IRC log of tagmem on 2007-03-26

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:48:14 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #tagmem
15:48:14 [RRSAgent]
logging to
15:48:29 [Stuart]
zakim, this will be tag
15:48:29 [Zakim]
ok, Stuart; I see TAG_Weekly()12:00PM scheduled to start in 12 minutes
15:57:00 [Zakim]
TAG_Weekly()12:00PM has now started
15:57:04 [Zakim]
15:57:11 [Stuart]
zakim, ??p8 is me
15:57:11 [Zakim]
+Stuart; got it
15:58:37 [Norm]
Norm has joined #tagmem
15:59:29 [Rhys]
Rhys has joined #tagmem
16:00:04 [ht]
zakim, please call ht-781
16:00:04 [Zakim]
ok, ht; the call is being made
16:00:05 [Zakim]
16:00:06 [Zakim]
16:00:07 [Zakim]
16:00:43 [Zakim]
16:00:56 [raman]
raman has joined #tagmem
16:01:15 [Zakim]
+ +0196288aaaa
16:01:20 [Zakim]
16:01:35 [DanC]
Zakim, take up item 1
16:01:35 [Zakim]
I see nothing on the agenda
16:01:54 [DanC]
agenda + Administrative
16:01:55 [Norm]
Norm has joined #tagmem
16:02:03 [ht]
zakim, +01 is Rhys
16:02:03 [Zakim]
+Rhys; got it
16:02:13 [DanC]
16:02:30 [DanC]
agenda + CURIEs follow up from last week
16:02:37 [DanC]
agenda + # Issue URNsAndRegistry-50
16:02:45 [DanC]
agenda + Issue TagSoupIntegration-54
16:02:55 [DanC]
agenda + Issue IRIEveryWhere-27
16:03:06 [noah]
noah has joined #tagmem
16:03:07 [DanC]
Zakim, take up item 1
16:03:07 [Zakim]
agendum 1. "Administrative" taken up [from DanC]
16:03:12 [Zakim]
16:03:31 [Stuart]
zakim, who is here?
16:03:31 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Stuart, Ht, Raman, Rhys, Norm, DanC
16:03:32 [Zakim]
On IRC I see noah, Norm, raman, Rhys, RRSAgent, Zakim, Stuart, DanC, ht
16:03:32 [Zakim]
16:03:34 [Zakim]
16:03:44 [ht]
zakim, [I is noah
16:03:48 [Zakim]
+noah; got it
16:03:55 [timbl]
timbl has joined #tagmem
16:04:11 [Stuart]
zakim, who is here?
16:04:11 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Stuart, Ht, Raman, Rhys, Norm, DanC, TimBL, noah
16:04:12 [Zakim]
On IRC I see timbl, noah, Norm, raman, Rhys, RRSAgent, Zakim, Stuart, DanC, ht
16:05:12 [DanC]
RESOLVED: to approve
16:05:36 [DanC]
RESOLVED: to approve , ,
16:06:36 [timbl]
Ac meeting ....
16:06:46 [DanC]
agenda + IETF liaison something
16:06:57 [timbl]
... Internet properties?
16:07:16 [timbl]
16:07:17 [DanC]
agenda + httpRange-14 editing mechanics [rhys]
16:07:55 [DanC]
PROPOSED: to meet again Mon, 2 Apr
16:08:07 [DanC]
RESOLVED: to meet again Mon, 2 Apr, TVR to scribe
16:08:39 [DanC]
agenda + Internet properties [timbl]
16:09:28 [DanC]
SKW: note focus next week is XMLVersioning-41 , then passwordsInTheClear-52 16 Apr
16:09:31 [DanC]
Zakim, next item
16:09:31 [Zakim]
I see a speaker queue remaining and respectfully decline to close this agendum, DanC
16:09:36 [DanC]
ack timbl
16:09:37 [DanC]
Zakim, next item
16:09:37 [Zakim]
agendum 2. "CURIEs follow up from last week" taken up [from DanC]
16:10:20 [DanC]
ACTION: HST to circulate a candidate description to [to frame a distinct topic/issue on CURIE] [CONTINUES]
16:11:15 [DanC]
HT: by way of progress, I have been in communication with the editor [of the curie spec]
16:11:22 [DanC]
16:11:28 [DanC]
ack danc
16:11:31 [Stuart]
ack danc
16:11:46 [DanC]
DanC: I prefer www-tag
16:11:52 [DanC]
ht: that might slow me down a bit, but ok
16:12:04 [DanC]
Regrets: DO
16:12:15 [DanC]
Zakim, next item
16:12:15 [Zakim]
agendum 3. "# Issue URNsAndRegistry-50" taken up [from DanC]
16:13:12 [DanC]
HT: two things about this document get me stuck:
16:13:35 [ht]
16:13:37 [DanC]
... (1) the parts don't fit together well... the part I wrote and the part Dave wrote
16:14:49 [Zakim]
16:14:59 [DanC]
... (2) reasons people do these myIRI things [?]
