14:04:39 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #vmtf
14:04:39 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2006/01/10-vmtf-irc
14:05:46 <RalphS> Meeting: SWBPD VM TF
14:06:25 <RalphS> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2006Jan/0029.html
14:07:12 <Zakim> +??P3
14:07:24 <RalphS> zakim, ??p3 is Alistair
14:07:24 <Zakim> +Alistair; got it
14:09:44 <RalphS> PROPOSE: to move this meeting to 1500 UTC
14:10:12 <danbri2> fine by me (dialing in now...)
14:11:38 <RalphS> RESOLVED: to meet at 1500 UTC every week, starting next week
14:11:45 <RalphS> Chair: TomB
14:15:23 <aliman> aliman has joined #vmtf
14:16:54 <Zakim> +DanBri
14:17:02 <aliman> q+ to ask how the cookbook will relate to swbp comment on httpRange-14
14:17:40 <RalphS> Topic: whether and how to cite design rationale
14:17:58 <RalphS> Ralph: I hoped for a mechanism that would not obligate us to exhaustively cite rationale
14:18:15 <RalphS> ... but that would let us cite relevant mail messages as we uncover them
14:18:21 <RalphS> Alistair: I'm happy with that
14:18:41 <RalphS> Tom: I generally like short documents with lengthy appendices
14:19:03 <aliman> q+ to ask: only hash or slash?
14:19:38 <danbri2> Tom: i want a sense of ... do we have same picture of target document, for end ... of April
14:19:56 <danbri2> Ralph: I think we should still have as a milestone to publish a doc this month, but recognise that we will be asking for a 3month extension of span of wg
14:20:04 <danbri2> ...can anticipate an opportunity to update the doc
14:20:14 <danbri2> Tom: what would then be the sequence of events, process-wise?
14:20:45 <danbri2> ...we have now the comments from the reviewers, ... one strongly suggests a change in structure of the doc, ... some are Qs of substance, but also big editorial Q about shape of the document
14:20:50 <danbri2> ...pushing things off into appendix
14:21:11 <danbri2> Ralph: i propose we take those comments 1 at a time, see what to do about them, and think about implications for workload/timescale
14:21:25 <danbri2> Alistair: the 2 reviews we have, dbooths and andreas h's ...?
14:21:26 <danbri2> Tom: yes
14:21:50 <Zakim> aliman, you wanted to ask how the cookbook will relate to swbp comment on httpRange-14 and to ask: only hash or slash?
14:22:03 <danbri2> Alistair: I'm good for going thru david's review. Couple points to raise - 1st, exactly how the cookbook here relates to what the bp wg is drafting for http-range-14
14:22:08 <danbri2> ...how scopes relate to each other
14:22:32 <danbri2> ...also: given mechanisms we're using, ... redirects... why is it has vs slash, instead of hash-vs-anything else
14:22:38 <danbri2> ...ie we can use any char, or no char, there
14:22:48 <danbri2> q+ re hash/slash char
14:22:53 <danbri2> q-
14:22:58 <danbri2> q+ to comment re hash/slash char
14:23:32 <danbri2> Ralph: re http-range-14, wg had some idea it might write something like a mail message or a tag-like 'finding', to try explain impact of http-range-14 
14:23:45 <danbri2> ...discussions with david booth, david wood, ...
14:23:59 <danbri2> i had goal w/ d wood, similar to this TF's approach
14:24:06 <danbri2> dbooth's goals are different, i feel
14:24:16 <danbri2> some independent draftings by both 
14:24:25 <danbri2> some discussion in last WG telecon
14:24:49 <danbri2> ...probably not enough time to start a new doc
14:25:05 <danbri2> ...things to say might be incorporated into cookbook instead? 
