IRC log of tagmem on 2005-05-10

Timestamps are in UTC.

16:57:55 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #tagmem
16:57:55 [RRSAgent]
logging to
16:58:03 [noah]
noah has joined #tagmem
16:58:14 [ht]
meeting: TAG
16:58:19 [ht]
scribe: Henry S. Thompson
16:58:26 [ht]
scribe-nick: ht
16:59:14 [ht]
Scribe: Henry S. Thompson
16:59:17 [ht]
ScribeNick: ht
16:59:22 [ht]
Meeting: TAG
16:59:23 [Vincent]
Vincent has joined #tagmem
16:59:45 [ht]
Chair: Vincent Quint
17:00:40 [ht]
Topic: Roll call
17:00:51 [ht]
Regrets: Norm Walsh, Tim Berners-Lee
17:01:12 [Zakim]
TAG_Weekly()12:30PM has now started
17:01:15 [Zakim]
17:01:20 [ht]
zakim, please call ht-781
17:01:20 [Zakim]
ok, ht; the call is being made
17:01:35 [Zakim]
17:01:37 [Zakim]
17:01:38 [Zakim]
17:01:51 [ht]
uh-oh DanC, mine isn't either
17:01:55 [ht]
I'll ping ralph
17:02:00 [Vincent]
Zakim, INRIA is Vincent
17:02:00 [Zakim]
+Vincent; got it
17:02:36 [Zakim]
17:02:40 [ht]
Looks like Ralph is at lunch :-(
17:02:48 [ht]
zakim, please call ht-781
17:02:48 [Zakim]
ok, ht; the call is being made
17:02:50 [Zakim]
17:03:14 [Vincent]
zakim, who is here?
17:03:14 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Vincent, Noah, DanC, Ht
17:03:15 [Zakim]
On IRC I see Vincent, noah, RRSAgent, Zakim, ht, DanC
17:03:48 [Vincent]
17:04:29 [Zakim]
17:05:13 [Zakim]
17:05:28 [Zakim]
17:06:04 [Ed]
Ed has joined #tagmem
17:06:06 [ht]
Topic: Review of Agenda
17:06:17 [ht]
17:06:46 [ht]
Next telcon next week (17 May)
17:07:25 [ht]
Regrets from Ed Rice, Henry Thompson, Roy Fielding, Vincent Quint, Noah and Tim at risk
17:07:42 [Ed]
17:08:06 [ht]
RESOLUTION: Meeting cancelled
17:08:24 [ht]
Date of next telcon 24 May?
17:08:28 [DanC]
I'm travelling 24 May for XTech... haven't done the timezone calculations to see if I'm available.
17:09:17 [ht]
DO is at risk, VQ is travelling
17:09:31 [ht]
VQ: Should meet, need a chair -- volunteer
17:10:21 [DanC]
(I'm happy for VQ to ask NDW to chair 24 May)
17:11:00 [ht]
NM: Will chair if NDW is not able to, would prefer NDW, who is more experienced
17:11:08 [ht]
VQ: Will help with agenda
17:11:38 [ht]
RESOLUTION: NDW will be asked to chair, whom failing NM
17:11:59 [ht]
RESOLUTION: Next telcon will be 24 May
17:12:32 [DanC]
"Memorial Day Last Monday in May Monday, May 30, 2005" --
17:13:03 [DanC]
DO: regrets 31 May
17:13:07 [DanC]
RF: regrets 31 May
17:13:13 [Zakim]
17:13:30 [Zakim]
17:13:43 [DanC]
NM: small risk 31 May
17:13:59 [ht]
Topic: Last week's minutes
17:14:12 [ht]
Minutes script fell over
17:14:22 [ht]
DO: Will try to recover today
17:14:36 [ht]
Raw minutes are at
17:15:04 [ht]
ACTION: VQ to return to approval of these minutes in two weeks
17:15:32 [ht]
Topic: Agenda for June F2F
17:15:48 [ht]
VQ: Will prepare a first draft later this week
17:16:21 [ht]
... Floor is open for some preliminary suggestions
17:16:24 [Vincent]
ack DanC
17:16:35 [noah]
17:16:36 [ht]
DC: Acked to discuss RDDL and the XQuery namespace
17:16:52 [ht]
... Plus SCDs and issue ??? [scribe missed]
17:17:02 [Zakim]
17:17:02 [ht]
... Also outline of what next
17:17:12 [Zakim]
17:17:34 [Zakim]
17:17:36 [Zakim]
17:17:40 [Zakim]
17:17:53 [Zakim]
17:18:09 [DanC]
DC: (1) xquery namespaces, schema component designators, and abstractComponentRefs-37/WSDL (2) outline of next doc
17:18:30 [Ed]
Ed has joined #tagmem
17:18:55 [ht]
NM: Rather than next doc, the larger question of agenda for the next year
17:19:20 [ht]
... Goals, planned pubs (vol 2 vs. revised vol 1)
17:19:35 [ht]
... A large topic, split over several slots might be good,
17:19:50 [DanC]
+1 multiple sessions for what's next. (I still prefer working on an outline)
17:19:51 [ht]
... so that OOB discussion can happen and have a place to feed back.
