18:40:57 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #tagmem
18:46:12 <DanC_> Zakim, this will be TAG
18:46:12 <Zakim> ok, DanC_; I see TAG_Weekly()2:30PM scheduled to start 16 minutes ago
18:46:51 <Stuart> Stuart has changed the topic to: http://www.w3.org/2004/04/26-tag
18:52:27 <Norm> Norm has joined #tagmem
18:52:59 <DanC_> I 2nd the proposal to give http://www.w3.org/2004/03/29-tag-summary.html the okie-dokie
18:53:35 <Zakim> TAG_Weekly()2:30PM has now started
18:53:41 <DanC_> and though I didn't attend, http://www.w3.org/2004/04/19-tag-summary.html looks OK to me too
18:53:42 <Zakim> +Norm
18:54:35 <Stuart> Ta... that will speed things up :-)
18:54:53 <Zakim> +DanC
18:55:21 <Stuart> Are my clocks wrong or are you all dialing in 5 min early?
18:55:38 <Norm> I guess I'm a couple minutes early
18:55:43 <mario> Did we already start?
18:55:44 <DanC_> we're early
18:56:01 <Stuart> In the event of Ian not attending, he sent likely regrets, I'll need a volunteer to scribe.
18:57:56 <Zakim> +??P1
18:58:34 <Stuart> Blew the dialin at the end after some ~40 digits.... starting again!
18:59:44 <Zakim> +Stuart
19:02:02 <Zakim> +TimBL
19:02:31 <Stuart> zakim who is here?
19:02:38 <Stuart> zakim, who is here?
19:02:38 <Zakim> On the phone I see Norm, DanC, MarioJ, Stuart, TimBL
19:02:39 <Zakim> On IRC I see Norm, RRSAgent, Zakim, Stuart, DanC_, mario, timbl
19:03:18 <DanC_> re "on the Web", Norm, your change seems substantial. I don't think it's helpful. I think "on the web" usually means "has an available representation". so no, tel:foo is not "on the web"
19:04:45 <DanC_> Zakim, pick a scribe
19:04:45 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose Stuart
19:04:46 <Norm> I guess that makes a distinction between "has a URI" and "on the web" which might be meaningful
19:04:52 <DanC_> Zakim, pick a scribe
19:04:52 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose DanC
19:04:56 <DanC_> Zakim, pick a scribe
19:04:56 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose Stuart
19:04:57 <DanC_> Zakim, pick a scribe
19:04:57 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose DanC
19:05:16 <Stuart> zakim, I am chairing
19:05:16 <Zakim> sorry, Stuart, I do not see a party named 'chairing'
19:05:46 <DanC_> scribe: DanC
19:05:54 <DanC_> regrets: PaulC, IanJ
19:06:05 <DanC_> Zakim, who's on the phone?
19:06:05 <Zakim> On the phone I see Norm, DanC, MarioJ, Stuart, TimBL
19:06:33 <DanC_> RESOLVED to accept http://www.w3.org/2004/03/29-tag-summary.html
19:06:42 <DanC_> RESOLVED to accept http://www.w3.org/2004/04/19-tag-summary.html
19:06:54 <DanC_> Stuart reviews agenda:
19:07:08 <DanC_> let's postpone 1.3 Revised TAG Charter since PaulC is not here
19:07:33 <Chris> Chris has joined #tagmem
19:07:43 <Chris> zakim, dial chris-617
19:07:43 <Zakim> ok, Chris; the call is being made
19:07:44 <Zakim> +Chris
19:07:45 <Norm> q+
19:08:06 <DanC_> Stuart: reviewing agenda, conflicting input on whether to take 2.1 Top Level Domains used as filters up today
19:08:42 <DanC_> (let's keep it on the agenda and deal with it when we get there)
19:09:27 <Norm> q-
19:10:17 <Zakim> +Roy
19:11:23 <DanC_> Stuart: we'll keep it on the agenda; should we approach any decisions, we'll check with parties that couldn't be reached so far
19:12:29 <DanC_> next meeting: 3May?
19:12:35 <DanC_> NW on vacation 3May
19:12:40 <DanC_> SW not available 3May
19:13:06 <DanC_> TBL offers to chair 3May
19:13:41 <DanC_> RESOLVED: to meet next 3May. tbl to chair (with agend help from SW, IJ). regrets: NW, SW.
19:13:55 <DanC_> == 1.1 May TAG ftf meeting in Boston
19:14:05 <DanC_> NW: I'll get an agenda out this week before I go on vacation.
