IRC log of tagmem on 2004-09-20

Timestamps are in UTC.

19:04:12 [RRSAgent]

RRSAgent has joined #tagmem

19:04:50 [Zakim]

Zakim has joined #tagmem

19:05:02 [timbl]

Zakim, who is on the call?

19:05:02 [Zakim]

sorry, timbl, I don't know what conference this is

19:05:03 [Zakim]

On IRC I see RRSAgent, Stuart, Noah, timbl

19:05:10 [timbl]

Zakim, this will be TAG

19:05:10 [Zakim]

ok, timbl, I see TAG_Weekly()2:30PM already started

19:05:16 [Stuart]

zakim, who is here?

19:05:16 [Zakim]

On the phone I see PaulC, Stuart, TimBL, Roy

19:05:17 [Zakim]

On IRC I see RRSAgent, Stuart, Noah, timbl

19:05:38 [Chris]

Chris has joined #tagmem

19:05:51 [Chris]

zakim, dial chris-617

19:05:51 [Zakim]

ok, Chris; the call is being made

19:05:52 [Zakim]

+Chris

19:06:18 [Stuart]

Stuart has changed the topic to: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/09/20-tag.html

19:07:52 [DanC]

DanC has joined #tagmem

19:08:36 [Zakim]

+DanC

19:09:26 [timbl]

Zakim, ho is missing?

19:09:26 [Zakim]

sorry, timbl, I do not understand your question

19:09:30 [timbl]

Zakim, who is missing?

19:09:30 [Zakim]

I don't understand your question, timbl.

19:11:03 [Roy]

Roy has joined #tagmem

19:11:34 [Roy]

Ready

19:11:42 [DanC]

Zakim, who's on the phone?

19:11:42 [Zakim]

On the phone I see PaulC, Stuart, TimBL, Roy, Chris, DanC

19:12:05 [Roy]

/me thanks

19:12:19 [Roy]

Noah is on IRC

19:12:36 [Roy]

regrets from Norm

19:12:43 [Chris]

agenda: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/09/20-tag

19:13:06 [Roy]

Minutes 19 July

19:13:27 [DanC]

19July minutes http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2004Sep/0116.html

19:13:33 [Roy]

RESOLVED: Accept 19 July

19:13:52 [Roy]

RESOLVED: Accept minutes 13 September

19:14:37 [Roy]

[PC] will get minutes of last FCF done for next meeting

19:15:24 [DanC]

(hmm... I have news on httpSubstrate; not sure whether it merits discussion.)

19:16:53 [Roy]

Next meet: 27 Sep, regrets: none, possible regrets: RF (in Basel)

19:17:10 [Roy]

[SW] meet with QA WG?

19:17:44 [Roy]

[PC] This is to deal with last call comments?

19:18:17 [Roy]

[DC] thinks it will be the general topic of finding + last call

19:18:46 [Chris]

best to set expectations about which coments are LC and which are for the finding

19:18:48 [Roy]

[PC] want to set expectations right, have deliverable in hand before we talk

19:19:29 [Roy]

[SW] we have 1) set of comments on webarch from QA; 2) ?

19:19:59 [Chris]

2) general comments on extensibility and versioning

19:20:10 [Roy]

[SW] will make clear to QA that our priority is to address the webarch comments

19:20:27 [Roy]

[SW] will work on that in next week's agenda

19:20:57 [Roy]

[SW] volunteer to scribe next week?

19:21:08 [Roy]

[CL] volunteers

19:21:35 [DanC]

[RF] at risk due to Basel travel

19:21:53 [Chris]

Roy, is it easier to get to the meeting/hotel from Zurich airport or Mulhouse airport?

19:22:00 [Chris]

I can get flights to either

19:22:31 [Roy]

[SW] F2F meeting planning for Basel

19:23:28 [Roy]

Chris: Mulhouse is "closer" if you don't mind the bus or paying for taxi

19:24:40 [Roy]

I am happy to invite non-TAG guests

19:25:42 [Roy]

-------

19:25:55 [Roy]

1.3 TAG charter

19:26:00 [Roy]

[SW] no updatea

19:26:10 [Roy]

-------

19:26:41 [Roy]

2.1 Report on completed LC#2 Actions

19:27:07 [Roy]

which tracking page?

19:27:26 [Stuart]

http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004lc/lc-status-report.html

19:28:49 [DanC]

DONE: PaulC: explain to a.p.meyer that we didn't mean any more than we said

19:29:01 [Roy]

5. Meyer was disappointed but expressed acceptance

19:29:24 [Roy]

6. information resource

19:29:29 [DanC]

stuart's reply http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webarch-comments/2004JulSep/0062.html

19:29:37 [Roy]

[SW] sent message, action item done

19:30:22 [Stuart]

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webarch-comments/2004JulSep/0086.html

19:30:28 [DanC]

stuart's substantive reply ^

19:31:50 [Roy]

[SW] reads proposal

19:32:09 [Roy]

[TimBL] doesn't help me a lot because of emphasis on accessibility

19:32:26 [Roy]

[TimBL] did we see Sandro's proposal

19:32:57 [Roy]

[DC] last week, it was briefly mentioned

19:33:04 [Chris]

That strikes me as a good feature

19:33:31 [Chris]

something that implements an electronic protocol is a information resource and is testably 'on the web'

19:33:32 [Roy]

[TimBL] web resource definition is a bit circular

19:33:42 [timbl]

What striekes you as a good feature, Chris?

