13:09:23 RRSAgent has joined #tagmem 13:09:23 logging to http://www.w3.org/2005/06/14-tagmem-irc 13:09:40 "We deserve a prize for finding this room! Native guides should have met us at the door." -- HT 13:13:38 Zakim has joined #tagmem 13:19:28 Zakim, this is tag 13:19:28 sorry, DanC_lap, I do not see a conference named 'tag' in progress or scheduled at this time 13:21:36 +Stata601 13:21:52 Zakim, VQ is in Stata601 13:21:52 sorry, DanC_lap, I do not recognize a party named 'Stata601' 13:23:01 Present: VQ, NM, RF, TBL, DC, ER, HT; DO remote; NDW on his way 13:24:05 Ed has joined #tagmem 13:27:59 "DC: Acked to discuss 1) RDDL, the XQuery namespaces, Schema Component Designators and abstractComponentRefs-37/WSDL" 13:28:08 noah_home has joined #tagmem 13:28:11 "DC: Acked to discuss 1) RDDL, the XQuery namespaces, Schema Component Designators and abstractComponentRefs-37/WSDL" 13:28:17 -- http://www.w3.org/2005/05/10-tagmem-minutes.html#item04 13:29:48 Vincent has joined #tagmem 13:39:19 +Norm 13:39:27 Norm has arrived in Stata601 13:39:51 ht has joined #tagmem 13:44:18 Roy has joined #tagmem 13:46:45 Norm has joined #tagmem 13:46:53 timbl has joined #tagmem 13:47:18 ndw offers for Tue am 13:47:33 ER for Wed PM 13:47:37 Ed: Wed pm 13:47:45 HT: Thu am 13:48:07 RF: Thu pm 13:48:20 NM: Tue pm 13:49:09 Norm and Henry will duck out for a 10 minutes at 11:00 ET tomorrow. 13:49:35 Switch: N ow we have Ed Wed am, Norm Wed pm 13:50:03 Topic: Discussion of the form of the minutes 13:51:51 The minute takers should take responsibility for the end product. 13:52:16 Changes to scribing: Norm offers to do Tim's work, starting now 13:52:31 s/Norm/Noah 13:52:36 scribe: noah 13:52:44 Dan this afternoon 13:52:47 Meeting: 14 June 2005 Tag Face to Face 13:53:01 Topic: approving minutes of previous telcon 13:53:09 -> http://www.w3.org/2005/05/31-tagmem-minutes.html 31 May minutes 13:53:39 RESOLVED: approve minutes of 31 May minutes at http://www.w3.org/2005/05/31-tagmem-minutes.html 13:53:49 Topic: Schedule next telcon 13:54:09 VQ: Should we have another telcon on 21 June? 13:54:22 DC: Yes, do it for now. 13:54:30 NW: possible regrets 13:54:41 NW: never mind, no regrets 13:54:55 Regrets for 21st. 13:55:05 TBL: Regrets for 21st 13:55:24 NM: Regrets for 21st, at W3C Schema futures meeting. 13:55:30 VQ: for now, the meeting is on 13:55:32 (regrets from me too for 21 Jun) 13:55:42 DC: Regrets for 21st 13:55:59 Topic: Discussing agenda for the Face to Face 13:56:17 Agenda is at: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2005/06/14-agenda.html 13:56:36 When do we expect Dave to call in? 13:56:39 VQ: Our main goal for this meeting is to figure out our goals and strategies leading to, say, 2006 13:56:46 VQ: propose to discuss every morning? 13:57:47 DC: is all morning too much time. 13:58:06 NM: Rest of our time is flexible, can we just adapt. 13:58:13 amy has joined #tagmem 13:58:24 TBL: Dave should be there, especially for discussing web services arch? 13:58:38 Amy, DaveO said he plans to call in to this meeting around now; I wonder if there's a number for him to call 13:58:38 HT: Should spend at least this morning, and should do round robin. 13:58:42 Zakim, list 13:58:42 I see VB_VBWG()10:00AM active 13:58:44 also scheduled at this time are WAI_TIES()10:00AM, SVG_WG()10:00AM, HTML_XHTML(editors)10:00AM, SW_BPD(rdfxhtml)10:00AM 13:58:59 need a bridge? 13:59:12 just a sec.... 13:59:25 VQ: OK, for today we'll do it all morning, then see where we stand. 13:59:59 VQ: Is 8:30 OK for Wed & Thurs? 14:00:14 Amy, we have just a phoe ... no polycom 14:00:24 aha 14:00:45 ok, I'll get the one from your office and bring it up 14:00:53 do you also want a bridge for all three days? 14:01:04 TBL: may not make 8:30, but start without me 14:02:29 NM: Suggest we start 8:30 and do issues of minor interest until Tim shows at 9. 14:04:13 VQ: As to rest of agenda, I've listed some other issues and findings to be considered. Got these by reviewing prev telcon minutes. I missed the one Dan wanted to raise. 14:04:25 amy, thanks! 14:05:00 bridge done, passcode as normal, 0TAG 14:05:03 bringing up phone... 14:05:28 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2005Apr/0028.html XSL/XML Query functions and operators namespace document Norman Walsh (Tuesday, 5 April) 14:05:54 QT F&O Namespace document: http://www.w3.org/2005/04/xpath-functions/ 14:05:59 DC: My concerns cross several of these. I want to review the namespace document for the XQuery stuff. That relates to namespaceDocument-8, abstractComponentRefs-37, and possibly some others. This is not a new issue, but relates to several existing. 14:06:46 XXX SCRIBES NOTE TO SELF: put in ref to Query note. 14:07:44 HT: I would like to talk more about security issues later. 14:08:41 NM: Note that I sent a draft on schemeProtocols-49. See http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2005Jun/0024.html and http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2005Jun/0025.html . Read it before our discussions of that issue if you have a chance. 14:08:53 Topic: Upcoming F2F Scheduling 14:09:30 VQ: Current schedule is for 20-22 September in Edinburgh, Scotland 14:09:55 HT: We may be invited to dinner Tues night, please let me know if any spouses are likely to attend. 14:10:35 HT: OK, I'll assume 9 +/- 2. That uncertainty is no problem. 14:11:47 amy has left #tagmem 14:11:51 HT: Travel crunch shouldn't be too bad then, as festival has ended. 14:12:45 ACTION: Henry Thompson to send F2F logistics to Vincent for meeting page 14:13:08 s/Travel crunch/Bed crunch/ 14:14:52 VQ: there is an AC meeting in Montreal 14:15:06 dorchard has joined #tagmem 14:15:11 VQ: Tech plenary will be in late Feb, early March, probably on riviera. 