IRC log of tagmem on 2004-03-02

Timestamps are in UTC.

07:18:02 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #tagmem
07:18:05 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #tagmem
07:18:14 [Stuart]
Stuart has joined #tagmem
07:18:19 [Ian]
zakim, this is TAG
07:18:19 [Zakim]
sorry, Ian, I do not see a conference named 'TAG' in progress or scheduled at this time
07:18:31 [Norm]
Zakim, list conferences
07:18:31 [Zakim]
I see no active conferences and none scheduled
07:18:32 [Ian]
zakim, list
07:18:32 [Zakim]
I see no active conferences and none scheduled
07:18:50 [marioj]
marioj has joined #tagmem
07:19:50 [Ian]
Roll call: Stuart, Mario, Norm, DanC, Paul, Roy, David
07:20:12 [Ian]
Observers: Colas, Philippe, SusanLesch
07:20:12 [plh-lap]
plh-lap has joined #tagmem
07:20:18 [paulc]
paulc has joined #tagmem
07:20:19 [Ian]
Observer+ Martin
07:20:22 [duerst-8]
duerst-8 has joined #tagmem
07:20:54 [Ian]
Accept minutes of previous teleconf:
07:20:56 [Ian]
PC, RF: Yes
07:21:06 [Ian]
Resolved to accept 23 Feb minutes:
07:21:12 [Ian]
07:21:16 [Ian]
This agenda:
07:21:22 [Ian]
07:22:28 [DanC_jam]
DanC_jam has joined #tagmem
07:23:38 [Ian]
[Review of agenda]
07:24:15 [Colas]
Colas has joined #tagmem
07:24:34 [Ian]
Next meeting: 16 March (no meeting 9 March)
07:24:51 [Ian]
PC: Schedule for disposing of LC comments?
07:25:32 [Ian]
PC: I'd like to have a sense of whether we will need extra meetings to dispose of the issues.
07:26:57 [Ian]
Resolved: To meet 9-11 August in Ottawa
07:28:07 [Ian]
9 Feb 2004 minutes show ": The TAG will meet face-to-face in Boston 12-14 May."
07:28:10 [Ian]
07:29:02 [Ian]
[Reconsidering that question]
07:29:43 [Ian]
SW: I will have to give regrets for a 12-14 May meeting. But I don't object to the meeting.
07:30:00 [Ian]
DC: Having meetings before the AC meeting is frowned upon.
07:30:43 [Ian]
IJ: I probably won't be able to attend.
07:30:52 [Ian]
Can make it: MJ, DO, PC, RF
07:31:01 [Ian]
SW: Recall that TBL accepted to host the meeting.
07:32:53 [Ian]
PC: I was going to propose meeting before the AC meeting in that as likely to be rejected?
07:32:53 [Ian]
DC: More notice may give us more flexibility.
07:35:17 [DaveO]
DaveO has joined #tagmem
07:35:33 [Ian]
SW: I"ll work with Paul on meeting scheduling.
07:35:41 [Ian]
Resolved: The TAG will NOT meet in May.
07:36:49 [Ian]
No resolution regarding Nov meeting.
07:38:00 [Ian]
[Action item review later]
07:38:00 [Ian]
07:38:01 [Ian]
07:38:03 [Ian]
Stuart slides:
07:38:06 [Ian]
07:40:19 [Ian]
Re slide 5:
07:40:34 [Ian]
DC: I recommend doing a run-through to ensure that all text is on screen.
07:40:37 [DanC_jam]
pls switch order on "things we produce" slide
07:40:45 [Ian]
(re slide 4: )
07:42:48 [Ian]
re slide 6: Green won't be legible.
07:42:53 [Ian]
DC: Suggest moving info on deadline of LC to its own slide.
07:42:54 [Ian]
PC: Right: "You have until Friday"
07:43:17 [Ian]
DC: If you are going to be late, send a msg to the TAG.
07:44:51 [Ian]
SW: Slide 6 is to be edited (replaced by general themes)
07:45:59 [Ian]
PC: We need to be able to stand before the plenary crowd and be able to tell people what we are expecting to do other than WebArch in the next year.
07:47:52 [Ian]
[Discussion of a few things that we put on hold before Arch Doc LC]
07:48:14 [Ian]
DC: Let's try to prioritize during the break.
07:49:05 [Ian]
07:49:08 [Ian]
Review of DO slides
07:49:26 [Ian]
07:50:07 [Ian]
"Requires "Must Ignore" rule"
07:51:05 [Ian]
IJ: "Requires" might be too strong. What about "is useful".
07:51:14 [Ian]
DC: On a slide it's ok with me; in a document I might look more closely.
07:51:33 [DanC_jam]
i.e. the argument seems to flow.
07:51:39 [Ian]
PC: Mention to people that these slides are a reduction of the draft finding.
07:52:10 [Ian]
DO: First slide is background, second is about finding's approach to ext/versioning.
07:52:59 [Ian]
PC: Tell people that material on third slide used to be in finding but no longer since there was not consensus (show them the URI).
07:55:21 [Ian]
DC: In slide on illegal schema, highlight "minOccurs" and "any"
07:55:32 [Ian]
PC: Cite Eve Maler's previous work.
07:55:59 [Ian]
PC: This predates schema (Eve's work was in DTD design)
07:56:06 [Ian]
PC: General to schema design.
07:56:58 [Ian]
DO: "Can't validate extensions"
07:57:24 [Ian]
DO: If I have a name element and an address element and I add two extensions (e.g., last name and area code), I can't include additional constraints.
07:57:44 [Ian]
PC: That's not "validate".
07:58:01 [Ian]
DO: Ah, ok, rather you can't write a constraint across extensions.
07:58:17 [DanC_jam]
(reagle grumbled about this sort of thing when applying XML Schema to DSig, as I recall.)
07:58:45 [Ian]
PC: You open multiple extension points and constain how they are used; you can't write a schema to do so.
07:58:51 [Ian]
DO: You can't refine the wildcard.
08:00:05 [Ian]
DO: Similarly, you can't do multiple revisions that progressively refine constraints.
08:00:42 [Ian]
PC: This presentation is focused on XML Schema; people may say "this is possible in other type systems"
08:00:53 [Ian]
DO: That would be good [grinning ear-to-ear ;]
08:05:02 [Ian]
PC: Can you define an extensibility mechanism in schema without considering operations on instances?
08:05:48 [Norm]
DO: If I have a bunch of schema datatypes in my domain, then the extensions might want to be constrained by validity, but you might also want the user to be able to say that some extensions are valid only when certain operations will be used
08:05:52 [Norm]
08:06:25 [Norm]
PC: Take a set of user defined types and a set of user defined functions that operated over them, you might want to be able to say not only what's valid in the instances, but also what's valid in the face of these operations
08:06:46 [Norm]
DO: Is this similar to WSDL operations?
08:07:05 [Norm]
PC: Consider mentioning not only the schema language but also what's built on top of the schema language
08:07:31 [Norm]
DC: This doesn't say anything about RELAX NG. I've seen a lot of people just switching schema languages.
08:07:52 [Norm]
DO: Will siginficant communities adopt RELAX NG because of restrictions here
08:08:15 [Norm]
DO: I don't even want to say why
08:09:03 [Norm]
NW: I don't think we need to drop any, cast a wide net for discussion
08:09:56 [Norm]
DO: Some things I decided not to put on the slides: intersection of versions and identifiers, ...
08:10:39 [Norm]
PC: Change "XML Schema 1.1" to "XML Schema 1.1 Requirements" because there's no WD
08:12:30 [Norm]
Roy presents his slides...
08:13:24 [Ian]
[RF no uri for slides yet]
08:13:35 [Ian]
[typo on TOC]
08:19:08 [Ian]
[Broken links and ambiguity]
08:19:26 [Ian]
08:19:59 [Ian]
RF: Bifurcation is phenomenon when two Webs are created when their could be one.
08:20:14 [Ian]
RF: Related to Metcalfe's law.
08:20:39 [DanC_jam]
RF: I think a picture is needed for Bifurcation slide. [several concur]
08:21:11 [Ian]
08:21:29 [Ian]
RF: Should we compare IRIs or convert to URI first?
08:21:48 [Ian]
08:22:14 [Ian]
PC: include that URI
08:22:17 [DanC_jam]
08:22:39 [Ian]
RF: How do we reduce aliases (may not be part of IRIEverywhere-27
08:22:41 [Ian]
08:23:18 [Ian]
MD: You don't have an IRI equivalence everywhere.
08:23:27 [Ian]
DC: RDF Core is doing IRI equivalence.
08:23:42 [Ian]
MD: XSLT implementations also use IRI equivalence.
08:23:55 [Ian]
[Role of Frad Ids]
08:24:43 [Ian]
DC: Last bullet of 5 is taking a position.
