15:52:51 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #tagmem
15:52:51 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2007/06/18-tagmem-irc
15:52:55 <ht> zakim, this will be tag
15:52:55 <Zakim> ok, ht; I see TAG_Weekly()12:00PM scheduled to start in 8 minutes
15:53:04 <ht> Meeting: TAG telcon
15:53:08 <ht> Chair: Stuart Williams
15:53:15 <ht> Scribe: Henry S. Thompson
15:53:20 <ht> ScribeNick: ht
15:53:48 <Rhys> Rhys has joined #tagmem
15:54:37 <ht> trackbot, status
15:54:54 <ht> trackbot-ng, status
15:58:48 <Zakim> TAG_Weekly()12:00PM has now started
15:58:57 <Zakim> +Rhys
16:01:04 <ht> zakim, please call ht-781
16:01:04 <Zakim> ok, ht; the call is being made
16:01:05 <Zakim> +??P5
16:01:05 <Zakim> +Ht
16:01:17 <Stuart> zakim, ??p5 is me
16:01:17 <Zakim> +Stuart; got it
16:01:37 <Zakim> +[IBMCambridge]
16:01:47 <ht> zakim, [ is noah
16:01:47 <Zakim> +noah; got it
16:01:51 <Zakim> +Raman
16:01:58 <Zakim> +DanC
16:02:14 <Noah> zakim, [IBMCambridge] is me
16:02:14 <Zakim> sorry, Noah, I do not recognize a party named '[IBMCambridge]'
16:03:18 <ht> Topic: Admin
16:03:53 <ht> SW: ER will join us at 1 hour into the call
16:04:02 <raman> raman has joined #tagmem
16:04:27 <ht> HT: Works for me, but we shouldn't wait for him if we run out of other business
16:04:49 <ht> SW: Will rearrange agenda to put PiC last
16:05:00 <ht> SW: Regrets from NW
16:05:06 <dorchard> dorchard has joined #tagmem
16:05:25 <Zakim> +DOrchard
16:05:54 <ht> SW: I have sent review of Cool URIs for the SemWeb to the tag list. . .
16:06:05 <ht> NM: I read it, I thought it was good -- ship it
16:06:17 <ht> SW: I will send it to the public list and we can discuss it at a later time
16:06:48 <ht> DC: Since RL is here, we could talk about httpRange-14 today and keep the momentum up. . .
16:07:25 <ht> SW: OK, we can try to do that
16:07:35 <DanC> (link from agenda to http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/11-minutes is hosed)
16:08:01 <ht> That should be http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/06/11-minutes
16:08:19 <DanC> I get 404 @ http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/06/11-minutes too
16:08:36 <DanC> ah... more like http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2007/06/11-minutes
16:09:03 <ht> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2007/06/11-minutes.html
16:09:08 <DanC> I propose to approve http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2007/06/11-minutes (version of 2007/06/11 23:46:49 ) as a true record
16:09:49 <ht> HT: I'm happy with those minutes
16:10:45 <ht> Topic: Naming and Virtual Worlds
16:10:54 <Noah> Reviewing email I sent this morning: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2007Jun/0074.html
16:10:57 <ht> Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2007/06/18-agenda
16:11:21 <DanC> (the "For good deals on washing machines... Second Life users, go to" example is good.)
16:11:57 <DanC> q+ to ask about the social structure behind slURLs
16:13:29 <ht> NM: I'm not a virtual-world expert, but am interested with my TAG hat on with the question of the relationship between these environments as they grow and the Web, because we want there to be One Web
16:13:50 <ht> ... So I'm trying to queue up issues we as the TAG should look at
16:14:12 <ht> ... Talking about this, particularly about integration, tends to dive down to technical details too fast
16:14:38 <ht> ... I want to urge that we look at use cases first -- e.g. should I be able to click on a link and end up in a virtual world?
16:14:55 <ht> ... We should understand things at that level before we dive down to the plumbing?
16:16:20 <ht> ... Second issue, related to URNsAndRegistries-50 -- what things in v-ws should have URIs, and what kinds of URIs, using what URI schemes?  What about consistent metadata _in_ the URIs -- consider slurl usage of lat/long/alt
16:16:36 <raman> Q+ to ask Given URI u_1 in the real world, does it take you to the same place in the virtual world? Conversely: given a URI in the virtual world V_1, does V_1 go to the same place in the real world, i.e. can I transport URLs from/to the virtual world?
16:16:46 <ht> ... We could have done that wrt URIs for things in the existing web, but we didn't . . .