14:15:58 will do 14:16:07 NM: What if we do tech plenary to meet other groups, and then split difference to do late fall, 14:16:17 s/fall,/fall?/ 14:16:34 HT: Right, which puts us at the AC meeting in Montreal late November. 14:17:46 VQ: Dates of AC are Nov. 29 - Dec. 1 in Montreal 14:18:57 VQ: Who will go in Montreal. Many positive responses. Dave O. says he cannot travel that entire week. 14:19:40 HT: What about week before. Uh... US Thanksgiving. 14:20:03 DO: Proceed without me. I'll be in Edinburgh. 14:22:01 HT: What about Mon Tues week after XML 2005. 14:22:05 NW and HT: Doesn't work. 14:22:28 TBL: more travel this fall is tough. 14:23:19 Could do nov 29, Dec 2 TAG meeting. 14:23:34 NM: Tim, is there any way to line this up with the AC meeting for you? 14:23:48 HT: Uh...won't there be a team meeting Friday after the AC? 14:23:53 TBL: Actually, somewhat unclear. 14:25:01 Various: What about 5th and 6th December? 14:25:04 TBL: Where? 14:25:13 HT: Kansas City? 14:25:14 considering 5-6 Dec... Montreal ... or Cambridge... 14:25:25 Various: What about Cambridge? 14:26:07 DO: What about straddling AC? 14:26:13 NW: Rather not. 14:26:23 VQ: What about 5&6 here? 14:27:16 (yes, there's a w3c team day Fri 2 Dec. 99%odds. planning in the works) 14:27:30 VQ: Dave O., can you make that? 14:27:58 DO: scribe perceives a mumble from Dave that sounds like a yes. 14:28:33 RESOLVED: We will have a TAG meeting for 2 days in Cambridge hosted by W3C 5-6 December 2005 14:29:03 RESOLVED: We will have a TAG meeting in conjunction with the Feb/March 2006 Tech. Plenary in France, exact dates TBD. 14:32:18 Topic: Summer vacation plans 14:32:27 VQ: I have to decide my summer vacation dates. 14:32:51 VQ: Propose not to be involved first 3 weeks of August. 14:39:14 We spend some time proving that for every week over the summer, at least one person is missing. 14:39:51 Proposal: we will have calls through 20th of July, then take a break with next call being 23rd of August. 14:40:03 Tim and Noah, as well as others, will miss some in July. 14:41:55 s/through 20th/through 19th/ 14:45:29 Topic: Document management 14:45:55 From the agenda: "Should we revise the way we maintain the issues list and pending actions?" 14:46:24 VQ: Should I be doing more about document management? 14:46:34 VQ: Norm is tracking errata? 14:46:54 NW: Right, but a bit behind. Will find time to do an errata doc soon. 14:47:00 VQ: OK, action is continuing. 14:47:37 VQ: We also have the public list public-webarch-comments@w3.org Mail Archives 14:47:50 VQ: are we monitoring sufficiently? 14:47:56 DC & NW: yes, we are. 14:48:46 VQ: We also have the findings list. Noah has sent a new draft. 14:49:11 NM's new finding: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2005Jun/att-0024/schemeProtocols.html 14:49:32 Actually, the stable link should be: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/SchemeProtocols.html 14:49:55 I just fixed it. Was broken over the weekend due to messing up the checkin of png's. 14:50:45 Some discussion of whether to put drafts on the findings list or only approved. 14:50:57 DC: OK either way as long as it's clear, but I don't need unapproved there. 14:51:06 VQ: I'll keep them straight. 14:51:35 ACTION: Vincent to add draft finding on schemeProtocols-49 to findings page (link is http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/SchemeProtocols.html) 14:52:07 VQ: any more logistics 14:52:19 ??: any more discussion where to put minutes? 14:52:25 HT: I'll let it go? 14:53:43 NM: I recall that there was a strong push that something stable be linkable by the time the next agenda goes out. So, we're deciding that anything table is OK? 14:53:50 Various: right. 14:54:04 TBL: Well, uh stuff in email attachments isn't easily fixed, 14:54:21 Various: right, and that takes us into the discussion that we're not reopening, so we won't. 14:54:29 Topic: Goals and Plans for Future Tag work 14:54:46 VQ: we've had various inputs from various people on this 14:55:19 VQ: one question is, what do we plan to produce as documents? 14:55:52 VQ: that said, I propose we first discuss long term directions, then the right documents to produce 14:56:18 VQ: First document was Noah's 14:56:45 NM: No, actually first was from Tim: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2005Apr/0054.html 14:57:29 TBL: My feelings unchanged since writing the note. 14:57:42 TBL: WebArch doc seems to have been effective. The form worked well. 14:58:34 TBL: let us discuss both the core findings and the rationale behind them 14:59:05 TBL: therefore, prefer to grow the scope, while working in the same general framework and style 14:59:28 TBL: semantic web and web services seem to be the two major scopes to consider 15:00:23 TBL: could look for other high priority issues as well, but mainly looking for high priority ones. Probably things like httpRange-14 are best seen in the context of the larger architectural issues. 15:01:07 TBL: somewhat tricky...in the first phase we claimed to have topic experts in the room, that may be less true as we move into semantic web and web services. In those cases we serve more as journalists. 15:01:40 TBL: there has been a lot of formal work done on sem web, but could be better integrated and tied into Web arch itself. 15:02:49 TBL: on web services, the last effort at architecture, didn't gel. Some concern that the folks who drive web services haven't put in place enough clean architecture for us to help crystalize. 15:03:32 TBL: If we were to work on WS arch, we would not be documenting retrospectively but doing design work, it seems. 15:03:49 TBL: ... And it isn't design work which we shoul dbe doing. 15:03:53 HT: We started on web arch 10 years after the web, sem web would be 5 years, arguably on web services it isnt; there yet. 15:04:27 HT: we do better when there is an established body of practice. The current experts don't always give you clean answers. 