19:14:13 <DanC_> == 1.2 May AC meeting in New York
19:14:39 <DanC_> SW: except PaulC, the only TAG members planning to attend are W3C team.
19:14:56 <DanC_> SW: we need to work on our report. [sketch from agenda]
19:16:47 <DanC_> DC: you could delegate to me and CL, with input from PaulC etc.
19:16:53 <DanC_> TimBL: how about .mobile?
19:18:10 <DanC_> DC: "we've had lots of comments. upside: folks are clearly reading. downside: not easy to address quickly"
19:19:24 <DanC_> DC: I don't think we're gonna make all the commentors happy. I'm curious about input from the AC about how much consensus they want to see.
19:19:28 <DanC_> NW: yeah... that could be useful.
19:20:13 <DanC_> SW: like which? DanC: some commentors (Hayes etc.) won't likely be satisfied unless we resolve httpRange-14
19:20:26 <DanC_> CL: [oops; something about separation of presentation/content]
19:20:36 <DanC_> RF: URI spec stuff is news.
19:20:45 <DanC_> ... going to last call soon.
19:21:13 <DanC_> CL: workshop on [] seems relevant to some of our issues (13)
19:21:37 <DanC_> CL: the workshop has been brewing for a while
19:21:48 <DanC_> NW: perhaps we want a TAG position?
19:22:33 <DanC_> TBL: will the workshop presentations be good TAG reading?
19:22:49 <DanC_> CL: there will be the usual position papers
19:22:59 <Norm> Norm has joined #tagmem
19:23:31 <DanC_> ACTION DanC: prepare TAG presentation for AC
19:24:01 <DanC_> (1.3 Revised TAG Charter skipped)
19:24:33 <DanC_> (agenda+ workshop, under technical, before webarch stuff)
19:24:41 <DanC_> == 2.1 Top Level Domains used as filters (.xxx, .mobile, etc.)
19:25:10 <DanC_> re CL action "Send a draft to www-tag explaining why the .mobile proposal is misinformed. If the TAG supports the proposal, send to ICANN on the official mailing list."
19:25:46 <DanC_> CL: I've been travelling... made some progress... sent something to TimBL...
19:26:22 <DanC_> TimBL: independently, I've been working on something...
19:27:11 <DanC_> ... it turns out there are number of reasons why .mobile is harmful... mostly regarding the cost of new TLDs
19:28:16 <DanC_> TimBL: e.g. re all new TDLs: (1) there's an existing market in TLDs. You can, to a certain extent, protect your trademark by buying $tm.com, $tm.net, $tm.org ; .biz and .info bring that up to 5 ...
19:28:34 <DanC_> ... and now [the stock has split]
19:28:42 <DanC_> [no, that analogy doesn't work]
19:29:14 <DanC_> ... and with each new TLD, the market is disrupted. The speculators grab stuff first-come-first-served
19:29:18 <DanC_> [3? oops]
19:29:27 <DanC_> ... and then the market settles out.
19:30:13 <DanC_> TimBL: re .mobile in particular: after researching this, I don't see a clear description of the motivation for this domain...
19:30:45 <DanC_> ... sometimes it's put forward as a way to get the mobile phone devices on-board[?] quickly...
19:31:11 <DanC_> ... if it's for content-designed-for-mobile-devices, then it's a FLAGRANT violoation of a core principle about device independence. [?]
19:31:48 <DanC_> ... can't reuse a link to something when you use it from a different device.
19:32:16 <DanC_> ... e.g. you find a map in .mobile, email somebody a link to it, and the recipient, using a 19" display, sees a 2" map.
19:33:01 <DanC_> CL: the harm is in duplicating URIs needlessly
19:33:57 <DanC_> CL: the harm that's done is that it gives the impression that the .mobile stuff is separate from desktop stuff.
19:34:12 <DanC_> ... it warps the meaning of the rest of the web, as well as the .mobile part
19:34:56 <DanC_> CL: the best thing about .mobile is to serve as a counterpoint to W3C device indpendence work
19:35:01 <Stuart> ack Dan
19:35:01 <Zakim> DanC_, you wanted to suggest that CL and TimBL send their stuff.
19:37:23 <DanC_> [ discussion of tactics... ]
19:40:29 <DanC_> "New sTLD RFP Application .mobi" http://www.icann.org/tlds/stld-apps-19mar04/mobi.htm
19:41:05 <DanC_> SW: 8.5B in profit by 2008, says the application
19:41:25 <DanC_> section "Fiscal Information"
19:41:53 <DanC_> TimBL: any new ones should be non-profit. CL: yes, quite
19:42:55 <DanC_> s/8.5B/8.5 million Euro/
19:43:11 <DanC_> discussion concludes.
