18:45:05 RRSAgent has joined #tagmem 18:45:09 Just doing my part to get us through. There's at least one of those we should probably talk about, uhm, the one I didn't bat back, I'll check which one 18:48:33 Zakim, this will be TAG 18:48:33 ok, DanC; I see TAG_Weekly()2:30PM scheduled to start 18 minutes ago 18:48:43 0TAG, DanC 18:49:10 ah 18:49:42 18:49:42 18:49:42 18:49:42 18:49:43 18:49:45 18:49:47 18:49:49 ÿ 18:49:51 18:49:53 18:51:38 Heh 18:53:04 ping? 18:53:19 zakim, who's here? 18:53:19 sorry, Norm, I don't know what conference this is 18:53:20 On IRC I see RRSAgent, Zakim, Stuart, Chris, DanC, Norm 18:53:20 WARNING: No meeting title found! 18:53:20 You should specify the meeting title like this: 18:53:20 Meeting: Weekly Baking Club Meeting 18:55:21 timbl has joined #tagmem 18:55:39 TAG_Weekly()2:30PM has now started 18:55:46 +Norm 18:55:48 RRSagent, stop 18:59:04 + +1.781.883.aaaa 19:00:02 +TimBL 19:00:51 zakim, dial chris-617 19:00:51 ok, Chris; the call is being made 19:00:52 +Chris 19:01:16 Zakim, who is on the phone? 19:01:16 On the phone I see Norm, +1.781.883.aaaa, TimBL, Chris 19:01:28 +Stuart 19:01:37 Zakim, +1.781.883.aaaa is Noah 19:01:37 +Noah; got it 19:01:44 +DanC 19:01:45 +Roy 19:02:19 zakim, pick a scribe 19:02:19 Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose DanC 19:02:50 zakim, who is here? 19:02:51 On the phone I see Norm, Noah, TimBL, Chris, Stuart, Roy, DanC 19:02:51 On IRC I see timbl, RRSAgent, Zakim, Stuart, Chris, DanC, Norm 19:03:19 Scribe: DanC 19:03:46 scribe next week: Chris 19:04:02 chair next week: Stuart 19:04:14 paulc has joined #tagmem 19:04:19 Zakim, who's on the phone? 19:04:19 On the phone I see Norm, Noah, TimBL, Chris, Stuart, Roy, DanC 19:04:45 Noah: partial regrets. 19:05:16 . ACTION CL: Chris collect IRC logs from last f2f ( cf pointers for assembling meeting minutes of 11 Aug) and turn into minutes. 19:05:20 +[Microsoft] 19:05:29 zakim, +[microsoft is paulc 19:05:29 sorry, Norm, I do not recognize a party named '+[microsoft' 19:05:34 zakim, [microsoft is paulc 19:05:34 +paulc; got it 19:05:42 CL reports problems with a tool that seemed to be working before. 19:06:27 SW: propose http://www.w3.org/2004/08/09-tagmem-irc http://www.w3.org/2004/08/10-tagmem-irc and http://www.w3.org/2004/08/11-tagmem-irc 19:07:07 ... and http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2004Aug/0025.html 19:07:15 DanC: gotta make the latter public 19:07:19 Otherwise I will make the proposal that we accept the following as as 19:07:19 full and accurate account of the meeting that we are going to get: 19:07:19 http://www.w3.org/2004/08/09-tagmem-irc 19:07:19 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2004Aug/0025.html 19:07:19 http://www.w3.org/2004/08/10-tagmem-irc 19:07:20 http://www.w3.org/2004/08/11-tagmem-irc 19:07:32 -Noah 19:07:35 so RESOLVED. ACTION DanC: make http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2004Aug/0025.html public 19:08:05 PROPOSED: to accept http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/10/05-07-tag.html as a true record. 2nd. 19:08:20 so RESOLVED. 19:09:02 SW: thanks, Dan, for making prose minutes 19:09:09 +1 19:09:12 SW: today's agenda... http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/10/18-tag 19:09:33 ACTION PC: create draft summary for AC, get it to Steve Bratt by Oct 22 19:09:38 3. 19:09:38 * ACTION TBL: to investigate possible staff contact for TAG, due date 20 October 2004 19:09:49 ACTION TBL: to investigate possible staff contact for TAG, due date 20 October 2004 19:09:54 (continued without discussion) 19:10:09 Topic: 1.1 TAG Charter (10 mins max!) 19:10:38 SW: NM expressed some concerns [... missed?] 19:10:57 PC: I've forwarded the revised charter to colleages in microsoft 19:11:03 ... don't have an answer yet 19:11:28 PC: the 25 Oct deadline is not a lot of time 19:11:37 ... I can see the motivation for it... 19:12:00 NM expressed concerned that he does not what his own disclosure obligations are. 19:12:16 withdrawn due to lack of critical mass: Proposal: The TAG welcomes the revisions proposed in the draft TAG Charter. (member visible) 19:12:51 SW: skipping over "Generalised Representations: DONE: ACTION NM ..." for now... 19:13:05 Topic: 2.1 Review of 2nd Last Call Document 19:13:38 NW: going well... http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/webarch-20041014/ 19:13:52 ... I missed an update to the "... however ..." bit re RFC2119 19:14:02 DONE: ACTION NDW: to fix cross references to "uri allocation" that read "uri assignment" 19:14:08 DONE: ACTION NDW: add "for more info, see also" link to a section of a QA spec to 4.x 19:14:15 DONE: ACTION NDW: to produce an editor's draft by 14 Oct (COB EDT) 19:14:39 ........... 