IRC log of tagmem on 2007-03-06

Timestamps are in UTC.

13:50:58 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #tagmem
13:50:58 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2007/03/06-tagmem-irc
13:52:47 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #tagmem
13:52:56 [Stuart]
zakim, this is tag
13:52:56 [Zakim]
Stuart, I see TAG_f2f()9:00AM in the schedule but not yet started. Perhaps you mean "this will be tag".
13:53:59 [DanC_lap]
DanC_lap has joined #tagmem
13:55:07 [ht_mit]
I will be there in 6 minutes :-)
13:55:40 [timbl]
timbl has joined #tagmem
13:55:40 [Raman]
ht, am in the boardroom already --
14:08:10 [DanC_lap]
apologies; I'm detained for a few minutes...
14:08:25 [Stuart]
eta?
14:09:10 [Vincent]
Vincent has joined #tagmem
14:10:14 [Noah]
Noah has joined #tagmem
14:10:56 [Rhys]
scribenick rhys
14:11:10 [Rhys]
scribenick: rhys
14:11:29 [timbl]
Zakim?
14:11:44 [timbl]
Zakim, what conference will this be?
14:11:44 [Zakim]
I don't understand your question, timbl.
14:11:46 [Rhys]
topic: agenda review
14:12:05 [Rhys]
stuart reviews the agenda
14:12:46 [Rhys]
noah points out that dave won't be available until later and suggests that we do Henry's item first
14:13:46 [Rhys]
Stuart describes the work he's done trying to organise themes for the tag and reviewing the issues list
14:14:57 [Rhys]
TVR we might want to finish a little later today than tomorrow
14:15:19 [Rhys]
SW That is the plan.
14:16:01 [Rhys]
TimBL we should remember that we've had a year of doing rather fragmented things and we should try and be more focussed on getting text out and pulling things together.
14:17:32 [Rhys]
Topic: Administrivia
14:17:57 [Rhys]
Regrets from Dave Orchard but hoping to be here via phone/shared whiteboard
14:18:13 [Rhys]
Regrets also from Ed Rice
14:18:50 [DanC_lap]
DanC_lap has changed the topic to: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2007/03/06-agenda
14:20:00 [Rhys]
Topic: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2005Jun/0039.html
14:20:41 [ht_mit]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2007Feb/0029.html
14:22:07 [Rhys]
Minutes duely approved
14:22:21 [Rhys]
Topic: Administrivia
14:23:52 [Rhys]
SW proposal for next face to face is May 30 to Jun 1
14:24:02 [DanC_lap]
" I propose that
14:24:02 [DanC_lap]
we schedule our next F2F meeting 30th May-1st June 2007 in the San
14:24:02 [DanC_lap]
Francisco Bay Area with apologies to Henry."
14:25:40 [DanC_lap]
TVR has volunteered to host
14:26:36 [Rhys]
TVR would like to confirm today to be able to sort logistics
14:27:39 [Rhys]
NM points out that there are limits on flights from SF eastwards for US and Europe
14:28:09 [Rhys]
SW points out that earlier in the week is difficult because of public holidays
14:28:31 [Rhys]
HT points out that he has a family conflict but may well be able to attend
14:28:45 [Rhys]
TVR asks whether we need 3 days for the meeting or not
14:29:28 [Rhys]
NM we need to be able to resolve this now because of flight bookings
14:30:13 [Rhys]
There is some willingness for some people to stay longer
14:33:47 [Norm]
Norm has joined #tagmem
14:33:47 [ndw_]
ndw_ has joined #tagmem
14:35:38 [Rhys]
Stuart proposes the 30th to the 1st
14:36:07 [DanC_lap]
2.5 days works for me
14:36:08 [Rhys]
Discussion about the availability of flights. Proposal to start as early as possible to get the most value from the third day
14:36:51 [timbl]
Flight AA194
14:36:51 [Rhys]
TVR points out that it is easy to start at 8 and that we can have breakfast during the meeting
14:37:02 [ht_mit]
AA194 1410--2245
14:37:06 [Rhys]
No dissent
14:37:12 [Noah]
SFO-BOS
14:37:22 [Rhys]
Resolved to meet May 30th to June 1st
14:37:28 [DanC_lap]
half day on 1 Jun
14:37:44 [Rhys]
NW What about dates beyond that
14:38:14 [Rhys]
SW TimBL has proposed a two day meeting in Southampton in September
14:38:44 [Rhys]
SW Dave has a preference to avoid the Monday
14:39:02 [Rhys]
TimBL I have a meeting that is scheduled for the Wednesday. I could look at it.
14:39:16 [Rhys]
SW we'll come back to that one
14:40:47 [Rhys]
SW reviews notes taken during calls with TAG members. Suggests using this as a basis for reflection.
14:41:04 [Rhys]
SW invites Henry to comment on recent peer to peer meeting
14:41:42 [Rhys]
HT Peer to peer has come up a number of times in previous discussions about TAG work
14:42:11 [Rhys]
HT Similar questions to web services. Is peer to peer part of the web. Does webarch need to be changed to accomodate it
14:42:44 [Rhys]
HT maybe its outside the web. I don't have a particular opinion on this.
14:42:50 [timbl]
q+ to sy that lookibg at things on the fri nges of web acrh is important, and very much support P2P as a topic.
14:43:24 [Rhys]
HT invite to MS cambridge was because they are doing lots of things around peer to peer and they would like to know the answer to that question too
14:43:45 [Rhys]
HT which aspects of the Old Fashioned Web are appropriate for peer to peer
14:44:22 [Rhys]
TVR Looking at lots of things like bit torrent and others, the mechansims are outside the web, but the discovery and publishing is via HTTP
14:44:53 [Rhys]
NM That suggests that we do have a role in aspects of peer to peer.
14:45:08 [DanC_lap]
q+ to agree with TVR that p2p is orthogonal to some point, with 2 exceptions: (1) naming, (2) who gets to say what's the right answer to a get/fetch
14:45:50 [Rhys]
TimBL We do have a role in looking for the potential cracks between different aspects. Supports doing things on the fringes. Supports the idea of doing peer to peer specifically.
14:45:59 [DanC_lap]
Rhys, please write:
14:46:03 [DanC_lap]
TimBL: We do have a role...
14:46:19 [DanC_lap]
the tools will help more if you put the colon in there
14:46:35 [Stuart]
q?
14:46:58 [Rhys]
TimBL: HTML should go in a peer to peer direction.
14:47:15 [DanC_lap]
s/HTML should go/HTTP should go/
14:47:35 [Rhys]
NM: I want the links to work as expected. I don't expect to need to supply information about the user agent to use
14:47:56 [Vincent]
q+
14:48:11 [Noah]
q?
14:48:15 [ht_mit]
http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/p2p_notes.html
14:48:36 [Rhys]
SW: I didn't keep a close eye on the queue. Please prompt me
14:48:51 [DanC_lap]
Topic: Peer-to-Peer
14:48:53 [DanC_lap]
ack danc
14:48:53 [Zakim]
DanC_lap, you wanted to agree with TVR that p2p is orthogonal to some point, with 2 exceptions: (1) naming, (2) who gets to say what's the right answer to a get/fetch
14:49:20 [Stuart]
ack timbl
14:49:20 [Zakim]
timbl, you wanted to sy that lookibg at things on the fri nges of web acrh is important, and very much support P2P as a topic.
14:49:46 [timbl]
q-
14:50:31 [Stuart]
ack Vincent
14:50:43 [Rhys]
DC: where it interacts with web architecture are naming who gets to say what the answer is when you do a fetch
14:51:32 [Rhys]
VQ not only can you discover what you want on peer to peer, but also there can be web-based interaction to perform additional function while you are accessing the peer to peer content
14:51:44 [Rhys]
s/VQ/VQ:/
14:52:33 [Rhys]
VQ: Boundary between peer to peer and web is more difficult to establish than for, say, bit torrent. Streamed TV is a good example.
14:53:55 [Rhys]
HT: These are my notes of meetings with individuals. Goes through them
14:54:56 [DanC_lap]
re uplink bandwidth... and universities... NAT vs IPV6?
14:56:51 [timbl]
HT: No, NAT is not an issue, it is uplink bw
14:57:11 [Rhys]
HT: p2p needs to be more like the OFW with respect to proxies, chunking. There are special purpose proxies that capture and redistribute content.
14:57:27 [timbl]
OFW = Old-Fashioned Web, it seems
14:57:28 [Rhys]
HT: encryption defeats this.
14:57:44 [DanC_lap]
hmm... encryption... again, IPV6 gets in the way?
14:58:16 [Rhys]
HT: Lot's of metadata, but not standardised, so can't be shared. No interest in sharing metadata
14:58:27 [Rhys]
TVR: Privacy is one reason why this doesn't happen
14:59:05 [Rhys]
HT: p2p support is built in to Windows XP and later
14:59:36 [Rhys]
HT: There are legitimate reasons for encryption, beyond hiding the fact that copyright material is being exchanged
15:00:02 [Rhys]
SW: The industry might want to protect its content by encryption
15:00:41 [Rhys]
TimBL: This happened in the satellite industry when uplinks used to be in the clear. Once peopole discovered how to access the feeds, encryption was used to protect them
15:01:50 [Rhys]
HT: There are security issues during legitimate p2p. There are possible attacks, including DoS.
