W3C | TAG | Previous: 9 Feb teleconf | Next: 2 Mar
Minutes of 23 February 2004 TAG Teleconference
Nearby: IRC |
Teleconference details
· issues list (handling new
issues)· www-tag
archive
1. Administrative (20min)
- Roll call: DO, MJ, TBL, RF, CL, SW, IJ, TB (Scribe), NW, DC, PC
- Accepted minutes of the 9 Feb
teleconf
- Accepted this agenda?
- Proposed next meeting: 2 Mar 2004
- Resolved to
cancel 8 Mar 2004 teleconference (and reconvene 15 Mar)
- Finalize meeting dates in August in Ottawa?
Action PC 2004/02/09: Propose August ftf meeting dates. (done)
The TAG tentatively plans to meet in Ottawa 9-11 August.
1.1 Technical Plenary
- Liaisons
update
1.1.1 Plenary day planning
[TBray]
- SW: will open with 10 minutes, DC will do namespace docs...
- DC: some risk for DC
- SW: idea is presentation-light, discussion-heavy
- [DanC_desk]
- (TBray, maybe I'll call you to think a little bit about this
namespace documents discussion)
- [TBray]
- SW: DO to motivate extensibility/versioning
- DO: short pres showing where we're at; motivate discussion by asking
hard question; e.g. should Schema 1.1 fix this prob, should we
introduce "must-understand" somewhere
- [DanC_desk]
- sounds good, DO
- [TBray]
- DO: will write up in email form, send to group to see if
appropriately motivating
- SW: also, web identifiers
- TB: not enough time for three discussions
- SW: can RF motivate identifiers?
- RF: yes, but didn't understand hints. Given schedule... i.e. an
indication of what I should prepare
- DO: suggests complex identifiers for multi-processing-step docs
- TB: have 2 discussions not 3
- Drop namespace docs?
- TB: boring
- DC: audience still interested
- SW: Mechanics? queue handling? I will aim to moderate, pick questions
from floor & panel. done for now?
- Other notes:
- Intro to TAG and Web Arch (Stuart)
- Namespace documents (Dan C)
- Namespace documents (Dan C)
- Web Identifiers (Roy F? Qnames, Ids, FragID, URI andIRI)
Action SW 2004/02/09: Find a volunteer to discuss identifiers at
Tech Plenary
- Boilerplate:
- Outline issue
- Why TAG interested. What's difficult?
- Known positions around issue
- Encourage discussion/debate
1.1.2 TAG ftf meeting agenda
- TAG 2 Mar 2004 ftf
meeting page
- Review Plenary day materials
- Webarch Last Call
- Liasons with other WGs
- Phone connectivity planned for TBL and TB.
CL: Request triage of action items to close.
NW: Ian, I believe I've finished three of my four actions (all except
asking the schema) and I should have a fifth/second: responding to Hammond's
last call comment.
2. Technical
See also open
actions by owner and open
issues.
2.1 Update on findings
[TBray]
- SW: Pending input from TB & TBL
- CL: I looked at it again, didn't see problems
- TBL: don't want to hold it up
- TB: likewise
- ... discussion trying to re-establish context...
- [Ian]
- http://www.w3.org/2004/02/09-tag-summary.html
- [See comments at that meeting from TBL]
- [DanC_desk]
- "[timbl] On Qname finding: I think NW should make more of the
algorithm that one uses to determine the binding when looking at elems
and attributes."
- [timbl]
- "There is no single, accepted way to convert QNames into {URI,
local-name} pairs or vice versa." (para n-3 in 4.1)
- [TBray]
- CL: Revisiting this point...
- [Chris]
- xptr fails to inherit scope into the xpointer
- [TBray]
- NW: if you use a prefix in an xpointer and there is no xmlns thingie
in the xpointer, you can't use the in-scope prefixes fo the xml doc
- [Zakim]
- Chris, you wanted to offer to be atthe wsd-wg meeting if needed and
to raise a non-holdup technical point
- [TBray]
- TB: seems like NW has a factual statement of what things are like.
are we inclined to criticize it?
