IRC log of tagmem on 2005-01-10

Timestamps are in UTC.

19:34:55 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #tagmem
19:36:06 [Chris]
Chris has joined #tagmem
19:36:18 [Chris]
Stuart?
19:38:30 [Norm]
brb
19:40:34 [Stuart]
Hello Chris
19:40:53 [Chris]
My review of the QA doc is partially complete. i can talk about it at the telcon but don't have a full draft response ready that we could discuss and send to them
19:41:16 [Chris]
I have been filling in their proforma, and deciding whether their spec conforms to itself
19:41:37 [Norm]
Norm has joined #tagmem
19:41:47 [Stuart]
That's ok... I'd put an 'and' in the agenda where I had meant 'at'.... ie. I just wanted to be certain that we coud discus it *next* week.
19:41:56 [Chris]
oh, okay then
19:42:18 [Chris]
i will work on it more after the call, and send out a draft response tomorrow
19:42:30 [Chris]
so far it looks good, by the way
19:42:47 [Stuart]
Thanks...
19:43:03 [Chris]
see you in a few
19:48:58 [Norm]
Only that much? :-)
19:56:44 [Zakim]
TAG_Weekly()2:30PM has now started
19:56:51 [Zakim]
+[Microsoft]
19:57:34 [pbc]
pbc has joined #tagmem
19:58:18 [Chris]
zakim, dial chris-617
19:58:18 [Zakim]
ok, Chris; the call is being made
19:58:19 [Zakim]
+Chris
19:58:56 [Zakim]
+Norm
20:00:11 [Zakim]
+Stuart
20:00:11 [Norm]
zakim, who's here?
20:00:11 [Zakim]
On the phone I see [Microsoft], Chris, Norm, Stuart
20:00:13 [Zakim]
On IRC I see pbc, Norm, Chris, RRSAgent, Zakim, Stuart
20:00:20 [Norm]
zakim, [Microsoft is pbc
20:00:20 [Zakim]
+pbc; got it
20:02:09 [DanC]
DanC has joined #tagmem
20:02:21 [Zakim]
+DanC
20:03:03 [Stuart]
zakim, whois here?
20:03:03 [Zakim]
I don't understand your question, Stuart.
20:03:06 [noah]
noah has joined #tagmem
20:03:10 [Zakim]
+[IBMCambridge]
20:03:12 [Stuart]
zakim, who is here?
20:03:12 [Zakim]
On the phone I see pbc, Chris, Norm, Stuart, DanC, [IBMCambridge]
20:03:13 [Zakim]
On IRC I see noah, DanC, pbc, Norm, Chris, RRSAgent, Zakim, Stuart
20:03:27 [Norm]
zakim, +[IBM is noah
20:03:27 [Zakim]
sorry, Norm, I do not recognize a party named '+[IBM'
20:03:35 [Norm]
zakim, [IBMC is noah
20:03:35 [Zakim]
+noah; got it
20:04:03 [Chris]
Meeting: TAG telcon
20:04:09 [Chris]
Scribe: Norm
20:04:17 [Chris]
ScribeNick: Norm
20:04:21 [Chris]
Chair: Stuart
20:04:57 [Stuart]
zakim, who is here?
20:04:58 [Zakim]
On the phone I see pbc, Chris, Norm, Stuart, DanC, noah
20:04:59 [Chris]
zakim, who is here?
20:05:00 [Zakim]
On IRC I see noah, DanC, pbc, Norm, Chris, RRSAgent, Zakim, Stuart
20:05:01 [Zakim]
On the phone I see pbc, Chris, Norm, Stuart, DanC, noah
20:05:03 [Zakim]
On IRC I see noah, DanC, pbc, Norm, Chris, RRSAgent, Zakim, Stuart
20:05:54 [Norm]
Absent: TBL, RF
20:07:28 [Norm]
Chair notes a fair amount of administrivia on today's agenda.
20:08:07 [Norm]
5-10 minutes on issues list maintainance
20:08:18 [noah]
Regrets for next week
20:08:30 [Norm]
Regrets for next week
20:08:36 [Chris]
I can scribe next week
20:09:03 [Norm]
pbc gives regrets as well
20:09:05 [DanC]
(I'll be on my way to the airport 17 Jan)
20:09:53 [Norm]
Next meeting: 24 Jan 2005
20:10:28 [Norm]
Meeting of 17 Jan 2005 cancelled.