08:24:53 [Ian]
RF: Should have a "?" after it (related to httpRange-14)
08:26:04 [Ian]
RF: The last bullet is not the same as question of whether an abstract resource must be identified using a frag id.
08:26:20 [Ian]
DC: I disagree with RF's last bullet on slide 5 as the consensus of the slide.
08:26:38 [Ian]
SW: Recall that the slides are designed to promote discussion.
08:26:50 [Ian]
DC: I'm ok if the slides are presented as Roy's position.
08:27:02 [Ian]
RF: I understand that the idea is to post the point in a way that raises discussion.
08:27:55 [Ian]
DO: Say anything about equiv of frag ids on server?
08:28:15 [DanC_jam]
RF: anything we've talked about that aren't on here? SW: abstract component references RF: that's the role of frag ids. [DC: could be more clearly so.]
08:29:02 [Ian]
RF: "Doing things like frag ids without frag ids"
08:29:09 [Ian]
RF: Getting the server to provide more specific resources.
08:29:12 [Ian]
08:29:36 [Ian]
MD: Point out that the URI spec status.
08:30:53 [Ian]
IJ: Worth pointing out that "URI" now includes frag id.
08:31:04 [Ian]
DC: If you do, make noises like "This is done"
08:31:17 [Ian]
RF: Might talk about during discussion of RFC 2396.
08:31:41 [Ian]
MD: Syntactic detail; but does concern how one spec refers to another.
08:31:56 [Ian]
08:32:42 [Ian]
08:32:48 [Ian]
08:32:59 [Ian]
08:33:14 [Ian]
08:33:34 [Ian]
08:33:34 [Ian]
08:33:42 [Ian]
Action DC: Provide TAG with pointers into WS specs where issue of safe operations is manifest.
08:33:45 [Ian]
DC: Progress on my action
08:34:04 [DanC_jam]
08:34:18 [DanC_jam]
"Marking operations safe"
08:34:49 [Ian]
DC: There's a solution brewing.
08:34:59 [Ian]
They have an issue on safe operations:
08:35:08 [Ian]
08:35:38 [Ian]
DC: Please consider my action closed. Seems like progress in the right direction in the WSDL WG.
08:35:56 [Ian]
plh-tag: The WSDL has not decided about whether to integrate in WSDL 2.0; still under discussion.
08:36:25 [Ian]
DC: I think an update to the finding is in order; community not clear.
08:36:54 [Ian]
Resolved that DC's action is completed.
08:38:12 [Ian]
DC: The most useful thing would be to meet with the WSDL folks an show them proposed text for the finding.
08:38:12 [Ian]
08:38:12 [Ian]
"6 Ongoing Work on GET in Web Services
08:38:14 [Ian]
08:38:23 [DanC_jam]
plh-tag, see
08:38:26 [DanC_jam]
section 6
08:38:43 [Ian]
"Section 3 WSDL 1.2 Bindings [WSDL] provides a binding to HTTP GET, which makes it possible to respect the principle of using GET for safe operations. However, to represent safety in a more straightforward manner, it should be a property of operations themselves, not just a feature of bindings.
08:38:43 [Ian]
08:39:07 [Ian]
DC: I'd be happy to leave this text alone.
08:39:12 [Ian]
plh-tag: The text is appropriate.
08:39:55 [Ian]
DO: The WSDL WG has accepted this as an issue.
08:40:20 [Ian]
DO: The WG will probably do this as an extension rather as part of the core spec.
08:40:28 [Ian]
DO: People will have a standardized way of doing the annotation.
08:40:30 [Ian]
DC: That won't be good enough for me.
08:40:38 [Ian]
[Discussion with the WSDL WG is a-brewin']
08:41:00 [plh-tag]
08:41:02 [Ian]
SW, IJ: Forward pointer to the WSDL issue might be worthwhile.
08:41:33 [DaveO]
DaveO has joined #tagmem
08:42:32 [Ian]
Action IJ: Update section 6 of get7 finding to cite WSDL WG issue #117
08:42:48 [Tex]
Tex has joined #tagmem
08:43:32 [Ian]
Resolved: DO's action is completed: "Ask WSDL WG to look at finding; ask them if marking operations as safe in WSDL is one of their requirements."
08:43:45 [Ian]
PC to PLH: Will WSDL WG give us comments on Webarch by deadline?
08:43:56 [Ian]
plh-tag: Don't know; I'll try to find out.
08:44:10 [Ian]
DC: Please let us know in any case.
08:44:29 [DavidOrch]
DavidOrch has joined #tagmem
08:44:38 [Ian]
IJ: I think issue 7 will be closed as of publication of the finding. I will publish and announce to www-tag.
08:46:21 [Ian]
08:46:21 [Ian]
Other issues to close by V 1.0:
08:46:24 [Ian]
URIEquivalence-15, qnameAsId-18
08:47:05 [Ian]
RF: I think TBL has read part of RFC2396bis. I know he's reviewed the first three major sections; I received comments from him.
08:47:05 [Ian]
SW: Track RFC2396bis where Tim Bray text has been integrated. Comment within the IETF process.
08:47:06 [Ian]
SW: Please continue.
08:47:10 [Ian]
08:47:17 [Ian]
2.1 Follow-up on namespaceDocument-8
08:47:31 [Ian]
08:47:43 [Ian]
PC: More offline on status of my action.
08:47:45 [Ian]
08:47:49 [Ian]
2.2 Update on findings
08:48:02 [Ian]
08:50:16 [Ian]
Proposed: Accept 27 February 2004 draft of QNames finding?
08:50:16 [Ian]
08:51:12 [Ian]
SW: Publish these findings as WG Notes?
08:51:16 [Ian]
DC: I would support publishing as Notes.
08:51:51 [Ian]
DC: +1 to Note
08:52:28 [Ian]
PC: I think that publishing as a Note is too heavyweight.
08:53:35 [Ian]
SW: Janet has requested moving to Note since it makes life easier for Comm Team to publicize.
08:55:14 [Ian]
IJ: If you ask me whether it's a heavyweight process to put on TR page, I would say no (already pubrules compliant, e.g.)
08:55:53 [Ian]
09:19:25 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #tagmem
09:33:49 [Ian]
09:35:24 [Ian]
2.3 Web Architecture Document Last Call
09:35:58 [Ian]
09:36:15 [Ian]
[Reviewing all but editorial
09:37:41 [Ian]
09:38:34 [DaveO]
DaveO has joined #tagmem
09:39:29 [Ian]
09:41:41 [DanC_jam]
pc suggests it relates to 2.6
09:43:05 [DanC_jam]
sw suggests it relates to 4.5.4 under
09:44:33 [Ian]
09:45:27 [Ian]
09:45:27 [Ian]
It is incorrect to suggest that there is any semantic relation between
09:45:27 [Ian]
the meaning of a URI used as a namespace name and the meaning of terms
09:45:28 [Ian]
grounded in that namespace...
09:45:28 [Ian]
Strongly advise the removal of both this term from the publication
09:45:31 [Ian]
entirely but particularly this incorrect definition (see discussion
09:45:32 [Ian]
above). The assertion that every URI used as a namespace name denotes
09:45:34 [Ian]
a namespace document is false.
09:45:39 [Ian]
09:48:13 [Ian]
Problem that "namespace document" appears in the story; but is not defined in the webarch text.
09:50:41 [Ian]
DC: Patrick is objecting to the term "namespace document".
09:51:32 [Ian]
DO: I think that I brought this up earlier in Vancouver. Why do we have this term "namespace document".
09:52:03 [Ian]
DO: I recall Tim Bray pushing back and saying that this is a colloquialism that people understand.
09:52:18 [Ian]
DO: A sort of "named representation".
09:53:33 [marioj]
marioj has joined #tagmem
09:53:41 [Ian]
NW: Namespace names only appear in the decl of the prefixes for syntactic sugar.
09:53:47 [Ian]
RF: That would be saying that namespaces are not resources.
09:54:57 [Ian]
DC: Parallel -
09:55:13 [Ian]
09:55:28 [Ian]
<base href="">
09:55:49 [Ian]
<a href="chapter_on_ingredients">ing</a>.
09:56:05 [Ian]
You don't expect to be able to follow the base URI ref; it's just syntactic sugar.
09:56:22 [Ian]
DC: I was reluctantly convinced by that parallel, but I still agree with the Webarch text.
09:56:50 [Ian]
RF: I would say that while some namespaces are not resources currently, it's better to think of them as resources and that they may have meaningful representations.
09:57:23 [Ian]
PC: Point also the QName finding, which refers to the formatting objects spec, where we are associating meaning to components.
09:57:35 [Ian]
NW: I don't think that would be a convincing parallel.
