IRC log of tagmem on 2004-11-29

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:35:15 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #tagmem
14:36:43 [DanC_lap]
Zakim, this is tag
14:36:43 [Zakim]
DanC_lap, I see TAG_f2f()9:00AM in the schedule but not yet started. Perhaps you mean "this will be tag".
14:36:50 [DanC_lap]
Zakim, this will be tag
14:36:50 [Zakim]
ok, DanC_lap; I see TAG_f2f()9:00AM scheduled to start 36 minutes ago
14:37:21 [DanC_lap]
Zakim, Stata holds Norm, Noah, TimBL, DanC, PaulC, Chris
14:37:21 [Zakim]
sorry, DanC_lap, I do not recognize a party named 'Stata'
14:37:25 [DanC_lap]
14:37:28 [DanC_lap]
Zakim, Stata holds Norm, Noah, TimBL, DanC, PaulC, Chris
14:37:28 [Zakim]
sorry, DanC_lap, I do not recognize a party named 'Stata'
14:38:07 [DanC_lap]
Zakim, you don't manage attendance when we're not connected to a telcon, do you?
14:38:07 [Zakim]
I don't understand your question, DanC_lap.
14:39:49 [noah]
Scribe: Noah Mendelsohn
14:39:58 [noah]
ScribeNick: noah
14:40:08 [Chris]
Meeting: TAG f2f
14:40:16 [Chris]
Chair: Norm
14:40:26 [noah]
Topic: Agenda review and administrivia
14:40:27 [Chris]
14:41:06 [noah]
Attendees in person: Norm Walsh, Noah Mendelsohn, Tim Berners-Lee, Dan Connolly, Paul Cotton, Chris Lilley
14:41:18 [noah]
By videoconference: Stuart Williams
14:41:32 [noah]
We are expecting Roy Fielding to show up soon.
14:43:19 [DanC_lap]
TimBL: I'm out tomorrow AM
14:43:36 [noah]
Likely absences: Tim BL will miss Tues, morning. Chris has conflict for Tues, details TBD.
14:44:13 [noah]
Paul: Dave Orchard arrives tonight. We should leave versioning until he is available.
14:45:09 [noah]
Norm: we'll move 3. Future Directions for WebArch ahead of 1.1 A/C Meeting Preparation (45-90 mins)
14:45:17 [noah]
Norm: regrets for 12/6 telcon
14:45:50 [Chris]
I'm find for Monday
14:45:56 [noah]
14:46:20 [noah]
Chris: I owe press release text for 12/6. That should be a good agenda item for the 6th.
14:46:21 [DanC_lap]
I fly back to KC on the 5th, so good lord willin and the crik don't rise, I can do a telcon on 6Dec
14:46:27 [Chris]
agenda request for 6th - review Press Release text
14:46:58 [DanC_lap]
(speaking of criks rising, we returned from Thanksgiving holiday to find the tree in our front yard split in 3 and lying all over our front yard)
14:47:09 [Chris]
regrets for 13th (vacation)
14:47:16 [noah]
Paul: regrets 12/13
14:47:27 [noah]
Norm: we'll meet on 13th to discuss comments.
14:47:40 [Chris]
at risk on 20th, on a plane later
14:49:59 [noah]
Norm: plan to meet on 13th, 20th and 3rd.
14:50:11 [DanC_lap]
(found ; I still consider that a current event, so I'd like it to be on the top of the page)
14:50:16 [noah]
Agreed: cancel meeting on 12/27/2004
14:50:20 [Chris]
14:50:35 [noah]
Paul: regrets for 3rd
14:50:47 [Stuart]
+1 to 6th, 13th, 20th Dec and 3rd Jan (may be at risk on 3rd Jan)
14:50:52 [noah]
Tim: probably can make the 3rd, some risk
14:51:13 [Norm]
Norm has joined #tagmem
14:51:32 [DanC_lap]
(I use a "current events" rather than "upcoming events" on the homepages I maintain.)
14:52:09 [paulc]
paulc has joined #tagmem
14:52:44 [Stuart]
14:53:05 [noah]
Discussing minutes of the 11/22nd. Chris has sent minutes as unedited IRC log, see URI from Stuart above.
14:53:25 [noah]
Topic: 3.0 Future Directions for WebArch (and TAG as a whole)
14:53:59 [noah]
paul: we divided our issues list into pre-V1 and post-V1 and we should review the post-V1 items
14:55:20 [noah]
Norm: one concern...focussing on menu will give us low level things. We need high level discussion too.
14:55:30 [noah]
Tim: Yes, absolutely.,
14:56:09 [noah]
Tim: Things variable at high level include scope (e.g. to include Web Services and Semantic Web), and/or make current document cleaner and complete.
14:56:16 [noah]
Dan: no to cleanup document.
14:57:30 [noah]
Tim: looking at RDF/SemanticWeb would be great. Doing Web Services would be appropriate, but some nervousness about amount of defacto architecture that
14:57:37 [noah]
that's coming, e.g. from corporate sources.
15:00:49 [noah]
noah: right, but I think those Web Services folks would benefit from the right kind of guidance on how to better leverage the Web Architecture and build scaleable systems. On the Semantic Web side, I think we should not get too far out ahead of what widespread deployment validates.
15:02:01 [noah]
Paul: if the membership knew likely topics of future work, it might (or might not) influence votes for membership
15:02:04 [DanC_lap]
DanC: I'd kinda like to "go to school" -- do a little reading group on information theory, or have Web Servcies Choreography presented to us at TAG-speed
15:02:09 [noah]
Norm: I've heard web services and semantic web.
15:02:17 [noah]
Norm: any others.
15:02:29 [noah]
15:02:37 [noah]
Chris: interaction domain?>
15:02:44 [noah]
15:03:14 [noah]
Chris: charmod is a good example
15:03:25 [noah]
Dan: charmod got attention, but voice might need attention
15:03:40 [DanC_lap]
15:06:24 [noah]
Noah: Some inclination that it's not always a good thing for groups like TAG to do more rather than less. We shouldn't necessarily choose the next 3 great findings to do. We should be helping the rest of the community to succeed, not necessarily doing the work for them.,
15:06:30 [noah]
15:06:44 [noah]
Paul: the mobile web would be a really good area for attention.
15:06:46 [noah]
Noah: +1
15:06:51 [Chris]
mobiweb is certainly a topic - it web enabled but often used in different ways to a 'desktop' web
15:07:03 [noah]
Paul: members put money on table to sponsor workshop in Barcelona
15:07:04 [timbl]
q+ to suggest differenet appoaches in deifferent areas. Voice? school mode .. learn how the VX community has defiend its arch, so we can just say how it fits in. WS: get seriously involved in WS addressing work as it is a crucial and undefined part; SW, try to extract the main lines from the existing specs and put them in persepctive; Mobile, hope they wok in a very arch-smart way, aand keep in touch.
15:07:42 [Norm]
15:07:51 [noah]
Chris: that's potentially a very large web
15:09:48 [Chris]
not just potentially - some estimates already make it larger than nthe desktop web
15:10:15 [Norm]
ack timbl
15:10:22 [noah]
Tim: Agreed, we must play different roles in different areas. Also agreed that mobile web is an important area, and perhaps should frame that as an issue of proper use of Web Architecture by the mobile community. Our job is not to do it for them but to sort of keep in touch with them.
15:11:08 [noah]
Paul: reality is that certain browsers don't implement things that would make the mobile web more successful.
15:11:14 [noah]
Dan: there's no architectural leap
15:11:49 [Norm]
15:12:08 [Norm]
ack timbl
15:12:28 [Chris]
q+ to talk about need to document some stuff for new industry groups to avoid old mistakes
15:12:37 [noah]
Tim: so, we should track but not lead mobile. The one place in web services we might focus on hard is addressing.
15:12:42 [noah]
Noah agrees on addressing issue.,
15:13:04 [noah]
Tim: on semantic web, we should look at what they've done, not change it, but explain it and show how it fits with larger whole.