15:04:45 ER: But in my experience, that's exactly where we could make a contribution. 15:04:52 TBL: doesn't ws-i do that? 15:04:56 ER: does architecture follow? 15:05:25 DC: W3C looks better looking back. 15:06:01 DC: we don't want to be saying "stop, or I'll say stop again" 15:06:55 TBL: sometimes W3C needs to do design, but not TAG 15:07:33 TBL: TAG designs mainly at the level of doing glue to cover things that don't line up 15:09:07 q+ 15:12:14 ack dorchard 15:12:53 NM: I think our main responsibility to Sem Web and Web services should be to (a) make sure they use the core mechanisms of the Web itself appropriately and (b) in doing that, see whether they teach us more about what we need to document about the Web architecture itself. 15:13:39 DO: Web Services does indeed deviate from core web architecture more than Sem Web. For example, the first versions of SOAP didn't do HTTP Get. 15:14:07 DO: Clearly Web Services doesn't use the RESTful mechanisms of uniform interfaces. 15:14:34 DO: now with WSA we see lack of use of Web Arch primarily for creating asynchronous stateful services. 15:15:12 DO: service will have stateful instance, and you'll want to have async interactions with that. Client doesn't know much about state, except for need to echo things. 15:15:47 DO: there is very little reuse of REST 15:16:15 q+ to agree that Web Services are fundamentally different architecture - a remote operations architecture, not an information space architecture. These are distinct patterns, and both have their uses. One can build one on top of the other, either way up, but one doesn't have to pretend that they are the same or should be the same. 15:16:59 q+ to say that we may need to be a bit more careful about the layering of our use of the term Web. Is the Web really only REST, or is REST just the most widely deployed part. 15:17:25 DO: note that cookies are widely used on the web for stateful things. We can learn some messages from those. 15:17:40 q+ to ask where "The W W W" starts and ends 15:18:20 DO: we've not necessarily made it easy. SOAP Response hasn't been well adopted. Maybe if the web were more friendly to stateful interaction, WS would have an easier time leveraging the Web. 15:18:21 ack DanC-mtg 15:18:44 DC: Henry asks "who are our customers"? 15:19:09 DC: history is, we were started to answer questions about whether W3C workgroups were or were not using Web Architecture well. 15:19:40 DC: what we wrote is what everyone in every WG ought to know. 15:20:00 DC: I'm not convinced we can impact the web master community. 15:20:05 ack tim 15:20:05 timbl, you wanted to agree that Web Services are fundamentally different architecture - a remote operations architecture, not an information space architecture. These are distinct 15:20:08 ... patterns, and both have their uses. One can build one on top of the other, either way up, but one doesn't have to pretend that they are the same or should be the same. 15:20:08 ack tim 15:20:33 TBL: agree with David, Web Architecture is different architecture from REST. 15:21:08 TBL: our scope is what happens in W3C. Originally was information space, but now there's more overlap, e.g. between web and email than there was before. 15:21:42 ack noah 15:21:42 noah, you wanted to say that we may need to be a bit more careful about the layering of our use of the term Web. Is the Web really only REST, or is REST just the most widely 15:21:44 q? 15:21:46 ... deployed part. 15:21:53 TBL: I therefore think it's reasonable to to WS arch if we want to because w3c does that 15:21:56 scribe: ht 15:22:26 NM: Return to the note I wrote: 15:22:29 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2005Jun/att-0001/Priorities2005.html 15:23:08 NM: Remember the slogan "Lead the Web to its full potential" 15:23:35 WebArch1 covered much of the foundations of that, the Web as it was say 5 years ago when most of the foundations were new and cool 15:24:02 ... Going forward we should be looking at what will be pervasive 5 years from now 15:24:35 ... Even wrt the information space, the growth points are not all in our current portfolio, e.g. peer-to-peer, streaming hypermedia 15:25:03 ... More care needed wrt layering our story about the Web: 15:25:10 ... 1) Names of things 15:25:32 ... 2) Schemes that are deployed that you can use with names (all of them) 15:25:42 3) RESTful schemes 15:25:52 4) Widely deployed media types 15:26:11 ... So saying "the Web is REST" is to take a big jump in that layering 15:26:40 ... We can use the word 'Web' for a particular level of that layering, but that has consequences 15:27:24 ... Because it moves widely used and arguably important uses of the technology 'outside the Web', which may not be the right thing to do 15:28:06 ... So is RESTful really == 'the information space', or can we bring more of e.g. Web Services into the information space 15:28:29 ... What if POST was not POST [scribe hopes NM will fill this in, didn't get it] 15:29:24 ... Opportunities may be there to stretch the information space, beyond the home-base (REST) we start from, to a much wider range of things that have names out there 15:29:38 q+ to mention Web service "info space type" things not on the web 15:29:58 ... We may decide that REST really is the core, and we should set the bar really high 15:30:10 ack ht 15:30:10 ht, you wanted to ask where "The W W W" starts and ends 15:30:21 ... Or we could say that there's a way of moving beyond GET, PUT etc. which expands what we can do 15:30:26 scribe: noah 15:30:58 XXX Scribe note to self...need to reword HT's capture of what Noah said. 15:32:34 HT: people are confused about distinction between Internet and Web,who invented which, etc. 15:33:15 HT: the stuff we call the Web is what is layered on one of the protocols in particular, I.e. HTTP 15:33:19 (hmm... this lecture Henry is talking about is interesting... IEEE, IETF, W3C / ethernet, Internet, Web ... I'm very interested in how people learn about these technologies) 15:34:58 HT: in private discussion, Noah tried to convince me that Web was bigger and embraced everything that could be linked through URIs 15:35:20 HT: reading the Arch document, doesn't tell you where not to go. 15:36:20 HT: how should I know when I'm not on the Web and whether I think the Web Arch doc should apply? 