Noah: Approval of minutes from last week?
<noah> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/12/15-minutes
[no objections heard]
Minutes approved.
Noah: f2f agenda proposal to be coming soon...
<noah> Looking for comments on proposed text to be sent announcing end of TAG "product" work on HTML5 last call review: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2011Dec/0041.html
<jar_> Noah's action is 599 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/599
Henry: I want to know what the status of these documents is.
... Polyglot is in last call but there's also an editor's draft which has different wording.
... other question is what about the author document...
Noah: It got republished.
<Larry> I'm not sure what the purpose of this announcement is, could you explain?
Henry: Reason I'm asking: regarding the announcement...
<Larry> we have lots of other products and issues that have been open and are still open and we're not closing
Henry: I'm happy for you to send that document; though I am facing some issues.
<Larry> the announcement is likely to have lots read into it, and i'm confused about what we're trying to accomplish
Noah: I will get this note out [unless there is objection].
Larry: I am confused on the point.
<Larry> that's not how the note reads to me
Noah: I've told the community that when the TAG shifts its priorities I will announce that so people know what we're working on.
... that's the goal.
Larry: I think we have failed on HTML5 review.
Noah: This document doesn't say success or fail - it just states the facts [relating to the review].
... what do others feel?
<Larry> i'll volunteer to redraft
JAR: I think it's confusing as is.
Henry: I think the goal is a good one.
<jar_> I look at the note and am inclined to ask "why should I care (about what's being said)?"
<DKA>Personally I don't find it too long - I think it's reasonable.
<Henry> Ship it
Noah: Can people type words into IRC on what we should do?
Ship it.
<Larry> I think what we're doing is refocusing our efforts to look at the effects and follow-on of resolving the effect of HTML5 on the rest of the W3C recommendations
<jar_> Add one sentence saying that this is a review of TAG work, not new information
<Larry> We're not "ending" our focus on the technology, but realizing that we don't intent to change HTML5, but rather move forward.
Henry: I think Larry's last line in IRC could be useful.
Noah: I don't want to say that.
<noah> RESOLUTION: The TAG will close out
<noah> the major TAG "Product" titled HTML5 Last
<noah> Call Review, but will pursue ongoing related
<noah> initiatives (e.g. microdata/RDFa), and
<noah> will generally keep tracking HTML5 developments
<Larry> As an internal administrative matter within the TAG....
<Henry> Fair enough, I suspect I will want us to try to get something changed wrt prefixes
<jar_> Before para "HTML5 Last Call Review" add "The following summarizes TAG work on this 'product'." or something like that
Noah: Larry do you want to add or delete a sentence?
Larry: I'm willing to draft something.
... I think it's likely to be confusing.
<Larry> an update on TAG priorities would be better than an announcement of removing an item without anything about what we're going to do instead, then.
<Larry> your announcemenet doesn't even have a link to the product pages
<Larry> so this is an announcement that the product page that wasn't there isn't there?
<noah> The goal is to tell them about our products
<noah> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/products/index-2011-09-13.html
<Larry> can we get a hit count on that page from the system team?
<jar_> link to *that* page then
<Larry> how many people other than TAG members have looked at it that we need to announce that a page that wasn't there isn't going to be there?
<jar_> since that is the product page
<scribe> ACTION: Larry to redraft something on this html5 review in 3 weeks. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/12/22-tagmem-irc]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-643 - Redraft something on this html5 review in 3 weeks. [on Larry Masinter - due 2011-12-29].
<Larry> i'd rather have an announcement about our priorities going forward, in which we note that we've done with this one
<noah> ACTION: Larry to draft proposed alternative text to e-mail announcing end of "product" work on HTML 5 last call ( https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2011Dec/0041.html ) Due 2012-01-10 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/12/22-tagmem-irc]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-644 - Draft proposed alternative text to e-mail announcing end of "product" work on HTML 5 last call ( https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2011Dec/0041.html ) Due 2012-01-10 [on Larry Masinter - due 2011-12-29].