19:14:43 * Use of "assign" for URI -> resource 19:14:47 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webarch-comments/2004OctDec/0024.html 19:15:08 SW: I intend to go 7, 20, infores, rest 19:16:02 "I can 'live with' whatever wording you choose" -- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webarch-comments/2004OctDec/0024.html 19:16:17 ACTION SW: Close that thread Use of "assign" for URI -> resource 19:16:58 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/uri/2004Aug/0007.html is the minutes of the meeting 19:17:08 of the URIRev04 BOF 19:18:38 RoyF: let's get involved in the discussion of the revision of URI registration guidelines docs 19:19:01 From: Larry Masinter 19:19:01 To: 'Eric Hellman' 19:19:01 Cc: uri@w3.org 19:19:01 Subject: RE: updating RFC 2718 (Guidelines for new URL schemes) 19:19:01 Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2004 23:23:23 -0700 19:20:17 revision documents seem to be forthcoming but not yet available 19:21:03 RF, NW, SW volunteer to participate in the review. 19:21:45 PC: I like the idea of letting them know what's in webarch now 19:23:26 SW will let LMM know we'll gladly get involved in review of guideslines in his action. 19:23:42 RF: FYI, IESG approved URI spec as IETF Standard. 19:24:10 SW: unfortunately, there are comments from Dubost that we didn't discuss in Basel. 19:24:29 Looking at KD14 in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webarch-comments/2004JulSep/0048.html 19:24:31 NW: I responded "... are you satisifed" or "... could you be more specific" for all but K14... 19:25:02 *KD 014 19:25:02 4.5.7. Media Types for XML 19:25:02 """ In general, a representation provider SHOULD NOT assign Internet 19:25:02 media types beginning with "text/" to XML representations.""" 19:25:02 Hmmmm.... I'm not sure. I understand. But for example if you want to 19:25:03 display the source code of a XHTML file with text/plain, it's perfectly 19:25:05 valid and a useful case. 19:26:11 NW: but for the case of a page that's a source view of XML, text/plain would seem to be a good idea... 19:26:27 q+ 19:26:51 ack timbl 19:27:09 CL: [scribe got too involved to take notes] 19:27:20 wonders about text/plain;charset="utf-16" 19:27:45 TBL: I don't think the special case of a source view merits a change in webarch 19:27:46 um, well, 19:27:54 The root is http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webarch-comments/2004OctDec/0053.html 19:28:01 tbl, pls reply to http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webarch-comments/2004OctDec/0053.html 19:28:17 Chris (explains text/* required fallback to text/plain;charset="us-ascii") 19:28:38 ACTION TimBL: reply to KD014 defending current text 19:28:55 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webarch-comments/2004OctDec/0055.html 19:29:08 KD016 Orthogonal specifications http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webarch-comments/2004OctDec/0055.html 19:29:18 * KD 016 19:29:18 5.1. Orthogonal Specifications 19:29:18 """the software developer community would benefit from being able to 19:29:18 find all HTTP headers from the HTTP specification (including any 19:29:18 associated extension registries and specification updates per IETF 19:29:20 process). Perhaps as a result, this feature of the HTML specification 19:29:21 is not widely deployed. """ 19:31:03 Not true. Use case. I'm a technical writer, I'm explaining how to 19:31:03 create an HTML file, foo.html, I give a link to the html representation 19:31:03 of foo.html and therefore served as text/html. Now I want to explain 19:31:03 the source code, and I would like to use the benefits of the object 19:31:03 element to display the source code of the same file. So I set in my 19:31:05 object element the text/plain mime type. 19:31:06 Though because of precedences rules of HTTP over HTML, the only way to 19:31:08 do is to not specify on the server side the mime type but only in the 19:31:10 meta of the HTML file. So that once it can be displayed as an HTML file 19:31:12 Roy has joined #tagmem 19:31:12 or it can be displayed as a text file. 19:31:48 Roy has left #tagmem 19:31:55 NDW thinks he's replied "I don't think this merits a change", though the archive doesn't yet show it 19:32:38 Roy has joined #tagmem 19:32:46 Topic: Information Resources 19:33:21 SW: Stickler was not satisfied by the text we agreed in Basel. 