15:13:08 [Norm]
ack Chris
15:13:11 [noah]
15:14:04 [Stuart]
15:14:07 [noah]
chris: mobile is a different community (telcos), driven by usage experience. E.g. telcos make decisions only to use latin-1
15:14:20 [Norm]
ack timbl
15:14:27 [Stuart]
15:14:41 [timbl]
(telcos, phone builders, service operators,...)
15:15:03 [noah]
chris: if we ignore a big Chinese telco standard, we're sunk
15:15:15 [noah]
dan: they don't necessarily read what we write.
15:15:27 [Norm]
ack chris
15:15:27 [Zakim]
Chris, you wanted to talk about need to document some stuff for new industry groups to avoid old mistakes
15:15:47 [noah]
chris: there is a standards body that does web standards for China and Korea. We should get involved.
15:16:07 [noah]
dan: how? to what extent do we write things down and to what extent talk.
15:16:08 [Norm]
15:16:13 [Norm]
15:16:13 [Zakim]
timbl, you wanted to suggest differenet appoaches in deifferent areas. Voice? school mode .. learn how the VX community has defiend its arch, so we can just say how it fits in.
15:16:16 [Zakim]
... WS: get seriously involved in WS addressing work as it is a crucial and undefined part; SW, try to extract the main lines from the existing specs and put them in
15:16:19 [Zakim]
... persepctive; Mobile, hope they wok in a very arch-smart way, aand keep in touch.
15:16:25 [Chris]
... for the mobile web only. an it needs to be kept connected with the rest of the web
15:16:41 [Norm]
ack noah
15:16:47 [Norm]
q=paulc, stuart
15:16:53 [Norm]
queue=paulc, stuart
15:18:32 [noah]
noah: well, in the case of something like mobile, I wouldn't assume we really understand the needs or constraints, so it's not necessarily most appropriate to frame this as "web architecture has it right, now let's just sell it to them."
15:18:58 [timbl]
15:19:05 [Norm]
ack paulc
15:19:16 [noah]
q+ to discuss disconnected, peer to peer, and other non-traditional-web models
15:19:50 [timbl]
Tools for this? Workshops? Ask them to send a list of arch constraints which they have and we don't mention? Ask the Korean group to review webarch?
15:19:53 [noah]
paul: in our last report we had more evangelism to discuss
15:20:54 [timbl]
q+ to propose course materials as a dlieverable for the tag
15:21:58 [noah]
norm: are you proposing traveling road show?
15:22:25 [noah]
paul: one set of audiences is working groups and tech plenary. E.g. we could talk to every new working groups.
15:22:28 [Norm]
15:23:44 [Norm]
ack Stuart
15:24:10 [DanC_lap]
(liaison with OMA? who/what/where?)
15:24:46 [DanC_lap]
(found Hoschka/Barstow)
15:26:02 [noah]
stuart: the telcos and mobiles have a major incentive to grow beyond flattening voice revenues
15:26:35 [noah]
paul: I think I've heard from that community an increasing focus on device independence
15:26:46 [noah]
tim: paul, that would be very important if true
15:26:58 [Norm]
ack noah
15:28:52 [timbl]
areas += peer-peer
15:29:16 [Chris]
q& to talk about punctuated connectivity
15:29:37 [DanC_lap]
yes, please let's go to school on p2p and talk about disconnected operation (caching, next-gen email architecture based on RSS, etc.)
15:29:59 [Norm]
15:30:03 [Norm]
ack stuart
15:30:05 [Norm]
ack noah
15:30:05 [Zakim]
noah, you wanted to discuss disconnected, peer to peer, and other non-traditional-web models
15:31:40 [noah]
noah: big theme -- I think Universality of the Web is a really interesting motivator for our work. Two specific issues that suggests: (1) disconnected operation (2) 30% of internet bits are bit-torrent. Should we look at what this means for the web.
15:31:40 [Norm]
ack timbl
15:32:32 [DanC_lap]
yes, course materials, videos of talks. yummy
15:32:33 [Norm]
15:32:38 [noah]
Tim: re: outreach training... a) giving talks is a good idea b) making course materials available from our web sites would be a good idea
15:32:38 [Norm]
ack timbl
15:33:10 [Norm]
15:33:14 [Norm]
ack timbl
15:33:14 [Zakim]
timbl, you wanted to propose course materials as a dlieverable for the tag
15:33:24 [noah]
Tim: this helps others to give good talks on web architecture. Should be from TAG page, w3C talks pages, etc.
15:33:52 [noah]
Tim: list the talks, materials, and where they're happening including streaming feeds
15:33:54 [DanC_lap]
W3C talks page =
15:35:22 [Norm]
ack DanC_lap
15:35:38 [Chris]
talks is not quite the same as 'educational resources'
15:35:40 [Chris]
15:35:43 [Norm]
ack DanC_lap
15:35:52 [Norm]
ack DanC_lap
15:36:03 [Norm]
15:36:12 [Chris]
q+ to talk about punctuated connectivity
15:36:33 [Chris]
15:36:45 [noah]
Dan: Going to talk to other people is interesting and expensive. We should invite them to come to us.
15:36:49 [Norm]
ack DanC_lap
15:37:04 [timbl]
/me doesn't find the q is working for him ... little thing sto say on each topic. I wanted to say that we should do TAG=OMA liaison from befroe.
15:37:26 [Chris]
and the trillian and jabber folks perhaps
15:37:46 [noah]
Dan: let's get Bram Cohen (BitTorrent)
15:37:52 [noah]
Someone: Jabber?
15:38:01 [noah]
Dan: maybe, but there's a point of view that it's sort of done
15:38:29 [Chris]
TimBL: TAG to OMA liaison is relevant
15:39:20 [Chris]
15:39:37 [Chris]
ack dan
15:39:37 [Zakim]
DanC_lap, you wanted to note Hendler's class reading webarch, musings on teaching at JCCC and to tune the school idea ala "The W3C TAG things what you're doing looks interesting;
15:39:40 [Zakim]
... please present it to us"
15:40:02 [noah]
Tim: re P2P, in a research area, perhaps HTTP should become more peer-to-peer, while protecting the HTTP namespace.
15:40:17 [noah]
Tim: in this way, the HTTP namespace will continue to scale.
15:41:41 [noah]
Noah: what do you see as TAG's role in making this happen?
15:42:22 [noah]
Tim: see what's happening, map the space, maybe drawing up a research agenda.
15:42:32 [Norm]
15:43:20 [noah]
Tim: also a role for us to nudge communities that are close to but not quite ready to exploit or integrate with web in important ways.
15:43:22 [Norm]
ack Chris
15:43:25 [noah]
Noah: strong +1
15:44:04 [noah]
chris: if completely disconnected, one can argue it's not on the web at all. Perhaps we should think of punctuated connectivity.
15:45:00 [noah]
chris: I was conntected by SC29 ISO MPeg working group. They have first draft of fragment syntax for MPEG file, perhaps because they read in WebArch that a media registration should set out fragment syntax.
15:45:10 [noah]
15:45:23 [Norm]
15:45:26 [Norm]
ack Chris
15:45:28 [noah]
chris: let's you do things like pick out the French audio stream from a feed.
15:45:45 [Norm]
ack Chris
15:45:45 [noah]
chris: this is at least in some vague way an example of a liaison
15:45:55 [timbl]
Chris, could you rveiw it on behalf of the tag reporting first to the tag?
15:45:58 [noah]
stuart: we might impact MPEG in a number of ways, including metadata.
15:46:41 [noah]
dan: cost of reading specs is high. Cost of getting into mailing lists and staying for discussions of comments is high. If I knew that TAG was focussing in an area, that would give a context (and a billing code for my time :-) )
15:47:04 [noah]
tim: pick an area for focus in a quarter
15:47:16 [Chris]
timbl - yes, that was my plan
15:47:19 [noah]
norm: that has the advantage that we can build expertise in various efforts.
15:47:37 [noah]
paul: ask the community what we should work on? Note to www-tag?