<Larry> as the way we acknowledge dropping something, is to say what else we're doing
<noah> ACTION-644 Due 2012-01-10
<trackbot> ACTION-644 Draft proposed alternative text to e-mail announcing end of "product" work on HTML 5 last call ( https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2011Dec/0041.html ) Due 2012-01-10 due date now 2012-01-10
<jar_> public messaging is important, so worth spending a bit of time to improve this
Noah: We have two goals for today: 1) Review draft product page 2) Review results of workshop on domain name persistence
<noah> Draft product page: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2011Dec/0041.html
<noah> Workshop home page: http://www.dcc.ac.uk/events/idcc11/workshops
<noah> Draft product page: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/products/persistence.html
Henry: URIs and registries and XRI and "http is good enough" etc...
... we may have lost a few battles but we seem to be winning the war. The crucial change observed over last 18 months or so is that the owners and operators / major users of the big non-http URI schemes (in particular handle and DOI) are creating URI versions and telling people to cite them via URIs.
<Larry> I wonder, if the issue is "URNs and Registries", why the product page doesn't mention URNs ...
Henry: none-the-less some unfinished business. There's a document we need to finish. The other thing- precisely as DOIs begin to use URIs via doi.org, the importance of the persistence of their ownership of that domain becomes even more important.
<noah> Hmm, it's not clear to me that this product is supposed to be all of URNRegistries-50
Larry: the product page doesn't mention URNs
Henry: good point.
<noah> I think the converse is true, this product is >part of< URNSRegistries-50
<noah> Specifically, this is the persistence bit, right?
Larry: I would like to be able to explain clearly what we think the persistence characteristics are including addressing how URNs fit into that.
Henry: Yes.
<noah> https://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/50
<noah> Issue Scope:
<noah> This issue covers a) URIs for namespace names b) URNs and other proposed systems for "location independent" names c) XML and other registries, and perhaps centralized vs. decentralized vocabulary tracking.
Noah: I'm happy with this but things need straightening out. We have an issue-50.
... My impression is that along the way we noticed that persistence was important to focus on and we have done this under issue-50 but [issue-50 is bigger than this topic].
<Larry> There's URNbis
<noah> NM: My main point is that scope of ISSUE-50 is broader than the product. That's working as designed.
<noah> NM: I am fine with the proposed change from Larry and HT, because as HT says, persistence was one of the reasons brought up for people wanting URNs
Henry: we had the meeting in london when we had the British Library and UCL people to talk with us about domain name persistence. I pushed towards having a workshop to engage the community. Now that has happened (with help from JAR and Digital Curation Centre).
... We had lots of people there - good group of people - we did miss some reps from linked data community.
<Larry> "Uncool URIs MUST change!"
<noah> Hmm...when workshop report is done, we should probably decide whether to close ACTION-528
Henry: IRC Log from workshop is available.
<noah> ACTION-528?
<trackbot> ACTION-528 -- Henry Thompson to create and get consensus on a product page and tracker product page for persistence of names -- due 2011-11-29 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/528
<jar_> Workshop log: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/12/dnap-workshop/notes.html
<noah> ACTION-477?
<trackbot> ACTION-477 -- Henry Thompson to organize meeting on persistence of domains -- due 2011-10-04 -- CLOSED
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/477
Henry: there are notes - lots of interesting reading linked from that page.
<noah> ACTION-620?
Henry: there are 2 headlines.
<trackbot> ACTION-620 -- Henry Thompson to with help from Jonathan, to report on persistent domain workshop -- due 2012-01-15 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/620
Henry: a full report will follow.
<noah> NM: Should we keep ACTION-620 open until the written report is done?
<noah> HT: Yes, please.
<noah> HT: Consensus was that a new top level domain is not the right way to go about this.
<Larry> I'd like to bring up SOPA and recent court cases which force ISPs to redirect domain names
<noah> Could you clarify reference to 8 January?
<dka> New ICANN process? Please clarify.
<Henry> Yes, ICANN.
<jar_> New gTLD process - applications accepted starting Jan 8 - for three months
<Henry> New top level domain, put up $150,000 bond. It'phoneor things like .newyork and .ibm
<Henry> Very big deal.
<Larry> as a point an intrinsic conflict between DNS-as-permanent-naming vs. DNS-as-operational-system subject to tweaking
Henry: the 2 headlines are: consensus was that new ICANN top level domain process was not the right way to go about this. This is the new "put up $150k bond" thing.
