IRC log of tagmem on 2004-04-26

Timestamps are in UTC.

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:
18:52:27 [Norm]
Norm has joined #tagmem
18:52:59 [DanC_]
I 2nd the proposal to give the okie-dokie
18:53:35 [Zakim]
TAG_Weekly()2:30PM has now started
18:53:41 [DanC_]
and though I didn't attend, looks OK to me too
18:53:42 [Zakim]
18:54:35 [Stuart]
Ta... that will speed things up :-)
18:54:53 [Zakim]
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]
18:58:34 [Stuart]
Blew the dialin at the end after some ~40 digits.... starting again!
18:59:44 [Zakim]
19:02:02 [Zakim]
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
19:06:42 [DanC_]
RESOLVED to accept
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]
19:07:45 [Norm]
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]
19:10:17 [Zakim]
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 $, $, $ ; .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"
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]
19:44:08 [timbl]
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_]
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_]
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]
19:50:54 [Chris]
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
19:51:20 [Zakim]
19:51:21 [DanC_]
several: no, no problem
19:51:25 [Zakim]
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
19:54:03 [DanC_]
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_]
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]
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
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]
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]
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]
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]
20:11:24 [Norm]
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]
20:22:43 [Norm]
20:22:56 [Stuart]
20:23:00 [mario]
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]
20:28:19 [Roy]
20:28:19 [timbl]
20:28:24 [Stuart]
20:28:26 [DanC_]
20:28:44 [DanC_]
-- klyne11
20:29:36 [DanC_]
PROPOSED: to add "necessarily" per klyne11
20:29:46 [Norm]
20:29:50 [Stuart]
20:29:55 [mario]
20:30:16 [DanC_]
DanC: this looks editorial. NW: but the editor didn't mark it so.
20:30:22 [DanC_]
20:30:25 [DanC_]
20:30:44 [DanC_]
20:30:53 [Zakim]
20:30:55 [Zakim]
20:30:55 [Roy]
Roy has left #tagmem
20:30:58 [Zakim]
20:30:59 [Zakim]
20:31:01 [Zakim]
20:33:00 [Zakim]
20:34:46 [Zakim]
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]
22:05:08 [DanC_]
DanC_ has left #tagmem
22:51:46 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #tagmem