IRC log of tagmem on 2005-05-03
Timestamps are in UTC.
- 17:02:43 [RRSAgent]
- RRSAgent has joined #tagmem
- 17:02:49 [RRSAgent]
- logging to http://www.w3.org/2005/05/03-tagmem-irc
- 17:02:49 [dorchard]
- scribe: dorchard
- 17:02:58 [noah]
- zakim, [IBMCambridge] is me
- 17:02:58 [Zakim]
- +noah; got it
- 17:03:05 [DanC]
- Zakim, list attendees
- 17:03:05 [Zakim]
- As of this point the attendees have been TimBL, Vincent, Norm, Ht, DOrchard, Roy, DanC, noah
- 17:03:14 [Ed]
- Ed has joined #tagmem
- 17:03:14 [Roy]
- Roy has joined #tagmem
- 17:03:31 [DanC]
- (zakim, counts 8. aren't we 9?)
- 17:03:36 [Zakim]
- +??P6
- 17:04:04 [DanC]
- (good question... can binary wait?)
- 17:04:24 [ht]
- zakim, who is on the phone?
- 17:04:24 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see TimBL, Vincent, Norm, Ht, DOrchard, Roy, DanC, noah, ??P6
- 17:04:32 [ht]
- zakim, ? is Ed
- 17:04:32 [Zakim]
- +Ed; got it
- 17:04:48 [dorchard]
- DaveO: what's up with reviewing binary?
- 17:05:24 [dorchard]
- noah: no concrete plan on chartering
- 17:05:37 [dorchard]
- daveo: we should do something wrt chartering
- 17:05:48 [dorchard]
- Vincent: add to agenda?
- 17:06:22 [DanC]
- (yes, pls add binaryXML-30 after 14 on today's agenda)
- 17:06:44 [dorchard]
- daveo: I'd like the TAG to do something..
- 17:08:29 [dorchard]
- noah: a) figure out what to do with doc; b) have discussion about whether tag should participate in charter
- 17:09:19 [DanC]
- (for reference, http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2005/03/action-summary.html is at 2005/05/02 16:44:29 )
- 17:10:10 [Vincent]
- Scribes: DO (3 May), NDW, HT, DC, ER, RF, NM
- 17:10:28 [noah]
- Actually, what I suggested was a bit less than what was scribed: a) [..got that right...] b) decide what we need to schedule to make sure that we later are prepared for the discussion of whether to be active in charter considerations for Binary XML
- 17:10:52 [dorchard]
- sorry noah..
- 17:11:23 [DanC]
- . http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2005/04/26-minutes $Date: 2005/04/29 01:32:33 $
- 17:12:47 [noah]
- * Noah notes that he thought Dan just wanted to be sure we had stable links early
- 17:13:16 [noah]
- * Relying on the RRSAgent link makes it impossible to do cleanup and editing, which I often find to be worth the trouble.
- 17:13:29 [dorchard]
- HT: wanted minutes right next to agenda..
- 17:14:01 [dorchard]
- ht: minutes in cvs, use grep, very nice for searching
- 17:15:48 [dorchard]
- vincent: to email on topic of minutes.
- 17:15:55 [DanC]
- (btw... this week I'm happy because the minutes settled down by the time the agenda came out)
- 17:15:58 [dorchard]
- scribe: loves minuting about minutes :-)
- 17:16:58 [dorchard]
- vincent: please review the TAG update for the AC meeting, team expects within a few days.
- 17:17:06 [DanC]
- Subject: DRAFT Summary for the AC meeting
- 17:17:06 [DanC]
- Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 09:45:39 +0200 (02:45 CDT)
- 17:17:28 [dorchard]
- topic: binary xml
- 17:19:02 [ht]
- Last XBC mail: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2005Apr/0085.html
- 17:19:30 [ht]
- AC meeting summary: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2005May/0000.html
- 17:19:36 [dorchard]
- http://www.w3.org/XML/Binary/2005/04/charter.html
- 17:19:39 [DanC]
- I think this is Ed's reply to dave http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2005Apr/0085.html
- 17:20:45 [dorchard]
- noah: let's talk about what we want to do.
