17:44:51 RRSAgent has joined #tagmem 17:44:51 logging to http://www.w3.org/2005/11/01-tagmem-irc 17:50:55 Meeting: TAG telcon 17:51:05 Chair: Vincent Quint 17:51:10 Scribe: Henry S. Thompson 17:51:21 ScribeNick: ht 17:52:01 Agenda+ Next telcon 17:52:10 Agenda+ This agenda 17:52:31 Agenda+ Minutes of 18 October http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2005/10/18-minutes.html 17:52:55 Agenda+ Minutes of 25 October http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2005/10/18-minutes.html 17:53:17 agenda+ AC Meeting report draft http://www.w3.org/2005/11/tag-summary.html 17:53:45 agenda+ endPointRefs-47 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html#endPointRefs-47 17:54:05 agenda+ abstractComponentRefs-37 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html#abstractComponentRefs-37 17:54:22 agenda+ namespaceDocument-8 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html#namespaceDocument-8 17:54:43 agenda+ Review pending actions http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2005/03/action-summary.htmlf 17:54:53 agenda+ AOB 17:59:06 zakim, this will be TAG 17:59:06 ok, ht; I see TAG_Weekly()12:30PM scheduled to start 29 minutes ago 17:59:25 dorchard has joined #tagmem 17:59:38 Vincent has joined #tagmem 18:00:33 TAG_Weekly()12:30PM has now started 18:00:40 + +1.650.685.aaaa 18:01:11 zakim, please call ht-781 18:01:11 ok, ht; the call is being made 18:01:12 +Ht 18:01:32 Ed has joined #tagmem 18:01:34 +DanC 18:01:43 zakim, +1 is noah 18:01:43 +noah; got it 18:01:56 +Vincent_Quint 18:02:22 +??P3 18:02:43 zakim, ? is Ed 18:02:43 +Ed; got it 18:02:45 +TimBL 18:03:03 are the minutes from last week sufficient? 18:03:44 timbl has joined #tagmem 18:03:47 zakim, who is here 18:03:47 Vincent, you need to end that query with '?' 18:04:04 zakim, who is here ? 18:04:04 On the phone I see noah, Ht, DanC, Vincent_Quint, Ed, TimBL 18:04:05 On IRC I see timbl, Ed, Vincent, dorchard, RRSAgent, Zakim, Norm, ht, DanC 18:04:22 Topic: Roll call 18:04:48 DavidO, you dialing in? 18:05:02 I'll be dialing in.. 18:05:58 David, should we wait for you? 18:06:39 +Dave_Orchard 18:07:16 DanC has joined #tagmem 18:07:47 zakim, next agendum 18:07:47 agendum 1. "Next telcon" taken up [from ht] 18:08:01 noah_at_dinner has joined #tagmem 18:08:47 Roy has joined #tagmem 18:09:04 Regrets from Vincent, TimBL, Henry for 8 November 18:09:09 +Roy 18:09:49 For those who didn't hear me chatting with Vincent at the start of the call: I had sent regrets but was able to get out of my meetings for about 45 mins to an hour, maybe more. 18:10:29 Ed Rice volunteers to chair the 8 November telcon 18:10:43 Vincent will prepare the agenda 18:10:59 I'm OK to scribe 8 Nov. 18:11:06 FWIW: we had the compoundDocs. stuff scheduled for last week, and left it off this week in part on the assumption that I would not be here today. I note that Tim is unavail. next week. Maybe or maybe not it's worth trying to slip it in during the first hour or so today while I'm around. If so, give me 3 mins notice to find materials. Either way is fine with me. 18:11:36 regrets 15 Nov due to XML 2005 18:12:10 ok, color me at risk 18:12:31 Regrets from Vincent for 15 November, Ed is at risk, Dan Connolly at risk 18:12:53 HST is at XML 2005, hopes to make the call 18:13:41 Noah will chair on 15 November 18:13:49 Regrets from Norm for 15 November 18:14:40 zakim, next agendum 18:14:40 agendum 2. "This agenda" taken up [from ht] 18:14:41 OK, I'll go find cd stuff 18:15:11 +Norm 18:16:06 Norm: June f2f logistics are being sorted out, looks good 18:17:36 agenda+ compound documents http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html#mixedUIXMLNamespace-33 18:17:58 18 and 25 Oct minutes OK by me 18:18:00 Added new agenda item on mixedUIXMLNamespace-33 18:18:08 zakim, next