IRC log of tagmem on 2007-04-02

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:54:35 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #tagmem
15:54:35 [RRSAgent]
logging to
15:54:45 [ht]
raman, will you log to IRC?
15:55:00 [DanC]
DanC has joined #tagmem
15:55:23 [ht]
zakim, who is on the phone?
15:55:23 [Zakim]
On the phone I see TimBL
15:55:50 [Stuart]
Stuart has joined #tagmem
15:56:28 [raman]
will log to IRC
15:57:03 [Zakim]
15:57:57 [Zakim]
16:00:10 [Noah]
Noah has joined #tagmem
16:00:25 [DanC]
RRSAgent, pointer?
16:00:25 [RRSAgent]
16:00:32 [Zakim]
16:00:42 [Zakim]
16:00:49 [ht]
zakim, please call ht-781
16:00:49 [Zakim]
ok, ht; the call is being made
16:00:50 [Zakim]
16:01:55 [Stuart]
zakim, zakim, who is here?
16:01:55 [Zakim]
I don't understand your question, Stuart.
16:02:01 [Stuart]
zakim, who is here?
16:02:01 [Zakim]
On the phone I see TimBL, Raman, ??P10, Noah_Mendelsohn, DanC, Ht
16:02:02 [Zakim]
On IRC I see Noah, Stuart, DanC, RRSAgent, Zakim, raman, timbl_, Norm, ht
16:02:09 [Zakim]
16:02:30 [timbl_]
being a bit previous?
16:02:46 [Stuart]
zakim, who is here?
16:02:46 [Zakim]
On the phone I see TimBL, Raman, ??P10, Noah_Mendelsohn, DanC, Ht, Rhys
16:02:48 [Zakim]
On IRC I see Noah, Stuart, DanC, RRSAgent, Zakim, raman, timbl_, Norm, ht
16:03:06 [Stuart]
zakim, ??p10 is me
16:03:06 [Zakim]
+Stuart; got it
16:05:40 [Rhys]
Rhys has joined #tagmem
16:05:55 [Zakim]
16:05:55 [DanC]
-> minutes 26 March
16:06:11 [raman]
RESOLUTION: Minutes approved for last week
16:06:21 [DanC]
16:08:11 [raman]
No call April 9 -- Easter Monday
16:08:19 [raman]
Norm scribes on April 15
16:08:32 [raman]
(Actually April 16) Noah possible regrets for Apr 16
16:08:57 [raman]
Apr 16: Possibly make progress on passwords in the clear
16:09:07 [Stuart]
16:09:15 [timbl_]
Regrest from Tim for the 16th
16:09:29 [timbl_]
16:09:56 [raman]
16:10:05 [ht]
16:13:53 [raman]
clarify difference between URIs and URI references.
16:14:03 [raman]
Possible name: Abbreviated URIs 54
16:14:33 [Stuart]
16:14:40 [DanC]
(I prefer to leave the {abs}ln j clark syntax out of scope of this new issue)
16:15:55 [Norm]
{}foo">}foo as an expansion of x:foo where xmlns:x="" is in-scope
16:16:03 [Noah]
My reference to the Clark syntax is indeed a mistake.
16:16:10 [ht]
{abs}ln is an _expansion) of a QName
16:16:36 [ht]
Referred to in XML Namespaces 1.1 as an "expanded name"
16:16:44 [Noah]
I'm merely saying that I don't think it's the fact that CURIEs or anything else are smaller that's the issue. It's if they are a nonstandard syntax for URIs.
16:17:14 [Noah]
If for some bizarre reason I swapped each pair of characters in a URI, it would be nonstandard but no shorter. Would the issues raised be particularly different?
16:17:31 [ht]
No, and we'd let you discuss them under this issue!
16:17:35 [timbl_]
16:17:47 [raman]
Stuart: summarizes new issue: Abbreviated URIs
16:17:55 [dorchard]
dorchard has joined #tagmem
16:18:03 [Noah]
OK, I just find that the name "abbreviated" suggests that it's the compactness that's the source of trouble, and Dan just said he thinks it is.