15:37:05 TBL: we found the question am I on the Web not helpful. We did find: "is this document helpful?" to be a more useful question. 15:39:43 q? 15:42:04 TBL: I thought Noah was splitting hairs, but then I understood is peer to peer example. 15:44:51 q? 15:45:49 NM: I'm actually trying to draw parallel between things like P2P and Sem web. Both of them get great value from being integrated into what we know as traditional web. Each stretches the web in new directions. Sem web because it names things not connected to computers, P2P because it deals in new types of content and security. 15:45:59 TBL: Anyone claiming web is HTTP-only? 15:46:09 Noah: I thought maybe Henry. 15:46:23 HT: Statefulness is important. Security is important. 15:46:44 HT: in particular, having your identity established makes a big difference. 15:46:49 Noah, http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/diagrams/URI-space.png 15:47:02 The Web has never been HTTP-only (started with FTP and Gopher, added HTTP and WAIS, ...) 15:47:06 HT: for example, I get something different from W3C retrievals than you do, because I'm served by the European server. 15:47:25 DC: why is that a problem, it's the same resource? 15:47:42 HT: but it breaks more often than others. 15:48:14 NM: I think Henry's point is that many things in practice depend on the system knowing who you are and where you are 15:48:40 HT: Google, in particular, tailors results based on partition of IP space. Cookies are another example. 15:49:03 HT: Most commercial sites give you a very different experience according to your cookies, and thus in a sense identities. 15:49:56 HT: I tried to convince Google that Web would sort of survive if something like Google disappeared. They felt it was "constitutive" of what the web is. 15:51:46 +1 to HT's point that Google is part of the architecture from the user experience 15:51:56 HT: note that which URI you get redirected to from google.com depends on (your IP address? something not covered in Web Arch) 15:52:19 (hmm... I could replay the whole "commonname" discussion in the TAG context, I guess, re one of HT's points about search engines) 15:52:42 HT: partially connected and disconnected are also important. What about push (see RIM Blackberry) 15:52:56 (what does RIM do different? gee... I don't even know) 15:52:58 ER: are you also going toward mobile web? 15:53:02 HT: yes, that too. 15:53:33 q? 15:54:30 ack danc 15:54:30 DanC_mtg, you wanted to offer to project and edit an outline and to realize that the long tirade I occasionally give on how broken authentication in the web is might be relevant 15:54:33 ... here. There are only a few parties who can get authenticated services deployed. enticing people to use cleartext passwords should be criminal 15:54:59 DC: I had offered to edit outline, looks like won't happen before lunch. 15:55:44 DC: I have a document from long ago about web forms and having authentication and a logout button using MD5. They said the would do it in next version. Hasn't happened. 15:56:12 DC: there are limits on who can deploy authenticated services because of limits on number of passords users will maintain. 15:56:57 DC: as alternative, small sites are using clear text passwords, sometimes without HTTP due to inability to afford compute power for doing HTTPS. 15:57:13 s/without/with/ 15:57:18 DC: I think digest authtentication is much better than clear text pwds. 15:57:34 DC: Nobody can deploy new security technology. 15:57:41 TBL: Do browsers do it? 15:57:52 q+ to say we are oversimplifying security story 15:58:19 q? 15:59:29 ack dorchard 15:59:29 dorchard, you wanted to mention Web service "info space type" things not on the web 16:00:34 DO: we've drifted away from Web Services. Liked what Noah said about relationship to parallel architectures like P2P, Gnutella, BitTorrent. Some very significant architectures are being deployed that don't use Web technology. Maybe XRI as well, 16:00:39 s/well,/well./ 16:00:45 -> http://www.w3.org/Submission/1999/03/ User Agent Authentication Forms Submission. Lawrence and Leach 1999 16:01:06 -> http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/NOTE-authentform-19990203 User Agent Authentication Forms Feb 1999 16:02:01 DO: On Web Services side, consider WS Resource Framework. Describes generic operations, you can get, put, etc. content of these resources. They use WS-Notificiation to allow publish/subscribe for state changes. 16:02:56 DO: these are note computational, they are information resources. But even in these constrained cases, they still don't use HTTP protocol fully. Don't use HTTP GET. Still do SOAP messages over HTTP post. Want to be able to use WSA End Point References. 16:03:49 DO: I did a proposal at their first meeting to show how to offer these on the web. Why not use a binding that binds down to HTTP Get? They said: good ideas, but we're (Oasis-based team) aren't the ones to do it. 16:04:18 HST is intrigued by the apparent difference between tunneling and transport. . . 16:04:21 DO: XMLP could do it, but they are going quiet. 