IRC log of tagmem on 2012-01-04

Timestamps are in UTC.

16:03:04 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #tagmem
16:03:04 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/01/04-tagmem-irc
16:04:41 [Yves]
Topic: MIME and the Web
16:05:29 [Zakim]
+ +1.617.715.aabb
16:07:55 [Yves]
slides: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/01/mimeweb.pdf
16:12:29 [noah]
FWIW: Larry's use of the term language strikes me as sensible, if informal, but it's only vaguely related to the carefully negotiated definition the TAG agreed a few years ago
16:12:56 [Zakim]
-GlennAdams
16:14:31 [noah]
I think there's the core of something very good here...
16:14:47 [Yves]
analogy between mime type and persistent names
16:15:02 [noah]
My intuition is that we'll do better to challenge ourselves to start by making this as focused and narrow as possible. If more general principles emerge, we'll find them.
16:15:17 [noah]
I'm very nervous about the top down view of how languages evolve.
16:15:17 [Yves]
relation between persistent names and evolution on what names represent
16:15:23 [Zakim]
+GlennAdams
16:16:20 [Zakim]
-GlennAdams
16:17:03 [noah]
NOTE TO SCRIBE: When we edit the minutes, let's please link the action to which Larry is referring. I can't find it just now.
16:18:06 [glenn]
poor connectivity here at present, will attempt to rejoin tomorrow AM
16:19:24 [Yves]
different pace between what is defined for email, and what is defined for the web
16:19:45 [Yves]
email needs backward compatibility, web forward compatibility
16:22:17 [Yves]
success criteria is to address 50% of the use cases listed
16:24:11 [glenn]
glenn has left #tagmem
16:26:13 [noah]
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/products/mimeweb-2011-12-24.html
16:27:45 [noah]
q+ timbl
16:28:15 [noah]
AM: I heard versioning of languages versus versioning of references. Those are different things
16:28:47 [noah]
AM: I also heard versioning of languages versus XML languages.
16:28:58 [Yves]
AM: versionning of XML vs versionning of HTML
16:29:04 [noah]
LM: Yes, one of David Orchard's documents was about that
16:29:14 [noah]
AM: I think there are good extracts from Dave's documents that might be useful
16:29:21 [noah]
q+ to talk about scoping this bottom up
16:29:37 [Yves]
AM: what about sniffing?
16:30:38 [Ashok]
Larry, you had a document on sniffing ... what about progressing that document?
16:31:59 [masinter]
ashok, the document on sniffing turned into issues in the websec tracker on the sniffing document, which i have now volunteered to edit
16:32:12 [Yves]
Tim: mime type is key to the web architecture. There was also a model of versionning done by Jonathan
16:32:34 [Yves]
consistent ways of identifying vesion, or relationships
16:32:45 [noah]
q?
16:32:47 [noah]
ack next
16:32:48 [JeniT]
s/versionning/versioning/
16:32:54 [masinter]
guidelines for: when to use a new MIME type vs. registering a new one
16:33:04 [noah]
ack next
16:33:05 [Zakim]
noah, you wanted to talk about scoping this bottom up
16:33:07 [masinter]
guidelines for: when to use a version indicator as a paramter of a MIME type
16:33:16 [Yves]
but it's better to be very crisp on little pieces
16:35:11 [Yves]
Noah: maybe one thing would be to say "let's take javascript, and figure out what people want from the mime type registration when javascript evolves", then same thing for one or two more languages
16:35:45 [noah]
q?
16:37:57 [Yves]
jeni: being able to take a larger theory and narrow it to a specific use case would be to test the theory and get the use cases to provide feedback
16:38:02 [timbl_]
q+ to go back to the 8 use cases
16:38:13 [noah]
ack next
16:38:14 [Zakim]
timbl_, you wanted to go back to the 8 use cases
16:39:13 [noah]
q+ to focus on mime-registration related stuff
16:40:54 [noah]
1?
16:40:58 [noah]
q?
16:41:00 [noah]
ack next
16:41:01 [Zakim]
noah, you wanted to focus on mime-registration related stuff
16:42:18 [masinter]
https://plus.google.com/106838758956333672633/posts/BbiiK6C937V
16:42:53 [Yves]
noah: working on generic versionning for XML proved very time consuming. this effort should focus on registering media types rather than telling the world how to define a language
16:44:06 [Yves]
LM: in the preface, I made it clear that the goal was not to have general definition of terms, but local ones only
16:44:54 [noah]
NM: Larry, are you mostly buying into my suggestion that we scope this effort mostly to the parts necessary to tell a story about MIME registration
16:45:08 [noah]
LM: Yes, except in so far as we need to look at other bits to verify that they are out of scope.
