IRC log of tagmem on 2006-06-06

Timestamps are in UTC.

16:54:52 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #tagmem
16:54:53 [RRSAgent]
logging to
16:54:56 [Norm]
zakim, this will be tag
16:54:56 [Zakim]
ok, Norm; I see TAG_Weekly()12:30PM scheduled to start 24 minutes ago
16:57:42 [ht]
ht has joined #tagmem
16:59:30 [Zakim]
TAG_Weekly()12:30PM has now started
16:59:37 [Zakim]
16:59:45 [noah]
zakim, [IBM is me
16:59:45 [Zakim]
+noah; got it
16:59:50 [Zakim]
16:59:54 [Zakim]
16:59:55 [Zakim]
17:00:25 [Norm]
zakim, who's on the phone?
17:00:25 [Zakim]
On the phone I see noah, Norm
17:00:43 [Zakim]
17:01:12 [DanC]
DanC has joined #tagmem
17:01:15 [ht]
zakim, please call ht-781
17:01:15 [Zakim]
ok, ht; the call is being made
17:01:19 [Zakim]
17:01:26 [Zakim]
17:01:51 [Vincent]
Vincent has joined #tagmem
17:02:49 [Zakim]
17:03:07 [Vincent]
Zakim, INRIA is Vincent
17:03:07 [Zakim]
+Vincent; got it
17:03:26 [Vincent]
Zakim, who is here?
17:03:26 [Zakim]
On the phone I see noah, Norm, Raman, Ht, DanC, Vincent
17:03:27 [Zakim]
On IRC I see Vincent, DanC, ht, RRSAgent, Zakim, noah, Norm
17:05:52 [DanC]
Meeting: TAG Weekly
17:05:55 [DanC]
Chair: VQ
17:06:01 [DanC]
Scribe: DanC
17:06:35 [DanC]
NDW: yes, TV, I'm able to read your document
17:07:12 [DanC]
Zakim, next item
17:07:12 [Zakim]
I see nothing on the agenda
17:07:15 [Zakim]
17:07:21 [DanC]
Topic: next teleconference
17:07:27 [timbl_]
timbl_ has joined #tagmem
17:07:29 [timbl]
timbl has joined #tagmem
17:07:46 [DanC]
PROPOSED: to meet again 20 June
17:08:05 [DanC]
TBL: I seem to have conflicts 20, 27 June
17:08:28 [DanC]
VQ: so that's 3 missing for 20 June
17:08:35 [DanC]
VQ: we'll decide later
17:08:48 [timbl]
We quiet often miss the teleconf afterthe face to face meeting
17:08:49 [DanC]
Topic: review of minutes
17:09:01 [DanC]
-> minutes 30 May
17:10:00 [DanC]
DC/VQ: we could have done better with the TOC of 30 May minutes....
17:10:03 [DanC]
DC: but they're close enough
17:10:09 [DanC]
RESOLVED to accept minutes 30 May
17:10:46 [DanC]
Topic: agenda review
17:11:25 [DanC]
(wondering what became of my action to contact Misha; ah... it's there... )
17:11:59 [DanC]
Topic: # f2f meeting next week
17:12:07 [DanC]
VQ: meant to make more progress on the agenda...
17:12:18 [DanC]
... ETA tomorrow afternoon France time
17:12:48 [DanC]
NDW: [confirms lots of logistics]
17:13:57 [Zakim]
17:14:17 [Zakim]
17:14:20 [DanC]
HT: on urns/registries... agenda+ please
17:14:21 [DanC]
VQ: ok
17:14:32 [noah]
zakim, [IBM is me
17:14:32 [Zakim]
+noah; got it
17:15:10 [DanC]
DC: phone times?
17:15:22 [DanC]
VQ: we have all day 9-5 reserved all 3 days
17:16:08 [DanC]
VQ: yes, we'll do the stuff most interesting to tlr on Tue AM
17:16:29 [DanC]
Topic: Repositories vs. web pages
17:17:37 [DanC]
TimBL: if it's multiple repositories, that's one thing, but if it's one repository, I have more concerns
17:18:12 [Zakim]
17:18:19 [DanC]
... it's not clear to me why phone data isn't just published by the manufacturers 1st hand.
17:18:55 [DanC]
... is this a case where a central iana-style registry is merited?
17:19:33 [DanC]
HT: I see "logical" repository in the abstract; maybe it's federated?
17:21:18 [DanC]
(the doc says "The Device Vendor makes available and maintains for accuracy device descriptions for public usage, e.g. by Content Providers." )
17:22:49 [DanC]
DanC: the doc says "The Device Vendor makes available and maintains for accuracy device descriptions for public usage, e.g. by Content Providers." that seems OK to me. I have also heard strange things about reluctance on the part of device vendors, but if that's the plan of record, it's OK by me
17:23:23 [DanC]
Noah: there's a spectrum of centralization... on the one hand, IANA-like centralized, and on the other RDDL, which is a format that anybody can use anywhere in the web
17:24:18 [timbl]
2.1.5: 4. Using the identity of the device the Content Provider queries the DDR to determine one or more capabilities supported by the device.