17:20:25 [ht]
NM, DC: Can do both
17:21:04 [DanC]
hmm... another idea: diagrams, formalisms, for extensibility esp
17:21:49 [ht]
q+ ht to enter language defn
17:21:53 [noah]
ack noah
17:22:00 [noah]
I think we want to ask ourselves "what is success for the TAG this year"?
17:22:20 [ht]
DO: More diagramming might go in a companion to versioning and extensibilyt finding
17:22:21 [noah]
e.g., is it to make sure the architecture supports the semantic web?
17:22:30 [noah]
With that in hand, I think we can do an outline to support the goal
17:22:48 [noah]
I have some ideas on goals that I will send in email, probably later this week
17:22:52 [ht]
HST: Difference between namespace documents and language definitions
17:22:57 [ht]
ack ht
17:22:57 [Zakim]
ht, you wanted to enter language defn
17:23:05 [DanC]
yes, I expect to need diagrams or formalisms of some sort to get very far on "Difference between namespace documents and language definitions"
17:23:35 [ht]
DO: More on extensibility and versioning, Noah to contribute?
17:23:57 [ht]
NM: Yes, I will try to work with DO
17:24:39 [noah]
Noah notes: this week not too bad for doing some work. Next week I'm traveling Tues-Fri, including to Schema meeting
17:24:53 [ht]
Topic: Binary XML
17:25:15 [ht]
VQ: Continuation of previous discussion -- where are we, what will we say to whom?
17:25:50 [ht]
... Conclusion of that discussion: update the email-exchanged docs, and ER has done this
17:26:02 [ht]
17:26:22 [ht]
ER: Try to capture the discussion from last week
17:26:32 [ht]
... Hoping for review and feedback
17:26:43 [ht]
DC: Hoping to go through point-by-point
17:26:51 [ht]
VQ: yes, a bit faster than last time
17:26:58 [ht]
... 12 points
17:27:16 [DanC]
I'd like #2 (and others?) reduced to one sentence? "The Working Group did not provide benchmarks that
17:27:16 [DanC]
indicate a high likelihood that a single format will sufficiently alter
17:27:16 [DanC]
the mix of properties of text xml to be worth standardization at the
17:27:16 [DanC]
W3C. "
17:27:21 [ht]
[grammar needs fixing]
17:27:48 [ht]
DC: This is the conclusion, not a particular point
17:28:02 [ht]
NM: Needs re-writing
17:28:17 [ht]
ER: Yes, this isn't polished from-the-TAG version
17:29:10 [ht]
DC: Would like to reduce 2 to 2(b), as above
17:29:36 [ht]
VQ: Editorial issue: ER and DO were main contributors, either in position to produce a clean version?
17:29:50 [ht]
ER: Yes, I can do that, after point-by-point discussion
17:30:02 [ht]
VQ: Point 1 should be intro or summary
17:30:13 [ht]
DC: Or neither -- let's wait until the end of the discussion
17:31:41 [ht]
VQ: Point 2 -- just (b)?
