IRC log of tagmem on 2004-10-06

Timestamps are in UTC.

07:41:54 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #tagmem
07:42:41 [Norm]
Norm has changed the topic to: TAG f2f, agenda:
07:42:42 [Chris]
Meeting: TAF f2f Day 2 AM
07:42:47 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #tagmem
07:42:54 [noah]
noah has joined #tagmem
07:43:03 [timbl__]
timbl__ has joined #tagmem
07:43:17 [timbl__]
07:43:18 [Chris]
Present: Tim, Dan, Norm,Paul, Chris, Noah, Roy, Stuart
07:43:24 [Chris]
Chair: Stuart
07:43:35 [Chris]
Scribe: Chris
07:43:39 [paulc]
paulc has joined #tagmem
07:43:52 [Chris]
Stuart: Scribe for this afternoon please?
07:43:57 [Chris]
07:44:47 [Roy]
Roy has joined #tagmem
07:44:51 [paulc] is bad
07:45:46 [Chris]
Minutes of telcon 27 Sept
07:46:04 [Stuart]
Stuart has joined #tagmem
07:46:29 [DanC_]
DanC_ has joined #tagmem
07:47:34 [Chris]
minor joshing re URI opacity and location of those monutes
07:47:43 [DanC_]
27 minutes, ammended to show regrets from RF, is fine to me.
07:47:45 [Chris]
07:47:55 [Chris]
Minutes accepted
07:48:16 [Chris]
Stuart: Next meeting 18 Oct
07:48:17 [timbl__]
TimBL abstains
07:48:48 [Chris]
Paul: 22 Nov, week before f2f, meeting? Also US thanksgiving
07:49:00 [Chris]
Stuart: I have a conflict
07:49:14 [Chris]
Noah: So do I
07:49:21 [Chris]
Paul: Potentially so do I
07:49:39 [Stuart]
I will have to give regrets for 15th and 22nd Nov
07:53:12 [Chris]
Stuart: So, we need a chair for the 15th and 22nd
07:54:02 [Chris]
Chris: So are we having a telcon on 6 Dec?
07:54:15 [Chris]
Norm: Happy to chair those two
07:55:02 [Chris]
Topic: f2f minutes
07:55:14 [DanC_]
07:56:56 [DanC_]
ah... aug ftf
07:57:15 [Chris]
Minutes from yesterday
07:57:17 [Chris]
07:58:04 [Chris]
Action: Chris collect IRC logs from last f2f and turn into minutes
07:58:15 [Chris]
Topic: people changes
07:58:16 [Chris]
07:58:30 [DanC_]
# pointers for assembling meeting minutes Dan Connolly (Wednesday, 11 August)
07:58:42 [Chris]
Stuart: TAG welcomes Noah again
07:59:13 [Chris]
Stuart: Mail from Ian, we no longer have Ian available
07:59:37 [Chris]
Tim: We should use WBS more eg for meeting surveys
08:01:00 [Chris]
Tim: Issues and actions tracking - how to do; better to have a system like WBS that all groups can use
08:01:23 [Chris]
Norm: OK but we need a body to do that meanwhile
08:01:34 [DanC_]
(issue tracking is all-the-worlds-problems-complete, in my experience)
08:07:33 [Chris]
Paul: Ian set a high bar with our home page and issues list
08:08:15 [Chris]
Paul: this issues list was immensely valuable
08:09:38 [DanC_]
CL: the "Topic:" convention results in automated minutes tables-of-contents
08:09:50 [Chris]
Chris: small amount of effort to use topic separators in IRC pays off witjh minuteswhose sections can be linked to
08:10:26 [timbl__]
I agree that the richness of linking in the minutes, and precision of linking for example into the minutes, has been very useful.
08:10:37 [Chris]
Paul: We may need a staff contact. Norm has dona a valiant job with editing, but the staff contact areas need to be done
08:10:38 [DanC_]
(I'm all for a small investment in meeting records and automating various ways of consuming them. cf
08:12:02 [timbl__]
DanC: The home page used to always point to the next meeting, now I have reduced those expectations.
08:12:09 [Chris]
Noah: smal lamount of effort here really pays off
08:12:36 [Chris]
Roy: what tools to systeam use?
08:13:08 [Chris]
Chris: Exit is one system, not maintained
08:13:20 [Chris]
Dan: generally PHP and XSLT are okay
08:13:26 [timbl__]
The EXIT system ran on desktop
08:13:38 [Chris]
Norm: Exit was difficult to deal with, web based forms tend to suck
08:15:03 [DanC_]
(a little bit of automation around the email archive: )
08:15:33 [Chris]
Roy: tools tend to split the load because everyone contributes
08:17:14 [Chris]
Paul: by what date should the Team report back on how we are going to proceed, any other resources available
08:18:05 [Chris]
Action: Tim to investingate possible staff contact for TAG
08:19:46 [RRSAgent]
08:20:15 [Chris]
Action: Tim to investingate possible staff contact for TAG, due date 20 October 2004
08:21:32 [Chris]
ACTION: Tim to investingate possible staff contact for TAG, due date 20 October 2004
08:23:30 [DanC_]
(actually, the good news is we _don't_ have hundreds of webarch LC2 comments ;-)
08:25:35 [Chris]
Topic: Charter update
08:26:11 [Chris]
Stuart: for Patent Policy purposes, TAG members are treated as Invited Experts
08:33:41 [Chris]
(discussion on patent disclosure and licensing requirements)
08:36:35 [Chris]
Paul: we need to see the charter well before the elections come around; it likely wil laffect whether people choose to run
08:37:34 [Chris]
Paul: The director has at least one appointment to make, and if an appointee was from a W3C member they would need to know even earlier
08:38:04 [Chris]
ACTION: Stuart get a timescale from ian about charter revision and availability
08:38:25 [Chris]
Paul: Glad the Team has been responsive to TAG discussions and input here
08:38:32 [Chris]
Stuart: Yes +1
08:39:16 [Chris]
Topic: future meeting plans
08:39:22 [Chris]
rrsagent, pointer?
08:39:22 [RRSAgent]
08:40:36 [Chris]
Dan makes play for scenic Kansas City, "The City of Fountains"
08:41:21 [DanC_]
(were dates in Feb/Mar given by Stuart?)
08:41:22 [Chris]
TimBL:not available right after AC meeting
08:42:08 [Chris]
Norm: ifff I run and get elected then OK to host in Western Mass..
08:43:31 [Chris]
Stuart: week before AC? June 6-7
08:43:42 [Chris]
Paul: works for me
08:44:07 [DanC_]
(are we skipping planning a Feb/Mar meeting?)
08:46:14 [Chris]
Noah: For TP Feb 28 or Mar 1, the proposal was a half day TAG meeting and the rest of the time meetings with other groups
08:46:30 [Chris]
TP calendar is not out yet, but our preference is earlier in the week
08:48:01 [Chris]
Dan: Mon/Tues is sufficiently constrained for now
08:48:19 [DanC_]
PROPOSED: to meet 28Feb and 1Mar 2005 in Cannes, France
08:48:30 [Chris]
Tim: so this is mainly liaisons......
08:49:00 [Chris]
Paul: If we have a Proposed Rec we will be collecting input on WebArch Volume Two
08:49:38 [Chris]
Stuart: From last TP, TAG participation was welcomed
08:50:21 [DanC_]
PROPOSED: to meet 1/2 day on 28Feb 2005 in Cannes, France, and for TAG members to participate on a best-effort basis in liaison meetings thruought the week
08:50:41 [Chris]
Paul: assume new TAG members would be introduced by telcon
08:51:30 [DanC_]
PROPOSED: to meet 1/2 day on 28Feb 2005 in Boston, MA, USA, and for TAG members to participate on a best-effort basis in liaison meetings thruought the week
08:51:54 [Chris]
+1 to that (Boston) proposal
08:51:57 [Chris]
assorted +1s
08:52:18 [Chris]
Resolved: to meet 1/2 day on 28Feb 2005 in Boston, MA, USA, and for TAG members to participate on a best-effort basis in liaison meetings thruought the week
08:52:46 [DanC_]
timbl: I have a possible conflict with the 2nd half of that week
08:54:18 [DanC_]
SKW: 1, 2, 3 June.... [where?]