agendum 18:18:08 agendum 3. "Minutes of 18 October http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2005/10/18-minutes.html" taken up [from ht] 18:19:04 RESOLUTION: 18 October minutes approved 18:19:09 zakim, next agendum 18:19:10 agendum 4. "Minutes of 25 October http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2005/10/18-minutes.html" taken up [from ht] 18:19:39 RESOLUTION: 25 October minutes approved 18:20:18 zakim, next agendum 18:20:18 agendum 5. "AC Meeting report draft http://www.w3.org/2005/11/tag-summary.html" taken up [from ht] 18:22:16 HST: These are not the slides that I'll speak to at the meeting, rather what goes to the attendees in advance 18:22:44 RESOLUTION: Approve http://www.w3.org/2005/11/tag-summary.html for publication once the missing link is filled in 18:23:58 ACTION: HST to produce a draft of slides in time for telcon on 22 November 18:24:05 (18 and 25 oct minutes edited to remove DRAFT) 18:24:31 s/draft of slides/draft of slides for TAG slot at AC meeting/ 18:24:53 Noah is very likely to be at AC meeting as well 18:26:00 Attendees at AC meeting: Vincent, Noah, Henry, Tim 18:26:22 [Note that Dave Orchard will be phone-only for December f2f] 18:26:46 s/Henry, Tim/Henry, Tim, Dan/ 18:27:28 zakim, take up agendum 11 18:27:28 agendum 11. "compound documents http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html#mixedUIXMLNamespace-33" taken up [from ht] 18:28:44 NM: Took an action at f2f to review [these documents] 18:28:54 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2005Oct/0040.html 18:29:49 NM: Sent [email] with my review, which was not specifically based on mixedUIXMLNamespace-33, but covers most of that stuff 18:30:45 ... CDF WG has prepared two things: 1 Requirements doc, 1 Profile 18:31:00 ... The latter has been split subsequent to first publication 18:31:19 ... They distinguish between by-reference and by-inclusion compounding 18:31:25 ER: Why? 18:31:30 q+ 18:31:55 NM: Not clear -- they thought by-reference was going to be easier, but empirically it seems to me that that's not at all clear 18:31:58 ack timbl 18:32:02 ack timbl 18:32:16 TBL: Inclusion means the mixed-namespace-thing 18:32:26 ...which is our [issue] 18:32:54 ... Reference means e.g. using an Object, which doesn't raise all the hard questions 18:33:01 NM: Makes sense 18:33:29 ... Core of our concern is the general semantics of mixed-namespace documents 18:33:41 "Self Describing Documents on the Web" 18:33:45 ... To what extent is a random mixed-NS document self-describing? 18:34:11 "WICD, or Web Integration Compound Document, is a specific embodiment of 18:34:11 CDF using XHTML, SVG, and CSS." 18:34:24 ... CDF is focused on UI-oriented stuff, for a bounded set of vocabs, focussing on HTML, SVG, etc. 18:34:24 Noah: SDDOTW is something we the TAG should get into moreo and more 18:35:01 ... So e.g. what happens when you click on a bit of real-estate rendered from a nested bit, does it propagate out, etc. 18:35:19 q+ 18:35:33 Roy has joined #tagmem 18:35:36 ... I wish they'd layered this much more, separating out the general question from this more focussed one 18:35:55 ... I've had private communication from a WG member which is sympathetic to this point 18:35:56 q+ to question advice to generalize, unless we're confident there's implementation experience with something more general 18:36:03 q+ to disagree with conclusion 18:36:37 ack timbl 18:36:38 ... Sounds also like the WG is not actually working much from the Req'ts doc. . . 