16:18:07 [raman]
RESOLUTION: Open new TAG issue with short name Abbreviated URIs
16:18:23 [DanC]
ACTION DanC: respond to with SPARQL QNames and other details
16:18:52 [raman]
Skipping versioning while we await Dave
16:19:03 [raman]
TOPIC: TAG Participation In AC Meeting
16:19:12 [raman]
6 TAG members expected to be present
16:22:32 [raman]
TimBL: Focus on properties of the Internet layer that are needed to make the Web layer work e.g. anyone can talk to anyone
16:23:11 [raman]
matchboxes are the root of all evil in the Internet world
16:23:29 [Zakim]
16:24:34 [raman]
TimBL possible audience includes people who are on the line between wall-gardens for mobile and the big Web
16:25:49 [Stuart]
16:26:01 [timbl_]
16:27:00 [Stuart]
ack tim
16:27:05 [DanC]
s/matchboxes/NAT boxes/
16:28:20 [raman]
DanC thanks for catching that typo:-)
16:28:29 [raman]
I must have been smoking in typing matchboxes
16:29:34 [raman]
Stuart: Conludes that no one on the TAG appears interested in leading this paenl.
16:29:47 [raman]
Stuart: Ask Danny W?
16:33:23 [Noah]
Why does the TAG being involved in something necessary imply an issue or a finding. I think it's very appropriate that we facilitate discussion and fact finding, in part to decide whether there are lurking issues that we should open formally.
16:35:32 [DaveO]
DaveO has joined #tagmem
16:38:30 [raman]
TOPIC: XML Versioning 41
16:38:55 [DanC]
(skimming them now, a lot looks familiar; has anybody made a diff?)
16:39:34 [timbl_]
16:39:43 [timbl_]
12 Dec 2006
16:39:59 [DanC]
agenda points to a draft of 26 March 2007
16:40:18 [raman]
Dave to give a 10 minute overview
16:40:22 [timbl_]
Version numbers for HTML and CSS
16:41:10 [raman]
DanC: versioning coming up in html
16:41:27 [raman]
HT: where is the material about abstract languages that came up in Vancouver
16:42:16 [timbl_]
Hmmph ... is 2006. Remove the ".html" for the 2007 version.
16:42:32 [timbl_]
An unusual fiorm of versioning ;-)
16:42:50 [DanC]
this web publishing thing is kinda tricky
16:44:40 [Stuart]
16:44:45 [raman]
Raman, DanC, TimBL all point out that html and css versioning are topics o discussion
16:47:37 [timbl_]
16:51:02 [DanC]
(is Dave giving a diff, or summarizing the whole thing?)
16:51:28 [raman]
sounds like a detailed exposition to me...
16:51:38 [timbl_]
The whole thing I think .. he gave an overview of changes when he started
16:52:36 [raman]
Document needs to identify different types of extensions: extension points (explicit vs impolicit ) created by language designer; extensions introduced by consuming apps that attach meaning to underspecified portions of a language; and how language designers work in the future in the face of such extensions
16:52:48 [raman]
I believe the above approximately captures the situation with html
16:53:08 [raman]
we shouldn't work on versioning in the belief that the only person versioning a language is the language designer
16:53:38 [raman]
I'll need to leave in two minutes.
16:53:41 [timbl_]
Examples I think are needed for each good practcie note, positive and negative.
16:54:07 [raman]
microfomats here sticks out as a later addition?