08:54:34 [DanC_]
timbl no avail 8, 9, 10 June
08:54:36 [Chris]
8-10 June was not availab;e
08:55:17 [Chris]
Paul: avoid the new member briefing
08:55:26 [DanC_]
the AC meeting is in Cannes, France in June
08:55:32 [DanC_]
looking at co-locating there
08:56:12 [Chris]
Roy: half the group is unknown, so why discuss this now?
08:57:15 [DanC_]
which days are you offering to host, Chris?
08:57:27 [Chris]
iff still on TAG I would be ok with hosting to be close to TP in Cannes
08:57:40 [DanC_]
close to TP? you mean close to AC, no?
08:57:45 [Chris]
Uh yes
08:57:50 [DanC_]
which days?
08:57:59 [Chris]
whenever people are available
08:58:04 [Chris]
not 8-10
08:58:14 [DanC_]
see my earlier comment: I like to start with a specific offer from the host.
08:58:21 [DanC_]
would you please offer specific days?
08:59:08 [Chris]
I propose Weds 1 to Fri 3 June
09:00:20 [Chris]
Noah modulo some flexibility as to Tims availability, sounds ok
09:00:33 [Chris]
Dan: cannt commit to onsite but can attend remotely
09:01:26 [Chris]
Tim: propose 8-10 and I will join remotely
09:02:03 [Chris]
Noah: if it turns out that not enough are at AC, why colocate?
09:02:24 [Chris]
Norm: we have to report to AC anyway
09:02:49 [Chris]
2 prefer after, one prefer before AC
09:03:21 [Chris]
3 prefer after *8-10), one prefer before AC
09:04:09 [Chris]
Resolved: 8-10 June, South of France near Cannes host ERCIM
09:04:29 [DanC_]
I can only confirm for remote attendance
09:04:42 [Chris]
Stuart calls for a Kansas City proposal
09:04:51 [Chris]
in September
09:05:05 [Chris]
Noah prefers not week of 5th
09:05:19 [Chris]
Dan 13-15 Sept Kansas City
09:05:23 [Chris]
09:05:38 [Chris]
Noah: prefer not then, no actual conflict
09:05:46 [Chris]
Dan: propose 20-22 September
09:06:00 [Chris]
Dan: propose 20-22 September Kansas City
09:06:17 [Chris]
Dan: has done preliminary investigation of location
09:08:18 [Chris]
Dan: Airport is MCI, Kansas City International
09:08:38 [Chris]
Resolved: 20-22 September, Kansas City, hosted by Dan
09:09:38 [Chris]
Topic: AC report for TAG
09:09:50 [Chris]
Paul: volunteer to do next monthly report
09:10:07 [Chris]
Paul: AC report is cumulative of the previous three reports
09:10:32 [Chris]
Paul: get this to Steve Bratt by Oct 22
09:11:19 [Chris]
Dan: Last time there was little contribution from AC - not a hot topic apparently
09:12:34 [Chris]
Tim: Status report in the sense of are we doing OK, rather than the technical issues
09:13:55 [Chris]
Paul: in general agree; decline offer to do a panel at AC
09:14:09 [noah]
For the record, quick search of American airlines suggests that return options from Kansas City to Boston are (Lv: 3:04P Ar: 8:42P) or (Lv: 5:13P Ar: 10:30P)...those are for March dates, Sept. 2005 is not posted yet.
09:14:45 [DanC_]
tx, noah; so ending the meeting at noon on Thursday would let BOS-based folks get back for bed-time
09:16:13 [Chris]
ACTION: Paul to create new monthly summary
09:16:20 [noah]
Easily. Depending how much lead time one needs at MCI, I could see going into early afternoon. Tim and Norm's mileage may vary.
09:16:27 [Chris]
ACTION: Paul create draft summary for AC
09:16:45 [Chris]
<break dur="15min"/>
09:41:53 [Chris]
topic: Agenda review redux
09:42:03 [Chris]
Stuart: How much time to allocate to this
09:42:12 [Chris]
Dan: I offer to chair to next break
09:42:32 [Chris]
Chair: Dan
09:43:18 [Chris]
Dan: So we want a proposed Rec document that answers the remaining open issues
09:44:25 [Chris]
09:45:20 [timbl__]
09:45:21 [DanC_]
current text:
09:46:47 [Chris]
Dan constructs straww poll with three options
09:47:03 [Chris]
1) is current text, does not satisfy Stickler
09:47:12 [Chris]
2) is text on Web Resource
09:47:17 [Chris]
3) is Sandros text
09:47:50 [Chris]
Noah asks if this closes HTTPRange-14
09:47:57 [Chris]
Dan says probably not
09:48:45 [Chris]
09:48:58 [Chris]
"The term Web Resource is applicable to resources for which web
09:48:58 [Chris]
acesssible representations are available and/or which may be interacted
09:48:58 [Chris]
with through an exchange of representations."
09:50:28 [Chris]
Sandros text
09:50:28 [Chris]
09:50:44 [Chris]
Dan: fourth option: there are two sides, both have problems
09:51:13 [DanC_]
09:51:22 [Chris]
These would replace current section 3.1
09:51:32 [Roy]
Summary of (2) is in
09:52:32 [Chris]
Paul prefers option 4
09:52:41 [Chris]
Chris prefers 2 and can live with 4
09:53:03 [Chris]
TBL prefers 1, Noah sort of
09:53:20 [Chris]
three prefer option 2
09:53:27 [Chris]
09:54:03 [Chris]
Three TBL, Noah
09:54:20 [Chris]
Four: NW, PC, CL, SKW, TBL
09:55:10 [Chris]
Objections to 1) CL PC
09:55:31 [Chris]
Roy: its what comes *after* these paras that people object to
09:56:41 [Chris]
Objections to 2: Tim, Noah
09:56:53 [Chris]
Objections to 3: NW, CL, RF
09:56:59 [Chris]
Objections to 4: None
09:57:20 [Chris]
Roy: The objectionable text is this:
09:58:12 [Chris]
the limitation of what is an information resource
09:58:38 [Chris]
Stuart:Tim seems tonot want information resource to involve having a representation
09:58:55 [Chris]
Noah: The more text we delete the more hangs on the exact meaning of 'convey'
09:59:38 [Chris]
Tim: a poem conveys information
09:59:55 [Chris]
Noah: ok so convey is underqualified
10:00:44 [Chris]
TimBL: I agree with Patick Sticklers view
10:00:59 [Chris]
TimBL: I move that we don't accept his comment
10:01:08 [Chris]
10:01:41 [Chris]
Tim: I absolutely reject removing Information resource from this document
10:01:52 [Chris]
Stuart: Its merely a relabelling
10:02:03 [Chris]
Dan: But the inferences drawn from the term differs
10:03:11 [Chris]
A Web Service might not be an information resource
10:04:33 [Chris]
Stuart: OK changing the term sometimes matters
10:05:04 [Chris]
Chris: We can define Web Resource now and that does not prohibit later disuccuon of whether something has information or not
10:05:47 [Chris]
Tim: Information resource predates the Web and is independent of the Web
10:06:37 [Chris]
Tim: Don't tie Info Resource to the Web
10:07:27 [Chris]
Dan: pick only one this time
10:08:45 [Chris]
Norm: 4
10:08:49 [Chris]
Paul: 4
10:08:52 [Chris]
Cris: 4
10:08:55 [Chris]
Tim: 1
10:09:04 [Chris]
10:09:24 [Chris]
Stuart: 4
10:09:28 [Chris]
Noah: 1
10:09:55 [Chris]
Roy: none of them
10:10:23 [Chris]
Roy: prefer to strike the term Information Resource entirely
10:10:56 [Chris]
Roy: don't distinguish between "Information Resource' and 'Resource'
10:11:45 [Chris]
Option 5 added: do as roy says, remove 3.1, change all info resource to resource
10:12:07 [Chris]
Roy: Patrick disliked that we added Info Resource but didnt really talk about it
10:13:04 [Chris]
Stuart: Looking at Pats comments, he says 'does anything apply to non Information resources'
10:13:43 [Chris]
Stuart: So Pat Hayes argues that there is no distinction between resource and info resource
10:14:37 [Chris]
"How could a non represented resource do anything on the web"?