18:36:52 TBL: Thanks Noah 18:37:23 ... Counterarg't to the generalisation you argue for --- there are some things you can't do in XML until you know the semantics 18:37:36 ... I think mixedUI case is one of these 18:37:55 ... Consider RDF, the semantics of mixing is clear because it's been designed in 18:38:20 q+ To respond on generalizing, and to point out the earlier systems have separately layered compound document semantics from UI 18:38:33 ... Similarly wrt the mixedUI case, because it has an underlying coherence, they can talk about e.g. what happens to mouse clicks 18:38:41 q+ DanC2 to ask whether the CD requirements doc expresses a position on xlinkScope-23 18:39:03 ... But in general, w/o that semantic info, you can only say something very shallow/weak about composition 18:39:26 ... Similarly, this feeds over into our discussion of versioning, languages, etc. 18:40:00 ... E.g. when a language has styling semantics, some versioning stories make sense, but don't necessarily generalize 18:40:06 ack danc 18:40:06 DanC, you wanted to question advice to generalize, unless we're confident there's implementation experience with something more general 18:40:07 ack danc 18:40:10 DanC2, you wanted to ask whether the CD requirements doc expresses a position on xlinkScope-23 and to ask what became of VQ's investigation of the CDF WG's media type issues 18:40:52 DanC: Don't want to set requirements they can't meet, and the general problem is too hard to hand to them 18:41:02 It is difficult to go far talking about versioning without more semantics than raw XML. Hypertext and Semantic web agre example of langauge domains in which there are enough semantics to do more. 18:41:14 ... Examples I'm aware of (OpenDoc, Andrew) are not getting used 18:41:25 NM: What about Ole, I'm using it 18:41:42 ack ht 18:41:42 ht, you wanted to disagree with conclusion 18:41:47 q+ to ask about composition of transforms, specificially xinclude + xslt + ... 18:41:49 q+ to ask whether the CD requirements doc expresses a position on xlinkScope-23 and to ask what became of VQ's investigation of the CDF WG's media type issues 18:42:53 ack noah 18:42:53 noah_sfo, you wanted to respond on generalizing, and to point out the earlier systems have separately layered compound document semantics from UI 18:42:55 DanC: did they take a position on the XLink scope question? 18:43:01 NM: Not as far as I remember 18:43:01 NM: if they took a position on xlinkScope, I don't recall 18:43:30 NM: In reply to TBL et al.'s point 18:43:44 q+ to ask about composition of transforms, specificially xinclude + xslt + ... 18:43:45 zakim, please call ht-781 18:43:45 ok, ht; the call is being made 18:44:05 zakim, disconnect ht 18:44:05 Ht is being disconnected 18:44:06 -Ht 18:44:11 q+ to ask about 1) composition of transforms, specificially xinclude + xslt + .. and 2) to ask about xml processing model 18:44:13 zakim, please call ht-781 18:44:13 ok, ht; the call is being made 18:44:15 +Ht 18:44:34 [missed some of Noah's comments] 18:45:08 NM: Ole has an abstract notion of hierarchical (stream) story, modelled as a 'baby' FAT file system 18:45:32 q+ to ask if anyone remembers why this is a TAG issue and whether CDF is aware of it 18:45:40 ... If you crack open e.g. a Word document, you find such a thing, with the analogues of QNames connecting things up 18:46:05 q? 18:46:14 ack dorchard 18:46:14 dorchard, you wanted to ask about composition of transforms, specificially xinclude + xslt + ... and to ask about composition of transforms, specificially xinclude + xslt + ... and 18:46:18 ... to ask about 1) composition of transforms, specificially xinclude + xslt + .. and 2) to ask about xml processing model 18:46:19 ... CDF people could/should do something similar, was my point, w/o boiling the ocean 18:46:27 q+ to say they're the wrong people for the job 18:46:48 DO: Compositionality of transforms point? XInclude, XSLT, etc.. . . 