19:04:12 RRSAgent has joined #tagmem 19:04:50 Zakim has joined #tagmem 19:05:02 Zakim, who is on the call? 19:05:02 sorry, timbl, I don't know what conference this is 19:05:03 On IRC I see RRSAgent, Stuart, Noah, timbl 19:05:10 Zakim, this will be TAG 19:05:10 ok, timbl, I see TAG_Weekly()2:30PM already started 19:05:16 zakim, who is here? 19:05:16 On the phone I see PaulC, Stuart, TimBL, Roy 19:05:17 On IRC I see RRSAgent, Stuart, Noah, timbl 19:05:38 Chris has joined #tagmem 19:05:51 zakim, dial chris-617 19:05:51 ok, Chris; the call is being made 19:05:52 +Chris 19:06:18 Stuart has changed the topic to: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/09/20-tag.html 19:07:52 DanC has joined #tagmem 19:08:36 +DanC 19:09:26 Zakim, ho is missing? 19:09:26 sorry, timbl, I do not understand your question 19:09:30 Zakim, who is missing? 19:09:30 I don't understand your question, timbl. 19:11:03 Roy has joined #tagmem 19:11:34 Ready 19:11:42 Zakim, who's on the phone? 19:11:42 On the phone I see PaulC, Stuart, TimBL, Roy, Chris, DanC 19:12:05 /me thanks 19:12:19 Noah is on IRC 19:12:36 regrets from Norm 19:12:43 agenda: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/09/20-tag 19:13:06 Minutes 19 July 19:13:27 19July minutes http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2004Sep/0116.html 19:13:33 RESOLVED: Accept 19 July 19:13:52 RESOLVED: Accept minutes 13 September 19:14:37 [PC] will get minutes of last FCF done for next meeting 19:15:24 (hmm... I have news on httpSubstrate; not sure whether it merits discussion.) 19:16:53 Next meet: 27 Sep, regrets: none, possible regrets: RF (in Basel) 19:17:10 [SW] meet with QA WG? 19:17:44 [PC] This is to deal with last call comments? 19:18:17 [DC] thinks it will be the general topic of finding + last call 19:18:46 best to set expectations about which coments are LC and which are for the finding 19:18:48 [PC] want to set expectations right, have deliverable in hand before we talk 19:19:29 [SW] we have 1) set of comments on webarch from QA; 2) ? 19:19:59 2) general comments on extensibility and versioning 19:20:10 [SW] will make clear to QA that our priority is to address the webarch comments 19:20:27 [SW] will work on that in next week's agenda 19:20:57 [SW] volunteer to scribe next week? 19:21:08 [CL] volunteers 19:21:35 [RF] at risk due to Basel travel 19:21:53 Roy, is it easier to get to the meeting/hotel from Zurich airport or Mulhouse airport? 19:22:00 I can get flights to either 19:22:31 [SW] F2F meeting planning for Basel 19:23:28 Chris: Mulhouse is "closer" if you don't mind the bus or paying for taxi 19:24:40 I am happy to invite non-TAG guests 19:25:42 ------- 19:25:55 1.3 TAG charter 19:26:00 [SW] no updatea 19:26:10 ------- 19:26:41 2.1 Report on completed LC#2 Actions 19:27:07 which tracking page? 19:27:26 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004lc/lc-status-report.html 19:28:49 DONE: PaulC: explain to a.p.meyer that we didn't mean any more than we said 19:29:01 5. Meyer was disappointed but expressed acceptance 19:29:24 6. information resource 19:29:29 stuart's reply http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webarch-comments/2004JulSep/0062.html 19:29:37 [SW] sent message, action item done 19:30:22 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webarch-comments/2004JulSep/0086.html 19:30:28 stuart's substantive reply ^ 19:31:50 [SW] reads proposal 19:32:09 [TimBL] doesn't help me a lot because of emphasis on accessibility 19:32:26 [TimBL] did we see Sandro's proposal 19:32:57 [DC] last week, it was briefly mentioned 19:33:04 That strikes me as a good feature 19:33:31 something that implements an electronic protocol is a information resource and is testably 'on the web' 19:33:32 [TimBL] web resource definition is a bit circular 19:33:42 What striekes you as a good feature, Chris? 19:33:59 the emphasis on whether you can access it 19:34:12 [SW] Patrick didn't like information resource, suggested web resource because it better fits our definition 19:34:20 in particular, its a tesable statement 19:34:45 q+ to ask SKW to acknolwedge that timbl didn't see his edit as editorial 19:36:22 [SW] discussion centered around literal interpretation of "information resource" rather than what was in webarch 19:37:25 [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 [SW] ack that TimBL is not happy with that resolution 19:38:33 sandro proposed text in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webarch-comments/2004JulSep/0057.html 19:39:15 [TimBL] Sandro put a lot of effort into that 19:39:56 seems a lot of thread to go through on this call 19:42:37 I think conflating 'information resource'and 'on the web' is the source of the problem here 19:44:13 Roy I think said he supported http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webarch-comments/2004JulSep/0057.html 19:44:22 sorry not that 19:45:28 Patricks message 19:45:47 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webarch-comments/2004JulSep/0058.html 19:46:45 **punt** it 19:46:55 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2004Sep/0089.html 19:47:03 punt it how? leave the doc as is, Chris? I could perhaps accept that. 19:47:31 punt it as in, move on to do the other issues. 