16:04:50 s/transport/transfer/ 16:05:09 describing HTTP in WSDL is kind of a cool idea, but nobody seems to be interested to do much with it. 16:05:45 ack noah 16:05:45 noah, you wanted to say we are oversimplifying security story 16:05:59 when is the break? 16:07:57 (quite, Noah, SSL is shared-key authentication, and public-key is the way to go for signature-workflow stuff) 16:08:37 q? 16:11:05 ack DanC_mtg 16:11:05 DanC_mtg, you wanted to ask when lunch is 16:11:12 HST agrees that state and side-effect are worthy of further discussion, for sure 16:11:46 Lunch break 16:12:02 We reconvene at 1:00 pm Eastern time 16:13:19 NM: Tried (and largely failed) to convince Tim and others that one difference about Web Services is that more interactions are secured, and that more have state-changing effects at the resource owner. Therefore, Noah claims, the particular value that comes from GET in the web architecture is somewhat less significant. Whatever the other pros and cons of Web Services arch, it seems better targeted to these application-to-application secure scenarios. 16:13:25 VQ: Breaking for lunch. 17:06:17 Topic: TAG Directions (continued) 17:06:33 VQ: let's go around and get some input from each on priorities... 17:06:56 ER: webarch doc is incomplete without semantic web and web services. let's spend some time on that. And let's solve httpRange-14 this week 17:08:06 DC: the "languages and namespaces" bullet from HT's msg seems important to me; namespaceDocument-8 and such. none of the higher level goals seems all that attractive 17:08:18 TimBL: ... semantic web and web services ... [missed?] 17:08:56 NDW: looking at the issues list, I saw 5ish that are related to URIs. Nailing that cluster seems worthwhile 17:09:48 RF: no particular issues to "grind"... would like to see more "how the semantic web affects Web architecture". Would like to see more about what Web services efforts aim to achieve. [?] 17:10:08 ... would not want to tell them what to do, though. 17:10:56 NM: (1) to see that the information space continues to grow and thrive 17:11:04 rejoining... 17:11:06 Zakim, this is tag 17:11:06 ok, DanC_mtg; that matches TAG_f2f()8:30AM 17:11:14 +Stata601 17:11:30 Zakim, who is on the phone? 17:11:30 On the phone I see MIT601, DOrchard 17:11:49 dave, can you hear us? 17:11:49 ... [missed 2 and 3?] 17:12:02 ... want to be sure there's an architecture that all the parts share 17:13:14 (timbl seems to be composing a table on the whiteboard) 17:13:30 HT: the issues of state, side-effect, and context seem important. 17:13:43 ... and that connects to user identity/authentication 17:14:16 HT: httpRange-14 ... I still can't see how that's orthogonal to secondary resources. 17:14:41 HT: languages and namespaces, as DanC mentioned 17:15:02 HT: I think we owe the XML community a look at "the entity problem" 17:15:54 HT: should there be a way of doing what entities do? i.e. refer to large complicated things with small simple names? 17:16:27 DO: I'd like to see the web figure out how to give more things URIs... 17:16:38 ... if that means dealing with stateful services, then very well... 17:16:45 ... if that stretches "REST", then very well 17:17:06 DO: let's continue to pay attention to architecture properties, e.g. statefulness, [missed?] 17:17:14 DO: and extensibility and versioning 17:17:42 VQ: not sure we need to define the architecture of web services... 17:18:19 ... more interested in extending/specializing the present web archtiecture in a way that's useful for web services and semantic web... 17:18:56 VQ: it's important to take into account new user interaction mechanisms [?]... peer-to-peer, streaming... integrate those with web architecture 17:20:58 (I think I have a copy of the list timbl put on the whiteboard in an outliner; can send XHTML version on request) 17:22:28 (timbl's list has grown some arrows; no longer fits in a hierarchical outline. imagine that ;-) 17:23:52 (hmm... if WG members are our customers, I wonder about a WBS "what do you want the TAG to do?" survey, seeded by something like this list) 17:24:32 VQ: so we have a long list now... of course we need to narrow it down... 17:25:52 ... keep in mind that our most visible products are REC-track documents 17:27:43 As VQ erases vacation calendar from the whiteboard, VQ requests that TAG members send email copies to him 17:28:00 A rather messy export of my slides on Web layering seems to be at: http://www.w3.org/2003/Talks/techplen-ws/w3cplenaryhowmanywebs2.htm 17:28:06 Will look for cleaner formats. 17:29:44 Norm has joined #tagmem 17:33:23 http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/diagrams/URI-space.png 17:36:14 HT: re URI-space.png , I'm surprised to see the whole semantic web inside [which?] 17:38:16 (HT and TBL discuss httpRange-14 a bit in the context of URI-space.png ) 17:39:22 NM: ... that's one of the reasons we should[?] talk about resources that have URIs but no GET/PUT/POST ... 17:40:58 DC: I'd like to remove "XML entities" 17:41:00 HT: then who? 17:41:03 NDW: XML Core 17:41:04 DC: +1 17:42:24 DC: how does this go beyond XML spec into web architecture? 17:42:31 HT: let me think about that a bit 17:43:49 Dan's list has "~5 issues NDW found", for the record, I was thinking of IRIEverywhere-27, metadataInURI-31, abstractComponentRefs-37, rdfURIMeaning-39, URIGoodPractice-40, DerivedResources-43, endPointRefs-47, and URNsAndRegistries-50 17:44:34 NM: Ajax changes what a web page is, especially if you do it wrong; google seems to be pretty careful... 17:44:53 ... this "mint me a URI for the current state" design seems good... 17:45:13 TimBL: note IE allowed javascript to change the address bar; security issue 17:46:10 NM: something goes bad when content goes into executable "run the program and see what it produces" formats rather than declarative 17:46:25 DC: quite; the Principle of Least Power is important and underdocumented 17:49:17 VQ: note new work starting in Web Applications... how do we relate? 