W3C | TAG | Previous: 12 May teleconference | Next: 9 June 2003 teleconf

Minutes of 2 June 2003 TAG teleconference

Nearby: IRC log | Teleconference details · issues list · www-tag archive

1. Administrative

1. Roll call: SW (Chair), NW, TBL, DC, DO, TB, RF, CL, IJ. Regrets: PC.
2. The TAG did not accept 12 May teleconference minutes; postponed.
3. Accepted this agenda
4. Next meeting: 9 June, for 2.5 hours. Partial regrets from NW. In turn, 19 June meeting is cancelled.

1.1 Feedback from Budapest

1. In particular, AC responses to questions from the TAG?

[Ian]

CL: I think the AC session went well. Gave AC reps an idea of what we do. I suspect they feel more comfortable about the TAG. We did two straw polls. I think AC said they wanted arch doc both better and sooner.

TBL: For that question, I think people wanted us to cover historic Web, Sem Web, Web services, ... I think our best course is to give them what we've got when we've got it.

SW: What about feedback on RDDL doc?

TB: I've received queries from Robin Berjon about future of RDDL (see TB latest version of RDDL). Web3D folks interested in knowing about RDDL.

SW: I heard from IJ that at least one suggestion was to publish as a Note, then take it from there.

DC, IJ: I don't remember much feedback to TAG presentation at WWW2003.

IJ: other ideas:

1. Allow people to register as customers of an issue and be notified of state changes.

2. Technical

2.1 Architecture Document

1. 26 Mar 2003 Working Draft of Arch Doc:
   1. Action DC 2003/01/27: write two pages on correct and incorrect application of REST to an actual web page design. DC requests to withdraw this one.
   2. Action DO 2003/01/27: Please send writings regarding Web services to tag@w3.org. DO grants DC license to cut and paste and put into DC writing.
   3. Action DC 2003/03/17: : Write some text for interactions chapter of arch doc related to message passing, a dual of shared state. DC refers us to Conversations and State

Norm Walsh walked the TAG through two documents during the remainder of the call (which lasted several hours):

1. TB proposal for rewriting section 4
2. 26 Mar 2003 Working Draft of Arch Doc

The general sentiment was that this was time well-spent. As a result of the exercise, the following actions were assigned:

1. RF to rewrite section 5. Section 5 is expected to be short.
2. TB to rewrite section 4 based on his proposal and suggestions from the TAG.
3. CL to make available a draft finding on content/presentation.
4. DO to update description of issue abstractComponentRefs-37
5. SW: to continue work on and make available a draft finding related to the opacity of URIs.
6. NW: Take a stab at proposed new 4.5, wherever it ends up.
7. DO: Write up a couple of paragraphs on extensibility for section 4.
8. IJ: to start incorporating detailed suggestions on Arch Doc made by the TAG (see IRC log for details)

Other resolutions related to the Architecture Document that were not strictly editorial:

1. The TAG discussed whether to remove the underdeveloped section 5 (one piece of the "architectural tripod"). There is support for keeping a section 5, even if small, and describing the limits of the document in the intro.
2. In the scenario of section 1.1, remove the part about fragment identifiers. In general, try to elaborate on the initial scenario throughout the document (e.g., relate to opacity, deep linking). Also, make the example URI come from a printed magazine.
3. Subordinate section 2 under section 1, after 1.1.
4. Remove section 6 as a toplevel section, possibly to be reused by RF in section 5.
5. Add a references section with links to specs and Activities that have architectural impact. Add Web Services Architecture to the list in 2.2; replace the list in 2.2 with link to new references section.
6. Instead of referring to RFC2396 from the body of the document, use '[URI]' and in the references section, talk about RFC2396 and ongoing work in RFC2396bis. The TAG prefers the language of RFC2396bis; ok for now to refer to the draft document as one whose evolution we are monitoring.
7. The editor expects to make some changes to the note on IRIs in section 3, shifting emphasis to I18N of identifiers, with IRIs as work that we are monitoring.
8. RF suggested that we include a "future directions" section for each piece of the tripod
9. The editor expects to reduce the number of different domain names in the document, and to not use any others than "[x.]example.com".

Additional details and discussion are in the IRC log

3. Not discussed

The TAG did not discuss the following items that were on the agenda.

3.1 Findings

See also: findings.

