17:17:27 RRSAgent has joined #tagmem 17:17:27 logging to http://www.w3.org/2006/01/24-tagmem-irc 17:20:37 Scribe: Henry S. Thompson 17:20:40 ScribeNick: ht 17:20:56 Meeting: TAG teleconference 17:21:10 Chair: Vincent Quint 17:44:51 DanC has joined #tagmem 17:45:49 DanC has changed the topic to: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2006/01/24-agenda.html Scribe: Noah? 17:48:25 hmm... no actions in the agenda. 17:49:28 ah... now i see an action 17:55:45 noah has joined #tagmem 17:56:19 We've switched scribes: Henry will be scribing today. 17:56:43 TAG_Weekly()12:30PM has now started 17:56:49 DanC has changed the topic to: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2006/01/24-agenda.html Scribe: ht 17:56:50 +Noah_Mendelsohn 17:57:40 note to self: 2 agenda requests: (1) security workshop deadline 25 Jan (2) WSDL/RDF mapping and semantic annotations 17:59:53 Vincent has joined #tagmem 17:59:55 Topic: Administrative 18:00:47 Regrets from Ed Rice, Norm Walsh 18:01:04 zakim, please call ht-781 18:01:04 ok, ht; the call is being made 18:01:05 +Ht 18:01:47 +[INRIA] 18:02:01 Zakim, INRIA is Vincent 18:02:01 +Vincent; got it 18:03:19 +TimBL 18:03:29 zakim, who is talking? 18:03:40 noah, listening for 10 seconds I could not identify any sounds 18:03:43 zakim, who is talking? 18:03:54 noah, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Vincent (5%) 18:04:20 +DOrchard 18:04:20 zakim, who is on the phone? 18:04:21 On the phone I see Noah_Mendelsohn, Ht, Vincent, TimBL, DOrchard 18:04:40 +DanC 18:06:23 zakim, who is on the call? 18:06:23 On the phone I see Noah_Mendelsohn, Ht, Vincent, TimBL, DOrchard, DanC 18:06:37 dorchard has joined #tagmem 18:07:21 VQ: Roy is at risk, we won't wait for him 18:07:52 +Roy 18:09:19 NH, HT: Revised minutes will take a day or two, but will appear 18:09:48 VQ: Next telcon: HT, NM regrets for Schema f2f 18:10:03 ... TBL regrets, RF regrets 18:10:46 ... One more regret and I will cancel, but with 5 we will try to go ahead 18:11:04 I'm available to scribe 31 Jan 18:11:22 VQ: ER to scribe, DC fallback 18:11:57 q+ 2 agenda requests: (1) security workshop deadline 25 Jan (2) WSDL/RDF mapping and semantic annotations 18:11:57 ... Proposed agenda for today: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2006/01/24-agenda.html 18:12:05 q+ to make 2 agenda requests: (1) security workshop deadline 25 Jan (2) WSDL/RDF mapping and semantic annotations 18:14:36 VQ: Agenda agreed with Security Wkshp at the front and WSDL/RDF added at the back 18:15:06 ... Propose to adopt minutes of 10 Jan: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2006Jan/att-0003/Jan102005.html 18:15:29 ... Approved 18:15:46 VQ: Activity summary due 18:16:43 ACTION: VQ to prepare a summary in the next few days, circulate to tag@w3.org for review, then go public depending on feedback 18:17:07 VQ: TP starts in one month, no joint meetings yet scheduled. . . 18:17:25 ... What opportunities are we at risk of missing? 18:17:40 DC: Like to talk to Compound Document WG. . . 18:18:17 DO: Working with Hoylen Sue on XML Schema versioning stuff, hoping to work with Schema WG on that, also spooling up on our own versioning work 18:18:40 ... So want to ask Schema WG to take part to go over the use cases, maybe get an updated draft finding in time 18:19:04 NM: XML Schema WG is not meeting at the Tech Plenary, meeting in Florida next week instead 18:19:18 ... But in fact at least HST, NM, MSM will be there 18:19:30 s/there/in Mandelieu/ 18:19:41 VQ: Formal meeting with CDF WG? 18:20:05 q+ to mention binary WG 18:20:14 timbl has joined #tagmem 18:20:21 DC: I don't think a formal meeting is required, happy to just talk informally 18:20:42 VQ: I wouldn't mind chatting with them. . . 18:21:05 ack noah 18:21:05 noah, you wanted to mention binary WG 18:21:07 NM: I'd prefer to save formal meetings for times when we have formal business to do, so perhaps not this time for CDF 18:21:08 (Noah, did you say we've met with the CDF WG before? I don't believe we have.) 18:21:38 HST believes we met CDF WG last year in Boston 18:22:16 NM: I don't have any particular item we need to talk to EXI about -- just pointing out that they're just starting up 18:22:48 EXI is meeting Thurs/Fri at the plenary, as I recall. 18:23:09 VQ: So doesn't sound like any formal meetings are required, but no reason this can't change in the intervening month. . . 