18:47:03 q+ to say yes to Noah, teh XML functions paper really concludes that that top-dwon model of XML semantics is very important. But maybe the TAG should say it rather than CDF. 18:47:03 NM: Not that kind of transforms, rather scale/rotate/displace 18:47:18 ack danc 18:47:18 DanC, you wanted to ask whether the CD requirements doc expresses a position on xlinkScope-23 and to ask what became of VQ's investigation of the CDF WG's media type issues 18:47:19 DO: Anything about the XMLProc sort of transforms? 18:47:25 NM: Maybe, will check 18:47:46 DC: Vincent, what was answer about media type issue? 18:47:51 VQ: Haven't asked yet. . . 18:48:03 ack roy 18:48:03 Roy, you wanted to ask if anyone remembers why this is a TAG issue and whether CDF is aware of it 18:48:05 ack roy 18:48:47 RF: Why was this issue split out from a larger issue, what are we expecting from this group, are they aware we're expecting it? 18:49:14 TBL: We're not expecting something from the specifically, but we should be keeping an eye on what they're doing 18:49:53 RF: So I'm happy that Noah checked it, but what's it to do with us 18:50:20 VQ: It does overlap with mixedUIXMLNamespace-33 18:50:40 RF: So why didn't we just close the issue as soon as the CDF WG was formed? 18:51:02 NM: Well, so much discussion about self-describing at the E'burgh f2f, I took this on in that spirit 18:51:07 ack ht 18:51:07 ht, you wanted to say they're the wrong people for the job 18:51:10 RF: OK, that's clearer 18:52:48 HST: I don't think the CDF is the right group of people to ask for a story about general semantic composition. Ole isn't a general story, it's still a UI/presentation focussed story 18:53:13 I suspect that the reason we split the issues is specifically so that the WG could be formed to address this, not the *general* issue which has a different number on our list 18:53:32 NM: Well, I am still concerned that they can't do their job if they don't layer it better. But I hear the input I'm getting, so we're not going to feed that in to the WG as such 18:54:07 ack timbl 18:54:07 timbl, you wanted to say yes to Noah, teh XML functions paper really concludes that that top-dwon model of XML semantics is very important. But maybe the TAG should say it rather 18:54:11 ... than CDF. 18:54:20 ... But there are other things in my email that might be useful, so can we point them at it 'officially' w/o endorsing the layering point 18:55:21 TBL: Talking about semantic composition is important, but the CDF WG shouldn't be asked to do it generally -- I still hope the TAG will tackle that problem, under the heading of xxx-13 18:55:48 q? 18:55:58 ... We'll pend our xxx-33 issue until you've gone a bit further, and then have another look 18:56:27 NM: But what about those on the WG who want to go in the generalizing direction? 18:56:44 TBL: I think we should encourage them to focus on the UI-specific stuff 18:56:49 ack danc 18:56:54 NM: Well, that will disappoint some people 18:57:24 I'm in favour of non-generalization for CDF. 18:57:55 DC: Straw poll: a) more discussion; b) withdraw xxx-333; c) close it on basis of CDR WG existing; d) pend until CDF make more concrete progress 18:58:15 NM: What do you prefer? 18:58:26 I support (d) 18:58:28 dave: option d). I'd rather talk about other things. 18:58:34 DC: (d) plus encourage them 18:58:37 my pref is (d) 18:58:42 HST: (d) 18:58:48 Zakim, who's on the phone? 18:58:48 On the phone I see noah, Ht, DanC, Vincent_Quint, Ed, TimBL, Dave_Orchard, Roy, Norm 18:58:49 NDW: (d) 18:59:00 D for me as wel 18:59:00 (d) 18:59:04 Fine with me. 18:59:05 we multi-task well :-) 18:59:16 I could live with other options, but (d) is just fine. 18:59:22 or shoudl I say, multi-channel well. 18:59:38 RESOLUTION: Pend xxx-33 until we see a Last-Call WD from the CDF folk 18:59:53 er... something before last call would be better, really 19:00:25 I don't mind reviewing b4 LC as well. 19:00:25 ACTION: NM to follow-up to CDF that his email was not endorsed in