19:43:19 <DanC_> == 2.2 Marking Operations Safe in WSDL
19:43:26 <Stuart> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2004Apr/0012.html
19:44:08 <timbl> http://www.w3.org/TR/wsdl20/#InterfaceOperation
19:46:34 <DanC_> DC: yes, what they've done so far is fine, nifty. But I'd rather the TAG reserved judgement until we see that it's actually used and such.
19:47:06 <DanC_> CL: there's a question of what happens when you take something unsafe and mark it as safe and so on
19:47:42 <DanC_> SW: PROPOSED: thank them for what they've done so far, ask them to explain a bit about what can go wrong, encourage them to put it in the test suite
19:48:06 <DanC_> so RESOLVED. ACTION SW.
19:48:40 <DanC_> == 2.3 Revised Finding "Internet Media Type registration, consistency of use"
19:48:53 <DanC_> DC: I got the impression this was an announcement of something done, not a call for review. oops.
19:49:03 <DanC_> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/0419-mime.html
19:49:07 <DanC_> CL: main thing: it got shorter.
19:50:14 <DanC_> (CL, did you say that the stuff that was cut was redundant w.r.t. the webarch doc?)
19:50:52 <Chris> yes
19:50:54 <Chris> no
19:51:16 <DanC_> TBL: an aside, from an AB discussion, we could ask other folks to edit stuff. Any problem with inviting, e.g. Bray or Orchard to edit things?
19:51:17 <Chris> redundant with http://www.w3.org/2002/06/registering-mediatype.html
19:51:20 <Zakim> +Roy_Fielding
19:51:21 <DanC_> several: no, no problem
19:51:25 <Zakim> -Roy
19:51:30 <Chris> zakim, who is here?
19:51:30 <Zakim> On the phone I see Norm, DanC, MarioJ, Stuart, TimBL, Chris, Roy_Fielding
19:51:32 <Zakim> On IRC I see Norm, Chris, RRSAgent, Zakim, Stuart, DanC_, mario, timbl
19:52:47 <Roy> Roy has joined #tagmem
19:53:44 <DanC_> DanC: if Bray's name is to remain on, I'd like to be sure he's OK with the changes
19:53:57 <DanC_> PROPOSED: to adopt the finding http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/0419-mime.html 
19:54:03 <DanC_> so RESOLVED.
19:54:21 <DanC_> ... subject to consultation with Tim Bray to see if he wants his name to remain.
19:54:55 <DanC_> ===== workshop
19:54:57 <DanC_> http://www.w3.org/2004/04/webapps-cdf-ws/
19:56:08 <DanC_> CL: workshop home says it all, pretty much
19:56:20 <DanC_> ... we've discussed compound docs...
19:56:33 <DanC_> DC: workshop home doesn't say that the TAG has discussed compound docs
19:56:38 <DanC_> CL: ah... will fix.
19:57:28 <Roy> "How are they related to Web documents, which are normally static?" -- gurk!
19:57:41 <DanC_> CL: the "web applications" stuff is what particularly motivates multi-namespace docs across the wire, as opposed to converting to .html on the server side
19:58:01 <Stuart> q?
19:58:08 <DanC_> NW: I hope to attend the workshop.
19:58:43 <DanC_> == 2.4 Web Architecture Document Last Call
19:59:00 <DanC_> NW's notes on section 3 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2004Apr/0011.html
20:01:13 <DanC_> DC: [...]
20:01:38 <DanC_> CL: I agree that POST-only things are "on the Web"
20:01:40 <Roy> I would say all it has to be is referenced from the Web to be on the Web,
20:01:50 <Roy> which also implies having a URI.
20:02:47 <Stuart> I agree with Roy
20:04:03 <Roy> A resource is on the Web when it has been assigned a URI and is referenced by some other part of the Web;  hence, the Web is a graph of referenced resources.
20:05:10 <timbl> q+
20:05:32 <Stuart> ack Dan
20:05:32 <Zakim> DanC_, you wanted to disagree re "on the web"
20:05:40 <DanC_> CL: then car:car.something is on the web? that reduces the definition of "on the web" to nothing
20:05:40 <Roy> q+
20:05:46 <Stuart> ack timbl
20:07:15 <DanC_> TBL: I think the common parlance definition of "on the Web" means you can GET a representation of it.
20:07:37 <Stuart> ack Roy
20:08:05 <DanC_> RF: I thought we agreed to speak of the wider web, including semantic web, in this webarch document.