10:15:58 [timbl__]
Thos are nmot the same comment BTW
10:16:31 [Chris]
Stuart: throughout Pat Hayes comments he says things to the effect of "glad we talk about a weather report, not the weather, nbut can the weather itself be a resource?"
10:18:40 [Chris]
Chris: A resource thsat offers no representation but can be interacted with (representations sent to it) is clearly on the web according to option 2 but has no representations itself
10:19:13 [Chris]
Norm: 200 Ok response does not define an info resource
10:20:09 [Chris]
Norm: Can't tell an info resource from not an info resource
10:20:38 [Chris]
Tim: Important thing is to be able to work by reference instead of exchanging representations
10:20:57 [Chris]
soo i can talk about a table by URI instead of physically taking the table to you
10:21:59 [Chris]
Tim: its not that when i dereference I get something about the table, its that I always get a picture of the table
10:22:35 [Chris]
Norm: You added some additional context, like a message in which a URI was embedded
10:23:34 [Chris]
How is a message "i like this table <uri>" and "I like the bible<uri>" different; if table is a noninfo resource and bible is an inforesource
10:23:45 [Chris]
Norm: How is a message "i like this table <uri>" and "I like the bible<uri>" different; if table is a noninfo resource and bible is an inforesource
10:24:23 [Chris]
Noah: and why would the weight of the table be odd but the weight of the bible not odd
10:24:43 [Chris]
Norm: so far, no differences between inforesource or not
10:26:44 [Chris]
Chris hears no differences yet between the two classes
10:27:30 [Chris]
Stuart: I note Tim shifted things to a picture of the table, rather than an abstract table
10:27:58 [Chris]
Stuart: similarly the abstract bible and particular translations or editions were not clearly distinguished
10:28:15 [Chris]
Stuart: Tim, is the particular bible in my house an info resource
10:28:18 [Chris]
Tim: No
10:28:43 [Chris]
Noah: Claud Shannon (?sp) invented information theory
10:29:07 [Chris]
10:29:23 [Chris]
10:29:42 [Chris]
Claud Shannon's mathematical theory of information was a major breakthrough
10:29:42 [Chris]
in communication engineering: it allows system designers to estimate the
10:29:42 [Chris]
capacity of communication channels and the requirements of information sources,
10:29:42 [Chris]
and also has some application in data storage (since storing away information
10:29:42 [Chris]
and getting it back is rather similar to sending and receiving information)
10:29:43 [Chris]
and possibly psychology. Relation with other subjects has also been suggested
10:29:45 [Chris]
though so far not much imortant impact has occurred.
10:29:56 [Chris]
Tim: I am using info resource the same way as claude shannon
10:31:01 [Chris]
Roy: people use commonly understood terms and human ambiguity resolving mechanisms
10:31:25 [Chris]
if someone likes the design of the table, people work out the differences
10:32:59 [Chris]
Chris: ambiguities would be resolved by further interactions and progressive refinement of those ambiguities that were relevant
10:33:13 [Chris]
Roy: same in Semantic Web, further assertions clarify
10:36:47 [Chris]
Roy: We have to distinguish between tables and pictures of tables
10:36:56 [Chris]
Norm: i never said a picture of a table
10:38:11 [Chris]
Dan: One difference occured to me, if you can get hold of the resource itself for commercial purposes
10:38:38 [Chris]
can the resource be duplicated, or consumed, bu looking at it
10:39:26 [Chris]
so therefore a movie, donloaded anfd not paid for is an info resource while the table is not
10:39:43 [Chris]
because looking at the table did not consume it
10:40:33 [Chris]
Roy: all the responses to Sandros text tora apart the second and third paras, such as is the number one an info resource or not
10:41:22 [Chris]
Roy: info resource is self contradictiory with URI opacity
10:41:27 [Chris]
Tim: i disagree
10:41:51 [Chris]
Norm: if I give you a URI, is it an info resource or not
10:41:58 [Chris]
Tim: Depends, show me the URI
10:42:06 [Chris]
Dan: You just made Roys point
10:42:29 [Chris]
Tim: but this is licensed by the HTTP spec
10:42:34 [Chris]
Roy: No it isn't
10:44:37 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #tagmem
10:46:18 [Chris]
Dan: (another round of which is preferred, and who objects to each one)
10:46:38 [Chris]
Dan: W3C process now onliges me to pursue 4 as it has no articulated onjections
10:47:38 [Chris]
Noah: We have said that some combination of existing texts might be preferable
10:47:52 [Chris]
Tim: I prefer one side of thw hash/slash debate
10:48:19 [Chris]
Paul: And others have the opposite view, hence the preference for option 4
10:49:49 [Chris]
Norm: if asked to will incorporate that into the WebArch, tonight
10:52:46 [Chris]
Chris: Prefer to have the testable option 2 but not make it exclusive. if its interactable with then its a wenb resource, if its not interactable then *you don't know*
10:52:53 [Chris]
Tim: We already have that
10:53:09 [Chris]
Noah: So you want web resource not Infor rsource throughout
10:53:12 [Chris]
Chris: Yes
10:53:23 [Chris]
Paul: I could agree with Chris's definition
10:54:09 [Chris]
Norm: distinction with being consumed or not might be persuasive
10:54:36 [Chris]
Stuart: replace info resource with foobar could be okay depends on which sentences are definitive and which are informative
10:55:48 [Chris]
Chris (point about Heisenberg uncertainty principle, spin, observing, and thus an electron is an info resource - lets not go there)
10:56:43 [Chris]
Noah: what makes something an info resource is its fundamental essence is to convey information
10:57:09 [Chris]
Noah: convey and carry involves motion or interaction
10:57:28 [Chris]
Noah: table is not fundamentally information
10:58:37 [noah]
Close, but would prefer not to use the word "convey", which I find a bit (pun intended) problematic
10:58:41 [Chris]
Noah(info resource = intellectual property .. no? ok nevermind)
10:59:02 [Chris]
s/Noah(info/Norm: (info
10:59:28 [noah]
I'm happy to suggest that the editor chew on the log of this discussion and propose something specific.
10:59:40 [DanC_]
(information theory and web architecture has been on my SomedayPile forever.)
11:01:28 [Chris]
Language, Truth and Redundancy
11:01:35 [Chris]
11:02:01 [Chris]
"Still, even if we return philosophy back to the land of ideas where it belongs, we must still have a means of communicating so that ideas can be transmitted and understood. The answer is redundancy. It is the means by which any form of communication can reduce any inherent noise."
11:02:29 [Chris]
"This redundancy idea comes from mathematician Claud Shannon. His "Information Theory" states that all forms of communication is subject to noise. This noise problem ultimately reduces the amount of information that the medium can carry successfully. Redundancy in the message can dramatically increase its chances of successful transmission.
11:02:29 [Chris]
Philosophers should follow this example. Since language is just a form of communication, we should try repeating what we are saying in different ways. Use illustrations, parables, analogies, explain your entire belief system if you have to, to avoid being misunderstood. Language is an art form, not a wall to hang the picture on. Use it."
11:02:39 [noah]
Noah suggests out of order: what makes Tim's definition of information resource interesting is that those are the resources for which ALL the interesting characteristics can in principle be conveyed through a computer communication protocol. For a physical resource such as a table it's only SOME.
11:03:47 [Chris]
Chair: Tim
11:07:33 [Chris]
Chris: redundancy helps succesful conveyance of information accurately. Hence the need for surrounding context when using a URI to transfer information
11:11:27 [Chris]
11:15:14 [Roy]
I expect the semantic web to do the same -- the technology must do what the humans do -- changing the humans is not an option.