detail by TAG 19:00:34 ACTION: Noah to send note to CDF clarifying that earlier note was just a draft, that TAG has not to provide formal input on CDF Reqs at this point, and maybe hinting at concerns about generalizing 19:00:44 s/maybe// 19:00:59 s/Last-Call WD/significant progress in a public draft/ 19:01:41 VQ: Nominate RF to scribe on 15 November 19:02:31 zakim, next agendum 19:02:31 agendum 5. "AC Meeting report draft http://www.w3.org/2005/11/tag-summary.html" taken up [from ht] 19:03:14 zakim, take up agendum 6 19:03:14 agendum 6. "endPointRefs-47 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html#endPointRefs-47" taken up [from ht] 19:03:57 VQ: Mark Nottingham thanked us for our input, said they'd welcome more input in the next few weeks 19:04:39 zakim, disconnect ht 19:04:39 Ht is being disconnected 19:04:40 -Ht 19:04:47 zakim, please call ht-781 19:04:47 ok, ht; the call is being made 19:04:49 +Ht 19:05:37 -Roy 19:06:06 HST: Will circulate a worked example as soon as possible, hope by end of week 19:06:28 VQ: Right, so what do we do to help them? 19:07:07 HST: We need to talk about this in any case, if we miss their deadline so be it 19:07:26 VQ: They have a f2f next week, at which point they will have a better sense of their deadline 19:07:36 ... So we'll return to this next week 19:07:43 zakim, take up agendum 7 19:07:43 agendum 7. "abstractComponentRefs-37 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html#abstractComponentRefs-37" taken up [from ht] 19:08:12 zakim, take up agendum 5 19:08:12 agendum 5. "AC Meeting report draft http://www.w3.org/2005/11/tag-summary.html" taken up [from ht] 19:08:26 (for reference, our last discussion of ns8 http://www.w3.org/2005/10/11-tagmem-minutes.html#item06 ) 19:08:37 -> http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/pim/usps usps 19:08:43 zakim, take up agendum 8 19:08:43 agendum 8. "namespaceDocument-8 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html#namespaceDocument-8" taken up [from ht] 19:09:05 e.g. http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/pim/usps#MailPiece 19:09:27 DC: The above URI tries to do both the RDF property thing and the document fragment thing 19:10:23 ... But it's also a class name, and you can use it in RDF 19:10:55 TBL: Is it a convention, or is it trying to really identify two different things in two contexts? 19:11:11 DC: I don't what to say I'm using the URI for two different things. . . 19:11:24 ... Creative use of the HTML mime type 19:11:41 TBL: Loath to go there, because it rules out writing RDF statements about anchors 19:11:59 ... Back in June at MIT, we were working towards a position 19:12:39 re rdf statements about anchors, http://esw.w3.org/topic/HashSlashDuality 19:12:39 ... That when you use a fragment in a UI context which refers to e.g. a class, you fall back/coerce to a presentation you can see 19:13:03 DC: We have to hide one (the anchor) or the other (the class) 19:13:09 ... I just want to make this OK 19:14:06 q? 19:14:26 HST: Tim, could you clarify your fall-back story wrt the redirect advice we gave for the namespace URI 19:14:42 (the TOC of the minutes should show fragmentInXML-28 as much as issue 8, please) 19:14:57 TBL: Depends on whether what it gets from the redirect is RDF or HTML 19:15:35 ... That in turn depends in part on what the agent is that's asking 19:16:37 DC: So we all think this is OK? I don't hear anyone saying it is. . . 