17:31:46 [DanC]
"The TAG should not consider administrative, process, or organizational policy issues of W3C, which are generally addressed by the W3C Advisory Committee, Advisory Board, and Team." --
17:32:07 [ht]
DO: Why can't we have (c) -- seems to me we should be able to contribute input to e.g. the AB on process points
17:32:24 [ht]
DC: It's in the charter -- see above
17:32:53 [ht]
NM: But that's not what DO is saying -- i.e. not "The Process is broken, you should fix it ..."
17:32:57 [Zakim]
17:33:02 [Zakim]
17:33:25 [ht]
... Rather, we are suggesting how the W3C could/should _use_ the Process at this point
17:33:36 [Roy]
Roy has joined #tagmem
17:33:48 [ht]
DC: Still not happy with 2(c)
17:34:44 [ht]
NM: I agree that 2(c) is not productive, it's retrospective
17:35:02 [ht]
... What we should do is say something prospective -- what should happen next
17:35:36 [ht]
DO: But the arg't about what happens next follows from what _didn't_ happen yet
17:36:17 [ht]
VQ: Separated from technical discussion, at any rate
17:36:23 [ht]
DO: OK, move from here
17:36:38 [ht]
VQ: OK, we'll come back to this at the end of the (document,discussion)
17:37:03 [ht]
... On to point 3
17:37:45 [ht]
DC: Don't see a crisp statement here, prefer to remove
17:39:05 [ht]
DO: Finding this point-by-point traversal difficult, because I can't tell where we're going to end up
17:39:22 [ht]
... So maybe I'll be arguing to pull things back at the end.
17:40:05 [ht]
VQ: Yes, we go item by item but can bring stuff back to discuss at the end
17:40:29 [ht]
VQ: Item 3 out, fttb
17:40:35 [ht]
... On to item 4
17:41:05 [ht]
q+ to query DanC's goal of one sentence
17:41:20 [ht]
DC: Isn't this a repeat of the benchmarking point
17:41:50 [ht]
ER: No, the parser impl question is about opportunities for improving the status quo, instead of a new approach
17:42:11 [ht]
VQ: DC, ER's point make sense?
17:42:51 [dorchard]
dorchard has joined #tagmem
17:43:10 [ht]
HST: DC, what's your goal here, wrt one sentence?
17:43:30 [ht]
DC: Not necessarily 1 sentence, just need to concrete propositions I can agree to
17:43:33 [ht]
ack ht
17:43:33 [Zakim]
ht, you wanted to query DanC's goal of one sentence
17:43:59 [Vincent]
ack ht
17:44:19 [ht]
DO: Trying to focus on properties of the parser that can be modified
17:44:39 [ht]
VQ: Back to point 3, aren't you?
17:45:19 [ht]
ER: The fact they never apparently _considered_ improving the status quo is what's being discussed here
17:46:09 [ht]
NM: Maybe what's going on here is that the ordering of these points isn't right
17:46:13 [DanC]
(that's a quite reasonable tactic... rather than going in ascending order, call for anybody to nominate a point they like)
17:46:39 [ht]
... Downside as well as upside to a new format, is starting point of TAG response
17:46:54 [ht]
... So we need to see whether advantages outweigh the disadvantages
17:47:16 [ht]
... So we need to see the detailed assessment of the room for improvement
17:47:45 [ht]
... and identify a small number of key use cases which are compelling argued to be the sweet-spot that must be hit
17:47:58 [ht]
... [scribe fell too far behind]
17:48:34 [ht]
VQ: OK, we will open up the order and allow to start anywhere -- NM, you want to start with item 7?
17:49:15 [ht]
NM: Not really, rather adapt this to start with the 0 or 1, not 1 or 2 or 3
17:49:34 [ht]
... Clear disadvantages, as well as potential advantages, to doing a bf
17:49:43 [ht]
... List some of the disadv.
17:50:06 [ht]
... So to justify a bf effort, compelling case has to be made that the adv outweight the disadv
17:50:21 [ht]
... The work to date doesn't appear to make that case
17:50:39 [ht]
... Then move on to individual points
17:51:14 [ht]
DC: Thought most of this goes w/o saying, or is just the conclusion
17:52:36 [ht]
VQ: We can't take too long over this, or the point is lost
17:52:45 [ht]
... Must comment this month
17:53:06 [ht]
DO: Suggesting we stop now?