15:02:32 [DanC_lap]
the name "sybil" attack makes sense to me, in the context of "Sally Field gives an outstanding award-winning performance as Sybil, a disturbed young woman who suffers from multiple personality behavior." http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1800124802/info
15:03:16 [Rhys]
HT: There are multiple ways of structuring torrents, including ones based on random numbers
15:03:30 [Rhys]
TimBL Akamai works in a similar way
15:04:48 [Rhys]
HT: Clients can be download only, which is antisocial
15:05:03 [Rhys]
TimBL: But some places don't have the bandwidth for upload
15:05:15 [DanC_lap]
("the venice project" and "joost" are synonyms in my brain. Am I conflating distinct things?)
15:05:32 [Rhys]
HT: That is one of the issues with the Venice project.
15:05:56 [Rhys]
VQ: It's 300 megabytes per hour, which is ok within regular ADSL
15:06:13 [Rhys]
HT: Admits a misunderstanding on the numbers
15:07:07 [Rhys]
HT: Hashes are an issue for security on p2p
15:08:09 [Noah]
q?
15:08:10 [Rhys]
DanC: Elaborates that old PCs can be employed for collaborating in caching
15:08:31 [Rhys]
TimBL: This works for particular communities
15:08:53 [Rhys]
DanC: LOCKSS Lots of Copies Keeps Stuff Safe
15:09:17 [Rhys]
DanC: LOCKSS is operations research. How to do the caching with low maintenance
15:10:10 [timbl]
The whole desigtn assumes that a set of agents are collaborating to gain the benefit of sharing resources, but this sort of things tends not to work for one global comunity including very diverse people, like teens and libraries. I have not seen systems which make communities first class objects with explict commitment and membership.
15:10:17 [Rhys]
HT: LOCKSS assumes that noone is doing the sybil attack and reducing the value
15:11:34 [Noah]
Mentioning Oceanstore (http://oceanstore.cs.berkeley.edu/). Seems similar insofar as it's (I think) a giant peer-to-peer store in the sky, similar in that it has some sort of Byzantine agreement rather than central admin, different (I think) in that it's not fundamentally a front end to the Web, but a store of its own. You know when you're putting things into Oceanstore. All this is based on my vague recollections of what I heard about the project.
15:11:45 [Rhys]
HT: Last block problem is that most people who are downloading anything obscure are also downloading it. Most don't have all of the file you want. Not last chronologically, the last that completes the file for you.
15:12:47 [Rhys]
HT: There is a solution based not on the blocks that you have, but on linear combinations
15:13:05 [Rhys]
NM: It's spread spectrum for p2p
15:13:48 [Rhys]
HT: There is no way to request a range from current cache implementations. It's in HTTP 1.1, but implementations don't (?)
15:14:16 [Rhys]
HT: Could be useful to be able to query cache metadata.
15:14:33 [Rhys]
SW: interesting concept for something that is meant to be transparent
15:14:48 [Rhys]
TVR: Could be that there is no way to query what is in the cache
15:15:10 [Rhys]
HT: No way to identify specific blocks within a file
15:15:43 [Rhys]
TVR: Donkey (?) does use URNs for identifying blocks.
15:16:01 [Rhys]
HT: eMule is similar
15:16:22 [Rhys]
TVR: This has been working well for a few years
15:17:02 [Rhys]
TimBL: HTTP URIs have an owner you can go back to, and this is useful. It would be nice to have a p2p system that supports the social system where people own URIS
15:18:27 [Rhys]
TVR: It's possible for multiple versions of a resource to differ very slightly differently but by using the MD5 hash as a block identifier, you can still get the right block
15:19:26 [Rhys]
NM: In certain contexts, MD5 is a tradeoff.
15:20:18 [Rhys]
HT: p2p and HTTP get are both pull mechanisms. Should be able to have them cooperate.
15:20:52 [Rhys]
HT: If blocks had names, then an HTTP get would be able to retrieve blocks.
15:21:53 [Rhys]
HT: If it's not in the cache, the name must be able to let the cache locate the data necessary
15:22:25 [Rhys]
HT: Could traditional caches be elaborated to switch into p2p mode for some set of names at least
15:22:49 [timbl]
q+ ramin
15:23:05 [Rhys]
HT: Need to be able to do the equivalent of virtual hosting to host things that you don't own. Looks like that is not currently possible because of NAT and port 80 limits
15:23:15 [timbl]
ack ramin
15:23:33 [timbl]
q+ to suggest refereer caching
15:23:37 [Rhys]
TVR: Could envisage a world where p2p is actually the way that the internet works.
15:23:47 [timbl]
s/refereer/referrer/
15:23:59 [Rhys]
HT: that is the way some people would like to see things develop
15:24:29 [Rhys]
DanC: What about the point Tim raised about community
15:24:31 [dorchard]
dorchard has joined #tagmem
15:25:08 [Rhys]
TVR: If you let the p2p graph technology do its thing, you get the caching for free
15:25:32 [timbl]
ok
15:25:38 [Rhys]
SW: We've gone quite deep
15:26:15 [Rhys]
HT: One line left - Apache already have a module to convert HTTP get of very large files into p2p
15:26:18 [Stuart]
we'll be there in a moment david
15:26:55 [Rhys]
TimBL: I've heard that there is an extension that will fall back to something like bit torrent for large files
15:27:23 [Rhys]
HT: So not just a server side component but also needs a piece in the client too
15:27:55 [dorchard]
what kind of protocol operation do they use to get chunks of the file?
15:28:35 [Rhys]
TimBL: Assumption is that the only place to look for the missing pieces is the community of people who are also looking for the same stuff
15:29:02 [Rhys]
TimBL: I'd be interested in solutions based on the hypertext graph
15:30:35 [timbl]
Secifically, that if a n HTTP request fails then one can try the referer as a nexttry, for caching or seeding or metadaata leading to these.
15:30:42 [Rhys]
SW: I'd like to go through the notes I had from discussing things with the TAG members.
15:31:14 [DanC_lap]
Topic: New Members, Charter Review, Purpose and Direction
15:31:47 [Rhys]
SW: Technical Agenda - desire to get long standing issues finished.
15:32:34 [Rhys]
SW: Big topics - extensibility and versioning, tag soup integration, mixed languages composition
15:33:10 [Rhys]
SW: Semantic web, web services (one web or two), mobile,
15:34:00 [Rhys]
SW: Comment on tag soup situation persisting could be damaging to the web/w3C. One way of addressing this might be a set of best practice guides, if authored quickly
15:34:43 [Rhys]
SW: We will make things easier if there is a clear focus and direction
15:35:51 [Rhys]
SW: is TAG role to get ahead of the game or clear up the issues left by work of other groups
15:36:39 [Rhys]
SW: Last time, the AWWW was the 'drum beat' for TAG work. Is there another rec track item that could provide that again?
15:37:31 [Rhys]
SW: Not clear that TAG findings have an impact. Are we being ignored?
15:37:40 [DanC_lap]
thanks, stuart, for doing the rounds of calls.
15:38:25 [Rhys]
SW: Should we be concensus driven, and is this barring us from being controversial?
15:38:49 [Rhys]
HT: Don't remember being held up by the need for concensus
15:39:32 [Rhys]
NM: Could be that more recently there has not been so much of an issue
15:40:15 [Rhys]
SW: Like the consensus approach and thinks its viable for such a small group
15:40:33 [Rhys]
SW: invites comments about TAG going forward
15:41:02 [Rhys]
TVR: Want to see more findings and communicating what we do to a wider audience
15:43:08 [Rhys]
NW: Would like to see more focus and is optimistic about how things may go
15:44:26 [Rhys]
NM: We're much closer to having some happy goal than 2 years ago. Worth trying, but we shouldn't force a new goal where it's not ready to be done.
15:44:56 [Rhys]
NM: If setting a big goal helps us get individual items done, that's great
15:45:18 [Rhys]
NM: It's ok to be a bit ahead, or a bit behind, but shouldn't be too far
15:46:04 [Rhys]
NM: We are the architecture group, and part of our role is to highlight architectural principles to people
15:46:21 [Rhys]
NM: Should keep looking for architecture
15:47:55 [Rhys]
HT: Hard to find out what the TAG is working on and why it's important
15:48:12 [DanC_lap]
(re "what's hot", I'm interested in a 'planet tag' blog aggregator)
15:49:39 [Rhys]
HT: There are two documents on which I'm blocked. Mode of operation has been to assign findings to specific people and the rest review. We should change to behaving more like a working group for at least some findings.
15:50:02 [Rhys]
TVR: Agrees
15:50:07 [Rhys]
NM: Agrees
15:50:22 [Rhys]
Other people indicated agreement
15:51:35 [Rhys]
DanC: Language evolution stuff is particularly interesting and appropriate for the TAG
15:51:38 [Noah]
I think it's not just more links on our home page, I think we could do a home page that really is a gateway for people learning about Web architecture and about what we as a group do. It should be a destination that, for certain purposes, people seek out.
15:51:53 [Noah]
Right now, I think it's a necessary evil to get through it on the way to some bit of information.
15:52:06 [Noah]
Who knows, maybe there's a Web Arch web site as well as a Web Arch finding?
15:52:50 [Raman]
The other problem in explaining TAG work is that thanks to our date-based URI scheme (which i dislike immensely) everything we do looks like it was done in 2001.
15:52:52 [Rhys]
VQ: Need more help for people to find out what we are doing and what's important. We don't expect the entire community to be directly interested in our work. TAG is mainly focused on W3C working groups
15:53:18 [Raman]
I actually got asked this with respect to the finding I authored last year for example -- gist: "this looks like something from 2001, "
15:53:21 [Rhys]
VQ: Not sure what our public face should be and it involves work
15:54:01 [Noah]
Raman, I think if we have the right Web site, fewer people will be looking at the URIs, and more will be working through, e.g. our page on naming or identifying things on the Web. That could give high level tuturial, with links to the finding in context. We could have a page on XML-related issues, etc.