20:10:36 [Chris]
"The Last Call review period ends 28 January 2005, at 23:59 EDT"
20:10:49 [Norm]
Action: Chris to post QA review comments for email discussion.
20:11:02 [DanC]
try all caps ACTION:
20:11:15 [DanC]
and ACTION Chris: ... is sometimes better than ACTION: Chris
20:11:28 [Norm]
ACTION Chris: Post QA review comments for email discussion.
20:11:46 [Norm]
Minutes of 20 Dec 2004 accepted.
20:12:14 [Norm]
Discussion of http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-rsalz-qname-urn-00.txt
20:13:08 [Norm]
DO asks if we want discussion of this ID on www-tag?
20:13:41 [Norm]
This seems related to the QNames as Identifiers issue.
20:13:53 [Norm]
General agreement that it's ok for discussion to go to www-tag
20:14:05 [Norm]
ACTION SW: Respond to DO approving discussion of the ID on www-tag.
20:14:28 [Norm]
1.1 W3C Technical Plenary
20:14:32 [DanC]
q+ re minutes/agenda tools
20:15:09 [DanC]
q+ to comment re minutes/agenda tools
20:15:27 [DanC]
ack danc
20:15:27 [Zakim]
DanC, you wanted to comment re minutes/agenda tools
20:15:28 [Norm]
SW opens discussion of TAG contribution to technical plenary day
20:15:37 [timbl]
timbl has joined #tagmem
20:16:02 [Zakim]
+TimBL
20:16:19 [DanC]
Topic: W3C Technical Plenary
20:16:44 [Chris]
q+ to clarify - TP is the first f2f after 1 Feb?
20:16:46 [DanC]
queue=
20:17:47 [Norm]
PC: volunteered to participate in the planning committee but has had to back out. Suggest that we ask for 1+ hours and put together a comprehensive proposal including our issues, perhaps E+V.
20:17:51 [Chris]
q+ to clarify - TP is the first f2f after 1 Feb?
20:18:08 [Norm]
PC: It would have broad interest which is important at the plenary
20:18:21 [Norm]
CL: TP is the first f2f after 1 Feb?
20:18:32 [Norm]
SW: Yes, although we're talking about the Wednesday day.
20:18:49 [Chris]
okay
20:18:54 [Norm]
Wednesday is 2 Feb, fwiw.
20:18:55 [noah]
Reminder: I believe that David Orchard is planning to join us on this call in part to discuss our plans for versioning discussion at the Plenary. Am I remembering correctly?
20:19:08 [dorchard]
dorchard has joined #tagmem
20:19:27 [Norm]
Wednesday is 2 MAR, not 2 Feb. Oops.
20:19:28 [noah]
s/Feb/Mar/
20:20:05 [DanC]
(heh... the dbooth script will change that to "... is 2 MAR, not 2 Mar")
20:20:06 [Norm]
SW: Housekeeping: introduce new members of the TAG.
20:20:33 [Norm]
SW: WebArch? Substantive issues, E+V or httpRange-14?
20:20:56 [noah]
q+ to suggest maybe we survey unresolved issues?
20:21:20 [Norm]
ack Chris
20:21:54 [DanC]
q+ to say oh... no, not httpRange-14 for the big meeting on weds. only a small thing, with position papers prerequisite for attendance
20:22:36 [Norm]
Some discussion of how an E+V presentation might work with participation from TAG, Schema and other relevant participants.
20:22:50 [Norm]
SW: We need to introduce the new TAG.
20:23:17 [Norm]
PC: I disagree; Wednesday should be as technical as possible with the minimum amount of administrive overhead
20:24:25 [Norm]
noah: If the reason to have the TAG there as a whole is introductions, that's 3-5 min. What really do we want to have covered though on behalf of the TAG at this session? Versioning is one interesting issue, but it's odd because it spills over beyond the tag. We have others, httpRange-14, looming WS-Addressing issues, perhaps others?