17:49:35 TBL: where there's a WG on something, let's let them do it... 17:49:44 ... but let's be sure they know about the Principle of Least Power 17:51:02 NM: (1) within W3C, yes, the TAG can help the Web Apps work stay declarative etc, but (2) there's stuff going on outside W3C 17:51:48 http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Principles.html for Principle of Least Power 17:56:56 HT: how about putting web services and semantic web under URIs? i.e. perhaps TAG's job is to say how URIs relate to those two 17:57:55 (DC tries it in the outliner) 17:58:44 DO: [missed the gist of it] 17:59:33 NM: misunderstandings between this group and web services practitioners are perhaps not clarified by sticking web services under URIs... 18:01:16 ... one argument I've heard against using URIs is that network effects don't apply; nobody else needs to refer to this thing, for similar reasons that we don't routinely use URIs for "that 3rd http header field" 18:01:35 DO: much of Web and Web service development is around stateful resources that have a secondary resource identifier, which can be identified by just URIs+ frag-ids, but are also often identified by cookies or WS-A EPRs. 18:02:48 DO: one of the arguments I've heard for WS-Addressing endpoint references is that it works like cookies: "echo this back to me so that I can dispatch on it" 18:03:33 URIpath? 18:03:40 ... and dispatching based on qnames in XML trees is easier than dispatching on URIs . [?] 18:04:15 DO: I wonder whether we need that URI query langauge for getting stuff out of a URI. 18:05:17 (in what way is it OK that they're not counting on reuse, timbl?) 18:07:14 DC: the cases where you don't design for reuse is generally not the Web, though, is it? 18:07:32 TimBL: right; this isn't the web. This is Web Services, an alternative architecture. 18:10:38 (scribe hears lots of endpointRefs-NN discussion, but doesn't have the energy to capture much of it until/unless it's more clearly in order) 18:14:07 DC: put Security 1st? we'd become very popular and unpopular... and it's at least as much QA as architecture; in many cases, the specs are there but not (well) implemented 18:14:21 NDW: let's not. that'll take all the energy we've got and then some 18:14:27 ER: [forgot/missed?] 18:14:55 HT: it should be in [that diagram?] but it's not. why not? [?] 18:15:11 TBL: ... passwords in the clear ... 18:15:53 HT: Rigo was quite clear that browsers don't do XML signature; if they did, the world would be a better place 18:16:17 q+ to ask if we're confident that security will layer cleanly everywhere 18:16:45 TBL: with webarch v1, we didn't say "here's the web architecture; it's complete." we just elaborated on some places where mistakes had been made often, and where issues had come up a lot. and it was worth doing. 18:17:48 ack DanC_mtg 18:17:48 DanC_mtg, you wanted to note the value of diagrams 18:18:56 zakim, who is here/ 18:18:56 I don't understand 'who is here/', noah 18:18:57 ack ht 18:18:58 ht, you wanted to ask if we're confident that security will layer cleanly everywhere 18:18:59 zakim, who is here? 18:19:01 On the phone I see MIT601, DOrchard 18:19:02 On IRC I see Norm, dorchard, timbl, Roy, ht, Vincent, noah, Ed, Zakim, RRSAgent, DanC_mtg, DanC 18:19:20 Zakim, MIT601 holds VQ, HT, NM, RF, NDW, TBL, DC, ER 18:19:20 +VQ, HT, NM, RF, NDW, TBL, DC, ER; got it 18:20:07 HT: "if the web worked well, layering security on top would be straightforward; here are the top 6 [say] reason why it isn't." 18:20:16 s/reason/reasons/ 18:20:58 ER: I know lots of people that use the web *less* today because of the security issues that have come up 18:21:35 TBL: we haven't talked much about the impact on security of the difference between safe documents and unsafe docs, i.e. programs 18:22:44 HT: ... on how XSLT is turing-complete/unsafe... 18:22:46 rrsagent, where am I? 18:22:46 See http://www.w3.org/2005/06/14-tagmem-irc#T18-22-46 18:23:05 I think Henry's point was the ability of XSLT to write to local disk, not it's turing completness 18:23:26 s/it's/its/ 18:24:01 HST persists in believing there's a signficant difference between Denial of Service (which follows from Turing completeness) and other forms of attack with concrete/permanent consequences (e.g. writing to local disk) 18:24:19 TBL: dynamic HTML should have been a separate MIME type. The MIME type registration for HTML should have said "don't execute anything that looks likes a program in here" 18:27:02 ack danc 18:27:02 DanC_mtg, you wanted to ask how whether anybody thinks they can get timbl to *not* talk about security all the time in TAG meetings 1/2 ;-) 18:29:05 On the assumption that httpRange-14 is done before we begin new TAG directions, httpRange-14 is removed from this list. 18:29:20 (I'm willing to act hopeful) 18:30:17 Do we need to talk about XCAP? http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-simple-xcap-07.txt 18:32:32 HST has recently started browsing apache logs, and was surprised at just how many of the entries are of the form "GET /scripts/..%c0%2f../winnt/sy 18:32:32 stem32/cmd.exe?/c+dir HTTP/1.0" 18:33:22 rootkits for windows (looking for known IIS holes) 18:34:12 TBL: on versioning/extensibility, I want to make sure we get Semantic Web [part of it?] done 1st 18:36:22 NM: Lots of people are up to thir necks in XML, and now need to solve the versionaing problems very desparately 18:37:11 Tim: RDF has solved a set of those problems -- not all. But understanding them is important befroe we try to talk about veriosning in general. 18:38:28 HT: based on your suggestion, Dan, I looked up the OWL versioning support; it's very limited. 