15:54:09 [Rhys]
VQ: We have too many individual issues open and it's hard to prioritise and then get the momentum for progress
15:55:25 [DanC_lap]
(hmm... do I hear that the TAG wants to design a web site? oh my. let's make a rock band instead. the politics are simpler.)
15:55:32 [Rhys]
VQ: Maybe it is time to look at another rec track document. Gives a single document whose progress can be followed.
15:56:47 [Rhys]
DO: Lots of the comments were interesting and appropriate. I've been working on three findings currently. Hoping to finish two of those by the end of my TAG stint
15:57:32 [Rhys]
DO: Would like the TAG to be slightly ahead and slightly behind in specific areas, as Noah said.
15:58:13 [Noah]
I think I'm feeling the TAG should be somewhat ahead, perhaps significantly ahead on core architectural issues, generally "behind" in helping to notice the architectural implications gleaned from codifying good practice.
15:58:33 [Rhys]
DO: Peer to peer, wireless etc, are potential areas where we could be a bit ahead. Doing some findings in more of a WG style is also a good idea.
15:59:31 [Rhys]
DO: Some findings are potentially very large topics and so there are lots of ways to go with a finding. That can imply a very different audience for the finding.
16:00:04 [Rhys]
DO: Leads to churn in documents as potential audience changes.
16:00:16 [DanC_lap]
(another point, re wider and wider audiences, is that in an attempt to please everybody, the document becomes mediocre for everybody and excellent for noone)
16:00:33 [Rhys]
DO: Need to get back into the mode of writing and reviewing more regularly
16:01:05 [dorchard]
TAG blog -> TAG wiki :-)
16:01:25 [Rhys]
TimBL: Endorse lots of the comments about getting the message out, Brochure + Blog could satisfy this kind of thing. Brochure why important, blog for what's hot
16:01:49 [DanC_lap]
(I tried to get the TAG to use a wiki in the beginning. maybe the time is right now? I'd sure like to try semantic mediawiki)
16:02:19 [Rhys]
TimBL: We used to work on classification of the issues. We seem to have lost that. Defining the relationships will also help us get on the same page.
16:03:01 [Rhys]
TimBL: One of the most important things we do is to pull together the bits of work done within W3C and between W3C and OMA - Quilt analogy, but more than 2D
16:04:09 [Rhys]
TimBL: It's time for work on the Semantic Web. Because it's more rigorously defined there is a stronger framework in which to ask and answer the questions.
16:05:07 [Rhys]
TimBL: Socially, I find it difficult to know how much to push for things and how much to sit back. Actually, same for everyone.
16:05:46 [Rhys]
TimBL: Think the group has worked well, and that that is likely to continue.
16:06:51 [Rhys]
TimBL: Hope I can convince the group that if we do Semantic web, I can convince the group that semantic web is an important piece of work for the TAG
16:07:24 [Rhys]
TVR: Would like to try and get a stucture/classification to help Stuart
16:07:45 [DanC_lap]
break 'till xx:25
16:08:43 [Rhys]
NM: Advocates continuing this discussion after a break, perhaps tomorrow.
16:20:46 [Stuart]
Dave... if you are there joining the virtual room might be help full https://www.rooms.hp.com/attend/default.aspx?key=EHLACVJXJ5
16:21:08 [Stuart]
Others.... you should be able to join too.
16:28:12 [Rhys]
Topic: Issues list
16:28:49 [Rhys]
SW: Projects the issues list.
16:28:56 [DanC_lap]
(TVR, I think your idea of talking about a table of contents for a document is a good one to mix into this discussion of the issues list)
16:29:46 [Rhys]
SW: The issues list is long and it was hard to reconstruct the context. Took the dates of last discussion to try and identify those that were 'fallow'
16:30:38 [Rhys]
TVR: Even as we look at the list, where things are marked as complete, we should review whether or not the results have been disseminated appropriately
16:31:07 [Rhys]
TVR: There are documents hanging around in findings, but no context.
16:31:42 [Rhys]
TimBL: Is there some pointer to 'what should I read to find the best information on a particular topic'.
16:32:28 [Rhys]
DanC: We've also had the situation where we had made a decision but that we knew we had not connected with the appropriate community
16:32:41 [Rhys]
DanC: What would be the desired outcome?
16:33:05 [Rhys]
TVR: I'd like people to be able to find the information via, say, a Google search
16:33:28 [Rhys]
DanC: Do you know how the community would formulate the query?
16:33:59 [Rhys]
TVR: Not sure, but it seems that the TAG is the last place the community would look
16:34:39 [Rhys]
NM: What about 'Architecture the Web Site'. More outreach. Maybe based on the AWWW document.
16:35:40 [Rhys]
NM: If it were done well, could be every reason for the community to visit it.
16:36:42 [Rhys]
TimBL: The DIG group web site and the WSRI web site could be linked. It's a new site so could take advice from the TAG.
16:37:33 [Rhys]
NM: we should have a better web site for the TAG
16:37:54 [Rhys]
NM: We should also have a site that is about the web architecture.
16:38:29 [Rhys]
TimBL: Making our web presence Architecture not TAG is right.
16:39:07 [Rhys]
TVR: We're coming at the same thing from two directions. We were talking about a compendium before the break and a site now. I view these as the same.
16:40:00 [Rhys]
SW: Returning to the issues list, I also 'tagged' the items with 'themes'
16:40:22 [Rhys]
TVR: Should we discuss the ones that are active?
16:40:48 [Rhys]
SW: That's where I'm going. (Reviews the list and points out the catagorisation)
16:41:15 [Rhys]
TimBL: Inactive in the list means what?
16:41:32 [Rhys]
SW: We don't appear to have done anything substantial recently.
16:42:34 [Rhys]
SW: It looks like new issues get a lot of discussion.
16:42:51 [Rhys]
TVR: Also looks like older things sometimes morph into something else
16:44:21 [Rhys]
TimBL: The AWWW document work helped us concentrate on getting the appropriate items moved on
16:45:40 [Rhys]
TVR projects an editor buffer ready to create a table of contents to guide structure of TAG work
16:46:08 [Rhys]
Group editing ensues
16:47:42 [dorchard]
I don't see the doc :-(
16:49:27 [Rhys]
NM: are we trying to make a TOC that would make sense to a reader, or a way to organise our work
16:49:37 [Rhys]
TVR: The former
16:50:48 [Rhys]
NM: It looks to me more like the latter. Readers need a different organisation
16:51:26 [Rhys]
TimBL: I suspect that we'll find that the TOC this time around will look a lot like we had last time
16:52:16 [Rhys]
TimBL: If we find that we can allocate section numbers from the existing AWWW then we should decide to do a version 2 of that document
16:53:19 [Rhys]
NM: I agree.
16:55:27 [Rhys]
HT: where is our defence of http the scheme fit?
16:56:42 [Rhys]
HT: We have a draft finding called URN's and registries, which has become use http:.
16:57:17 [Rhys]
TVR adds it to the section on Naming.
16:57:53 [Rhys]
SW: Is there a major topic on applications?
16:57:59 [Rhys]
NM: I agree
16:58:21 [Rhys]
SW: That includes things like how to define URIs
16:59:36 [Stuart]
s/define URIs/define URI spaces/
16:59:57 [Rhys]
TVR: There is a piece of this about making restful sites etc.
17:00:44 [Rhys]
TVR: We could do this based on some existing application, like one from Google where these things are considered during design.
17:01:22 [Rhys]
NM: We seem don't seem to be saying anyting about futures here.
17:03:07 [Rhys]
TVR: I disagree that all we are only talking about is the 'old web'. The same old issues apply to new usages
17:04:29 [dorchard]
TAG needs to produce youTube videos?
17:05:04 [Stuart]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gmP4nk0EOE&eurl=
17:06:48 [Rhys]
TimBL: On the whiteboard I've tried out a way of organising topics algorithmically. It is the upper half of an n-dimensional matrix
17:07:03 [Rhys]
DanC: It's a good QA check
17:07:20 [Rhys]
TVR: where does security come up
17:07:54 [Rhys]
DO: It comes up everywhere. People encode information in payload to ensure it's secure
17:09:08 [timbl]
1. URI
17:09:14 [timbl]
2 HTTP
17:09:19 [timbl]
2.1 HTTP URI
17:09:20 [Rhys]
DanC: This cross cutting idea could be a way to deal with volume 2. Includes mobile, security, accessibility, internationalisation,
17:09:24 [timbl]
etc
17:09:32 [Rhys]
TVR adds a new section to the TOC
17:10:11 [Rhys]
NM: Suggests that there is an opportunity to look at use cases
17:10:48 [Rhys]
DanC: Can we include massive interactive on-line games
17:13:21 [Rhys]
TVR e-mails the current view of the TOC to the TAG list
17:14:54 [Rhys]
TVR: One way to slice this would be to use the cross cutting chapter as the applications chapter
17:15:38 [Rhys]
TVR: Could also pick a concrete application and discuss the issues in that context
17:16:29 [Rhys]
TVR: It's like turning it upside down.
17:16:44 [Rhys]
SW: Can we place the issues into the TOC?
17:17:01 [Rhys]
TVR: I'd be happy to try and do that
17:17:15 [Rhys]
Placing issues within the TOC ensues
17:18:42 [Rhys]
HT: We need to remember that for particular communities the issues we have are the most important things that they are worrying about
17:24:24 [Rhys]
NM: Should we have sections that address concepts that people actually regularly use, like site, document etc.