16:54:43 [raman]
Note that microformats isn't a new language or language version -- it uses an existing "implicit extension point" of HTML -- the class attribute -- as a payload to hold additional information
16:54:45 [timbl_]
+1 to: raman: we shouldn't work on versioning in the belief that the only person versioning a language is the language designer
16:54:56 [timbl_]
16:55:21 [ht]
scribenick: ht
16:55:27 [Zakim]
16:55:33 [ht]
DO: Switch back to the email
16:55:39 [ht]
16:55:54 [ht]
DO: Major differences -- insertions of material pulled from part 1
16:55:58 [DanC]
-> Orchard 23 March
16:56:23 [ht]
... added some new versioning strategies . . . version numbers, substitution groups
16:56:33 [ht]
... other discussion of XML Schema 1.0
16:56:37 [ht]
... 8 case studies
16:56:50 [ht]
... XML Schema <redefine>
16:57:06 [ht]
... [summary of ToC]
17:02:47 [DanC]
+1 survey/use-cases. I'd rather the document started with one of those rather than "Terminology"
17:03:03 [ht]
DO: I'm particularly hoping that the case studies will address a number of outstanding requests for examples
17:03:23 [timbl_]
I would find the tables easier if they were 2d matrices with a row for each example.
17:03:33 [Stuart]
I wonder whether we need a collection of smaller chunks?
17:03:38 [ht]
DO: New sections, new organisation - - feedback requested on whether this works, is what people were looking for
17:04:07 [ht]
SW: Floor open for questions
17:04:22 [ht]
SW: How does this work relate to the work in W3C XML Schema - land
17:04:26 [Rhys]
17:05:07 [ht]
DO: Schema WG folks have been looking at this document, I've been working in the WG to try to improve the ability of XML Schema 1.1 to be a good language for versioning
17:05:42 [ht]
... The "Guide to Versioning in XML Schema 1.1" is not quite the same thing, rather, it's focussing on what the _new_ mechanisms are in Schema 1.1
17:06:11 [ht]
... There's interest in a full-scale "how to version with Schema" document, but I haven't tried to do that
17:06:43 [Stuart]
ack rhys
17:06:45 [ht]
... There's not much overlap with the TAG finding drafts, although some of the use cases are common
17:07:18 [ht]
RW: Read previous versions of both docs, and the new version of part one, skimmed new part two
17:07:47 [ht]
... part two seems to be the thing I as a consumer really need, as I set out to try to design an XML language myself
17:07:59 [Noah]
17:08:04 [ht]
... Do we have all the best practices in there now -- can we actually provide guidance?a
17:08:13 [Stuart]
17:08:43 [ht]
DO: I started out only caring about part two -- how to version XML
17:09:20 [ht]
... The TAG wanted to expand to covering a larger scope, to understand what is meant by language, version, extension
17:09:34 [Noah]
q+ to talk a bit about scope and goals
17:09:40 [ht]
... and this has consumed a lot of effort -- but I hope we're going to get back to the XML part of things
17:10:17 [ht]
... Wrt 'best practices', that's how we got started, I made concrete suggestions about how XML languages should have extensibility built in
17:11:14 [ht]
... That surfaced as my two articles, using the extension element technique, with explicit schemas illustrating this
17:11:46 [Stuart]
17:12:10 [ht]
... But the TAG thought that was too narrow, we need more of a survey of the range of mechanisms and requirements
17:12:39 [ht]
... Compare UBL, with new namespaces for every change, to DocBook, with no change of namespace ever
17:12:53 [Rhys]
17:13:48 [Stuart]
ack rhys
17:14:38 [ht]
RL: Didn't mean to imply there was _one_ right answer, but a clear connection wrt design choices for a language and mechanisms and approaches to extensibility which would be appropriate
17:15:20 [ht]
DO: Yes, I want to get there -- tempted to give a flow-chart/decision procedure, but my only effort to do so didn't converge
17:15:42 [ht]
... Yes, I do intend to combine all the tables together
17:15:57 [ht]
... But some of the entries are sort of too long for a table-cell. . .
