16:49:37 RRSAgent has joined #tagmem 16:49:37 logging to http://www.w3.org/2006/07/25-tagmem-irc 16:49:41 zakim, this will be tag 16:49:41 ok, Norm; I see TAG_Weekly()12:30PM scheduled to start 19 minutes ago 16:50:03 Norm has changed the topic to: TAG: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2006/07/25-agenda.html 16:51:38 latest seems to be Freecycle, 18 Jul 2006 16:53:23 yeah, cwm is grinding through a whole shitload of RDF :-/ 16:53:27 it'll be published "real soon now" 16:57:12 TAG_Weekly()12:30PM has now started 16:57:19 +Raman 16:57:38 raman has joined #tagmem 16:59:15 noah has joined #tagmem 16:59:57 +[IBMCambridge] 17:00:04 dorchard has joined #tagmem 17:00:06 zakim, [IBMCambridge] is me 17:00:06 +noah; got it 17:01:20 ht has joined #tagmem 17:01:29 I'm coming 17:01:32 expecting to scribe 17:01:36 zakim, please call ht-781 17:01:36 ok, ht; the call is being made 17:01:38 +Ht 17:01:39 Vincent has joined #tagmem 17:01:46 +DanC 17:01:51 Meeting: TAG telcon 17:01:56 Chair: Vincent Quint 17:02:05 Scribe: Henry S Thompson 17:02:10 Scribenick: ht 17:02:25 +Norm 17:02:42 zakim, who's on the phone? 17:02:42 On the phone I see Raman, noah, Ht, DanC, Norm 17:03:01 +TimBL 17:03:18 +??P15 17:03:19 timbl_ has joined #tagmem 17:03:47 I'll be joining a bit late 17:03:58 Topic: Admin 17:04:07 zakim, who is here? 17:04:07 On the phone I see Raman, noah, Ht, DanC, Norm, TimBL, Vincent 17:04:08 On IRC I see timbl_, Vincent, ht, dorchard, noah, raman, RRSAgent, Zakim, Norm, DanC 17:05:37 Present: Dan Connolly, Tim Berners-Lee, Noah Mendelsohn, TV Raman, Vincent Quint, Henry S Thompson, Norm Walsh 17:05:45 Regrets: Ed Rice 17:05:53 Coming late: Dave Orchard 17:06:03 1 August call cancelled 17:06:23 8 August, DanC to Chair, regrets from Norm Walsh, Vincent Quint, Tim Berners-Lee 17:06:35 Norm has joined #tagmem 17:06:43 TimBL missing for all of August 17:06:53 +DOrchard 17:06:56 VQ missing for last three meetings in August 17:07:14 s/Coming late:/Present:/ 17:07:39 Minutes of last telcon (http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2006/07/18-minutes.html) 17:08:09 Approved. 17:08:28 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 Today's agenda: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2006/07/25-agenda.html' 17:09:12 q+ to note a DDR workshop report 17:09:13 Late addition: URNsAndRegistries-50 17:09:27 NM: Request slot at the end to comment on metadata-in-URI 17:10:09 NM: Planning for Oct. f2f -- leave it until September? 17:10:15 you can get your tickets now, no? "face-to-face meeting, 4-5 Oct 2006, Vancouver, BC, Canada, hosted by BEA" -- http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ 17:10:47 DO: Logistics page will be available soon -- meeting at the ??? hotel confirmed 17:11:23 ... We will get special rate as long as we've got six people staying 17:11:23 ack DanC 17:11:23 DanC, you wanted to note a DDR workshop report 17:11:57 DC: DDR workshop report is out - - should we have agenda item to discuss? 17:12:20 NM: [scribe missed] 17:12:36 . http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/DDWG/workshop2006/report.html 17:12:44 VQ: Add an agenda item on that if time allows 17:13:01 Meeting at the Opus Hotel with 6 rooms blocked. 17:13:47 s/??? hotel/Opus Hotel/ 17:14:10 VQ: I've produced a first draft of our required quarterly report 17:14:17 ... will circulate shortly 17:14:26 ... and send if no comments 17:14:44 Topic: New media types 17:15:12 VQ: First draft out from NM: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2006Jul/0027.html 17:16:03 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 has joined #tagmem 17:16:35 ... They're worried that they may get pulled up for this at review time, and so they asked the AB 17:17:00 Ian, is it really the case that tag issue #1 is still open? is that a bookkeeping bug? 17:17:31 ... The AB asked the TAG if there was a technical aspect to this 17:18:11 re issue #1, http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/0430-mime is approved (or so it claims) and it refers to http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#w3cMediaType-1 , which doesn't say it's closed. 17:18:25 ... 