14:25:12 <TomB> q+ to say I cannot make 1500 next week (17 Jan)
14:25:21 <danbri2> david booth agreed to go to try draft a short section, for us to take a look at
14:25:30 <danbri2> q+ to endorse this idea
14:25:44 <danbri2> q- re
14:25:48 <danbri2> q- hash/slash
14:25:51 <danbri2> q- char
14:26:13 <danbri2> Ralph: goes into design rational issues... we should leave designy stuff in our past, only deal with practicalities
14:26:31 <danbri2> ...i added some prose re 'why you might want to think about this choice'
14:26:31 <aliman> q+ to comment on expanding scope of cookbook
14:26:49 <danbri2> ...not address tail end of what we all know has been a long debate
14:26:55 <danbri2> ack danbri
14:26:55 <Zakim> danbri, you wanted to comment re hash/slash char and to endorse this idea
14:27:18 <danbri2> i can't hear anything, suddenly
14:28:19 <RalphS> DanBri: from a user perspective, the W3C document that people will look at needs only to cover the practical aspects of the resolution of httpRange-14
14:28:28 <RalphS> ... not the historial argument
14:28:54 <RalphS> ... re: '/' or some other character; there's a class of characters that aren't permitted in xml names
14:29:01 <RalphS> q+ re: slash
14:29:17 <danbri2> Tom: I have a conflict next week 1500 UTC
14:29:20 <danbri2> ack TomB
14:29:20 <Zakim> TomB, you wanted to say I cannot make 1500 next week (17 Jan)
14:29:24 <Zakim> aliman, you wanted to comment on expanding scope of cookbook
14:29:38 <RalphS> q- re, slash
14:29:41 <RalphS> q+
14:29:42 <danbri2> Alistair: Ralph, if I understand right... you suggest expanding scope of cookbook, for other bits and pieces
14:29:50 <danbri2> ...which pieces - yet to be decided
14:30:06 <danbri2> ... in principle, am ok with that, especially if it lets things be published that would otherwise be left in email
14:30:29 <danbri2> ...also to say generally that I really like Ralph's direction with document, especially the "we don't talk about hash/slash history" persepctive
14:30:42 <danbri2> ...we talk to people as fresh visitors to the scene, ... 
14:30:54 <danbri2> RalphS: you captured my intention precisely 
14:31:03 <danbri2> ...I took a little risk by suggesting this yesterday in the telecon
14:31:37 <danbri2> ...I don't exactly know dbooth's goals, ... but some of what he's written could plausibly be recast as introductory material on how to choose reasonable namespace names
14:31:48 <danbri2> ...I ack that there is some uncertainty and risk there
14:32:07 <danbri2> Alistair: i can live with the doc talking to not-exactly-1-audience
14:32:23 <danbri2> RalphS: I specficially asked... if dbooth is interested in this happening, that he propose the short section
14:32:27 <danbri2> ...ball is in his court
14:32:51 <danbri2> ...we can respond when we see the materials
14:32:58 <danbri2> danbri: is he thinking of joining the tf?
14:33:06 <danbri2> Ralph: he didn't suggest this
14:34:15 <danbri2> ...
14:34:24 <danbri2> Ralph: I don't think the WG needs to provide a history of the whole issue
14:34:30 <danbri2> ...connets with the design rationale Q
14:34:52 <danbri2> ...I am inclined to give some people a little bit of assistance in understanding the 'why' re our design choices
14:35:02 <danbri2> ...but I think there is a lot of benefit to -as al says- just moving on
14:35:17 <danbri2> ...that's the past; here's what people should be doing in the future
14:35:21 <danbri2> DanBri: absolutely
14:35:37 <danbri2> RalphS: on other Q, of why we're so peculiar about /, vs other chars
14:35:53 <danbri2> ...i think it is because / holds an identified role in URI space... notion of hierarchies in URI spec
14:35:59 <danbri2> ...hierarchies in collections
14:36:10 <danbri2> [(at least in some URI schemes)]
14:36:22 <danbri2> ...not sure it pays to generalise notion of a separator char to other thigns
14:36:30 <danbri2> ...people who want to do that can prolly figure it out from the cookbook
14:36:41 <TomB> q+ to suggest we not offer more choices than necessary...
