on the root element. We're having a big fight about
that in son-of-RSS land. This is related to what you can put in
version= on the XML Declaration. I tend to be in favor of a version
element on the root of most vocabularies unless there's a good reason
not to. I think we'd have to cover that.
- NW: There's a section in there about how using a version attribute
lets you down
- PC: No where in this document do you talk about negotiating the
vocabulary between the sender and receiver. Isn't that a pretty common
arch. design?
- NW: Version numbers is the last five paras of section 3
- TBray: I'll have to respond to that in detail
- DO: It's good to know there's going to be pushback
- PC: You thought this met an 80/20 cut. Version numbers often meet a
90/10 cut. So do namespaces. Where in the flavors discussion do you put
changing the namespace for each working draft
- NW: We need to describe the general cases in more detail
- PC: That would motivate the the rest of the discussion, perhaps
- [Stuart]
- Did you guy's review this message (and surrounding thread) http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Sep/0092.html
- [Norm]
- PC: If you step forward from the simple problem, you'll get to what
this document proposes
- DO: We internalized a fair amount of the motivation, and settled on a
particular case.
- NW: Point taken.
- [TBray]
- NW: Nobody is suggesting that the document is wrong in what it says.
Strong suggestion that it could be cleanly separated into general
policy as distinct from special techniqieus for XML Schema. Plus
insufficient motivation for versioning policies in distributed systems:
and on vocabs that are just names like XQuery F and OOPlus distinction
between dev time and deployment time, e.g. successive WDs change
namespaces, but stop at some point in the process
- SW: Which version do we take public?
- NW: I'm OK with this one.
- PC: if you split it, part 1 won't be controversial, part 2 will
- PC: SQL does subtyping by extension, big-bang approach, it seems to
work
- [Norm]
- SW: How about running it by HT?
- DO: I have no objection, but I'd like to do a new version first. PC,
I heard your point about motivation the first time
- SW: Can you propose a date for rewrites
- DO: 18 Sep.
- NW: 18 Sep, ok.
Action NW and DO: Produce a new draft by 18
Sep
2.3 Status of overdue action items
- Action RF 2003/06/02: Rewrite section 3. From 21 July ftf meeting, due
18 August
- contentPresentation-26:
Action CL (and IJ from ftf meeting) 2003/06/02: Make available a draft
finding on content/presentation. From 21 July ftf meeting, revision due 8
August.
Findings:
[Norm]
- SW: I'd like to get some indication of when something would be
ready
- RF: So would I, but I can't give you one
- SW: CL isn't here
- SW: whenToUseGet-7 is close to finished, but waits action on DO
- Action DO: Complete action by 12 Sep
NW: I am reminded everytime I scribe of how much effort IJ undertakes
on a weekly basis and wish to publically thank hhim yet again
- Below not discussed.
2.4 Architecture Document
Reference draft: 1 August 2003
Editor's Draft of the Arch Doc
What is TAG's expectation of editor at
this point? For example:
- IJ closes loop on introduction with TB, RF (DC?). There was discussion
at the 18
Aug teleconf about a rewrite of the abstract and
introduction
- Editor's draft 17 Sep
- Reviewed at 22 Sep TAG teleconf
- IJ incorporates comments, gets review from two TAG participants, and
requests 1 Oct TR publication
- New TR draft published 1 Oct
- TAG reviews 1 Oct draft for and at face-to-face meeting 6 Oct.
2.4.1 Review of actions related to Architecture Document
Open action items:
- Action RF 2003/06/02: Rewrite section 3. From 21 July ftf meeting, due
18 August.
- Action IJ 2003/06/16: Attempt to incorporate relevant bits of "Conversations and
State" into section to be produced by RF.
- Action TBL 2003/07/14: Suggest changes to section about extensibility
related to "when to tunnel".
- Action CL 2003/07/21: Create an illustration of two resources, one
designated by URI without fragment, and one designated by same URI with
fragment...
- Action TB 2003/08/18: Bring some Vancouver ftf meeting photos to IJ
attention (of whiteboard, re: CL action about illustration of two
resources)
- Action IJ, CL 2003/07/21: Discuss and propose improved wording of
language regarding SVG spec in bulleted list in 2.5.1.
- Action TBL 2003/07/21: Propose a replacement to "URI persistence
...person's mailbox" in 2.6 and continue to revise TBL draft of section
2.6 based on TAG's 23 July discussion.
- Action DC 2003/07/21: Propose language for section 2.8.5 showing
examples of freenet and other systems.
- Action TB 2003/08/04: Write a definition of "XML-based"
- Action IJ 2003/08/04: s/machine-readable/something like: optimized for
processors, w/ defn that includes notion that it can be processed
unattended (by a person).
- Completed action NW 2003/08/04: Redraft 4.10.2 to include some good
practice notes (e.g., use namespaces!) (done)
- Completed action NW 2003/08/04: Rewrite para 4 of 4.10.4 (done)
- Action TB and CL 2003/07/21: Propose a replacement sentence in section
3.2.2.1 regarding advantages of text formats. IRC log of 18
Aug teleconf suggested done, but can't find evidence.
The following action items were follow-up from the 22 July face-to-face
meeting in Vancouver:
- Identification and resources
- TBL 2003/08/21: Write replacement text for Moby Dick example in
section 2.6 (on URI ambiguity). Is this done in TBL's
draft?
- Representations
- TB, IJ 2003/08/21: Integrate findings. What does this mean?
2.5 Findings
See also TAG findings home page.
2.5.1 Draft findings nearing closure
2.5.2 Draft findings that require more discussion
2.5.3 Expected new findings
- Action IJ 2003/06/09: Turn TB apple
story into a finding.
- Action PC: Finding on namespace documents, due 31 August 2003
2.6 Issues
The TAG does not expect to discuss these issues at this meeting.
Existing Issues:
2.3.5 Miscellaneous issues
- uriMediaType-9
- IANA appears to have responded to the spirit of this draft (see email
from Chris Lilley).What's required to close this issue?
- Action CL 2003/05/05: Propose CL's three changes to registration
process to Ned Freed. [What forum?]
- HTTPSubstrate-16
- Action RF 2003/02/06: Write a response to IESG asking whether the
Web services example in the SOAP 1.2 primer is intended to be
excluded from RFC 3205
- See message
from Larry Masinter w.r.t. Web services.
- xlinkScope-23
- See draft,
and SW
message to CG chairs.
- Action CL 2003/06/30: Ping the chairs of those groups asking for an
update on xlinkScope-23.
- binaryXML-30
- Action TB 2003/02/17: Write to www-tag with his thoughts on adding
to survey.
- Action IJ 2003/07/21: Add link from issues list binaryXML-30 to
upcoming workshop
- Next steps to finding? See summary
from Chris.
- xmlFunctions-34
- Action TBL 2003/02/06: State the issue with a reference to XML Core
work. See email
from TimBL capturing some of the issues.
- rdfURIMeaning-39
- Completed Action DC 2003/08/18: Alert SWCG of this issues (done)
3. Other actions
- Action IJ 2003/02/06: Modify issues list to show that actions/pending
are orthogonal to decisions. PLH has put the issues list in production;
see the DOM
issues list.
Ian Jacobs for Stuart Williams and TimBL
Last modified: $Date: 2003/09/11 13:31:55 $