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 ... We got some pushback from publishing a draft to that effect 17:19:02 ... Saying basically: "You use it, you have to pay for it" 17:19:15 ... I.e. do the work to get it registered 17:19:23 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/0430-mime 17:19:27 "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 " 17:19:42 And there's this: 17:19:42 http://www.w3.org/2002/06/registering-mediatype.html 17:19:52 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 So I believe we have guidelines (now well-integrated into the "how to do a rec-track transition documentation") 17:20:09 q+ to note (a hypothesis as to) why audio/wav isn't registered 17:20:19 And the other question of issue 1 was "Should they be defining them at all?" 17:20:27 TBL: Bjorn H. says that the process is easy, but I'm not sure it's easy enough to do this 17:20:43 I think the answer was "yes, and that we review that info during rec-track process" 17:21:06 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 NM: I thought the history of some of this was arose from commercial initiatives, which have passed in to common use 17:21:42 audio/vnd.wave;codec=1 17:21:51 per 17:21:51 http://www.iana.org/assignments/wave-avi-codec-registry 17:21:51 and 17:21:51 http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2361.txt June 1998 17:21:51 ... but it wouldn't be appropriate for e.g. me to register them 17:22:22 DC: The reason audio/wav isn't registered is that there's not enough information there 17:22:28 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 NM: This is one of the examples which Ken Laskey included in his original question 17:24:15 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 NM: I thought to register a type you have to have some authoritative knowledge to register a media type 17:25:21 ... Are you really saying that there's no minimum bar for what you need to know? 17:25:41 DC: Not in practice -- no reason to want to have something in wide usage and not register it 17:26:01 TBL: NM is asking whether what amount to 3rd parties can/should register 17:26:26 NM: Yes 17:26:40 DC: Well, just do it, and the people who _should_ have done it can step in and take over 17:27:04 From my email: 17:27:08 * Accordingly, workgroups should in general arrange for registration of 17:27:08 new media types that they may create, and should make reasonable efforts 17:27:08 to promote the proper registration of other formats on which their 17:27:08 Recommendations depend. 17:27:09 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 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 ... [missed something ending: ... "it breaks"] 17:28:07 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 ... 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 Also from my email: 17:29:08 * Workgroups preparing Recommendations should in general make reasonable 17:29:08 efforts to avoid dependencies on media types or other data formats that 17:29:08 are not properly registered with the appropriate registration authority. 17:29:08 In the case of MIME media types, that authority is IANA. 17:29:13 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 s/such a WD/such a WG/ 17:30:39 NM: [reads from http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2006Jul/0027.html] 17:31:10 ... which concludes with the most controversial bit, which describes the basis for the exception to the "should" above 17:31:37 DC: I haven't heard any examples motivating the last bit -- just leave it out 17:32:11 TBL: Suppose the W3C had a list of the media types used in w3c specs but not registered with IETF 17:32:22 DC: This is a good use of whose time? 17:32:42 TBL: Well, we could then refer to this on IETF liaison calls 17:33:06 NM: Remember the original question was to the AB regarding the Process 17:33:14 q+ to point out we're not in the Process business 17:33:34 ack ht 17:33:34 ht, you wanted to point out we're not in the Process business 17:33:36 DC: We should not give them this out 17:33:57 TVR: I don't believe we should say that 17:34:36 ... 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 DC: We don't need to do _anything_ to allow people to get excused a requirement at the final review 17:35:41 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 TBL: An example? 