19:33:59 [Chris]

the emphasis on whether you can access it

19:34:12 [Roy]

[SW] Patrick didn't like information resource, suggested web resource because it better fits our definition

19:34:20 [Chris]

in particular, its a tesable statement

19:34:45 [DanC]

q+ to ask SKW to acknolwedge that timbl didn't see his edit as editorial

19:36:22 [Roy]

[SW] discussion centered around literal interpretation of "information resource" rather than what was in webarch

19:37:25 [Roy]

[TimBL] we are trying to get a common understanding for the concept, and find words to do that -- possibly change words later

19:38:05 [Roy]

[SW] ack that TimBL is not happy with that resolution

19:38:33 [DanC]

sandro proposed text in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webarch-comments/2004JulSep/0057.html

19:39:15 [Roy]

[TimBL] Sandro put a lot of effort into that

19:39:56 [Chris]

seems a lot of thread to go through on this call

19:42:37 [Chris]

I think conflating 'information resource'and 'on the web' is the source of the problem here

19:44:13 [timbl]

Roy I think said he supported http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webarch-comments/2004JulSep/0057.html

19:44:22 [timbl]

sorry not that

19:45:28 [timbl]

Patricks message

19:45:47 [timbl]

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webarch-comments/2004JulSep/0058.html

19:46:45 [Chris]

**punt** it

19:46:55 [Stuart]

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2004Sep/0089.html

19:47:03 [DanC]

punt it how? leave the doc as is, Chris? I could perhaps accept that.

19:47:31 [Chris]

punt it as in, move on to do the other issues.

19:49:07 [DanC]

i.e. postpone discussion until later, Chris? Well, I'd rather not do that unless/untill somebody in particular takes the ball (i.e. an action)

19:49:08 [timbl]

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2004Sep/0046.html

19:50:07 [Roy]

ACTION RF: digest Sandro's proposal and explain why it is unacceptable

19:51:13 [Roy]

[SW] will post his suggested solution to Patrick's comments on www-tag

19:52:34 [DanC]

let's continue NW's pile of actions in reply to Karl "Comments on Web Arch WD - 2004-07-05"

19:52:34 [Roy]

[DC] suggest continuing actions for NW [agreement]

19:53:21 [DanC]

Re: non-authoritative syntaxes for fragment identifiers from RF http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webarch-comments/2004JulSep/0085.html hasn't produce a reply from the commentor

19:53:27 [Roy]

8. RF responded to commenter, no reply yet

19:54:22 [Roy]

11. DC to do, GK indicates he doesn't feel strongly about them

19:55:19 [Stuart]

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webarch-comments/2004JulSep/0067.html

19:56:11 [Stuart]

q?

19:56:36 [Chris]

we can always point out important architectural consequences of particular specs

19:56:53 [Chris]

we don't contradict the http spec, merely point out something in it

19:57:55 [Roy]

[DC] related to information resource, will leave pending

19:57:58 [Stuart]

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webarch-comments/2004JulSep/0068.html

19:59:05 [Roy]

Commenter wishes us to include the negative trade-offs as well as positive

19:59:14 [Roy]

for extensibility

20:00:05 [Roy]

[CL] agrees with commenter, will draft some text

20:00:31 [Roy]

ACTION CL: draft text in response to "too positive on extensibility"

20:01:17 [Roy]

[PC] will this be on agenda for QA-TAG interaction?

20:01:18 [DanC]

(which finding?)

20:01:36 [Roy]

extensibility?

20:01:39 [Chris]

some text to record possible negatives; but text will still say that on balance its better to consider extensibility from the start

20:01:51 [Chris]

PC: some useful stuff in the ectual finding

20:02:13 [Roy]

16. "take on meaning"

20:02:16 [Stuart]

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webarch-comments/2004JulSep/0077.html

20:02:36 [Roy]

I find Larry's arguments compelling

20:03:18 [Chris]

"But this is a philosphical rathole that I think the

20:03:18 [Chris]

document should try to avoid." yeah, what he said

20:03:43 [Roy]

[TimBL] You can talk about the meaning of a word, as well as a sentence

20:04:12 [Roy]

[DC] reasonable happy with what we have

20:05:28 [Stuart]

The whole quote is "[URI] is an agreement about how the Internet community allocates names and associates them with the resources they identify. URI Scheme specifications define the protocols by which scheme specific URI are associated with resources and take on meaning. "

20:05:42 [Stuart]

q+

20:05:50 [Roy]

[TimBL] what about conceptual URIs?