<noah> So...they're deciding that $150,000 does not in all cases lead to persistence? :-)
<jar_> http://valideus.com/news-from-icann-new-gtld-launch-confirmed-in-january-2012/
<jar_> seems to be Jan 12, not Jan 8
Henry: 2nd headline - as a result of the conversation, someone named Gavin Brown from a UK registry came up with a new idea - to use .arpa. Because .arpa is a bit like example.com - it is operated by IETF on behalf of icann. In order to get a subdomain you have to get an RFC approved.
<noah> HT: Proposal from Gavin Brown(?) to use .arpa, which has surprisingly special status. In particular, you need to go through getting an RFC approved.
Henry: there are 2 different potential approaches to this idea.
<jar_> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3172
Henry: more details will be in the report.
<noah> Why .arpa rather than .per (for persistent or some such), but with rules designed to match those now in effect for .arpa?
Henry: Crucial aspect of any mechanism designed to manage allocation of robust domains has to have a substantial community review component. WHat people liked about the .arpa story is that it already has that in place.
HT: Anything to add?
JAR: No, thank you.
<Zakim> Larry, you wanted to discuss SOPA, legal cases
<DKA> Henry: we didn't have discussions on takedowns / forced loss of domain names / the political side of this.
LM: I'm nervous that there are starting to be legal cases in which courts order modifications to DNS. DNS is not promoted as persistent. [Scribe is not sure he got the nuances.]
<Larry> "takedown" as part of the way in which the world treats DNS... and what that has to do with this?
HT: We didn't discuss takedown in detail, but it's an important consideration.
<jar_> Larry: takedown threat - how related to http: persistence ?
<jar_> jar: or to urn: persistence for that matter
<DKA> ... persistent naming schemes depend on two intertwined phemenon.
HT: Persistent naming depends on (1) binding and (2) resolution.
<Larry> i'm not nervous, and i think this has been happening for a while, i just saw these things in the last few weeks and wondered
HT: DNS lookup is a good example of resolution.
<Larry> they've been redirecting, not just taking down
<jar_> example of binding: A credible spec that says a particular URI has a particular meaning
HT: It's important to talk about what happens when binding gets out of sync with resolution. One reason might be court-ordered takedown.
JAR: In any persistent system, there must be some act you do to cause a name to become bound, and that's irrevocable.
... Binding and ownership are different. Ownership is in principle the right to change binding, but in a persistent system, you won't be changing bindings.
ACTION-528?
<trackbot> ACTION-528 -- Henry Thompson to create and get consensus on a product page and tracker product page for persistence of names -- due 2011-11-29 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/528
HT: Need to keep that open as I have revisions to make and to propose next steps.
<Larry> reopen 528
ACTION-528?
<trackbot> ACTION-528 -- Henry Thompson to create and get consensus on a product page and tracker product page for persistence of names -- due 2012-01-02 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/528
ACTION-477?
<trackbot> ACTION-477 -- Henry Thompson to organize meeting on persistence of domains -- due 2011-10-04 -- CLOSED
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/477
<Henry> Two topics for the Persistence f2f slot: 1) JAR to reprise his presentation to the workshop; 2) HST and JAR to introduce the .arpa approach in more detail
ACTION-624?
<trackbot> ACTION-624 -- Jonathan Rees to draft for TAG consideration a call for httpRange-14 change proposals -- due 2011-12-31 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/624
ACTION-625?
<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 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/625
ACTION-589?
<trackbot> ACTION-589 -- Noah Mendelsohn to work with Jonathan to update URI definition discovery product page Due: 2011-08-18 -- due 2011-12-23 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/589
close ACTION-625
<trackbot> ACTION-625 Schedule followup discussion of http://www.w3.org/wiki/HttpRange14Options (per agreement in Santa Clara) closed
Proposed product page: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/products/defininguris.html
JAR: I did some work on the product page on Dec. 5
... I think we agreed the attempt made to deal with this in 2005 didn't actually work out. We talked in June about possibly needing to take something to Rec track.
... I made the suggestion to do this in the form of a call for change proposals.
... It's been a problem that some of the proposals aren't complete enough...trying to get an organized proposal around this.
... To have change proposals, you need a baseline, so I hatched one: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/12/uddp/
... We're wrestling with RDF (scribe wonders if he meant URIs?) for linking vs. metadata
... To date, it's mainly been an RDF issue.