20:25:23 [Norm]
noah: Did we collect a set of intersting things as we went through the arch document? Should we survey the state of play on unresolved issues; listing them with a 2-3 min introduction to each. Note that we're entering a process of looking at these and tyring to set our agenda for the coming year. Should we share that with the plenary so that they can have some input.
20:25:36 [Norm]
noah: Perhaps we should do a "state of the TAG" and split E+V off into another slot.
20:25:45 [DanC]
q+ to question the logistics of a survey, as well as interestingness; to wonder if anybody's interested to set up a WBS thing
20:26:04 [Chris]
ack Chris
20:26:05 [Stuart]
ack Chris
20:26:12 [Stuart]
ack Noah
20:26:12 [Zakim]
noah, you wanted to suggest maybe we survey unresolved issues?
20:26:18 [Stuart]
ack DanC
20:26:18 [Zakim]
DanC, you wanted to say oh... no, not httpRange-14 for the big meeting on weds. only a small thing, with position papers prerequisite for attendance and to question the logistics
20:26:21 [Zakim]
... of a survey, as well as interestingness; to wonder if anybody's interested to set up a WBS thing
20:26:47 [Norm]
DanC: I can imagine presenting in a survey style; collecting data will be frustrating if we don't use the WBS survey.
20:27:15 [Norm]
DanC: If we're going to do a survey, we should use the machine to help
20:27:25 [Norm]
DanC: on httpRange-14: please no, not with a large audience.
20:27:48 [Norm]
DanC: I think that should be a small group with a 1 page position paper required to even get in the door
20:28:03 [Norm]
SW: So I've heard noah suggest that we make this a two bite sort of thing: TAG for one and E+V for another.
20:28:12 [Norm]
TBL: For what extent are we concentrating on what we haven't decided yet?
20:28:25 [noah]
FWIW, the survey aspect was somewhat secondary in my thinking. I had in mind more of a: "let us remind you what issues look challenging to us and why". Now, we can either discuss a few in the remaining time, and/or solicit your sense of which are important and whether there are other directions we're missing.
20:28:29 [Norm]
TBL: Should we use this time to present the architecture document or a number of things which are not in dispute?
20:28:56 [Norm]
DanC: While I think we should present the webarch document, I wonder if this is the right audience. If there's a new WG, they should get a presentation, but this group participated in review of the document.
20:29:17 [Chris]
q+
20:29:28 [Norm]
SW: Last year we had theme-oriented panels and that seemed like a good thing
20:29:32 [DanC]
yes, please, theme-oriented. E+V
20:29:33 [Stuart]
ack chris
20:29:48 [DanC]
yes, content/presentation... CSS, XSL, DI, ... .
20:29:57 [Norm]
CL: I suggest separation of content and presentation because there are several different approaches to the problem (CSS, XSL, vs. Device Independence)
20:30:21 [Norm]
CL: Might be interesting to see if we have more or less agreement than we expect.
20:30:31 [Norm]
CL: If we decided to do that, I'm prepared to do some preparation for that.
20:30:47 [Norm]
SW: Is there a third choice, or should we stick with two?
20:31:22 [Norm]
SW: I can go back to Steve Bratt with those two.
20:31:23 [Chris]
I can do some introductory slides on that, to set the scene
20:31:57 [noah]
Are we at the point where we should invite DaveO to dial in?
20:32:05 [Norm]
Topic: TAG Liasons; Extensibility and Versioning
20:32:28 [Norm]
SW: The idea, I think, is to hold one meeting early in the half of the week, a "stakeholders meeting" where we focus on motivating needs and requirements.
20:33:44 [Norm]
Some discussion of the email about this topic
20:34:11 [Norm]
noah: Will the meeting be best served by inviting everybody? It's just a matter of logistics.
20:34:55 [Norm]
Message in question: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/chairs/2005JanMar/0002.html
20:36:37 [Norm]
noah: scratch comment about inviting everybody; was confused, thought we were still talking about the Wednesday panel session
20:37:52 [Norm]
noah: The Schema WG feels that they have some ownership over the extensibility and versioning issue. But they also see that it's a much larger issue.
20:38:30 [Norm]
noah: My guess is that we need to do a deep dive to get organized and complement each other going forward
20:38:37 [pbc]
q+
20:38:41 [Norm]
noah: There are also other communities that are our users and they have different needs as well.