- DC: seems that what XPointer did is right
- TBL: XPointer is a mini-language can be used anywhere... nothing to
do with XML in principle
- [Chris]
- if they had done it differently, you would need to rewrite an
xpointer to move it to a different context
- [DanC_desk]
- quite, chris
- [TBray]
- TBL: problem would be if in another XML vocab e.g. WSDL they had
another way of mapping... e.g. by looking in a schema; there is an
extra cost .. if you take Norm's statement literally this suggests that
there shouldn't be a single way; lower cost if everyone uses the same
one
- NW: Don't think I said that. Should I modify to say that this is
commonly used, and should be used
- [Chris]
- I see we are now getting discussion on this doc, brought on by the
imminent decision to approve the finding
- [Norm]
- lol
- [DanC_desk]
- why is that remarkable, chris?
- [timbl]
- It is not as though we have a solution here.
- [TBray]
- TB: in the context of XML docs, it would be nuts to invent a new way
of doing it, so the finding should say that in particular it's OK for
XPointer because it exists outside the XML context...and the finding
could usefully call that out too. e.g. take XPointer as an example
- CL: This came up in the SVG development. We had an attribute that
pointed to another to animate it; could be in a different subtree/doc.
Question is: in which context do we do this, the pointer's context or
the target's context
- [Zakim]
- Chris, you wanted to relate another way to resolve them (that was
rejected, and rightly)
- [TBray]
- CL: and in this case, the right thing to do was in the context where
the prefix actually was
- [Zakim]
- mario, you wanted to say: isn't the ns non-inheritance thing of XPtr
conflicting with the inheritance mechanism present in XPath
- [TBray]
- MJ: when I embed in an XPath... the xpath inherits but an xpointer
doesn't
- NW: but then XPath expressions aren't URIs
- PC: and XPath doesn't define that, XSLT does
- [Chris]
- reminds myself to check what dom3 xpath does by way of a host
language
- [TBray]
- NW: XPath context has to be init'ed, XSLT & XQuery use mappings
in containing doc
- [Chris]
- it might be useful to capture some of these cases into the finding.
If its unclear to us, its unclear to others too.
- [TBray]
- TBL: might be useful to look at some of these cases and discuss the
cost. Might be able to rebind prefixes.....
- [Zakim]
- timbl, you wanted to quantify the cost: The ability (or not) to be
able to re-generate prefixes, to be able to determine two document
fragments to be the same, without application knowledge, but with
schema knowledge.
- [TBray]
- NW: no; can't rebind prefixes in the general case
- [DanC_desk]
- (I gave up hope on rebinding prefixes long ago)
- [TBray]
- TBL: can in some cases
- NW: that special cases isn't large enough to call out. Will amend the
wording from sim ple statement of fact to a recommendation to do the
right thing will have that done before Sat
- [timbl]
- (I rebind prefixes all the time in RDF of course)
- [Chris]
- +1 for Norm's suggestion
- [TBray]
- TB: wordy +1
- ACTION Norm to rewrite simple
statement
- [DanC_desk]
thanks, again, norm.
- [Roy]
- I have read "Authoritative Metadata" draft 18 Feb 2004 and all of my
concerns have been addressed. The document looks great. Thanks Ian!
- [TBray]
- see http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/mime-respect-20040218.html
- SW: Anyone else seen it?
- DC, TB: prepared to defer to Roy
- [Chris]
- looks good to me
- [Norm]
- yes
- [TBray]
- SW: Resolve to accept?
- RESOLVED to accept that finding
- IJ: now I publish it, right? I would like to make some mods to
webarch based on the good work done here
- [Chris]
- 4.2 Self-describing data and Risk of Inconsistency is very good, glad
to see that.
- [DanC_desk]
- hmm... arch doc changes? such as?
IJ: E.g., clarification that sender of metadata not always
server.
[TBray]
- DC: I sent email to address comments
- [DanC_desk]
- (my last message on this issue http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2004Jan/0026.html)
- [TBray]
- TB: also unconvinced by pleas for XLink version
- DC: asked for pointers to use cases for XLink version, thinks people
sent them
- [DanC_desk]
- yup, 0026 points to my XSLT/RDDL work
- [TBray]
- TB: missing PC's action item. No interest in a normative RDDL
note?