18:23:20 Topic: Security Workshop 18:23:36 http://www.w3.org/2005/Security/usability-ws/ 18:24:23 DC thinking about turning his contributions to this group on security into a position paper for this workshop 18:24:32 ... Digest authentication 18:25:03 DO: In our discussion about state, this has come up, and there's some discussion about forms-based security 18:25:20 ... taking over from http-based security, in my draft finding about state 18:25:28 ... Will find URI and paste here 18:25:50 DC: Haven't come up with a thesis statement for a paper 18:25:57 q+ to suggest a thesis 18:26:24 ack ht 18:26:24 ht, you wanted to suggest a thesis 18:26:47 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2005Oct/0025.html 18:26:51 HST: "We already know what we need to do, why aren't we doing it?" 18:27:05 TBL: I'm interested, but I can't fit it in 18:27:09 The primary reasons for customized security are security concerns, that 18:27:09 is wanting greater control over the security timing out, and ease of use 18:27:09 concerns, particularly wanting direct control over the look and feel of 18:27:09 the screens including helpful tips and links to forgotten passwords. 18:27:30 ... I have a UK trip already scheduled for that week, which is a shame 18:28:14 DO: Not in the same direction as HST's digest authentication suggestion -- my thesis is we don't have what we need 18:28:30 aha... found my slides http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2005/09/20AM-minutes.html -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2005Sep/0017.html 18:28:44 TBL: Just display the name of the holder of the certificate in the browser, half the phishing stuff would go away 18:28:47 oops; no, those are daveS's slides 18:29:02 DO: People want control of the look and feel, timing out, etc. 18:30:18 VQ: So, nothing for this group? 18:30:41 DC: I've got helpful input, all I was hoping for, not planning to represent the TAG if I go 18:30:54 VQ: OK, nothing more to say 18:31:21 Topic: Reply from WS Addressing WG wrt epr-27 18:31:38 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2006Jan/0074.html 18:31:48 Our original proposed text: 18:31:48 Note: Web Architecture dictates that resources should be identified with 18:31:48 URIs. Thus, use of the abstract properties of an EPR other than 18:31:48 wsa:address to identify resources is contrary to Web Architecture. In 18:31:48 certain circumstances, use of such additional properties may be convenient 18:31:49 or beneficial, perhaps due to the availability of QName-based tools. When 18:31:51 building systems that violate this principle, care must be taken to weigh 18:31:53 the tradeoffs inherent in deploying resources that are not on the Web. 18:31:59 VQ: WG has modified their document, asking for our feedback 18:32:04 aha! finally found minutes of our security discussion. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2005/09/20PM-minutes.html#item02 18:32:10 Their proposal: 18:32:11 The Architecture of the World Wide Web, Volume One [AoWWW] 18:32:11 recommends [Section 2 of AoWWW] the use of URIs to identify 18:32:11 resources. Using abstract properties of an EPR other than 18:32:11 [destination] to identify resources is contrary to this 18:32:11 recommendation. In certain circumstances, such a use of additional 18:32:13 properties may be convenient or beneficial; however, when building 18:32:15 systems, the benefits or convenience of identifying a resource using 18:32:17 reference parameters should be carefully weighed against the 18:32:19 benefits of identifying a resource solely by URI as explained in 18:32:21 [Section 2. 18:32:23 The Architecture of the World Wide Web, Volume One [AoWWW] 18:32:25 recommends [Section 2 of AoWWW] the use of URIs to identify 18:32:27 resources. Using abstract properties of an EPR other than 18:32:29 [destination] to identify resources is contrary to this 18:32:31 recommendation. In certain circumstances, such a use of additional 18:32:33 properties may be convenient or beneficial; however, when building 18:32:35 systems, the benefits or convenience of identifying a resource using 18:32:37 reference parameters should be carefully weighed against the 18:32:39 benefits of identifying a resource solely by URI as explained in 18:32:41 [Section 2. 18:32:43 [Section 2.1] of the Web Architecture. 18:33:51 NM: We could quibble -- they toned things down a bit, we could push back, but I think it's a straight yes-no call 18:34:01 DC: I can't see the difference . . . 18:34:21 ... I've seen various drafts, can't tell the difference any more 18:34:58 TBL: I don't see anything worth fighting about there 18:35:09 DC: What about the example? 