16:16:59 <DanC> q+ to relay regrets from timbl (http://www.w3.org/2007/eGov/eGov-policy-cfp.html )
16:17:28 <ht> ... Third issue: Shouldn't we be looking at this from the same perspective we established in the multiple representations finding?
16:17:44 <ht> ... Compare the following two approaches to a virtual store:
16:17:57 <ht> ... a) "For good deals on washing machines,
16:17:57 <ht>           see http://example.com/cheapWashers
16:17:57 <ht>           (Second Life users, go to
16:17:57 <ht>           http://slurl.com/secondlife/Example/100,200,300)",
16:18:14 <ht> ... b) "For good deals on washing machines,
16:18:14 <ht>           see http://example.com/cheapWashers
16:18:14 <ht>           (works in Second Life too!)"
16:18:39 <ht> ... I much prefer (b), per our recommendation in http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html?type=1#genericResources-53
16:18:57 <ht> s/multiple representations/generic resources/
16:19:35 <ht> ... So if we want to push this approach, how would it work in detail?  30x to a slurl? content negotiation. . .
16:19:42 <Stuart> ack danc
16:19:42 <Zakim> DanC, you wanted to ask about the social structure behind slURLs and to relay regrets from timbl (http://www.w3.org/2007/eGov/eGov-policy-cfp.html )
16:19:45 <ht> DC: Regrets from TimBL
16:20:18 <ht> DC: So there's a company which owns slurl.com, and they can in principal do whatever they want
16:20:46 <ht> ... There's nothing special about this, is there?
16:21:09 <ht> NM: Well, there is a set of rules about 'regions', the bit before the 3D coordinates
16:21:45 <Stuart> ack raman
16:21:45 <Zakim> raman, you wanted to ask Given URI u_1 in the real world, does it take you to the same place in the virtual world? Conversely: given a URI in the virtual world V_1, does V_1 go to
16:21:48 <Zakim> ... the same place in the real world, i.e. can I transport URLs from/to the virtual world?
16:22:00 <ht> TV: One of the key idea behind the generic resources finding, is that there is a _single_ web, so that you could e.g. take a URL you picked up from a mobile browser and use it on a desktop
16:22:21 <ht> ... I'm not clear that this works the same way wrt V-Ws
16:22:35 <ht> ... Some things, such as www.ibm.com, will make sense in both 'worlds'
16:23:13 <Noah> Raman is questionning whether things that exist in virtual worlds >necessarily< need a manifestation in traditional Web space.  I'd turn that around, I think there exist many examples of resources where you >do< want that generic approach.  Requiring it in all cases is a different question, and not what I was pushing.
16:23:13 <ht> ... but lots of other things, which I might find in a V-W, will not _have_ an analogue in the real world, and vice-versa
16:23:28 <ht> ... So the conneg might fail
16:23:35 <DanC> (the ICANN-level world is different from slurl.com in that there is open competition between domain registrars.)
16:23:39 <Noah> q+ to talk about virtual worlds connecting to each other
16:23:46 <ht> HT: So just like conneg for e.g. a French version -- there may well not _be_ one
16:24:15 <Stuart> ack Noah
16:24:15 <Zakim> Noah, you wanted to talk about virtual worlds connecting to each other
16:24:43 <ht> RV: [not well scribed:] We just don't know when changes in a V-W will result in changes in the (web-accessible) 'real' world, and when not
16:24:59 <dorchard> q+
16:25:06 <ht> NM: There is discussion of moving an avatar from one V-W to another. . .
16:25:33 <ht> ... Just as we recognise that BitTorrent is a very different kind of protocol from HTTP
16:26:07 <Stuart> q?
16:26:20 <ht> ... so when I'm 'walking' through a virtual world, I'm worried millisecond-by-msec about what I'm going to run into, which makes the protocol very different from HTTP
16:26:38 <Stuart> ack dorchard
16:26:52 <ht> ... I'm just worried that the discussion isn't happening in the right order -- I don't hear people from the V-W side engaging with integration or naming issues much at all
16:27:31 <ht> DO: It's not just the 'dot.com's of the virtual worlds, such as Second Life, but also customised V-Ws being built for local purposes
16:27:43 <ht> ... Sometimes even nested within one another
16:28:13 <ht> ... Consider the relationship between Google and V-Ws -- we need the URIs to be built right so that they can be found too
16:28:54 <ht> NM: The Web3D Consortium are involved in this space, and they are W3C members - we should consider whether we want to ask them for some involvement
16:29:04 <ht> ... if we don't decide that this is just too early
16:29:14 <ht> q+ ht to argue we should worry about this
16:29:38 <Stuart> ack ht
16:29:38 <Zakim> ht, you wanted to argue we should worry about this
16:29:54 <ht> NM: Some of these companies are small, and working hard just to get into the game, and it's hard to get them to pay attention, but Web3D have been around a while . . .