09:58:01 [Ian]
s/formatting objects/functions and operators
09:58:35 [Ian]
PC: Becomes more and more concrete as more people want to refer to things in the namespace.
09:59:44 [Ian]
IJ: Should we define namespace document (or reuse a defn)?
10:00:49 [Ian]
IJ: NS document is the colloquial name for a representation you get back by dereferencing a namespace URI.
10:01:00 [DanC_jam]
hmm... "If a namespace declaration binds PFX to I and the I can be access to get a representation, then the resource identified by I is a namespace document."
10:01:07 [Ian]
SW: Careful about use of "document" here.
10:01:51 [Ian]
PC: +1 to DC's text.
10:02:06 [Ian]
NW: +1
10:02:56 [Ian]
IJ: Will people say "No, the resource is the namespace."?
10:03:02 [Ian]
DC: We may get those comments.
10:03:39 [Ian]
DC: I don't take an opinion on whether the namespace is a resource.
10:04:02 [DanC_jam]
clarifying use of variables and fixing 2 typos: "If a namespace declaration binds prefix PFX to URI I and I can be accessed to get a representation, then the resource identified by I is a namespace document."
10:05:33 [Ian]
DC: Current dfn says URI identifies by a ns and a ns document
10:05:45 [Ian]
DC: Unambiguous, but may not make you comfortable.
10:07:19 [DanC_jam]
defNsDoc2: "If a namespace declaration binds prefix PFX to URI I and I can be accessed to get a representation R, then R is a namespace document."
10:07:31 [Ian]
SW: Proposed - call this a "namespace representation" instead.
10:07:49 [DanC_jam]
defNsDoc2r: "If a namespace declaration binds prefix PFX to URI I and I can be accessed to get a representation R, then R is a namespace representation."
10:09:13 [Ian]
[RF on choice in other specs of "representation" over "document"]
10:09:26 [DanC_jam]
DO: you chose "representation" over "document"...? RF: to distinguish compound documents from representations of components.
10:09:26 [Stuart]
defNsDoc3skw: "The term NSD is a colloquail term that is intended to 'mean' a representation of a namespace."
10:10:45 [Ian]
NW: The story is pretty clear that we mean representation of the resource (by "Namespace document")
10:12:53 [Stuart]
Stuart has joined #tagmem
10:13:07 [Ian]
Straw poll:
10:13:23 [Ian]
DC: Anyone understand defNsDoc2?
10:13:35 [Ian]
DC: Anyone understand defNsDoc2r?
10:13:49 [Ian]
DC: Anyone understand defNsDoc3skw?
10:14:11 [Ian]
NW: I prefer 2 or 2r
10:14:19 [Ian]
DO: I prefer 2 without variables
10:14:34 [Ian]
RF: 2r
10:14:38 [Colas]
Colas has joined #tagmem
10:14:39 [Ian]
PC: 2 without variables.
10:14:45 [Ian]
SW: 2r without variables
10:14:54 [Ian]
MJ: 2r without variables
10:15:21 [Ian]
DO: I don't like 2r. People in the community say "namespace document".
10:16:00 [Norm]
If a namespace declaration binds a prefix to a URI, and that URI can be dereferenced to get a representation, then that is a namespace representation.
10:16:43 [DaveO]
DaveO has joined #tagmem
10:17:14 [Ian]
IJ: Maybe it's useful here to combine 2r and 3skw to say "We are explicitly saying here that a namespace document is a representation of a resource, and that the resource is a namespace, not a namespace document."
10:18:15 [Ian]
RF: I disagree with IJ.
10:18:41 [DanC_jam]
DC: I'm pretty sure timbl means the resource, not the representation, by "namespace document". I feel obliged to object on his behalf.
10:18:51 [Ian]
RF: I like NW's.
10:21:28 [Ian]
IJ: Modifying NW's proposal If a namespace declaration binds a prefix to a URI, and that URI can be dereferenced to get a representation, then that is a namespace representation. The TAG interprets the community's use of the phrase "namespace document" to be synonymous with namespace representation.
10:22:18 [Ian]
DC: Don't like "The TAG interprets"
10:22:45 [Ian]
Proposed to adopt NW's definition for Webarch as a substitute for namespace document.
10:22:55 [Ian]
"If a namespace declaration binds a prefix to a URI, and that URI can be dereferenced to get a representation, then that is a namespace representation."
10:22:59 [Ian]
DC: I object.
10:23:02 [Ian]
DO: I abstain.
10:23:21 [Ian]
So resolved.
10:23:52 [Ian]
Action IJ: Incorporate text. IJ intends to tie "namespace representation" to "namespace document" in the document.
10:24:39 [Ian]
[Support for responding to comments one at a time]
10:25:34 [Ian]
Action NW: Respond to Patrick on this stickler2.
10:26:22 [Ian]
10:26:36 [Ian]
PC: I propose we do some planning rather than go on right now to the next issue.
10:27:36 [Ian]
Let the record show that PC and DC have bet a dinner that at this rate we won't (PC) or we will (DC) get to Recommendation by 2005.
10:28:15 [Ian]
10:28:17 [Ian]
10:28:29 [Ian]
10:28:39 [Ian]
10:28:56 [DanC_jam]
my position on the bet is that we won't actually continue at this rate, but we'll get faster as we go.
10:30:06 [Ian]
Problem in stickler5 is phrase "resource is unreliable"
10:31:44 [Ian]
[Discussion of what "unreliability" means here - architectural, social]
10:31:55 [Ian]
NW: "Unpredictable" instead of "unreliable".
10:32:57 [Ian]
IJ: Is it worth talking about management of resource rather than resource as "unreliable" or "unpredictable"?
10:33:00 [timbl]
timbl has joined #tagmem
10:33:01 [Ian]
SW: I don't get that from the comments.
10:33:16 [Ian]
DC: I advise editor to change unreliable to unpredictable.
10:33:53 [Ian]
NW: I don't think that change addresses the substance of his comment.
10:34:37 [DanC_jam]
[breaking the incoming messages into parts is fraught with peril]
10:35:17 [DanC_jam]
[thanks for trying, but please be prepared to revise]
10:36:18 [Ian]
Action IJ: s/unreliable/predictable
10:36:19 [Ian]
10:36:34 [DanC_jam]
(action includes letting commentor know of that change)
10:36:48 [Ian]
10:37:18 [Ian]
"Para 3 seems to contradict the last statement of para 1. In para 1
10:37:18 [Ian]
it is said that POST requests and responses cannot be referenced
10:37:18 [Ian]
by URIs, yet para 3 describes a means to do just that.
10:37:18 [Ian]
It seems that what is meant to be said in para 1 is that, per the
10:37:18 [Ian]
default behavior of POST, the request and response are not normally
10:37:20 [Ian]
assigned distinct URIs by which they can be later referenced. ???
10:37:33 [Ian]
10:40:08 [Ian]
DC: We could, in the story, say "The Webmaster didn't use "content-location" and therefore...."
10:40:09 [Ian]
(...can't be bookmarked...)
10:40:09 [Ian]
DC: I propose a tweak to the story to address this issue.
10:40:13 [Ian]
RF: Para 3 is wrong.
10:40:30 [Ian]
RF: Content location header does not correspond to the POST transaction. Depending on the response code, it could mean that a new resource was created.
10:42:58 [Ian]
RF: Under no circumstances does it correspond to the POST operation itself.
10:42:58 [Ian]
RF: The section heading is weird.
10:46:11 [Ian]
Action IJ: Propose a new section heading for 3.5.1.
10:46:12 [Ian]
RF: Section makes more sense if not about "accounting".
10:46:23 [Ian]
RF: Two topics in this section:
10:46:24 [Ian]
- Paper trail
10:46:27 [Ian]
- Bookmarking results of POST
10:46:28 [Ian]
DC: But using content-location is like giving someone a receipt.
10:46:32 [Ian]
RF: That depends on response code.
10:46:38 [Ian]
DC: I'd like to advocate the use of content-location for tracking.
10:47:12 [Ian]
Ann Bassetti: I don't get the "unsafe" part from the current text.
10:49:28 [Ian]
MD: Is there any implementation experience for this?
10:49:28 [Ian]
DC: Suppose I say know.
10:50:17 [Ian]
MD: How do you move to CR if there's not much implementation experience for tihs.
10:50:20 [Ian]
RF: How about a section on accounting and another section on identifiers for post responses.
10:50:27 [Ian]
PC: On "email can be copied to public archives" note that email can be forged.
10:51:25 [Ian]
Action IJ: Review 3.5.1 and propose a revision to the TAG that more clearly distinguishes the two topics of bookmarking results of POST and paper trails.
10:51:46 [Ian]
(both safe and unsafe contexts).
