See also: IRC log
<Norm> Hi Stuart
<Stuart> Lo... dinner calls... be back soon...
<DanC> Scribe: Ed
<scribe> Scribe: Ed Rice
<scribe> ScribeNick: Ed
Ed: Next meeting Feb 14th, xml schema team will join
<scribe> ACTION: Stuart to send note to xml schema team to confirm meeting [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/02/07-tagmem-irc]
<ht_sof> HST sends regrets for the joint meeting on 14 Feb
<scribe> ACTION: noah and Norm agree to scribe Feb 14th [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/02/07-tagmem-irc]
RESOLUTION: Resolved to accept the minutes of Jan 31st 2005
<DanC> 4 answers so far http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/34270/telweekly/results
<scribe> ACTION: All Tag members to respond to on-line survey as to best meeting time. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/02/07-tagmem-irc]
<ht> I.e. Monday and Thursday
<scribe> ACTION: Deadline to respond to on-line Survey is Feb 10th 2005 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/02/07-tagmem-irc]
<DanC> I'm flexible too.
<DanC> (I added mon11 and thru11; I sure hope that doesn't screw up the answers already given... I think it does not...)
<DanC> (ah; good; it doesn't screw up the extant answers)
<DanC> (hmm... it might invalidate comments ala "All of the times work for me except ...")
<scribe> ACTION: Stuart contact Rich to see if there is room on the panel for session three [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/02/07-tagmem-irc]
Vincent has agreed to chair/drive face to face
<noahm> Noah preliminary answers posted on Web Survey. Monday and Thurs 11AM are OK, maybe just a bit less desirable than mid-afternoon, but given our European participants, I'd be glad to do either one. I should say that I have a conflict with this Thurs, 2/10, but I suspect we wouldn't go for another meeting this week in any case.
<noahm> Also, regarding change of schedule, I note that we seem committed to doing 2/14 with the XML Schema WG, so suggest that any changes be not before then.
<scribe> ACTION: Vincent to send out tentative agenda by next weeks meeting for review and email discussion. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/02/07-tagmem-irc]
<DanC> ACTION: Vincent to send out tentative agenda by next weeks meeting for review and email discussion. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/02/07-tagmem-irc]
<Norm> FYI: The Core WG now expects it will be valuable to meet to discuss XML 2.0
voice browswer WG is a lunch time agenda
<Roy> I can attend all of the liaison meetings.
<noahm> Possible other item to discuss briefly: we've talked about possible Monday dinner. I've offered to make a reservation and thrown one possible restaurant into the suggestion pool. No rush yet, but at some point we'll want to figure out what we're doing.
chairs of the qa working group
<ht> Noah, I can make Monday
Noah, I am open on Monday.. open to trying new types of food (or old)
Noah will coordinate and schedule.
<Zakim> DanC, you wanted to suggest keeping IRIEverywhere open until we have timbl's questions (http://www.w3.org/2003/04/iri.html) answered and to ask if RF would like to continue "ACTION
<scribe> ACTION: DanC to enter actions relative to issues list. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/02/07-tagmem-irc]
namespaceDocument-8: Tim was champion of, the direction we were heading is the suggestion that this be published as a working group note from the TAG along with an action from Paul Cotton to publish a working not. No progress has been made in the last six months.
<scribe> ACTION: norm to pick up Paul Cotton's work on namespaceDocument-8 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/02/07-tagmem-irc]
<Roy> Please continue my action on IRIEverywhere, may be good for discussion at F2F.
<DanC> (I'm happy to sorta reboot, HT; I'd be happy to review "the original RDDL" (whatever that is; I lose track) if that's what your experience suggests. I think my reason for not liking some version of RDDL was that there wasn't an RDF mapping, when it looked so close)
<ht> That's a good reason -- RDDL was supposed to be automatically exploitable, if it can't be mapped to RDF trivially that's evidence that it's not
<Norm> I'm happy to do a little reboot too, I don't have all the versions in wetware now either
Dan states, the strong signal is that people want this solved in the particulars. If the TAG does not agree, we should respond that we're not going to.
Henry will work with Norm to take up namespaceDocument-8 topic.
<scribe> ACTION: Henry to produce a RDDL1 to RDF Style sheet or explain why not [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/02/07-tagmem-irc]
if you use a URI and you use an http without a hash, it needs to point to a network resource (information resource)
other side if you use an http: with no hash mark, it may as well be an html algorithm
there is no consensus
should http be uses as a substrate protocal
Noah: send email right before the call proposing to open new tag issue.
<DanC> (SemWeb IG agenda-in-progress makes no mention of httpRange-14 http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/interest/meetings/tp2005.html )
<DanC> (it doesn't appeal to me that clustering will help. 31 and this new issue seem very different, to me)
Proposal: Noah suggests to take a cluster of these and set them aside for a week to see if we should adress these
substrate 16 is currently deferred.
deferred = until there is new information about this topic we will not discuss further.
background - where should we be using xlink.
Should be returned to once the xml working group resolves a couple of minor bugs. The xml core working group has committed to doing this quickly.
<Norm> XLink extensions note from Core WG: http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/NOTE-xlink10-ext-20050127/
<DanC> (I was going to ask henry to take an action re xlinkScope-23 or tell us how it'll get from the /TR/ page to our agenda, but it would probably fall on me to get that into the issues list, and I'm hopelessly behind on that sort of thing, so never mind.)
there was a draft finding from Chris. But it has not been discussed.
<ht> DanC, I'll keep it in mind, not to worry
<DanC> draft finding
Ed asked if we should all review offline and discuss in two weeks during weekly meeting
<DanC> ah... no, having us "all" review it is the anybody/somebody/nobody pattern. a pattern that works is to have 2 reviewers.
Ed offers to be a reviewer on this topic, will contact Chris.
<scribe> ACTION: Ed to meet with chris and review/update the document. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/02/07-tagmem-irc]
Note: Chris has an action to write up a resolution, but current status is not know.
<scribe> ACTION: Henry to monitor and bring back up when time is appropriate. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/02/07-tagmem-irc]
a workshop and working group is studying issue, should be complete in March.
the current work-group is mostly made up of people who want a binary xml, the TAG may need to understand and represent the users who want a text xml.
<ht> DanC has a process concern, that once they recommend we do a _real_ Binary XML WG, it will go ahead without much/any critical review
<ht> Their output will be a Group Note, not a WD
<ht> DanC, I'm happy to talk to you about this, but it's Liam and Philippe, not me, who are on point
<DanC> I have comments on the XBC WDs; if I manage to write them up and send them, I'll let the tag know.
<DanC> (ah... now I see the connection to the issue noah proposed)
<noahm> Does metadataInUri also relate to the various WS Addressing issues, at least insofar as some are tempted to ask: "why don't you put all those properties and/or parameters into a URI"
Stuart has agreed to continue working on this issue if the TAG would prefer.
Stuart: asks to partner with noah on 31 on an informal basis.
Norm: this one is the process of wrapping up. The CR draft is expected to be published tomorrow.
... High confidence in closure soon.
This one and xmlFunctions-34 and RDFinXHTML-35 are grouped.
<Zakim> DanC, you wanted to note we decided the mixedNamespaceMeaning-13 issue had a dependency on issue 42
There is a new compound documents working group working which may be working on 33.
<scribe> ACTION: Chair to negotiate joint meeting to review during boston trip. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/02/07-tagmem-irc]
<Zakim> noahm, you wanted to say that SOAP headers violate functional view of XML, I think
<3> RSAgent]recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/02/07-tagmem-irc#T20-15-18
<5> RSAgent]recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/02/07-tagmem-irc#T20-27-37