17:53:18 [DanC]
(I'm content to make the "lack of benchmarks" point (quoting from webarch) and leave it at that)
17:53:20 [ht]
VQ: Continue briefly, then decide what to do next
17:53:40 [ht]
... What are key points we want to keep?
17:54:00 [ht]
... Hard for ER to get a document from this discussion.
17:54:17 [ht]
... Around the table
17:54:25 [ht]
DC: Lack of benchmarks, leave it at that
17:54:51 [ht]
DO: Provide a framework and some detail of what the TAG would like to see
17:55:06 [ht]
... Hence tradeoffs between properties and how to measure this
17:55:28 [ht]
... We have to answer the question, "So what _would_ be enough evidence?"
17:55:57 [DanC]
[[ It is important to emphasize that intuition as to such matters as data size and processing speed is not a reliable guide in data format design; quantitative studies are essential to a correct understanding of the trade-offs. ]] --
17:56:13 [ht]
ER: Agree with what's been said, add human readability as a key point
17:57:37 [ht]
HST: NM's point about taking the option of improving the performance wrt the existing form
17:57:53 [ht]
... seriously
17:58:18 [ht]
NM: Agree with DC, but have to suggest what the goals are for benchmarking -- what's good enough
17:58:23 [ht]
RF: Anything is good
17:59:11 [ht]
VQ: Measurements of technologies needed, along with specific targets that have to be reached
17:59:16 [DanC]
(hmm... re "optimizing use of the present format hasn't been sufficiently considered" ... not sure what to think of that. I don't object to it.)
17:59:49 [ht]
VQ: ER, are you prepared to try to produce something based on today's discussion?
17:59:57 [ht]
... Have enough information?
18:00:34 [ht]
ER: I can draft "What the TAG is planning to say", will send it to
18:00:41 [ht]
DC: Two reviewers?
18:00:49 [ht]
NM: I volunteer
18:00:52 [ht]
DO: ditto
18:01:24 [ht]
ACTION: DR to draft a new version of the proposed reply, NM and DO to review
18:01:44 [ht]
NM: Decide by email, or not until 2 weeks
18:01:57 [ht]
18:02:24 [ht]
s/review/review by end of this week/
18:03:01 [DanC]
PROPOSED: to resolve binaryXML-30 as discussed today (quantitative goals, benchmarking), contingent on agreement between Ed, Noah, DaveO on text.
18:03:01 [ht]
VQ: Planning for revised, final, version of the doc't by next week, then email 'vote' to approve
18:03:40 [noah]
Fine with me.
18:03:53 [noah]
Actually, either Dan's or Roy's approaches are fine with me
18:04:11 [ht]
DC: If I'm not happy, have to convince one of those three
18:04:17 [Roy]
Dan's version is fine by me
18:04:27 [ht]
VQ: OK, so if you three get to be happy about a doc't, we're done
18:04:38 [DanC]
(I gather we are so RESOLVED.)
18:04:39 [ht]
... No matter what we close in two weeks
18:06:46 [ht]
PROPOSED: Once ER, DO and NM are agreed on a draft, they submit it to the whole group. Reply in the negative within 3 days, or we will send the doc't to the XBC list.
18:06:58 [DanC]
18:07:08 [noah]
18:07:23 [Ed]
18:07:37 [ht]
RESOLUTION: as above.
18:08:19 [ht]
Topic: The use of < , > and & in XML-based languages
18:08:34 [Roy]
18:08:55 [ht]
HST: I don't think there's an issue here -- how we say it politely is another problem
18:09:04 [ht]
RF: No architectural issue here
18:09:06 [Roy]
ack Roy
18:09:13 [Vincent]
ack roy
18:09:15 [ht]
ack DanC
18:09:15 [Zakim]
DanC, you wanted to say no and to suggest a straw poll
18:09:32 [ht]
DC: No issue, no reply
18:09:47 [ht]
VQ: Consensus to reject
18:10:00 [ht]
... Reply?