16:31:04 <Noah> I'd like it recorded that I mentioned that Web3D is one of the consortia that's very active in this space, that they are W3C members, and that Don Brutzman is their AC representative.  I suggest that we may want to solicit his advice on what, if anything, the TAG can do that would be constructive.
16:31:39 <Noah> HT: I think it is important that we get this right now, or we'll regret it later.
16:31:49 <Noah> HT: Universality matters.
16:32:20 <Noah> SW: Should we worry about this?
16:32:25 <ht> HT: Even if we only put a stake in the ground, saying "These are the trade-offs, you really should look at this for the medium term"
16:32:27 <Noah> DC: Not sure whom we would engage.
16:33:01 <ht> SW: Not sure how we would go about doing this, I only engage with this space informally
16:33:22 <ht> DO: Precisely because they are at a formative stage, they might be influencable
16:33:30 <ht> DC: Who what we talk to?
16:33:36 <Zakim> -DOrchard
16:34:28 <ht> DO: Well, I could talk to my friends at [xxx], who are doing a startup to build customised virtual worlds
16:34:57 <ht> NM: I agree with DC to some extent -- I don't know what we do if the people we try to talk to just aren't interested
16:35:03 <DanC> "The tech startup Doppleganger has designed a virtual lounge where fans can go online to chat with members of Interscope Records' Pussycat Dolls." -- http://publications.mediapost.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=Articles.showEdition&art_send_date=2006-5-15&art_type=13
16:35:50 <ht> NM: We could at least have something like a finding, so that when they _do_ have time for this issue there will be something there
16:35:56 <Stuart> q?
16:36:09 <ht> ... I don't know if this V-W stuff is going to take off, but if it does I think it's important that this works
16:36:38 <ht> DC: The next generation may not see web-pages or email messages at all, just V-W. . .
16:36:49 <ht> q+ to say we have contacts
16:37:14 <ht> TV: Some V-Ws are better integrated than others -- MySpace is, SecondLife isn't
16:37:32 <Stuart> q+
16:37:38 <ht> NM: MySpace is built on HTTP, but SecondLife isn't
16:37:45 <DanC> (there's also the point that whether one could build SL on web tech or not, the existing SL does _not_ use much web tech.)
16:38:45 <Stuart> ack ht
16:38:45 <Zakim> ht, you wanted to say we have contacts
16:38:45 <ht> NM: If my fingernail in SL has a URI, is there a (negative?) impact on what the actually technology is doing as my arm is 'moving'
16:39:50 <Stuart> ack st
16:39:52 <ht> HT: Briefly, to come back the question of what we could do:
16:40:26 <ht> We seem to have contacts, use them 1) invite; 2) review; 3) workshop
16:41:22 <ht> SW: MySpace is very much about being on the Web and publishing there, but wrt SecondLife it's not clear to me how much the Web matters to them, it's primary focus is being its own self-contained game space
16:41:24 <Noah> Let me explain that bit about the fingernail: I was really saying that I think that the virtual worlds protocols are, for good reason, tuned for very high interactivity, animation, 3D collision detection, etc.  Expecting those protocols to use a URI for, e.g. each little bit of my body (a fingernail) may be impractical.  Offering a URI for purposes of gateway into the Web world may well be a good thing to do.
16:41:47 <ht> ... What would our first steps _be_ if we were to take this up?
16:42:36 <ht> HT: First step -- a short summary of how naming works in V-Ws today
16:42:56 <ht> NM: I'm interested, but my queue has gotten long. . .
16:43:16 <ht> ... I have vacation and other obligations
16:43:34 <ht> SW: I'm prepared to schedule discussion at the end of the summer
16:43:58 <ht> NM: Should I contact Don Brutzman and point him to these minutes, and ask for advice on how to proceed?
16:45:06 <ht> HT: I will try to help, but like NM I have things queued up between now and holiday time
16:45:44 <ht> NM: "We think there might be issues here, we're looking to see if we can find ways to make a difference" is an acceptable summary of our situation?