16:15:36 [DanC]
... I'm getting conflicting feedback: (a) there are too many little details (b) it doesn't make the opposition's case credible enough
16:16:19 [DanC]
... we might ask "who is this section for"? it has too much for the already-convinced, and not enough to convince others
16:16:21 [dorchard]
dorchard has joined #tagmem
16:16:31 [dorchard]
16:16:42 [Stuart]
16:17:46 [DanC]
HT: So do we want a simple overview such as this [section 2] attempted to do? and then: are sections 3 to 5 enough to answer "so, OK, I'm convinced; what do I do?"
16:18:25 [DanC]
SKW: I just read the document today, and I find section 2 pretty good, though I have a lot of detailed comments scribbled on it
16:18:55 [noah]
16:19:12 [noah]
q+ to ask are we closer to the start or the end on this one?
16:20:29 [DanC]
SKW: I wonder about persistence...
16:20:32 [ht]
16:21:00 [DanC]
... do people seek a persistent binding between a URI and a particular representation? or between a URI and a resource?
16:21:15 [Stuart]
16:21:26 [timbl]
q+ to answr Staurt's question
16:22:01 [Norm]
16:22:12 [DanC]
HT: coming back to this document, I'm a bit more comfortable with it; I find the ARK paper really helpful, but it's [N] pages of dense PDF, so we shouldn't be surprised that the few pages of HTML we've done don't cover everything
16:22:22 [timbl]
q+ to say that basically this persistence is the msapping from the idntifier to the abstract resource, where what you get back exactly (and any pesistence of that) is a different related but different question.
16:22:39 [Stuart]
ack naoh
16:22:43 [Stuart]
ack noah
16:22:43 [Zakim]
noah, you wanted to ask are we closer to the start or the end on this one?
16:22:51 [DanC]
HT: perhaps citing the ark paper to provide a detailed case study will do it
16:24:37 [DanC]
NM: I have some detailed comments, but I wonder... is this document working at a big-picture level? does it facilitate dialog with people exploring this issue?
16:24:54 [DanC]
16:25:20 [DanC]
q+ to say that the big picture should be evident in boxes etc, and to suggest a round-the-table straw-poll
16:25:37 [DanC]
HT: I have [missed]
16:26:08 [noah]
Recently, however, a number of proposals have emerged to create new identification mechanisms for the Web. They propose new URN (sub-)namespaces or URI schemes and provide registries for instances thereof, in order to allow them to be used to identify and retrieve information resources. This would appear to be incompatible with [AWWW]'s simple positive recommendations. In this finding we enumerate the arguments given in favor of these new proposals, which ofte
16:26:27 [noah]
point the way constructively to alternative designs which do in fact make use of http: URIs.
16:27:04 [timbl]
sentence ike [mised]
16:27:37 [DanC]
ack danc
16:27:37 [Zakim]
DanC, you wanted to say that the big picture should be evident in boxes etc, and to suggest a round-the-table straw-poll
16:27:48 [ht]
s/[missed]/been re-energised to work on this doc., and provided the group is happy with the overall thrust, then I'm ready to accept detailed input/
16:27:54 [DanC]
DanC: I'm pretty thumbs-up; time to start polishing
16:28:17 [Norm]
Norm has joined #tagmem
16:28:20 [DanC]
NM: I'm in the middle; I'd like to validate it with more interactions a la the HCLSIG
16:28:26 [DanC]
+1 gather experimental evidence
16:28:50 [DanC]
NDW: I'm inclined to do a detailed review.
16:29:13 [DanC]
... I mostly like it, as I recall
16:29:28 [DanC]
(Rhys, when did you read it? I'm curious)
16:29:41 [DanC]
Rhys: I mostly like it; I look forward to another draft
16:29:58 [Stuart]
16:29:59 [Rhys]
on a flight to new york last week
16:29:59 [DanC]
SKW: I remain to be convinced on some points. [missed some?]
16:30:16 [ht]
Note that this draft is 8 months old at this time. . .
