IRC log of tagmem on 2007-06-11

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:44:08 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #tagmem
15:44:08 [RRSAgent]
logging to
15:44:20 [Stuart]
zakim, this will be tag.
15:44:20 [Zakim]
ok, Stuart; I see TAG_Weekly()12:00PM scheduled to start in 16 minutes
15:57:42 [Zakim]
TAG_Weekly()12:00PM has now started
15:57:49 [Zakim]
15:58:01 [Stuart]
zakim, ??p37 is me
15:58:01 [Zakim]
+Stuart; got it
15:59:31 [Stuart]
16:00:19 [Stuart]
16:00:34 [Stuart]
Chair: Stuart
16:03:02 [Zakim]
16:03:09 [ht]
zakim, please call ht-781
16:03:09 [Zakim]
ok, ht; the call is being made
16:03:11 [Zakim]
16:04:40 [Zakim]
16:05:01 [Noah]
zakim, [IBMCambridge] is me
16:05:01 [Zakim]
+Noah; got it
16:10:50 [Zakim]
16:11:42 [Noah]
meeting: W3C Technical Architecture Group (TAG) - Teleconference of 11 June 2007
16:11:57 [Noah]
scribenick: Noah
16:12:02 [Noah]
date: 11 June 2007
16:12:06 [Noah]
scribe: Noah Mendelsohn
16:12:11 [Noah]
Chair: Stuart Williams
16:12:14 [timbl]
timbl has joined #tagmem
16:12:22 [Noah]
chair: Stuart Williams
16:13:00 [Noah]
topic: Review of Agenda
16:13:12 [Noah]
SW: Any proposals for agenda changes?
16:13:14 [Noah]
16:13:20 [Noah]
topic: Future meetings
16:13:31 [Noah]
SW: Teleconference next week on the 17th. Norm, can you scribe?
16:13:41 [Noah]
NW: Unfortunately, no, but the following week I can.
16:13:55 [Noah]
SW: Thank you. Henry, you're the next of those here today. Can you do next week?
16:13:59 [Noah]
HT: Yes, I can do it next week.
16:14:28 [Noah]
16:16:22 [timbl]
16:17:03 [DanC]
DanC has changed the topic to: TAG 11 Jun
16:17:20 [Zakim]
16:20:17 [Noah]
Noah to draft blog entry on possible semantics of version identifiers.
16:22:26 [DanC]
16:22:26 [DanC]
Subject: Re: Draft minutes from 1st June 2007
16:22:26 [DanC]
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 10:51:20 -0500
16:25:47 [Noah]
DC: We should have actions on some of the minutes
16:26:08 [Noah]
NM: More appropriate to give them this week rather than claiming retroactively we did them last week.
16:27:17 [Stuart]
Actions volunteered at F2F:
16:27:33 [Stuart]
Noah to revise Self-Describing Web finding
16:27:39 [Noah]
ACTION: Noah to revise Self-Describing Web finding
16:27:49 [Stuart]
Henry to revise URNsAndRegistries-50 finding
16:27:53 [Noah]
ACTION: Henry to revise URNsAndRegistries-50 finding
16:28:09 [Stuart]
Rhys to revise Dereferencing HTTP URIs finding.
16:28:13 [Noah]
ACTION: Rhys to revise Dereferencing HTTP URIs finding.
16:28:25 [Stuart]
Dave Orchard to revise Versioning Findings.
16:28:36 [Noah]
ACTION: Dave Orchard to revise Versioning Findings.
16:30:13 [Noah]
RESOLUTION: The minutes of the 30 May - 1 June 2007 F2F meeting as linked from are approved.
16:30:24 [DanC]
2007/06/11 14:35:38 2007/06/11 16:20:53 2007/06/11 15:37:39
16:30:31 [Noah]
topic: F2F Planning
16:30:53 [Noah]
NM: It appears we can get a room to meet on Wed. the 19th of Sept. at IBM Hursley.
16:31:14 [Noah]
SW: I propose we meet until mid-afternoon on the Wed. Know that TimBl cannot join us.
16:31:25 [Noah]
TBL: Easier there than Southampton?
16:31:32 [Noah]
SW: Thought you didn't have a room.