15:47:45 [noah]
paul: they pretty much told us last time.
15:48:46 [Stuart]
15:49:08 [noah]
noah: might be value in setting out some of our theories on what we should work on, both to get comments and to imply the scope of what might be considered.
15:49:27 [noah]
norm: right. blank paper is likely to generate noisy input, from both AC and www-tag.
15:49:41 [noah]
paul: set a calendar target for doing this?>
15:49:50 [noah]
15:50:07 [noah]
stuart: we have lots of issues on our issues list. feel mixed about asking for more.
15:51:19 [noah]
paul: that was my initial proposal, but realised that other tag members were responding as if we were doing V2 of a product. That's sometimes a mistake. Those things may no longer be the right priorities.
15:51:49 [noah]
paul: I'm now convinced that broadening the scope beyond older issues is a very important exercise.
15:53:00 [DanC_lap]
(during review of agenda, I couldn't quite tell if RDFinXHTML-35 and rdfURIMeaning-39 are on our agenda. I have stuff I'd like to say on 35 and stuff I should say on 39.)
15:53:19 [DanC_lap]
(Norm, perhaps at a break I can ask you where that fits)
15:54:10 [Norm]
(DanC_lap, I think that's in section 5)
15:56:13 [noah]
topic: morning break
16:02:46 [Norm]
Norm has joined #tagmem
16:04:13 [Zakim]
TAG_f2f()9:00AM has now started
16:04:20 [Zakim]
16:04:47 [Zakim]
16:04:48 [Zakim]
TAG_f2f()9:00AM has ended
16:04:49 [Zakim]
Attendees were Roy
16:11:22 [Norm]
mobile web
16:11:22 [Norm]
16:11:22 [Norm]
semantic web
16:11:22 [Norm]
web services
16:11:22 [Norm]
voice browser
16:11:23 [Norm]
do less
16:11:25 [Norm]
16:11:27 [Norm]
punctuated connectivity
16:11:29 [Norm]
16:11:31 [noah]
noah has joined #tagmem
16:11:47 [Chris]
rrsagent, pointer?
16:11:47 [RRSAgent]
16:11:51 [noah]
noah has joined #tagmem
16:11:51 [timbl]
RRSAgent, pointer?
16:11:51 [RRSAgent]
16:12:07 [noah]
topic: resume discussion of future directions
16:12:20 [Norm]
mobile web
16:12:20 [Norm]
16:12:20 [Norm]
semantic web
16:12:20 [Norm]
web services
16:12:20 [Norm]
voice browser
16:12:21 [Norm]
do less
16:12:23 [Norm]
16:12:25 [Norm]
punctuated connectivity
16:12:27 [Norm]
16:15:08 [Stuart]
+1 to what Noah is saying. Are web service endpoints things that can be named with a fragmentless http URI.
16:16:06 [noah]
noah: The above doesn't quite capture one perspective I raised before the break: "to what extent do we want to think of the web as universal, and by the way, to what extent is the http: scheme and/or the HTTP protocol the answer to all future interaction needs?"
16:16:29 [noah]
paul: we should also show the ac and www-tag the open issues.
16:16:34 [DanC_lap]
16:16:51 [Norm]
ack DanC_lap
16:17:13 [Norm]
16:17:15 [Norm]
ack DanC_lap
16:18:01 [Chris]
zakim, get a clue
16:18:01 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'get a clue', Chris
16:18:33 [Chris]
zakim, who is here?
16:18:34 [Zakim]
sorry, Chris, I don't know what conference this is; apparently TAG_f2f()9:00AM has ended
16:18:35 [Zakim]
On IRC I see noah, Norm, paulc, RRSAgent, Zakim, DanC_lap, Chris, timbl, Stuart
16:18:44 [Chris]
zakim, this wil be tag
16:18:44 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'this wil be tag', Chris
16:18:46 [DanC_lap]
Zakim, patch yourself with some of the eliza code. you should have some witty comebacks
16:18:46 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'patch yourself with some of the eliza code. you should have some witty comebacks', DanC_lap
16:18:49 [Chris]
zakim, this will be tag
16:18:53 [Zakim]
ok, Chris; I see TAG_f2f()9:00AM scheduled to start 138 minutes ago
16:19:24 [Chris]
zakim, who is here?
16:19:24 [Zakim]
sorry, Chris, I don't know what conference this is; apparently TAG_f2f()9:00AM has ended
16:19:26 [Zakim]
On IRC I see noah, Norm, paulc, RRSAgent, Zakim, DanC_lap, Chris, timbl, Stuart
16:19:29 [noah]
paul: there was an AC thread 6 weeks ago as to how normative Web Arch is going.
16:19:40 [noah]
stuart: right, should we respond to that thread?
16:19:46 [Chris]
zakim, definitely get a clue :-)
16:19:46 [Zakim]
I'm glad that smiley is there, Chris
16:19:48 [noah]
noah: +1, let's discuss a bit.
16:21:02 [noah]
topic: 1.1 AC Meeting Preparation
16:23:08 [noah]
norm: Ian says that if we get stuff together by today, we get them in the packet
16:23:18 [noah]
16:23:46 [noah]
16:24:09 [noah]
Above links are (1) slide proposal and (2) proposed written summary, both from Paul.,
16:24:15 [noah]
16:24:53 [noah]
Now discussing written summary at
16:25:06 [noah]
paul: I have some nervousness about what's stated about outreach. Is it OK>
16:25:16 [noah]
16:25:20 [noah]
chris: yes
16:25:32 [timbl]
16:25:33 [noah]
paul: this is more or less in the same form as previous reports
16:26:35 [noah]
norm: looks fine to me
16:26:46 [DanC_lap]
(bummer the Basel record wasn't clear enough; I thought we empowered PaulC to deliver the summary directly to the AC meeting materials without the TAG in the critical path)
16:26:52 [noah]
stuart: as I said on list, would favor a bit on future directions
16:27:02 [noah]
norm: seems more appropriate for presentation than summary
16:27:10 [timbl]
16:27:11 [noah]
stuart: will go with flow
16:27:11 [timbl]
TAG also moved the following issues to a deferred state since they are
16:27:12 [timbl]
awaiting action from another group"
16:27:51 [noah]
tim: I'm nervous about deferred vs. pending
16:27:59 [timbl]
16:27:59 [noah]
someone: that's from the minutes
16:28:26 [timbl]
s/s/i think we should substitute :-)/
16:28:39 [Chris]
origin of these terms is the exit software that Ian was using
16:28:50 [DanC_lap]
it's clear enough to me: "TAG also moved the following issues to a deferred state since they are
16:28:50 [DanC_lap]
awaiting action from another group"
16:28:57 [noah]
Note to those reading the pretty printed copy, the above quote from Tim should read: "The TAG also moved the following issues to a deferred state since they are
16:28:57 [noah]
<timbl> awaiting action from another group"
16:28:58 [Chris]
and that propogates into the issues list
16:29:28 [noah]
ACTION: Chris to turn into HTML
16:29:53 [noah]
Now discussing proposed slides from Paul at:
16:32:20 [DanC_lap]
slides seem good. themes: people (membership, election coming...), proposed REC
16:36:57 [Chris]
Q= to speak about normative ref to webarch
16:37:05 [Chris]
q+ to speak about normative ref to webarch
16:37:59 [noah]
noah: we should mention correct nomination deadline of 12/14
16:38:34 [noah]
tim: AWWW is generally not an appropriate normative reference, because we provide very little in terms of prescribed grammar, protocol, etc.
16:38:52 [noah]
paul: I'd push back. Things like i18n are also very horizontal and are referenced normatively.,
16:39:00 [noah]
q+ to discuss my note on normativity
16:39:30 [Norm]
zakim wouldn't let me "ack" you DanC_lap
16:40:11 [noah]
paul: how will community know where AWWW stops and specific specs start? It's a recommendation. It talks about principles. Looks & feels like QA framework.
16:40:29 [noah]
tim: how does that affect the way you quote it?