17:25:50 [Rhys]
TVR: I asked a question about whether we are dealing with dynamic applications. With Web 2.0, the retrieved representation changes over time - the 'loading ...' example for a page being created dynamically
17:27:36 [Rhys]
HT: I found that there wasn't a term for the thing that the user agent represents and the user interacts with
17:27:56 [Rhys]
RL points out that there are some definitions that are in the DI Glossary
17:28:20 [Rhys]
HT: That could be useful, but these are things that need to be in the Web arch glossary
17:28:41 [Rhys]
Group adds a number of independencies as cross cutting concerns.
17:29:37 [Rhys]
DanC: I was thinking about agents for change and dampers on change as cross cutting concerns
17:30:55 [Rhys]
SW: Can we get a list of those that are teetering on the brink of completion
17:31:54 [Raman]
toc23.html is on the Web site, will need the readable bit set.
17:32:37 [Raman]
DanC, could you set the perms bit?
17:32:49 [DanC_lap]
will do...
17:33:08 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #tagmem
17:33:09 [Rhys]
SW: What do we do with the TOC next?
17:33:31 [DanC_lap]
fyi, Raman , you can set the ACL yourself at http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/toc23.html,access
17:33:36 [Rhys]
RL: Hanging the issue list items into the toc seems like a good next step
17:33:58 [DanC_lap]
there. it's 200 now.
17:34:46 [Rhys]
TVR: How about Stuart and I working on proposals about where to hang the open, active issues within the TOC
17:48:00 [timbl_]
timbl_ has joined #tagmem
18:24:54 [DanC_lap]
DanC_lap has joined #tagmem
18:35:06 [timbl_]
http://www.amazon.com/Master-Commander-Side-World-Widescreen/dp/B0001HLVS2/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-1903036-8371356?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1173205978&sr=1-1
18:37:13 [DanC_lap]
Topic: Self-describing web
18:37:18 [DanC_lap]
ScribeNick: DanC_lap
18:38:30 [Rhys]
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/selfDescribingDocuments.html
18:39:26 [DanC_lap]
NM recaps history of "self-describing web" discussion in the TAG back to EDI 1.5years ago
18:40:29 [DanC_lap]
NM: punch line: simple story about self-description...
18:40:40 [DanC_lap]
... you always need some rules to interpret something...
18:40:53 [DanC_lap]
... even with paper documents, there's the alphabet, left-to-right conventions, ...
18:41:35 [DanC_lap]
... and that way, what the author intended gets conveyed. [?]
18:42:38 [DanC_lap]
... then, focussing on the web, since communication is not just point-to-point, but where readers are encouraged to explore documents not written specifically to them...
18:43:25 [DanC_lap]
... if the contents of the web aren't we labelled, we don't communicate well.
18:43:56 [DanC_lap]
NM: Then I was talking with Dan, and he said "yes, that's the simple part, but the more interestinig bit is dynamically picking up new terms via URIs"
18:44:38 [timbl_]
q+ to suggest that the self-descibing document is one part of the architecture story which is a mapping from URI to intehet. It is the part in which the representation relates to intent. What is specifically interesting is the way you can boostrap yourself into find the necessary stuff indirectly eg through namespace document lookup.
18:44:55 [timbl_]
q+ rmin
18:44:56 [DanC_lap]
NM: so now... we could pick over the text, but perhaps it's better to review goals: what does "self-describing web" mean to various tag members?
18:44:59 [timbl_]
q+ david
18:45:05 [Stuart]
q+ raman
18:45:15 [timbl_]
q- rmin
18:45:16 [dorchard]
q+ to review goals and talk about dereferencing and how much is inline vs outofline
18:45:19 [timbl_]
q?
18:45:33 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #tagmem
18:45:37 [DanC_lap]
NM: [something connected to xmlFunctions that I missed]
18:45:44 [timbl_]
Queue = danc, timbl, raman, dvido
18:45:58 [timbl_]
Queue= danc, timbl, raman, davido
18:46:25 [DanC_lap]
NM: then I heard from tim... [ rdf... owl ...]
18:47:03 [DanC_lap]
... and one sense of self-describing web is to extract RDF from XML and HTML, a la GRDDL. [?]
18:47:29 [timbl_]
q+ timbl-sw to say getting triples is half the story: then the self-describing nature of triples is a very interesting second part.
18:47:46 [DanC_lap]
ack danc
18:47:52 [Raman]
q+ to say that limit to machine readability/follow-your-nose -- not "communicate to human"
18:47:55 [ht_mit]
q+ to mention "follow your nose"
18:49:41 [timbl_]
ack timbl
18:50:14 [DanC_lap]
DanC: there's (1) the case for standards, and (2) the story of how to introduce a new format, using widely-deployed html/http/uris + natural-language + programming languages
18:51:12 [DanC_lap]
TimBL: we told a story in webarch about how to get from a URI thru the stack of specs, to what the URI refers to
18:51:33 [DanC_lap]
replay:
18:51:33 [DanC_lap]
[13:44] <timbl_>q+ to suggest that the self-descibing document is one part of the architecture story which is a mapping from URI to intehet. It is the part in which the representation relates to intent. What is specifically interesting is the way you can boostrap yourself into find the necessary stuff indirectly eg through namespace document lookup.
18:51:55 [Stuart]
timbl queued to say "to suggest that the self-descibing document is one part of the architecture story which is a mapping from URI to intehet. It is the part in which the representation relates to intent. What is specifically interesting is the way you can boostrap yourself into find the necessary stuff indirectly eg through namespace document lookup."
18:52:20 [DanC_lap]
DanC: the case for standards is shared between email and the Web, but email doesn't have the lookup mechanism for new MIME types, by design. IANA is _the_ registry of MIME types for email.
18:52:54 [Stuart]
ack raman
18:52:54 [Zakim]
raman, you wanted to say that limit to machine readability/follow-your-nose -- not "communicate to human"
18:52:55 [DanC_lap]
TimBL: the recursive bootstratp nature is the interesting bit
18:53:07 [timbl_]
q- timbl-sw
18:53:46 [Noah]
q?
18:53:54 [DanC_lap]
TVR: this stuff about communicating "the same thing" seems somewhat of a distraction from the self-describing web story; it brings in styling etc., for one thing
18:54:26 [Noah]
q+ to sugggest not punting on human communication too early.
18:54:28 [DanC_lap]
... the interesting bit is the dynamic software configuration stuff, so that you can deploy new stuff in the web and it "just works"
18:54:32 [Stuart]
ack dav
18:55:23 [DanC_lap]
DO: the dynamic discovery is the interesting story to tell; let's not spend too much space/time on the static/shared background
18:55:30 [DanC_lap]
[or something like that]
18:56:14 [DanC_lap]
DO: I have heard a few examples/use cases of [darn; leaked out]. RDDL... [darn; missed examples; help?]
18:56:49 [Stuart]
ex1: xml doc->namespace(s)->RDDL....
18:56:53 [Raman]
q+ to add: a concrete problem for the Web to solve: relation between content types, namespaces, compound documents and language profiles
18:57:00 [DanC_lap]
DO: perhaps contrast with stuff that's not self-describing, e.g. microformats. where do we look up class="fn" without a URI?
18:57:27 [DanC_lap]
DO: another counter-example is some urn schemes, a la the urns/registries finding
18:57:36 [DanC_lap]
ack ht
18:57:36 [Zakim]
ht_mit, you wanted to mention "follow your nose"
18:57:38 [Stuart]
ack ht
18:57:43 [Raman]
q+ microformats are in a namespace the so called anonymous I'm not a namespace namespace
18:58:46 [DanC_lap]
HT: I want this finding to explain "view source" (ack Tim Bray) and "follow your nose (ack DanC)
18:59:04 [timbl_]
"View Source" is very much human beings lookng things up. "Follow your nose" is most often done by machines.
18:59:27 [DanC_lap]
HT: this should answer in detail "what do I have to know ahead of time to look at the Oxaca weather report?"
18:59:37 [DanC_lap]
HT: there are 3 things you need to be able to look up:
19:00:11 [DanC_lap]
... (1) the charset from the Content-Type header, iso8859-1 or utf-8
19:01:11 [DanC_lap]
HT notes complex discussion of definitive sources of charset info
19:01:34 [DanC_lap]
SKW: is that stuck?
19:02:02 [Stuart]
q?
19:02:06 [DanC_lap]
HT: well, I have seen some progress, but it's been a year since the last progress point, so maybe time to rethink
19:02:58 [DanC_lap]
HT: this is 3023bis, replacing "there is no fragid semantics for XML" with a ref to XPointer, and capturing negotiations about charset
19:03:21 [DanC_lap]
TimBL: and XML ids?
19:04:02 [DanC_lap]
HT: XPointer refers to xml ids in a way that agrees with specs that have come later
19:04:34 [Stuart]
q?
19:04:49 [DanC_lap]
NDW: XPointer says "if it's of type ID..." and the xml:id spec says "xml:id is of type ID", so the pieces fit
19:05:13 [DanC_lap]
TimBL raises a deployment question/issue about xml:id ...
19:08:30 [DanC_lap]
Topic: XBL2 and xml:id
19:09:16 [DanC_lap]
is there a last call comment or issues list item or something that captures the XBL2/xml:id thing, please?
19:09:37 [Stuart]
q?
19:09:49 [dorchard]
q+ to respond to Noah that there are some commonalities across failures.