16:31:46 [Noah]
TBL: No, room can probably be had.
16:31:48 [Stuart]
16:32:46 [Noah]
NM: From IBM's point of view, we can hold off for quite awhile on committing to Hursley vs. Southampton. Big question is, would the choice affect anyone's answer?
16:32:53 [Noah]
TBL: How late in the afternoon?
16:33:24 [Noah]
HT: Flights to US tend leave by noon anyway. Therefore, only pertinent constraint is UK folks. If we aim mid-afternoon, then UK folks can get home.
16:33:27 [Noah]
SW: 3 PM?
16:33:45 [Zakim]
16:34:33 [Noah]
NM: Fine with me, as long as we get at least 3/4 day, and don't lose anyone else.
16:35:20 [Noah]
SW: Fine with me.
16:36:01 [Noah]
SW: Propose that we meet 2 3/4 days in the UK.
16:36:18 [Noah]
RESOLUTION: The UK TAG meeting will be 2 3/4 days in length.
16:36:33 [DanC]
(I need the full dates and the location to the nearest airport in the record... trying to remember...)
16:37:08 [DanC]
Southampton 17-19 Sep 2007
16:37:09 [Noah]
SW: I'll check on Southampton. Noah, OK if we use Hursley as fallback?
16:37:17 [Noah]
NM: Yes, don't need to know until sometime in the summer.
16:37:37 [Noah]
SW: Closest airports are Southampton (hard to get flights), Heathrow & Gatwick.
16:37:43 [Noah]
DC: Who's hosting?
16:37:53 [Noah]
SW: Tim, in his professorial role at Southampton.
16:38:22 [timbl]
That doesn't mean access to large amount of dinner funding.
16:38:26 [Noah]
topic: Blog and Tracker
16:38:38 [Stuart]
16:38:41 [timbl]
But it does guarantee lots of restaurant recommendations :)
16:39:46 [Noah]
SW: Dan's done some preliminary research. What do we need to do to get going. See:
16:40:08 [Noah]
DC: You've got to act interested if you want me to do work. I didn't get any responses.
16:40:16 [Stuart]
16:40:24 [Noah]
NW: You seemed to need graphics designers, and that's not me.
16:40:24 [Stuart]
16:40:39 [DanC]
I think the sweo blog is
16:40:50 [Noah]
DC: If we use sample skin, I suppose we don't have graphics work to do.
16:41:33 [ht]
That page works for me
16:42:15 [Noah]
DC: Can fix later but, first impressions matter.
16:42:41 [Noah]
NM: Functional but bland. OK if the content is compelling, but the design won't greatly appeal to those who weren't already intrigued.
16:43:25 [Noah]
TBL: Didn't immediately jump out as "blog"
16:44:45 [Noah]
TVR: Lead with our strength, and graphics appears not to be it. Suggest we just make the content good.
16:44:48 [Noah]
16:44:58 [Noah]
TVR: No dates please.
16:45:02 [DanC]
TV suggests
16:45:07 [Noah]
NW: 2001/tag/blog?
16:45:10 [Noah]
TVR: Please no.
16:45:28 [Noah]
16:46:09 [Noah]
SW: Blog == TAG Home Page?
16:46:36 [Noah]
NM: Prefer not. Make a good home page, and have it link the blog. Maybe pull a feed of a few headlines into the home page if we think it's worthwhile.
16:46:47 [Noah]
SW: Can we make this happen?
16:47:05 [Noah]
???: Tim as webmaster in chief can make it happen.
16:47:15 [Noah]
TBL: Anyone object to 2001?
16:47:17 [Noah]
TVR: I do.
16:47:21 [DanC]
(I can accept /2001/tag/ , but not HT's rationale. This blog is all about not perpetuating old sins.)
16:47:32 [Noah]
HT: We made the 2001 mistake awhile ago.
16:47:49 [Noah]
NW: Yes, there will be lots of downstream questions about which future content should be under 2001 vs not.
16:48:09 [Noah]
TBL: My concern is that in 2050, there could be many, many different things called "tag".
16:48:41 [Noah]
TBL: For awhile, the top level of the W3C site was full of lots of words of the English language.
