IRC log of tagmem on 2006-07-25

Timestamps are in UTC.

16:49:37 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #tagmem
16:49:37 [RRSAgent]
logging to
16:49:41 [Norm]
zakim, this will be tag
16:49:41 [Zakim]
ok, Norm; I see TAG_Weekly()12:30PM scheduled to start 19 minutes ago
16:50:03 [Norm]
Norm has changed the topic to: TAG:
16:51:38 [DanC]
latest seems to be Freecycle, 18 Jul 2006
16:53:23 [Norm]
yeah, cwm is grinding through a whole shitload of RDF :-/
16:53:27 [Norm]
it'll be published "real soon now"
16:57:12 [Zakim]
TAG_Weekly()12:30PM has now started
16:57:19 [Zakim]
16:57:38 [raman]
raman has joined #tagmem
16:59:15 [noah]
noah has joined #tagmem
16:59:57 [Zakim]
17:00:04 [dorchard]
dorchard has joined #tagmem
17:00:06 [noah]
zakim, [IBMCambridge] is me
17:00:06 [Zakim]
+noah; got it
17:01:20 [ht]
ht has joined #tagmem
17:01:29 [ht]
I'm coming
17:01:32 [ht]
expecting to scribe
17:01:36 [ht]
zakim, please call ht-781
17:01:36 [Zakim]
ok, ht; the call is being made
17:01:38 [Zakim]
17:01:39 [Vincent]
Vincent has joined #tagmem
17:01:46 [Zakim]
17:01:51 [ht]
Meeting: TAG telcon
17:01:56 [ht]
Chair: Vincent Quint
17:02:05 [ht]
Scribe: Henry S Thompson
17:02:10 [ht]
Scribenick: ht
17:02:25 [Zakim]
17:02:42 [Norm]
zakim, who's on the phone?
17:02:42 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Raman, noah, Ht, DanC, Norm
17:03:01 [Zakim]
17:03:18 [Zakim]
17:03:19 [timbl_]
timbl_ has joined #tagmem
17:03:47 [dorchard]
I'll be joining a bit late
17:03:58 [ht]
Topic: Admin
17:04:07 [Vincent]
zakim, who is here?
17:04:07 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Raman, noah, Ht, DanC, Norm, TimBL, Vincent
17:04:08 [Zakim]
On IRC I see timbl_, Vincent, ht, dorchard, noah, raman, RRSAgent, Zakim, Norm, DanC
17:05:37 [ht]
Present: Dan Connolly, Tim Berners-Lee, Noah Mendelsohn, TV Raman, Vincent Quint, Henry S Thompson, Norm Walsh
17:05:45 [ht]
Regrets: Ed Rice
17:05:53 [ht]
Coming late: Dave Orchard
17:06:03 [ht]
1 August call cancelled
17:06:23 [ht]
8 August, DanC to Chair, regrets from Norm Walsh, Vincent Quint, Tim Berners-Lee
17:06:35 [Norm]
Norm has joined #tagmem
17:06:43 [ht]
TimBL missing for all of August
17:06:53 [Zakim]
17:06:56 [ht]
VQ missing for last three meetings in August
17:07:14 [ht]
s/Coming late:/Present:/
17:07:39 [ht]
Minutes of last telcon (
17:08:09 [ht]
17:08:28 [noah]
Seeing that we will have spotty attendance in August, with some people gone the whole month, do we need to plan for any progress on the Oct. 3 F2F logistics during the month of Aug., or can it wait for Sept.?
17:08:47 [ht]
Today's agenda:'
17:09:12 [DanC]
q+ to note a DDR workshop report
17:09:13 [ht]
Late addition: URNsAndRegistries-50
17:09:27 [ht]
NM: Request slot at the end to comment on metadata-in-URI
17:10:09 [ht]
NM: Planning for Oct. f2f -- leave it until September?
17:10:15 [DanC]
you can get your tickets now, no? "face-to-face meeting, 4-5 Oct 2006, Vancouver, BC, Canada, hosted by BEA" --
17:10:47 [ht]
DO: Logistics page will be available soon -- meeting at the ??? hotel confirmed
17:11:23 [ht]
... We will get special rate as long as we've got six people staying
17:11:23 [Vincent]
ack DanC
17:11:23 [Zakim]
DanC, you wanted to note a DDR workshop report
17:11:57 [ht]
DC: DDR workshop report is out - - should we have agenda item to discuss?