20:39:13 [Stuart]
ack pbc
20:39:24 [DanC]
q+ to ask what of "ACTION NM: to explore means of getting current and future Schema WG work on versioning into public spaces" http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/11/29-30-tag#xmlv41
20:39:28 [Norm]
PC: Why would we wait until the plenary to get together with schema on this issue?
20:40:13 [Norm]
PC: We've got a few meetings in February and at least one more in January
20:40:54 [Norm]
noah: I think it might be more valuable to do it face-to-face.
20:41:08 [Norm]
q?
20:41:27 [Norm]
ACTION SW: To schedule some sort of meeting with Schema between now and the plenary
20:41:40 [Norm]
DanC: any news on getting the Schema work public?
20:41:55 [Norm]
noah: Yes, I did the narrow part of the action to alert the chair.
20:42:04 [Norm]
noah: Maybe I should take another actoin to follow up?
20:42:29 [Norm]
ACTION Noah: Attempt to get the Schema WG to make their work public.
20:43:11 [Norm]
Some discussion about administrivia associated with doing this in a WG that has experienced some shrinkage.
20:43:35 [DanC]
s/their work/ their extensibility and versioning use cases work/
20:43:54 [Norm]
SW: wrt E+V, we're talking about a panel session, we might also have a shareholders meeting if we get feedback; and we'll try to have liason with schema before the plenary
20:44:05 [Norm]
Topic: Tag Liasons; XML Core
20:44:59 [DanC]
q+ to note Liam's "future of XML" musings, to wonder if TAG/XML Core would find that worth discussing
20:45:09 [Norm]
Norm: No issues at present, but it's easier to cancel than schedule if we decide we do have issues
20:45:46 [Norm]
ack danc
20:45:46 [Zakim]
DanC, you wanted to ask what of "ACTION NM: to explore means of getting current and future Schema WG work on versioning into public spaces"
20:45:49 [Zakim]
... http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/11/29-30-tag#xmlv41 and to note Liam's "future of XML" musings, to wonder if TAG/XML Core would find that worth discussing
20:46:03 [Norm]
Topic: TAG Liasons; QA-WG
20:46:43 [Norm]
They would like to meet. Will work with SW on topics.
20:46:54 [Norm]
Topic: TAG Liasons; WS-Addressing
20:47:16 [Norm]
They would like to meet. We've had a possible new issue that may be related.
20:47:50 [DanC]
ack danc
20:47:50 [Zakim]
DanC, you wanted to ask didn't SKW take an action to contact ws-addressing WG?
20:48:06 [noah]
+1 to idea that we meet with WS-Addressing. Suggested agenda: they walk through their design and issues, preparing to defend non-use of URIs
20:48:48 [Norm]
DanC wonders who has the ball on setting up that meeting
20:48:53 [Norm]
SW: I have the ball.
20:49:33 [Norm]
PC: Which WGs would we meet with if we were going to flatten all the deferred issues
20:50:18 [Chris]
Note that I don't have an SVG f2f competing with TAG at the TP, this time
20:50:30 [Chris]
However I am meeting with some WG on SVG behalf
20:51:41 [DanC]
q+ to ask if SKW has all the TP balls, and wonder if spreading the work around would be easier or just introduce more mess
20:51:42 [Norm]
ACTION: SW to give Steve Bratt a response to how the TAG would like to participate in the Plenary
20:52:02 [DanC]
ack danc
20:52:02 [Zakim]
DanC, you wanted to ask if SKW has all the TP balls, and wonder if spreading the work around would be easier or just introduce more mess
20:53:19 [Norm]
Topic: 2. Technical; Extensibility and Versioning
20:54:11 [Zakim]
+DOrchard
20:54:38 [Norm]
SW: We've got to the piece on E+V. I think you sent out a couple of revised drafts just before Christmas.
20:54:44 [Norm]
SW: Do you want to tell us what's changed?
20:55:06 [DanC]
(hmm... when we left our hero, the ball was with the readers, not the writers)
20:55:07 [Norm]
dorchard: I thought I went through that in Boston.
20:55:20 [noah]
Were they just before Christmas, or just before Boston?
20:55:24 [Norm]
SW: Ok, unfortunatly I wasn't present.