16:45:52 [timbl_]
q+
16:46:26 [Yves]
Yves: 5 use cases are about language versions, one is about discrepancy between advertized metadata and "real" content
16:47:29 [noah]
NM: I'd be much happier if the use cases said things like: ">MIME type registration" of evolving versions of {HTML, JavaScript}"
16:49:30 [noah]
q?
16:49:33 [noah]
ack next
16:50:15 [noah]
q+ to talk about self-describing languages
16:50:48 [Yves]
versioning of specifications vs versioning of implementations
16:54:59 [Yves]
Noah: HTML specs were always careful not to do big incompatible change to the meaning of a tag. <table> will always roughly mean a table. HTML 1.0 didn't have <img> at some point <img> was introduced and still now it means image
16:55:38 [Yves]
this is one property of HTML that people rely on
16:56:06 [Yves]
Noah: that can be one principle that might be outlined
16:59:36 [plinss]
plinss has joined #tagmem
17:03:15 [Yves]
LM: happy to narrow down the issue, however there are always architectural issues behind
17:08:43 [Yves]
LM: I have an AI on websec to work on sniffing
17:09:55 [noah]
ACTION-531?
17:09:55 [trackbot]
ACTION-531 -- Larry Masinter to draft document on architectural good practice relating to registries -- due 2011-12-26 -- OPEN
17:09:55 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/531
17:10:00 [noah]
ACTION-595?
17:10:00 [trackbot]
ACTION-595 -- Larry Masinter to create a report on Mime and the Web -- due 2011-12-29 -- OPEN
17:10:00 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/595
17:10:10 [noah]
ACTION-636?
17:10:10 [trackbot]
ACTION-636 -- Larry Masinter to update product page for Mime and the Web -- due 2011-12-08 -- OPEN
17:10:10 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/636
17:10:13 [Yves]
AM: what is the ultimate goal, one large comprehensive document, or lots of small ones?
17:10:22 [Yves]
the big document may never get done
17:11:31 [masinter`]
masinter` has joined #tagmem
17:12:04 [JeniT]
Scribe: JeniT
17:12:26 [JeniT]
noah: we need to change our product page to be more incremental
17:13:21 [JeniT]
ashok: I would like to say 'this is the big long-range goal, and these are the short-term steps'
17:13:41 [JeniT]
Scribe: Yves
17:14:29 [noah]
Reword http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/products/mimeweb.html to:
17:15:01 [noah]
1) Make clear the main goal is mime registration of evolving languages -- only bring in broader issues as necessary
17:15:20 [noah]
LM: The registry performs an important function of review which entries apply to which versions.
17:16:18 [Yves]
Noah: how about stating that work on that bigger product is done and split it in smaller products?
17:16:33 [Yves]
LM: might be a distraction, better to get this product
17:17:48 [noah]
Current goal: The goal of this activity is to help guide the use of MIME protocol elements in Web specifications and implementations, and to analyze, document, and propose solutions to difficulties with current effective use of MIME in the Web.
17:18:36 [noah]
Proposed goal: The goal of this activity is to help guide the use of MIME protocol elements and Mime registratoins in Web specifications and implementations, and to analyze, document, and propose solutions to difficulties with current effective use of MIME types and MIME registrations for languages that evolve.
17:52:49 [ndw]
ndw has joined #tagmem
18:12:23 [plinss]
plinss has joined #tagmem
18:28:19 [DKA]
ScribeNick: DKA
18:28:24 [DKA]
Scribe: Dan
18:28:57 [DKA]
Noah: Larry will write up a product page describing goals of previous topic.
18:29:18 [masinter`]
declare success for phase 1 and establish phase 2
18:29:40 [noah]
ACTION-531?
18:29:40 [trackbot]
ACTION-531 -- Larry Masinter to draft document on architectural good practice relating to registries -- due 2011-12-26 -- OPEN
18:29:40 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/531
18:30:28 [noah]
Leave ACTION-531 for Friday
18:30:33 [noah]
ACTION-595?
18:30:33 [trackbot]
ACTION-595 -- Larry Masinter to create a report on Mime and the Web -- due 2011-12-29 -- OPEN
18:30:33 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/595
18:33:23 [noah]
ACTION-595 Due 2012-01-24
18:33:23 [trackbot]
ACTION-595 Create a report on Mime and the Web due date now 2012-01-24
18:34:29 [noah]
ACTION-595?
18:34:29 [trackbot]
ACTION-595 -- Larry Masinter to draft a report on Mime and the Web -- due 2012-01-24 -- OPEN
18:34:29 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/595
18:34:41 [noah]
ACTION-636?