20:06:16 [Roy]

s/conceptual URIs/URIs that only identify a concept/

20:07:00 [Roy]

[TimBL] suggests, "we agree with what you said, but can't find better words -- can you supply better words"

20:08:57 [Roy]

oops, I was looking at 17

20:10:11 [DanC]

ACTION DanC: reply to djw re "take on meaning": yes, agree with your comment, think that's what webarch says. let us know if you think of something better

20:10:33 [Stuart]

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webarch-comments/2004JulSep/0078.html

20:10:36 [Roy]

17. comments from Larry Masinter

20:11:00 [Roy]

I find Larry's comments compelling

20:11:15 [Roy]

[DC] would like to hear what the editor thinks

20:11:18 [Chris]

I agree that prunig remaining 'assign' is a good idea

20:12:12 [Chris]

"Resources have owners. URIs have

20:12:12 [Chris]

users. The owners of resources arrange the resources

20:12:12 [Chris]

so that URIs can be used to identify the resources

20:12:12 [Chris]

and their related resources."

20:12:24 [Chris]

seems very reasonable to me

20:12:24 [Roy]

[TimBL] thinks that we added URI ownership because it was needed in several places. Are we going to replace it with new words, or remove the concept?

20:13:08 [Roy]

[TimBL] need to find all uses in document and see if term needed

20:13:21 [DanC]

(I don't know whether we need to speak of URI owners, Chris, but I know for a fact that we do.)

20:13:43 [DanC]

e.g. "When a URI alias does become common currency, the URI owner should "

20:14:22 [Roy]

[TimBL] architecture is set up so that the machine tells client what the "owner" says the URI means [RF can't keep up]

20:14:59 [Roy]

[SW] also issue about "owning" versus "renting"

20:15:47 [Roy]

[CL] owner of resource reveals how to construct URI according to scheme [?]

20:17:02 [Roy]

[TimBL] describes ownership in terms of allocating names within a domain

20:17:05 [Chris]

roy, i said scheme in a general sense, not in the URI sense

20:17:17 [Roy]

/me will fix later

20:18:36 [Roy]

It is not the URI that is owned -- it is control of authoritative behavior at that URI

20:19:53 [Roy]

[TimBL] DNS names are owned in the sense that ICANN and name delegations are bound by community agreement/standards

20:20:19 [Roy]

[DC] we do treat the concept in detain in webarch

20:20:26 [Roy]

s/detain/detail/

20:21:27 [Roy]

[PC] we are using ownership as a complex set of things known as "responsibility"

20:22:08 [Roy]

URI specs use "authority" (perhaps too much)

20:23:03 [Roy]

[TimBL] Larry seems to say that URIs have users, resources have owners

20:23:09 [DanC]

q+

20:23:20 [Stuart]

q-

20:23:36 [Roy]

ack DanC

20:23:45 [Roy]

[DC] quotes from webarch

20:24:45 [Roy]

[PC] "URI owner" is useful because it makes the good practice easier to read

20:25:24 [Roy]

[CL] Larry lists all of the cases in the document, do they all work?

20:26:27 [Roy]

[CL] not "resource owner", because that would suggest that changing the URI every day would not be harmful

20:27:25 [Roy]

[DC] inclined to leave this as unsatisfied

20:27:53 [Roy]

ACTION SW: lead another round of discussion on Larry's comment

20:28:38 [Roy]

[PC] wonder what Norm's plans are regarding draft before F2F?

20:29:00 [Roy]

ACTION SW: find out what Norm's status is for F2F document

20:29:18 [Stuart]

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2004Sep/0020.html

20:29:31 [Roy]

/me I don't know how to produce minutes from log

20:30:35 [DanC]

if you like what I sent for last week, it was produce with a perl script, linked from the bottom of those minutes, Roy. (+ some hand editing)

20:31:06 [Roy]

[PC] Ask QA if they think draft extensibility finding addresses some of their concerns?

20:31:53 [Roy]

/me where are minutes stored?

20:32:02 [Zakim]

-TimBL

20:32:02 [Roy]

ADJOURNED

20:32:06 [Chris]

rrsagent, pointer?

20:32:06 [RRSAgent]

See http://www.w3.org/2004/09/20-tagmem-irc#T20-32-06

20:32:09 [Zakim]

-PaulC

20:32:43 [Roy]

MEETING ADJOURNED

20:32:45 [Chris]

see http://www.w3.org/2004/09/20-tagmem-irc.txt

20:32:55 [DanC]

RRSAgent, make logs world-access

20:33:26 [Zakim]

-DanC

20:33:27 [Zakim]

-Stuart

20:33:28 [Zakim]

-Chris

20:33:29 [Zakim]

-Roy

20:33:30 [Zakim]

TAG_Weekly()2:30PM has ended

20:33:31 [Zakim]

Attendees were PaulC, Stuart, TimBL, Roy, Chris, DanC

20:33:41 [Stuart]

Stuart has left #tagmem

20:34:38 [Roy]

Roy has left #tagmem