- PC: Wrong. AC asked us to turn it into a note and/or give it
normative status
- CL: and we decided that RDDL wasn't always appropriate
- DC: but that doesn't change the status of RDDL, which we officially
think is useful
- [DanC_desk]
- (not officially yet, actually)
- [TBray]
- PC: and the direction from the AC was that they wanted something to
point to
- [DanC_desk]
- (ah yes... bristol decision makes it official, I suppose)
- [Zakim]
- timbl, you wanted to mention push-back agiuanst TAG doing rec track
spec here.
- [TBray]
- TBL: within the team, there's been pushback against TAG doing
rec-track work. Members can't join in at will
- [Zakim]
- TBray, you wanted to volunteer what work I'm prepared to do
- [TBray]
- TB: is prepared to go on editing RDDL as long as it stays reasonably
simple
- PC: discomfort with team-only discussions; would like team concerns
reported so he can address them, e.g. by pointing to our charter where
it says we can do rec-track work
- SW: we'd only really discussed taking this forward as a NOTE
- [timbl]
- Ok
- [Chris]
- suggest TimBray takes it if he is motivated
- [TBray]
- TB: we need the finding, Paul's not getting it done, does somebody
else get it?
- [timbl]
- PC: To motivate the use of one or more formats.
- [TBray]
- DC: not interesting because webarch says enough
- [DanC_desk]
- (finding could talk about content negotiation, etc.)
- [TBray]
- PC: finding would provide more motivation and discuss
alternatives
- [DanC_desk]
- I don't think my GRDDL background document has much to offer on issue
8. it's more on issue 35
- [TBray]
- see http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#namespace-docs
- PC: but if webarch has enough, maybe we don't need finding?
- TBL: could build DC's GRDDL stuff into a finding?
- DC: yes it's a finding, but on issue 35 not 8
- [timbl]
- Ok, I accept that issues 35 and 8 have small overlap
- [TBray]
- PC: will write something for Friday so as to get on F2F agenda,
- [timbl]
- Maybe we should drop the finding, if the arch doc actually covers
it.
- [TBray]
- PC: it'll be an outline-form thing, if people like it we'lll add the
meat
- TBL: this really worgh doing, not unnec work for PC?
- PC, DC: seems worthwhile
- [timbl]
- I hope someone brings a video camera to the face-face, now TimBray
and I will neither be there.
- [TBray]
- DC: people using XLink version, are we worried about that?
- [Chris]
- who was using it? eric van der vlist, as i recall
- [TBray]
- Just Eric as far as I know
- [DanC_desk]
- [[[
- In the meantime, I think that http://examplotron.org,http://xsltunit.org and even http://rddl.org/ (version 1)
are goodexamples.
- ]]
- [TBray]
- Henry Thomson also using it....
- [Stuart]
- Henry's message http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2004Jan/0044.html
- [Ian]
- TBray: There are some benefits to the xlink version, but also more
complex.
- [TBray]
- TB: it's a cost/benefit trade-off
- TBL: if we make RDDL official, would JBorden make some commitments.
We want a persistence commitmment, along the lines of keep it
commitment or sign over to W3C, or to a trust or some such.
- TB: ACTION TBray to check with Jonathan
about persistence policy if RDDL hosted there.
- TB: anyone here want to go back to XLink?
- CL: it had more deployment than we thought, and we can make RDF
equally well from eiither
- DC: TBray, do plan to change RDDL.org to use the attribute
version?
- TB: yes
- TBL: will the namespace doc at RDDL.org enable fetching the RDF
- TB: yes
- DC: mime-type issue is nontrivial
- CL: if you serve as xhtml+xml, should be OK in modern browser
- [DanC_desk]
- (anybody got a handy test page for application/xhtml+xml ?)
- [TBray]
- PC: serve as what?
- CL: application/xhtml+xml
- [DanC_desk]
- http://www.w3.org/People/mimasa/test/xhtml/media-types/
- [TBray]
- DC, CL: it's OK to use foreign namespace attributes in an xhtml+xml
doc
- [Zakim]
- TBray, you wanted to get unlost
- [TBray]
- TB: I favor the shorter attribute-based syntax
- TBL: can mention previous syntax?