18:34:41 [trackbot]
ACTION-636 -- Larry Masinter to update product page for Mime and the Web -- due 2011-12-08 -- OPEN
18:34:41 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/636
18:35:10 [noah]
ACTION-636 Due 2012-01-17
18:35:10 [trackbot]
ACTION-636 Update product page for Mime and the Web due date now 2012-01-17
18:35:29 [noah]
Noah to help Larry with ACTION-636, capturing new directions from Wed 4 Jan 2012
18:35:40 [DKA]
Topic: URI Definition Discovery; Metadata Architecture
18:37:32 [DKA]
jar: [going through product page: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/products/defininguris.html
18:38:05 [DKA]
jar: [reviewing schedule]
18:38:49 [DKA]
jar: idea is to make a call fro change proposals 15 Jan...
18:39:03 [DKA]
Ashok: will you ask others beyond us?
18:39:30 [DKA]
jar: Yes - the idea is to get community consensus. We should post call to linked-data and [other communities].
18:39:38 [DKA]
… idea is to drive this issue to something.
18:39:52 [DKA]
Noah: Do you think this will make a real difference?
18:40:56 [DKA]
jar: I think if there is no consensus and we withdraw the resolution then that could [have an impact]. If we get w3c consensus then that could have some effect. I think the current situation is not tolerable.
18:42:07 [DKA]
tim: as a member of this community - I haven't reacted yet ...
18:42:40 [DKA]
… I think there is a technical issue here. What came out of range14 was the 303 recommendation - that [is not good].
18:43:06 [DKA]
… We need to work on more efficient alternatives to 303.
18:43:35 [DKA]
… I'd like to see a conclusion that we're going to underscore the resolution but temper it with some engineering that will make systems work in practice.
18:43:43 [DKA]
jar: that would be a great outcome.
18:44:07 [DKA]
… I think there will be an outcome. Anything that's not the current situation is going to be positive.
18:44:23 [Zakim]
+??P3
18:44:25 [DKA]
JeniT: how will we assess the change proposals?
18:44:44 [DKA]
jar: we need to decide what the change proposal process would be.
18:45:14 [DKA]
JeniT: it could be quite hard to be seen as fair in assessing them.
18:45:34 [DKA]
jar: it would still go through w3c consensus process - through rec track - [no matter what the TAG process is]
18:46:35 [DKA]
jar: even a statement from the TAG that "there appears to not be consensus on this issue" would be positive.
18:46:50 [DKA]
… I proposed the idea of a "town meeting" teleconference.
18:47:01 [DKA]
+1 to a "town meeting"
18:48:01 [DKA]
noah: the goals look good to me.
18:49:23 [DKA]
draft call for change proposals: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/12/uddp/cp-call.txt
18:50:25 [DKA]
jar: I have included a plea to review the work done so far on this issue.
18:51:04 [DKA]
Jenit: how would a change proposal show adequate understanding of those?
18:52:09 [DKA]
jar: good question - I imagine that if it make s claim that's refuted in one of the referenced documents then it's a problem. If it just says "there's no way to X" and the issue-57 documents gives a way to do X…. I should make a list of points that ought to be addressed. E.g. "why not just use hash URIs"..
18:52:54 [DKA]
noah: in this round, there will be some non-objective evaluation.
18:53:29 [DKA]
tim: we should say this is not the time to argue terminology.
18:54:00 [ht]
+1 to requesting terminology discussion happen elsewhere
18:54:36 [DKA]
Jenit: If I was coming to this and thinking of writing a change proposal - I might be concerned that I go to the effort and it is rejected based on obscure reasons...
18:55:00 [DKA]
noah: could we just say "questions are welcome on the www-tag mailing list".
18:55:40 [DKA]
jenit: having a deadline for drafting change proposals and then a period for discussion / revision and then a final deadline when we will make an assessment...
18:56:14 [DKA]
noah: ideally we should put these out for community review...
18:56:53 [DKA]
jenit: could say "We encourage people to work together to create change proposals that reflect community…"
18:58:00 [noah]
NM: Suggest a period of community review and refinement for all proposals to net out a good set of alternatives.
18:58:11 [noah]
JAR: Good idea. Not currently in plan, but I'll add it.
18:58:28 [noah]
NM: Do you want to do that in the product pages?
18:58:32 [noah]
JAR: Yes but later.
18:59:29 [DKA]
jar: I need to add a clause welcoming proposals from anyone and explain that we're going after consensus.