17:12:20 [ht]
NM: [scribe missed]
17:12:36 [DanC]
17:12:44 [ht]
VQ: Add an agenda item on that if time allows
17:13:01 [dorchard]
Meeting at the Opus Hotel with 6 rooms blocked.
17:13:47 [ht]
s/??? hotel/Opus Hotel/
17:14:10 [ht]
VQ: I've produced a first draft of our required quarterly report
17:14:17 [ht]
... will circulate shortly
17:14:26 [ht]
... and send if no comments
17:14:44 [ht]
Topic: New media types
17:15:12 [ht]
VQ: First draft out from NM:
17:16:03 [ht]
NM: Background: There are WGs writing WDs which intend to reference common-but-not-registered media types (e.g. audio/wav)
17:16:20 [Ian]
Ian has joined #tagmem
17:16:35 [ht]
... They're worried that they may get pulled up for this at review time, and so they asked the AB
17:17:00 [DanC]
Ian, is it really the case that tag issue #1 is still open? is that a bookkeeping bug?
17:17:31 [ht]
... The AB asked the TAG if there was a technical aspect to this
17:18:11 [DanC]
re issue #1, is approved (or so it claims) and it refers to , which doesn't say it's closed.
17:18:25 [ht]
... TAG discussed this last week -- our conclusion was that in some cases it's really not reasonable to expect WGs to take up the responsibility for dealing with unregistered types
17:18:51 [ht]
... We got some pushback from publishing a draft to that effect
17:19:02 [ht]
... Saying basically: "You use it, you have to pay for it"
17:19:15 [ht]
... I.e. do the work to get it registered
17:19:23 [Ian]
17:19:27 [Ian]
"This Finding was derived from discussion of TAG issues w3cMediaType-1, customMediaType-2, and nsMediaType-3 but in some cases extend beyond the specifics of the issue that was raised.
17:19:27 [Ian]
17:19:42 [Ian]
And there's this:
17:19:42 [Ian]
17:19:52 [ht]
DC: If there are reasons to be impure, that's on a case-by-case basis, the general policy is "Don't do that"
17:20:06 [Ian]
So I believe we have guidelines (now well-integrated into the "how to do a rec-track transition documentation")
17:20:09 [DanC]
q+ to note (a hypothesis as to) why audio/wav isn't registered
17:20:19 [Ian]
And the other question of issue 1 was "Should they be defining them at all?"
17:20:27 [ht]
TBL: Bjorn H. says that the process is easy, but I'm not sure it's easy enough to do this
17:20:43 [Ian]
I think the answer was "yes, and that we review that info during rec-track process"
17:21:06 [Ian]
I am not sure that there was a formal resolution that the issue was closed, or an attempt to see if Mark Baker is satisfied.
17:21:22 [ht]
NM: I thought the history of some of this was arose from commercial initiatives, which have passed in to common use
17:21:42 [DanC]
17:21:51 [DanC]
17:21:51 [DanC]
17:21:51 [DanC]
17:21:51 [DanC] June 1998
17:21:51 [ht]
... but it wouldn't be appropriate for e.g. me to register them
17:22:22 [ht]
DC: The reason audio/wav isn't registered is that there's not enough information there
17:22:28 [raman]
DanC I found your comments/reactions offensive. I'm trying to bring a sense to the TAG as to how WGs life is difficult -- sneering at things saying they should look at IANA isn't a good response
17:23:16 [ht]
NM: This is one of the examples which Ken Laskey included in his original question
17:24:15 [ht]
TV: I think you risk alienating the WG if you push that, it's just the kind of thing which makes WGs not think well of the TAG
17:24:43 [ht]
NM: I thought to register a type you have to have some authoritative knowledge to register a media type
17:25:21 [ht]
... Are you really saying that there's no minimum bar for what you need to know?
17:25:41 [ht]
DC: Not in practice -- no reason to want to have something in wide usage and not register it
17:26:01 [ht]
TBL: NM is asking whether what amount to 3rd parties can/should register
17:26:26 [ht]
NM: Yes
17:26:40 [ht]
DC: Well, just do it, and the people who _should_ have done it can step in and take over
17:27:04 [noah]
From my email:
17:27:08 [noah]
* Accordingly, workgroups should in general arrange for registration of
17:27:08 [noah]
new media types that they may create, and should make reasonable efforts
17:27:08 [noah]
to promote the proper registration of other formats on which their
17:27:08 [noah]
Recommendations depend.