18:35:24 Our note to WSA: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing-comments/2005Oct/0004 18:35:32 HST: I think that was an illustration for their benefit, not suggested for inclusion in their REC 18:36:07 ... I think their proposal represents some positive movement on their part, should accept with thanks 18:36:36 DO: +1 18:36:39 DC: I'd like to think a bit out loud about this before agreeing 18:36:54 ... Were we trying to change the world, or just get some words in the doc't 18:37:18 DO: I wanted us to change the world, in the direction of proposing encoding of EPRs in URIs, but we haven't gone there 18:37:31 NM: [scribe missed some] 18:38:08 ... DO helped us in E'burgh to see what some of the reasonable motivations were for using EPR parameters for despatching 18:39:05 ... So rather than just saying to WSAWG "don't go there", we decided to try to get acknowledgement of the costs as well as the benefits 18:39:15 q+ to ask if anybody is motivated to take this note from WSA and discuss it with the WS-RF folks 18:39:26 DC: Was there a GRID spec that uses EPRs? 18:39:31 NM, HST: WSRF 18:39:56 TBL: Worried none-the-less that we'll start seeing EPRs turning up as the only identifier for some resources 18:40:33 DO: I still think we should push for EPR-in-URI work, maybe from WSA WG, maybe with help from us 18:40:55 q+ discuss meta issue, scope of WG charters 18:40:56 ... Until that happens, as long as dispatching on QNames isn't addressed, people will use EPRs 18:41:06 DC: Thanks, that has helped 18:41:08 ack noah 18:41:46 (I wonder if WS-RF is done, or still asking under review. I get "done" vibes from http://www.globus.org/wsrf/ ) 18:42:19 NM: I'm concerned about the meta-question of scenarios in which a WG is doing something (SOAP endpoints, WSDL component naming, WSA and EPRs) where TAG feels more should be done -- how should we deal with this 18:42:46 ... I think this should be made more explicit in group charters, so that they're not surprised/upset when we come to them 18:42:54 q+ 18:43:33 DO: I think we are there with XMLP, WSDL did the HTTP binding for us, contributed to the schedule slip for WSDL2.0 18:43:42 q+ to suggest 1st WG ftf as a time to expose WGs to webarch, no just charter, and to think again about CDF, EXI 18:44:00 ... WSA is moving much faster, maybe that's because they _didn't_ take so much care about WebArch issues 18:44:12 ack DanC 18:44:12 DanC, you wanted to suggest 1st WG ftf as a time to expose WGs to webarch, no just charter, and to think again about CDF, EXI 18:44:23 ... Certainly agree that if we're going to enforce expectations about WebArch on groups, we should signal that early 18:44:54 DC: Doing it via the charter is not clearly the best route, rather get it in the culture at their first f2f. . . 18:44:58 -Roy 18:45:39 NM: We could consider internal guidelines -- e.g. when people say "Hey, do some RDF for that too", are you allowed to ignore that, or is it obligatory, or . . . 18:46:06 ... People are legitimately confused about how this all applies to their WG 18:46:17 ... They need help getting a consistent reading on this stuff 18:46:33 VQ: The agenda item is not about this general issue 18:46:35 (yes, back to the proposal to accept this wording with thanks.) 18:47:04 ... So how do we reply to their proposed text? 18:47:27 ... I think I hear consensus that they've done a good thing, as far as it goes. 18:47:52 RESOLVED: We are satisfied with the text they propose to add 18:48:02 ACTION: NM to convey this to the WSA WG 18:48:39 HST: Perhaps the meta-topic would be a good agenda item for the f2f 18:49:04 Topic: Roy Fielding issue wrap-up 18:49:19 VQ: Roy has left the call. . . 18:49:45 ... Review his pending actions: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/actions_owner.html#RF 18:50:01 Roy summarised his situation: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2006Jan/0073.html 18:51:28 VQ: wrt metadataInURI-31, no progress, RF suggests to drop the action 18:51:39 ... NM was involved too -- Noah? 18:52:04 NM: I've been trying to uncover the history, I get added to this late in the game, don't really know the history 18:52:34 ... Haven't made any progress -- we should assume it has fallen through the cracks 18:53:03 ... I would prefer to get off the hook on this to focus on other issues on my plate 18:53:17 DC: I'm torn about this 18:53:29 TBL: Related to URIGoodPractices-40 18:53:41 q+ to mention persistent identifiers 18:54:11 Draft: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/metaDataInURI-31 18:54:14 DO: URIGP-40 was just a response to RF's assertion that parentheses are bad in fragIDs, we can let that go 18:54:32 ... but mIU-31 is more serious 18:54:53 NM: I see we have a draft from Stewart, but I can't tell why it didn't go forward. . . 