10:51:46 [Ian]
10:52:57 [Stuart]
Stuart has joined #tagmem
10:53:38 [Ian]
(Section 3.4, para 1, last sentence and Section 3.4, para 2:)
10:53:54 [DanC_jam]
[hmm... I'd like to sort the incoming comments by which section of the documentt they refer to. does EXIT have support for that?]
10:55:34 [Ian]
DC Proposal : Fold in text from finding and see what the impact is.
10:57:37 [Roy]
Roy has joined #tagmem
10:58:01 [Ian]
Text from finding:
10:58:06 [Ian]
"To enable the greatest number of independent agents to interpret representation data in a consistent manner (i.e., according to a common set of specifications), the Web architecture adopts the first choice: representation metadata, when provided by the sender of a representation, is authoritative in defining the nature of the representation being sent.
10:58:06 [Ian]
10:58:11 [Ian]
SW: I prefer media type.
10:58:30 [Ian]
DC: "media type and other representation data" works for me.
11:00:00 [DanC_jam]
stickler's comment on 3.4 para 2 harks of PFPS's comments.
11:00:32 [DanC_jam]
[if you're gonna break comments into pieces, pls do it by document section.]
11:01:24 [Ian]
"Section 3.4, para 2:
11:01:24 [Ian]
The text of this paragraph is a bit too strong regarding URI owner's
11:01:24 [Ian]
11:01:24 [Ian]
The owner of a URI has the right to decide which representations
11:01:26 [Ian]
of the denoted resource are accessible via that URI -- but in fact
11:01:28 [Ian]
anyone has the license to create a representation of that resource,
11:01:30 [Ian]
and indirectly associate that representation via another URI
11:01:33 [Ian]
that is declared (e.g. using own:sameAs) as semantically equivalent.
11:01:34 [Ian]
I.e. the rights of the owner of a URI are limited to the access of
11:01:36 [Ian]
representations via that particular URI, not (necessarily) to total
11:01:39 [Ian]
control of the resource denoted as well as any and all representations
11:01:40 [Ian]
of that resource (accessible via other URIs)."
11:01:43 [Ian]
DC: this is related to PPS's comments
11:01:47 [Ian]
[No resolution]
11:02:30 [Ian]
11:02:54 [Ian]
Seciton 1.2.3
11:03:05 [Ian]
11:03:14 [Ian]
11:03:19 [Ian]
DC: Example of when not harmful?
11:04:08 [Ian]
Excerpt: "mere failure to notify isn't always a harm."
11:04:49 [Ian]
RF: Some may be improved by recent changes to the finding.
11:05:31 [Ian]
(KC=Kendall Clark)
11:05:50 [Ian]
KC: If my user agent does what I want it to do, without notifying me, then that's ok by me.
11:06:52 [Ian]
RF: The reason that silent recovery is harmful is that it prevents the person who made the error from fixing it.
11:07:51 [Ian]
RF: There's no way for the technology to know whether someone is a first party or a third party.
11:10:22 [Ian]
KC: Adding a sentence about configuration might help the reader. I think it's ok when my user agent, per my instructions, does not notify me when certain types of errors occur.
11:10:35 [Ian]
DC: But this is a statement of principle.
11:11:27 [Ian]
RF: Move the description of "consent" from the finding to the Arch Doc.
11:11:33 [Ian]
NW: +1 to RF's proposal.
11:13:08 [Ian]
KC: Also, include RF's point about making errors known helps get them fixed.
11:13:10 [Ian]
Action IJ: Move some text from finding and clarifying statement.
11:13:14 [Ian]
PC: Recall my problem with this finding - IE developers feel that usability is important in the face of bad content on the Web. See IJ's text in the finding.
11:14:29 [Ian]
IJ: I am hearing "notification is not the only way to be non-silent".
11:14:56 [Ian]
DC: In particular, the user may have said something in advance (through configuration).
11:14:57 [Ian]
11:14:59 [marioj]
marioj has joined #tagmem
11:18:34 [Ian]
11:18:36 [Ian]
clark12: Needless Propagation of URIs?
11:18:36 [Ian]
KC summarizing: I like that google registered "".
11:18:40 [Ian]
NW: You get a redirect.
11:18:43 [Ian]
(302 moved)
11:18:45 [Ian]
DC: It would be bad if they gave you back a 200 ok
11:18:46 [Ian]
RF: That would be bifurcation.
11:19:30 [Ian]
IJ: The UA in this case hasn't recovered from error; the UA has just followed the protocol.
11:19:47 [marioj]
FYI, that is what is returned by
11:19:51 [marioj]
HTTP/1.1 302 Found
11:19:51 [marioj]
11:19:51 [marioj]
Set-Cookie: PREF=ID=120ccdf5c518bf47:TM=1078226286:LM=1078226286:S=OlFz1w-SRrrsjHPL; expires=Sun, 17-Jan-2038 19:14:07 G
11:19:51 [marioj]
MT; path=/;
11:19:53 [marioj]
Content-Type: text/html
11:19:54 [marioj]
Server: GWS/2.1
11:19:57 [marioj]
Content-length: 152
11:19:58 [marioj]
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2004 11:18:06 GMT
11:20:42 [Ian]
RF: In case of 302, there are two resources. You are publishing, on the server side, a connection between two resources.
11:21:14 [Ian]
2.1. URI Comparisons
11:21:20 [Ian]
11:22:46 [Ian]
DC: Could add a sentence about a redirect in the case where a URI to a second resource "leaks out".
11:22:51 [Stuart]
Stuart has joined #tagmem
11:23:00 [Ian]
DC: We had this problem with mod_spelling at It was a nightmare.
11:23:49 [Ian]
Action: Talk about good practice of using server-side redirects to connect two resources when people start using "the wrong URI".
11:23:51 [Ian]
11:24:07 [Ian]
Meeting planning
11:24:14 [Ian]
[DC reads from back of an envelope]
11:24:41 [Ian]
- Two months to process LC comments
11:24:49 [Ian]
- RDDL to Note in July 2004
11:25:09 [Ian]
- Draft of diagrams/formal view of Webarch for Nov 2004.
11:25:27 [Ian]
Other Milestones:
11:25:33 [Ian]
- Nov AC meeting
11:25:35 [Ian]
- Election end 2004
11:25:52 [Ian]
DC: I'm disinclined to put schedule on TAG slide at tech plenary.
11:26:15 [marioj]
marioj has joined #tagmem
11:26:58 [Ian]
PC: I think an oral statement that the TAG is currently concentrating on its LC comments suffices.
11:27:10 [Ian]
PC: At May AC meeting, we'll need to follow up with what we said in Yokohama to them.
11:27:19 [Ian]
11:27:44 [Ian]
SW: We reconvene after lunch in this room for additional liaisons.
11:28:47 [Ian]
12:21:08 [marioj]
marioj has joined #tagmem
12:49:24 [Stuart]
Stuart has joined #tagmem
12:54:34 [Norm]
Norm has joined #tagmem
13:02:22 [Stuart]
Stuart has joined #tagmem
13:03:54 [marioj]
Hi Tim
13:04:26 [DanC_jam]
DanC_jam has joined #tagmem
13:04:27 [PGrosso]
PGrosso has joined #tagmem
13:04:41 [timbl]
Greetings Mario
13:04:57 [DV]
DV has joined #tagmem
13:05:14 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #tagmem
13:05:24 [Liam]
Liam has joined #tagmem
13:05:28 [DanC_jam]
Zakim, list
13:05:28 [Zakim]
I see XML_SchemaW(tp2004)7:00AM, VB_VBWG(tp2004)7:00AM active
13:05:29 [Zakim]
also scheduled at this time are TAG_(tp2004)7:00AM, XML_XMLCore(tp2004)7:30AM, DI_DIWG(tp2004)7:30AM, WS_(tp2004)3:00AM
13:05:31 [Ian]
zakim, this is TAG
13:05:31 [Zakim]
Ian, I see TAG_(tp2004)7:00AM in the schedule but not yet started. Perhaps you mean "this will be TAG".
13:05:41 [Ian]
zakim, this will be TAG
13:05:41 [Zakim]
ok, Ian; I see TAG_(tp2004)7:00AM scheduled to start 65 minutes ago
13:05:47 [DanC_jam]
Zakim, passcode?
13:05:47 [Zakim]
the conference code is 0824, DanC_jam
13:06:06 [Zakim]
TAG_(tp2004)7:00AM has now started
13:06:13 [Zakim]
13:06:57 [Zakim]
13:07:31 [Ian]
zakim, TP contains MJ, SW, NW, DC, PC, RF, Liam Quin, Daniel Veillard, Paul Grosso,
13:07:31 [Zakim]
+MJ, SW, NW, DC, PC, RF, Liam, Quin, Daniel, Veillard, Paul, Grosso; got it
13:07:42 [timbl]
Zakim, mute me
13:07:42 [Zakim]
TimBL should now be muted
13:08:05 [Ian]
Resolved: This will be a public record.