18:39:01 DanC: no, I mean just RDF itself solves a lot of versioning problems 18:39:13 http://www.pacificspirit.com/Authoring/Compatibility/OWLRDFExtensibility.html 18:40:11 Roy: That looks like yet another entry in the list which includes RFC3622 and geoprivacy and . . . -- see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2005Mar/0081.html wrt URNsAndRegistries-50 18:55:56 http://www.rtsp.org/2004/drafts/draft06/draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc2326bis-06.txt 19:02:08 DanC: there are these .torrent files, no bittorrent clients don't use a new URI scheme. it's a huge QA issues that it's impractical to deploy new URI schemes. 19:02:38 NM: right... so is it a feature that deploying new URI schemes is hard? after all, we said you should think twice before making new ones 19:03:14 cf schemeProtocols-49 19:03:43 HT: ah... this RTSP thing draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc2326bis-06.txt is interesting 19:03:59 RF: though it's sort of a variant of HTTP 19:07:52 http://www.bittorrent.com/protocol.html 19:08:43 The URI for F&O namespace document: http://www.w3.org/2005/04/xpath-functions/ 19:09:11 the www-tag discussion started with http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2005Apr/0028.html 19:09:14 -DOrchard 19:31:30 zakim, bye 19:31:30 leaving. As of this point the attendees were DOrchard, +1.617.253.aaaa, VQ, HT, NM, RF, NDW, TBL, DC, ER 19:31:30 Zakim has left #tagmem 19:40:19 Topic: namespaceDocument-8 esp XPath F&O namespace doc 19:40:27 http://www.w3.org/2005/04/xpath-functions/#matches 19:41:56 http://www.w3.org/2005/04/xpath-functions/#string 19:45:02 DC: if we do an HTTP GET, we get text/html , and if we look in that spec, we'll discover that this is an anchor 19:45:23 DC: but if we look in the XQuery spec, it says that's a function. 19:45:27 NDW: yes. 19:45:29 DC: both? 19:45:34 NDW: yes. 19:45:45 Tim: 1: THis is an achor 2: This is a Function 3: It's a function but the system gave you an anchor cos you are a person 4: Oops 19:46:46 http://cgi.w3.org/cgi-bin/headers?auth=on&url=http://www.w3.org/2005/04/xpath-functions/ 19:47:08 HST thinks pushing on the question of RDDL semantics is a useful way to go 19:47:53 NM: maybe this document should use a different media type... say for RDDL... so that the anchors work out. If we just use a different media type, which doesn't have much subtyping, we lose the fact that it's HTML, and some browsers don't know they can render it, etc. 19:49:34 1: this is an HTML page 2: This is a book 3: This is a book but the system gave you an HTML page because you are a browser 4 oops.... 19:51:46 http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema.html 19:53:08 esp 19:53:08 _____________ 19:53:23 19:53:27
19:53:30

XML Schema

19:53:32

An XML Schema schema document for XML Schema 19:53:35 schema documents. This corresponds to the version published in the Proposed Edited 19:53:38 Recommendation revision of XML Schema.

19:53:41
19:53:43 19:53:46 ________________ 19:55:28 (hmmm... shouldn't a properly configured validator client ask for and get the variant in .xsd format to begin with?) 19:55:44 HT asks about http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#xmlschema 19:59:35 or maybe http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema.html#xmlschema ; I'm not sure 20:04:47 TimB: 5. This is an element (which is a repr of a function) 20:05:41 Henry: 2[whose representation is [this element you just retrieved]] 20:06:24 Norm: The # refers to a function 20:07:11 Quoting from RFC 3986: 20:07:12 Henry: The machine gets to an acher which is an element of the rddl name space. 20:07:19 The fragment identifier component of a URI allows indirect 20:07:19 identification of a secondary resource by reference to a primary 20:07:19 resource and additional identifying information. The identified 20:07:19 secondary resource may be some portion or subset of the primary 20:07:19 resource, some view on representations of the primary resource, or 20:07:20 some other resource defined or described by those representations. A 20:07:22 fragment identifier component is indicated by the presence of a 20:07:24 number sign ("#") character and terminated by the end of the URI. 20:07:26 fragment = *( pchar / "/" / "?" ) 20:07:28 The semantics of a fragment identifier are defined by the set of 20:07:30 representations that might result from a retrieval action on the 20:07:32 primary resource. The fragment's format and resolution is therefore 20:07:34 dependent on the media type [RFC2046] of a potentially retrieved 20:07:36 representation, even though such a retrieval is only performed if the 20:07:39 URI is dereferenced. If no such representation exists, then the 20:07:40 semantics of the fragment are considered unknown and are effectively 20:07:42 unconstrained. Fragment identifier semantics are independent of the 20:07:44 URI scheme and thus cannot be redefined by scheme specifications. 20:07:59 Ed thinks Noah is onto something.. 20:09:44 ht: because of the element, delegated by the html spec 20:10:53 je suis retourner 20:12:44 We'll call asap 20:12:52 Zakim has joined #tagmem 20:14:11 zakim, who is on the call 20:14:11 I don't understand 'who is on the call', ht 20:14:14 zakim, who is on the call? 20:14:14 sorry, ht, I don't know what conference this is 20:14:15 On IRC I see Norm, dorchard, timbl, Roy, ht, Vincent, noah, Ed, RRSAgent, DanC_mtg, DanC 20:14:22 zakim, this is tag 20:14:22 ok, ht; that matches TAG_f2f()8:30AM 20:14:25 zakim, who is on the call? 20:14:25 On the phone I see MIT601, DOrchard 20:14:27 MIT601 has VQ, HT, NM, RF, NDW, TBL, DC, ER 20:16:05 HST wonders what the text/html media type registration actually _says_ 20:16:28 For documents labeled as 'text/html', [RFC2854] specified that the 20:16:28 fragment identifier designates the correspondingly named element, 20:16:28 these were identified by either a unique id attribute or a name 20:16:28 attribute for some elements. For documents described with the 20:16:28 application/xhtml+xml media type, fragment identifiers share the same 20:16:29 syntax and semantics with other XML documents, see [XMLMIME], section 20:16:31 5. 