- 17:22:38 [dorchard]
- noah: where to send? xbc mailing list?
- 17:23:06 [dorchard]
- noah: we know there is a charter, as TAG should we do anything formally or informally?
- 17:23:45 [Ed]
- Should we review the message compared to the charter and give the TAG's feedback on the proposed charter?
- 17:24:33 [noah]
- Suggest there are two things we might consider doing (either or both):
- 17:24:58 [noah]
- 1) Take something resembling note 0085 and send it somewhere as formal comments from the TAG on the work of the XBC group
- 17:25:01 [noah]
- and/or
- 17:25:30 [dorchard]
- daveo: strawman: be formally involved and send review comments to xbc list + w3ct and/or AC
- 17:25:48 [noah]
- 2) Decide that we want to play some formal role in shaping/encouraging/discouraging a possible charter for a new Binary working group (we've been told an initial draft charter is being circulated)
- 17:26:00 [dorchard]
- timbl: no decision to make a finding
- 17:26:06 [noah]
- +1
- 17:26:44 [dorchard]
- timbl: part of problem is difficult to come to conclusion when anonymized
- 17:27:03 [Norm]
- q+
- 17:27:04 [Norm]
- q?
- 17:27:19 [dorchard]
- dan: point by point through 85
- 17:27:54 [Norm]
- q-
- 17:28:31 [dorchard]
- dan: not inclined to endorse point #1
- 17:31:00 [Roy]
- q?
- 17:31:11 [noah]
- This is not entirely a process question: to some degree, I hear Dave saying: "Having W3C do a binary XML is a technical decision with architectural implications". It so happens that's coming up in the form of a charter.
- 17:31:40 [DanC]
- DanC is leading a discussion of the 12 points (well, at least point 1) in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2005Apr/0085.html
- 17:31:44 [noah]
- I do agree that the note emphasizes process and workgroup formation a bit more than I would.
- 17:31:49 [dorchard]
- ht: tag did not believe the case for value prop for xml binary has been made. Somebody from the audience will say, what is tag suggesting, and an individual tag response
- 17:32:09 [noah]
- I think Henry just said the same thing as what I typed above. So, we agree.
- 17:32:12 [dorchard]
- ht: could be something like what #1 suggests
- 17:34:24 [dorchard]
- Danc: can endorse sentence "The Working Group did not provide benchmarks ..."
- 17:35:27 [DanC]
- DanC: maybe change "provide" to publish; maybe they provided it internally
- 17:36:43 [Roy]
- It matches the comments I sent
- 17:37:03 [Roy]
- ... to say that metrics are needed to convince
- 17:37:25 [DanC]
- "quantitative studies are essential to a correct understanding of the trade-offs" -- http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#binary
- 17:38:36 [dorchard]
- Norm: I agree with point #2
- 17:39:21 [DanC]
- (the goal here is a short statement that we can agree to)
- 17:40:37 [dorchard]
- daveo: goes through point #3
- 17:41:09 [dorchard]
- noah: could do oversimplification if we focus on "speed"
- 17:41:30 [dorchard]
- noah: lots of variabilities, like utf8 to utf16 conversion.
- 17:42:02 [dorchard]
- noah: missing piece: 20 something use cases, pick one like web services, then could get 3 or 4 test environments
- 17:42:15 [dorchard]
- noah: then can look at speed changes..
- 17:42:22 [DanC]
- (so... I think we got one keeper and 2 that maybe merit more discussion but aren't there yet. maybe that's enough for this week and we can play the game again next week?)
- 17:43:17 [DanC]
- (I yield the floor back to the chair; you can hand it back to me to go thru more points, or we can put this aside for a week, Vincent )
- 17:43:40 [dorchard]
- noah: maybe we are saying is that we are less convinced, perhaps narrow to a small # of use cases, and then do rigorous benchmarks
- 17:44:33 [dorchard]
- vincent: let's close and move on
- 17:45:11 [dorchard]
- vincent: add to next weeks charter
- 17:46:01 [noah]
- Actually, I'm not saying that we are or not convinced of merits of binary. What I said was: I'm uncomfortable talking about speed gains across a huge range of use cases. So, this may be another reason to first narrow to a handful of use cases, then consider whether rigorous speed benchmarks are possible for those.