18:55:02 [need URI for minutes] 18:55:18 DO: I think there's lots of good stuff in there 18:55:29 q? 18:55:54 NM: I asked because if there's broad agreement on what's there I'm more sanguine about taking it on 18:56:02 q+ 18:56:07 ack ht 18:56:07 ht, you wanted to mention persistent identifiers 18:56:28 - HTML forms 18:57:04 ack DanC 18:57:05 ... But if people aren't clear about where we are 18:57:05 ack danc 18:57:38 HST: The InfSci community cares about this, it's one of the reasons they keep inventing new URI schemes 18:57:58 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html#metadataInURI-31 18:58:03 ... But I don't have much time now to help move the issue forward, don't even know what the draft says 18:58:19 (my hazy recollection of stuart's draft is that it's too long) 18:58:27 DC: I feel similarly, would pick it up if it were going to drop altogether, but that wouldn't get it moving any time soon 18:58:53 NM: I can pick this up, but it will go on the queue behind other things 18:59:03 ... but again, no time soon 18:59:14 DC: Don't drop the issue, but drop all the actions against it 18:59:27 DO: I think this is _more_ important than schemeProtocols 18:59:50 VQ: We can't leave actions pending against people who have left 19:00:15 NM: Actually, I can also pick this up and put it ahead of schemeProtocols 19:00:20 ... So let's withdraw the action wrt mIU-31 against his name 19:00:21 DO: Yes, ahead of schemeProtocols 19:00:37 (I'd suggest dropping the action on SW similarly) 19:00:52 NM: I need guidance on relative priority soon 19:01:29 HST: See DC's suggestion 19:01:35 VQ: OK, will do that too 19:01:53 NM: I.e. I'm about to turn back to schemeProtocols as PLP settles down (I hope). If the group prefers I do metadataInURI first, then I'd rather know that before I swap SchemeProtocols back in. Thanks. 19:02:05 VQ: Noah, settle it in email? 19:02:09 NM: fine, thanks. 19:02:13 VQ: so, next action on RF's list is putMediaType-38 19:02:54 +1 continue 19:02:55 ... RF promises to deliver final draft in Mandelieu at the end of February 19:03:16 ... Next one is uriGP-40 19:03:28 Get Roy to deliver his action! 19:03:44 :) 19:03:54 q+ 19:04:21 VQ: RF does not expect he would get consensus for whatever he wrote 19:04:39 ack danc 19:04:53 DC: Let's remove this from the issues list 19:05:01 ... Covered elsewhere, I won't miss it 19:05:19 VQ: Others happy with that? 19:05:26 HST: Yes 19:05:57 RESOLVED: uriGoodPractice-40 is to be removed from the list 19:06:10 VQ: Usual announcement? 19:06:38 TBL: We need to leave pointers for posterity 19:06:54 DO: I don't think the () issue exists elsewhere, will just get lost 19:07:20 DC: I'm happy for it be lost until someone cares enough to pick it up 19:08:08 DO: History is that in the discussion of abstractComponentRefs-?? when XML Schema WG/WSDL WG said they would use XPointer, RF said "(), bleuch", so we raised a new issue 19:08:30 ... We closed aCR-37 19:08:43 DC: Hold on, aCR-37 is open 19:09:00 DO: We told the WSDL WG we were not going to push back further on this point 19:09:17 ... I think these two issues are orthogonal and should be treated as such 19:09:27 Where does it say why not to use () ? 19:09:32 nowhere 19:09:47 on the contrary; XPointer, a W3C Recommendation, says _to_ use ()s 19:09:48 ... As long as we're happy that people can use ()s in fragids, we don't need this issue 19:10:00 Let us write soemwhere taht it is a bad idea becaus eyou can't use qname-like shorthand for them. 19:10:18 DO: If that ever becomes a problem, then we should come back to this 19:11:07 TBL: So QNames were iintroduced to minimize the burden of long URIs, but ()s in fragids render this solution unavailble 19:13:34 HST: I agree with DanC -- that issue, i.e. should any kind of fragIDs other than barenames be avoided, because they bar the use of QNames, is being discussed regularly by the TAG under other headings 19:13:56 VQ: DO, are you happy for this issue to be dropped 19:14:15 Let's keep the issue. 