20:55:48 [DanC]
"ACTION PC: to review parts 1 and 2 of extensibility and versioning editorial draft finding prior to discussion for 10 Jan. ACTION DC: paulc to review parts 1 and 2 of extensibility and versioning editorial draft finding prior to discussion for 10 Jan"
20:55:51 [DanC]
oops!
20:56:17 [DanC]
q+ to say sorry, no, didn't read it, see earlier agend request to discuss issue list maintenance
20:56:20 [Norm]
Correction: Before Boston not before Christmas.
20:56:32 [DanC]
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/11/29-30-tag#xmlv41
20:57:22 [Norm]
DanC, PC have not yet completed review; action pending.
20:57:32 [DanC]
ack danc
20:57:32 [Zakim]
DanC, you wanted to say sorry, no, didn't read it, see earlier agend request to discuss issue list maintenance
20:57:52 [Norm]
noah: Is it appropriate to go over at least my recollection of our tentative decisions
20:58:03 [DanC]
"ACTION NM: to work with DO to come up with improved principles and background assumptions that motivate versioning finding"
20:59:01 [noah]
Right, thanks for finding that.
20:59:01 [Norm]
SW: At the moment we are a little lacking in feedback. Apologies for dragging dorchard here before we were well prepared.
20:59:25 [DanC]
ACTION DC: review blog entry on RDF versioning [pointer?]. CONTINUES.
20:59:43 [Norm]
dorchard: The only thing that's happened since then is that I did write up a paper that examines RELAX NG in this context.
21:00:09 [Norm]
dorchard: I tried to come up with a small set of scenarios that I've been working with.
21:00:21 [dorchard]
http://www.pacificspirit.com/Authoring/Compatibility/OWLRDFExtensibility.html
21:00:23 [Chris]
q+ to suggest an example
21:00:42 [Stuart]
ack Chris
21:00:42 [Zakim]
Chris, you wanted to suggest an example
21:01:02 [Norm]
CL: One example that might be interesting for RELAX NG would be taking an empty element and adding an attribute co-constraint that says whether or not it should be empty.
21:01:14 [noah]
Dave specifically contrasts his scenarios, which are sort of mechanistic (add an attribute to a type) to the more general user level scenarios the schema wg has been using as motivation (I.e. phrased as business scenarios)
21:02:08 [Norm]
SW: Should we continue or cancel some of these actions? If they're continued, can you set expectations?
21:02:26 [Norm]
DanC reviews them:
21:02:49 [DanC]
ACTION NM: to work with DO to come up with improved principles and background assumptions that motivate versioning finding. CONTINUES. bigger than a 1-week thing
21:02:50 [Norm]
NM: to work with DO to come up with improved principles and background assumptions that motivate versioning finding
21:03:55 [DanC]
PC asks to withdraw: ACTION PC: to review parts 1 and 2 of extensibility and versioning editorial draft finding prior to discussion
21:04:16 [DanC]
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/11/29-30-tag#xmlv41
21:05:15 [DanC]
SKW offers to review part 1
21:05:18 [timbl]
To review ... http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Oct/att-0137/vers-adoc.html ?
21:05:27 [Norm]
dorchard observes that the TAG is in flux until the elections finish
21:06:21 [DanC]
ACTION DC: paulc to review parts 1 and 2 of extensibility and versioning editorial draft finding prior to discussion.
21:06:27 [DanC]
(I think I can do it this week)
21:06:37 [DanC]
. ACTION PC: paulc to inform QA and Schema WGs of the new version of the e&v draft
21:07:13 [Stuart]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Oct/att-0137/vers-adoc.html
21:07:34 [DanC]
ACTION SKW: to inform QA and Schema WGs of the new version of the e&v draft
21:07:50 [Stuart]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2004Nov/att-0071/versioning-part2.html
21:10:00 [dorchard]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2004Nov/att-0071/
21:10:07 [dorchard]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2004Nov/att-0071/versioning-part1.html
21:10:12 [Norm]
SW notes that he's put the wrong link in the agenda
21:11:38 [Norm]
dorchard: between now and February 12, is very bad for scheduling additional meetings
21:11:44 [Norm]
noah: but you will be at the Tech Plenary
21:11:49 [Norm]
dorchard: yes
21:12:05 [Norm]
SW: Should we shoot for the 14th?