16:41:19 [noah]
paul: I'll answer with respect to something you might discuss tomorrow. QA framework mandates in each spec a section on XXXX. Can't you make a normative reference to QA framework for that.
16:41:23 [noah]
Roy Fielding arrives.
16:41:46 [Chris]
16:41:47 [noah]
paul: I'm saying people will be confused?
16:41:56 [DanC_lap]
q+ to say (a) yes, we're happy for folks to cite webarch normatively if they find it useful (b) we're happy for folks to cite it in comments on other specs but (c) there's no institutionalized enforcement of webarch-conformance, other than normal peer comment processes (where the TAG may occasionally play the role of peer)
16:42:11 [noah]
tim: are you saying quoting normatively or obeyed?
16:42:36 [Chris]
zakim, ack Dan
16:42:36 [Zakim]
DanC_lap, you wanted to say (a) yes, we're happy for folks to cite webarch normatively if they find it useful (b) we're happy for folks to cite it in comments on other specs but
16:42:36 [noah]
paul: let me restate your position, Tim. AWWW would often influence other specs, but not by making normative reference.
16:42:39 [Zakim]
... (c) there's no institutionalized enforcement of webarch-conformance, other than normal peer comment processes (where the TAG may occasionally play the role of peer)
16:42:41 [Zakim]
I see Chris, noah on the speaker queue
16:42:44 [Stuart]
q+ to say that the value of putting AWWW on Rec track is the concensus process.
16:43:11 [noah]
tim: only place I could see that happening is when we define a term like information resource
16:43:36 [noah]
tim: still, our glossary remains a bit informal for that purpose
16:44:15 [noah]
chris: I disagree with Tim. I think other specs can/should refer to AWWW normatively. E.g. statement in SVG that "we believe that nothing here conflicts with AWWW".
16:44:25 [noah]
tim: hmm
16:44:52 [noah]
chris: make sense?
16:44:54 [noah]
tim: maybe?
16:44:58 [timbl]
16:45:05 [Norm]
ack Chris
16:45:26 [noah]
ack Chris
16:45:26 [Zakim]
Chris, you wanted to speak about normative ref to webarch
16:45:30 [DanC_lap]
q+ to say (a) yes, we're happy for folks to cite webarch normatively if they find it useful (b) we're happy for folks to cite it in comments on other specs but (c) there's no institutionalized enforcement of webarch-conformance, other than normal peer comment processes (where the TAG may occasionally play the role of peer)
16:45:36 [Norm]
Norm has left #tagmem
16:45:38 [Norm]
Norm has joined #tagmem
16:45:40 [Norm]
16:45:42 [Norm]
16:46:09 [noah]
noah: points to his email
16:46:25 [noah]
"A correction becomes normative
16:46:25 [noah]
-- of equal status as the text
16:46:25 [noah]
in the published Recommendation --
16:46:25 [noah]
through one of the processes
16:46:25 [noah]
described below."
16:46:52 [Chris]
in other words, we were asking for people to point out conflicts if they found them. In that sense it was normative
16:47:05 [Norm]
16:47:42 [Norm]
ack noah
16:47:42 [Zakim]
noah, you wanted to discuss my note on normativity
16:47:57 [timbl]
Noah: [defines normative in the sense "Love me, love their awww"]
16:49:49 [Norm]
ack Stuart
16:50:07 [Norm]
Norm has left #tagmem
16:50:09 [Norm]
Norm has joined #tagmem
16:50:11 [Norm]
ack stuart
16:50:11 [Zakim]
Stuart, you wanted to say that the value of putting AWWW on Rec track is the concensus process.
16:50:13 [noah]
noah: so, I think we could go either way. Some preference for allowing normative references.
16:50:21 [Roy]
Roy has joined #tagmem
16:50:29 [noah]
stuart: the value of putting AWWW on Rec track is the concensus process
16:51:09 [Norm]
16:51:10 [noah]
stuart: in our charter we have the term "Architectural Recommendation". Is there a class of docs in the W3C that is more like arch documents, and should the process document say more about them?
16:51:18 [Norm]
ack DanC_lap
16:51:24 [Norm]
Norm has left #tagmem
16:51:26 [Norm]
Norm has joined #tagmem
16:51:29 [Norm]
ack DanC_lap
16:51:32 [Norm]
ack danc
16:51:32 [Zakim]
DanC_lap, you wanted to say (a) yes, we're happy for folks to cite webarch normatively if they find it useful (b) we're happy for folks to cite it in comments on other specs but
16:51:35 [Zakim]
... (c) there's no institutionalized enforcement of webarch-conformance, other than normal peer comment processes (where the TAG may occasionally play the role of peer)
16:51:55 [Norm]
ack norm
16:52:00 [Stuart]
+1 to Dan
16:52:05 [Norm]
+1 to DanC
16:52:29 [noah]
dan: we crossed the bridge a long time ago in allowing normative reference to things that are not testable. We should allow normative references, but there's no institutionalized enforcement of webarch-conformance, other than normal peer comment processes (where the TAG may occasionally play the role of peer)
16:52:41 [noah]
noah: fine with me
16:53:08 [noah]
tim: doesn't say one way or the other that tag as a group has a certain organizational role and influence
16:53:20 [noah]
norm: right, we don't need to say that there
16:54:12 [noah]
norm: I think the worry was not "can you make a normative reference" but rather "do you have to obey it"?
16:54:29 [noah]
tim: typically, "no you don't have to obey it, but you have to have a good reason"
16:54:45 [DanC_lap]
i.e. "you have to answer comments"
16:55:31 [noah]
paul: Some scepticism. For past two years we've struggled to speak in lower case letters. Nobody believes it.
16:56:03 [Norm]
16:56:40 [timbl]
DanC: well, it is the consensus of a large group of people now, and soon the AC too, so it deserves the respect of a W3C rec when a w3c rec.
16:57:08 [timbl]
Norm: I don't see how anyone can read a statement as we ofetne say a la "we thing this is a good idea" as being an absolute requirement.
16:57:16 [Norm]
16:58:00 [timbl]
Noah .... It is a loittle weird totlk about obeying the document where it doesn't even insist on anything
16:58:20 [timbl]
Norm: People still feel sometim,es that "you should consider..." is too much of a constraint.
16:58:39 [timbl]
Noah: "MUST" isi used sparingly in awww.
16:59:52 [noah]
tim: diminishing returns on this?
17:00:00 [noah]
chris: I think I have what I need.
17:00:12 [noah]
paul: Is Chris generating slides?
17:00:59 [timbl]
(Danc, there was push back on our not presenting anything from Ian and SteveB)
17:02:00 [DanC_lap]
(yes, I saw the pushback. what I didn't see was our getting convinced)
17:03:01 [noah]
ACTION: Chris to prepare slide HTML based on input from Paul
17:05:38 [noah]
dan: you asked what will come up in our session. I think XLink will.
17:05:56 [noah]
paul: what do you think will be the way it will be raised?
17:07:13 [noah]
norm: are you aware that core working group is "picking up" XLink to do an XLink 1.1 in order to fix a small bug.
17:07:34 [noah]
noah: it will retain the characteristics that have "bothered" some people?
17:08:24 [noah]
norm and chris: won't fix the concerns of the HTML working group, but will meet the expressed needs of SVG and DocBook
17:08:47 [noah]
stuart: any dialog with the hypertext coordination group on this?
17:09:25 [noah]
norm: this was given to a linking task force that Liam Quinn is leading, but core seems not to be waiting for this.
17:13:12 [timbl]
17:14:25 [timbl]
17:15:11 [noah]
noah: on versioning, should we ask David Ezell to dial in tomorrow to explain schema use cases?
17:16:13 [noah]
norm: probably not needed tomorrow, and our planned afternoon time doesn't line up with his availability in any case.
17:16:14 [Chris]
16:30 - 17:15 Technical Architecture Group
17:16:14 [Chris]
[Discussion] [slides]
17:16:19 [noah]
noah: I'll tell him no thank you.