13:08:19 [Ian]
agenda+ xmlChunk-44
13:08:26 [Ian]
agenda+ linking
13:08:50 [Ian]
agenda+ Core WG LC comments on Webarch
13:08:51 [Norm]
Yesterday's core minutes on xmlChunk-44:
13:09:06 [Norm]
That link is probably member-only
13:09:17 [Ian]
Summary of xmlChunk-44
13:10:36 [Ian]
NW: Broken down into:
13:10:46 [Ian]
1) xml:lang
13:10:46 [Ian]
2) Encoding "just chunks"
13:10:47 [Ian]
NW: On xml:lang, considered adding a language property to the infoset to provide access to the inherited value.
13:10:51 [Ian]
NW: But the xml spec talks about xml:lang as representing "intent".
13:11:15 [Ian]
NW: WRT to passing pieces of XML, one thought was to strip away context and leave an xpointer in place back to original context.
13:11:33 [Ian]
NW: Another issue was canonical form to allow digital signatures. Core WG not inclined to take that on.
13:11:48 [timbl]
A large part of this roblem is that many things have been left open by the core WG, but we need some definedc *common* answers.
13:11:58 [timbl]
Zakim, unmute me
13:11:58 [Zakim]
TimBL should no longer be muted
13:13:02 [Ian]
Paul: Our suggestion re chunk passing seems to be a subset (logically) of what the interchange spec says.
13:13:29 [Ian]
timbl: Does that spec say whether you can compare chunks for equality?
13:13:31 [Ian]
PC: No.
13:13:53 [timbl]
q+ re "as much or as little as you want"
13:13:56 [Ian]
13:14:08 [timbl]
q+ to discuss "as much or as little as you want"
13:14:17 [Ian]
PGrosso: Equality of infoset would be the right place.
13:14:22 [Ian]
DC: But that's not defined.
13:14:41 [Ian]
NW: It's not clear what the semantics of quality means in a widely accepted way.
13:15:15 [Ian]
DC: While people don't necessarily agree, it would be really useful (to have an equality function).
13:15:40 [Ian]
PC: We are having a hard time figuring out what a default "deep equals" function does.
13:15:47 [timbl]
13:16:47 [timbl]
q+ to also point out we had a similar problem with URI equality and we have got along way
13:16:51 [Ian]
[Discussion of deep equals possibilities]
13:18:06 [Ian]
TBL: I agree with DC and want to point that there are times when the user wants to use XML as a data type.
13:18:09 [DanC_jam]
DC: how about this idea for chunk:equals: if it makes the same calls thru SAX, then it's the same.
13:18:14 [Ian]
TBL: But there's no equality function in this data type.
13:19:15 [Ian]
[TBL talks about TAG experience with URI equality stack]
13:19:42 [Ian]
TBL: Exclusive canonicalization will work for some cases.
13:19:53 [Ian]
TBL: Can the bar be raised a little higher to include xml:lang.
13:20:01 [Ian]
TBL: We are looking for a std that says what the value space is.
13:20:21 [Ian]
TBL: I agree that a lot of people will want their oar in the water. But if the XML Core WG doesn't do this, who will?
13:20:34 [Ian]
TBL: I think that other groups don't have a mandate to get agreement on this.
13:21:22 [PGrosso]
q+ to ask TBL if he's talking about equality of serialized form or infosets
13:21:55 [Ian]
Michael Rys: I think that not having default equality gives people incentive to think about what equality serves their purpose.
13:21:59 [Stuart]
q- timbl
13:22:11 [Ian]
MR: I think that there's not one useful equality function for the XML data type.
13:22:25 [timbl]
q+ to explain to PG that theree are faily short step apart.
13:22:38 [Ian]
PGrosso: Clarification - are we talking about equality at the infoset level or at a syntactic level?
13:22:44 [Stuart]
q+ Mr
13:23:05 [Stuart]
ack PGrosso
13:23:05 [Zakim]
PGrosso, you wanted to ask TBL if he's talking about equality of serialized form or infosets
13:23:19 [Stuart]
ack timbl
13:23:19 [Zakim]
timbl, you wanted to explain to PG that theree are faily short step apart.
13:23:26 [Stuart]
13:23:47 [DanC_jam]
yup, foo:equal will form an equivalence relation on any serialization mechanism.
13:24:19 [Ian]
[TBL defines a canonicalized form off the cuff]
13:24:34 [Ian]
TBL: I think that defining the equivalence class is harder than defining a canonical form.
13:24:41 [Stuart]
ack mr
13:25:00 [timbl]
Suppose you have an equivalnce class of XML erialization, such that their infosets are deemed "foo-equal".
13:25:05 [Ian]
MR: Please correct my above comment - I see lots of useful equality functions; I don't think there's one to easily standardize.
13:25:21 [Ian]
MR: There are already four canonicalizations I'm aware of.
13:25:29 [Ian]
MR: And there are some that are very useful for certain applications.
13:25:33 [timbl]
Then I can define teh canonical form as the smallest (in unicode std sort order #15) of those serialization.
13:25:36 [DanC_jam]
timbl argues that c14n is not harder than equality, since any equality relation imposes an equivalence relation on serializations, and the first/shortest serialization can be declared canonical.
13:25:37 [DV]
there is no Infoset -> serialization function, there is corner cases where such a serialization is "tricky"
13:26:03 [timbl]
So the effort of defining a canon'n is not much more than that of defining equality, the hard bit.
13:26:05 [Ian]
MR: Perhaps with more experience with domain-specific equality classes, we can abstract.
13:26:19 [Stuart]
ack pc
13:26:22 [Ian]
PC: Infosets are not concrete objects. The infoset spec only defines a set of terms.
13:27:12 [Ian]
TBL: I said "If you had an equality function for infosets....", i.e., you've solved that problem, then {and so on}.
13:27:41 [Ian]
PC: Serialization of xpath data model might make more sense, but there might also be problems with that.
13:27:50 [Stuart]
q+ rt
13:27:56 [Stuart]
ack DanC
13:28:11 [Ian]
DC: What's wrong with the solution "If it makes the same sax API calls."
13:28:16 [Ian]
....then it's the same thing.
13:29:00 [Ian]
DC: My understanding of the Sax API is that if strings are different you'd have different SAX calls.
13:29:29 [Ian]
DC: I think there's a dfn lots of people would understand, which is "I get the same thing through the Sax interface".
13:30:44 [Ian]
Richard Tobin: You could make a profile of a basic infoset and say .....
13:30:44 [Ian]
RT: You just have to profile the infoset.
13:30:52 [timbl]
q+ to say that the XPath data model seemed to work for DSig - if infoset don't want to define one.
13:31:18 [Ian]
DC: Of course when I talk about the Sax API calls I expect to be able to abstract from that specific API.
13:31:33 [Ian]
JM: People who need lexical comparisons don't benefit from this solution.
13:31:53 [timbl]
DanC, you didn't specify how much is inherited.
13:32:02 [Ian]
DV: PSVI's are not in the infoset model.
13:32:31 [Norm]
I don't see how or why equality should have anything to do with equality. If two things are equal, inheritance will work the same way in both cases
13:32:49 [timbl]
13:32:54 [Norm]
13:32:58 [timbl]
13:33:04 [Norm]
s/equality/inheritance/ for the first occurance of equality
13:33:05 [Ian]
DC: xsi:nil is not relevant. I'm not talking about typed information.
13:33:12 [Ian]
DC: How is the solution I'm proposing not acceptable.
13:33:28 [Ian]
DC: or valuable?
13:33:50 [timbl]
DV, can you type that?
13:34:09 [Ian]
Arnaud Le Hors (ALH): I agree with DC. I hear DC and RT saying the same thing - we can find a way to compare two infosets.
13:34:22 [Ian]
ALH: I hear Michael saying for PSVI that that's not enough. But that's ok.
13:34:37 [DV]
character("foo" 3) ; character("bar", 3) would then be different from character("foobar", 6)
13:34:42 [Ian]
ALH: Other groups that define infoset extensions can extend the equality function.
13:34:50 [DanC_jam]
ah; good point, DV.
13:34:56 [DV]
it's just a specific counter agument for SAX API
13:35:04 [timbl]
Thanks DV
13:35:13 [Ian]
PGrosso: I hear different opinions on whether an XML Core infoset equality function would be useful.
13:35:25 [Ian]
JM: We'd need to hear user needs.
13:35:51 [Ian]
DC: I think I've expressed the needs of the RDF customer.
13:35:57 [DanC_jam]
13:36:09 [DanC_jam]
DC: "who are the customers" is a good question...
13:36:21 [timbl]
I think the user need fro things like databses is to be able to use XML as a rich text type for things like names, help filed, descriptions, in wa way which is context-free.