14:36:43 <danbri2> ...but i don't think we need to generalise it for them
14:37:01 <danbri2> ...no history/tradition in rdf corresponding to this practice
14:37:11 <danbri2> Alistair: if someone comes to this for 1st time
14:37:32 <danbri2> q+ to offer an i18n example
14:37:38 <danbri2> ...i'm happy with ralph's answer
14:38:03 <danbri2> Ralph: we suggest there should be some separator character
14:38:12 <danbri2> TomB: ...and that historically, 2 separator chars have been used
14:38:33 <danbri2> ...if people want to push boundaries, they won't be stopped by the cookbook
14:38:55 <danbri2> ..but let's not open it up more than necessary
14:39:00 <danbri2> Alistair: am happy with that
14:39:04 <danbri2> DanBri: likewise
14:39:11 <RalphS> Ralph: agree, let's not try to generalize
14:39:12 <danbri2> q?
14:39:13 <TomB> Ralph: slash has special significance in URIs as separator
14:39:23 <danbri2> ack TomB
14:39:23 <Zakim> TomB, you wanted to suggest we not offer more choices than necessary...
14:39:27 <TomB> q-
14:39:56 <RalphS> DanBri: I've been looking into namespaces that use non-Western scripts
14:40:00 <RalphS> ... e.g. Kanji
14:40:07 <RalphS> ... need to use IRIs for this
14:40:24 <RalphS> ... in right-to-left scripts there might be a case for having a right-to-left separator character
14:40:46 <RalphS> Ralph: do we have enough expertise here to do this now or should we leave it to later?
14:41:11 <danbri2> TomB: instinct is to stick to small number of cases that have historically come up
14:41:11 <RalphS> Tom: I have contacts but prefer at this time to stick with a small number of cases that we know and understand well
14:42:07 <danbri2> DanBri: am fine with using / and # (personally, I'll dig around the r2l case, see what people have done)
14:42:10 <danbri2> q?
14:42:13 <danbri2> ack danbri
14:42:13 <Zakim> danbri, you wanted to offer an i18n example
14:42:27 <danbri2> Ralph: shall we go thru dbooth's comments here?
14:42:39 <danbri2> TomB: processwise... do we go thru each raised point on the BP list...
14:42:53 <danbri2> ...make a decision on each, then when happy with a note candidate within TF, ask the WG?
14:42:58 <danbri2> (did i get that right? --danbri)
14:43:04 <danbri2> Ralph: at high level that's the task
14:43:17 <danbri2> ....we treat the wg review the way the wg would treat an outside review
14:43:22 <danbri2> ...ie consider comments/suggestions
14:43:28 <danbri2> ...decide what to do with each
14:43:37 <danbri2> ...implement or not such change; tell commentor what we've done
14:43:45 <danbri2> (I like that model --danbri)
14:43:55 <danbri2> TomB: you're suggesting we can do this by end of jan?
14:44:01 <danbri2> Ralph: yes, can/should by end jan
14:44:07 <danbri2> ...which means satisfying david and andreas
14:44:36 <danbri2> ...
14:44:53 <danbri2> TomB: ...number of decisions that need to be made, and editorial work, ... what's the model? Alistair making all the changes?
14:45:00 <danbri2> ...in which case, he gets a big say re do-ability!
14:45:09 <danbri2> ...seems like a pretty aggressive schedule
14:45:24 <danbri2> Ralph: what's clear is that we need to respond to each of their comments; but not necc accept each change.
14:45:45 <danbri2> ...we can decide, and i'm suggesting... that some of our decision criteria be ... way we're aiming at our audience
14:46:15 <danbri2> ...so some criteria we have already. But i also suggest that timing is a reasonable component.
14:46:28 <danbri2> ...we can say we  won't restructure this version, given time/resources available.
14:46:39 <danbri2> ...we don't need to take their proposals as must-dos
14:47:03 <danbri2> TomB: timecheck - 12 mins left of call
14:47:47 <danbri2> ...walkthru main points (see agenda), and hear back from alistair
14:47:59 <danbri2> (scribe help -- urls?)