1. 26 Mar 2003 Working Draft of Arch Doc:
   1. Action DC 2003/01/27: write two pages on correct and incorrect application of REST to an actual web page design. DC requests to withdraw this one.
   2. Action DO 2003/01/27: Please send writings regarding Web services to tag@w3.org. DO grants DC license to cut and paste and put into DC writing.
   3. Action DC 2003/03/17: : Write some text for interactions chapter of arch doc related to message passing, a dual of shared state. DC refers us to Conversations and State

3.2 Findings status

Next steps for draft findings:

• Client handling of MIME headers; see summary of comments.
• URIs, Addressability, and the use of HTTP GET and POST; see summary of comments. See also comments from Larry Masinter.
• How should the problem of identifying ID semantics in XML languages be addressed in the absence of a DTD?

3.3 Issues the TAG intends to discuss

The TAG expects to do a walk-through of the open and pending issues in order to determine:

• Which ones we are near closing
• Which ones we can commit to close w.r.t. last call of the arch doc

Then, we expect to work on issues we think we are near closing.

3.4 New issues?

3.5 Issues that have associated action items

• contentTypeOverride-24
  • Next step on finding "Client handling of MIME headers"
  • Speech Recognition Grammar Specification Version 1.0, section 2.2.2 External Reference by URI
• whenToUseGet-7
  • Next step for revised draft finding?
• metadataInURI-31
  • Action SW 2003/02/06: Draft finding for this one. See SW proposal
  • See also TB email on Apple Music Store and use of URI schemes instead of headers
• uriMediaType-9
  • IANA appears to have responded to the spirit of this draft (see email from Chris Lilley).What's required to close this issue?
  • Action CL 2003/05/05: Propose CL's three changes to registration process to Ned Freed. [What forum?]
• abstractComponentRefs-37
  • See issue description from David Orchard. Next steps?
• namespaceDocument-8
  • Action TB 2003/04/07: Prepare RDDL Note. Include in status section that there is TAG consensus that RDDL is a suitable format for representations of an XML namespace. Clean up messy section 4 of RDDL draft and investigate and publish a canonical mapping to RDF. See TB's 1 June version.
  • Action PC 2003/04/07: Prepare finding to answer this issue, pointing to the RDDL Note. See comments from Paul regarding TB theses.
  • Completed action TB 2003/04/28: Draft a TAG opinion on the use of URNs for namespace names, for review by the TAG (done)
    • RF: Folks assume that because the specs say so, URNs will be persisitent. But persistence is a function of institutional commitment and frequency of use.
• xlinkScope-23
  • Status report?
  • See draft, and SW message to CG chairs.
• IRIEverywhere-27
  • Action CL 2003/04/07: Revised position statement on use of IRIs. CL says to expect this by 21 April.
  • Action TBL 2003/04/28: Explain how existing specifications that handle IRIs are inconsistent. TBL draft not yet available on www-tag.
  • See TB's proposed step forward on IRI 27.
• URIEquivalence-15
  • SW proposal: Track RFC2396bis where Tim Bray text has been integrated. Comment within the IETF process. Move this issue to pending state.
• xmlIDSemantics-32
  • See Chris Lilley draft finding.

    Action NW 2003/05/05: Point Core WG to CL finding once made public.
    

• siteData-36
  • Action TBL 2003/02/24 : Summarize siteData-36
• xmlFunctions-34
  • Action TBL 2003/02/06: State the issue with a reference to XML Core work. See email from TimBL capturing some of the issues.
• binaryXML-30
  • Action TB 2003/02/17: Write to www-tag with his thoughts on adding to survey.
  • Next steps to finding? See summary from Chris.
• contentPresentation-26
  • Action CL 2003/02/06: Create a draft finding in this space. Due 3 March.
• rdfmsQnameUriMapping-6
  • Action DC 2003/02/06: Propose TAG response to XML Schema desideratum (RQ-23).
• HTTPSubstrate-16
  • Action RF 2003/02/06: Write a response to IESG asking whether the Web services example in the SOAP 1.2 primer is intended to be excluded from RFC 3205
  • See message from Larry Masinter w.r.t. Web services.
• errorHandling-20
  • Action CL 2003/02/06: Write a draft finding on the topic of (1) early/late detection of errors (2) late/early binding (3) robustness (4) definition of errors (5) recovery once error has been signaled. Due first week of March.
• fragmentInXML-28 : Use of fragment identifiers in XML.
  1. Connection to content negotiation?
  2. Connection to opacity of URIs?
  3. No actions associated / no owner.

4. Other actions

• Action IJ 2003/02/06: Modify issues list to show that actions/pending are orthogonal to decisions. IJ and PLH making substantial progress on this; hope to have something to show in May.