17:16:34 [noah]
norm: anything else on AC prep
17:17:48 [DanC_lap]
q+ yes, let's thank stuart for leading the charge to get webarch to PR, regardless of whether he announces his non-candidacy
17:17:57 [DanC_lap]
q+ to say yes, let's thank stuart for leading the charge to get webarch to PR, regardless of whether he announces his non-candidacy
17:18:47 [Chris]
Since the May 2004 AC
17:18:47 [Chris]
meeting the TAG has:
17:18:50 [DanC_lap]
17:19:03 [Chris]
The TAG has spent most of the time since the May 2004 AC
17:19:03 [Chris]
meeting dealing with Last Call issues, however the TAG has:
17:19:20 [Chris]
agreed? ok
17:19:21 [noah]
17:21:01 [noah]
topic: Lunch Break
17:23:47 [Chris]
Action completed: htmlize AC summary
17:23:49 [Chris]
18:15:25 [Chris]
Topic: Tech Plen planning
18:15:32 [Chris]
Scribe: Chris
18:16:38 [Chris]
Paul: Suggest TAG should ask for a slot, decide what it wants topresent. past sessions well received
18:16:46 [Chris]
rrsagent, pointer?
18:16:46 [RRSAgent]
18:17:11 [Chris]
Norm: Yes, in past this worked well, we should do that again
18:17:27 [Chris]
Roy: Timing is a little difficult, due to election churn....
18:18:03 [Chris]
Paul: Plan is to have old and new people at the first meeting after an election
18:18:37 [Chris]
Paul: Could do a topic ex E&V where Tag, schema, etc were the pannelists
18:18:43 [timbl]
q+ to ask whether TAG members have suggestions for general topics for TP
18:19:16 [DanC_lap]
q+ to lob the xlink grenade in this context cuz, hey, I'm completely insane
18:19:27 [Chris]
Norm: What are our future plans, TP might influence that direction
18:19:49 [Chris]
TimBL; Should not be afraid to argue technical things , open cans of worms
18:20:04 [Chris]
DanC: A play depicting the history of HTTP range-14
18:20:48 [Chris]
Norm: drama might be good :)
18:21:44 [Chris]
DanC: prefer topic based slots to group based ones
18:21:55 [Chris]
TimBL; interested in mor egeneral topics also
18:22:15 [Chris]
Noah: Is there the usual planning committee?
18:22:51 [timbl]
(see )
18:23:00 [Chris]
Noah: Any more good, deep parts of WebArch that we could talk about?
18:24:04 [Chris]
Paul: There is already a WS-Addressing meeting at TP
18:24:30 [Chris]
Noah: Email preceeding email is good to get folks up to speed
18:24:50 [Chris]
Paul: Perhaps discuss with DO tomorrow
18:25:43 [Chris]
Noah: also depends what they are naming at what granularity, eg a port number ....
18:26:40 [Chris]
DanC: Looked at spec, some parts are opaque
18:26:55 [Chris]
TimBL: have had offline discussions to explain a bit
18:27:46 [timbl]
18:27:48 [Chris]
Paul: So, should I reply to Steve sayingyes, an E&V slot was endorsed by TAG
18:28:01 [timbl]
^ Slide overveiw of the WS adderssing endpoint issue
18:29:15 [Chris]
DanC: so, what is the TAG position on E&V, what is the elevator speech/ Can we narrow the focus?
18:29:47 [Chris]
Paul: Can narrow to the Schema aspect, Schema 1.0 and 1.1
18:30:17 [Chris]
Noah: this should really be discussed tomorrow in the agenda slot allocated to it
18:30:36 [Chris]
DanC: OK with the topic, details need to be worked out
18:31:00 [Chris]
Norm: happy with that response too
18:31:15 [Chris]
Norm: any objections?
18:31:18 [Chris]
18:31:35 [Chris]
(Paul sense email responding to Steve)
18:32:12 [Chris]
Topic: 2. Proposed Recommendation Issues
18:33:34 [Norm]
CL text:
18:33:39 [Chris]
the comment
18:33:41 [Chris]
18:33:45 [Chris]
my response
18:33:56 [Chris]
18:34:12 [Chris]
his response
18:34:12 [Chris]
18:34:20 [Chris]
my slightly tweaked wording
18:34:41 [Chris]
18:34:47 [Chris]
Dan: is this editorial
18:35:11 [Chris]
Norm: agree its editorial, approve
18:35:15 [Chris]
Roy: me too
18:35:20 [Chris]
Dan: fine by me
18:35:33 [Chris]
Approved to make this change to WebArch
18:36:06 [Chris]
next thing - changes to glossary. is it editorial?
18:36:17 [Chris]
Norm: next thing - changes to glossary. is it editorial?
18:36:25 [Chris]
Dan: commentor seems to think not
18:36:37 [Chris]
Norm: Not substantially different
18:37:04 [Chris]
Norm: discussed at last weeks telcon. if a ns uri identifies an IR then that Resource is a namespace document
18:37:29 [Chris]
Chris: That change makes if clearer, for me?
18:37:40 [Chris]
ACTION: Norm respond to commentor
18:37:52 [Chris]
Noah: Generally agree but tricky in one respect
18:38:24 [Chris]
Noah: so if its not an IR there is nothing to retrieve? (some nods) but we don't actually say that
18:39:11 [Chris]
Noah: so in other cases, all bets are off.
18:39:21 [Chris]
DanC: We say it should be an IR
18:39:59 [Chris]
Noah: so people miht be tempted to have physical resources and ns uris
18:40:22 [DanC_lap]
q+ to note caldav with urn: namespaces
18:40:31 [Chris]
Noah: OK for us to be silent on that, but it is a point of confusion
18:40:56 [Norm]
ack timbl
18:40:56 [Zakim]
timbl, you wanted to ask whether TAG members have suggestions for general topics for TP
18:41:10 [timbl]
A "namespace document" is an Information Resource, whose URI is the same string as the namespace prefix, and whose content describes the namespace.
18:41:36 [timbl]
A "namespace document" is an Information Resource, whose URI is the same string as the namespace URI, and whose content describes the namespace.
18:41:38 [Chris]
Noah: prefix is wrong there
18:42:03 [DanC_lap]
"whose content" should be phrased using representationg
18:42:18 [timbl]
A "namespace document" is an Information Resource, whose URI is the same string as the namespace URI, and which describes the namespace.
18:42:23 [timbl]
You should have one.
18:42:42 [Chris]
Noah: this says if you don't provide an IR hten you can't call it a NS doc
18:42:54 [Chris]
Chris: ok, so a dog is not a ns doc. Good
18:43:44 [Chris]
Roy: we decided this last week
18:44:19 [Chris]
Norm: ok so anyone move to reopen?
18:44:23 [Chris]
18:44:51 [Chris]
Fine so we stick with original wording "If blah" as recorded in 22 Nov minutes
18:45:01 [timbl]
18:45:15 [Chris]
Topic: Character encoding from Eric Bruchez
18:45:19 [Norm]
ack DanC
18:45:19 [Zakim]
DanC_lap, you wanted to lob the xlink grenade in this context cuz, hey, I'm completely insane and to note caldav with urn: namespaces
18:45:19 [timbl]
18:46:44 [Chris]
DanC: to clarify this is an agenda request, not something on crit path for PR
18:46:47 [DanC_lap]
(caldav stuff )
18:47:19 [timbl]
18:47:19 [Norm]
18:47:24 [Chris]
18:48:45 [timbl]
"Locks are indispensible when multiple authors may modify or create the same resources" deom caldav
18:48:55 [timbl]
18:48:58 [Chris]
summarises the current situation re RFC3023
18:49:21 [Chris]
Roy: response should be yes, 3023 is wrong and this conflict is being resolved by editing 3023
18:49:38 [Chris]
ACTION Chris: respond to Eric about this
18:49:57 [Chris]
+1s from Norm and Dan
18:50:08 [Chris]
Roy: Tim Bray would have plus oned as well
18:51:01 [Chris]
Topic: When to use XML based format
18:51:02 [Chris]
Yuxiao Zhao
18:51:10 [Chris]
18:52:12 [Chris]
Point one is evental need, immediate realisation of a future extensibility point
18:52:29 [Chris]
point 2: explain more
18:54:05 [Chris]
on point 4 do we not give examples of audio and video as not xml suitable?