19:01:06 [JeniT]
ScribeNick: JeniT
19:02:26 [JeniT]
JAR: call for change proposals would be accompanied by two change proposals: no change and withdrawal of resolution
19:02:59 [JeniT]
Ashok: Do you expect something completely novel to turn up?
19:03:37 [JeniT]
JAR: People might come up with something new, though I don't expect it given we've been talking about it for 10 years
19:05:07 [JeniT]
LM: I have started thinking about this in a new way: URIs as protocol elements, with this being a way of providing a definition of what the URI is for languages to use
19:05:36 [JeniT]
... originally it sounded like discovery: "how do we discover what this URI means?"
19:06:01 [JeniT]
... but the language provides the meaning to the URI
19:06:27 [JeniT]
... and the language may choose to inherit from the definition that you get from resolving the URI
19:07:36 [JeniT]
NM: When this started, people accepted that you could make URIs for images and for people
19:07:51 [JeniT]
... and it wasn't obvious that you couldn't respond with a 200 for a URI that meant a person
19:08:23 [JeniT]
LM: The HTTP protocol is defined by the HTTP RFCs, which don't say anything about any of this, and httpRange-14 didn't change those
19:08:49 [JeniT]
NM: There are certain words such as "representation" that different people read in different ways
19:09:02 [JeniT]
JAR: This is all water under the bridge
19:09:12 [DKA]
ScribeNick: DKA
19:09:16 [DKA]
Scribe: Dan
19:09:31 [DKA]
jar: we're using URIs in RDF and how do we use them?
19:09:51 [DKA]
larry: httprange14 did not effect any language that didn't cite it.
19:10:04 [DKA]
tim: no httprange14 is about URLs
19:10:40 [DKA]
larry: I didn't like httprange14 before because it tried to address a larger scope than it should have.
19:11:12 [DKA]
tim: it ended up with the RDF community using URLs consistently with the html community.
19:12:43 [DKA]
larry: httprange14 is in scope for RDF and not for html.
19:13:30 [DKA]
noah: my view is that this should be a comment on status codes for the httpbis effort.
19:14:22 [DKA]
jar: I only care about RDF in this discussion. What's at stake is the ability to refer to RDF from the Web.
19:15:13 [DKA]
jar: [going over baseline proposal: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/12/uddp/]
19:15:43 [ht]
+1 to documentation over definition
19:16:29 [DKA]
tim: URIs should be universal
19:20:17 [DKA]
larry: in a SOPA case the counterfeit of chanel perfume was made to change the DNS resolution. If I wanted to make the case that this perfume was counterfeit then I better not use the URI because they were forced to change the resolution.
19:20:24 [DKA]
… "uncool URIs must change"
19:20:43 [DKA]
jar: this as the persistence problem really go together. RDF also suffers from the persistence problem.
19:21:45 [DKA]
larry: if you use a URI for meaning something in a context then you want that meaning to be persistent. If you use DNS names which you can't guarantee their persistence then ...
19:22:32 [DKA]
larry: another example- I make assertions about texaco and then chevron and texaco merger and they change all their uris to chevrontexaco.com...
19:22:53 [DKA]
… you have to accept the consequence.
19:23:24 [DKA]
… it may be that RDF2 will have a way of supplying a date context - please interpret these statements as being in context...
19:24:00 [DKA]
jar: [continues through document]
19:24:29 [DKA]
jar: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/12/uddp/#idp409552
19:25:04 [DKA]
… I've called out places where I've generalised.
19:27:02 [DKA]
jar: this enumerates the critical parts of the TAG resolution.
19:27:53 [DKA]
jenit: I don't agree that the 4xx response is not a critical part.
19:28:01 [DKA]
jar: OK I'll put it back in.
19:30:21 [DKA]
jar: it seems to me that 200 http is too much of a special case - if you're talking about web architecture then you're talking about rfc3986 retrieval - of which http 200 responses are a class.
19:30:47 [DKA]
larry: my change proposal is to avoid the phrase "http resource."
19:31:04 [DKA]
jar: I've already done this except where I'm quoting Roy Fielding.
19:31:36 [DKA]
jar: I give examples of ftp and data as being retrieval-oriented URIs.
19:32:08 [DKA]
jar: I will clarify further in the draft.
19:32:40 [DKA]
larry: in the web, there is an ambiguity between the touch point and the scope of the thing referenced?
19:32:52 [DKA]
jar: this is the reason you have documentation - to explain things.
19:33:05 [DKA]
larry: you cannot eliminate ambiguity.
19:33:13 [DKA]
jar: absolutely.
19:33:54 [DKA]
larry: the resources are not what are named by the URI . I have a problem with "the resource in question:...
19:34:38 [DKA]
jar: the ambiguity thing is a red herring.