16:49:16 [Noah]
TVR: As 2001 goes further and further into the past, you think that even new findings named that way must be very old.
16:49:43 [Noah]
SW: Propose we use 2001/tag/blog. Objections?
16:49:50 [Noah]
TVR: I object.
16:49:57 [Noah]
Others are silence.
16:50:01 [Noah]
DC: Abstain.
16:50:18 [Noah]
SW: I will suggest we resolve, in spite of objection.
16:50:50 [Noah]
RESOLUTION: The URI of the TAG's blog is to be
16:51:12 [Noah]
topic: httpRange-14
16:52:30 [Noah]
SW: We received a request from Leo Sauermann at to review some of their work . I am unsure how to proceed.
16:52:37 [Noah]
SW: Is it appropriate to do such a review.
16:52:50 [Noah]
NW: We can, don't have to. I think in this case it's an OK thing to do.
16:53:11 [Noah]
DC: Rhys not here? Too bad.
16:53:30 [Noah]
DC: I took a look, and informally, it looks like a lot of it is OK.
16:53:49 [Noah]
DC: Might even be interested in asking whether it's a basis for the finding Rhys is doing.
16:53:58 [Noah]
HT: Aims and audience seems different.
16:54:19 [Noah]
HT: I think we can respond: "this is basically fine, some details need tuning to be quite right".
16:54:25 [Noah]
DC: Why is audience different?
16:54:38 [Noah]
HT: Well, maybe I mean the level of the intended audience might be a bit different.
16:54:57 [Noah]
DC: Hmm. At the F2F, I thought we were helping people to choose URIs, and that's what this thing seems to be doing.
16:55:13 [Noah]
HT: You said that was your goal at the F2F, but I'm not sure that historically was quite the scope.
16:55:30 [Noah]
TBL: I think you suggested a title change, and people didn't agree.
16:55:45 [Noah]
DC: I asked what our goal was, and I thought that's what I heard.
16:56:19 [Noah]
TBL: Not from me. I don't want to drop treatment of the other important stuff. Discussing choice of URIs is fine, but not as an alternative to the other material.
16:56:36 [Noah]
SW: Tim, what do you think the finding is focussing on?
16:56:41 [Noah]
TBL: What would I like it to cover?
16:56:44 [Noah]
SW: Yes.
16:57:52 [Noah]
TBL: I would it to formalize what happens in HTTP, so they understand the implications of setting up a server in certain ways, and it should explain the related issues are of choosing the URIs. Should cover the semantics of 301, 302 and 303, and the semantics of # in Web architecture, leading to discussion of how to assign semweb uris.
16:58:40 [Noah]
DC: I can't imagine people wanting to know that.
16:59:02 [Noah]
HT: I do. Our existing work discusses info resources, etc., and this tells the rest of that story.
16:59:11 [Noah]
DC: Turning it upside down is so much more approachable.
16:59:23 [Noah]
TBL: Well, the title could be either way.
16:59:48 [Noah]
TBL: Could still be "how to choose URIs", but I'd be nervous about that if the title were taken to narrow the scope.
17:00:10 [Noah]
TBL: I think the TAG's goal is to connect everyday experience to the specs.
17:00:15 [Noah]
Hear, Hear!!
17:00:35 [Noah]
DC: We're discussing editorial issue, but the editor's not here.
17:01:02 [timbl]
TBL: ... But also to connecte it to the architecture explained. To explain why.
17:01:07 [Noah]
SW: Shall we respond to Leo that we appreciate their writings, but need to focus on our own work first.
17:01:30 [timbl]
To explain how it works, an why those choices must be made for URIs.
17:03:08 [Noah]
NM: I could easily support being more helpful to them, but I confess I don't have the time myself in coming weeks. We could point out what's good, what seems to need work, and where we don't yet know the relationship to our own upcoming works.
17:03:16 [Noah]
SW: I can review.
17:03:19 [Noah]
NW: I can too.
17:03:25 [Noah]
SW: tag or www-tag lists?
17:04:00 [Noah]
NM: Don't care. Suggest mostly public, but could take a round on tag if you think earliest drafts would be to rough and therefore confusing.