- [Ian]
- Summarizing actions:
- Action PC: Give points for potential
finding
- Action TB: Continue working on draft and
to get statement from Jonathan re: persistence at rddl.org
- Action TB: Add pointer to previous syntax
in the Note
- [DanC_desk]
- (we talked about the syntax of the http://rddl.org/ document changing too, but that can
be asynchronous)
- [TBray]
- PC: do we now go back and change the language in webarch about
alternate forms
- CL: yes, maybe
- DC: yes, but in some cases the Owl doc is optimal
- SW: likes the Bristol compromise
- [DanC_desk]
- yes, what's in the arch doc is right
- [TBray]
TBL: likes the status quo
2.3 Web Architecture Document Last Call
- Issues that are open and that we expect to close by the end of last
call:
- Review and acknowledge comments sent to public-webarch-comments@w3.org
- Action IJ 2004/02/09: Incorporate editorial suggestions (see minutes of
that meeting for details).
- Action NW 2004/02/09: Respond to Hammond's comments in light of TAG
discussion.
- Action PC 2004/02/09: Respond to Tom Worthington's comments in light of
TAG discussion. Done.
Reviewer
satisfied that TAG has done due diligence, but unhappy with
outcome
- Action PC 2004/02/09: Respond to Martin Dürst, acknowledging the
dependency (Done).
- Action TBL 2004/02/09: Respond to David Booth on TAG's choice of agent
- the status quo.
- Action SW 2004/02/09: Propose to the TAG a reponse to Patrick
Stickler's message. (Done)
2.3.1 Peter Patel-Schneider
- Comments
from Peter Patel-Schneider
- Many of the comments concern notions of authority and ownership; see
related comment from David Booth about ns
documents.
[TBray]
- SW: Re: Strickler's comments
- [Stuart]
- Section 4.5.4: "It is disappointing to see the TAG continuing to
promote the idea that any semantics associated with a URI used as a
namespace name has any relation whatsoever to the semantics of terms
grounded in that namespace."
- [TBray]
- DC: disagrees with the notion that nothing more need be said, because
saying nothing has had negative consequences
- TB: Patrick's position has for a long time been that namespaces are
pure syntax/punctuation
- PC: seems to disagree with our opinion that human-readable doc is
useful
- ... discussion too fast for scribe...
- is it the case that namespace is just another ersource
- DC: I don't think we disagree with him, he's just saying that we
don't want to discuss this at length. But we think discussing it at
length is useful
- [Ian]
- DC: Patrick's point has technical merit; but there is social benefit
to explanation.
- [Stuart]
- Defn of NS Document from Webarch: Namespace document
- The resource identified by a namespace URI.
- [Chris]
- sounds like agreement to me
- [DanC_desk]
- hmm... indeed, the glossary entry is goofy
- [Ian]
- DC: Fix - it's what you get back when you dereference.
- [TBray]
- TB: strongly disagree with PS's paragraph beginning "Furthermore,
because..."; I think that when you use a URI as a namespace name,
you've created a resource and you better make sure it has something to
do with the vocaublary
- ... discussion of the glossary entry....
- TB: if you disagree with glossary entry, provide alternate text
- [Chris]
the detailed reading is indeed gratifying
2.3.2 Sandro Hawke
- Comments
from Sandro Hawke
2.3.3 Dominique Hazael-Massieux
- Comments
from Dominique Hazael-Massieux
- Comments
about metadata
- Comments
about conformance
2.3.4 Danny Weitzner
- Comments
from Danny Weitzner
- Question
about ns docs providing definitive info
2.3.6 Sergio Rodrigues
- Question
about XDI and XRI w.r.t. Webarch
2.3.7 Jacek Kopecky
- AWWW
LC comments
2.3.8 Martin Dürst
- principles,
etc.
The TAG does not expect to discuss the topics below this line.
4. Follow-up on Internationalization Issues
5. Status report on these findings
See also TAG findings
6. Other action items
- Action RF 2003/10/08: Explain "identifies" in RFC 2396.
- Action DC 2003/11/15: Follow up on KeepPOSTRecords with Janet Daly on
how to raise awareness of this point (which is in CUAP).
- Action CL 2003/10/27: Draft XML mime type thingy with Murata-san
Ian Jacobs for Stuart Williams and TimBL
Last modified: $Date: 2004/02/26 15:41:07 $