13:36:24 [DanC_jam]
... the customer I'm most familiar with (RDF) has already decided, so anything new is a burden to them, not a benfit. hmm.
13:36:34 [timbl]
This is a suset of applications.
13:36:43 [timbl]
But it is a very common application.
13:37:02 [Norm]
The XML database community, in my experience, is much more interested in typed values than lexical values.
13:37:31 [Ian]
RT: If you wish to use infoset equality to describe xmlchunk equality, then recursive comparison of infoset terms would not suffice.
13:37:44 [DV]
Norm: seems that's not solvable for 80 % of that community as PaulC said
13:38:08 [Ian]
SW: I think that other groups have said on the list that they are looking at general solutions re: inheritance of attrib values.
13:38:28 [timbl]
13:38:50 [Stuart]
ack rt
13:39:06 [Ian]
Liam Quin (LQ): ID equivalence is another issue.
13:39:11 [Norm]
In the presence of user-defined types, I think you're right DV
13:39:14 [Stuart]
ack timbl
13:39:14 [Zakim]
timbl, you wanted to say that the XPath data model seemed to work for DSig - if infoset don't want to define one. and to
13:39:31 [Norm]
I think Liam was specifically talking about the system identifier
13:39:54 [Ian]
TBL: To motivate this - people want to use XML in a simple way sometimes. E.g., in a database, where you are used to having Unicode strings, you want to be able to put a paragraph.
13:40:07 [Ian]
TBL: People would like to be able to "stick in" some HTML.
13:40:28 [Liam]
I was trying to say you'd have to refine Dan's definition, as sax will likely return things like system identifier (the URI of the things you're comparing)
13:40:40 [Ian]
TBL: It's like rich text in email. It's context-free - just used for markup ...
13:41:20 [Ian]
TBL: There's a sense in which there's a context break.
13:41:37 [Ian]
TBL: Martin is saying "But what if the FAQ is in French"....i.e., what about xml:lang?
13:42:00 [duerst-8]
duerst-8 has joined #tagmem
13:42:17 [Ian]
TBL: People want to put links (html:a) in IRC, calendar entries, etc....
13:42:44 [DV]
I don't understand why the language of a string which is metadata about that string is not treated as other metadtaa
13:42:56 [DV]
for taht string like encoding, length, etc ...
13:43:03 [timbl]
If XML Fragment allows you a choice of whoat you inherit, it doesn't solve the problem.
13:43:06 [Ian]
ALH: Is the TAG's concern only about chunk equality? Is serialization something the TAG is interested in as well? Or just equality?
13:43:17 [Ian]
SW: My sense is serialization first, then equality.
13:43:30 [Ian]
SW: Carrying context into a serialization.
13:43:42 [timbl]
I thought I explained above that they are close. I think we need both.
13:43:58 [Ian]
DC: I think equality and context cause the issue to arise
13:44:18 [Norm]
q+ to return to JM's issue about who the clients are
13:44:24 [Ian]
DC: The fragment solution is kind of interesting. That mights requirements until one person used xml:lang and the other person didn't and you want to compare.
13:44:26 [timbl]
13:44:44 [Ian]
RT: TBL's FAQ example makes this sound like a much less formal application than we were thinking.
13:44:47 [timbl]
Less "formal" application?
13:45:07 [timbl]
????!!!!! No one is "sticking" by hand
13:45:10 [Ian]
RT: There may be pragmatic solutions rather than solving the equality question generally.
13:45:15 [Ian]
(e.g., copy what you need)
13:45:16 [Norm]
ack norm
13:45:16 [Zakim]
Norm, you wanted to return to JM's issue about who the clients are
13:45:45 [Ian]
NW: I can imagine writing a spec based on the infoset to explain what it means for two profiles to be the same. But I don't know who would use it.
13:46:16 [Ian]
NW: Comparing two infosets is fine; comparing two points in two infosets is another problem.
13:46:59 [Ian]
TBL: I don't know what "less formal application" means. We are talking about automating and therefore need a crisp solution.
13:47:35 [Ian]
TBL: I think this is a serious application; there are a lot of places where XML isn't used but could be.
13:47:50 [Ian]
TBL: Maybe we need to define a concept of a context-free XML Chunk.
13:48:17 [Ian]
TBL: E.g., any XML can go here; you can put it in this box; this context has the following quality function.
13:49:03 [Ian]
DC: To illustrate the business of serialization interacting with the issue of equality:
13:49:17 [Ian]
- OWL is concerned with when things are equal and when they are not (e.g., medical databases).
13:50:08 [Ian]
DC: Product descriptions.
13:50:44 [Ian]
DC: People want to make sure, e.g., that a product is described consistently in all parts of a catalog.
13:50:44 [Ian]
DC: People were convinced that customers would want to do this sort of thing: serialization then equality.
13:50:57 [PGrosso]
q+ to respond to TBL's comment about xml frag allowing you a choice of what to inherit.
13:50:59 [Ian]
DC: RDF Core WG picked Dig Sig canonicalization, but I18N WG unhappy with that solution.
13:51:14 [Ian]
PC: What about the qnames in context problem?
13:51:18 [Ian]
[Yes from the crowed]
13:51:22 [Ian]
13:51:45 [Ian]
caw caw
13:52:13 [timbl]
They're all stark raven mad.
13:52:38 [Ian]
[Discussion of namespaces/qnames/signing]
13:53:01 [DanC_jam]
I find PC's argument appealing, but I'm pretty sure the I18N WG didn't find it convincing.
13:53:07 [DanC_jam]
i.e. I think they heard it.
13:53:37 [Ian]
RT: By "informal" earlier I meant "the distinction between cases where the transfer of the data from the original context where the application doing the transfer knows what to do, from the generic context where the application knows nothing.
13:54:01 [Ian]
RT: I'm still not clear whether TBL is looking for a complete generic solution.
13:54:17 [timbl]
q+ to propose that long with a definition of a chunk, which may or may not (prob yes) have an xml:lang, one has rules about not using qnmes excpet for ele and attr names
13:54:17 [PGrosso]
ack PGrosso
13:54:18 [Zakim]
PGrosso, you wanted to respond to TBL's comment about xml frag allowing you a choice of what to inherit.
13:54:20 [Ian]
RT: Or whether the cases of interest involve knowledgable agents, who can include relevant context.
13:55:10 [Ian]
PGrosso: Nobody is giving someone a choice of what to inherit. The XML 1.0 spec is the one that talks about inheritance.
13:55:31 [Ian]
PGrosso: I thought that a chunk spec would not have to talk about how to inherit, only how to put context onto a chunk.
13:55:35 [Stuart]
ack DanC
13:55:35 [Zakim]
DanC_jam, you wanted to relate product description example from OWL discussions
13:55:45 [Ian]
[DC steps out of the room for a moment.]
13:56:25 [DanC_jam]
13:56:26 [PGrosso]
I completely don't understand what TBL is saying here.
13:56:30 [Ian]
TBL: When one defines a protocol standard, one defines a set of rules and an associated value "You get these invariants by following these rules."
13:56:42 [PGrosso]
I had no idea we were talkinga bout defining a protocol
13:56:51 [PGrosso]
I thought we were defining how to provide context to some xml chunk.
13:57:01 [Stuart]
13:57:04 [PGrosso]
Not what context is interesting to an arbitrary process.
13:57:05 [Stuart]
q+ rt
13:57:36 [Ian]
TBL: In this case, we are talking about defining a protocol where we are saying "If you use one of these chunks, you agree that this chunk makes sense whatever its ancestors are. But it does require namespaces and xml:lang to be inherited. And we commit to only using qnames in element and attribute names. Here are the benefits of sticking to this constrained usage of XML..."
13:57:54 [PGrosso]
I see no way for the XML Core group to know what context is of interest to a given app.
13:58:06 [Stuart]
ack timbl
13:58:06 [Zakim]
timbl, you wanted to propose that long with a definition of a chunk, which may or may not (prob yes) have an xml:lang, one has rules about not using qnmes excpet for ele and attr
13:58:09 [Zakim]
... names
13:58:11 [Stuart]
ack dv
13:58:34 [PGrosso]
Unless we just send the entire document, we risk not including *some* context, and how do we know that context wasn't important to someone?
13:58:35 [Ian]
DV: Even if we took the xml fragment spec and ended up calculating equality on infoset terms, not sure the eq function would be useful. E.g., entities would be lost.
13:58:57 [Ian]
TBL: Right, you have you eliminate that: rule out use of entities or define eq as being "after dereferencing entities".
13:59:34 [Ian]
DV: This is not just an infoset comparision; you need more metadata than you find in the infoset spec.
14:00:29 [Stuart]
ack rt
14:00:31 [Ian]
RT: Difference is choosing in advance what's important (TBL's approach) v. specifying what's important at run-time.