19:35:52 [DKA]
[further wordsmithing]
19:37:02 [DKA]
jar: I'll clarify the second sentence.
19:38:10 [DKA]
jar: this is aimed at people using RDF.
19:38:40 [DKA]
ashok: "tis is a proposal for use with RDF."
19:39:23 [ht]
That's a possible change proposal
19:39:28 [ht]
but not a change to this document
19:39:46 [DKA]
larry: we could be happier when we say "this is RDF architecture.
19:40:30 [DKA]
larry: When you have linked data it is the function of linking data that you use the URI both for presentation and for meaning...
19:41:10 [ht]
q+ to try to get us back to the document. . .
19:42:08 [DKA]
noah: let's say there's a solution adopted for the RDF community. It must be the case that the "document" community does noting to conflict eo.
19:42:36 [JeniT]
ScribeNick: JeniT
19:43:09 [JeniT]
LM: We had URIs, now we have IRIs -- you don't try to impose a non-backwards-compatible meaning
19:43:22 [JeniT]
JAR: If the RDF community accepts this, that's the end of the story
19:43:43 [JeniT]
NM: If there was something that was backwards-incompatible for the document community, then that would be a problem
19:43:52 [JeniT]
JAR: HTML doesn't have a stake in how this comes out
19:44:19 [JeniT]
LM: Do load balancers and proxies have to start respecting this?
19:44:39 [JeniT]
NM: Does Squid have to be aware of this? Is there RDF-Squid and Other-Squid?
19:45:24 [JeniT]
TimBL: There are things that screw you up: Firefox transparently follows redirects, which is fine if it's 301s or 302s, but if it does it with 303s then it screws you up
19:45:42 [JeniT]
JAR: 303 is already documented compatibly in HTTPbis
19:46:48 [JeniT]
NM: Let's talk about making a resolution for JAR to take this forward
19:47:21 [JeniT]
TimBL: I think it needs to recognise the problems with 303
19:47:34 [JeniT]
JAR: the ISSUE-57 has as its purpose to do just that
19:47:40 [JeniT]
... this is just a baseline
19:47:57 [JeniT]
... for change proposals
19:48:18 [JeniT]
... I might be able to refer to the ISSUE-57 document in here
19:48:36 [JeniT]
... there is a reference to that document in the call for change proposals
19:49:04 [JeniT]
HT: it's worth saying in the call that you will find in that document a list of problems with the Fielding resolution
19:49:13 [JeniT]
... different people have had different problems with it
19:49:22 [JeniT]
JAR: I like that solution
19:49:39 [ht]
s/that document/the Issue 57 document/
19:49:57 [ht]
q- ht
19:50:15 [JeniT]
JAR: There's a lot in here about fragment identifiers, even though it's not really part of httpRange-14
19:50:42 [ht]
I'm happy for the call to go out, with the minor changes proposed to JAR's baseliine doc't
19:50:51 [JeniT]
... I just need to know whether there's anything else I need to do before sending out the call
19:51:08 [Zakim]
-ht
19:51:22 [noah]
PROPOSED RESOLUTION: The TAG will circulate a call for proposals to (re)resolve issue httpRange-14. The call will be based on Jonathan Rees' "d proposal for a call for change proposals", which is based on the baseline draft at http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/12/uddp/. Both are to be updated based on suggestions at 4 January 2012 F2F.
19:51:28 [masinter`]
masinter` has joined #tagmem
19:51:50 [noah]
PROPOSED RESOLUTION: The TAG will circulate a call for proposals to amend issue httpRange-14. The call will be based on Jonathan Rees' "d proposal for a call for change proposals", which is based on the baseline draft at http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/12/uddp/. Both are to be updated based on suggestions at 4 January 2012 F2F.
19:52:05 [noah]
PROPOSED RESOLUTION: The TAG will circulate a call for proposals to amend issue httpRange-14. The call will be based on Jonathan Rees' "proposal for a call for change proposals", which is based on the baseline draft at http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/12/uddp/. Both are to be updated based on suggestions at 4 January 2012 F2F.
19:54:04 [timbl_]
PROPOSED RESOLUTION: The TAG will circulate a call for proposals to amend the resolution to issue httpRange-14. The call will be based on Jonathan Rees' "proposal for a call for change proposals", which is based on the baseline draft at http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/12/uddp/. Both are to be updated based on suggestions at 4 January 2012 F2F.
19:54:51 [noah]
RESOLUTION: The TAG will circulate a call for proposals to amend the resolution to issue httpRange-14. The call will be based on Jonathan Rees' "proposal for a call for change proposals", which is based on the baseline draft at http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/12/uddp/. Both are to be updated based on suggestions at 4 January 2012 F2F.