19:13:13 [DanC_lap]
aha... "163. Last call comments on XML Binding Language (XBL) 2.0"
19:14:00 [DanC_lap]
er... norm, I see "I'm entirely satisfied " from you in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-appformats/2007Feb/0114.html
19:15:03 [timbl_]
| I have marked your request as a potential formal objection.
19:15:04 [timbl_]
I doubt that it will come to that, but thank you for leaving the door
19:15:04 [timbl_]
open. I will ask the WGs for whom I reviewed the document if they feel
19:15:04 [timbl_]
strongly enough about the issue to make that objection.
19:15:06 [DanC_lap]
ah... ok... "I haven't heard any compelling arguments why XBL should spell it "id"."
19:16:16 [Stuart]
q?
19:16:46 [DanC_lap]
TVR: [missed... about xml:id and ID...]
19:17:20 [timbl_]
q?
19:18:29 [DanC_lap]
TimBL: I gather the XBL implementors have a table, by namespace, of which attributes are of type ID
19:18:36 [DanC_lap]
ack danc
19:18:36 [Zakim]
DanC_lap, you wanted to advocate more study of traditional theory of language, e.g. monotonicity
19:18:41 [Noah]
I still think the hierarchical view is more important than we're admitting. It does, however, make things like XPointer very hard, because it presumably wants to use tree semantics blindly without really checking the semantics of the ancestors.
19:18:42 [Noah]
q-
19:18:55 [DanC_lap]
DanC: pass; I'll come back to that at a better time, perhaps
19:19:04 [timbl_]
apparently IIRC the architecture was that the attr which had type ID was kept as afunction of element namespace, so svg would map to xml:id
19:19:09 [Stuart]
q?
19:19:13 [Stuart]
q- raman
19:19:15 [timbl_]
but that set of people may not have implemented it
19:19:22 [Stuart]
ack do
19:19:22 [Zakim]
dorchard, you wanted to respond to Noah that there are some commonalities across failures.
19:19:29 [DanC_lap]
DO: [missed some...] I think this points out a problem with the W3C process...
19:19:29 [Noah]
q+ back on the queue to say I'm not that happy with TVR's claim that naked id can have semantics independent of parent element
19:19:39 [Noah]
q+ to say I'm back on the queue to say I'm not that happy with TVR's claim that naked id can have semantics independent of parent element
19:20:01 [DanC_lap]
DO: by analogy, consider my company and weblogic server and some stuff layered on it...
19:20:25 [DanC_lap]
... a customer wants the new stuff...
19:20:38 [Raman]
for the record, we discovered the problem caused by xml:id not being present as we were going last call on XForms and writing test suites -- we suddenly discovered that we couldn't tell whether an id was an id when getting xml instances from foreign namespaces
19:20:45 [DanC_lap]
... [missed some]... so what you do is decide to be a platform provider, so you hold off on the layered stuff until the platform is ready
19:21:35 [DanC_lap]
tx, Raman ; I was having trouble scribing.
19:21:55 [Stuart]
q?
19:21:57 [DanC_lap]
ack danc
19:21:57 [Zakim]
DanC_lap, you wanted to advocate using CR to do 2-phase commit to sync dependencies
19:22:38 [Stuart]
ack Noah
19:22:38 [Zakim]
Noah, you wanted to say I'm back on the queue to say I'm not that happy with TVR's claim that naked id can have semantics independent of parent element
19:22:47 [DanC_lap]
DanC: e.g. perhaps we should have held XML 1.1 at CR until XML Schema and XML 1.1 were better integrated
19:23:48 [DanC_lap]
NM: consider a container format like SOAP...
19:24:40 [DanC_lap]
... oops; putting 2 existing documents in one might introduce ID clashes
19:25:24 [DanC_lap]
... on the one hand, it would be nice to have XMLFunction-style opaque boundaries around parts of the tree; on the other hand, that makes XPointer ID implementation impractical.
19:25:36 [ht_mit]
q+ to reply to noah about top-down vs. bottom-up
19:25:42 [dorchard]
Any modularity spec, like xinclude, wsd:include, etc. have the same ID clash problem.
19:26:08 [DanC_lap]
NM: I stipulate namespaces doesn't fix the SOAP combination problem. [?]
19:26:45 [DanC_lap]
NM: I don't think anybody was warned about these clashes with ID
19:26:46 [timbl_]
q+ to note has just made a good case for the LackOfQuotingInXML-nnn issue
19:26:48 [Stuart]
ack ht
19:26:48 [Zakim]
ht_mit, you wanted to reply to noah about top-down vs. bottom-up
19:27:17 [timbl_]
(that doesn't help the container problem)
19:27:47 [DanC_lap]
HT: one of the reasons [this draft] is very limited, is that it's _only_ about getting at the infoset, not at only higher level app semantics...
19:28:19 [DanC_lap]
... I'm concerned that you read the document otherwise.
19:28:31 [DanC_lap]
HT: control goes top-down, but composition is bottom up. [he said it better than that]
19:28:53 [Noah]
q?
19:29:04 [Noah]
q+ to say I >want< XML functions to be about semantics
19:29:28 [DanC_lap]
HT: quoting interacts OK with id in the story I told, since quoting [bleah. what he said made sense, but it has leaked out.]
19:29:50 [Stuart]
q?
19:29:52 [DanC_lap]
HT: and I like the limited "elaborated infoset" scope
19:30:01 [DanC_lap]
some groaning about not going further...
19:30:11 [DanC_lap]
TVR: if we can capture that much, it's a valuable contribution
19:30:26 [Stuart]
ack timbl
19:30:26 [Zakim]
timbl_, you wanted to note has just made a good case for the LackOfQuotingInXML-nnn issue
19:32:02 [DanC_lap]
TBL: this points out a limitaion of XML, that you can't nest XML documents arbitrarily
19:32:51 [DanC_lap]
TBL: if there's a duplicate id, what does #theid refer to?
19:33:02 [DanC_lap]
HT: the 1st one. the spec is subtle but clear
19:33:15 [Stuart]
q?
19:33:22 [DanC_lap]
HT reads from a spec; scribe requests a pointer/excerpt
19:34:56 [Noah]
q?
19:35:27 [DanC_lap]
HT: note XML Schema has a scoped identity constraint mechanism
19:35:32 [DanC_lap]
(I wonder if XPointer supports it)
19:36:07 [DanC_lap]
NM: the tough point is integrating XPointer with those constraints
19:36:09 [Stuart]
q?
19:36:13 [Stuart]
ack noah
19:36:13 [Zakim]
Noah, you wanted to say I >want< XML functions to be about semantics
19:37:09 [DanC_lap]
NM: OK, so the scope of the draft is more clear to me now. thanks.
19:37:13 [ht_mit]
NM, DC -- no, XPointer does _not_ currently offer any way of pointing to things courtesy of their XML Schema-assigned Identities
19:38:13 [DanC_lap]
... but 90% of the time, the right way to design XML languages is to exploit the hierarchy in the applicaiton semantics
19:38:40 [DanC_lap]
... [NM exceeds scribe's bandwidth, approaches timbl-speed ;-]
19:39:04 [Raman]
added elaborating infoset to language section of toc23
19:39:08 [DanC_lap]
... I think telling the recursive semantics story is a very interesting goal.
19:39:11 [timbl_]
xml:quote="true"
19:39:19 [timbl_]
q?
19:39:50 [Noah]
Why bother to namespace qualify quote? :-)
19:40:52 [Noah]
In the interest of trying to help the scribe, what I said (or tried to say) was:
19:41:02 [Norm]
q+ to point out unforseen uses
19:41:03 [DanC_lap]
TimBL: I'm interested in looking at the costs and benefits of using xml:id in XBL2, both at the XBL2 scope and in a wider scope
19:41:11 [Norm]
ack norm
19:41:11 [Zakim]
Norm, you wanted to point out unforseen uses
19:41:25 [Noah]
I understand that there is value in doing what Henry says he's done, which is to push out the easy part of the story first. That's Infoset elaboration. Fine.
19:42:12 [Noah]
On the other hand, I think the 90/10 case should be that the semantics of the XML document should be recursive. I think that's a really, really interesting story to tell, and particularly important to my view of self-describing Web.
19:43:01 [Noah]
Use case: a word processor application with persistent undo. The user edits the document, and a it changes, the word processor stores in a subtree in its XML file fragments of the XML that it will need to restore iff the users issues an "undo".
19:43:52 [Noah]
To understand that the deleted content is not logically in the document, you have to recursively understand the semantics of first the root element, then the children, down to the one that says <savedUndoStuff>, which will tell you the implications of having that content there.
19:44:18 [Noah]
Let's admit that generalized features like XPointer are unlikely to respect that, but the recursive semantics are crucially important to the self describing web.
19:44:45 [Noah]
Bottom line: I hope Henry won't stop with the self-elaborating infoset, but will go all the way to recursive semantics of XML documents.
19:44:57 [Noah]
We now rejoin our regularly scheduled xml:id debate.
19:47:37 [Rhys]
q+
19:47:49 [Noah]
q?
19:48:11 [timbl_]
q+
19:48:51 [DanC_lap]
TVR: the questions I'd look at: Is XBL2 designed as an XML family language for use not only in browsers, or...
19:49:08 [DanC_lap]
... is it just for browsers
19:49:36 [timbl_]
q+ to say: I think XBL2 is a generic XML langauge in the sense that it is in XML and will be edited and fetched, but it isn'y in the sense that it doesn't have stand-alone semantics: it is only invoked as part of the presentattion of another document, so they have ot applied for a MIME type for example.
