See also: IRC log
trackbot, start meeting
<trackbot> Date: 12 February 2009
RESOLUTION: to meet again 19 Feb, ashok to scribe
NM: re agenda review, error handlingn didn't work out for this week
RESOLUTION: to approved http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/01/22-minutes
RESOLUTION: to approve http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/02/05-minutes
NM: our ftf meeting is in 3
weeks...
... 1. progress on substantial topics 2. step back and look ahead
for the year
... those are my 2 points/goals re the ftf
... let's have reading materials available well in advance
<Zakim> raman, you wanted to discuss agenda f2f
<masinter> My contribution about TAG priorities
TVR: last Sep, we talked about HTML
and tag soup; I'd like Larry and John to look at the way the agenda
was put together and what we discussed...
... also, I'd like to know from Tim and Dan what follow-up there
has been since the TPAC
<DanC_> (I did report at our Dec FTF on follow-up from the TPAC; I'm happy to do so again)
<masinter> Re HTML5 and "tag soup" etc.: I've tried to read the background material and previous activities here, and frankly, can't really see a "TAG position" here
<scribe> ACTION: DanC report at March on tagSoup progress since TPAC [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/02/12-tagmem-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-226 - Report at March on tagSoup progress since TPAC [on Dan Connolly - due 2009-02-19].
NM: we're drifting into technical discussion, which is natural... error handling looks similar...
LMM: error handling is perhaps a bit more broad than tag soup, but yes, it's related
<masinter> it's a generalization of one (but only one) of the issues with HTML5
<Zakim> raman, you wanted to summarize Sep tagsoup for Larry and John
<DanC_> Sep KC meeting record
TVR: the Sep ftf was just before TPAC... so I'd like to see what came out
NM: so it looks like yes, tagSoup should be on the ftf agenda; one session or more?
TVR: let's do something similar to what we did in Sep, with substantial prep
LMM: the TAG has met with the HTML
WG... [missed some?] we should have a TAG finding on [did he say
all the web standards?]
... for example, should W3C propose accessibility techniques that
have not been implemented?
NM: is the ftf a good time to talk about this?
LMM: yes
DO: on XML, HTML... I'm interested in a consensus position of the TAG on HTML, XML, and such; we've discussed it without resolution
DanC: I'm still at-risk to attend the ftf
NM: Ashok, any logistic details?
<DanC_> March meeting logistics
Ashok: I'll distribute a cell phone to TAG members
<noah> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/02/05-minutes#item10
close action-224
<trackbot> ACTION-224 Schedule discussion of metadata (scope, issue, coordination, workshop, etc) as item on next telecon closed
LMM: I'm happy to defer this to the ftf agenda
NM: as telcon time is cheaper, maybe better here?
AM: I note a new draft of the site metadata work [by mnot, yes?]
LMM: I think what's needed is a background survey on metadata; I'm hesitant to offer something soon...
AM: Jonathan's piece on metadata use cases is perhaps a good summary
<jar> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/uniform-access-20090205.html#cross_site
<jar> that has use cases
<DanC_> (gee; evidently I'm behind on email)
<Zakim> DanC, you wanted to wonder about POWDER and site metadata
DC: POWDER let you say things like, everything in this subtree OK for children. Mark Nottingham's stuff as similar capability. Are we the only ones looking at both?
<Zakim> jar, you wanted to ask LM what he had in mind
JAR: I could do something, but I wonder if it's too narrow; I can summarize work by Eran, mnot, [??], ...
<Stuart> fyi... a good summary from Eran is at: http://groups.google.com/group/metadata-discovery/browse_thread/thread/b4f60d20896ad7c5
<masinter> that sounds like a good start
JAR: I wonder if LMM had other stuff in mind; of course metadata is a huge area...
LMM: I've been working on metadata
for a couple years, esp Adobe XMP, ...
... I'm interested to reconcile what I've seen with [other
stuff?]
<Zakim> DanC, you wanted to suggest LMM look at tag/doc/uniform-access
DC: I think uniform access to metadata by Jonathan and Phil Archer is as good a starting point for overall review as we had.
(request to discuss this cites http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2008Nov/0008.html TAG Resolution endorsing W3C Team Comment on the identifications of WS Transfer resources. )
DC: Request to discuss today somehow related to W3C Team work on WS TRansfer. Jonathan do you remember?
JAR: No.
DC: Ashok?
AM: There's a thin connection.
... in WS-Transfer context, they talk about XML representation of
resource; to them, a resource is a web service...
... that's one style of metadata...
<Zakim> noah, you wanted to talk about coordinating this
<Stuart> Ashok, are you trying to say (roughly) that the WSRA resourse has (roughly) a schema that might be thought of as resource metadata?