16:46:36 <ht> ACTION: NM to contact Don Brutzman to query about possible contacts about naming in V-Ws and integration with the Web
16:47:02 <ht> Topic: PasswordsInTheClear-52
16:47:20 <ht> TV: Mary-Anne Zurko offered to help move this forward, I think we should take her up on this
16:48:24 <Stuart> s/Mary-Anne/Mary-Ellen
16:49:16 <ht> SW: Topic suspended in hopes ER will join at the top of the hour
16:49:33 <ht> s/Mary-Ellen/Mary Ellen/
16:49:41 <ht> Topic: Tracker
16:50:05 <ht> SW: D H-M has done lots of good work to get us going with this
16:50:14 <ht> ... Got the issues moved across
16:50:28 <ht> ... Alas no short names for issues
16:51:25 <ht> ... the model of the life cycle of an issue is very simple -- only members of the group can raise an issue, actions and issues are either open or closed, it's forms based
16:51:31 <ht> q+ to worry about actions vs issue
16:52:02 <Stuart> ack ht
16:52:02 <Zakim> ht, you wanted to worry about actions vs issue
16:52:07 <ht> SW: If we do go over to this wholesale it would change the URIs by which we identify our issues
16:52:32 <Rhys> ht: Looked at this today. Lots to like, but 3 concerns. Taken together, I'm unhappy
16:52:37 <Noah> If we do go with tracker, what are the pros and cons of having the old issue URIs redirect to the corresponding tracker entries.  I have >lots< of old content out there with links to the old URI issues.
16:52:53 <Rhys> ht: shortnames is first issue. Could be added reasonably easily. 
16:53:21 <Rhys> ht:Actions are not attributed to issues in Tracker. Can't see how to do this with tracker
16:53:32 <DanC> q+ to note actions can be connected to "products", and maybe that's good enough?
16:53:51 <Rhys> ht: third, can't understand why issues can only be attributed to group members. What about LC
16:54:03 <Rhys> DC:Think actions can be connected to products
16:54:13 <ht> DC: You can connect actions to products, and products to issues. . .
16:54:24 <ht> ... but maybe that's a category error
16:54:43 <ht> SW: It would make my life a lot easier as chair
16:55:13 <ht> ... replacing XML edits to a monotonically growing file with using forms backed by a DB is a big win
16:55:21 <Rhys> q+ on actions, normal use in tracker does seem to assume that actions are only ever attributed to WG members
16:55:58 <Stuart> ack Rhys
16:56:03 <ht> SW: Dom has done a great job, but I don't want to ask for more effort until I know we are planning to commit to it
16:56:05 <Zakim> -Raman
16:56:25 <ht> RL: The assumption is that actions go with WG members, not issues
16:56:49 <ht> ... I've used both EXIT and Tracker, and it's much easier to use Tracker
16:57:15 <Stuart> q?
16:57:19 <Stuart> ack danc
16:57:19 <Zakim> DanC, you wanted to note actions can be connected to "products", and maybe that's good enough?
16:57:20 <ht> ... I think associating actions with issues is a generic requirement, and we could as Dom about that
16:57:36 <ht> s/as Dom/ask Dom/
16:58:18 <DanC> q+
16:58:28 <ht> HT: I would be happy to talk informally to Dom about what the Systeam would be willing to consider adding. . . 
16:58:37 <Stuart> ack danc
16:58:49 <ht> SW: I will keep using EXIT until we decide to change
16:59:11 <ht> DC: "He who does the work makes the rules" -- you can take us there if you decide it's what you need
16:59:19 <ht> ... don't make it a WG decision
17:00:00 <ht> SW: I'd like to take as much history as we can with us, but could live with not getting full benefit except for new business
17:00:05 <DanC> (that's a great RFE for tracker: "show me *everything* on one page")
17:00:55 <ht> NM: I like the fact that I can see _everything_ about an issue in the existing issues list, and I hope we don't lose that in the new system
17:01:05 <DanC> q+ to think out loud about porting history
17:01:37 <ht> NM: Not necessarily all the issues, but everything to do with _one_ issue, should be all available in one place
17:01:46 <Stuart> ack danc
17:01:46 <Zakim> DanC, you wanted to think out loud about porting history
17:01:55 <ht> ... Worst case that's  only true for the old history
17:02:15 <Rhys> I note that, for example, the history of Range 14 seems to be at http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/14
17:02:41 <ht> DC: The existing (EXIT) approach is modelled on Ian Jacobs's approach to workflow, with edited references
17:03:09 <ht> ... whereas Tracker is just an automatic collector of mentions of issue numbers
17:03:09 <Noah> Well, I really liked having the >edited< history.  Don't know whether that's practical from a workload point of view.  I guess I didn't notice that tracker really was just grepping emails.  Makes me nervous.
17:03:20 <Noah> We have a www-tag archive, and can sort it by subject already.
17:03:54 <ht> DC: We could at least just email each issue section from EXIT to www-tag with the right number in the subject line
17:04:25 <Noah> So, what do we use as a URI for, e.g. URNSandRegistries-50?