19:49:46 [ht_mit]
s/just for browsers/just for browsers and just happens to use angle brackets/
19:50:17 [DanC_lap]
NM: do you see it as black-and-white? or are there degrees?
19:50:49 [DanC_lap]
TVR: well, I can see grey areas, but I see a pretty important black-and-white question.
19:51:20 [Stuart]
ack Rhys
19:52:02 [DanC_lap]
Rhys: I bet it depends on who you ask. If you ask the XBL authors, they'll answer that it's just for browsers, but if you ask [missed], they'll say they want to integrate it with other XML stuff
19:52:34 [DanC_lap]
s/[missed]/others, e.g. DI WG/
19:53:24 [Stuart]
q?
19:53:50 [Stuart]
ack timb
19:53:50 [Zakim]
timbl_, you wanted to say: I think XBL2 is a generic XML langauge in the sense that it is in XML and will be edited and fetched, but it isn'y in the sense that it doesn't have
19:53:55 [Zakim]
... stand-alone semantics: it is only invoked as part of the presentattion of another document, so they have ot applied for a MIME type for example.
19:54:05 [DanC_lap]
TBL: yes, in some ways XBL2 is generic XBL. They're not applying for a mime type, ...
19:54:30 [DanC_lap]
... because it's not the sort of thing you'd attach in a mail message or follow a link to, except links when the context is clear. [!]
19:55:03 [DanC_lap]
TVR: then why does CSS have a mime type?
19:55:18 [DanC_lap]
TimBL: to distinguish it from, e.g. XSLT, in HTTP conneg
19:55:53 [DanC_lap]
... everything needs a mime type; the XBL2 folks are happy using a generic XML mime type, since they don't expect dedicated viewers
19:56:38 [DanC_lap]
DanC: the practicing community doesn't know that CSS has a mime type; 99.99% of it is served as text/plain, I think.
19:56:44 [Noah]
q?
19:56:46 [DanC_lap]
... and it still works.
19:57:10 [Stuart]
q?
19:57:10 [DanC_lap]
TVR: see earlier discussion of outreach/communication/presentation of TAG output
19:57:22 [Noah]
Well, if generic tools like Google search did something truly valuable with CSS that's correctly typed, and not with other CSS, we'd start seeing people take the trouble to type the content.
19:57:38 [DanC_lap]
ack danc
19:57:38 [Zakim]
DanC_lap, you wanted to point out untested hooks are evil
19:58:28 [Stuart]
q?
19:58:57 [DanC_lap]
DanC: so doing a mime type for XBL2 without implementation experience seems iffy
19:59:16 [DanC_lap]
NDW: doesn't webarch say "you should get a MIME type"?
19:59:19 [Noah]
q?
19:59:33 [DanC_lap]
DO: in a couple WGs, the *only* reason we did a MIME type is so we could say how fragids work.
19:59:42 [DanC_lap]
[that seems like a plenty good reason...
19:59:58 [DanC_lap]
... I was afriad you were going to say "the only reason we got a mime type was cuz webarch said we should"]
20:00:02 [dorchard]
q+
20:00:19 [dorchard]
q+ to re-emphasize the point about self-describing in media types.
20:00:36 [DanC_lap]
NM: [missed... something about +xml ...]. Maybe application/xml + namespaces is enough in lots of cases
20:01:20 [timbl_]
q?
20:01:24 [DanC_lap]
TVR: yes, we should work on this mess around namespaces, mime types, and profiles
20:01:39 [Stuart]
ack do
20:01:39 [Zakim]
dorchard, you wanted to re-emphasize the point about self-describing in media types.
20:02:17 [DanC_lap]
DO: yes, about this self-describing web stuff... as TVR says, it's pretty broken...
20:02:46 [DanC_lap]
... e.g. I wonder how much better things would be if the SOAP media type had more richness to it.
20:03:05 [Stuart]
hmmmm.... a media type param with a URI for what is wrappped?
20:03:17 [DanC_lap]
... e.g. application/purchase-order+soap [?]
20:03:47 [DanC_lap]
q+ to inform stuart that I tried a mime type that delegates to URI space, but the IETF reviewer declined it
20:04:05 [DanC_lap]
DO: so yes, let's work on this area
20:04:36 [DanC_lap]
TVR: DO just covered one half/part; another part is CDF: how does it combine components using different media types?
20:04:38 [timbl_]
<> a PurchaseOrder. PruchaseOrder rdfs:ubClassOf SoapDocument. SoapDocumnt rdfs:subClassOf XMLDocument. XMLDocument subvclasOf TextDocument.
20:05:12 [Stuart]
ack DanC
20:05:12 [Zakim]
DanC_lap, you wanted to inform stuart that I tried a mime type that delegates to URI space, but the IETF reviewer declined it
20:05:29 [DanC_lap]
TVR: to see what's in a document... how much is in the mime type label vs buried in namespaces
20:05:36 [timbl_]
TextDocument rdfs:subClassOf OctetSequence.
20:43:29 [Rhys]
Rhys has joined #tagmem
20:47:06 [Noah]
Noah has joined #tagmem
20:49:42 [DanC_lap]
Topic: Self Describing Web, Elaborated Infoset
20:50:14 [DanC_lap]
-> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/elabInfoset.html The elaborated infoset: A proposal Henry S. Thompson 30 Jan 2007
20:51:09 [timbl_]
q+
20:51:50 [Noah]
q+ to say, as I did a few times before, I think it needs to be elaborating elements, not elaborating namespaces
20:52:06 [DanC_lap]
(hmm. the semi-formalism in the infoset spec bugs me. Now that we have XQuery and RDF specs with lots of running code and test suites, can we please use one of them?)
20:54:22 [DanC_lap]
HT summarizes discussion history and abstracts the document
20:54:31 [DanC_lap]
HT: is this an accurate summary of what we talked about last time?
20:54:35 [Stuart]
q?
20:54:55 [DanC_lap]
... and is this the right enumeration of enumerating namespaces? there are 3: include, encrypt, signature
20:54:58 [DanC_lap]
TVR: what about iframe?
20:55:25 [Stuart]
ack timbl
20:56:30 [DanC_lap]
TimBL: I'm concerned with "before any application-specific processing is attempted"
20:56:44 [DanC_lap]
... I think the TAG issue is about all semantics, not just infoset semantics
20:56:46 [Norm]
q+ to ask if Tim means that a new spec should assert that it belongs to the "top down, self-describing" class.
20:57:32 [DanC_lap]
TimBL: I much prefer the 2nd phrasing: "if an author takes responsibility for the information in an XML document, exactly what is s/he taking responsibility for?"
20:58:09 [DanC_lap]
TimBL: xinclude is nice in that you can express it as a function of *only* the infoset, but that's a special case. iframe's semantics include manipulating pixels
20:58:11 [Noah]
q?
20:58:51 [DanC_lap]
TVR: only pixels? there's DOM stuff too...
20:59:15 [DanC_lap]
TimBL: umm.... is the iframe actually replaced in the DOM? isn't there a separate DOM?
20:59:59 [DanC_lap]
TVR: anyway, xinclude isn't that different from iframe, is it?
21:00:12 [DanC_lap]
TimBL: xinclude can be expressed purely as an infoset manipulation; iframe cannot
21:01:50 [timbl_]
if an author takes responsibility for the information in an XML document, exactly what is s/he taking responsibility for?
21:02:23 [DanC_lap]
NM: I still have concerns about attaching elaborating semantics to namespaces. I prefer to use elements as the hook.
21:02:35 [DanC_lap]
... i.e. qualified names
21:02:46 [timbl_]
I agree with NM anout that that tit should be 'elaborating elements' not 'elborating namespaces'
21:02:55 [timbl_]
q?
21:04:09 [DanC_lap]
HT: I think it would be a strange design to have an elaborating element in a namespace along with other stuff.
21:04:34 [Stuart]
q?
21:04:42 [Stuart]
q- noah
21:05:25 [DanC_lap]
HT: the signals are still elements and attributes...
21:05:37 [DanC_lap]
NM: then it's over-determined to attach semantics to namespaces
21:06:07 [DanC_lap]
HT: I could maybe go either way; my preference is as written
21:06:14 [timbl_]
TBL agrees with NM
21:06:37 [DanC_lap]
NM: the reason I think this is more than a coin-flip is that communities like NVDL are giving semantics to namespaces, and I'd rather not endorse that
21:06:42 [Stuart]
ack Norm
21:06:42 [Zakim]
Norm, you wanted to ask if Tim means that a new spec should assert that it belongs to the "top down, self-describing" class.
21:07:36 [DanC_lap]
TBL: no, I mean for it to apply to all XML
21:07:49 [DanC_lap]
NDW: that's false; witness XSLT
21:08:00 [DanC_lap]
... literal result element
21:09:33 [Stuart]
q?
21:10:14 [DanC_lap]
TimBL explains how to look at the XSLT literal result example as an HTML document that has an elaborating gizmo in the paragraph, which elaborates to an em
21:10:36 [DanC_lap]
NM: the HTML spec says that this is a document with a paragraph with an ignored thingy in it...
21:10:43 [DanC_lap]
... or maybe it depends on the media type
21:11:33 [DanC_lap]
TimBL: there's an error recovery view of it, but the <xsl:value-of > element has a qualified name...