12:03:18 [noah]
noah has joined #tagmem
12:04:56 [timbl__]
12:05:04 [timbl__]
scribe: timbl__
12:05:14 [timbl__]
12:05:25 [DanC_]
Topic: QA WG lc comments
12:06:22 [timbl__]
[Chris missing at the moment]
12:07:35 [Stuart]
12:07:51 [DanC_]
dbooth's script
12:09:28 [timbl__]
[ -- Could we split tim:representation and roy:representation into two words]
12:10:17 [timbl__]
SW: We had an inconclusive discsion with teh QA working gorup.
12:10:31 [DanC_]
q+ to note a QA WG response to current editor's draft seems to be pending
12:10:37 [timbl__]
NW: We pushed something off until a time when we were discussing the webach coments.
12:11:56 [timbl__]
PC: We say that you should provide an extensability mechanism. The QA comments suggest that extensiion is always hrmful and therefore the advanatges and disadvantages are considered before extensability is introduced in a design.
12:12:45 [timbl__]
NW: I understand and maybe even agree with QAWG. But we don't always enumerate *all* the things one has tto think about. And I don't want to delete this.
12:12:53 [timbl__]
PC: We should look at the findding.
12:13:36 [timbl__]
... I think we will find that extensability as a ay of doing versioning.
12:13:42 [Stuart]
12:13:50 [timbl__]
... The actual issue is: what are the best practices for versioning in XML?
12:13:53 [DanC_]
q+ to note
12:15:19 [timbl__]
PC: The finding deos not admit to the fact that ou might *not* want extenmsibility.
12:15:54 [timbl__]
PC: The solution for some systems may be no extensibility at all.
12:15:59 [noah]
q+ to briefly reprise what I said yesterday: "even seemingly extensible systems are usually not extensible in even a majority of the dimensions you might consider interesting."
12:16:11 [Stuart]
12:16:20 [timbl__]
NW: I added text at the start of 4.2 to admit that possibility.
12:16:39 [DanC_]
editors' draft
12:16:42 [Norm]
12:16:57 [noah]
12:17:05 [noah]
12:17:15 [Stuart]
12:17:26 [timbl__]
Note: The 20040816 link above was WRONG.
12:17:44 [DanC_]
editor's draft snapshot 28 Sep
12:17:47 [timbl__]
20040928 link is what we are discussing.
12:18:12 [DanC_]
esp 4.2
12:18:40 [timbl__]
12:19:10 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #tagmem
12:19:14 [DanC_]
dom's reply
12:19:19 [Stuart]
q+ Noah
12:19:33 [Stuart]
q+ to briefly reprise what I said yesterday: "even seemingly extensible systems are usually not extensible in even a majority of the dimensions you might consider interesting."
12:19:40 [DanC_]
"I'll pass it to the QA WG; I expect that you should hear a reply from us
12:19:40 [DanC_]
by Monday EOB." -- Dom, 5Oct
12:20:05 [timbl__]
DC: FTI, Dom sent this comment before the QAWG did, and Chris followed up with Dom to ask about the new 0928 text, and Dom replied (oct/5) that he would ask the QAWG and we would have their answer by next Monday 10/11.
12:20:20 [timbl__]
DC: I quite lik ethe current text
12:22:16 [DanC_]
... aside from the "should have extensiblity" box
12:22:23 [DanC_]
... though I can live with it
12:23:04 [Stuart]
ack Noah
12:23:06 [Stuart]
12:23:27 [timbl__]
SW: How about only making this apply to "extensible languages" ? (minor outcry)
12:23:59 [timbl__]
NW: In XML, some of the gain in XML over SGML, some of the gainwas in locking down over-extensability in SGML.
12:24:08 [timbl__]
12:24:23 [timbl__]
NM: There is a cost-benefit tradeoff.
12:24:38 [Stuart]
No... suggest "An extensible specification SHOULD provide mechanisms that allow *any party* to create extensions"
12:24:47 [timbl__]
12:24:52 [Stuart]
12:24:57 [DanC_]
a couple minutes ago I asked noah if he had alternative text and he said he'd prefer no box
12:25:03 [timbl__]
q+ Norm
12:25:28 [DanC_]
ack timbl
12:26:02 [DanC_]
q+ to correct timbl's skewed version of the RDF Core WG's deliberations on extensiblity
12:27:02 [Stuart]
ack PaulC
12:27:27 [Chris]
12:27:42 [timbl__]
TimBL: There *is* a tradeoff but the common mistake is for a working group to not allow for an extension, like the RDF working group disallowing extensions for new parseTypes.
12:28:00 [timbl__]
PC: Looking at the original QA comments:
12:28:24 [timbl__]
(reads fro the asterisked comments in particular)
12:28:37 [timbl__]
12:28:46 [DanC_]
q+ to "Other values of parseType are reserved for future specification by RDF. With RDF 1.0 other values must be treated as identical to 'Literal'."
12:29:41 [timbl__]
PC: Which comments, Dan, overlap with Dom's comments?
12:29:55 [timbl__]
DC: The second one [starting * the QA WG would like to see the current wording of the first good
12:29:58 [timbl__]
practice on extensibility (section 4.2.3) changed; i"]
12:30:22 [DanC_]
ack danc
12:30:22 [Zakim]
DanC_, you wanted to correct timbl's skewed version of the RDF Core WG's deliberations on extensiblity and to "Other values of parseType are reserved for future specification by
12:30:25 [Zakim]
... RDF. With RDF 1.0 other values must be treated as identical to 'Literal'."
12:30:33 [DanC_]
"Other values of parseType are reserved for future specification by RDF. With RDF 1.0 other values must be treated as identical to 'Literal'."
12:30:41 [Norm]
12:31:58 [timbl__]
DC: Tim, you misrepresented what the RDF WG did.
12:32:05 [noah]
scribe: noah
12:32:17 [timbl__]
Tim: How then woudl you like what I saif to be rephrased to make it correct:
12:32:22 [noah]
Norm says that QA had problem with our definition of extensibility
12:32:28 [timbl__]
DC: It was just incorrect.
12:32:41 [timbl__]
[scrtibe was not able to determine the sense of DC's comment]
12:32:59 [timbl__]
scribe: NM
12:33:05 [scribenoah]
Norm reports he offered new wording. This is the new wording QA says that they'll comment on by Monday.
12:33:40 [scribenoah]
Specifically, the updated text is at:
12:34:07 [scribenoah]
The next point in their message is with respect to 4.2.3
12:34:32 [scribenoah]
Norm reports he has changed the good practice note to read: "Extensibility mechanisms MUST NOT interfere with conformance to the original specification." Does this help?
12:34:54 [scribenoah]
RF: NO! By definition, the term 'extensibility mechanism' implies conformance to original spec.
12:35:16 [scribenoah]
RF: I.e. it's part of the original spec.
12:37:13 [scribenoah]
Note, QA had commented on the draft at "" which said "A specification SHOULD provide mechanisms that allow any party to create extensions that do not interfere with conformance to the original specification.
12:37:13 [scribenoah]
12:37:50 [scribenoah]
NW: XSLT allows you to create arbitrary extensions using xslt:extension, and lays out conformance rules for use of that.
12:38:09 [scribenoah]
RF: Right, but it's impossible to design a conformance mechanism that doesn't have that characteristic.
12:38:20 [scribenoah]
NW: Right, my statement is true but vacuous.
12:38:31 [scribenoah]
CL: But makes everyone feel like.
12:39:24 [scribenoah]
NM: you're, uh, serious about putting a big box around a vacuous statement.
12:39:33 [scribenoah]
Various. Um...yeah?
12:40:09 [scribenoah]
s /around a vacuous statement/around a vacuous statement?/
12:40:46 [scribenoah]
SW: Have we addressed QA comment number 1?
12:41:23 [scribenoah]
NW: Yes, I think my new introductory remarks in 5.2. These are the ones on which we should get comments on Monday.
12:41:26 [scribenoah]
SW: Lost...
12:42:21 [scribenoah]
NW: QA did two things: a) submit comments b) participate in telcon at which they had general concerns about our optimism about extensibility.