19:33:26 ... suggested 2 changes. 19:33:53 ... 1 is a change to the wording of the definition of information resource 19:34:23 ... 2nd is to define both Web Resource and Information Resource 19:34:43 DanC: I'm not persuaded to change our decision from Basel 19:34:47 CL, NW: me too. 19:35:20 SW: anyone care to support the changes? [silence] 19:35:28 SW: I'll let him know we discuss it. 19:35:57 ACTION SW: inform Stickler re information resources 19:36:06 I have to step away for 30 seconds. 19:37:30 NW: "one may compare" no longer occurs; yes, I think I deleted the 2 sentences 19:37:35 ... back now 19:38:43 DanC: how about [closed] and pls fwd your question to www-tag for discussion 19:38:52 okay 19:39:10 ACTION RF: reply [closed] and pls fwd your question to www-tag for discussion re non-authoritative syntaxes for fragment identifiers 19:40:08 > > - in 3.3.1, "One cannot carry out an HTTP POST operation using a URI 19:40:08 > > that identifies a secondary resource." this seems very HTTP-specific; 19:40:08 > > any chance this refers to something broader? Otherwise, I suggest it 19:40:08 > > should belong to the HTTP spec, not to WebArch. 19:41:13 no longer occurs - moot 19:41:26 ACTION SW: respond to Dom re resources/representations 19:41:40 NW: section on secondary has been redone. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/webarch-20041014/#def-secondary-resource 19:42:22 "I expect that you should hear a reply from us 19:42:22 by Monday EOB" 19:42:27 CL: I'll ping again. 19:42:36 ... re too positive on extensibility 19:43:35 (ok, so that one's really in commenter-wait state; Dom's msg wasn't a state-changing msg) 19:44:55 (in the agenda, italics denote "commentor wait state") 19:45:03 ping sent 19:45:11 ACTION DC: to reply to commenter re primary and secondary resources. CONTINUES. with apologies 19:45:25 ACTION DC: point out new "URIs are central to web arch" text in reply to Karl, ask if that satisfies. CONTINUES. with apologies. 19:45:51 * [Tim Bray] Review of webarch-20040816 is in commentor-wait 19:46:11 NW: I prodded him last week. 19:47:24 * Re: KD 004 19:47:46 is in commentor wait, as of CL's 7 Oct msg. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webarch-comments/2004OctDec/0011.html 19:48:54 DanC: we've done as much on "Late last-call comment on AWWW" as I think we ought. 19:49:08 +Noah 19:49:37 ... it's cited from the Basel minutes. 19:49:48 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/webarch/#xml-links 19:49:53 * HTML WG last call comment ... 19:50:31 ... which has come out of commentor-wait state. 19:52:11 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2004Oct/0050.html 19:52:21 rather, it's still in commentor wait state, but the commentor has given us an update out-of-band 19:53:07 SW: I'm willing to follow up, showing them the specific text. 19:53:52 ACTION SW: update HTML WG on specific text re xlink 19:54:10 * # Editorial comments on 28 Sep 2004 Editor's Draft of Web Arch 19:54:39 NDW responded, putting this in commentor-wait state. 19:55:24 PC: his message is all editorial, giving us license to do as we may; let's close it. 19:55:53 ACTION NDW: close thread on editorial input from ij 19:56:25 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webarch-comments/2004OctDec/0003.html 19:56:46 -Noah 19:57:13 * Late last-call comment on AWWW http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webarch-comments/2004OctDec/0003.html re 4.5.3 19:57:50 TimBL: "One particularly useful mapping in the case of flat namespaces (specified, for example, in [RDFXML]) is to combine the namespace URI, a hash ("#"), and the local name, thus creating a URI for a secondary resource (the identified term)." is buggy. 19:58:21 TimBL: it would have been nicer that way, but actually the rule is just to concatenate. 19:58:57 NDW: how about I s/ a hash ("#"),// 19:59:26 CL: the "thus creating..." bit falls apart 19:59:34 no, that only works if the URI ended in a # 19:59:48 +Noah 19:59:55 would be a better algorithm to add a hash *if required* 19:59:56 -Noah 19:59:57 ACTION NDW: fix "One particularly useful mapping in the case of flat namespaces (specified, for example, in [RDFXML]) is to combine the namespace URI, a hash ("#"), and the local name, thus creating a URI for a secondary resource (the identified term)." 