19:49:07 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 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2004Sep/0046.html 19:50:07 ACTION RF: digest Sandro's proposal and explain why it is unacceptable 19:51:13 [SW] will post his suggested solution to Patrick's comments on www-tag 19:52:34 let's continue NW's pile of actions in reply to Karl "Comments on Web Arch WD - 2004-07-05" 19:52:34 [DC] suggest continuing actions for NW [agreement] 19:53:21 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 8. RF responded to commenter, no reply yet 19:54:22 11. DC to do, GK indicates he doesn't feel strongly about them 19:55:19 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webarch-comments/2004JulSep/0067.html 19:56:11 q? 19:56:36 we can always point out important architectural consequences of particular specs 19:56:53 we don't contradict the http spec, merely point out something in it 19:57:55 [DC] related to information resource, will leave pending 19:57:58 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webarch-comments/2004JulSep/0068.html 19:59:05 Commenter wishes us to include the negative trade-offs as well as positive 19:59:14 for extensibility 20:00:05 [CL] agrees with commenter, will draft some text 20:00:31 ACTION CL: draft text in response to "too positive on extensibility" 20:01:17 [PC] will this be on agenda for QA-TAG interaction? 20:01:18 (which finding?) 20:01:36 extensibility? 20:01:39 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 PC: some useful stuff in the ectual finding 20:02:13 16. "take on meaning" 20:02:16 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webarch-comments/2004JulSep/0077.html 20:02:36 I find Larry's arguments compelling 20:03:18 "But this is a philosphical rathole that I think the 20:03:18 document should try to avoid." yeah, what he said 20:03:43 [TimBL] You can talk about the meaning of a word, as well as a sentence 20:04:12 [DC] reasonable happy with what we have 20:05:28 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 q+ 20:05:50 [TimBL] what about conceptual URIs? 20:06:16 s/conceptual URIs/URIs that only identify a concept/ 20:07:00 [TimBL] suggests, "we agree with what you said, but can't find better words -- can you supply better words" 20:08:57 oops, I was looking at 17 20:10:11 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 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webarch-comments/2004JulSep/0078.html 20:10:36 17. comments from Larry Masinter 20:11:00 I find Larry's comments compelling 20:11:15 [DC] would like to hear what the editor thinks 20:11:18 I agree that prunig remaining 'assign' is a good idea 20:12:12 "Resources have owners. URIs have 20:12:12 users. The owners of resources arrange the resources 20:12:12 so that URIs can be used to identify the resources 20:12:12 and their related resources." 20:12:24 seems very reasonable to me 20:12:24 [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 [TimBL] need to find all uses in document and see if term needed 20:13:21 (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 e.g. "When a URI alias does become common currency, the URI owner should " 20:14:22 [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 [SW] also issue about "owning" versus "renting" 20:15:47 [CL] owner of resource reveals how to construct URI according to scheme [?] 20:17:02 [TimBL] describes ownership in terms of allocating names within a domain 20:17:05 roy, i said scheme in a general sense, not in the URI sense 20:17:17 /me will fix later 20:18:36 It is not the URI that is owned -- it is control of authoritative behavior at that URI 20:19:53 [TimBL] DNS names are owned in the sense that ICANN and name delegations are bound by community agreement/standards 20:20:19 [DC] we do treat the concept in detain in webarch 20:20:26 s/detain/detail/ 20:21:27 [PC] we are using ownership as a complex set of things known as "responsibility" 20:22:08 URI specs use "authority" (perhaps too much) 20:23:03 [TimBL] Larry seems to say that URIs have users, resources have owners 20:23:09 q+ 20:23:20 q- 20:23:36 ack DanC 20:23:45 [DC] quotes from webarch 20:24:45 [PC] "URI owner" is useful because it makes the good practice easier to read 20:25:24 [CL] Larry lists all of the cases in the document, do they all work? 20:26:27 [CL] not "resource owner", because that would suggest that changing the URI every day would not be harmful 20:27:25 [DC] inclined to leave this as unsatisfied 20:27:53 ACTION SW: lead another round of discussion on Larry's comment 20:28:38 [PC] wonder what Norm's plans are regarding draft before F2F? 20:29:00 ACTION SW: find out what Norm's status is for F2F document 20:29:18 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2004Sep/0020.html 20:29:31 /me I don't know how to produce minutes from log 20:30:35 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 [PC] Ask QA if they think draft extensibility finding addresses some of their concerns? 20:31:53 /me where are minutes stored? 20:32:02 -TimBL 20:32:02 ADJOURNED 20:32:06 rrsagent, pointer? 20:32:06 See http://www.w3.org/2004/09/20-tagmem-irc#T20-32-06 20:32:09 -PaulC 20:32:43 MEETING ADJOURNED 20:32:45 see http://www.w3.org/2004/09/20-tagmem-irc.txt 20:32:55 RRSAgent, make logs world-access 20:33:26 -DanC 20:33:27 -Stuart 20:33:28 -Chris 20:33:29 -Roy 20:33:30 TAG_Weekly()2:30PM has ended 20:33:31 Attendees were PaulC, Stuart, TimBL, Roy, Chris, DanC 20:33:41 Stuart has left #tagmem 20:34:38 Roy has left #tagmem