12:42:53 [scribenoah]
NW: In relation to (b) I (Norm) made an editorial change to section 4.2 (NOT 5.2!) that addressed the general concern expressed on the call.
12:43:09 [scribenoah]
NW: Reiterate, by contrast, changes in 5.2 I believe address their email point 1
12:44:24 [Norm]
s/introductory remarks in 5.2/introductory remarks in 4.2/
12:45:12 [Norm]
Retract my subst
12:45:36 [scribenoah]
scribe: norm
12:45:42 [Norm]
QA submited comments and participated in a telcon
12:45:55 [timbl__]
scribe: TimBL
12:46:13 [Norm]
At the telcon, they expressed general unease about our positive statements regarding extensibility. I believe I addressed those concerns by adding new introductory text "A perfect world..." to section 4.2
12:47:25 [timbl__] The QA WGT message
12:47:37 [timbl__]
12:47:56 [Norm]
With respect to their individual comments in
12:48:05 [Chris]
12:48:14 [Norm]
I made a change to 5.2 to address the first comment in that message
12:48:21 [Chris]
12:48:30 [timbl__]
is the previous version
12:49:16 [timbl__]
CL: I thought that the change they wanted was the opposite of this change (re conformance) change betwen the 8/16 and 9/28 versions
12:49:27 [timbl__]
CL: So I am puzzled.
12:50:17 [timbl__]
NW: They didn't like the "should" in "should include ... third party ...extensability"
12:50:27 [timbl__]
NW: I though I addressed that
12:50:37 [timbl__]
NW: Roy you said the text I wrote was vaccuous
12:50:51 [timbl__]
RF: I preferred the previous text.
12:51:18 [timbl__]
RF: It talks about what designers should do.
12:51:30 [timbl__]
NM: I prefer the previous text .. but without the box
12:52:12 [timbl__]
CL: The old text is still there.
12:52:57 [DanC_]
SKW projects LC draft and 28Sep editor's draft simultaneously
12:53:34 [timbl__]
NW: SKW, do you agree that the changes I made were editorial?
12:54:55 [Chris]
Noah: However, languages which have no extensibility mechanisms will be extended in ad hoc ways that impact interoperability as well. is untrue
12:55:04 [Chris]
change will be rto may be
12:56:32 [timbl__]
NM: I am not happy with the current box [in 9/28] "Good Practice:... a spec should"
12:57:17 [timbl__]
PROPOSAL from NM: Delete the goodpractice note
12:57:24 [DanC_]
12:57:27 [timbl__]
Seconded by DanC
12:58:38 [timbl__]
CL: If we delete first box and leave eth second one, we will
12:58:45 [timbl__]
[disintegrates, not carried]
12:58:59 [DanC_]
(the question wasn't put)
12:59:15 [DanC_]
(yet; I still hope it will be)
13:02:03 [timbl__]
[Discussion of Norm's text]
13:03:16 [timbl__]
NW: Seems that we agree that designers should think about this problem.
13:03:29 [Chris]
it didn't 'disintegrate'; i pointed out a problem with deleting the first box and not the second. Noah agreed
13:03:38 [Chris]
perhaps a revised question will be put
13:04:50 [timbl__]
Sorry, by "disintegrate" I meant that amended proposasl were suggested to the point that the proposal structure deterieoated into a general discussion.
13:05:15 [Chris]
agreed, no problem
13:05:39 [timbl__]
DC: I think the best way to say "think about this' is not to give them a bumper sticker.
13:06:04 [DanC_]
13:06:24 [timbl__]
PC: What effect does this have on teh draft finding?
13:06:30 [timbl__]
13:06:40 [DanC_]
(yes, whether to bumper sticker or not is tricky)
13:06:46 [DanC_]
(and I can live with it either way)
13:06:59 [timbl__]
q+ to point out that the actual details of this tradeoff are very application-dependent.
13:07:42 [timbl__]
DC: There is a big long finding - a short finding might be nice. this very interesting stuff and worthy of study.
13:07:58 [timbl__]
DC: If we have an impact on the finding it is OK by me.
13:08:31 [timbl__]
PC: I would lik ethere something to say that you shoul dconsider the costa and benefos of textensibility, with a pointer to the finding/
13:08:57 [timbl__]
Norm: Would another para of exaplantion which said more bluntly that there are traeoffs here help?
13:09:01 [DanC_]
q+ to conduct a couple straw polls
13:09:33 [timbl__]
Norm and TimBL support NW
13:09:53 [Chris]
Chris supports NW too
13:10:14 [timbl__]
PROPOSED: another para of exaplantion which said more bluntly that there are traeoffs here should be added, editor salting to taste.
13:10:27 [Norm]
and leave the boxes
13:11:09 [Chris]
Chris: deleting the top box and leaving the second box gives a bias in the other direction
13:11:55 [Norm]
PROPOSED: Add another para of exaplantion which said more bluntly that there are traeoffs here should be added, editor salting to taste and leave the boxes
13:12:54 [timbl__]
staw poll: CL< PC, NW, NM, TBL in favour, SW objects
13:13:00 [timbl__]
13:13:57 [timbl__]
SW: I am uncomfortable sayingion teh one hand sying consider treh tradeoff and ethn giving a strong bias.
13:13:58 [DanC_]
q+ to straw poll on dropping the box
13:14:09 [DanC_]
q- norm
13:14:47 [timbl__]
PROPOSAL: Take the 9/28 text and drop the first two boxes
13:15:30 [DanC_]
ack danc
13:15:30 [Zakim]
DanC_, you wanted to conduct a couple straw polls and to straw poll on dropping the box
13:15:38 [timbl__]
ack timb l
13:15:41 [timbl__]
ack timb
13:15:41 [Zakim]
timbl__, you wanted to point out that the actual details of this tradeoff are very application-dependent.
13:16:32 [DanC_]
PaulC: I'd object to dropping the box; I don' think it satisfies the QA WG comment, and it undoes an earlier decision to summarize the finding
13:16:41 [DanC_]
RF: I don't mind not satisfying the QA WG
13:17:05 [DanC_]
DanC: I'd like to get a decision today, somehow. I'd like enough people to abstain in the interest of consensus/progress
13:17:23 [DanC_]
(or for the chair to put the question over objections, though I didn't say that to the meeting)
13:18:33 [Stuart]
PROPOSED: Add another para of exaplantion which said more bluntly that there are traeoffs here should be added, editor salting to taste and leave the boxes
13:18:37 [timbl__]
TimBL: I think that the "SHOULD" in the first box allows prople to have a good reason ffo doing otherwise, and I'd like the poriginal proposal then to pass.
13:19:19 [timbl__]
In favor: TBL, CL, NW, PC
13:19:35 [timbl__]
Abstain: SKW, RF, DC, NM
13:19:51 [DanC_]
13:20:14 [timbl__]
13:20:29 [timbl__]
SKW: Returning to the asterisked points ...
13:20:37 [timbl__]
PC: The third one:
13:20:40 [Chris]
dboths otherwise excellent script does not know how to look for resolutions
13:20:54 [Chris]
13:21:07 [timbl__]
PC: They suggest "The QA WG would rather see this either removed, or softened (à la "the
13:21:09 [DanC_]
+1 add "well-designed" in [the right place]
13:21:11 [timbl__]
long term benefits of a well-designed extensibility mechanism..."), but
13:21:13 [timbl__]
PC: They suggest "The QA WG would rather see this either removed, or softened (à la "the
13:21:16 [timbl__]
at the very least explained."
13:21:18 [timbl__]
long term benefits of a well-designed extensibility mechanism..."), but
13:21:21 [timbl__]
at the very least explained."
13:22:25 [timbl__]
PROPOSED: Make that change "the long term benefits of a well-designed extensibility mechanism...."
13:22:40 [timbl__]
SKW: objections?
13:22:45 [timbl__]
13:23:24 [Stuart]
13:23:29 [timbl__]
NW: The editor has already added some and will add more refeernces to the QA work to address their concerns
13:23:55 [timbl__]
PC: Can we refer to a draft finding in eth webarch?
