See also: IRC log
No regrets, Dave Orchard to scribe
HST: Read them, they were helpful to someone who missed the call
NM: They look OK
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2006Oct/att-0053/10-tagmem-minutes.html approved
<DanC> (edits done. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2006/10/04-tagmem-minutes 2006/10/17 17:03:54 )
VQ: No plans to combine into a single
document
The links from the agenda are as
follows:
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2006/10/04-agenda.html#minutes 1.29 2006/10/10 21:04:01
VQ: Anyone requesting changes unhappy about the current state?
<DanC> minutes are ok by me
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2006/10/04-tagmem-minutes 2006/10/17 17:03:54
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2006/10/05-morning-minutes.html 2006/10/10 21:02:11
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2006/10/05-afternoon-minutes.html 2006/10/09 15:23:29
RESOLUTION: f2f minutes approved
DO: Request move AC Meeting and Backplane Meeting to the end
VQ: Agreed
NM: I took Tim's start and reworked it, at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2006Oct/0061.html
DO: Haven't read this yet, sorry
<DanC> (no need to apologize; it was only available very recently.)
<Zakim> timbl, you wanted to say: A third point I was thinking of was: "Some specific feature of the WS stack is required which is not available in the HTTP protocol."
NM: To summarize: Starts with assumed
motivations (no TCP support; No access to HTTP but Web Services
wanted; Web Services facilities such as security necessary)
... points to history and status
... points to team comment bringing the TAG into the
discussion
... Is this TimBL solo or TimBL on behalf of the TAG?
TBL: on behalf of
VQ: Yes
TBL: OK, I'm ready to send once DO has agreed
NM: Yes, 'hereby' should come out
VQ: I'll update the issues list this week
DO: So suppose we send this note, and
some discussion happens -- then what?
... Any further activity the TAG would like to do?
DC: I expect we'll close issue 7 again, with the addition of some comment about WS-Transfer
DO: We're moving into a reactive
mode. . .
... less proactive than I would prefer
<Noah> Specifically, "hereby" should come out because issue 7 is in fact already open. Suggest the sentence should read: The TAG has reopened issue whenToUseGet-7, in part to facilitate discussion of WS-Transfer.
<Noah> Also, we do have to edit in reference [4], which is to the 10 Oct Telcon minutes just approved, I.e. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2006Oct/att-0053/10-tagmem-minutes.html
DC: Sympathetic, but no immediate inspiration
VQ: DO, once you've read the draft, you can suggest changes
DO: Well, there's the note, and
there's our future action
... Seems to me there's technology missing, which we should take
the lead on, if the TAG agrees after talking about it
TBL: The HTTP arch. and the Web
Services arch are to some extent distinct == a fork
... There is a large community already using WS, hence a need for
something such as WS-Transfer naturally arises
... The Web Services arch is too big to force change on, it's too
late to make it much more closely integrated with HTTP. . .
ER: DO, are you asking us to lead the discussion about this?
DO: Well, maybe this _is_ the
discussion, i.e. "well, there's a fork, so it goes". . .
... That's not the conclusion I expected
NM: I'm comfortable for now to open
the discussion, w/o trying to steer it from the start
... We have made some progress, e.g. in getting RESTful bits into
the SOAP REC, even if there hasn't been much uptake
... This may be an opportunity to do something similar in this case
-- that there's real value in aligning what WS is doing with what
HTTP already does
... For example, managing a printer with WS would be richer if it
had a URI as well as an EPR, so you can for instance use conneg
<Noah> I have prepared an edited copy of the WS-Transfer note. I believe it captures all changes suggested on this call. Will send out as soon as we decide no more changes for now.
VQ: Plan is to send a message on
behalf of the TAG. Once DO reviews, TimBL can send right away if DO
is happy, otherwise we can return to this next week
... But NM is not going to be here. . .
NM: I don't need another review, you can go ahead without me even if you change things
VQ: Only reason to wait is if DO is not happy
<Noah> Edited version is at: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2006Oct/0063.html
DC: Haven't read latest version yet. . .
VQ: All please read after the call, unless DO says 'no', TBL can send to public list
<timbl> 0063 is OK by me.
DO: I will read by end of the day
VQ: DO, before you leave, any ideas for this?
DO: Versioning, perhaps?
VQ: Other suggestions?