14:00:51 [Ian]
RT: The agent makes the choice of which equality function to use.
14:00:55 [Ian]
TBL: Might be a machine...
14:01:01 [Ian]
RF: But machine is told by human....
14:01:56 [Ian]
TBL: we are seeing a common occurrence of the need to be able to put chunks of XML into an applicatoin.
14:01:58 [PGrosso]
If you want context-free XML, then you don't have to send any context. I remain confused.
14:02:09 [PGrosso]
If you want xml:lang, that's context.
14:02:45 [timbl]
By being a less precise protocol, it gives you no value back.
14:02:57 [Ian]
[We look at]
14:03:09 [timbl]
PGrosso: yes, you have it. Very little context.
14:03:23 [Ian]
NW: I was curious whether I could do what TBL was talking about.
14:03:32 [Ian]
NW: infoset-equal.txt is a quick attempt.
14:04:06 [Ian]
NW: Children you compare in order, attributes you have to compare as a set.
14:04:33 [timbl]
Good job, Norm.
14:04:42 [Ian]
ALH: See the DOM3 nodeEquals function.
14:06:07 [timbl]
positive energy ... people see soluion ... all talk at once. Happy to lose audio channel clarity for increased group energy :-)
14:06:13 [Ian]
MJ: How about stopping about providing guidelines for equality functions.
14:06:18 [Stuart]
14:06:21 [DanC_jam]
mixed energy, I'd say.
14:07:18 [Ian]
PC: I think it's extremely dangerous to define something as a base, then to use it to test equality of things on the Web.
14:07:19 [timbl]
PC, does your comment only apply to ordering?
14:07:30 [Ian]
PC: Fragments of XML are in the eye of the beholder.
14:07:39 [timbl]
14:07:47 [Ian]
PC: Dangerous to have just a default mechanism for chunk equivalence.
14:08:10 [Marsh]
Marsh has joined #tagmem
14:08:17 [Arnaud]
Arnaud has joined #tagmem
14:08:42 [Arnaud]
Here is the DOM 3 function:
14:08:44 [Ian]
TBL: I hear PC expressing a concern that XML users will have this foisted upon them. But it should be clear that producers/consumers of this type of content only do so with prior agreement.
14:08:54 [DanC_jam]
(I think timbl underestimates the danger of premature standardization here. The W3C label is a dangerous doodad.)
14:09:16 [Ian]
TBL: E.g., I wouldn't expect XQuery to find two chunks equal.
14:09:34 [Norm]
If this existed, users would demand theh XQuery/XPath function that performed it.
14:09:41 [Ian]
TBL: An XQuery processor might use this equality function if it knew it was dealing with chunks.
14:10:12 [Ian]
JM: I think we have a framework for doing this - infoset. We can add a language property to the infoset if that's the problem.
14:10:12 [Norm]
q+ to say xml:lang is a special case.
14:10:22 [Ian]
MR: Beware of retroactive changes to the infoset.
14:10:31 [timbl]
Sounds as though the infoset needs xml:lang added if used for this purpose, but will not also need otrher things removed?
14:11:11 [Norm]
xml:lang is already in the infoset, it's an attribute
14:11:40 [DanC_jam]
but there's isn't a property that relates a child to the parent's xml lang.
14:11:49 [Stuart]
14:11:53 [Ian]
NW: We are citing xml:lang as an example.
14:11:55 [Stuart]
ack Norm
14:11:55 [Zakim]
Norm, you wanted to say xml:lang is a special case.
14:12:01 [Ian]
NW: I think xml:lang is just one case.
14:12:19 [Ian]
NW: Adding an "inherited value" thing on xml:lang only is of limited value.
14:12:23 [timbl]
q+ to say there is a very finite set fo thinsg to ingerit . xml:lang, xml:base too, but not an unedning set.
14:12:28 [timbl]
14:12:36 [Ian]
SW: How do we follow up on this topic?
14:12:38 [timbl]
Norm, there is a very finite set fo thinsg to ingerit . xml:lang, xml:base too, but not an unedning set.
14:13:07 [Norm]
What about xsl:version? What about 'lang' in DocBook, there is no finite set
14:13:12 [Ian]
DC: While this is something I want, I can wait for it.
14:13:26 [richard]
xml:base is alreaedy exposed as the [base uri] property
14:13:44 [richard]
xml:space is another one that isn't exposed in that way
14:13:57 [Ian]
LQ: No clear conclusion for me. I think we've rat-holed a bit on equality. There are other things we haven't defined about two fragments (e..g, how you recognize two fragments as XML in the first place).
14:14:24 [Ian]
DV: I think a basic equality at the infoset level would not address more than, say, 15% of users.
14:14:39 [Ian]
DV: To hit the 80% mark, we'd need to add a lot more metadata.
14:14:50 [DanC_jam]
DC also said: I'm not quite sure who the customers are today.
14:14:54 [Ian]
MR: I've said my peace.
14:15:01 [DanC_jam]
14:15:07 [Ian]
PGrosso: I'm more confused now than when I came in.
14:15:59 [Ian]
ALH: The argument that it's not useful since not a big audience reminds me what we said about the infoset spec.
14:16:29 [Ian]
ALH: The infoset solution we came up with is still useful, even if it is more meta.
14:16:46 [Ian]
ALH: I think there would be a use for picking one basic equality function and then allowing people to extend the definition.
14:17:04 [Ian]
Dmitri: I think chunks/fragments are important things. We have a lot of experience but no significant standard.
14:17:09 [PGrosso]
I see at least three issues here: equality, providing arbitrary context, and defining the "canonical context".
14:17:24 [PGrosso]
These are potentially orthogonal issues.
14:17:26 [DanC_jam]
good observation, PGrosso.
14:17:33 [Ian]
Dimitri: I think you probably can define a default equality. But good question is who are the customers.
14:17:45 [PGrosso]
14:17:59 [Ian]
JM: As far as I can tell, the customers are not for equality, but rather:
14:18:17 [timbl]
If you don't define equality, you can't serialize it at all. because you don't know whether you have serialized it right.
14:18:23 [Ian]
- RDF folks are using xml:Lang without inheritance in RDF context, and not recognizing inheritance quality in XML Chunk context.
14:18:36 [Ian]
(Previous statement was from JM)
14:18:53 [Ian]
JM: Unclear what need there is for canonical form, whether one is suitably powerful.
14:19:09 [Ian]
JM: I think it may be possible to meet customer demands without getting into the equality issue.
14:19:09 [Arnaud]
tim: I don't understand that, we don't define equality of documents, and still have a serialization for it, why would it be different for "chunks"?
14:19:10 [richard]
or, by defining a serialization, you implicitly define equality. that was what the original canonical xml as used in the test suite was for.
14:19:20 [timbl]
this is NOT a defulat.
14:19:27 [timbl]
this is NOT a defulat.
14:19:27 [timbl]
this is NOT a defulat.
14:19:30 [Ian]
PC: I'm convinced that it's dangerous to define a default comparison technique without providing users with a way to say "don't use the default."
14:19:32 [timbl]
this is NOT a default
14:20:06 [Ian]
TBL: Nobody is suggesting this would be a default.
14:20:12 [Ian]
PC: I think that it would be used that way.
14:20:19 [Ian]
JM: In what sense is it not a default?
14:20:47 [Ian]
PC: If you define a basic equivalence function, you need an extension framework as well.
14:21:02 [DV]
I really wonder if we have requirement and usage feedback from DOM3 equal() function, are people happy ? Do they use it ? ...
14:21:05 [Ian]
SW: I see value in addressing the problem of propagating context in which a fragment of XML occurred.
14:21:23 [Norm]
I think it could be done. I can imagine that it might be useful. Dan made a parenthetical remark in IRC about the danger of stamping the W3C imprameture on this functionality. If we had it, the XQuery/XPath functions and operators spec would have to define a function to do it. I worry that the conflict between "standard equality" and "the right equality operator for this application" would create confusion and introduce new problems. I don't know if they'd be lar
14:21:23 [Norm]
ger or smaller than the problems we have now, without a "standard" equality function.
14:21:29 [Ian]
MJ: I am in favor of a mechanism that uses infoset.
14:21:41 [PGrosso]
Actually, I didn't hear anyone talk about propagating context, but providing context.
14:22:04 [DanC_jam]
NW: [see above]
14:22:59 [timbl]
q+ to say that the problem may be simpler than many XML Core group eg PGrosso feel, as thy have been into very complex things. DV may underestimate the proportion of uses of XML whcih are really simple. I underatnd the danger of confusion between this (simplified) case and the general complex case, but feel that that should not stop one doing what was simple.
14:23:42 [Ian]
TBL: The user wants someting simple but relatively context-free. People want something like exclusive canonicalization. But that spec doesn't have xml:base and xml:Lang. So there are invariants that don't work.