18:10:07 [ht]
DC: It's on the agenda so we have to
18:10:24 [ht]
VQ: Could just say "We don't consider this an architectural issue" and that's it
18:11:30 [ht]
ACTION: VQ to send a short reply to ERH saying "no"
18:11:55 [ht]
Topic: XRIs are not designed to be URIs
18:12:18 [ht]
VQ: DC started this thread,
18:12:37 [ht]
VQ: ... but ended by saying we should do nothing about this
18:13:00 [ht]
DC: I was more worried when I thought this was a big threat, now I don't
18:13:35 [ht]
... Minimal resolution is to say "Use URIs"
18:13:47 [ht]
HST: We said that already
18:13:57 [ht]
DC: No, we said "don't use a new scheme"
18:14:12 [ht]
DO: And they said, we're not using URIs so we can ignore you
18:14:39 [ht]
NM: They seem to be arguing that it's not a URI because we're not going to use it in any URI contexts
18:14:39 [DanC]
(well, they were quite polite and didn't say "so we can ignore you" in so many words)
18:15:06 [ht]
... but you _should_ want to use them on the Web, so you _should_ want them to be URIs
18:15:17 [ht]
DC: So why aren't IRIs broken?
18:15:40 [ht]
NM: We've gone to great lengths to make that work as best it can
18:16:02 [ht]
DC: Devil's advocate then says "We're just doing the same thing with XRIs"
18:16:23 [ht]
ER: But we showed that they _could_ use existing scheme, _a fortiori_ with URIs
18:17:23 [ht]
HST: I'm not happy -- it's not good citizenship to do something that confusing
18:17:32 [ht]
DC: Not motivated
18:17:40 [ht]
DO: HST seems motivated
18:17:45 [DanC]
18:17:51 [ht]
HST: I'll do a single para
18:18:21 [ht]
ACTION: HST to draft a para and circulate, send if no reply after 48 hours
18:19:45 [ht]
DC: Nothing in the public record you can cite as what you're responding to
18:20:46 [ht]
HST: Can you forward it to public list?
18:21:00 [ht]
DC: Please you do so, with the copy I sent to tag@
18:21:09 [DanC]
(I got his permission to forward to public fora)
18:21:28 [ht]
HST: Will do
18:21:59 [DanC]
18:23:05 [ht]
HST: That's sufficient
18:23:21 [ht]
Topic: Checking pending actions
18:24:14 [ht]
HST: I'll look at this (RFC3023bis wrt fragmentInXML-28) in the coming week
18:24:38 [ht]
VQ: NM, what about schemeProtocols-49?
18:24:49 [ht]
NM: Will work on that this week
18:25:10 [ht]
VQ: DC, what about standardizedFieldValues-51 ?
18:25:29 [ht]
DC: No progress yet, but will do it
18:25:52 [ht]
VQ: I would like to add this to the issues list, but will wait for DC to post to www-tag
18:26:24 [Zakim]
18:26:31 [Zakim]
18:26:31 [ht]
VQ: Adjourned, until 24 May
18:26:32 [Zakim]
18:26:35 [Zakim]
18:26:46 [Roy]
rrsagent, pointer?
18:26:46 [RRSAgent]
18:26:46 [Zakim]
18:26:47 [Zakim]
18:26:49 [ht]
zakim, bye
18:26:49 [Zakim]
leaving. As of this point the attendees were [INRIA], Noah, Vincent, DanC, Ht, Dave_Orchard, Roy, Ed, DOrchard, Roy_Fielding
18:26:49 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #tagmem
18:27:09 [ht]
rrsagent, draft minutes
18:27:09 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate ht
18:27:32 [ht]
rrsagent, make minutes public-visible
18:27:32 [RRSAgent]
I'm logging. I don't understand 'make minutes public-visible', ht. Try /msg RRSAgent help
18:27:47 [ht]
rrsagent, make minutes world-visible
18:27:47 [RRSAgent]
I'm logging. I don't understand 'make minutes world-visible', ht. Try /msg RRSAgent help
18:28:19 [ht]
rrsagent, make logs world-visible
18:29:01 [Roy]
RRSAgent, make logs world-access
18:29:43 [DanC]
VQ, it's quite nice to conclude 5 minutes early. Your sense of how much fits into one TAG teleconference is clearly getting quite good.