17:04:12 [Noah]
ACTION: Norm and Stuart to review
17:04:30 [Noah]
topic: xmlfunctions-34
17:04:36 [ht]
17:04:48 [Noah]
Original document:
17:04:55 [Noah]
HT: That's nearly 6 months onld.
17:04:58 [Noah]
17:05:42 [Stuart]
Also henry's message from today
17:05:50 [ht]
17:05:50 [Noah]
HT: We discussed in Boston in Feb, but stalled when we discovered that Tim and I (at least) had differing views of the granularity of the interaction of 1) construction of elaborated infoset with 2) interpretation of XML docs as a whole.
17:05:58 [Noah]
zakim, who is talking?
17:06:13 [Zakim]
Noah, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Stuart (17%)
17:06:43 [Noah]
HT: I discussed a notional 2nd step, I.e. after parsing, but Tim wasn't happy with that. Felt it all had to be better integrated with compositional semantics for XML in general.
17:07:11 [Noah]
HT: I prepared the email at was prepared for our recent F2F, but we didn't get to it.
17:08:00 [Noah]
HT: Question: how do we talk about balance of control for particular XML vocabularies vs. generic mechanisms such as XInclude. It seems to come down to a question of quoting.
17:08:32 [Noah]
HT: By quoting, we mean specifically, some part of a language has the implication: don't do elaboration on (this subtree)
17:08:52 [Noah]
s/on (this subtree)//
17:10:05 [Stuart]
17:10:10 [Noah]
HT: Question: should way say that the way forward is to say that particular specs can say "this spec operates not on a traditional infoset resulting form a parse, but from the elaborated infoset"?
17:10:40 [Noah]
HT: However, we also need a way for, say, the GRDDL spec to say something like "the RDF namespace is a quoting namespace with respect to elaboration"
17:10:51 [Noah]
q+ to ask about quoting >namespaces<. Don't think it's always namespaces.
17:11:56 [Noah]
SW: Tim?
17:12:01 [Noah]
TBL: Is this about the signals?
17:12:09 [DanC]
q+ to ask who the GRDDL spec tells? [struggling to find words]
17:12:35 [Noah]
HT: No, that's Noah's (pending) question. This about having a given specification say of its input: elaboration stops when ....
17:13:12 [Noah]
TBL: But, we need a story about lanuages that don't say anything.
17:14:01 [Noah]
HT: Opt in or opt out. Default for old specs is you don't elaborate, but a new spec can opt in.
17:14:22 [Noah]
TBL: I'm OK with a spec saying "You should elaborate everything >except< this..."
17:14:56 [DanC]
transparent is elaborating, briefly.
17:15:18 [Noah]
TBL: Thinking about RDF. "Anything which has a parsetype attribute which is an XMLliteral is opaque (non elaborating), otherwise transparent (elaborating)"
17:16:23 [Noah]
HT: Stipulate that this work were published as a full Recommendation, with all the corresponding reviews. It would have the consequence that we are grandfathering in XInclude and perhaps decryption as if they had said "we are part of standard elaboration". Or maybe we need to republish those recs. Not sure.
17:16:46 [DanC]
(hmm... maybe, HT. I'm not juggling too many things in my head.)
17:16:48 [Stuart]
17:16:51 [timbl]
17:16:52 [DanC]
17:16:55 [Noah]
TBL: The advantage here is that there's a standard form of elaboration to which you can point.
17:17:53 [DanC]
17:17:54 [Noah]
HT: Agree. There are two types of opt in. 1) Type you would do with XML schema 1.1 vs. 2) Something some putative new general purpose elaborating technology, XMLExclude perhaps. No clue what it would do, but it's clearly at the level of XInclude.
17:18:01 [Stuart]
ack noah
17:18:01 [Zakim]
Noah, you wanted to ask about quoting >namespaces<. Don't think it's always namespaces.
17:18:39 [timbl]
q+ to suggest that toadd new forms of elaboration you EITHER mark your element as opaque (not automatically elaborating), OR you add to the set of functions.
17:20:22 [Stuart]
ack tim
17:20:22 [Zakim]
timbl, you wanted to suggest that toadd new forms of elaboration you EITHER mark your element as opaque (not automatically elaborating), OR you add to the set of functions.