17:16:26 [Stuart]
ack noah
17:16:26 [Zakim]
Noah, you wanted to talk a bit about scope and goals
17:17:19 [ht]
NM: There's convergence in the sections we've talked about at length -- some more work is needed, but clear progress
17:17:37 [ht]
... I'm worried about the logistics of getting this to a consensus-attracting TAG finding
17:18:07 [ht]
... The whole of WebArch is 49 pages -- part 2 of this doc. is 34 pages, the whole things is close to 80
17:18:32 [ht]
... Maybe we need to prioritise and select
17:18:47 [DaveO]
q+ on how to get to closure
17:18:58 [DaveO]
q+ to talk about how to get to closure
17:19:14 [ht]
... Even if we don't, I'm concerned that most of what's there still needs serious attention, and that will take a _lot_ of time
17:20:01 [ht]
... The scale is, as you pointed out, a consequence of the range of interests within the TAG in this area
17:20:25 [Stuart]
17:20:32 [ht]
... What we _really_ shouldn't do is work hard on improving sections and then deciding to throw a lot out
17:20:44 [Stuart]
ack daveo
17:20:44 [Zakim]
DaveO, you wanted to talk about how to get to closure
17:20:53 [ht]
... So that's things for other TAG members to think about as they read this
17:21:23 [ht]
DO: I agree with all of that -- I've been concerned as I've been asked to expand this with precisely that problem
17:21:50 [ht]
... Language versioning in general, there's a lot of material here -- several PhD theses
17:21:57 [ht]
... at any rate
17:22:04 [Noah]
I think what's happened is: Dave wanted this to be a mainly XML finding. Some of us suggested it should be a mainly non-XML finding. For the moment, that's turned into "let's put everything in there".
17:22:50 [ht]
... I'm happy to keep working on this, but we do all need to know that the work we do will end up being used
17:22:55 [Noah]
I don't think that's the whole issue though. Even within the separate parts, I think we may do better to deliver the really key points carefully and clearly, and to leave to others some of the other details.
17:24:13 [ht]
DO: The thing I don't want to lose is what's needed to answer RL's requirement: What should a language designer do?
17:25:26 [timbl_]
17:25:38 [ht]
SW: So as we read this we need to be assessing its status -- is there a backbone here, from which we can separate a number of smaller, more accessible supplementary documents
17:26:02 [Stuart]
ack timbl
17:26:06 [ht]
DO: [One person's 80 is another person's 20]
17:26:28 [ht]
TBL: I don't mind the length, as long as there's a logical and consistent story throughout
17:27:24 [ht]
... Maybe people only interested in XML will mostly read the 2nd part, and only go back to the 1st part when they hit a problem with terminology
17:28:04 [ht]
... I'm not sure cutting large chunks out is a good idea -- lots of the bulk is examples -- as long as it's logically laid out, people will focus on the parts that are relevant to them
17:28:34 [Noah]
FWIW: my concern is not that it's illogical. It's whether we can find the energy to tune something so long to the quality we need.
17:29:12 [ht]
SW: So TAG members should all read the drafts, and send comments by email, with an eye to working on this at the f2f in May
17:30:01 [ht]
... As many reviews as possible would be good
17:30:23 [ht]
TBL, DC: I may have to focus my effort, not cover the whole thing
17:31:18 [ht]
NM: I just want to be sure that even in part two, we're all happy with recommendations and best practices
17:31:56 [Zakim]
17:31:59 [Zakim]
17:32:01 [ht]
SW: Adjourned
17:32:02 [Zakim]
17:32:03 [Zakim]
17:32:10 [Zakim]
17:32:16 [Zakim]
17:32:18 [Zakim]
17:32:20 [Zakim]
17:32:21 [Zakim]
TAG_Weekly()12:00PM has ended
17:32:22 [ht]
rrsagent, make logs world-visible
17:32:23 [Zakim]
Attendees were TimBL, Raman, Noah_Mendelsohn, DanC, Ht, Rhys, Stuart, Norm, DOrchard
18:03:51 [raman]
raman has left #tagmem
19:26:38 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #tagmem
19:55:30 [timbl]
timbl has joined #tagmem
20:34:32 [timbl_]
timbl_ has joined #tagmem