19:16:57 TBL: It's wrong because [missed it] We're exploring the options 19:17:11 s/[missed it]/it uses the same URI for 2 different things/ 19:17:23 s/saying it is/saying it isn't/ 19:17:52 DO: Is this related to the abstractComponentRefs-nn as well 19:18:22 ... and the question the WSDL WG asked about whether they could refer to components or sub-trees 19:18:28 s/-nn/-37 19:18:35 ... and we said if they were careful with media types, then yes 19:18:44 The "fallback" philosophy (which I don't necessarily support) would be that the object is *really* a class. inthis case, as the user agent can't grok RDF, and so can't get the full info on the class in the ideal from, there is a fall-back, a sort of type coiersion, and an HTML document ios delivered and the user directed to a paragraph about that class. There is soe information loss, but this happens when you change content type. For example, if we gave a re 19:19:39 A content negotiation with some degradation. 19:20:21 TBL: THe danger is that the URI gets bookmarked and used purely as a pointer into the [HTML] document 19:21:09 DC: Is it reasonable to think of changing the HTML spec. to use the profile attribute on the document element do make the determination 19:21:26 HST: How would this help? 19:22:04 DC: Problem was that if we put this in the RDF spec, the browser never sees it 19:22:13 ... So we put it in the HTML spec so it has to 19:22:25 TBL: Reverse engineering like that is difficult 19:23:01 DC: OK, thanks for airing this, content to wait until Norm gets back to writing 19:23:55 VQ: So we pend this 19:24:37 (well, we did touch on abstractComponentRefs-37 ) 19:24:50 VQ: Once again no time for xxx-37 -- are we ready to talk about this in detail yet? 19:25:28 DC: I had an action, which I satisfied last week, so I'm OK with not talking about it again right away 19:27:11 HST: DO has said we're done, because we replied to WSDL WG 19:27:39 ACTION: DO to re-send pointer to basis for this statement about WSDL WG having gotten their answer wrt xxx-37 19:27:52 VQ: Then maybe we can close that issue 19:28:32 noah has joined #tagmem 19:28:52 DC: My question is whether we'll say anything more to the WSDL WG - is Roy going to say something mmore 19:29:15 me? not that I can think of at the moment 19:29:16 about #frags(like_this) in WSDL. are you likely to say anything more than your existing XPointer comments, Roy? 19:29:22 HST: I thought the question of XPointer syntax was part of another issue, where we were waiting on Roy 19:29:22 ok. 19:29:36 issue goodURIPractice-NN or some such. 19:29:40 I have two findings to write, yes 19:29:49 ok, we'll stay tuned. sooner is better. 19:30:26 Adjourned 19:30:33 noah_sfo has joined #tagmem 19:30:34 zakim, bye 19:30:34 leaving. As of this point the attendees were +1.650.685.aaaa, Ht, DanC, noah, Vincent_Quint, Ed, TimBL, Dave_Orchard, Roy, Norm 19:30:34 Zakim has left #tagmem 19:30:35 it is a long flight back 19:30:54 RRSAgent, please draft minutes 19:30:54 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2005/11/01-tagmem-minutes.html ht 19:31:09 RRSAgent, make logs world-visible 19:31:26 RRSAgent, bye 19:31:26 I see 4 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2005/11/01-tagmem-actions.rdf : 19:31:26 ACTION: HST to produce a draft of slides in time for telcon on 22 November [1] 19:31:26 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/11/01-tagmem-irc#T18-23-58 19:31:26 ACTION: NM to follow-up to CDF that his email was not endorsed in detail by TAG [2] 19:31:26 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/11/01-tagmem-irc#T19-00-25-1 19:31:26 ACTION: Noah to send note to CDF clarifying that earlier note was just a draft, that TAG has not to provide formal input on CDF Reqs at this point, and maybe hinting at concerns about generalizing [3] 19:31:26 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/11/01-tagmem-irc#T19-00-34 19:31:26 ACTION: DO to re-send pointer to basis for this statement about WSDL WG having gotten their answer wrt xxx-37 [4] 19:31:26 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/11/01-tagmem-irc#T19-27-39 19:31:55 Vincent, I'll clean up the logs tomorrow morning. . .