20:00:06 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webarch-comments/2004JulSep/0130.html 20:00:07 He is right. to concatenate a namespace name ending in "#" with... 20:00:43 * URIs and resources http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webarch-comments/2004JulSep/0130.html 20:00:56 +Noah 20:01:46 TimBL: how about [missed specific suggestion] 20:02:02 ... "specifications associated with the scheme name" 20:02:13 PC: that's what he suggests. 20:03:17 DanC: let's refer to where we traced the path thru all the specs 20:03:21 NDW: I'm willing to fix... 20:04:58 ah... rabbit-chase is 3.1.1. Details of retrieving a representation 20:05:58 +1 to clarification by reference 20:06:16 ACTION NDW: fix "relevant specifications", incorporating a cross-reference to 3.1.1 Details of retrieving a representation 20:07:59 * Some thoughts on effective access to "primary" vs "secondary" resources, consistency of descriptions, and bootstrapping the semantic web... 20:08:21 DanC: this one's late 20:08:30 a few skimmed it; it doesn't seem to merit further attention 20:09:03 ------- 20:09:22 NW: I now have 2 actions... is that it? If so, I can have a spec for next week. 20:09:52 SW: 1st noah's text... 20:10:30 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/10/webarch-nm/ArchdocNoahMediaTypeRevs.html 20:10:50 Architecture of the World Wide Web, First Edition 20:10:50 Editor's Draft with Noah Mendelsohn Resource Typing Proposal 14 October 2004 20:11:25 NM: [recaps the genesis of this action...] 20:11:38 DONE: ACTION NM: to take a run through to see how generalizing 'representation' to be less constrained would look with more careful terminology, report on whether this looks feasible or not.: see draft of Thu, 14 Oct 2004 15:01:12 -0400 20:12:20 q+ to ask what term NM is suggesting for bag-of-bits-with-mime-type 20:12:44 CL: I like that text you wrote in 3.2 20:13:09 NM: section by section... 1. Introduction 20:13:41 | the noun "representation" means "[{NOAH>} Machine readable data that encodes octets that encode resource state information". 20:13:47 sorry i was only going to the green items in the toc 20:14:52 NM: in 2.4. URI Schemes ... 20:15:07 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/10/webarch-nm/ArchdocNoahMediaTypeRevs.html#schemes-and-representations 20:16:33 (once again, I'll point out that the I18N WG commented on the pronouceability of Oxaca) 20:16:53 NM: new good practice: Reuse representation formats 20:17:15 q? 20:17:20 I like the direction this is going 20:17:30 q+ 20:17:39 q+ 20:17:42 q+ to give general agreement 20:17:43 " New protocols created for the web SHOULD transmit representations as octet streams typed by Internet media types." 20:18:19 ack danc 20:18:19 DanC, you wanted to ask what term NM is suggesting for bag-of-bits-with-mime-type 20:18:26 ack Norm 20:18:34 NM: I've read it now, and I like it. 20:18:50 ac Roy 20:18:54 ack Roy 20:18:55 RF: I don't like the way "protocol" is used... 20:19:05 ... it's really about assignment of names [?] 20:19:39 protocols 20:19:40 RF: I sent mail about this. (PC notes having received it. pointer?) 20:19:58 q+ to talk about "protocols" 20:20:30 RF: HTTP protocol is used to proxy representations of resources named with ftp: etc. 20:20:58 NM: I think that's what I was trying to say, but I guess I misused "protcol" 20:21:06 RF: yes, this problem predates your changes. 20:22:33 ha! So I was right to focus on 3.2 Interactions section :) 20:22:37 NM: do we have a name for protocol, as opposed to scheme? [the point is more subtle, but the scribe has no hope] 20:23:04 the use of the protocols, the transfer, is the interactions section 20:23:40 q? 20:24:13 (scribe thinks he hears on-the-wire-protocol, naming-scheme, and relationships between those and representations being discussed...) 20:24:40 scribe seems to be correct, to me 20:25:06 (DanC is concerned by the frequency of "whatever we call it" references; deciding on the terms is 80% of the work) 20:25:07 ack Chris 20:25:07 Chris, you wanted to give general agreement 20:25:14 ack chris 20:25:25 CL: I like NM's text in 3.2 ... 20:25:44 ... [missed]. There are other protocols that use MIME: email, ... 20:25:57 NM: how about moving some of the story from [where?] to 3.2? 20:25:59 CL: yes... 20:26:09 from 2.4.1 20:26:09 q? 20:26:16 q- 20:26:45 protcol should be 'scheme name' perhaps, in section 2 20:26:55 NM: I read the webarch spec as saying [something] that I gather isn't what the TAG meant. 