19:14:24 DO: I think it was important to separate out from aCR-37, because it's orthogonal 19:14:39 DC: I don't agree it's orthogonal, but I don't care about it, either 19:14:49 TBL: Move to 'someday' pile 19:15:11 (I'm happy to leave 40 around until 37 is closed) 19:15:11 DO: OK, remove all actions against it, leave it rest until someone feels we need to resurrect it 19:15:48 VQ: To conclude, no consensus to drop the issue, we need to leave that for now 19:16:11 ... For the sake of a clear history, we'll keep it open, but remove all pending actions 19:16:35 RESOLVED: Remove pending actions on RF wrt uriGP-40 19:17:01 [supersedes previous resolution wrt uriGP-40] 19:17:19 VQ: That's it for RF's outstanding actions 19:17:36 Topic: xmlFunctions-34 19:18:01 VQ: In Norm's absence, let's postpone this to a subsequent meeting 19:18:15 Topic: Principle of Least Power 19:18:24 New draft: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/leastPower.html 19:18:28 Draft in date space: 19:18:30 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/leastPower-2006-01-23.html 19:18:38 (tim, did you realize you wrote DesignIssues/Meaning , re xmlFunctions-34 and self-describing web?) 19:18:55 To do list and completed actions: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/leastPower-2006-01-23.html#ToDo 19:18:59 NM: Appendix in the doc tracks my todo list 19:19:04 q+ to ask why the principle is in a GPN box, twice 19:19:56 NM: Reordered the flow, cleaned up some details (SQL Turing complete?), security concerns, what _is_ Turing completeness 19:20:15 ... Comment that there are downsides -- too simple isn't good either (Occam lives) 19:20:39 ... RDF discussion untangled from HTML discussion 19:21:20 ... Hope this is close to ready to ship 19:21:31 ack DanC 19:21:33 DanC, you wanted to ask why the principle is in a GPN box, twice 19:21:45 DC: Why not a principle? 19:22:08 NM: I could see it go either way 19:22:19 ... Willing to change it 19:22:36 NM: Clerical error, I suspect 19:22:57 TBL: It's definitely a principle 19:22:57 Good Practice: When publishing on the Web, choose the least powerful or most easily analyzed language variant that's suitable for the purpose. 19:23:04 NM: What about the added one about scalable 19:23:10 HST prefers GP for that 19:23:34 DC: That one _is_ phrased as a GP 19:23:53 ... task is to get the first one into a non-imperative form 19:24:21 TBL: Right, rephrase it to make it look like a principle 19:24:21 The more powerful the language the less reusable the information. 19:24:29 DC: Other stuff is good 19:24:42 ... Scope creep is a risk 19:24:56 NM: Yes, everybody wants to add a bit more 19:25:16 DC: Confirmed: the second box is to be left as a GP, but the first box needs to be a Principle 19:25:57 PROPOSED: to approve leastPower-2006-01-23 + change 1st GPN to principle, contingent on thumbs up by @@(me? DanC?) 19:26:11 NM: I can make that small change in a day or two 19:26:21 DC: I'm happy to make a decision today 19:27:02 HST: Not ready to approve sight-unseen, sorry 19:27:27 NM: Target is consensus two weeks today, pending new sentence in email/new draft by the end of the week 19:27:52 ACTION: NM to circulate revised sentence for the Principle by Friday 27 19:27:55 (The biggest risk is that nobody will look at the revision right away, and then we'll forget in 2 weeks, and then noah will forget to change the GPN to a principle again ;-) 19:28:47 VQ: Nearing the end of the call -- we will come back WSDL/RDF next week 19:28:57 I think Tim's proposal of "The more powerful the language the less reusable the information." seems right, or at least very close. 19:29:08 I'll start with that and noodle on it. 19:29:11 DC: Two weeks, because TBL is critical resource 19:29:16 -DOrchard 19:29:17 -Ht 19:29:18 -Noah_Mendelsohn 19:29:21 -DanC 19:29:21 -Vincent 19:29:27 RRSAgent, make logs world-visible 19:31:12 Zakim, bye 19:31:12 leaving. As of this point the attendees were Noah_Mendelsohn, Ht, Vincent, TimBL, DOrchard, DanC, Roy 19:31:12 Zakim has left #tagmem 19:31:26 RRSAgent, bye 19:31:26 I see 3 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/24-tagmem-actions.rdf : 19:31:26 ACTION: VQ to prepare a summary in the next few days, circulate to tag@w3.org for review, then go public depending on feedback [1] 19:31:26 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/24-tagmem-irc#T18-16-43 19:31:26 ACTION: NM to convey this to the WSA WG [2] 19:31:26 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/24-tagmem-irc#T18-48-02 19:31:26 ACTION: NM to circulate revised sentence for the Principle by Friday 27 [3] 19:31:26 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/24-tagmem-irc#T19-27-52