13:24:11 [timbl__]
NW: Yes. We don't have "Normative references"
13:24:30 [timbl__]
SKW: Please refer to a precise document
13:24:45 [timbl__]
NW: I usually refer to a "latest version" link
13:24:59 [DanC_]
ref to undated, netural "see also" text
13:25:03 [timbl__]
PC: Can we do undates thing for this as a "see also"?
13:25:10 [timbl__]
13:25:41 [DanC_]
ACTION: Norm add "for more info, see also" link to to 4.x
13:27:50 [Norm]
For the record, David is doing all the heavy lifting on the revised finding.
13:28:00 [timbl__]
PC: Could the QAWG please review the draft finding? This is a respond to their last point
13:28:10 [DanC_]
ACTION PaulC: solicit QA WG review of draft extensibility/versioning finding
13:28:21 [timbl__]
ACTION PC: Nag the QAWG until they review the finding.
13:29:14 [timbl__]
ACTION DC: Report back to QA on our disposition of their comments.
13:29:24 [timbl__]
13:30:13 [timbl__]
SKW returns to the last call status list
13:30:15 [timbl__]
13:30:18 [timbl__]
13:30:34 [timbl__]
13:30:36 [DanC_]
Dan's action is re
13:31:09 [timbl__]
10 minutes till 15:40 CET
13:31:11 [DanC_]
break until 3:40
13:46:59 [roy_scribe]
scribe: roy_scribe
13:47:18 [roy_scribe]
resuming at (12)
13:47:31 [Stuart]
13:47:57 [roy_scribe]
DC: responded to commenter, no reply received yet
13:48:12 [roy_scribe]
DC: further clarification is not expected
13:48:41 [roy_scribe]
13:48:54 [Stuart]
13:49:38 [roy_scribe]
DC: there have been other late comments on this section
13:51:15 [roy_scribe]
DC: (draws diagram) primary and secondary is a relationship between two resources, not a typing of the resources
13:53:24 [roy_scribe]
DC: It doesn't tell you that they are disjoint sets
13:53:26 [DanC_]
Late last-call comment on AWWW Graham Klyne (Tuesday, 5 October)
13:53:58 [roy_scribe]
TBL: Can we think of a better word than "secondary"?
13:54:12 [roy_scribe]
RF: we tried before and could not
13:54:24 [roy_scribe]
SW: How do we respond to Jacek?
13:56:02 [roy_scribe]
TBL: The first bit might be to say that we are talking about two different URIs
13:57:05 [roy_scribe]
SW: certain irony in that -- we went through the process of this in rfc2396bis and came up with the term secondary resource in order to resolve this (i.e., give it a name so that we could explain what happens)
13:57:09 [Stuart]
13:57:38 [roy_scribe]
DC: willing to explore more of this, or simply respond to the question
13:58:11 [roy_scribe]
DC: his question is coherent and can be answered
13:58:49 [roy_scribe]
TBL: may be related to issue httpRange-14
14:00:07 [roy_scribe]
DC: Jacek suggests at end that real-world objects be considered secondary resources
14:01:53 [roy_scribe]
NW: suggest that we already have a clear way of describing these things: URI with fragment and URI without fragment
14:02:15 [roy_scribe]
RF: that train has left the station
14:03:08 [roy_scribe]
NW: (ed hat on) hears that section 2.6 is less clear than it could be and he is willing to noodle on how to clarify
14:03:36 [roy_scribe]
DC: unclear that there is a way to clarify it
14:03:50 [timbl__]
TBL: He suggests by "Worldly objects (people, cars, pets) should be considered secondary resources and defined/described by the representations of their
14:03:53 [timbl__]
respective primary resources" that the Primary Re=cource i a function of any Secondary Resoiurtce. This is not the case, though an obvious confudion from the language we use. In truth, there is for any Secondary URI an siungle corresponding Primary URI. (here may though be many primary resources which talk about a given dog, say.)
14:04:01 [roy_scribe]
DC: suggest including diagrams to clarify it is a relationship
14:05:14 [roy_scribe]
TBL: would you accept a change of "secondary resource" to "resource identified by a secondary URI"?
14:06:06 [roy_scribe]
NW: may be useful to preserve the terms for later discussion
14:07:53 [timbl__]
14:08:12 [roy_scribe]
DC: likes the idea of scrubbing the definition
14:08:29 [timbl__]
14:08:34 [DanC_]
14:08:50 [roy_scribe]
DC: sees possible error
14:09:45 [roy_scribe]
DC: second bullet... "One cannot carry out .." not true because it assumes that secondary resource is a class.
14:10:09 [roy_scribe]
14:10:14 [Chris]
I agree that the term secondary resource seems to confuse more than it clarifies
14:11:39 [roy_scribe]
NW: looking for ways to scrub the term in webarch
14:12:17 [roy_scribe]
I would say it always clarifies -- people actually have a way to discuss the difference now, whereas they did not before.
14:13:18 [DanC_]
RF: how about "The terms primary/secondary are only relationship; they don't refer to classes"
14:14:01 [roy_scribe]
NM: The same resource can be identified via multiple URIs; therefore, any resource that is called secondary to another in one case may be primary via a different URI.
14:14:28 [roy_scribe]
DC: no good way to explain this without use of a diagram
14:14:28 [DanC_]
14:15:22 [roy_scribe]
NM: perhaps a diagram that shows one resource being idenitified by differrent URIs (one with fragment, another witthout)
14:16:22 [roy_scribe]
CL: I volunteer to redraw these diagrams IF we agree to add them
14:17:29 [roy_scribe]
[lot's of noodling over diagrams happens]
14:19:59 [timbl__]
A URI with a fragment identifier may be used to refer to some resource without any implication that the URI without the fragment identifier can be dereferenced. accessible or will ever be accessed.
14:20:02 [roy_scribe]
NM: suggest adding links that show a secondary resource may be both referenced using URIs without fragments and multiple different URIs with fragments, making it clear that the relationship is not exclusive
14:20:46 [roy_scribe]
DC: poll -- for how many people does removing "secondary resource" appeal
14:21:06 [roy_scribe]
3 or 4 say yes
14:21:08 [timbl__]
In favor: CL TBL NM DC
14:22:01 [timbl__]
against: DC NW PC
14:22:46 [roy_scribe]
NW: offers to give it a whirl
14:23:55 [roy_scribe]
DC: other option, leave document as is and I will try to make the commenter happy
14:24:31 [roy_scribe]
ACTION Norm to create text to make someone happy on secondary resources and fragment ids
14:24:50 [roy_scribe]
(14) spam
14:24:53 [DanC_]
ACTION DanC: make sure "web faster" doesn't bother the chair next time he's doing an agenda
14:24:57 [Stuart]
14:25:42 [DanC_]
karl's clarification
14:25:58 [roy_scribe]
ACTION Norm: create text along the lines of what was discussed regarding primary/secondary resources and fragment ids
14:26:57 [roy_scribe]
DC: understand him to be saying that what is said about URIs is also applicable to all W3C standards
14:27:19 [roy_scribe]
DC: disagree, URI has a special place in architecture that must be right
14:27:45 [roy_scribe]
DC: GK says that we haven't said loud enough that URIs are special.