20:27:49 [something] = use of protocols, rather than registration of scheme names 20:28:53 i thought I was being asked a question! 20:29:11 SW: does this merit another last call? 20:29:14 q+ to carry on with my rationale 20:29:24 CL, NW: no. DC: it introduces that risk, yes 20:29:32 I don't know how to determine when a change requires new last call 20:30:33 DELTA does not merit a new last call if, when presented with LC+DELTA, the LC reviewers would say "yes, my review applies to that document too" 20:31:31 q+ 20:31:46 ack me 20:31:46 Chris, you wanted to carry on with my rationale 20:31:51 ack norm 20:32:30 NW: I'll make the 2 actioned changes, checkpoint that, and then take a stab at incorporating changes from NM 20:32:54 SW: separately-named docs? NW: OK. 20:33:17 -paulc 20:33:22 -Norm 20:33:24 -Noah 20:33:30 -Roy 20:33:46 ACTION NDW: attempt to incorporate input from NM and RF etc. on generalizing representations 20:34:18 ADJOURN. 20:34:22 hmm... did we slip? http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/10/05-07-tag.html#plan234 20:34:37 Yes, I think we've slipped a week 20:34:45 Dunno if we can make up the time or not 20:36:41 well, it's not certain that we've slipped. 20:36:51 but yes, I think we're dipping into our contingency 20:36:59 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/10/05-07-tag.html#plan234 20:37:06 apparently not 20:37:13 -DanC 20:37:17 -TimBL 20:37:20 -Stuart 20:37:22 -Chris 20:37:23 TAG_Weekly()2:30PM has ended 20:37:24 Attendees were Norm, TimBL, Chris, Stuart, Noah, DanC, Roy, [Microsoft], paulc 20:39:52 Uhm. 20:39:53 RRSAgent, bye 20:39:53 I see 14 open action items: 20:39:53 ACTION: PC to create draft summary for AC, get it to Steve Bratt by Oct 22 [1] 20:39:53 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/10/18-tagmem-irc#T19-09-33 20:39:53 ACTION: TBL to to investigate possible staff contact for TAG, due date 20 October 2004 [2] 20:39:53 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/10/18-tagmem-irc#T19-09-49 20:39:53 ACTION: SW to Close that thread Use of "assign" for URI -> resource [3] 20:39:53 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/10/18-tagmem-irc#T19-16-17 20:39:53 ACTION: TimBL to reply to KD014 defending current text [4] 20:39:53 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/10/18-tagmem-irc#T19-28-38 20:39:53 ACTION: SW to inform Stickler re information resources [5] 20:39:53 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/10/18-tagmem-irc#T19-35-57 20:39:53 ACTION: RF to reply [closed] and pls fwd your question to www-tag for discussion re non-authoritative syntaxes for fragment identifiers [6] 20:39:53 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/10/18-tagmem-irc#T19-39-10 20:39:53 ACTION: SW to respond to Dom re resources/representations [7] 20:39:53 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/10/18-tagmem-irc#T19-41-26 20:39:53 ACTION: DC to to reply to commenter re primary and secondary resources. CONTINUES. with apologies [8] 20:39:53 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/10/18-tagmem-irc#T19-45-11 20:39:53 ACTION: DC to point out new "URIs are central to web arch" text in reply to Karl, ask if that satisfies. CONTINUES. with apologies. [9] 20:39:53 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/10/18-tagmem-irc#T19-45-25 20:39:53 ACTION: SW to update HTML WG on specific text re xlink [10] 20:39:53 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/10/18-tagmem-irc#T19-53-52 20:39:53 ACTION: NDW to close thread on editorial input from ij [11] 20:39:53 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/10/18-tagmem-irc#T19-55-53 20:39:53 ACTION: NDW to fix "One particularly useful mapping in the case of flat namespaces (specified, for example, in [RDFXML]) is to combine the namespace URI, a hash ("#"), and the local name, thus creating a URI for a secondary resource (the identified term)." [12] 20:39:53 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/10/18-tagmem-irc#T19-59-57 20:39:53 ACTION: NDW to fix "relevant specifications", incorporating a cross-reference to 3.1.1 Details of retrieving a representation [13] 20:39:53 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/10/18-tagmem-irc#T20-06-16 20:39:53 ACTION: NDW to attempt to incorporate input from NM and RF etc. on generalizing representations [14] 20:39:53 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/10/18-tagmem-irc#T20-33-46