14:48:09 <danbri2> Tom: we're not going to do more on hash/slash
14:48:30 <danbri2> Ralph: my proposal is that my new text in the doc (that was post- his review) addresses dbooth's point on hash/slash
14:48:40 <RalphS> Topic: DBooth's review http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Dec/0124.html
14:49:17 <RalphS> Ralph: PROPOSE that my new text addressed "trade-offs between hash and slash"
14:49:34 <danbri2> Tom: i didn't try to make a fully comprehensive summary of comments
14:49:41 <RalphS> ACTION: Ralph reply to DBooth/G1 with a summary of the new text
14:49:41 <danbri2> Alistair: your summaries look good to me
14:50:02 <Zakim> This conference is scheduled to end in 10 minutes; all ports must be freed
14:50:04 <danbri2> Tom: what's the stance ... important to me, since dcmi use purl.org ... what do we do re purl.org?
14:50:10 <RalphS> Topic: DBooth/G2; 302 on purl.org
14:50:19 <danbri2> ...do we put it in, ... with health warnings? move to appendix?
14:50:30 <danbri2> q+ to speak in favour of mentioning purl.org, in appendix
14:50:35 <RalphS> q+
14:50:37 <aliman> q+ to comment on purls
14:50:59 <danbri2> Tom: ( dcmi ?) will have to live with, or change, purl situation
14:51:10 <Zakim> danbri, you wanted to speak in favour of mentioning purl.org, in appendix
14:51:32 <RalphS> DanBri: mentioning purl.org in an appendix makes sense but in an agnostic way
14:51:54 <danbri2> Ralph: we got into the discussion of purl.org, because an important ontology that we care about uses it
14:51:59 <danbri2> (note that RSS 1.0 also uses it)
14:52:14 <danbri2> ...we might consider saying something about a hope that purl.org will revise their impl to do something else
14:52:23 <danbri2> ...i don't feel comfortable ignoring it entirely, 'cos dc exists
14:52:24 <TomB> q+ to wonder what document DCMI (with others) to approach purl.org maintainers
14:52:43 <danbri2> Alistair: i'd be happy for the purl recipes to be included, appendixed, but they ought to be treated
14:52:43 <Zakim> aliman, you wanted to comment on purls
14:52:48 <danbri2> TomB: i tihnk they should be treated
14:52:49 <Zakim> TomB, you wanted to wonder what document DCMI (with others) to approach purl.org maintainers
14:53:20 <danbri2> ...wondering from dcmi perspective, ... i'd like to make a case to purl.org maintainers, ... wondering what kind of packet of info to make the case
14:53:30 <aliman> q+ to comment on approaching purl.org re changing response code
14:53:35 <danbri2> ...any positive reasons why 302 might actually be preferable?
14:53:48 <danbri2> Ralph: i suspect that 302 is an artifact
14:54:22 <danbri2> q+ to suggest the TAG might be easier to persuade than OCLC/PURL team
14:54:39 <danbri2> ralph: can someone take an action to summarise G2 issue response plan?
14:54:52 <danbri2> Tom: that we'll put it into the appendix, won't remove it...
14:55:04 <Zakim> This conference is scheduled to end in 5 minutes; all ports must be freed
14:55:28 <danbri2> Ralph: decide how we'll treat Purl.org - that we shouldn't remove it entirely, but likely an appendix. 1 action is to implement that decision, the other is to report to dbooth.
14:56:04 <RalphS> ACTION: Tom report TF decision on G2/purl.org
14:56:12 <danbri2> I was drafting this: ACTION: TomB summarise decision on purl.org cookbook treatment to the list and dbooth
14:56:19 <danbri2> (which is same)
14:56:36 <danbri2> alistair: if appendixing will make people happy, then let's do it
14:56:38 <danbri2> q-
14:56:43 <danbri2> tomb: big change? 