16:30:56 [Stuart]
16:30:58 [DanC]
TimBL: I hope we're close to finished. I don't expect hard-core developers of naming schemes to be convinced by one document, or even one conference etc.
16:31:02 [Stuart]
ack timbl
16:31:02 [Zakim]
timbl, you wanted to answr Staurt's question and to say that basically this persistence is the msapping from the idntifier to the abstract resource, where what you get back
16:31:06 [Zakim]
... exactly (and any pesistence of that) is a different related but different question.
16:31:07 [DanC]
q+ to point out interested parties
16:31:07 [Stuart]
q- stuart
16:31:55 [DanC]
TimBL: re persistence, I think the point here is the binding between a URI and a conceptual thing; the relationship to the representation(s) is separate; see the generic resources finding
16:32:42 [DanC]
SKW: the question is whether that's what others mean by "persistence"
16:33:05 [Stuart]
16:33:10 [DanC]
ht: I intend to elaborate on persistence of representations as opposed to identifier/identified
16:33:14 [Stuart]
ack Danc
16:33:14 [Zakim]
DanC, you wanted to point out interested parties
16:34:22 [DanC]
DanC: another interesting audience is people who aren't advocates of myIRIs, but have been asked to endorse myIRIs and are looking for a big picture
16:34:22 [timbl]
Will, The LSID people did get, and may still be, very bogged down over the distinction between persistence of the URI->thing maping and the th persistence of a bit string returned.
16:34:37 [timbl]
16:34:53 [DanC]
DaveO: yes, I have had some comments/discussion with people in that position
16:35:18 [Stuart]
16:35:41 [DanC]
ACTION SKW: send comments on urnsAndRegistries draft
16:35:46 [DanC]
NM: [not sure how to summarize]
16:35:56 [DanC]
Zakim, next item
16:35:56 [Zakim]
agendum 4. "Issue TagSoupIntegration-54" taken up [from DanC]
16:36:08 [timbl]
16:36:12 [DanC]
Zakim, who's talking?
16:36:23 [Zakim]
DanC, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Stuart (9%), Raman (98%)
16:36:24 [Stuart]
16:36:30 [DanC]
TVR: yes, I sent a draft... handed to Dan
16:37:07 [DanC]
-> Doctypes and the dialects of HTML 5 Daniel Schattenkirchner (Friday, 23 March)
16:37:23 [DanC]
DanC: there's a thread in the HTML WG, though I haven't read it; it seems to be relevant
16:37:35 [timbl]
16:39:53 [DanC]
TVR: rather than write this whole thing, I'm inclined to listen to community discussion and summarie in this document
16:40:13 [DanC]
TimBL: I'm interested to enumerate forms of deviation from XHTML in HTML documents.
16:40:47 [DanC]
... I'd rather say "missing / in img element", to phrase it in terms of XHTMl
16:41:43 [DanC]
TVR: I'm not sure that approach is responsive to where the community is just now
16:44:36 [noah]
16:44:47 [noah]
q+ to ask how we generate real value from the XML story
16:47:03 [Stuart]
16:50:11 [DanC]
DanC: cases that both HTML and XML communities care about: (a) logout markup (b) contact and calendar info ... [a few others; darn; they already leaked out]
16:50:19 [Stuart]
16:51:48 [DanC]
NM: the biggest point is centralized vs decentralized extensibility.
16:52:44 [Stuart]
ack noah
16:52:44 [Zakim]
noah, you wanted to ask how we generate real value from the XML story
16:55:48 [DanC]
DanC: is there anything architecural about forms? there's a big organizational question about forms; does the TAG want to be part of that organizational equasion?
16:58:18 [DanC]
TVR, NM, Rhys: sorta.
17:00:02 [DanC]
SKW: next steps?
17:00:18 [DanC]
DanC: pause until HTML WG has a ftf meeting, or issues a WD, or something
17:00:36 [DanC]
TVR: yes, let's wait a bit
17:00:38 [DanC]
Zakim, next item
17:00:38 [Zakim]
agendum 5. "Issue IRIEveryWhere-27" taken up [from DanC]
17:00:43 [Norm]
Norm has joined #tagmem
17:02:53 [DanC]
DanC: I'm not ready to close the IRIEveryWhere-27 issue; I'd like to study the axioms more. Plus, I gather there's XMl Core work on "XML Resource Identifiers" that we should consider before closing this issue
17:03:08 [DanC]
NDW: in particular, spaces are allowed in href="" attributes, but not in IRIs.