17:04:37 <ht> SW: I'm inclined to make the move, but not quite yet, will continue to discuss with Dom and HT
17:04:40 <Noah> We had one until today, and I'm starting to think that "cool" URI is about to change.
17:05:02 <ht> DC: What's the latency for the current issues list?
17:05:43 <ht> SW: Weekly -- I bring it up-to-date on Wednesdays, always by Friday, in preparation for doing the agenda
17:05:54 <ht> ... also depends on the availability of the previous minutes
17:06:31 <ht> ... sometimes it takes most of the time I have set aside to prepare the agenda to get the issues list up to date
17:07:49 <ht> Topic: Future Directions
17:07:49 <DanC> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2007Jun/0069.html
17:07:57 <DanC> # tag participation in W3C/OpenAjax Workshop on Mobile Ajax 28 Sep in Mountain View? Dan Connolly (Friday, 15 June)
17:08:37 <ht> DC: DC and NM are interested, but can't go
17:08:42 <ht> ... RL is going
17:09:03 <ht> ... Position papers due by 15 August -- RL writing one for TAG, or Volantis, or ???
17:09:11 <ht> RL: Good question, not sure
17:09:16 <DanC> "To participate in the Workshop, you must submit a position paper by 15 August 2007 explaining your interest in the Workshop."
17:09:48 <ht> RL: I'm involved via the Open Ajax Alliance side of things -- they're looking at the mobile dimension
17:10:13 <ht> RL: I'm assuming the TAG would like feedback rather than to take a position
17:10:18 <ht> DC: Not sure about that
17:10:41 <ht> SW: Connects up with our discussion at the Mountain View f2f about actions and how they fit in. . .
17:11:22 <ht> DC: What do we think about Mobile -- one position is write once, convert for devices
17:11:48 <ht> ... That's the 20% case, I hope the 80% case should be that you just write a good web page, and it works on any device
17:12:23 <ht> ... but the reality is the opposite, for example I can almost never see the gate for my flight from my cellphone
17:13:04 <DanC> "aa2go considered sub-optimal; just make aa.com work on mobile too" is my position.
17:13:52 <ht> SW: Let's postpone PitC until next week, I'll invite MEZ and ER, trying again
17:16:20 <Stuart> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2007Jun/0075.html
17:16:37 <ht> RL: So, would the TAG like to submit a position paper to the Mobile Ajax workshop?
17:16:43 <ht> SW: Quite possibly
17:16:50 <ht> Topic: httpRange-14
17:17:19 <Zakim> +Ed_Rice
17:17:25 <ht> SW: [URI] is my review of the "Cool URIs for the SW" draft
17:18:01 <ht> RL: There is a reference to that document in the draft finding
17:18:01 <Zakim> -Ed_Rice
17:18:28 <ht> SW: The question of what the relationship between the two documents is open
17:18:40 <ht> ... One view was that we should just adopt it
17:18:51 <ht> ... but there was pushback about target audiences
17:19:34 <ht> RL: There's also the fragment side of things, where the Cool URIs doc't is incomplete, per our discussion in Mountain View
17:19:57 <ht> SW: And on the other hand, they have some detail on 30x which the draft finding doesn't
17:20:21 <ht> RL: Yes, I took away a request to update the draft in the area of 30x
17:20:33 <ht> q?
17:21:16 <Rhys> ht: I think we need the finding. I like the cooluri doc but we will end up with a finding in a slightly different place and that is a valuable thing to do.
17:21:29 <Zakim> -DanC
17:21:41 <Zakim> -Ht
17:21:44 <Zakim> -Stuart
17:21:45 <Zakim> -noah
17:22:07 <ht> HT: I think the target we ended up identifying in MV for the finding is importantly distinct from the place Cool URIs is, and we need a finding in that place
17:22:27 <ht> rrsagent, please draft minutes
17:22:27 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/06/18-tagmem-minutes.html ht
17:22:36 <ht> rrsagent, make logs world-visible
17:23:24 <Stuart> Henry, is there a way to get RRSAgent to make minutes in /2001/tag space rather than top-level date space?
17:23:37 <ht> No
17:23:58 <ht> RRSAgent, bye
17:23:58 <RRSAgent> I see 1 open action item saved in http://www.w3.org/2007/06/18-tagmem-actions.rdf :
17:23:58 <RRSAgent> ACTION: NM to contact Don Brutzman to query about possible contacts about naming in V-Ws and integration with the Web [1]
17:23:58 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/06/18-tagmem-irc#T16-46-36