19:54:57 [noah]
Passes unanimously.
19:55:25 [noah]
ACTION-624?
19:55:25 [trackbot]
ACTION-624 -- Jonathan Rees to draft for TAG consideration a call for httpRange-14 change proposals -- due 2011-12-31 -- PENDINGREVIEW
19:55:25 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/624
19:55:41 [noah]
close ACTION-624
19:55:42 [trackbot]
ACTION-624 Draft for TAG consideration a call for httpRange-14 change proposals closed
19:55:45 [noah]
ACTION-625?
19:55:45 [trackbot]
ACTION-625 -- Noah Mendelsohn to schedule followup discussion of http://www.w3.org/wiki/HttpRange14Options (per agreement in Santa Clara) -- due 2011-12-21 -- CLOSED
19:55:45 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/625
19:55:55 [noah]
ACTION-589?
19:55:55 [trackbot]
ACTION-589 -- Noah Mendelsohn to work with Jonathan to update URI definition discovery product page Due: 2011-08-18 -- due 2011-12-23 -- CLOSED
19:55:55 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/589
19:56:12 [noah]
ACTION-201?
19:56:12 [trackbot]
ACTION-201 -- Jonathan Rees to report on status of AWWSW discussions -- due 2011-12-28 -- OPEN
19:56:12 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/201
19:56:41 [noah]
ACTION-201 Due 2012-03-31
19:56:42 [trackbot]
ACTION-201 Report on status of AWWSW discussions due date now 2012-03-31
19:56:51 [noah]
ACTION-282?
19:56:51 [trackbot]
ACTION-282 -- Jonathan Rees to draft a finding on metadata architecture. -- due 2012-01-31 -- OPEN
19:56:51 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/282
19:57:12 [noah]
Jonathan will bump 282 date later.
19:58:16 [noah]
ACTION: Jonathan to post call for change proposals to amend the resolution to httpRange-14 per 4 January 2012 TAG Resolution Due: 2012-01-17
19:58:16 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-648 - Post call for change proposals to amend the resolution to httpRange-14 per 4 January 2012 TAG Resolution Due: 2012-01-17 [on Jonathan Rees - due 2012-01-11].
20:09:06 [JeniT]
JeniT has joined #tagmem
20:34:55 [DKA]
Topic: Can publication of hyperlinks constitute copyright infringement?
20:36:01 [DKA]
Product page: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/products/PublishingLinking-2011-12-27.html
20:36:16 [DKA]
Jenit: we've been kicking this draft around - Dan I have revised it recently.
20:37:20 [JeniT]
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/publishingAndLinkingOnTheWeb-2012-01-04.html
20:37:27 [DKA]
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/publishingAndLinkingOnTheWeb-2012-01-04.html
20:38:34 [DKA]
JeniT: following discussion with Rigo - the direction he recommended was to have this doc focused on technical aspects of publishing and linking and to have some other mechanism for having stronger statements that we want to make - e.g. right to link, flagging issues with transforming proxies, etc - questions with legal questions associated with them.
20:39:31 [DKA]
…. we want to answer 3 main questions today. First, is that a reasonable way forward; 2nd if so what is the best mechanism for making those opinion statements?; 3rd given that we make those statements, what statements should we make?
20:40:10 [DKA]
… so first question - is that a reasonable way to structure this work?
20:41:09 [DKA]
Larry: there are different kinds of opinions. There are opinions about the technical impact are and opinions about legislation. I wanted you to separate out the opinions about legislations from the technical opinions.
20:41:20 [DKA]
Jenit: yes - that's what we've done for the latest draft.
20:41:45 [DKA]
ScribeNick: DKA
20:41:50 [DKA]
Scribe: Dan
20:41:58 [DKA]
Noah: it strikes me as the right direction to try.
20:42:56 [DKA]
Dan: this is based on some additional feedback from Rigo.
20:43:15 [DKA]
Jenit: what should the opinion statements be?
20:45:02 [masinter]
masinter has joined #tagmem
20:47:12 [noah]
scribenick: Ashok
20:47:18 [masinter]
You can remove opinions about legal wihtout removing opinions about control
20:47:30 [noah]
s/wihtout/without/
20:48:01 [Ashok]
Dan: Bullet points on messages we want to convey. We have taken these out of the document.
20:48:31 [Ashok]
Jeni writes on board "hosting != possesion"
20:49:03 [Ashok]
Larry: Can we keep this in the document rephrased as technical point
20:49:09 [masinter]
""It is impossible to control dissemination of content-based unwanted material, merely by imposing restrictions on service providers offering transformation services, because such services are not able to differentiate wanted form unwanted content. The result would be severely limited services, instead.""