18:54:16 [Chris]
"not universally applicable"
18:54:49 [Chris]
Point 1 we adress. Point 2 not sure. Point 3 not clear its a good reason and point 4 is covered already
18:56:04 [Chris]
on point 3, xml can encode a range of things from higly abstract to highly presentational
18:56:30 [Chris]
ACTION: Norm respond to commentor
18:56:58 [Chris]
Norm; this is all the comments arising form PR
18:57:12 [Chris]
Dan: What is the plan for making a REC draft?
18:57:58 [Chris]
Chris: Whatare the other 2 talking points
18:59:01 [Chris]
The third one is the community review W3C process etc
18:59:23 [Chris]
Paul" documenting the pronciples on which thwe web has been built helps other people grow the web
19:00:34 [Chris]
Paul: Rude Q&A - what next?
19:00:58 [DanC_lap]
(I'm OK with Volume 1)
19:01:25 [Chris]
Tag intends to further develop ..... architectiral questions and issues that have broad impact on future of web
19:01:51 [Chris]
Dan: Insert general W3C message
19:02:22 [Chris]
Chris: the 'what changed, so what' question
19:02:52 [Chris]
Noah: Weeb bilt of small specs working together, what was folklore is not set down clearer, so specs will work together better
19:03:11 [Chris]
Paul: Jorney equally important as result - engaging web community
19:03:24 [DanC_lap]
yes... the consensus/journey aspects might merit 2 points, not just the usual 1 about w3c process
19:04:04 [DanC_lap]
(list workshops? lifesci? mobile?)
19:04:04 [Chris]
TimBL: Discussions involved many WGs and helped them work together in compatible ways. Mobile Web is particularly worth mentioning
19:04:29 [Chris]
Paul: check workshops form last few months - MWeb, CompDoc etc
19:04:42 [Chris]
Noah: reaches a wider, non priesthood audience
19:05:10 [Chris]
Noah: consciousness raising, wider audience
19:05:58 [Chris]
Paul: WebArch plus more stuff from findings would make a nice softcover book
19:06:40 [Chris]
Paul: some folk wil not read the webarch as is, rewriting in a more accessible way
19:06:47 [Chris]
DanC: Interesting
19:07:02 [Chris]
Norm: for a later Agenda item
19:07:47 [Chris]
Paul: Are we expecting testimonials from everyones company?
19:07:48 [Chris]
19:09:12 [Chris]
WBS form has the 'promotion' part
19:10:22 [Chris]
Chris: Roy, are you putting something in on your own behalf?
19:10:24 [Chris]
Roy: yes
19:19:15 [timbl]
19:20:03 [Chris]
Topic: WebArch books
19:21:12 [Chris]
Dan: request froma publisher,more than a year ago.
19:21:39 [Chris]
time pressures, plus my view vs tag view
19:22:38 [Chris]
Chis: i was also contacted, prefered to wait till it was done
19:22:51 [Chris]
Roy: group project is a big time sink
19:23:21 [Chris]
Separate chapters by different people isn't that great an idea.....
19:24:08 [Chris]
Paul; My standard response is "no" its less than minimum wage so the benefits are purely getting ones name on the cover
19:24:26 [Chris]
Paul: OK to do if being paid, but enough other things to do
19:25:58 [Chris]
Noah: A few authors make money, often the book just sinks though. Concern about auto adding new people to author list.
19:26:24 [Chris]
Noah: Some specs look impemetrableso the authors get to write a book
19:26:47 [Chris]
Noah: OK with other people doing their own take on the wen arch
19:27:37 [Chris]
Noah: Annotated xml spec added good value
19:28:22 [Chris]
Roy: There are http books that are 70% copied out spec
19:28:54 [Chris]
Roy: A W3C Recs book might be interesting, just republished
19:30:00 [Chris]
TimBL: Re-launch W3J?
19:31:16 [Chris]
TimBL: MIT press publication of W3C workshops?
19:31:37 [Chris]
Roy: XML Recs - the complete set. Colectors special edition
19:32:32 [Chris]
Dan: Some communitoies we don't reach because they read paper and we don't do paper
19:33:19 [Chris]
DanC: what about interviews?
19:34:06 [Chris]
TimBL: unhappy to see personal comment mixed with webarch
19:35:05 [Chris]
Noah: can direct people to www-tag and answer questions there
19:35:45 [Chris]
Dan: more interested in outreach rather than personal comment
19:36:51 [Chris]
Paul: Giving a 1.5 hour talk and print 250 copies of Webarch at university. getting it into the curriculum
19:37:39 [Chris]
... in the context of a distributed systems course
19:38:42 [Roy]
Ric Holt at U Waterloo:
19:38:46 [Chris]
(tag discussed further outreach opportunities)
19:39:21 [Chris]
Topic: 4. Review of current www-tag threads
19:41:11 [Chris]
Paul: deep linking and linking into resources
19:42:22 [Chris]
Chris: deep linking vs 'bandwidth theft'
19:42:55 [DanC_lap]
(see earlier request for discussion of p2p influence on http)
19:43:55 [Chris]
Chris: also the deep linking transclusion issue - copyright etc
19:45:42 [paulc]
19:45:56 [Chris]
Athens olympic site
19:47:37 [Chris]
Noah; we can't chase all the people that did not read the finding. On the other hand, high profile cases can help ensure uptake
19:51:37 [Chris]
(tag discusses lack of cute baby seals to power a hall of fame approach)
19:52:54 [Chris]
We se no new evidence here and the finding still stands
19:54:51 [Chris]
referer tactic and bandwidth hteft - consistent with 'technical not legal' approach of the finding
19:55:22 [Chris]
ACTIION: Chris produce draft revised finding on deep linking
19:55:30 [Chris]
ACTION: Chris produce draft revised finding on deep linking
19:57:19 [DanC_lap]
(pointer to where the SMIL WG says "don't address into media files"???)
19:57:44 [paulc]
20:00:00 [Chris]
part of the issue is use of fragment identifiers and adressing sub resources
20:00:42 [DanC_lap]
(I'm having trouble relating what Chris is saying to what Concolato is saying in 0046)
20:03:22 [Chris]
part of it is, what is the nature of the resource
20:03:48 [Chris]
quote "My suggestion is to specify that the audio element should handle audio
20:03:48 [Chris]
streams only, and the video element video streams only. This means
20:03:48 [Chris]
removing (or deprecating) the audio related attributes from the video
20:03:48 [Chris]
element. It also means that the xlink:href attribute of those elements
20:03:48 [Chris]
have to be precise enough to identify one stream (in a container file,
20:03:49 [Chris]
on a server, ...) maybe using fragment identifiers. The mimeType
20:03:51 [Chris]
attribute in this case would describe the type of media stream and not
20:03:53 [Chris]
the type of container."
20:05:01 [Chris]
20:05:02 [Chris]
20:05:10 [Chris]
20:05:11 [Chris]
20:06:55 [timbl]
(I Just added Athens Olympics to my own personal hall of flame
20:08:18 [Chris]
Norm: Email from Jack says that SMIL WG knows they need to get to this but have not yet.