21:11:34 [Stuart]
ack danc
21:11:34 [Zakim]
DanC_lap, you wanted to note this sort of detailed design critique sounds like a "yes" answer to HT's question of whether he's in the right ballpark and to ask that we consider a
21:11:37 [Zakim]
... script element that adds an H1
21:12:26 [Noah]
Right. What I'm saying is, there are two general architectures to choose from: I) A namespace is (roughly) a collection of names, each of which has whatever semantics. Often, but not necessarily, the names from a given namespace are designed to be used together. -or- II) namespaces have a semantic, or at least, you've got to signal in advance which namespaces have the characteristic that some of their names are used in ways that carry unusual semantics (e.
21:12:42 [DanC_lap]
TimBL: indeed, a <script> that sticks an h1 outside its part of the tree is not a function; it's a procedure with side effects
21:13:10 [Noah]
I strongly favor (I), and I'm concerned that the draft finding on elaborating infosets is not the only place I see people making assumption (II). Possible future TAG work merited?
21:13:25 [DanC_lap]
TBL modifies the html literal result element, so that it's a purchase order document...
21:13:54 [DanC_lap]
... unlike p, whose spec tells you [something1],
21:14:56 [DanC_lap]
(scribe is struggling; if this were a WG design discussion, I'd interrupt to make sure we get this example in the test suite. but we're not, so I won't.)
21:16:10 [DanC_lap]
HT: yes, I'm willing to try taking "elaborating namespaces" out. I don't think "namespaces have semantics is broken" but it's not a battle I want to pick.
21:16:23 [DanC_lap]
s/is broken"/"is broken/
21:17:41 [DanC_lap]
HT: while I stipulate to Norm's point that non-compositional XML languages are possible, Tim's position appeals to my experience that people seem to almost always make compositional languages
21:18:26 [DanC_lap]
HT: I presented a compositional explanation of SVG etc, and I got an "oh no; that doesn't work" at the backplane workshop
21:18:53 [DanC_lap]
TBL points out some issue about XBL/SVG or something. [help?]
21:19:35 [DanC_lap]
HT: I heard [Chris?] say "there is no domain in which you can model the semantics of HTML/CSS/SVG in a compositional way"
21:19:46 [Noah]
q?
21:20:07 [DanC_lap]
HT: I'm not certain I understand the argument, but his experience is considerable
21:23:39 [timbl_]
I think tere may be cases when my idea of the 'semantic may be less concrete than Henry's, Maybe be parameterized by say window width say.
21:27:21 [Noah]
scribenick: noah
21:28:24 [Noah]
HT: Can we wrap by popping to metaquestion: stipulate that I will remove the implication that namespaces have semantics, and will also make clear this is part of a larger and as yet incomplete project, which is whether all of XML is compositional.
21:28:32 [Noah]
SW: What's the larger goal not achieved?
21:28:55 [Noah]
HT: Doesn't say that in general, and strongly recommended in future, the application semantics of XML documents is/should be compositional.
21:29:04 [Noah]
DC: Can't you get there by deleting from this document?
21:29:16 [Noah]
HT: No. Well, result would be vacuous?
21:29:32 [Noah]
TBL: Have we said that the way to interpret the Namespace at the top?
21:29:36 [Noah]
HT: No.
21:29:51 [Noah]
NM: I hope Tim meant the qualified name of the root element.
21:30:07 [Noah]
TBL: Anyway, if we haven't said it's determined by what's at the top, we can't tell the story.
21:30:11 [Noah]
HT: Not convinced.
21:30:49 [Noah]
HT: In the strict story, XML documents get semantics via the Infoset. You don't interpret the angle brackets and equals signs directly.
21:31:02 [Noah]
HT: It's what's available via the Infoset.
21:31:40 [Noah]
HT: Thus, every statement about XML document must be in the following: "The semantics of an xml element namespace=x and localname=y is whatever.
21:32:07 [Noah]
HT: What this little document is addressing, except in odd cases like writing an editor, this talks about "the Infoset" you're starting with.
21:32:33 [Noah]
TBL: There's the mistake. There is not necessarily "an" Infoset. You recursively ask about the root.
21:32:47 [Noah]
q+ to talk about consistent use of certain QNames vs. prepass
21:33:02 [Noah]
TBL: You can't in generally look through things and know when to do the elaboration.
21:33:20 [Noah]
HT: We fundamentally disagree. Never mind, we agree completely.
21:33:37 [Noah]
HT: There are probably two ways to understand this, mine is perhaps more naive but easier to communicate.
21:33:59 [Noah]
HT: I like to think in 3 steps. Each is functional, so you can compose them, and get the story.
21:34:16 [Noah]
TBL and NM: No, you can't get Tim's story.
21:34:51 [Noah]
HT: Step 1, parse character sequence to produce vanilla infoset. Step 2 elaborates, to get elaborate that infoset. Step 3 application semantics.
21:35:32 [Stuart]
q?
21:35:39 [Stuart]
q+ raman
21:38:09 [Noah]
HT: What is semantics of <xi:include href="notMeButHim.hmtl"/>
21:38:18 [Noah]
HT: I think the semantics of the elaborated infoset.
21:38:39 [Stuart]
is this depth first v breadth first?
21:38:49 [Noah]
TBL: Example of a document modeling pay per view. Scribe thinks there are two subtrees, one of which is guarded by a did you pay for it element?
21:39:01 [Noah]
TBL: Whether to elaborate depends on whether user pays the money.
21:39:27 [Noah]
TBL: Your model, Henry, involves picking up all the movies, and paying for them, first.
21:40:03 [Noah]
TBL: In general, you have to do elaboration, to down.
21:40:25 [Norm]
q+ to simply observe that that's not how XInclude works today
21:40:34 [Rhys]
q+ : to say that there is a real example of a markup language that does what TimBL just described
21:40:47 [Noah]
HT: Taking that view gives you a more complicated model for no functional distinction.
21:41:02 [Rhys]
q+
21:41:09 [Rhys]
ack :
21:41:09 [Zakim]
:, you wanted to say that there is a real example of a markup language that does what TimBL just described
21:41:09 [Noah]
HT: What <quote> is for, is to keep the movies to be elaborated.
21:41:16 [Noah]
TBL: It's not just a quote.
21:41:17 [Vincent]
Vincent has left #tagmem
21:41:39 [Noah]
HT: The reason you quote is because you're not ready to elaborate yet.
21:41:58 [Vincent]
Vincent has joined #tagmem
21:45:05 [Stuart]
q?
21:45:12 [Stuart]
ack noah
21:45:12 [Zakim]
Noah, you wanted to talk about consistent use of certain QNames vs. prepass
21:45:15 [timbl_]
NM: I think there is a coheernebt view of [,...] which make this work ... the spec sould say that one way o using xml:include is as a root element -- for example HTML could say that when xml:include is the root element then it should be elaborated.
21:46:04 [Norm]
q-
21:46:25 [timbl_]
TBL: If xml:include specifies that every xml:inckldue unstace in a document MSU be elborTED THEN THERE IS A BUG.
21:46:28 [timbl_]
ooops
21:46:37 [timbl_]
must be elaborated then there is a bug
21:48:46 [Noah]
NM: I think the spec for xi:include should say what it means as an application semantic if you use me as a root element and/or if my ancestor does not override my semantic
21:48:56 [Norm]
timbl_, that *is* what the XInclude spec says
21:49:02 [Stuart]
ack raman
21:49:03 [Noah]
HT: I'm now convinced that Tim and I cannot for now be satisfied by the same design.
21:50:07 [Noah]
TVR: Try a new tack. Henry has spoken of pipelines and recursion. Let's consider, for comparison, LISP S expressions. When you write a recursive descent parser, you have two simple rules, which are to read head then tail of list, and a quoting mechanism to override the default.
21:50:43 [Noah]
TVR: That's what appealed to me originally from Henry's design. The problem I have is that if we allow an element at some depth to change the quoting process, that's somewhat troubling.
21:50:57 [Noah]
TVR: Feels weird to change how you're reading down the tree.
21:51:22 [Noah]
TVR: Something from reading <a:foo> should not be allowed to change quoting characteristics of a descendent <b:foo>
21:51:25 [Stuart]
ack Rhys
21:52:03 [Noah]
RL: I think there may be real XML markups that would break if all XIncludes were pre-expanded. E.g. di:select, probably VoiceXML, and also probably SMIL.
21:52:08 [Noah]
RL: It has conditionals.
21:52:18 [Noah]
HT: Conditionals are a good example, because they are quoted.
21:52:49 [Noah]
HT: In the pure lambda calculus you have to quote with the only available mechanism which, perversely, is lambda.
21:52:49 [timbl_]
q+ to wonder whether the analgy is with the parsing of S-exps or t elaboration of an explression.
21:53:16 [Noah]
HT: In LISP, as opposed to lambda calculus, COND has special characteristics. It's not a function, it's a "special form".
21:53:49 [Noah]
HT: The arguments are implicitly quoted, so we can decide to only evaluate some of them.
21:54:48 [Noah]
HT: What's true in Scheme, but not in Interlisp, the only special forms are built into the language. In Interlisp, you could define N-Lambdas (spelling?), in which you could define your own functions with implicit argument quoting.
21:55:12 [Noah]
HT: I'm arguing, by analogy, for the Schema-like approach.
21:55:23 [Rhys]
q?
21:55:34 [Noah]
HT: On this analogy, Tim's position would be the Interlisp position.
21:55:52 [Noah]
SW: Do we have enough to proceed?
21:56:04 [Noah]
NM: Well, we've crystalized a disagreement. :-)
21:56:16 [Noah]
HT: I suppose Tim and I need to think about who blinks first.
21:57:15 [DanC_lap]
(I found http://www.lisp.org/HyperSpec/Body/glo_s.html#special_form ...)