20:08:42 <Chris> TimBL++
20:09:07 <DanC_> TimBL: the common use is, e.g. "W3C specs and IETF specs are on the web and ISO specs are not"
20:09:49 <Stuart> q?
20:11:24 <Norm> q+
20:11:52 <DanC_> CL: ISO specs are "on the web" in the sense RF mentioned, since they have isbn: identifiers
20:12:21 <DanC_> RF: yes, one application may be able to get a representation of an isbn:... resource, even though the average client may not
20:12:41 <DanC_> MJ: yes, otherwise, we restrict ourselves to http...
20:13:05 <DanC_> TBL: I think it's counter-productive to go there...
20:13:10 <Roy> A resource is "on the Web" when it has been assigned a URI that makes the resource accessible to all clients that use the Web.  ???
20:13:44 <mario> Sounds like a circural definition ...
20:13:59 <DanC_> NW: hmm... maybe strike it after all?
20:14:11 <DanC_> (poll started... interrupted)
20:14:25 <timbl> A resource is "on the Web" when it has been assigned a URI that makes the resource generally accessable using standard protocols.
20:14:58 <Norm> So tel: and urn: aren't on the web?
20:15:26 <timbl> A resource is "on the Web" when it has been assigned a URI that allows one to generally obtain a representation of it using standard protocols.
20:17:23 <DanC_> RF: did you exclude POST-only things on purpose?
20:17:25 <DanC_> TimBL: yes.
20:20:23 <DanC_> ack norm
20:20:28 <Stuart> ack Norm
20:20:29 <DanC_> ack danc
20:20:29 <Zakim> DanC_, you wanted to note that we don't have a need for this definition, timbl. it can be deleted without breaking any links.
20:21:30 <Roy> /me will take the rocky road definition, two scoops please
20:22:13 <DanC_> PROPOSED: to strike the "on the web" note
20:22:38 <Roy> yes
20:22:43 <Norm> yes
20:22:56 <Stuart> yes
20:23:00 <mario> no
20:24:32 <timbl> I object
20:25:00 <timbl> Carried over my objection.
20:25:18 <DanC_> RESOLVED: to strike the "on the web" note, TimBL objecting.
20:25:35 <DanC_> ACTION NW: respond to the commentor, noting we agreed.
20:25:42 <Roy> I suggest that we remove it until someone writes an appendix that defines the several variations of "on the Web" depending upon what type of client is being used.
20:26:20 <mario> +1 to roy
20:26:55 <DanC_> NW: I think ref/identify is sufficiently clear as is. propose: no text changes.
20:26:57 <DanC_> DC: ok by me
20:27:32 <DanC_> RF: hmm... did this text come from the URI spec?
20:27:38 <DanC_> ... if so, does it need updating?
20:28:04 <DanC_> PROPOSED: to close  kopecky2 without changes to webarch
20:28:14 <Norm> yes
20:28:19 <Roy> yes
20:28:19 <timbl> Tim
20:28:24 <Stuart> yes
20:28:26 <DanC_> so RESOLVED. ACTION NW
20:28:44 <DanC_> -- klyne11
20:29:36 <DanC_> PROPOSED: to add "necessarily" per klyne11
20:29:46 <Norm> yes
20:29:50 <Stuart> yes
20:29:55 <mario> yes
20:30:16 <DanC_> DanC: this looks editorial. NW: but the editor didn't mark it so.
20:30:22 <DanC_> so RESOLVED
20:30:25 <DanC_> ACTION NW
20:30:44 <DanC_> ADJOURN.
20:30:53 <Zakim> -Norm
20:30:55 <Zakim> -MarioJ
20:30:55 <Roy> Roy has left #tagmem
20:30:58 <Zakim> -Stuart
20:30:59 <Zakim> -DanC
20:31:01 <Zakim> -Roy_Fielding
20:33:00 <Zakim> -TimBL
20:34:46 <Zakim> -Chris
20:34:47 <Zakim> TAG_Weekly()2:30PM has ended
20:34:48 <Zakim> Attendees were Norm, DanC, MarioJ, Stuart, TimBL, Chris, Roy, Roy_Fielding
20:35:15 <DanC_> hmm... anybody know how "out" Ian is? is he likely to have bandwidth to finish scribe duties?
20:35:36 <DanC_> RRSAgent, make logs world-access
21:17:29 <DanC_> RRSAgent, pointer?
21:17:29 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2004/04/26-tagmem-irc#T21-17-29
22:05:08 <DanC_> DanC_ has left #tagmem
22:51:46 <Zakim> Zakim has left #tagmem