17:36:05 TVR: Not a media type, but [xxx scribe missed] 17:37:00 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 (re timbl's "suppose we had a list..." comment, there is such a list in http://www.w3.org/2002/06/registering-mediatype.html ; 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 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 noah, we can say "follow your nose is important" without suggesting any sort of MUST/MAY re process. 17:42:19 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 perhaps reply to the AB by citing http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/0430-mime 17:42:34 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/0430-mime 17:42:43 DC: What about http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/0430-mime 17:42:53 ... Could we cite that to the AB 17:42:55 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 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 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 +1 give the AB points 1 and 2 (and perhaps note in passing http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/0430-mime ) 17:45:08 NM: Indeed -- Mark Nottingham asked if we might consider _extending_ that finding to cover [Category B] 17:45:48 VQ: Should we conclude this by just sending points 1 and 2 to the AB? 17:46:06 that's reasonable "it's a process question and beyond the TAG's remit to say when latitude is in order" 17:46:15 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 ... Maybe we should add something saying that the AB need to understand that sometimes flexibility is required 17:46:57 s/Mark Nottingham/Mark Baker/ 17:47:00 TVR: Yes, we should make sure they understand that 17:47:33 NM: Can we get an email review of my redraft? 17:47:57 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 VQ: Need to converge quickly, before next telcon, as AB is waiting 17:48:16 ... Let's do this by email 17:48:45 NM: Deadline by Friday? 17:48:48 VQ: Yes 17:49:20 ACTION: NM to redraft, forward to AB unless unresolved negative comments from TAG members 17:49:59 VQ: Does TAG issue number 1 relate to this? There's a two-line resolution, but it still shows as open. 17:50:25 DC: I think the issues list is correct, the issue is still open, the finding didn't close it. 17:50:44 VQ: Well, there's been nothing on this since 2002. . . 17:51:25 VQ: OK, that's alright as it stands then 17:51:36 Topic: issue XMLVersioning-41 17:51:58 VQ: Some discussion last week, but document was new at that time 17:52:11 ... Any comments after a further week ? 17:52:23 NW: Will send comments in the next week or so 17:53:06 (the "Example 2: Evolution of Producers and/or Consumers" diagram is nice.) 17:53:51 (indeed, partial understanding is the holy grail.) 17:54:25 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 DO: I'm getting value from interaction of this task with similar task for the W3C XML Schema WG 17:56:20 ... 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 ... So our work is having an immediate impact outside the TAG 17:57:09 (dave, you'll be here on 8 Aug?) 17:57:17 I'll be on 8 Aug 17:57:19 HST: I'll try to review it by the next meeting 17:57:20 cool. 17:57:47 DO: I'll try to get another iteration on partial understanding ASAP 17:58:11 s/ASAP/in the next two days/ 17:58:15 VQ: Yes please 17:59:05 (indeed, congrats DO for slaying the CVS dragons and producing http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/versioning ) 17:59:09 VQ: Much better now that it's in the same place with the other draft findings 17:59:24 ... Could part 2 be moved as well? 17:59:28 DO: Yes, I will do that 17:59:45 Topic: issue URNsAndRegistries-50 18:00:07 VQ: Triggered by email from DC: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2006Jul/0019.html 18:00:11 public mail: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-semweb-lifesci/2006Jul/0027.html 18:01:15 DC: Semantic Web Healthcare and Life Sciences IG are discussing LSID: Life Sciences Identifier, used for e.g. proteins -- URN:LSID:domain.name:.... 