- 17:47:05 [dorchard]
- vincent: heartbeat requirements are for WGs
- 17:47:26 [dorchard]
- vincent: tag should provide summary every 3 months
- 17:48:23 [timbl]
- q+
- 17:50:04 [dorchard]
- timbl: heartbeat is to prevent wgs from going into a corner for a long time without community feedback
- 17:50:21 [dorchard]
- timbl: tag is decidely not in a corner. minutes, reviews, etc. are all public
- 17:50:42 [timbl]
- timbl: TAG tends to be under a lot of scrutiny and to be engaged in debate in public fora so this is less of a concern than for some WGs.
- 17:51:45 [Roy]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2005May/0001.html
- 17:52:03 [dorchard]
- danc: was there a specific scenario that opened this up?
- 17:52:41 [DanC]
- (http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/mime-respect gives me a wierd response)
- 17:53:33 [dorchard]
- noah: vincent, your path assumes people need more time to review, does it really need more time?
- 17:53:34 [DanC]
- (http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/mime-respect.html works better... but it's not that long... mixing might be handy)
- 17:53:57 [Roy]
- (bummer... the XML version is served by default)
- 17:54:22 [Roy]
- (can we give it a stylesheet?)
- 17:54:57 [dorchard]
- ht: if I did another experiment like noah's, thing put with media type app/java, then the agreement is that the server would run as java and return text/html
- 17:54:59 [DanC]
- (the static/dynamic terminology doesn't appeal to me. I liked the way Roy put it ..."HTTP is often, but not always used for filesystem access")
- 17:55:12 [dorchard]
- ht: is this ok?
- 17:55:58 [dorchard]
- dan: static/dynamic is misleading
- 17:56:15 [dorchard]
- noah: roy wrote 3 is a nifty feature when user is making an informed request
- 17:56:55 [timbl]
- q+
- 17:57:03 [dorchard]
- noah: not necessarily static, could be file system based, but let's not act apologetic when it's not file system based. Lots of things are "dynamic"
- 17:57:34 [dorchard]
- roy: if we write something down, it would be a new finding, wanted to get it on mailing list
- 17:58:07 [dorchard]
- timbl: want to be careful about addressing apache, lots of servers don't use file system conventions
- 17:58:40 [DanC]
- (Zope is such a system, fyi, timbl)
- 17:58:41 [dorchard]
- timbl: careful not to get into the trap of doing architecture based upon some implementations.
- 17:59:06 [DanC]
- (such a system, i.e. one where the filenames have nothing (necessarily) to do with media types)
- 17:59:39 [dorchard]
- noah: general case: web isn't about files at all. some are dynamic like clocks, or some are dynamic like java, then tremendously common special case of kind of like a file systems
- 17:59:52 [dorchard]
- noah: and timbl is saying even file system is even a special idiom
- 18:00:11 [dorchard]
- noah: roy's advice can be applied at various layers
- 18:00:36 [dorchard]
- danc: I could see another version that links to 17 server documents that say how you do "it" on their server
- 18:01:23 [dorchard]
- timbl: could do where we say "and apache does it this way"
- 18:01:31 [dorchard]
- roy: apache does it on the uri, file could be .cgi
- 18:03:00 [dorchard]
- vincent: back to list
- 18:03:23 [dorchard]
- topic: issue 37
- 18:04:05 [DanC]
- q+ to note that schema component designator thingy is in last call, and doesn't mix well with barenames
- 18:04:45 [dorchard]
- ht: relates to 2 concerns of mine: 1) schema component designators in last call.