20:49:23 [Ashok]
s/point/point?/
20:49:35 [masinter]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2011Dec/0120.html
20:50:02 [Ashok]
Dan: Rigo would feel this would be better left out
20:51:04 [Ashok]
... this is opinion
20:52:16 [Ashok]
Larry: If you cannot distinguish what you can publish and what you cannot, you cannot publish anything
20:52:40 [Ashok]
... distinguish mechanically at reasonable cost
20:53:02 [masinter]
"common carrier"
20:54:05 [Ashok]
Noah discusses wording re automated algorithms to distinguish ...
20:54:33 [Ashok]
... what you can publish and what you cannot
20:55:05 [Ashok]
... copyrighted vs. non-copyrighted material
20:55:39 [Ashok]
Peter: A lawyer you not care whether it is automated or not
20:55:45 [jar]
q?
20:56:17 [masinter]
in the "legal opinion" view, I'd want to make web hosting and transformation services to be "common carriers"
20:56:45 [Ashok]
Jar: I think you can make the point without using legal
20:56:56 [masinter]
s/make/consider making/
20:56:56 [Ashok]
... you can talk about requirements
20:58:12 [masinter`]
masinter` has joined #tagmem
20:58:15 [jar]
System requirements come from a variety of sources. Laws and contracts are just particular examples of requirement sources. So talk about requirements, and avoid any hint that some legal assessment is being made.
20:59:00 [Ashok]
Jeni: We want to separate the two documents: legal and technical
21:00:12 [Ashok]
Larry: Goverments do not have to make things illegal in order to prohibit them
21:00:53 [Ashok]
Jeni writes on board "filetering content can be hard".
21:01:07 [JeniT]
s/filetering/filtering/
21:01:54 [Ashok]
Larry: We should point about other means of control other than criminalization
21:02:31 [masinter`]
s/should/could/
21:02:43 [masinter`]
s/prohibit them/discourage them/
21:02:56 [Ashok]
Dan: We can work in parallel on these two things ... first publish the technical work
21:04:22 [masinter`]
the interface between jurisdictional authority and the technical infrastructure is interesting, we should just be clear when we're talking about technical only, for which we can be authoritative
21:06:06 [Ashok]
Jeni writes "copying is needed for proxying /archiving"
21:06:49 [Ashok]
Jeni writes "rewriring links is necessary for archiving"
21:07:25 [Ashok]
Jeni writes "transforamation is needed for search engines"
21:08:04 [masinter`]
http://www.archive.org/post/82097/internet-archive-helps-secure-exemption-to-the-digital-millennium-copyright-act
21:08:49 [Ashok]
Jeni writes "users don't know where they are going when they click on a link/prefetch"
21:09:17 [Ashok]
Jeni writes "deep linking is necessary -- right to link
21:09:59 [jar]
greasemonkey is a terrific innovation… but may be incompatible with requirements
21:09:59 [Ashok]
... linking is a speech act
21:11:19 [Ashok]
... network effects
21:12:08 [Ashok]
Dan: A speech act is something that is protected under UN Resolution ...
21:13:16 [noah]
NM: I agree. I'm happy to see the TAG talk about the importance of network effects & Metcalfe's law. I'm happy to see >the W3C< make the connection to UN Resolutions. I don't see the technical content that makes the connection to the UN part of the TAG's remit at W3C.
21:14:04 [Ashok]
Larry: Protocols should be explicit whether links imply automatic behaviour without additional action
21:14:30 [Ashok]
Jeni writes " linking vs. inclusion"
21:15:01 [Ashok]
Larry: Links could be speech acts or automatic actions
21:16:44 [Ashok]
Noah disagrees ... points to separation of concerns. Links can be processsed in different ways
21:19:22 [ndw]
ndw has joined #tagmem
21:19:26 [Ashok]
Laary: Protocols could annotate links to indicate whether link should be followed
21:19:45 [Ashok]
s/Laary/Larry/
21:20:32 [Norm]
Norm has joined #tagmem
21:21:02 [Ashok]
Jeni: Topics on board are examples we can pull out to talk about legislation or contracts, etc.
21:22:46 [Ashok]
Ashok: These are good starting statements
21:23:38 [Ashok]
Most people in room think this is a good direction
21:24:13 [Ashok]
Tim: "It would be reasonable for a Goverment to conclude that ..."
21:25:53 [Ashok]
Larry: In telecom field this is the legal Common Carrier issue ... does this translate to web hosting etc. ?