17:24:36 [timbl]
17:25:44 [DanC]
(ok, 2.1.5 Normal Flow is the sort of thing that merits review.)
17:28:33 [DanC]
TimBL: perhaps due to OEM rebranding etc., the business of building phones is disconnected from the business of running web sites about phones
17:28:47 [timbl]
q+ to ask whether this (2.1.5) should be SPARQL.
17:30:18 [Vincent]
ack timbl
17:30:18 [Zakim]
timbl, you wanted to ask whether this (2.1.5) should be SPARQL.
17:31:01 [DanC]
DO: why would the TAG say SPARQL as opposed to SOAP or WSDL
17:31:04 [DanC]
17:31:19 [DanC]
DO: why not XQuery?
17:31:46 [DanC]
TimBL: SPARQL includes an HTTP/URI-based protocol
17:32:26 [DanC]
DanC: somebody in the SPARQL WG (DAWG) already has an action to look at this [I'm pretty sure]
17:34:26 [DanC]
DO: isn't SPARQL more detailed than the level of thing the TAG advocates?
17:34:41 [DanC]
TimBL: I regard SPARQL as pretty generic
17:36:10 [DanC]
NM: I think it's appropriate to advocate using existing standards; if they're re-inventing existing stuff, we should be concerned, but they should choose the best fit for their needs.
17:36:22 [DanC]
[er... something like that.]
17:37:28 [DanC]
TimBL: perhaps they've got a fixed schema for which XML Schema/XQuery are a good match...
17:37:46 [DanC]
... but if their schema is "object/property/value", then that's reinventing RDF.
17:38:15 [DanC]
VQ: I'm not sure about the current work, but CC/PP data was in RDF at one point...
17:38:50 [DanC]
TimBL: yes, the original architecture was pretty good, until they hit this social issue of device vendors running web sites
17:39:32 [DanC]
VQ: so... back to the one repository/many... how shall we proceed?
17:39:50 [DanC]
DC: invite somebody from that group to explain it to us? that's most convenient for me.
17:40:14 [DanC]
ACTION VQ: invite a DD WG person to a TAG meeting to discuss DDR requirements
17:40:50 [DanC]
Topic: New issue? State in Web application design
17:41:32 [DanC]
DO: no strong preference
17:42:03 [DanC]
DC: feels like two or three issues, to me... but I'm not clear on what they are, so I'm OK to just muddle along for a bit
17:42:23 [DanC]
DO: if it's to be a new issue, let's make it a short one [?] like versioning
17:42:50 [DanC]
NM: actually, I think the finding is suffering from that sort of broad approach, as I said in my comments
17:44:16 [DanC]
VQ: there doesn't seem to be a critical mass of sentiment in any particular direction; we'll have more data after the current round of reviews.
17:45:05 [DanC]
Topic: URNsAndRegistries-50
17:45:21 [ht]
17:45:39 [DanC]
HT: I expect to send mail calling for review tomorrow.
17:45:49 [DanC]
... I'd like ftf time to finish it.
17:47:10 [DanC]
HT: I persued the idea of an http/dns alternative to info: ... and in fact is live.
17:47:59 [DanC]
VQ: note "reviewing URNs, Namespaces and Registries -- reviewers: DanC, Ed" --
17:48:18 [DanC]
HT: so review should please wait just one more day
17:49:55 [DanC]
NM: my work on [which?] continues to be at risk.
17:50:04 [noah]
17:50:11 [DanC]
17:50:49 [DanC]
17:50:51 [Zakim]
17:50:54 [Zakim]
17:50:55 [Zakim]
17:50:57 [Zakim]
17:51:01 [Zakim]
17:51:05 [timbl]
17:51:06 [Zakim]
17:51:07 [Norm]
See you all in six days! :-)
17:51:08 [Zakim]
17:51:16 [Zakim]
17:51:18 [Zakim]
TAG_Weekly()12:30PM has ended
17:51:19 [Zakim]
Attendees were [IBMCambridge], noah, Norm, Raman, Ht, DanC, Vincent, TimBL, Dave_Orchard
17:51:49 [timbl]
ooops i dropped off to take a phone call and the headset switched over to the cellphone when i tried to get bacl
17:52:17 [noah]
As you can see, we've wrapped up anyway.
17:53:22 [noah]
s/my work on/my attempts to have for the F2F a new draft of/
17:54:03 [timbl]
I weas surprised to see the wrap up
17:59:54 [noah]
As Vincent said, the agenda was short.
18:00:35 [noah]
I'm off to NY for 2+ days. Will try to fit in metaDataInURI redraft. In any case, we'll hook up Monday morning for F2F.
18:36:34 [timbl_]
timbl_ has left #tagmem
19:47:24 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #tagmem
20:12:58 [Norm]
Norm has joined #tagmem
20:25:53 [Norm]
Norm has joined #tagmem
20:51:51 [Norm]
Norm has joined #tagmem