21:12:15 [DanC]
yes, 14 Feb looks like an interesting sync-point
21:12:23 [Norm]
noah: You're hoping Schema WG will be available then?
21:12:26 [Norm]
SW: yes
21:12:43 [Norm]
dorchard agrees that falling back to 21 Feb would be ok
21:14:05 [Norm]
SW: Plan is to have our reviews finished for discussion on 14 Feb
21:14:50 [DanC]
ACTION NM: contact David E. to [???]
21:14:51 [Norm]
ACTION NW: Coordinate with chair of Schema for meeting on 14 Feb
21:15:17 [Norm]
noah: Schema chair agrees informally
21:15:28 [Norm]
Topic: 2. Technical; XML Chunk Equality
21:15:57 [Chris]
NW: posted a draft a while back, went through www-tag discussion
21:16:08 [Zakim]
-DOrchard
21:16:11 [Chris]
nw: mostly discussion was about a single issue
21:16:17 [DanC]
(agenda cites http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/xmlChunkEquality.html )
21:16:27 [Chris]
nw: xml:lang and case folding and non-ascii characters and stuff
21:16:30 [DanC]
([Editor’s Draft] TAG Finding 07 September 2004)
21:16:35 [Chris]
nw: apart from that, little feedback
21:16:47 [DanC]
action 11 = NM: Coordinate with chair of Schema for meeting on 14 Feb
21:17:08 [Chris]
sw: how was that recieved by xml core?
21:17:29 [Chris]
nw: reluctant as there was not a single correct response for all of xml
21:17:50 [Chris]
nw: however, this was juts 'a' notion of equality not 'the' one, so they declined
21:18:00 [Chris]
nw: thus, the ball is in TAG court again
21:18:35 [Chris]
nw: Core if fine with TAG doing 'a' way
21:18:42 [Chris]
s/if/is/
21:18:53 [Stuart]
q?
21:19:06 [Chris]
dc: looks like an interesting note
21:19:28 [Chris]
nw: can tag publish a wg note?
21:19:42 [Chris]
dc, cl, sw: yes (probably)
21:19:55 [Chris]
pc: why bother changing the finding to a note?
21:19:59 [noah]
q+ to ask about precendents of findings as notes
21:20:25 [Chris]
nw: one psychological step less normative. not in all caps.
21:20:57 [Chris]
q+ to expound about xml:lang
21:21:38 [DanC]
q+ to say that my instinct about xml:lang is to write a test case and then see what implementations do, but hey, with a note, just stick a "xml:lang looks hairy. discuss" note
21:21:49 [Chris]
ack danc
21:21:49 [Zakim]
DanC, you wanted to review actions from http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/11/29-30-tag#xmlv41 and to and to say that my instinct about xml:lang is to write a test case and then see
21:21:53 [Zakim]
... what implementations do, but hey, with a note, just stick a "xml:lang looks hairy. discuss" note
21:21:54 [Chris]
ack noah
21:21:55 [DanC]
q+ to say that my instinct about xml:lang is to write a test case and then see what implementations do, but hey, with a note, just stick a "xml:lang looks hairy. discuss" note
21:21:57 [Zakim]
noah, you wanted to ask about precendents of findings as notes
21:22:52 [Chris]
nm: don't want to get into duplicat work, republish findings and notes. rather train people how to read findings
21:23:17 [Chris]
ack chris
21:23:17 [Zakim]
Chris, you wanted to expound about xml:lang
21:23:24 [timbl]
q+ to ask whhy we started this.
21:24:48 [DanC]
ack danc
21:24:48 [Zakim]
DanC, you wanted to say that my instinct about xml:lang is to write a test case and then see what implementations do, but hey, with a note, just stick a "xml:lang looks hairy.
21:24:52 [Zakim]
... discuss" note
21:25:14 [noah]
slight clarification: I'm not necessarily against publishing as notes if we can convince ourselves there's a good reason that justifies the duplicate investment in publication and ongoing maintenance in the face of possible bugs. I'm suggesting we decide on the criteria in general. I think Dan is now suggesting such a criterion.
21:25:15 [pbc]
as an example of another algorithm.