18:01:39 ... The usual reasons were given for not using http, and I pushed back 18:02:25 ... I've been reading the LSID spec (from OMG) -- there is one new thing, maybe, namely that they are immutable 18:02:49 TBL: What's 'immutable' 18:03:08 DC: The binding between URI and representations is one-to-one 18:03:31 DC: Also, you have to be able to tell that something is an LSID by looking at it 18:04:06 TBL: You don't get any out-of-band info with a URI 18:04:26 NM: This is different -- this is something they want you to be able to do by inspection 18:04:35 ... without doing a GET 18:04:53 ... They've deployed software which does retrieval 18:05:03 ... Using what protocol? 18:05:36 DC: Not sure -- mag tape? 18:05:52 HST: One of the emails suggested DNS followed by http/ftp/SOAP 18:06:08 q+ to point to my email of today 18:06:24 TBL: They want flexibility, but not too much, and not yet 18:06:44 ... They're still discussing whether an LSID identifies a string of bits or a protein 18:07:26 NM: Is this urgent? 18:07:42 HST: Too late, the spec. defining this is fully baked 18:08:09 DC: Not too late, W3C IG is deciding on Monday 31 July to endorse this as Best Practice or not 18:08:11 the monday meeting is a meeting of the group described in http://esw.w3.org/topic/HCLSIG_BioRDF_Subgroup 18:09:48 Dan asked me about this, I wrote http://norman.walsh.name/2006/07/25/namesAndAddresses in response. FWIW. 18:13:48 HST, DO: DC, could you help us understand the ways in which the finding didn't stand up as an argument? 18:14:22 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 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/URNsAndRegistries-50.html#protocol_independent 18:17:14 TBL: But LSIDs are for retrieval. . . 18:17:38 DC: Still thought there was this thing about using magtape, just associating the name with some of the bits there 18:17:50 ... I'm prepared to think of that as caching. . . 18:18:08 NM: Well, that doesn't really fit with the ordinary understanding of caching 18:18:59 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 TBL: There's this problem with the difference between the URI scheme and the protocol 18:19:44 ... 'http' refers to both 18:20:05 "I am sure 18:20:05 though that you will appreciate that this is not at all the same thing as 18:20:05 being able to actively source the named object from multiple places" -- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-semweb-lifesci/2006Jul/0032.html 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 ... LSID is just a scheme -- maybe it will turn in to a retrieval method in time 18:20:55 Versioning Part 2 is into cvs now 18:21:06 DanC, I refer you to the ARK approach, which uses http and a checksum _in_ the URI 18:22:30 ack ht 18:22:30 ht, you wanted to point to my email of today 18:25:04 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 VQ: Running out of time -- DC, you have more information for your meeting on Monday? 18:27:15 DC: More friends, anyway 18:27:39 VQ: HST, you have more input to the finding? 18:27:42 HST: Yes 18:28:40 Topic: metadata-in-URI 18:29:16 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 ... I'm going to try to pull together a response, maybe some changes 18:29:48 ... But we could just say "ship it as it is". 18:30:07 ... The comments are all in the thread from the announcement of the draft on www-tag 18:31:09 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2006Jun/0157.html 18:31:24 Above is Bjoern's note on metadatInURI 18:31:39 -DOrchard 18:32:06 Stuart's note: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2006Jul/0026.html 18:32:14 -Raman 18:32:48 Adjorned 18:33:06 -Vincent 18:33:08 -noah 18:33:09 -Norm 18:33:18 -DanC 18:33:21 -Ht 18:33:32 RRSAgent, make logs world-visible 18:33:38 RRSAgent, draft minutes 18:33:38 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2006/07/25-tagmem-minutes.html ht 18:38:21 disconnecting the lone participant, TimBL, in TAG_Weekly()12:30PM 18:38:24 TAG_Weekly()12:30PM has ended 18:38:25 Attendees were Raman, noah, Ht, DanC, Norm, TimBL, Vincent, DOrchard 18:39:24 zakim, bye 18:39:24 Zakim has left #tagmem 18:39:27 rrsagent, bye 18:39:27 I see 1 open action item saved in http://www.w3.org/2006/07/25-tagmem-actions.rdf : 18:39:27 ACTION: NM to redraft, forward to AB unless unresolved negative comments from TAG members [1] 18:39:27 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/07/25-tagmem-irc#T17-49-20