17:27:09 [Norm]
I don't know where you said it, timbl_, but I read it. The XSL and XML Query WGs are putting the registrations in the specs.
17:27:10 [ht]
TBL: My original goal was that all W3C specs should be just like an IETF registration, meeting all the requirements for them
17:27:37 [ht]
... [missed something ending: ... "it breaks"]
17:28:07 [ht]
NM: Right, that's fine for things you're creating within the w3c process which include a new media type -- you better do all the necessary things to register it
17:28:40 [ht]
... But the cases at hand are different -- we have cases where a WD is not defining a _new_ media type, but needing to refer to an existing one
17:29:07 [noah]
Also from my email:
17:29:08 [noah]
* Workgroups preparing Recommendations should in general make reasonable
17:29:08 [noah]
efforts to avoid dependencies on media types or other data formats that
17:29:08 [noah]
are not properly registered with the appropriate registration authority.
17:29:08 [noah]
In the case of MIME media types, that authority is IANA.
17:29:13 [ht]
TVR: Right -- and we shouldn't tell such a WD that they have to take the load of cleaning up behind the people who should have done this
17:29:24 [ht]
s/such a WD/such a WG/
17:30:39 [ht]
NM: [reads from]
17:31:10 [ht]
... which concludes with the most controversial bit, which describes the basis for the exception to the "should" above
17:31:37 [ht]
DC: I haven't heard any examples motivating the last bit -- just leave it out
17:32:11 [ht]
TBL: Suppose the W3C had a list of the media types used in w3c specs but not registered with IETF
17:32:22 [ht]
DC: This is a good use of whose time?
17:32:42 [ht]
TBL: Well, we could then refer to this on IETF liaison calls
17:33:06 [ht]
NM: Remember the original question was to the AB regarding the Process
17:33:14 [ht]
q+ to point out we're not in the Process business
17:33:34 [Vincent]
ack ht
17:33:34 [Zakim]
ht, you wanted to point out we're not in the Process business
17:33:36 [ht]
DC: We should not give them this out
17:33:57 [ht]
TVR: I don't believe we should say that
17:34:36 [ht]
... Someone has to clean up the mess, but using "touched it first" as the way to tell who's the one to do it is a mistake
17:35:09 [ht]
DC: We don't need to do _anything_ to allow people to get excused a requirement at the final review
17:35:41 [ht]
TVR: WGs see such prohibitions as real prohibitions, they don't think in terms of breaking them and making the case for that
17:35:52 [ht]
TBL: An example?
17:36:05 [ht]
TVR: Not a media type, but [xxx scribe missed]
17:37:00 [ht]
TBL: I'm still looking for an example. If there are lots of these out there, that's v. different from the situation if there are only a handful
17:37:32 [DanC]
(re timbl's "suppose we had a list..." comment, there is such a list in ; Martin used to maintain it. I don't think it's worth much of my time. I think PLH spends some time on it.)
17:39:18 [ht]
HST: I don't see a technical issue here, beyond "The TAG believes in follow-your-nose, unregistered media types break that, registering media types is a Good Thing"
17:41:15 [DanC]
noah, we can say "follow your nose is important" without suggesting any sort of MUST/MAY re process.
17:42:19 [ht]
HST: NM, is that message a draft of a message to the AB; or for the AB to resend as if it were theirs; or as a TAG statement to the public
17:42:31 [DanC]
perhaps reply to the AB by citing
17:42:34 [noah]
17:42:43 [ht]
DC: What about
17:42:53 [ht]
... Could we cite that to the AB
17:42:55 [noah]
W3C Working Groups engaged in defining a format follow How to Register a Media Type with IANA [IANAREG] to register an Internet Media Type (defined in [RFC2046]) for the format.
17:44:07 [DanC]
this sentence _almost_ says that follow-your-nose is important. "Web architecture depends on applications having a shared understanding of the messages exchanged between agents (for example, clients, servers, and intermediaries) and a shared expectation of how the payload of a message -- a representation -- will be interpreted by the recipient."
17:44:40 [ht]
HST: That looks like it just covers the Category A cases (WG owns the media type and is creating it), but not the Category B cases (WG does _not_ own the media type, it already is in use, but not registered)
17:45:06 [DanC]
+1 give the AB points 1 and 2 (and perhaps note in passing )
17:45:08 [ht]
NM: Indeed -- Mark Nottingham asked if we might consider _extending_ that finding to cover [Category B]
17:45:48 [ht]
VQ: Should we conclude this by just sending points 1 and 2 to the AB?