NM: I'm interested to have 1 or 2 tag
members to be point-person on issues/areas...
... jonathan is offering to do something... I wonder about
expanding it to an overall tracking role...
<Ashok> Stuart, The metadata they talk about is usually XML Schema, WSDL etc
JAR: I'm willing to try, though I wonder about mixing my biases in with TAG priorities...
<masinter> I can work with JAR offline
good, masinter
<Stuart> Ashok... thx.
<Ashok> Stuart, Typically Schema, WSDL and Policy (forgot abt policy last time)
<scribe> ACTION: jonathan summarize TAG work on metadata, with Larry [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/02/12-tagmem-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-227 - Summarize TAG work on metadata, with Larry [on Jonathan Rees - due 2009-02-19].
johnk: we should try to become clear on what we mean by "metadata"; the definition of metadata isn't clear enough
LMM: my sense is that this merits W3C work, not just a TAG issue, so I hope the TAG will prompt W3C work
NM: Dan, care to comment as staff comment?
DanC: it's straightforward for the TAG to suggest new W3C work, though starting things in W3C is naturally a very involved process
NM: I have some hesitation... I think the TAG has good standing to suggest others do work >after< we've done some serious work understanding why there's a problem somewhere. Not clear we've done that here. But I'm happy to see what Jonathan and Larry come up with
LMM: I acknowledge that just saying "this looks interesting" isn't useful, but it seems that there are architectural issues that none of the individual efforts are addressing, and it's the TAG's role to coordinate in those cases
action-227?
<trackbot> ACTION-227 -- Jonathan Rees to summarize TAG work on metadata, with Larry -- due 2009-02-19 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/227
<Zakim> jar, you wanted to discuss reading list deadline for f2f
<DanC_> +1 2 weeks before
JAR: we had a 2 weeks-before goal in previous ftfs...
NM: I mentioned 1 week in advance... in general it depends on size etc.; in this case, 1 week in avance of the ftf seems OK
action-227 due 24 Feb
<trackbot> ACTION-227 Summarize TAG work on metadata, with Larry due date now 24 Feb
<Ashok> [1] Team Comment: http://www.w3.org/Submission/2006/04/Comment
<Ashok> [2] TimBL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2006Oct/0061.html
<Ashok> [3] Stuart Williams: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2008Nov/0008.html
AM: these msgs note web services use
end-point references (EPRs), not URIs
... and there's a question of what if you do a GET on the URI found
in an EPR
... and they [who?] has asked for more specific recommendations
<johnk> EPRs contain a URI
AM: yes, for example, the WS WGs would like the TAG to be specific about what should come back when you do a GET on the URI in an EPR
<Zakim> noah, you wanted to ask why
NM: Do we know why they're interested?
AM: there's some expectation that TAG input would help with WS specs
<Zakim> DanC, you wanted to note DaveO's suggestions that the TAG do this and ask
DanC: DaveO suggested some work nearby...
DaveO: in the Hawaii meeting timeframe, yes...
<masinter> I think working groups who want TAG feedback should try harder to express their question as an architectural issue rather than "read our specs and figure out what we should do"
DanC: DaveO, do you think the market window has passed? or is it still worthwhile?
DaveO: I've long been an advocate of
filling this gap...
... I see the REST community ignoring WS-*, and vice versa...
... and then I see the OAuth community wrestling with policy
problems solved in WS-policy [but which doesn't work in the OAuth
context because it's not URI-based]
<masinter> i'm not convinced that this is an issue that can be resolved, REST vs. WS
<masinter> it would be good if mechanisms like authentication and naming can be common, though
DaveO: when WS-* advocates say "you can do all this automated policy negotation, provided you use SOAP messages", the REST community isn't interested.
<Ashok> How about a common mechanism to access metadata?
<masinter> well, common mechanisms might be hard, but common vocabularies for metadata would be a good first step
daveO: a couple points in particular: soap RPC into HTTP GET, bind EPRs into URIs
<masinter> general idea is: don't try to solve unresolvable problems
<Ashok> Dave, Do you have something written on this?
daveO: I can point you to work I did in that area
LMM: the perspectives of the two communities aren't clearly resolvable...
<raman> 1+ to Larry.
<raman> RESTful services are very successful, we dont need to teach them WS* religion
LMM: there are perhaps architectural
approaches: common vocabularies despite different
mechanisms...
... choosing one's battles is important
<johnk> +1 to the *possibility* of common vocabs
<Ashok> Raman, I'm thinking the other way around
<johnk> but tend to agree with Larry that this is still a war
LMM: I'd contrast this with the HTML situation... there's really just one HTML and we should get it right, but the world is OK having both WS-* and REST styles.