21:25:26 [Chris]
cl: bogus language codes do not affect well formedness, but anything not conforming to the prose of xml still does not conform to prose
21:25:26 [pbc]
should we also point to http://www.w3.org/TR/xquery-operators/#func-deep-equal
21:25:59 [noah]
q+ to follow up with Dan quickly: are you saying finding AND a note? Sounds like you're saying "it's either a finding or a note", and this one's a note.
21:26:17 [pbc]
q+
21:26:20 [Stuart]
q?
21:26:23 [Chris]
cl: its well defined, except for this theoretical corner case
21:26:31 [Stuart]
ack timbl
21:26:31 [Zakim]
timbl, you wanted to ask whhy we started this.
21:26:34 [DanC]
yes, noah
21:26:47 [Norm]
pbc: yes, we should
21:27:35 [Chris]
tbl: can we take norms finding and see to what exent dsig breaks on things that are the same, if RDF would be happy with it as a definition of RDF litteral, etc
21:27:59 [Chris]
tbl: xml has a deep equality issue (from scribbled notes)
21:28:11 [Chris]
pc: xquery and xpath, rather than xml??
21:28:25 [Stuart]
q+
21:28:28 [Stuart]
q-
21:28:34 [timbl]
s/scribbled notes/http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2004Jan/0013.html
21:28:42 [Stuart]
q- noah
21:28:49 [Stuart]
ack pbc
21:28:56 [Chris]
pc: so, this is one possible way to compare two chunks
21:29:13 [timbl]
Woudl they have prefered it with ':'?
21:29:18 [Chris]
pc: it does not really demonstrate that other algorithms exist, when you might use them etc
21:29:29 [DanC]
(RDF uses the c14n one)
21:29:30 [Chris]
pc: deep=1 from F&O, plus???
21:29:36 [noah]
Tim's scribbled notes say: XML schema has the "Deep equality" issue as to when any two chunks
21:29:36 [noah]
are "equal".
21:29:51 [noah]
FWIW: I'm not immediately calling to mind any reason that XML Schema would care.
21:30:11 [Chris]
pd: dsig have various views on canonical representations
21:30:23 [Chris]
s/pd/pc/
21:30:45 [Chris]
pc: so if we added some other alternatives, its fine as a finding
21:31:05 [DanC]
(hmm... it's now starting to smell like a survey of the literature on XML chunk comparison, more in the finding genre)
21:31:07 [Chris]
tbl: a list of things to avoid or known potholes, is valuable
21:31:11 [noah]
Schema does have equality rules for typed values of particular fields, e.g. when typed as an integer attribute AT="123" is equal (as a key for example) to AT="00123".
21:31:21 [Chris]
yes, more like a finding now
21:31:23 [noah]
I don't think there are open issues in this area.
21:31:46 [Chris]
sw: not overriding support for making it a note
21:31:57 [noah]
I note that DSIG achieves something close to chunk equality via its canonicalization rules (which I believe are user-pluggable).
21:32:04 [Chris]
pc: ok as a finding if we had time to discuss it, so suggesting improvements
21:32:28 [Chris]
sw: ok so very much as a finding
21:33:04 [Chris]
ACTION Norm: make editorial improvements, point to other different schemes, why use them, things to avoid
21:33:22 [Chris]
tbl: is there vagueness in RDF literal?
21:33:57 [Chris]
pc: good to see when F&O deep= works and when it does not
21:34:51 [Chris]
pc: looking for a way to select an algorithm to get least astonishment
21:35:25 [Chris]
tbl: for URI comparison, if they are trivially equal they are always equal with more complicated meythods
21:35:47 [Chris]
tbl: is the same thing true here? if two chunks are norm=, are they always equal??
21:36:00 [Zakim]
-TimBL
21:36:01 [Chris]
sw: oops, running out of time, this is interesting
21:36:09 [Chris]
pc: put at front of next agenda
21:36:13 [DanC]
RRSAgent, please make minutes
21:36:19 [Chris]
pc: email discussion also good
21:36:45 [Zakim]
-pbc
21:38:35 [Chris]
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
21:38:42 [DanC]
[[
21:38:43 [DanC]
10-tagmem-actions.rdf (from ACLs DB)
21:38:43 [DanC]
world access.