17:46:06 [DanC]
that's reasonable "it's a process question and beyond the TAG's remit to say when latitude is in order"
17:46:15 [ht]
NM: If that's _all_ we do, we risk the AB understanding this as telling the AB to make it firm and strong
17:46:45 [ht]
... Maybe we should add something saying that the AB need to understand that sometimes flexibility is required
17:46:57 [noah]
s/Mark Nottingham/Mark Baker/
17:47:00 [ht]
TVR: Yes, we should make sure they understand that
17:47:33 [ht]
NM: Can we get an email review of my redraft?
17:47:57 [DanC]
I'm willing to be critical path. how about noah sends; if I give a thumbs-up and nobody gives a thumbs-down in 2 days, noah sends to AB
17:48:00 [ht]
VQ: Need to converge quickly, before next telcon, as AB is waiting
17:48:16 [ht]
... Let's do this by email
17:48:45 [ht]
NM: Deadline by Friday?
17:48:48 [ht]
VQ: Yes
17:49:20 [ht]
ACTION: NM to redraft, forward to AB unless unresolved negative comments from TAG members
17:49:59 [ht]
VQ: Does TAG issue number 1 relate to this? There's a two-line resolution, but it still shows as open.
17:50:25 [ht]
DC: I think the issues list is correct, the issue is still open, the finding didn't close it.
17:50:44 [ht]
VQ: Well, there's been nothing on this since 2002. . .
17:51:25 [ht]
VQ: OK, that's alright as it stands then
17:51:36 [ht]
Topic: issue XMLVersioning-41
17:51:58 [ht]
VQ: Some discussion last week, but document was new at that time
17:52:11 [ht]
... Any comments after a further week ?
17:52:23 [ht]
NW: Will send comments in the next week or so
17:53:06 [DanC]
(the "Example 2: Evolution of Producers and/or Consumers" diagram is nice.)
17:53:51 [DanC]
(indeed, partial understanding is the holy grail.)
17:54:25 [noah]
Noah thanks Dave (a lot) for taking the effort on partial understanding. I think it's really the crux of the overall issue. Once we have that right, I think complete understanding follows almost as the degenerate case.
17:55:00 [ht]
DO: I'm getting value from interaction of this task with similar task for the W3C XML Schema WG
17:56:20 [ht]
... For example, the extension and restriction constructs relate to the syntax set, not the information set -- that distinction is proving very helpful
17:56:53 [ht]
... So our work is having an immediate impact outside the TAG
17:57:09 [DanC]
(dave, you'll be here on 8 Aug?)
17:57:17 [dorchard]
I'll be on 8 Aug
17:57:19 [ht]
HST: I'll try to review it by the next meeting
17:57:20 [DanC]
17:57:47 [ht]
DO: I'll try to get another iteration on partial understanding ASAP
17:58:11 [ht]
s/ASAP/in the next two days/
17:58:15 [ht]
VQ: Yes please
17:59:05 [DanC]
(indeed, congrats DO for slaying the CVS dragons and producing )
17:59:09 [ht]
VQ: Much better now that it's in the same place with the other draft findings
17:59:24 [ht]
... Could part 2 be moved as well?
17:59:28 [ht]
DO: Yes, I will do that
17:59:45 [ht]
Topic: issue URNsAndRegistries-50
18:00:07 [ht]
VQ: Triggered by email from DC:
18:00:11 [DanC]
public mail:
18:01:15 [ht]
DC: Semantic Web Healthcare and Life Sciences IG are discussing LSID: Life Sciences Identifier, used for e.g. proteins --
18:01:39 [ht]
... The usual reasons were given for not using http, and I pushed back
18:02:25 [ht]
... I've been reading the LSID spec (from OMG) -- there is one new thing, maybe, namely that they are immutable
18:02:49 [ht]
TBL: What's 'immutable'
18:03:08 [ht]
DC: The binding between URI and representations is one-to-one
18:03:31 [ht]
DC: Also, you have to be able to tell that something is an LSID by looking at it
18:04:06 [ht]
TBL: You don't get any out-of-band info with a URI
18:04:26 [ht]
NM: This is different -- this is something they want you to be able to do by inspection
18:04:35 [ht]
... without doing a GET
18:04:53 [ht]
... They've deployed software which does retrieval
18:05:03 [ht]
... Using what protocol?
18:05:36 [ht]
DC: Not sure -- mag tape?