... The only test of whether we've succeeded is to see what kind of RDF people write
... Because of the emphasis on RDF, Larry has suggested taking this out of the TAG, Tim has said he wants it in the TAG. For now it's here.
LM: Don't think we can just lob it over to RDF; we do need to at least give some direction
JAR: When this product page was first created we talked about getting to PR or equivalent by July. I wrote a schedule that's looking extremely aggressive.
NM: Are these dates still realistic, if aggresive? If so, I'm OK with that. I don't like carrying dates that we know in advance are likely to be unrealistic.
JAR: We can change dates if you want?
NM: Not if you feel it's still a realistic motivator.
JAR: Well, let's see if change proposals come in. If they don't, then dates definitely aren't realistic. If they do, we might be ok.
<Larry> i think it's fine
<Larry> the product page is fine
NM: Any objections to removing the draft notification from the product page?
No objections.
<jar_> if no CPs come in then the dates are realistic
<scribe> ACTION: Noah to take off draft indication and put dates on URI Definition and Discovery Product page [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/12/22-tagmem-irc]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-645 - Take off draft indication and put dates on URI Definition and Discovery Product page [on Noah Mendelsohn - due 2011-12-29].
ACTION-589?
<trackbot> ACTION-589 -- Noah Mendelsohn to work with Jonathan to update URI definition discovery product page Due: 2011-08-18 -- due 2011-12-23 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/589
close ACTION-589
<trackbot> ACTION-589 Work with Jonathan to update URI definition discovery product page Due: 2011-08-18 closed
<Larry> i've looked at them
LM: I think the idea of a baseline is good, and the call for change proposals look OK.
HT: I have not looked at it since JAR and I worked on it 10 days ago. Will try for tomorrow.
JAR: I need good review, because this stuff is controversial, and I want to get it right.
ACTION-624?
<trackbot> ACTION-624 -- Jonathan Rees to draft for TAG consideration a call for httpRange-14 change proposals -- due 2011-12-31 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/624
NM: We can give you blessing to send when you see fit, or wait for F2F
JAR: I'd wait anyway.
NM: I'll leave ACTION-624 pending
JAR: OK
<Larry> based on 12/8 resolution
NM: Larry has asked for a few minutes to review some work he's done.
LM: I decided I liked the word "evolution" better than extensibilty.
<Larry> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/12/evolution/
<Larry> RESOLUTION: The TAG, with Larry in the lead, will prepare a document (based on http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2011Dec/att-0037/draft-registries.txt), likely a finding, discussing architecture for extensibility points in specifications, including but not necessarily limited to registries. This will augment the soon-to-be published (short) work on MIME architecture.RESOLUTION: The TAG, with Larry in the lead, will prepare a
<Larry> document (based on http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2011Dec/att-0037/draft-registries.txt), likely a finding, discussing architecture for extensibility points in specifications, including but not necessarily limited to registries. This will augment the soon-to-be published (short) work on MIME architecture.
LM: There was a resolution suggesting that I do work in this direction.
<jar_> Larry's email on this: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2011Dec/0085.html
<jar_> oops. not quite.
LM: Seems to me there are a lot of interrelated: hard to talk about mime without registries, or registries without identifiers.
<Larry> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/12/evolution/Concepts.html
LM: So, I split things out. The top level document originally had everything; now it links to separate documents.
<Larry> three things: languages as they are used, the implementations that use them, and the specifications that describe them
LM: The only one I think is relatively stable is the "concepts and terminology". It's been very helpful for me to talk separately about: 1) the languages as they are used and 2) the specifications that describe them
... When we talk about registries, versions, etc., it becomes important to talk about which of these we're dealing with. When we do, things get clearer.
... So, look at the concepts first.
NM: We'll have a F2F session. Are you planning to do more work before then?
<Larry> i'm really looking for feedback on structure & scope
LM: Yes
<Larry> and not a careful review of editorial content
LM: Concepts is the one that's worth reading now.
... Want to talk about structure and scope informally.
NM: What do you want the focus of the agenda item to be.
... We'll discuss at least structure and scope, and look in detail at concepts which will be required reading. Maybe or maybe not other work will make it in time for the required list.
... We should also discuss the new product page.
LM: Make the product page required reading, and finalize at the F2F