- 18:05:17 [dorchard]
- ht: 2) most of energy in schema has gone into the "rhs", stuff after the hash
- 18:05:24 [dorchard]
- ht: concern about lhs
- 18:05:41 [dorchard]
- ht: and this relates to versioning
- 18:05:44 [noah]
- Schema component designators is a last call draft and is at: http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-xmlschema-ref-20050329/
- 18:05:48 [DanC]
- (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webont-comments/2005Mar/0004 "simple barenames for schema component designators" )
- 18:06:17 [dorchard]
- ht: got into range-14 problems
- 18:06:45 [dorchard]
- ht: I don't understand what awww says about secondary resources
- 18:07:04 [dorchard]
- ht: status report complete, don't need to talk about today
- 18:07:25 [DanC]
- (the "secondary resources" text is not beautiful, according to anybody I know)
- 18:08:20 [DanC]
- "The Last Call comment period is expected to end 26 April 2005"
- 18:09:12 [ht]
- dorchard: there's a problem with using fragids to refer to abstract components and/but you put an RDDL doc't at the namespace URI
- 18:09:20 [noah]
- Helping Dave Scribe: Dave says that he believe's there is a problem when RDDL is used
- 18:09:53 [ht]
- timbl: Using RDDL is BAD when you have a fragid
- 18:10:12 [dorchard]
- noah: rddl tends to be about namespaces. schema isn't
- 18:10:49 [dorchard]
- noah: schema model is: there is something called a schema, which is separate from the schema declarations
- 18:10:51 [ht]
- noah: Schemas are not one-to-one with namespaces, so schema isn't looking at using namespace as URI which you attach the fragid to to ref a component
- 18:12:04 [dorchard]
- danc: namespace spec uses term namespace name
- 18:12:50 [dorchard]
- ht: schema wg has not proposed that component designators are generated from namespace name + sep + frag-id.
- 18:13:32 [dorchard]
- timbl: getting confused between namespaces in general, on lhs, vs schemas
- 18:13:50 [DanC]
- (vincent, this is the discussion I think we should have at our next ftf. I earlier requested that we look at the XPath namespace doc, but clearly there are XML Schema component designator specifics and WSDL specifics to look at too)
- 18:14:30 [Vincent]
- ack danc
- 18:14:30 [Zakim]
- DanC, you wanted to note that schema component designator thingy is in last call, and doesn't mix well with barenames
- 18:15:23 [timbl]
- t-15
- 18:16:12 [dorchard]
- danc: something architectural about having lhs be both namespace and schema
- 18:17:44 [DanC]
- ACTION HT: prepare abstractComponentRefs materials for ftf discussion (with help from DanC)
- 18:18:57 [dorchard]
- ht: struggling to find common ground just within the TAG and find the different positions
- 18:19:52 [dorchard]
- ht: roy and I disagree about even whether it's a fact that the same uri can be used for different resources
- 18:20:37 [DanC]
- (I made no comment on foo vs foo# )
- 18:20:50 [dorchard]
- ht: dan and I disagree about whether bare hash x.com/blah# can be used to distinguish between info resource and not
- 18:21:30 [dorchard]
- ht: if I want to talk pates, I should use blah#, and then pates home page should use blah
- 18:22:04 [timbl]
- timbl: No, that is nonsense.
- 18:23:12 [dorchard]
- ht: continues to talk about his attempt to discribe current situation as he perceives it
- 18:24:07 [ht]
- s/pates/p.hayes/
- 18:24:45 [dorchard]
- noah: foo and foo# are different uris, no more the same than foo and bar
- 18:24:54 [DanC]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2005Mar/0101.html
- 18:26:01 [DanC]
- 0101 is SWBPD WG Resolution Regarding httpRange-14
- 18:26:30 [noah]
- Noah notes from webarch: http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#pr-uri-collision
- 18:26:45 [DanC]
- how did we phrase that in webarch? ah... " Assign distinct URIs to distinct resources."
- 18:27:15 [noah]
- Right, that's the link pasted above. Note that it's a constraint, not a good practice note.
- 18:29:03 [DanC]
- claim t1: { ?X log:uri [ str:startsWith "http:"; str:notContains "#" ] } => { ?X a webarch:InformationResource }
- 18:29:19 [DanC]
- claim t2: InformationResource owl:disjointFrom rdfs:Property.
