16:54:52 RRSAgent has joined #tagmem 16:54:53 logging to http://www.w3.org/2006/06/06-tagmem-irc 16:54:56 zakim, this will be tag 16:54:56 ok, Norm; I see TAG_Weekly()12:30PM scheduled to start 24 minutes ago 16:57:42 ht has joined #tagmem 16:59:30 TAG_Weekly()12:30PM has now started 16:59:37 +[IBMCambridge] 16:59:45 zakim, [IBM is me 16:59:45 +noah; got it 16:59:50 +Norm 16:59:54 -noah 16:59:55 +noah 17:00:25 zakim, who's on the phone? 17:00:25 On the phone I see noah, Norm 17:00:43 +Raman 17:01:12 DanC has joined #tagmem 17:01:15 zakim, please call ht-781 17:01:15 ok, ht; the call is being made 17:01:19 +Ht 17:01:26 +DanC 17:01:51 Vincent has joined #tagmem 17:02:49 +[INRIA] 17:03:07 Zakim, INRIA is Vincent 17:03:07 +Vincent; got it 17:03:26 Zakim, who is here? 17:03:26 On the phone I see noah, Norm, Raman, Ht, DanC, Vincent 17:03:27 On IRC I see Vincent, DanC, ht, RRSAgent, Zakim, noah, Norm 17:05:52 Meeting: TAG Weekly 17:05:55 Chair: VQ 17:06:01 Scribe: DanC 17:06:35 NDW: yes, TV, I'm able to read your document 17:07:12 Zakim, next item 17:07:12 I see nothing on the agenda 17:07:15 +TimBL 17:07:21 Topic: next teleconference 17:07:27 timbl_ has joined #tagmem 17:07:29 timbl has joined #tagmem 17:07:46 PROPOSED: to meet again 20 June 17:08:05 TBL: I seem to have conflicts 20, 27 June 17:08:28 VQ: so that's 3 missing for 20 June 17:08:35 VQ: we'll decide later 17:08:48 We quiet often miss the teleconf afterthe face to face meeting 17:08:49 Topic: review of minutes 17:09:01 -> http://www.w3.org/2006/05/30-tagmem-minutes.html minutes 30 May 17:10:00 DC/VQ: we could have done better with the TOC of 30 May minutes.... 17:10:03 DC: but they're close enough 17:10:09 RESOLVED to accept minutes 30 May 17:10:46 Topic: agenda review 17:11:25 (wondering what became of my action to contact Misha; ah... it's there... http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/actions_owner.html#DC ) 17:11:59 Topic: # f2f meeting next week 17:12:07 VQ: meant to make more progress on the agenda... 17:12:18 ... ETA tomorrow afternoon France time 17:12:48 NDW: [confirms lots of logistics] 17:13:57 -noah 17:14:17 +[IBMCambridge] 17:14:20 HT: on urns/registries... agenda+ please 17:14:21 VQ: ok 17:14:32 zakim, [IBM is me 17:14:32 +noah; got it 17:15:10 DC: phone times? 17:15:22 VQ: we have all day 9-5 reserved all 3 days 17:16:08 VQ: yes, we'll do the stuff most interesting to tlr on Tue AM 17:16:29 Topic: Repositories vs. web pages 17:17:37 TimBL: if it's multiple repositories, that's one thing, but if it's one repository, I have more concerns 17:18:12 +Dave_Orchard 17:18:19 ... it's not clear to me why phone data isn't just published by the manufacturers 1st hand. 17:18:55 ... is this a case where a central iana-style registry is merited? 17:19:33 HT: I see "logical" repository in the abstract; maybe it's federated? 17:21:18 (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: 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 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 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 http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-DDR-requirements-20060410/#iddiv3233209928 17:25:44 (ok, 2.1.5 Normal Flow is the sort of thing that merits review.) 17:28:33 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 q+ to ask whether this (2.1.5) should be SPARQL. 17:30:18 ack timbl 17:30:18 timbl, you wanted to ask whether this (2.1.5) should be SPARQL. 17:31:01 DO: why would the TAG say SPARQL as opposed to SOAP or WSDL 17:31:04 ? 17:31:19 DO: why not XQuery? 17:31:46 TimBL: SPARQL includes an HTTP/URI-based protocol 17:32:26 DanC: somebody in the SPARQL WG (DAWG) already has an action to look at this [I'm pretty sure] 17:34:26 DO: isn't SPARQL more detailed than the level of thing the TAG advocates? 17:34:41 TimBL: I regard SPARQL as pretty generic 17:36:10 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 [er... something like that.] 17:37:28 TimBL: perhaps they've got a fixed schema for which XML Schema/XQuery are a good match... 17:37:46 ... but if their schema is "object/property/value", then that's reinventing RDF. 17:38:15 VQ: I'm not sure about the current work, but CC/PP data was in RDF at one point... 17:38:50 TimBL: yes, the original architecture was pretty good, until they hit this social issue of device vendors running web sites 17:39:32 VQ: so... back to the one repository/many... how shall we proceed? 17:39:50 DC: invite somebody from that group to explain it to us? that's most convenient for me. 17:40:14 ACTION VQ: invite a DD WG person to a TAG meeting to discuss DDR requirements 17:40:50 Topic: New issue? State in Web application design 17:41:32 DO: no strong preference 17:42:03 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 DO: if it's to be a new issue, let's make it a short one [?] like versioning 17:42:50 NM: actually, I think the finding is suffering from that sort of broad approach, as I said in my comments 17:44:16 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 Topic: URNsAndRegistries-50 17:45:21 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/URNsAndRegistries-50.html#authority 17:45:39 HT: I expect to send mail calling for review tomorrow. 17:45:49 ... I'd like ftf time to finish it. 17:47:10 HT: I persued the idea of an http/dns alternative to info: ... and in fact http://lccn.info/2002022641 is live. 17:47:59 VQ: note "reviewing URNs, Namespaces and Registries -- reviewers: DanC, Ed" -- http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2006/06/12-agenda.html 17:48:18 HT: so review should please wait just one more day 17:49:55 NM: my work on [which?] continues to be at risk. 17:50:04 metaDatainURI-31 17:50:11 s/[which?]/metaDatainURI-31/ 17:50:49 ADJOURN. 17:50:51 -Dave_Orchard 17:50:54 -noah 17:50:55 -Raman 17:50:57 -Norm 17:51:01 -Vincent 17:51:05 ooops 17:51:06 -DanC 17:51:07 See you all in six days! :-) 17:51:08 -TimBL 17:51:16 -Ht 17:51:18 TAG_Weekly()12:30PM has ended 17:51:19 Attendees were [IBMCambridge], noah, Norm, Raman, Ht, DanC, Vincent, TimBL, Dave_Orchard 17:51:49 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 As you can see, we've wrapped up anyway. 17:53:22 s/my work on/my attempts to have for the F2F a new draft of/ 17:54:03 I weas surprised to see the wrap up 17:59:54 As Vincent said, the agenda was short. 18:00:35 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_ has left #tagmem 19:47:24 Zakim has left #tagmem 20:12:58 Norm has joined #tagmem 20:25:53 Norm has joined #tagmem 20:51:51 Norm has joined #tagmem