20:16:39 (I can't find this bit about frag interpretation in the XHTML spec) 20:17:02 q+ to try Roy's model as a stack 20:17:11 http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3236.txt 20:18:43 The above is, I think, the media type registration for application/xhtml+xml. It is by the way explaining what rfc2854 has said about text/html. I'm claiming the latter says there is a precedent for anchors sometimes referring to elements. 20:19:23 level 20:19:28 concept -> function 20:19:37 following one's nose from the IANA registry, for text/html, you get to http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2854.txt 20:19:45 Anchor [] -> [] Hypertext 20:20:22 Yes Dan, and that says "For documents labeled as text/html, the fragment identifier 20:20:22 designates the correspondingly named element;" 20:20:24 element dan ('< ... id="htm">') info set 20:20:49 bits = 0011001000011011001 binary stream 20:21:18 section 3 Fragment Identifiers of RFC2854 says "For documents labeled as text/html, the fragment identifier designates the correspondingly named element" 20:22:03 ack timb 20:22:03 timbl, you wanted to try Roy's model as a stack 20:26:37 http://www.w3.org/2005/06/13-tag123.html 20:26:51 forbidden 20:27:52 level->Concept->Anchor->element->Bits ? 20:28:20 yes 20:29:09 s/element dan/element dom/ 20:36:19 XInclude is defined as an infoset transformation; it's at level 3 20:42:47 I think ...xsd#type(foo) is not to short but too long; it should be ...xsd#foo 20:50:35 ack danc 20:50:35 DanC_mtg, you wanted to ask about crossing levels... suppose I want to make RDF statements about the hypertext document, e.g. revision control stuff ala cvs blame 20:51:05 hmm... isn't a type one of the components in a schema? ah... I guess not. hmm. 20:54:14 We have type definition schema components 20:54:21 anything else is sloppy talk 20:54:30 Hmm... when I brought this namespace doc up, I pretty much expected to go down all these holes... for a little bit, I thought we actually got somewhere. Now I'm not so sure we haven't just re-played this conversation for the N-hundredth time. I'm surely no more sure about what to *do* in the case of the XQuery F&O namespace doc. 20:54:59 DanC, give me a simple n3 version of a statement about Tim's car, e.g. that it is Tim's car, please 20:55:08 I have at least one technical question about the F&O namespace doc too that's not at all philosophical 20:55:16 { :tcar :owner :tim }. 20:55:19 or just { tcar owner tim} 20:55:36 with URIs? possible? 20:55:42 all three of those are URIs? 20:56:05 yes, they're all URI references, which stand for URIs w.r.t. the relevant base 20:56:22 Larry Masinter, c. 1976: "A program is not its listing" 20:58:17 TimBL and RF just lit up in agreement about something... 20:58:24 ... something about pointing up between levels 21:04:29 are we moving to a new topic? 21:05:05 Hard to tell. 21:06:30 "Hard cases make bad law" 21:07:26 I hear versioning is going to join our discussion shortly :) 21:07:37 yup 21:07:42 lol 21:14:25 (hmm... we agreed to stop at 5pm earlier.) 21:14:26 How about versioning of range-14? 21:16:03 Can we ignore some _known_ 14s instead? 21:17:38 how about versionable levels of 14? 21:19:14 somewhat tentatively PROPOSED: to address httpRange-14 by noting a few different levels... a URI can refer to a high-level thing, and "point" to something at a lower level, e.g. an anchor or an element 21:19:50 s/or an element 21:19:50 ... and to say that yes, content negotiation between .html and .rdf works 21:20:05 and mixed namespace stuff works. 21:20:18 My stab at saying this is that there are two relations we care about: identification, which relates URIs to things (was 'resources'), and 'pointing', which relates URIs to representations 21:20:36 s/representations/anchors 21:21:31 RRSAgent, pointer? 21:21:31 See http://www.w3.org/2005/06/14-tagmem-irc#T21-21-31 21:21:36 RRSAgent, make logs world-access 21:22:19 A URI can *identify* a thing, and also "point to" an anchor. 21:23:31 "points to" is the answer to "how should I represntat this to a user who has followed a hypertext link"? 21:24:00 HST just wants a gloss on 'anchor' -- is it fair to say that if I have (a representation of) an information resource, and its media type, I will know what the set of possible anchors is? 21:24:27 oops... "refer to" was a mistake; I should have said: a URI can identify a high-level thing... 21:24:52 NM: let's please do continue to work on examples of these 21:26:19 (is http://www.w3.org/2005/06/13-tag123.html already referred to? if not, it is now) 21:26:23 A subset of information resources have non-trivial anchors. 21:26:44 ... beyond the anchor which is the whole resource 21:28:49 If ...#tcar is Tim's car and ...#tcar can be an anchor (which is part of a document) and if all documents trivially have an anchor that is the whole document, then ...ncar (no hash) is Norm's car and ...ncar has a representation. 21:29:00 Yes? 21:29:12 But not before dinner :-) 21:30:59 -DOrchard 21:35:59 disconnecting the lone participant, MIT601, in TAG_f2f()8:30AM 21:36:02 TAG_f2f()8:30AM has ended 21:36:03 Attendees were DOrchard, +1.617.253.aaaa, VQ, HT, NM, RF, NDW, TBL, DC, ER 21:50:32 So is it fair to say that w/o a media type, there is only one anchor per information resource 21:50:42 where does that leave RDF. . . 21:50:49 Oh bother, said Pooh