<Zakim> noah, you wanted to talk about helping the REST community discover the joys of Web Services
TVR: I agree with Larry; there's little impact the TAG can usefully have in this area [?]
NM summarizes [scribe thinks it's already recorded above]
NM: to push back a bit on LMM and
TVR: the Web aspires to a level of integration that's deep and
universal...
... URIs are supposed to be URIs wherever you find them [in an EPR
or otherwise]
<masinter> if there's an expression of this as an architectural question, that would be helpful
NM: and there are expecations that you can do things [e.g. GET]
<raman> The TAG's history here is to traditionally have come heavily on the WS* side, mostly because (perhaps) of the bodies present. That also means that we dont get heard by the other side.
NM: [struggling to summarize tail end of what NM said]
<raman> I'm happy for the TAG to specifically answer Ashok's WSRE question.
<masinter> GET on a URI should return a representation of the resource
<raman> Bit BuBut as a continuing TAG member, I'd advice against going the route Dave Orchard suggested that the TAGshould go
<masinter> (jk)
<masinter> Would like agenda items about technical topics have an ISSUE, because I'm confused still about what they want advice about
SKW: I think it's a stretch to say
they're [which they?] interested in access to metadata... they have
a particular object model, and metadata is a small part of it.
[?]
... I think the http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2008Nov/0008.html
message is still what's worth saying. [?]
<noah> Larry: suggest we discuss the meta topic of TAG operations at F2F. This is the sort of stuff I'd like to agree on. Historyically, ISSUES have been somewhat heavyweight, with some commitment to long term TAG focus. Hence there tends to be a lot of discussion to decide whether to open an issue. That's what's happening here, I think.
NM: there's a metadata part to this;
we have an action on jonathan in that area...
... then there's the specific question re WS-RA... maybe AM would
like to draft something?
... meanwhile, we might want to think about whether this fits under
and existing issue or should be a new one
action-223?
<trackbot> ACTION-223 -- John Kemp to attempt to fix the broken links in Mapping between URIs and Internet Media Types -- due 2009-02-12 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/223
<masinter> didn't propose TAG work on this
ACTION-222?
<trackbot> ACTION-222 -- Larry Masinter to draft a note to W3C staff regarding maintaining working links, for TAG review -- due 2009-02-12 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/222
LMM: yes, I drafted something, and I see a response from Dan noting existing policies
<masinter> I didn't want to propose the TAG should work on this, but rather we should ask the staff to handle this kind of thing in general, rather than take this up as a TAG work item
John: noting date of access is conventional for citing web documents; we could do that...
NM: isn't that implicit in the date of the finding itself?
John: note chicago manual of style etc. note date accessed
<DanC_> (I find "date of access" kinda wierd. no thanks.)
LMM: how about we ask the W3C staff to use that chicago manual of style date-of-access policy?
<masinter> hear arguments against and think they're reasonable
DanC: ISOC stable-publishes IETF drafts
<DanC_> progress on ietf.org persistence, structured archive
DanC: I recommend we use those in the future
NM: are those canonical?
<jar> Mary-Claire van Leunen. A Handbook for Scholars. = bible on citation
LMM: I'm satisfied the staff maintains a policy on links in general
<masinter> that should be W3C publication policy, not just a W3C TAG practice
<Ashok> +1
close action-222
<trackbot> ACTION-222 Draft a note to W3C staff regarding maintaining working links, for TAG review closed
NM: how about "we considered it, but
on balance, didn't find it worthwile to update the finding"
... John?
<masinter> i don't agree with that
<masinter> I like jar's proposal better
<masinter> "Message to staff: We've talked about this. Please do something. [We trust you.]"
Stuart: I like the intermediate page idea...
<jar> noah: w3c ends up running a proxy site for all cited documents. not good
Stuart: I suggest that we quietly change the links to something sensible
<jar> webcitation.org
<DanC_> -1 "please do something".
<johnk> -1 also
<Stuart> +0
SKW: the staff has very tight policy for the /TR/ page, but we're not using that for findings...
NM: Dan, how about you draft something...
<DanC_> no, I'm not interested in any new policies.
<DanC_> I've done more than I think this merits already
<masinter> fix document is fine
NM: how about... ACTION: respond to the commentor
<DanC_> . ACTION: john consult with stuart and respond to the commentor re broken links in uriMediaType-9
NM: so we'll leave this to email and maybe it'll come back
close ACTION-223
<trackbot> ACTION-223 Attempt to fix the broken links in Mapping between URIs and Internet Media Types closed