18:05:52 [ht]
HST: One of the emails suggested DNS followed by http/ftp/SOAP
18:06:08 [ht]
q+ to point to my email of today
18:06:24 [ht]
TBL: They want flexibility, but not too much, and not yet
18:06:44 [ht]
... They're still discussing whether an LSID identifies a string of bits or a protein
18:07:26 [ht]
NM: Is this urgent?
18:07:42 [ht]
HST: Too late, the spec. defining this is fully baked
18:08:09 [ht]
DC: Not too late, W3C IG is deciding on Monday 31 July to endorse this as Best Practice or not
18:08:11 [DanC]
the monday meeting is a meeting of the group described in
18:09:48 [Norm]
Dan asked me about this, I wrote in response. FWIW.
18:13:48 [ht]
HST, DO: DC, could you help us understand the ways in which the finding didn't stand up as an argument?
18:14:22 [ht]
NM: Well, it reads as an argument which works for someone who's already convinced, but won't work for a skeptic. . .
18:14:36 [DanC]
18:17:14 [ht]
TBL: But LSIDs are for retrieval. . .
18:17:38 [ht]
DC: Still thought there was this thing about using magtape, just associating the name with some of the bits there
18:17:50 [ht]
... I'm prepared to think of that as caching. . .
18:18:08 [ht]
NM: Well, that doesn't really fit with the ordinary understanding of caching
18:18:59 [ht]
DC: I think it does -- the names are distributed, and then wrt those names, the data is distributed (via magtape, because they're big)
18:19:36 [ht]
TBL: There's this problem with the difference between the URI scheme and the protocol
18:19:44 [ht]
... 'http' refers to both
18:20:05 [DanC]
"I am sure
18:20:05 [DanC]
though that you will appreciate that this is not at all the same thing as
18:20:05 [DanC]
being able to actively source the named object from multiple places" -- I started a "it's not at all obvious to me that these are different" reply, but then hit the immutability stuff in the LSID spec and paused.
18:20:13 [ht]
... LSID is just a scheme -- maybe it will turn in to a retrieval method in time
18:20:55 [dorchard]
Versioning Part 2 is into cvs now
18:21:06 [ht]
DanC, I refer you to the ARK approach, which uses http and a checksum _in_ the URI
18:22:30 [Vincent]
ack ht
18:22:30 [Zakim]
ht, you wanted to point to my email of today
18:25:04 [ht]
HST: I learned, in writing my replies to the LSID mail, that the burden is on the _protocol_ to specify what _schemes_ it can work with, _not_ the other way around.
18:26:58 [ht]
VQ: Running out of time -- DC, you have more information for your meeting on Monday?
18:27:15 [ht]
DC: More friends, anyway
18:27:39 [ht]
VQ: HST, you have more input to the finding?
18:27:42 [ht]
HST: Yes
18:28:40 [ht]
Topic: metadata-in-URI
18:29:16 [ht]
NM: We were nearly ready to go, then we got feedback from Stuart Williams and Bjoern Hoerrman, which put the brakes on
18:29:37 [ht]
... I'm going to try to pull together a response, maybe some changes
18:29:48 [ht]
... But we could just say "ship it as it is".
18:30:07 [ht]
... The comments are all in the thread from the announcement of the draft on www-tag
18:31:09 [noah]
18:31:24 [noah]
Above is Bjoern's note on metadatInURI
18:31:39 [Zakim]
18:32:06 [noah]
Stuart's note:
18:32:14 [Zakim]
18:32:48 [ht]
18:33:06 [Zakim]
18:33:08 [Zakim]
18:33:09 [Zakim]
18:33:18 [Zakim]
18:33:21 [Zakim]
18:33:32 [ht]
RRSAgent, make logs world-visible
18:33:38 [ht]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
18:33:38 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate ht
18:38:21 [Zakim]
disconnecting the lone participant, TimBL, in TAG_Weekly()12:30PM
18:38:24 [Zakim]
TAG_Weekly()12:30PM has ended
18:38:25 [Zakim]
Attendees were Raman, noah, Ht, DanC, Norm, TimBL, Vincent, DOrchard
18:39:24 [ht]
zakim, bye
18:39:24 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #tagmem
18:39:27 [ht]
rrsagent, bye
18:39:27 [RRSAgent]
I see 1 open action item saved in :
18:39:27 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: NM to redraft, forward to AB unless unresolved negative comments from TAG members [1]
18:39:27 [RRSAgent]
recorded in