20:08:43 [Chris]
Summary TAG does not see a big architectural issue here and suggests further coordination with SYMM WG
20:10:26 [Chris]
Topic: URIs for litterals
20:16:23 [DanC_lap]
(topic: Benjamin)
20:26:41 [paulc]
20:27:37 [Norm]
20:27:55 [Roy]
20:28:09 [paulc]
20:31:02 [Roy]
20:31:35 [paulc]
and XML Schema Libraries and Versioning: The UBL Case at
20:31:50 [paulc]
20:33:23 [Chris]
Topic: URNs for namespaces
20:33:34 [Chris]
(discussion on URNs and resolvability)
20:34:36 [Chris]
Noah: An ordinary person can't really get from our finding why using a URN is not a good idea. In particular, subtleties of whether an http URI is always resolved by HTTP
20:36:05 [Chris]
DanC: they do actually track these URNs to ensure non overlap and the tracking device is a Web page so in effect there is an http URI for these
20:36:25 [Chris]
TimBL: HTTP is a namespace, we have the power to change the protocols
20:37:50 [Chris]
(TAG was visited by a representation of )
20:39:36 [Chris]
Noah: prefered result is to look at p2p in the http namespace. one answer is roys, use HTTP and upgrade later. HTTP namespace is not restricted to the HTTP protocol
20:40:22 [Chris]
Noah: If Tim is right and we can deploty a range of protocols in this namespace, my comfort level goes way up about telling people to se http namespace
20:42:59 [Chris]
Noah: If people choose URN to avoid being tied to a given protocol, then telling them this now would help
20:47:12 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #tagmem
20:49:07 [Chris]
Topic: 5. TAG Issues
20:49:23 [Chris]
* Stuart's [see TAG Issues grouped by theme
20:49:23 [Chris]
o Which items go on the bottom?
20:49:23 [Chris]
o Review of issues list/future planning:
20:49:23 [Chris]
+ first batch, second batch(es)
20:49:23 [Chris]
o Review of draft findings:
20:49:24 [Chris]
+ xmlProfiles-29
20:49:26 [Chris]
+ Authoritative Metadata resolves putMediaType-38?
20:49:28 [Chris]
+ mediaTypeManagement-45
20:49:30 [Chris]
+ Other draft findings...
20:49:36 [Chris]
20:50:45 [Chris]
Paul: Issues list is not maintained
20:51:17 [Chris]
Norm: take issues.html and rip out the database parts, flatten, and date it
20:52:12 [Chris]
Paul: its very misleading currently
20:52:26 [Chris]
DanC: not sure where it is incorrect right now
20:52:36 [Chris]
(some consulting of the issues list)
20:53:09 [Chris]
Paul: links to some findings are not to latest one
20:55:27 [Chris]
Norm: not maintainable without more staff resource (general agreement) so change the page, put a last mod date
20:55:49 [Chris]
Chris: perhaps put each issue in a separate page, all linked from one summary table
20:56:32 [Chris]
oops but fragments can't be redirected to separate pages
20:56:42 [Chris]
Paul: still not clear what we are actually doing
20:59:01 [Chris]
DanC: if a finding was discussed, add to the page
20:59:11 [Chris]
Chris: perhaps start with
21:01:13 [Chris]
Paul: happy to scale back the level of information, as long as what is there is up to date and accurate and reliable
21:02:14 [Chris]
Noah: issues might get more important now AWWW is out the door and shapes the next phase of work
21:02:23 [DanC_lap]
(I hope to add a link from each issue to a search for that issue in the archive, ala
21:04:34 [Chris]
tes back
21:04:46 [DanC_lap]
21:04:48 [Norm]
21:05:36 [Chris]
status is: nothing is happening
21:06:57 [Chris]
TimBL: overtaken by events
21:07:08 [Chris]
Norm: was one approach to http-range14
21:07:23 [paulc]
21:09:30 [Norm]
21:09:35 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #tagmem
21:09:38 [Norm]
q+ paulc
21:09:44 [Chris]
Timbl: "RDF documents use URIs as identifiers for things including for
21:09:44 [Chris]
relations. An RDF statement "S P O" means that a given binary relation
21:09:45 [Chris]
identified by P holds between to things identified by S and O. (S, P
21:09:45 [Chris]
and O are URIs)"
21:10:08 [Chris]
Disagreeing with dereferencing P means don't use P
21:10:25 [Chris]
DanC: Meanwhile W3C has 2 different definitions of rdfs class
21:10:40 [Chris]
TimBL: not sure they are inconsistent
21:11:28 [Chris]
TimBL: Suggest leaving on back burner, interesting, leave for now. ArchDoc contributed a lot but does not really address RDF yet
21:12:12 [Norm]
ack paulc
21:12:17 [Chris]
TimBL: expect to see movement on this for WebArch 2, is a prerequisite
21:12:50 [Chris]
paul: Disagree. TAG should not do this, why isn;t this something that the SW WGs fix themselves?
21:12:55 [DanC_lap]
21:13:17 [Chris]
Paul: Why not do this for other areas, eg Web Services
21:13:50 [Chris]
DanC: (gives WSDL example ... some discussion)
21:13:58 [timbl]
q+ to say why we need to stitch OWL to URI
21:14:38 [Norm]
ack danc
21:14:49 [Norm]
21:15:14 [Chris]
Noah: early bound vs late bound checking.
21:15:34 [Chris]
Paul: (DOS attack from malformed SOAP messages)
21:16:19 [Chris]
Norm: meaning of URIs in RDF is RDFs problem. OTOH, if RDF says one thing and WS says another, everyone looses
21:16:56 [Chris]
TimBL: Job of TAG is to glue things together, ensure things work together
21:17:21 [DanC_lap]
q+ to agree that as stated, it's about URIs in RDF; either we should hand it to the SemWeb Best Practices WG, or we should re-state it to apply to abstract components in the XSD, WSDL, etc.
21:17:40 [DanC_lap]
ack timbl
21:17:40 [Zakim]
timbl, you wanted to say why we need to stitch OWL to URI
21:18:09 [Chris]
TimBL: owl people saw no vale in dereferencing, need to explain this to them.
21:18:47 [Chris]
Paul: AWWW says to use XML instead of binary, but instead of 'no binary' we spun it off to another group to study in depth. Same here, surely?
21:19:17 [Chris]
Paul: TAG wrote a taxonomy to describe the problem space
21:19:24 [timbl]
OWL people didn't sign up to the 'meaning' of a URI being connected to what you get when you dereference it.
21:19:26 [DanC_lap]
ack norm
21:21:20 [Chris]
Noah: sort of with you here, but maybe we should pass it back to them. if they think their use of URIs is disconnected from everyone elses, ask them to justify that
21:21:45 [Norm]
ack danc
21:21:45 [Zakim]
DanC_lap, you wanted to agree that as stated, it's about URIs in RDF; either we should hand it to the SemWeb Best Practices WG, or we should re-state it to apply to abstract
21:21:48 [Zakim]
... components in the XSD, WSDL, etc.
21:21:57 [Chris]
Norm: Clear we can't close this now. Is it closable short term or long term.
21:22:28 [Chris]
DanC: its stated as an RDF problem. If its only an RDF problem, not a TAG issue. If its also a WS problem then there is TAG relevance
21:22:44 [Chris]
Noah: Or we could keep it open and pending, we want them to track
21:23:02 [Chris]
DabC: No, I was proposing to close it not move it to pending
21:23:43 [Chris]
ACTION: DanC ask SWBP to take the issue
21:24:01 [Chris]
Norm: If they will take the issue, then we can decide what to do
21:24:33 [Chris]
DanC: so three options, will they take it if the tag keep s it open, would that take it and allow TAG to close it, or will they not take it
21:24:58 [Chris]
Paul: Looks like we need a requirements document for the AWWW. We can't design on the fly without aplan in place.
21:25:53 [timbl]
21:26:00 [DanC_lap]
(the part of W3C that developed requirements process is... not something timbl encouraged, I think)
21:26:47 [Chris]
Norm: not comig to closure here. Prefer to see the outcome of Dans action
21:27:32 [Chris]
Paul: Ask them to rewrite in current AWWW terminology
21:29:18 [Chris]
TimBL: when we started TAG, we took issues and once we had some, broke them into ones to solve now and one to defer. That outline view was the requirements document
21:29:34 [Chris]
TimBL: needs a f2f meeting and a whiteboard
21:29:39 [DanC_lap]
(as an agenda request, I concur)
21:29:47 [Chris]
Noah: good way to prioritize
21:32:18 [timbl]
21:32:37 [DanC_lap]
ACTION DanC: make sure is linked from issue 39
21:32:43 [Chris]
That is the original statement of thre issue that Dan needs to point to
21:33:24 [Chris]
Topic: RDFinXHTML-35 : Syntax and semantics for embedding RDF in XHTML.