14:28:23 [DanC_]
s/DC: understand/CL: understand/
14:28:43 [DanC_]
14:28:58 [DanC_]
14:29:14 [DanC_]
s/CL: understand/DC: understand/
14:29:19 [DanC_]
we'll see if that works ;-)
14:29:23 [Chris]
we both said essentially the same thing :)
14:29:24 [roy_scribe]
PROPOSAL: s/understand him/understand Karl/
14:30:50 [DanC_]
q+ to propose we affirm "To achieve this goal, the Web makes use of a single global identification system: the URI. URIs are a cornerstone of Web architecture, providing identification that is common across the Web. "
14:31:13 [roy_scribe]
NW: For the Web architecture in the broader scope, URIs are the one thing that can't be replaced without fundamentally departing from the Web
14:32:10 [roy_scribe]
DC: offer to use thatr text in response to Karl
14:32:18 [roy_scribe]
14:32:28 [Chris]
that works for me - point Karl to the new text and say we are not inclined to change it
14:32:34 [roy_scribe]
14:32:57 [DanC_]
ACTION DanC: point out new "URIs are central to web arch" text in reply to Karl, ask if that satisfies
14:33:34 [roy_scribe]
(16) Tim Bray
14:33:53 [roy_scribe]
NW: dealt with editorial issues already
14:34:29 [roy_scribe]
NW: [runs though reply to TB]
14:37:52 [roy_scribe]
NW: 4.4.1 "has it been punctured" answer is no
14:38:49 [timbl__]
14:38:50 [roy_scribe]
NW: TB objects to use of non-human-readable documents as namespace descriptions
14:39:02 [Chris]
4.5.4 he wants a level of indirection
14:39:05 [timbl__]
14:39:16 [DanC_]
ack danc
14:39:16 [Zakim]
DanC_, you wanted to propose we affirm "To achieve this goal, the Web makes use of a single global identification system: the URI. URIs are a cornerstone of Web architecture,
14:39:19 [Zakim]
... providing identification that is common across the Web. "
14:39:26 [DanC_]
ack timbl
14:39:57 [roy_scribe]
TBL: emphasis of TB was on human readbility -- indirection was to satisfy everyone
14:40:55 [Chris]
OK so in 4.6, If we change "Because of their role in defining fragment identifier semantics, data" to "Data" what do we loose??
14:41:02 [roy_scribe]
[continuing on down list of TB comments]
14:42:40 [timbl__]
PROPOSAL: hange "Because of their role in defining fragment identifier semantics, data" to "Data"
14:42:42 [DanC_]
(I'd be happy to lose 4.6)
14:43:09 [noah]
s /hange/Change/
14:43:31 [roy_scribe]
4.6 should be "Future directions"
14:44:16 [timbl__]
I am in favor
14:45:10 [Chris]
Bray said "Data formats enable new
14:45:10 [Chris]
classes of applications, and the claim that this is necessarily related
14:45:10 [Chris]
to #fragid semantics is ridiculous."
14:45:51 [Chris]
end of
14:46:58 [roy_scribe]
POLL: In favor of change proposal "Because of their role in defining fragment identifier semantics, data" to "Data": RF, CL, PC, NM, SW
14:49:01 [roy_scribe]
RESOLVED: change 4.6 from "Because of their role in defining fragment identifier semantics, data" to "Data"
14:49:17 [roy_scribe]
DC abstains
14:50:59 [roy_scribe]
PROPOSAL: change title of 4.6 to "Future Directions for Data Formats"
14:54:30 [roy_scribe]
TBL: would like it to say more
14:55:31 [roy_scribe]
TBL: never mind, no objection to proposal
14:55:52 [roy_scribe]
RESOLVED: change title of 4.6 to "Future Directions for Data Formats"
14:56:16 [Chris]
Consistent with, for example, 3.8. Future Directions for Interaction
14:56:53 [roy_scribe]
(kd001) indicates satisfied, will close
14:57:09 [DanC_]
(it is closed; report will be updated presently)
14:57:31 [roy_scribe]
(kd004) we asked for input, Karl responded ...
14:57:50 [DanC_]
KD's clarification on kd004
14:59:41 [DanC_]
14:59:44 [DanC_]
rather: KD's reply
15:00:25 [DanC_]
15:01:07 [roy_scribe]
"out of context, we don't know what URI overloading means."
15:01:32 [roy_scribe]
DC: if we use an example out of WSDL, maybe it would be clearer
15:02:01 [timbl__]
He says: "I understand that URI can be used in
15:02:01 [timbl__]
another context to identify things, but it's not obvious for someone
15:02:02 [timbl__]
who's reading your document and as always thought about URI as
15:02:02 [timbl__]
something that gives you a Web page."
15:02:36 [roy_scribe]
DC: isn't there any example like that in WS?
15:02:49 [DanC_]
15:02:59 [DanC_]
q+ ndw
15:03:08 [DanC_]
ack ndw
15:03:30 [roy_scribe]
NM: not anything that is deployed, though there are some theories of such in process
15:03:52 [Chris]
Chris: what he seems to be saying is, must every URI identify a single thing and thus web pages that talkabout multiple things are bad" oru and swer, i propose, should be "no, web pages that talk about multiole things are fine (but give each thing an anchor so it can be separately referenced"
15:04:31 [roy_scribe]
DC: docbook example using DTD and instance [on whiteboard]
15:06:04 [Chris]
Karl later amplified his comment here:
15:06:05 [Chris]
15:06:16 [roy_scribe]
NW: in short, we need a more compelling example that shows obvious breakage
15:07:01 [roy_scribe]
SW: the current examples do not indicate which one is wrong and why
15:07:58 [Chris]
So what will be the choice of a user agent to identify this feature.
15:07:58 [Chris]
Does that mean it's a bad practice to have different functionnalities
15:07:58 [Chris]
in a same Web page? That the URIs identifying must be something else,
15:07:58 [Chris]
for example.
15:07:58 [Chris] The Web page
15:07:59 [Chris]
-> The definition
15:08:18 [Chris]
-> The forum
15:08:57 [Stuart]
Stuart has joined #tagmem
15:10:28 [Chris]
Chris offers to respond to commentor along these lines
15:11:26 [roy_scribe]
ACTION Chris: respond to Karl regarding KD004
15:13:33 [DanC_]
recent comment from HTML WG
15:14:30 [roy_scribe]
PC: list appears to be lacking reference to the XLink issue
15:14:50 [roy_scribe]
DC: will investigate
15:15:20 [roy_scribe]
NW: he objects to our document with process objection?
15:15:43 [roy_scribe]
DC: sentence is true (over objections), but it did follow the W3C process
15:17:11 [roy_scribe]
PC: Taskforce has accomplished nothing over seven months
15:17:30 [Stuart]
15:18:36 [roy_scribe]
SW: reads as effectively supporting the HTML WG conclusion prior to actually working on the issue
15:20:15 [DanC_]
q= timbl, nm, dc, nw
15:20:22 [DanC_]
queue= timbl, nm, dc, nw
15:20:28 [DanC_]
ack timbl
15:20:32 [roy_scribe]
RF: suggest responding that the Recommendation holds until the taskforce comes up with a different solution that has wider consensus
15:21:31 [DanC_]
q+ CL
15:21:34 [roy_scribe]
TBL: (describes alternative solutions for XLink)
15:22:34 [DanC_]
... HTML linking not being reused; HTML WG building an RDF syntax that isn't RDF/XML... this points to the fact that we haven't solved the language mixing issue
15:22:47 [DanC_]
... something isn't working... reuse/modularity
15:23:04 [Stuart]
15:23:10 [DanC_]
acl cl
15:23:11 [roy_scribe]
TBL: this is a side effect of larger frustration over difference between HTML direction versus XML direction, not-invented-here syndrome, and lack of cooperation with other working group solutions
15:23:12 [DanC_]
ack cl
15:23:20 [paulc]
Why W3C Process failed HTML WG: see
15:24:17 [DanC_]
ack nm
15:24:21 [roy_scribe]
CL: agree that there are larger issues which caused the HTML WG to go down this path where they end up reinventing XML with different restrictions/syntax
15:24:43 [Chris]
15:25:10 [roy_scribe]
scribe says "trying to keep up" doesn't always work
15:25:14 [DanC_]
ack nm
15:25:45 [Chris]
chris:what i actually said: there are some obstactles to reuse - a spec has to be designed to be modular to be reusable in part
15:26:20 [roy_scribe]
NM: one POV is to argue the merits of XLink, is it good, place nice explanation in webarch -- that's nice in principle, but not practical
15:26:33 [timbl__]
CL had said that DTD limitations were part of the problem.