- 18:29:47 [DanC]
- claim dc1: dc:title a rdfs:Property
- 18:30:12 [DanC]
- claims t1, t2, and dc1 are mutually inconsistent. capice, ht?
- 18:30:32 [ht]
- t1 in English -- all http URIs w/o # denote info. resources?
- 18:30:41 [DanC]
- yes
- 18:30:59 [Norm]
- If the web page is abstract, how is it different from the abstract title?
- 18:31:45 [DanC]
- using the same uri for both the property and the page says they're not different, Norm. That's one way of looking at the contradiction.
- 18:31:56 [ht]
- So yes, capio, and that was what I was trying to say wrt ambiguity
- 18:32:55 [ht]
- You and Tim (but not SWBPG) are saying that vanilla http: URIs should not be used for non-info resources
- 18:33:01 [DanC]
- the semantic web best practices WG is asking the TAG to endorse dc1
- 18:33:18 [DanC]
- yes, ht
- 18:33:18 [timbl]
- introduce HTTP-Range-14 => runoutoftime
- 18:33:25 [ht]
- And I _think_ that Roy disagrees with you and Tim
- 18:33:52 [Zakim]
- -Roy
- 18:33:59 [Zakim]
- -noah
- 18:34:01 [Zakim]
- -DOrchard
- 18:34:01 [Zakim]
- -Ed
- 18:34:01 [ht]
- Sorry I wasn't clear that I did understand that bit, it was _why_ roy disagreed that I didn't get
- 18:34:03 [Zakim]
- -TimBL
- 18:34:03 [Zakim]
- -Vincent
- 18:34:04 [Zakim]
- -Norm
- 18:34:13 [DanC]
- yes... an older example is: rf:robot1 a PhysicalThing, where rf:robot1 starts with http: and has no #
- 18:34:29 [Zakim]
- -DanC
- 18:34:34 [Zakim]
- -Ht
- 18:34:35 [Zakim]
- TAG_Weekly()12:30PM has ended
- 18:34:36 [Zakim]
- Attendees were TimBL, Vincent, Norm, Ht, DOrchard, Roy, DanC, noah, Ed
- 18:34:52 [ht]
- David, do you know what to do next wrt minutes?
- 18:34:57 [ht]
- zakim, bye
- 18:34:57 [Zakim]
- Zakim has left #tagmem
- 18:35:08 [dorchard]
- no..
- 18:35:14 [ht]
- RRSAgent, please generate minutes
- 18:35:15 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2005/05/03-tagmem-minutes.html ht
- 18:35:21 [dorchard]
- thanks!
- 18:35:33 [ht]
- RRSAgent, make minutes public
- 18:35:33 [RRSAgent]
- I'm logging. I don't understand 'make minutes public', ht. Try /msg RRSAgent help
- 18:35:37 [timbl]
- timbl has joined #tagmem
- 18:36:30 [ht]
- rrsagent, please make logs world-visible
- 18:36:59 [ht]
- OK, david, you should be able to see the minutes now, and to retrieve the HTML and clean it up a bit if you want to
- 18:37:13 [ht]
- Once you've done whatever you want to (do you have CVS access?)
- 18:37:59 [ht]
- David?
- 18:39:05 [ht]
- David, I have to go -- so your final steps are contingent on answer to above question:
- 18:39:32 [Norm]
- dorchard: are you still there?
- 18:39:34 [ht]
- 1 -- you _do_ have CVS access) check out the above html, edit as you see fit, check back in
- 18:40:20 [ht]
- 2 -- you _don't_ have CVS access) retrieve the above html, edit locally, send email to www-tag with result as attachment
- 18:40:41 [ht]
- 1a) send email to www-tag with above URL
- 18:40:52 [ht]
- Norm can help if that doesn't make sense
- 18:40:57 [ht]
- I'll also clip and email to you
- 18:44:23 [dorchard]
- option #2
- 20:38:30 [timbl]
- timbl has joined #tagmem
- 23:23:49 [timbl]
- timbl has joined #tagmem