17:03:40 [DanC]
... the spec for this has lived in the XLink spec; we were going to factor it out a while ago, but we didn't; now we need to for [xml base?]
17:04:28 [DanC]
... XML Core is aiming for an RFC on XML Resources Indentifiers
17:05:39 [timbl]
17:05:54 [Norm]
17:06:27 [ht]
(XRI)rock on => (IRI)rock%20on ==> (URI)rock%20on
17:06:41 [Stuart]
17:06:58 [DanC]
-> IRIEverywhere-27 addressed by XQuery and other recent W3C Recommendations?
17:07:31 [DanC]
ACTION: DanC to ask TimBL whether XQuery and XML Namespaces 1.1 address IRIEverywhere to his satisfaction, noting Mappings and identity in URIs and IRIs. [DONE]
17:11:08 [DanC]
ACTION TimBL: clarify , perhaps by using N3
17:11:13 [ht]
The IRI spec ( specifies the mapping in a very simple way
17:11:16 [ht]
"The mapping is also an identity transformation for URIs
17:11:16 [ht]
and is idempotent;
17:11:18 [ht]
17:11:33 [DanC]
Zakim, take up item Range
17:11:33 [Zakim]
agendum 7. "httpRange-14 editing mechanics" taken up [from rhys via DanC]
17:13:48 [DanC]
Rhys: I've done seme writing; as I'm new, I'm interested in early feedback
17:13:54 [DanC]
HT: I'm interested to take a look
17:14:43 [DanC]
Zakim, take up IETF
17:14:43 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'take up IETF', DanC
17:14:46 [DanC]
Zakim, take up item IETF
17:14:46 [Zakim]
agendum 6. "IETF liaison something" taken up [from DanC]
17:19:40 [DanC]
DanC summarizes recent IETF liaison discussion of link relationships in HTML and in Atom, which is related to our issue 51 (standardizedFieldValues)
17:19:45 [DanC]
Zakim, close this item
17:19:45 [Zakim]
agendum 6 closed
17:19:46 [Zakim]
I see 3 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
17:19:48 [Zakim]
5. Issue IRIEveryWhere-27 [from DanC]
17:19:52 [DanC]
Zakim, close item 5
17:19:52 [Zakim]
agendum 5, Issue IRIEveryWhere-27, closed
17:19:53 [Zakim]
I see 2 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
17:19:54 [Zakim]
7. httpRange-14 editing mechanics [from rhys via DanC]
17:19:57 [DanC]
Zakim, close item 7
17:19:57 [Zakim]
agendum 7, httpRange-14 editing mechanics, closed
17:19:59 [Zakim]
I see 1 item remaining on the agenda:
17:20:00 [Zakim]
8. Internet properties [from timbl via DanC]
17:20:03 [DanC]
Zakim, next item
17:20:03 [Zakim]
agendum 8. "Internet properties" taken up [from timbl]
17:21:50 [DanC]
TimBL: there has been quite a bit of discussion in the US about whether, once party A has paid an ISP to connect to the Internet, and party B has paid an ISP to connect to the Internet, A and B can then communicate, or whether they might have to do further negotiation or pay some other party
17:22:26 [DanC]
TimBL: MIT doesn't lobby the U.S. government, but laws aside, there are properties of the Internet that the Web relies on
17:24:08 [DanC]
poll on whether to make this a tag issue and/or discuss at an upcoming W3C Advisory Committee meeting...
17:24:48 [DanC]
-> properties of the Internet as foundation of the Web Tim Berners-Lee (Wednesday, 7 March)
17:26:15 [DanC]
poll... 0, ~1, 1, 1, -1, ...
17:26:58 [timbl]
q+ to note that e.g. the N.A.T. box problem is anothr example of IP supply
17:28:01 [DanC]
ack timbl
17:28:01 [Zakim]
timbl, you wanted to note that e.g. the N.A.T. box problem is anothr example of IP supply
17:29:22 [Zakim]
17:29:26 [Zakim]
17:29:26 [DanC]
17:29:30 [Zakim]
17:29:36 [Zakim]
17:29:47 [Zakim]
17:30:05 [Zakim]
17:35:31 [Zakim]
17:35:35 [Zakim]
17:35:36 [Zakim]
TAG_Weekly()12:00PM has ended
17:35:37 [Zakim]
Attendees were Stuart, Ht, Raman, +0196288aaaa, Norm, Rhys, DanC, TimBL, [IBMCambridge], noah, DOrchard
19:31:14 [timbl_]
timbl_ has joined #tagmem
20:14:03 [Norm]
Norm has joined #tagmem