15:27:01 [Chris]
Chris: I also said that restrictions on usage, content models etc were another part of the prolem
15:27:29 [Chris]
Some of these have been solved in the years since, eg move from DTDs to 'modular unreadable DTDs' to RelaxNG
15:27:47 [roy_scribe]
NM: other POV is to say: look, this is a recommendation, it should be considered and what we say in webarch is to simply state that -- there is no conflict with HTML WG because we only say it should be considered
15:28:07 [DanC_]
ack danc
15:28:07 [Zakim]
DanC_, you wanted to note that TAG's endorsement of XLink on the merits is the issue here; let's not just say "it's a W3C Rec so you should try it"
15:28:14 [roy_scribe]
NM: it may be worthy of debate, but that debate need not be given in webarch
15:28:44 [timbl__]
q+ to wonder whether the W3C process guarntees that stg is th ebest, or rather that it is good for some use.
15:28:48 [roy_scribe]
DC: the opinion expressed by the TAG was actually stronger
15:28:50 [Chris]
The fact that we icked that shows that we feel linking is fundamental to the Web
15:29:11 [Chris]
s/icked/picked it/
15:29:14 [roy_scribe]
DC: I don't think we can cite XLink without endorsing it
15:30:22 [roy_scribe]
DC: I think that what we said was that XLInk is good, please use it
15:30:38 [Norm]
Political problems notwithstanding, XLink is described as a specification "which allows elements to be inserted into XML documents in order to create and describe links between resources". I don't feel any obligation to make changes on the basis of this comment.
15:30:40 [DanC_]
ack nw
15:30:45 [DanC_]
ack dc
15:30:58 [DanC_]
ack timbl
15:30:58 [Zakim]
timbl__, you wanted to wonder whether the W3C process guarntees that stg is th ebest, or rather that it is good for some use.
15:31:16 [roy_scribe]
NM: sounds similar to what I am saying (NW agrees)
15:33:23 [DanC_]
q+ paulc
15:33:52 [roy_scribe]
TBL: people tend to go to whatever WG that specifies things the way that they want to pursue -- a conflict occurs when, eventually, one way is approved as a recommended specification for a given area and another direction is left behind (or placed in a less approved state than "Recommendation")
15:33:57 [timbl__]
CL: The SVG WG has revisited the question of whether we should use xlink as not a lot of other specs use it still.
15:34:03 [DanC_]
ack paulc
15:34:21 [DanC_]
(when are we scheduled to stop?)
15:34:30 [paulc]
15:35:01 [roy_scribe]
PC: one of the things that caused us to enter the discussion was publication of the HLink draft. I point out that it has been dormant since then. Does anyone know what the current status is within HTML WG?
15:35:51 [Chris]
15:36:13 [roy_scribe]
SW: has it been absorbed into larger spec? [answer: no]
15:36:19 [Chris]
10. XHTML Hypertext Module
15:36:29 [timbl__]
15:37:56 [roy_scribe]
PC: Is it your view that we are making a normative requirement on use of XLink?
15:38:14 [roy_scribe]
NW: no, we have been careful to say "should" and consider
15:38:58 [roy_scribe]
PROPOSAL: we stand by our text, respond to commenter as such
15:39:06 [roy_scribe]
objection: CL, TBL
15:40:06 [Chris]
15:40:19 [Chris]
13. XHTML Hypertext Attributes Module
15:40:42 [roy_scribe]
DC: please propose solution
15:41:48 [roy_scribe]
TBL: uptake of XLink was used by SVG, considered and rejected by HTML
15:41:59 [DanC_]
... i.e. let's note that in webarch
15:42:00 [Chris]
q+ to talk about link vs anyURI
15:42:25 [paulc]
15:42:31 [roy_scribe]
PC: point about SVG is also listed in our issue list
15:43:21 [Stuart]
Re: HLink checkout HTML-WG Roadmap
15:43:37 [Chris]
15:43:58 [roy_scribe]
PC: TAG issue xlinkScope-23 is at "no decision, after 1.0"
15:46:16 [roy_scribe]
NM: why doesn't "should consider" satisfy their complaint?
15:46:32 [roy_scribe]
DC: we don't mention other solutions
15:47:05 [Chris]
"The HLink module defined in this specification provides XHTML Family Members with the ability to specify which attributes of elements represent Hyperlinks, and how those hyperlinks should be traversed, and extends XLink use to a wider class of languages than those restricted to the syntactic style allowed by XLink."
15:47:13 [Chris]
15:47:37 [roy_scribe]
NM: but it is the only recommendation that does, specifically, have the goal of satisfying this topic
15:48:41 [Chris]
15:49:00 [roy_scribe]
NM: there are other XML languages that intend to use XLink, not just SVG
15:49:04 [DanC_]
ack chris
15:49:04 [Zakim]
Chris, you wanted to talk about link vs anyURI
15:50:47 [roy_scribe]
CL: part of the problem, historically, is that a combinatorial explosion of attributes that try to do the same thing as XLink is believed to be less good than using XML elements to do the same.
15:51:16 [DanC_]
q+ timbl, paulc
15:51:40 [DanC_]
15:52:31 [roy_scribe]
CL: part two, although that is true, it is often the case that the designer only wants one URI associated with an existing element, and if that happens to remain the case it is simpler than XLink
15:52:43 [roy_scribe]
to use attributes
15:52:47 [Chris]
Chris outlines a possible future linking architecture that is succinct, expressive, etc
15:54:33 [roy_scribe]
TBL: it is quite reasonable that a reader of this document might be led to believe that XLink is applicable in all cases, which is not appropriate, and thus I hesitate to endorse XLink in this way without more clarificcation
15:54:50 [roy_scribe]
DC: hears 2 things
15:55:03 [Norm]
15:55:46 [Chris]
Chris: And similarly to people over selling Xlink (RDF should use Xlink, etc) people have oversold RFF (XLink should use RDF)...
15:55:58 [roy_scribe]
DC: (1) change "Xlink is an appropriate specification" to "Xlink is a specification"
15:56:24 [DanC_]
ack timbl
15:56:26 [Norm]
PROPOSAL XLink is not the only linking design that has been proposed for XML, nor is it universally accepted as a good design. See also TAG issue ...
15:56:27 [DanC_]
q- paulc
15:56:35 [roy_scribe]
DC: (2) salt to taste with reference to how SVG uses XLink, other technology uses (or does not use) Xlink, etc.
15:58:21 [roy_scribe]
RESOLVED: add that XLink is not the only linking design that has been proposed for XML, nor is it universally accepted as a good design. See also TAG issue xlinkScope-23
15:59:12 [roy_scribe]
ACTION Stuart: respond to commenter with this resolution
16:00:08 [roy_scribe]
PC: are there any other new comments?
16:02:24 [Chris]
rrsagent, pointer?
16:02:24 [RRSAgent]
16:02:39 [DanC_]
RRSAgent, make logs world-access
16:02:51 [Chris]
zakim, bye
16:02:51 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #tagmem
16:02:57 [Chris]
rrsagent, bye
16:02:57 [RRSAgent]
I see 13 open action items:
16:02:57 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Tim to investingate possible staff contact for TAG, due date 20 October 2004 [1]
16:02:57 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
16:02:57 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Stuart get a timescale from ian about charter revision and availability [2]
16:02:57 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
16:02:57 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Paul to create new monthly summary [3]
16:02:57 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
16:02:57 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Paul create draft summary for AC [4]
16:02:57 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
16:02:57 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Norm add "for more info, see also" link to to 4.x [5]
16:02:57 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
16:02:57 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: PaulC to solicit QA WG review of draft extensibility/versioning finding [6]
16:02:57 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
16:02:57 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: PC to Nag the QAWG until they review the finding. [7]
16:02:57 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
16:02:57 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: DC to Report back to QA on our disposition of their comments. [8]
16:02:57 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
16:02:57 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: DanC to make sure "web faster" doesn't bother the chair next time he's doing an agenda [9]
16:02:57 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
16:02:57 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Norm to create text along the lines of what was discussed regarding primary/secondary resources and fragment ids [10]
16:02:57 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
16:02:57 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: DanC to point out new "URIs are central to web arch" text in reply to Karl, ask if that satisfies [11]
16:02:57 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
16:02:57 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Chris to respond to Karl regarding KD004 [12]
16:02:57 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
16:02:57 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Stuart to respond to commenter with this resolution [13]
16:02:57 [RRSAgent]
recorded in