21:27:19 [Ashok]
... used in Common Law Countries
21:28:44 [Ashok]
Dan: Article 19 on Human Rights ... fundamental right
21:29:33 [Ashok]
Jeni: Moving to vehicle ... how to disseminate these points
21:30:14 [Ashok]
Noah: We need a base technical document with good, simple, non-inflammatory examples
21:31:03 [Ashok]
Noah: We can decided how to disseminate on a case-by-case basis
21:32:07 [Ashok]
... two documents technical document and a document with examples.
21:32:32 [Ashok]
... perhaps combine into one document
21:33:54 [Ashok]
Larry: Perhaps ask ISOC for some help
21:35:06 [Ashok]
Noah: We should publish our document first
21:36:45 [Ashok]
Discussion about updating the product page
21:38:21 [Ashok]
Ashok: We need a new mechanism to put W3C positions front and center
21:38:48 [Ashok]
Tim: Perhaps Web Foundation could pick that up
21:39:31 [Ashok]
Larry: This seems the main thing that ISOC does ... we could get them the technical background
21:40:46 [Ashok]
jar: But this project is about what we think ... voice of the technical community
21:41:48 [Ashok]
Yves: Most impt thing is to publish the technical document
21:43:08 [jar]
+1
21:43:14 [Ashok]
Dan: Let's publish the technical document and then debate hoe to disseminate the other stuff
21:43:26 [Ashok]
s/hoe/how/
21:43:51 [Ashok]
Larry: Should we review your latest document
21:44:23 [Ashok]
s/document/documemt?/
21:45:01 [Ashok]
jar: Technical document could have some compelling examples
21:45:16 [jar]
The main (tech) document can contain plenty of compelling examples, based on general system requirements (not on legal considerations)
21:46:00 [jar]
(which is similar to what I think Larry was saying earlier, about administrative control)
21:46:13 [noah]
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/01/CopyrightLinkingTopics.jpg
21:47:26 [noah]
ACTION-627?
21:47:26 [trackbot]
ACTION-627 -- Noah Mendelsohn to schedule very detailed line-by-line review of Pub&Linking draft at January F2F -- due 2011-12-23 -- PENDINGREVIEW
21:47:26 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/627
21:47:51 [noah]
need to reopen 627 until draft is ready
21:48:21 [noah]
Never mind
21:48:58 [noah]
ACTION-627 Due 2012-01-10
21:48:58 [trackbot]
ACTION-627 Schedule very detailed line-by-line review of Pub&Linking draft at January F2F due date now 2012-01-10
21:49:16 [noah]
ACTION-627 Due 2012-01-17
21:49:16 [trackbot]
ACTION-627 Schedule very detailed line-by-line review of Pub&Linking draft at January F2F due date now 2012-01-17
21:49:46 [noah]
ACTION-629?
21:49:46 [trackbot]
ACTION-629 -- Daniel Appelquist to with help from Jeni to propose changes to goals, success criteria etc. for publishing/linking product page -- due 2011-11-11 -- OPEN
21:49:46 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/629
21:50:07 [noah]
ACTION-629 Due 2012-01-17
21:50:07 [trackbot]
ACTION-629 With help from Jeni to propose changes to goals, success criteria etc. for publishing/linking product page due date now 2012-01-17
21:50:16 [noah]
ACTION-541?
21:50:17 [trackbot]
ACTION-541 -- Jeni Tennison to helped by DKA to produce a first draft of terminology about (deep-)linking etc. -- due 2011-12-20 -- OPEN
21:50:17 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/541
21:50:47 [noah]
Changing description
21:51:43 [noah]
ACTION-541?
21:51:43 [trackbot]
ACTION-541 -- Jeni Tennison to helped by DKA to produce draft on technical issues relating to copyright/linking -- due 2012-01-31 -- OPEN
21:51:43 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/541
21:53:07 [noah]
ACTION: Jeni to produce a document with examples motivating the technical points in the Copyright/Linking document Due: 2012-03-20
21:53:08 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-649 - Produce a document with examples motivating the technical points in the Copyright/Linking document Due: 2012-03-20 [on Jeni Tennison - due 2012-01-11].
22:39:02 [jar]
jar has joined #tagmem
23:08:38 [Zakim]
-W3C.a
23:13:38 [Zakim]
disconnecting the lone participant, W3C, in TAG_f2f()7:30AM
23:13:42 [Zakim]
TAG_f2f()7:30AM has ended
23:13:44 [Zakim]
Attendees were W3C, +1.417.671.aaaa, GlennAdams, Henry, ht, +1.617.715.aabb
23:40:12 [jar]
jar has joined #tagmem