21:59:22 [Norm]
-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2007Mar/0012.html
22:02:49 [Norm]
ScribeNick: Norm
22:03:07 [Noah]
Workshop CFP URI: http://www.w3.org/2006/10/wos-ec-cfp.html
22:03:13 [Noah]
Program: http://www.w3.org/2007/01/wos-ec-program.html
22:03:17 [Norm]
Topic: Reports on Web Services Workshop
22:03:19 [Noah]
Noah's TAG presentation: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2007/03/WSPresentation/titleSlide.html
22:03:45 [Norm]
Noah: Workshop attended by on the order of 50-70 people at Mitre in Bedford last week.
22:04:24 [Norm]
...Grew from an suggestion that W3C should concentrate more on Web Services and lesson SemWeb.
22:04:53 [Norm]
...Workshop was an effort by the W3C and the folks using WS for enterprise applications to find out what was happening, what was needed in this area.
22:05:28 [Norm]
DO: I think there was a focus on finding concrete use cases weren't being met by what's in play or expected to be in play.
22:05:33 [timbl_]
I think the message from the AC meeting was more along the lines of: please have more focus and expertize on enterprise computing.
22:05:48 [Norm]
Noah: The call for papers was very heavy on use cases, but the actual talks didn't go in that direction.
22:06:46 [Norm]
Noah: That may be the history, I'm just reporting what I heard Eric say.
22:07:06 [Norm]
...The main point is that Eric was pleasantly surprised by the response.
22:08:22 [Norm]
...Participants were a mix: vendors, WS-* usual suspects, a few REST supporters. Particularly interesting: there were a lot of regular users.
22:08:33 [Norm]
...Workshop would have been stronger if there had been more straight users.
22:09:23 [Norm]
...Big topics: what are people doing, what do people say they need, to what degree is the W3C the right place to do this, and looming behind, what is the relationship between the web and web services.
22:09:34 [Norm]
Noah: So, what are people doing?
22:10:17 [Norm]
...WS-* is largely used behind the firewall for enterprise integration. Outside the firewall, it's REST based.
22:10:45 [Norm]
...Citigroup disagreed, saying they had a large investment in WS-* in public.
22:11:31 [Norm]
DO: Yahoo Mail uses SOAP generating several million messages a week.
22:12:02 [Norm]
Noah: Why are people using WS-*? Tooling was one answer. People perceive that when they buy in to the WS stack, the tooling grinds out a pile of code that does it.
22:12:24 [Norm]
...When they try REST, the tooling asks if they want to do a GET or a POST.
22:12:45 [Norm]
Noah: The other highlight of something needed was better support for databinding.
22:14:21 [Norm]
...The tooling works well at first, but sometimes after several months you find bugs.
22:14:46 [Norm]
...One of the frustrations was that not everyone was present.
22:15:34 [Norm]
TV: The emphasis on the tooling generates second-order bugs (bugs in the tools generate buggy gorpy code). If you look at "w"eb "s"ervices, they're writing gorpy JavaScript by hand. There must be something better.
22:16:09 [Norm]
Noah: Tooling really doesn't really have anything to do with WS-* vs. REST. The choices are about the same.
22:16:20 [Norm]
...But the vendors have largly packaged it that were.
22:16:26 [Norm]
s/that were/that way/
22:16:41 [DanC_lap]
(fyi, I wrote an essay in April 1997 about this tooling stuff and distributed objects in the web... ". So one step forward in complexity management from richer interface description is two, three, or ten steps backward in total development cost." http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/9703-web-apps-essay.html )
22:18:34 [Norm]
Noah: Paul Downey said it's about messaging. Messaging systems mitigate problems of "the connection dropped"
22:18:49 [Norm]
TV: Was there anyone asking about REST and JSON?
22:19:02 [Norm]
Noah: Yes, I think it was pretty well understood that there are these two approaches.
22:19:55 [Norm]
Noah: The real deeper question is should WS go away because the web is simpler/better. Some say it should, some are not convinced.
22:20:17 [Norm]
Noah: When I send a transaction to the Federal Reserve, I'm not sure I trust an http POST, I want to send it through a reliable messaging queue.
22:20:22 [Norm]
Noah: Is W3C the right place?
22:20:58 [Norm]
...Some argued that the culture at W3C isn't right. Atom, for example, was done at IETF.
22:21:13 [Norm]
...Others pointed out the value of reputation, IP policy, staff, etc.
22:21:47 [Norm]
DanC: Atom wasn't low cost...Tim Bray's dedicated time for 18 months isn't cheap.
22:22:29 [Norm]
Noah: People repeatedly refered to the soap builders model.
22:22:59 [Norm]
...End points with test cases published quickly and a mailing list to discuss the answers.
22:23:12 [Norm]
...I thought it worked very well. And it helped the W3C WGs.
22:23:52 [Norm]
...One suggestion was to collapse the core specs into a single "WS Core" WG.
22:24:26 [Norm]
...Try to put a box around some of this stuff as sort of stable and just fix bugs.
22:25:17 [Norm]
Noah: Ken Lasky produced some summary slides, but they don't stand alone. Hopefully he'll digest that a bit and post something.
22:25:44 [Norm]
Noah: One position is that WS just isn't the web and you shouldn't try to join them.
22:26:04 [Norm]
...My view is that the web wasn't just built to integrate things that were designed to be integrated into it.
22:26:12 [Norm]
...That seemed to make some sense.
22:26:25 [Norm]
TV: Doesn't that dichotomy remind you of the xml:id vs id discussion of earlier?
22:27:12 [Norm]
Noah: We did eventually settle on a use case for our paper which I think really helped illustrate the points.
22:27:52 [Norm]
...I'd like to be able to get a link to my airline reservation but I'd also like to be able to send that to my travel agent and ask them to cancel it. That might require more than just http for security or whatever.
22:28:34 [Norm]
TV: We've had similar discussions around the mobile web. The biggest risk I see is that there's an increasing interest in carving out little disjoint spaces.
22:29:05 [Norm]
Noah: At the very least, there's a lot of buy in so that big systems will be built with it. So we should work with them to help tell the right stories.
22:29:30 [Norm]
DO: I have a bit of a different spin. I agree with a lot of what you said.
22:30:11 [Norm]
...I found a couple of points very interesting. The first was that for all the discussion of web arch vs. web services arch and how to reconcile them, there was little support for any kind of technical solutions that might do that.
22:30:34 [Norm]
...I pushed a little bit that perhaps WADL ought to be standardized at W3C. It barely made it onto the final ballot and there were only two votes for it.
22:30:38 [Norm]
...Including mine.
22:30:50 [Norm]
...And two votes against.
22:31:07 [Norm]
DO: I really expected one or two enterprise customers to be supportive, but that didn't happen.
22:31:43 [Norm]
DO: The flip side of that, allowing SOAP clients to bind to URIs, didn't even make it onto the ballot.
22:32:00 [Norm]
...The customers simply weren't interested in a technical solutions.
22:32:26 [Norm]
Noah: I thought the process was a bit bizarre. We had 15 or so things but we could only vote for two. So I think WADL is a good idea, but I put my two votes elsewhere.
22:33:09 [Norm]
...There was definite tension.
22:33:38 [Norm]
DO: I asked if the world was a better place because some of the specs had gone through the W3C?
22:33:52 [Norm]
...I said I wasn't so sure, cf the endpoint references debackle.
22:34:04 [Norm]
...There's tension between fast-tracking and having architectural coherence.
22:34:21 [Norm]
...If we don't want architectural oversight, maybe we should just do things at OASIS and rubber-stamp away.
22:34:34 [Norm]
DO: I also asked how is enterprise computing different from non-enterprise computing.
22:34:49 [Norm]
...In enterprise computing, the applications have more faith in the well-behavedness of applications.
22:35:01 [Norm]
...This means that they're more comfortable with more state in their applications.
22:35:28 [Norm]
...There are also issues around security, managability, and non-functional requirements.
22:35:40 [Norm]
...That raises questions about what that means for specs. There was little uptake on that.
22:36:00 [Norm]
Noah: Except that lots of folks said nice things about the state finding and encouraged us to finish it.
22:36:33 [Norm]
TV: There are very large scale applications available today that are much more robust than some enterprise apps.
22:36:52 [Norm]
...Apps like gmail have been exposed to far more users than most enterprise applications.
22:37:15 [DanC_lap]
(the dev cost of gmail dwarfs meat-and-potatoes enterprise stuff, I expect.)
22:37:44 [Norm]
TV: When you talk enterprise apps, one important distinction is that you deploy a lot more enterprise applications. You get one app at GM and a very similar, but not quite the same, application at Ford.
22:38:36 [Norm]
DO: At a Yahoo search you might have eight different parameters with zillions of users.
22:38:44 [Norm]
...That means you can get away without a machine processable language.
22:39:04 [Norm]
...In enterprise computing, you have far more parameters but not as many users. So you need a lot more tooling support.
22:39:43 [Norm]
...The PeopleSoft application is something like 8,000 tables and 12,000 screens. You can't compare that to something like web search.
22:40:51 [Norm]
Noah: There are also things like reporting requirements, disaster recovery, etc. These folks are conservative.
22:40:58 [Norm]
...There's going to be a mix for a long time.
22:41:21 [Norm]
Stuart: Pick up tomorrow with namespaceDocument-8.
22:41:22 [Norm]
ADJOURNED
22:57:06 [DanC_lap]
DanC_lap has joined #tagmem
23:52:40 [DanC_lap]
DanC_lap has joined #tagmem