17:20:45 [Noah]
NM: Having elaborating "namespaces" is a common idiom, but it's elements that have semantics. We should avoid talking about elaborating ns.
17:20:47 [Noah]
HT: Agree.
17:20:51 [Noah]
TBL: Me too.
17:21:37 [Noah]
TBL: Consider two cases. In case one, there's strange ad hoc processing going on, and the results are unlikely to be useful for recursive interpretation.
17:21:55 [Noah]
TBL: Struggling for examples. Perhaps XSL template-like thing.
17:22:16 [Noah]
TBL: Other example is a new general transform function.
17:22:58 [Noah]
TBL: In the first case, you just note it as opaque. In the second, you need to rev the interpretation of what it means to be (future version of) xmlFunctions-capable to include the new transform.
17:23:06 [Noah]
HT: Exactly what I had in mind.
17:23:23 [Stuart]
q+ to ask how much of the context for the quotations needs to propagate with the quotation - eg ns bindings
17:23:36 [Noah]
HT: Let me leave it at that, but I haven't yet dealt with Dan's concern. Will come back to that.
17:23:59 [Stuart]
ack stuart
17:23:59 [Zakim]
Stuart, you wanted to ask how much of the context for the quotations needs to propagate with the quotation - eg ns bindings
17:24:03 [Noah]
SW: Is there an issue of asking how document contexts, e.g. namespace bindings, propagate with quoting.
17:24:35 [Noah]
HT: I think the person responsible for processing a quoted region can restart elaboration.
17:24:56 [timbl]
17:25:00 [Noah]
HT: XInclude for instance, which has story higher up, has a story about namespace fixup.
17:25:07 [Stuart]
17:26:22 [Norm]
Norm has joined #tagmem
17:27:11 [DanC]
(HT, my concern might be addresses. I think I need a quiet room (with your new draft) to be sure.)
17:28:24 [Noah]
SW: Henry, do you have what you need to keep going.
17:28:30 [Noah]
HT: Yes, it's worth writing a new draft.
17:28:57 [Noah]
ACTION: Henry to prepare new draft of xmlFunctions-34 by mid-July.
17:29:23 [Noah]
topic: Passwords in the clear (unscheduled topic)
17:29:55 [Noah]
TVR: At the Web conference, Mary Ellen Zurko suggested she might be willing to contribute text on passwords in the clear.
17:30:01 [Zakim]
17:30:05 [Noah]
SW: We'll discuss next week, and I'll invite Ed Rice.
17:30:07 [Zakim]
17:30:10 [Noah]
SW: We are adjourned.
17:30:14 [Zakim]
17:30:15 [Zakim]
17:30:18 [Zakim]
17:30:21 [Zakim]
17:35:21 [Zakim]
disconnecting the lone participant, TimBL, in TAG_Weekly()12:00PM
17:35:24 [Zakim]
TAG_Weekly()12:00PM has ended
17:35:25 [Zakim]
Attendees were Stuart, Norm, Ht, Noah, TimBL, DanC, Raman
18:02:53 [DanC]
RRSAgent, list actions
18:02:53 [RRSAgent]
I see 6 open action items saved in :
18:02:53 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Noah to revise Self-Describing Web finding [1]
18:02:53 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
18:02:53 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Henry to revise URNsAndRegistries-50 finding [2]
18:02:53 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
18:02:53 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Rhys to revise Dereferencing HTTP URIs finding. [3]
18:02:53 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
18:02:53 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Dave Orchard to revise Versioning Findings. [4]
18:02:53 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
18:02:53 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Norm and Stuart to review [5]
18:02:53 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
18:02:53 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Henry to prepare new draft of xmlFunctions-34 by mid-July. [6]
18:02:53 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
19:30:20 [DanC],topic,id,activity,status,assignedto&@sort=priority&@group=assignedto&@filter=status&@pagesize=50&@startwith=0&status=-1,1,2,3,4,5,6,7&@dispname=Developer%20Status
19:34:40 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #tagmem
20:58:32 [timbl]
timbl has joined #tagmem
22:02:17 [timbl]
timbl has joined #tagmem