... In Edinburgh we discussed Compact URIs (in June)
... In Cannes we reported on our activities in general, focussing
on one or two issues
In Montreal, ditto, focussing on URNsAndRegistries-50
<Zakim> Noah, you wanted to say that we need to start demonstrating value
VQ: Two concrete questions:
1) Should we open an issue on tag soup vs. XML?
2) Should we use our slot at the AC on this topic?
TBL: We could try to get it scheduled
at a time which would allow more worldwide participation by
'phone
... 6am or 10pm, if you had to choose?
DC, NM: 10pm
NW: 6am
<EdR> 6am
<Noah> NM: Not much preference, especially insofar as I'll be in "listen-only" mode either way.
DC: We need to be sure not to overlap too much with other AC topics. . .
VQ: So, it's just one suggestion -- any others?
TBL: Tag soup vs XML may come up whether we talk about it or not
<dorchard> I just signed on, no phone yet, any interest in versioning at the AC meeting?
<DanC> (do we have an issue about namespaces and media types? ah yes, indeed we do. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html?type=1#nsMediaType-3 )
<DanC> (hmm... Subsumed by issue(s) mixedNamespaceMeaning-13 on 22 Apr 2002)
VQ: Indeed we should try to focus our
contribution on architecture issues
... Should we then take this as our primary topic for the AC
meeting?
<Noah> Probably a long shot in motivating those concerned, but I think I'm right that it's going to be easier to GRDDL XHTML than TAG soup. If semantic web takes off, then documents in XHTML will, in at least that particular sense, be that much more valuable.
VQ: Volunteer to start a discussion
on this topic, to get the ball rolling
... We also need someone to make the presentation at the AC
meeting
<DanC> hard to say, noah. adding tidy seems to be a small cost to add to GRDDL and other semantic web doodads.
VQ: Attendees will be TimBL, HST and VQ
<Noah> Yes, I suppose you're right. Especially insofar as tidy is viewed as reliable, and in my experience it is indeed surprisingly good.
HST: I did it last time, TBL usually declines on the grounds that he has his own slot, VQ as chairman tries to stay neutral. . .
VQ: I would prefer not to lead this
VQ: So, back to the tag soup vs. XML -- do we need a new issue?
DC: TBL's perspective suggests issue 51 already covers it
NM: So either we give it a new issue,
or we explicitly put it under several issues
... self-description is in that category as well
... it all connects up, for example namespaces vs. microformats,
where the heavier weight approach is more in line with
self-describing
<DanC> standardizedFieldValues-51: Squatting on link relationship names, x-tokens, registries, and URI-based extensibility http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html#standardizedFieldValues-51
DC: Can we rename issue 51, that's really what I was concerned with there
NM: That's the fine-grained aspect of
this, but the self-describing stance is much broader
... The overall value of follow-your-nose is much broader than the
field-value concerns of microformats
<DanC> (hmm... at some point I asked somebody to write up introducing lanuguage N+1 given languages 1...N are out there. Norm, does that rign a bell? I wonder which action, if any, that was related to.)
NM: The motivation for microformats
comes from the relative weight of the thing you're trying to do
(add a phone number) and the cost of doing it (a namespace
declaration and use which is twice the size of the phone
number)
... but to me that's a one end of a scale wrt which whole languages
are at the other end
DC: The key contrast is between doing things guerilla-style, or using a URI you get via a community-approved process
TBL: And that leads on to the contrast between grounded-in-public-definitions and meaning-as-use
NM: There is a difference between avoiding collision and using a public process
[scribe missed discussion of microformat name scoping]
VQ: Issue 51 has not been much
discussed between January and the Vancouver f2f
... We can wait another week to decide about the AC meeting
topic
... Wrt tag soup vs. XML -- let's return to that next week as well,
in terms of how we take it forward (new issue vs. ...)
TBL: I believe there's a strong desire that we give a report on what we've done
DC: I object, that's a waste of time
<ht> +0
VQ: The HCG asked if someone from the TAG will come to Ams -- what about you, HST?
HST: I will go if asked by the TAG
VQ: Is it appropriate for us to name someone
DC: Yes
<timbl> http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/2006/backplane/
[others]: yes
VQ: Anyone other than HST?
DC: Position statement required to get a slice of the programme
<timbl> "An XML data model can be seen as a mobile agent that carries with it selected business rules (e.g. bind statements in XForms) for interacting both with humans on the front-end and with a service-oriented architecture (SOA) on the back-end"
HST: If I plan to do that, I will send a draft to this group before doing so