14:56:53 <RalphS> action 2=TomB summarise decision on purl.org cookbook treatment to the list and dbooth
14:57:08 <danbri2> Alistair: just seems like putting things in different headings. ...
14:57:48 <danbri2> Ralph: I'm a bit less inclined re moving it to appendix
14:58:01 <Zakim> This conference is scheduled to end in 2 minutes; all ports must be freed
14:58:07 <danbri2> Tom: inclined to agree w/ ralph
14:58:23 <danbri2> ...don't need to decide here in the abstract. As editing happens, will be clearer.
14:58:32 <danbri2> ...comfortable w/ alistair handling this
14:59:02 <Zakim> This conference is scheduled to end in 1 minute; all ports must be freed
14:59:11 <danbri2> alistair: am happy with idea of passing on lead editor role, if appropriate
14:59:34 <danbri2> ...not clear what our role, ...role of other tf members, should be, re editing the doc
14:59:40 <danbri2> <- that was tom not al
14:59:53 <Zakim> aliman, you wanted to comment on approaching purl.org re changing response code
15:00:01 <Zakim> This conference is scheduled to end now; all ports must be freed immediately
15:00:01 <danbri2> Tom: beyond the brainstorming, wiki stage. But there are wordsmithable bits. How would you like to see work on this evolve, Alistair?
15:00:02 <Zakim> The time reserved for this conference has been exceeded. 22 ports must be freed
15:00:06 <danbri2> Alistair: I liked what Ralph did...
15:00:13 <danbri2> ...reframing, in light of audience, ...
15:00:41 <danbri2> ...ok with someone taking over at this stage; my main contrib was the tech detail
15:01:17 <danbri2> Ralph: not sure your pref,..  mine would be that you maintain the editorship of the doc, and that i had just worked on it for a bit
15:01:27 <danbri2> ...that i pass it back to you, and we all offer you whatever help you need
15:01:49 <danbri2> TomB: should i feel free to help wordsmith?
15:01:56 <danbri2> Ralph: would you rather edit html in-place?
15:02:31 <danbri2> TomB: I can be picky on little things, which don't always deserve putting into a mail message
15:03:00 <danbri2> Alistair: Tom do you want to take over editing for a week?
15:03:04 <danbri2> Tom: can't right now
15:03:19 <danbri2> Alistair: best to do via email for now then
15:03:21 <danbri2> Tom: OK
15:03:25 <danbri2> [timecheck?]
15:03:31 <danbri2> [next meeting?]
15:03:54 <danbri2> Alistair: what I'm hearing from tom/ralph... maybe don't put purl into appendix
15:04:07 <danbri2> ...but i should draft a parag "this is the important thing about purls that you need to know"
15:04:22 <danbri2> ...the doc (per guus' comment) does have an awful lot of recipies
15:04:34 <danbri2> ...wonder how to simplify choices in main body
15:05:13 <danbri2> ralph: same time 1400 next week
15:05:26 <RalphS> next meeting: 1400 UTC 17 Jan
15:05:31 <RalphS> then 1500 UTC after that
15:05:34 <danbri2> resolved: meet same time next week, after that, change to 1500 UTC
15:05:39 <Zakim> -Tom_Baker
15:05:42 <Zakim> -Alistair
15:05:52 <Zakim> -Ralph
15:05:53 <Zakim> -DanBri
15:05:55 <Zakim> SW_BPD(VMTF)9:00AM has ended
15:05:57 <Zakim> Attendees were Ralph, Tom_Baker, Alistair, DanBri
15:06:48 <danbri2> rrsagent, please draft minutes
15:06:48 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2006/01/10-vmtf-minutes.html danbri2
15:07:30 <danbri2> RalphS, can you acl etc? (am working on new w3c affiliation)
15:09:39 <RalphS> rrsagent, please make this log public
15:14:43 <danbri2> RRSAgent, botsnack
15:14:43 <RRSAgent> I'm logging. I don't understand 'botsnack', danbri2.  Try /msg RRSAgent help
17:04:48 <Zakim> Zakim has left #vmtf