21:33:59 [Chris]
DanC: Remember I presented GRDDL before
21:34:39 [Chris]
DanC: at last TP, Mark Birbeck presented another RDF syntax from the HTML WG
21:35:21 [DanC_lap]
21:35:21 [Chris]
DanC: David Wood presented at XML 2004
21:36:26 [Chris]
in particular
21:37:38 [Chris]
DanC: so, the TAG finding needs to be updated to reflect this
21:39:21 [Chris]
Oh - there is no actual finding. Maybe don't need one here. Already solved. Question went away
21:41:28 [Chris]
Chris: So is this only for HTML (because of the 'ignore unknown tags'/'hide in attributes' design'
21:42:45 [Norm]
21:42:48 [Norm]
q+ paulc
21:43:13 [Chris]
Norm: why not just say rdf|* { display: none}
21:44:35 [Norm]
ack paulc
21:44:44 [timbl]
21:45:26 [timbl]
21:45:49 [timbl]
21:47:42 [Chris]
# If a user agent encounters an element it does not recognize, it must process the element's content.
21:47:59 [Chris]
21:48:07 [Chris]
3.2. User Agent Conformance
21:48:12 [Chris]
as opposed to.....
21:49:54 [DanC_lap]
ah, indeed, chris. interesting.
21:50:07 [DanC_lap]
sigh. how did that get thru CR?
21:50:19 [Chris]
still looking for the HTML4 part
21:50:24 [Chris]
but it was non normative
21:50:31 [Norm]
XML 2.0:
21:50:32 [Chris]
and is not in the HTML 4 conformance section
21:50:41 [Chris]
I have pointed this out at least twice before
21:51:00 [Norm]
21:51:03 [Roy]
RDF/A uses qnames in content == evil
21:51:08 [DanC_lap]
sorry for being dense, chris.
21:51:29 [Chris]
sorry for getting annoyed. just felt i had explained it all before
21:51:39 [timbl]
"If a user agent encounters an element it does not recognize, it must process the element's content."
21:53:12 [DanC_lap]
I'm pretty familiar with what HTML 4 said, and yes, it was non-normative.
21:53:44 [timbl]
Should we raiseit as a problem with XHTML1 extensibility?
21:54:52 [Chris]
Norm: Concernover loss of namespace declarations
21:56:36 [Chris]
DanC: if there are XML Queries that will break here ....
21:57:11 [Chris]
TimBL: doesn't it need a schema?
21:57:21 [Chris]
Noah: no, could be declared in the query
21:57:57 [Chris]
Noah: queries will not preserve namespace prefixes it was not aware it needed. But then qnames will break
21:58:06 [Chris]
TimBL: and we are back to magic prefixes
21:58:20 [Chris]
Paul: So we need a liaison here between Query and HTML
21:58:35 [Chris]
Norm: Should this wait for last call?
21:58:42 [Chris]
Dan, TimBL: No!
22:00:19 [Chris]
QName in Context finding could show that qnames have the following problems, and avoiding it means you don't hit the problems. At the expense of big URIs
22:00:30 [Norm]
ACTION: Norm to update QNames in content finding to contrast XSLT and XQuery support for namespace delcarations that used by qnames in content
22:00:58 [DanC_lap]
ACTION DanC: comment on qnames in content in RDF/A, based on updated finding
22:02:38 [Chris]
Noah: finding may need to point out the range of ugliness of qnames
22:03:45 [Chris]
TimBL: mapping was not defined in the XML Namespaces spec
22:04:21 [Chris]
Paul: its already published as final, so we need to republish
22:04:24 [Chris]
Norm: yes
22:05:18 [Chris]
Topic: xmlProfiles-29 : When, whither and how to profile W3C specifications in the XML Family.
22:05:23 [Chris]
tag groans
22:05:40 [Chris]
Norm: TAG asked Core to do a Rec track document here
22:06:10 [Chris]
Norm; Core feels it could do a WG note but not a rec track document - not enough value
22:06:50 [Chris]
Norm: could be XML except a DOCTYPE.
22:06:56 [Chris]
replaces one production.
22:07:43 [Chris]
Noah: current processors can't be used, too heavy ....
22:08:04 [Chris]
Norm: people want a soap like subset, Core feels this doesn't make a lot of sense
22:08:32 [Chris]
Norm: But TAG asked for a Rec track document, do we really need one
22:08:38 [noah]
Clarification: Noah was saying we need to understand why you would want a profile defined, and was speculating that core was assuming that a suitable profile would encourage common use of processors for the subset.
22:09:00 [Chris]
DanC: Sympathetic, no urgent need for it. No architectural reason for it to exist
22:09:40 [Chris]
DanC: is a readable subset, XML slimmed down with all the DTD cruft taken out
22:09:44 [noah]
FWIW: I am less convinced than many others that the requirements are common across users. I'm also unconvinced that optimized SOAP processors, for example, will necessarily share parsers with other applications.
22:09:51 [Chris]
Paul: parameter entities double implementation time
22:09:59 [noah]
q+ to say use of common processors is overrated in high-perf situations
22:10:41 [Roy]
Chris: would the content be marked as somehow different from "real" XML
22:10:51 [paulc]
22:11:00 [Chris]
Chris: The content would not be distinguished in any way, how does a processor know it conforms and not to add forbidden doctype eg an entity declaration
22:11:07 [Chris]
Norm: It would not
22:11:17 [Roy]
ack noah
22:11:17 [Zakim]
noah, you wanted to say use of common processors is overrated in high-perf situations
22:11:35 [Chris]
Noah: Assumption is that the soap subset is valuable. maybe it is, maybe not.
22:12:39 [Chris]
Noah: high performance soap processors are highly tuned. Not clear that for oither uses there is enough commonality. Needs to be demonstrated, not assumed
22:13:15 [Chris]
Noah: currently you know that it conforms to the soap subset because its a soap envelope....
22:13:36 [Chris]
Norm: if an outcome is that TAG reconsiders whether to ask Core to do this I would be really pleased
22:13:57 [noah]
Noah says +1 to Norm on that.
22:13:58 [paulc]
22:14:00 [Chris]
Norm; i was concerned about fractionally different subsets, but that does not seem to be happening
22:14:00 [paulc]
22:14:18 [DanC_lap]
(in this case, paul's spelunking is already reflected in the issues list)
22:15:12 [Chris]
Paul: Future of XML workshop in next 6 months or so might conclude that a larger spec (including XML namespaces etc)... also XBC will report then. Uptake of XML 1.1.
22:15:32 [Chris]
Paul: TAG might find an audience for a broader answer
22:15:53 [Chris]
Norm: So it would make sense for the Core WG to sit on that for a while
22:16:06 [Chris]
Paul: If the workshop does take place on schedule
22:16:25 [DanC_lap]
22:17:16 [Chris]
Dan: has anyone promised this?
22:17:30 [Chris]
Chris: not until XBC is done
22:17:53 [Chris]
Dan: will people get on a plane for such a workshop?
22:18:40 [paulc]
Member only:
22:20:20 [noah]
q+ to briefly mention schema issues
22:20:39 [paulc]
Member only on XML 1.1:
22:21:52 [Chris]
Chris: people actually doing non-ascii element names *will* run into this problem
22:23:33 [Chris]
Straw poll: do we close xmlprofiles-29 and send message to Core saying its no longer required
22:23:48 [noah]
22:24:09 [Chris]
Yes: norm, roy, noah, paul, chris, tim, dan
22:24:12 [Chris]
22:24:35 [Chris]
Paul: Any objections to closing XMLProfile29 and witdrawing the request on Core
22:24:41 [Chris]
No objections
22:25:54 [Chris]
Noah: Are we going to pick this up tomorrow?
22:25:57 [Chris]
22:28:58 [Chris]