21:38:43 [DanC]
10-tagmem-irc.html (from ACLs DB)
21:38:43 [DanC]
world access.
21:38:43 [DanC]
10-tagmem-irc.rdf (from ACLs DB)
21:38:43 [noah]
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
21:38:45 [DanC]
world access.
21:38:47 [DanC]
10-tagmem-irc.txt (from ACLs DB)
21:38:49 [DanC]
world access.
21:38:51 [DanC]
]]
21:38:55 [DanC]
[[ 10-tagmem-minutes.html (from ACLs DB)
21:38:55 [DanC]
member access. ]]
21:39:08 [Zakim]
-DanC
21:39:13 [Zakim]
-Norm
21:39:14 [Zakim]
-noah
21:39:14 [Zakim]
-Stuart
21:39:30 [Chris]
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribe.perl?rev=1.104&content-type=text/plain
21:39:57 [Chris]
norm, that last link is the perl
21:40:03 [Norm]
I've got the perl.
21:40:06 [Chris]
ok
21:40:22 [Norm]
Where's 10-tagmem-irc.txt again? In /2001/tag/2004/01/ ?
21:40:42 [Norm]
No. Probably not
21:40:45 [Norm]
Thre it is.
21:40:58 [Chris]
perl scribe.perl --implicitContinuations -tidy input.txt > output.html
21:41:15 [Norm]
Nope http://www.w3.org/2005/01/10-tagmem-minutes is still 503
21:41:22 [Norm]
Nope http://www.w3.org/2005/01/10-tagmem-irc.txt is 503
21:41:37 [Chris]
rrsagent, pointer?
21:41:37 [RRSAgent]
See http://www.w3.org/2005/01/10-tagmem-irc#T21-41-37
21:41:47 [Chris]
zakim, bye
21:41:50 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #tagmem
21:41:52 [Chris]
rrsagent, bye
21:41:52 [RRSAgent]
I see 11 open action items:
21:41:52 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Chris to Post QA review comments for email discussion. [1]
21:41:52 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/01/10-tagmem-irc#T20-11-28
21:41:52 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: SW to Respond to DO approving discussion of the ID on www-tag. [2]
21:41:52 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/01/10-tagmem-irc#T20-14-05
21:41:52 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: SW to To schedule some sort of meeting with Schema between now and the plenary [3]
21:41:52 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/01/10-tagmem-irc#T20-41-27
21:41:52 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Noah to Attempt to get the Schema WG to make their work public. [4]
21:41:52 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/01/10-tagmem-irc#T20-42-29
21:41:52 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: SW to give Steve Bratt a response to how the TAG would like to participate in the Plenary [5]
21:41:52 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/01/10-tagmem-irc#T20-51-42
21:41:52 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: DC to review blog entry on RDF versioning [pointer?]. CONTINUES. [6]
21:41:52 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/01/10-tagmem-irc#T20-59-25
21:41:52 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: NM to to work with DO to come up with improved principles and background assumptions that motivate versioning finding. CONTINUES. bigger than a 1-week thing [7]
21:41:52 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/01/10-tagmem-irc#T21-02-49
21:41:52 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: DC to paulc to review parts 1 and 2 of extensibility and versioning editorial draft finding prior to discussion. [8]
21:41:52 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/01/10-tagmem-irc#T21-06-21
21:41:52 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: SKW to to inform QA and Schema WGs of the new version of the e&v draft [9]
21:41:52 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/01/10-tagmem-irc#T21-07-34
21:41:52 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: NM: Coordinate with chair of Schema for meeting on 14 Feb [11]
21:41:52 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/01/10-tagmem-irc#T21-14-51
21:41:52 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Norm to make editorial improvements, point to other different schemes, why use them, things to avoid [12]
21:41:52 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/01/10-tagmem-irc#T21-33-04
21:41:54 [Zakim]
leaving. As of this point the attendees were [Microsoft], Chris, Norm, Stuart, pbc, DanC, [IBMCambridge], noah, TimBL, DOrchard
21:42:09 [Norm]
Bleh. some local config glitch
21:42:19 [Chris]
norm, remember to dismiss zakim and rrsagent (in that order) to flush any buffering