14:23:58 [Ian]
ack timbl
14:23:58 [Zakim]
timbl, you wanted to say that the problem may be simpler than many XML Core group eg PGrosso feel, as thy have been into very complex things. DV may underestimate the proportion
14:24:01 [Zakim]
... of uses of XML whcih are really simple. I underatnd the danger of confusion between this (simplified) case and the general complex case, but feel that that should not stop
14:24:03 [Zakim]
... one doing what was simple.
14:24:28 [Ian]
TBL: On DV's point, I think that you underestimate how useful this capability is.
14:25:04 [Norm]
xml:lang is just an attribute. xml:lang is just an attribute. xml:lang is just an attribute. xml:lang is just an attribute. xml:lang is just an attribute. :-)
14:25:15 [PGrosso]
When TBL speaks of context, I hear him just talking about propagating "inheritable" properties down to all elements. Is that all we're talking about?
14:25:19 [DV]
Maybe my 15% was an extreme estimate, maybe the DOM3 users can comment on usefulness of a basic function ...
14:25:30 [Ian]
TBL: This is a simple requirement; just allow people to define applications with minimal context.
14:25:34 [Norm]
Is this really about embedding XHTML in RDF?
14:26:49 [Ian]
JM: If this is a problem of serialization, the Core WG washed their hands of this years ago....
14:27:11 [Ian]
JM: We didn't find use cases outside of digital signatures.
14:28:03 [Ian]
JM: Unclear to me that the RDF WG has not chosen the right set of tools to meet its needs.
14:28:09 [Ian]
JM: I think that the infoset is the right tool.
14:28:20 [Ian]
(for taking content from one context to another).
14:28:31 [Ian]
JM: I don't think exclusive canonicalization is the right approach.
14:28:33 [DanC_jam]
DanC: (in reply to "we didn't find any customers"): maybe I [as XML activity lead at the time] didn't get on enough airplanes and find them.
14:28:39 [Norm]
It is demonstrably the wrong answer in that I can't store an xsl:template as an XML literal in a property value
14:28:47 [Ian]
TBL: But the RDF folks need to serialize as well to send across the wire.
14:28:56 [Ian]
TBL: You need to know when you've correctly serialized.
14:29:21 [Ian]
14:29:30 [Ian]
zakim, close agenda 1
14:29:30 [Zakim]
agendum 1 closed
14:29:31 [Zakim]
I see 2 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
14:29:32 [Zakim]
2. linking [from Ian]
14:29:57 [Ian]
zakim, take up agenda 2
14:29:57 [Zakim]
agendum 2. "linking" taken up [from Ian]
14:30:32 [Ian]
LQ: There is a task force addressing linking. Six people, three from XML and Hypertext CGs. I am Chair.
14:30:48 [Ian]
LQ: I asked each of the participants to sent a position paper and to review the documents. That was a month ago.
14:30:57 [Ian]
LQ: We are early in the coordination process.
14:31:36 [Ian]
[LQ reviews the original issue:]
14:32:04 [Ian]
LQ: We are still working in the Task Force on the problem statement.
14:32:14 [Ian]
zakim, close this agenda.
14:32:14 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'close this agenda.', Ian
14:32:17 [Ian]
zakim, close this agendum
14:32:17 [Zakim]
agendum 2 closed
14:32:18 [Zakim]
I see 1 item remaining on the agenda:
14:32:19 [Zakim]
3. Core WG LC comments on Webarch [from Ian]
14:32:27 [Ian]
14:32:33 [Ian]
DV: Another issue is xml:id
14:32:49 [Ian]
zakim, take up agenda 3
14:32:49 [Zakim]
agendum 3. "Core WG LC comments on Webarch" taken up [from Ian]
14:33:07 [Ian]
PGrosso: several people read the document. No comments from readers that as a group we wanted to make.
14:33:17 [Ian]
TAG thanks the Core WG for their review.
14:33:21 [DanC_jam]
hear hear
14:33:39 [Ian]
SW: IJ, please send these minutes to the Core WG for their review as well as the TAG's.
14:33:46 [Ian]
14:33:50 [timbl]
TimBl echos his thanks to core for reveiwing the doc
14:35:04 [Ian]
14:35:16 [Ian]
RF: Within the infoset, is a qname represented as a URI + name or a prefix + name?
14:35:21 [Ian]
DV: Depends on what context.
14:35:28 [Ian]
TR: It has all three.
14:35:47 [Ian]
RF: the ones that we regard as THE TRUE ONES are the namespace URI and the name.
14:36:03 [PGrosso]
14:36:09 [Ian]
ADJOURNED meeting with XML Core WG
14:36:35 [PGrosso]
PGrosso has left #tagmem
14:36:51 [Ian]
14:37:04 [timbl]
Is liaison clendar linekd frfom the agenda?
14:38:52 [DanC_jam]
I think so, timbl
14:39:05 [timbl]
got it
14:39:15 [timbl]
14:39:30 [timbl]
XML Schema in 20 minutes
14:39:51 [DanC_jam]
yes... "3. Liaisons
14:39:51 [DanC_jam]
See liaisons page."
14:40:00 [timbl]
XML Schema
14:40:00 [timbl]
€ Extensibility and Versioning (XMLVersioning-41)
14:40:00 [timbl]
€ Abstract Component References (abstractComponentRefs-37)
14:40:00 [timbl]
€ Comments on TAGs LC document
14:40:12 [timbl]
oooo on my screen the bullets came out as bullets
14:40:23 [timbl]
But I don't think this client uses UTF-8
14:40:50 [DaveO]
DaveO has joined #tagmem
14:46:44 [Zakim]
14:57:41 [DV]
DV has joined #tagmem
14:57:43 [Zakim]
14:58:45 [asir]
asir has joined #tagmem
14:58:50 [holstege]
holstege has joined #tagmem
14:58:54 [Jim]
Jim has joined #TAGmem
14:58:55 [pdowney]
pdowney has joined #tagmem
14:58:59 [david_e3]
david_e3 has joined #tagmem
14:59:22 [MSM]
MSM has joined #tagmem
15:00:22 [david_ezell]
david_ezell has joined #tagmem
15:01:14 [DV]
DV has left #tagmem
15:02:11 [Norm]
Norm has joined #tagmem
15:03:20 [DanC_jam]
DanC_jam has joined #tagmem
15:03:48 [marioj]
marioj has joined #tagmem
15:04:06 [ht]
ht has joined #tagmem
15:04:14 [DanC_jam] says 16:00-17:30
15:04:21 [noah]
noah has joined #tagmem
15:05:08 [timbl]
Zakim, mute me
15:05:08 [Zakim]
TimBL should now be muted
15:05:20 [Ian]
Tim, are you on the phone?
15:05:22 [Jim]
URI of the draft?
15:05:47 [asir]
15:05:47 [timbl]
I am
15:06:26 [timbl]
01-14 is linked from the agenda.
15:07:35 [DaveO]
DaveO has joined #tagmem
15:07:35 [Ian]
Tim how many fingers am I holding up?
15:07:41 [timbl]
Is anyone scribing?
15:07:46 [Ian]
I'm in the wrong room!
15:07:50 [Ian]
Back in a few....
15:07:52 [timbl]
Two, Ian
15:07:53 [DanC_jam]
yes, Mary H is, in an emacs buffer
15:07:58 [holstege]
<h3>QNames in content</h3>
15:07:58 [holstege]
<p>Norm's document at <a href=">"></a>
15:07:58 [holstege]
15:07:58 [holstege]
<p>MSM: Those of us who have read it see nothing to object to. Weren't sure
15:07:58 [holstege]
that differences from previous draft were, however.</p>
15:08:00 [timbl]
15:08:00 [holstege]
<p>NW: Old said no single way to define ways to mapping prefixes to namespace
15:08:02 [holstege]
URIs. e.g. XML Nanmespaces way and XPointer way. New says that, plus, please
15:08:04 [holstege]
don't invent new ways, prefer in-scope namespace
15:08:07 [holstege]
(sorry, HTML markup)
15:08:47 [timbl]
Hah ... one needs to be able to put some XML markup in a text field. Just as we were discussing the need fro MXL chunk last session.
15:08:54 [asir]
link to draft is
15:10:38 [Stuart]
Stuart has joined #tagmem
15:11:42 [Zakim]
15:12:21 [holstege]
<p><a href=">"></a>
15:12:22 [holstege]
15:12:22 [holstege]
<p>Apropos of
15:12:22 [holstege]
<a href=">"></a>
15:12:22 [holstege]
15:12:24 [holstege]
<p>MSM: XPointer schemes have (), we're leveraging XPointer, so what are we do
15:12:26 [holstege]
15:12:29 [holstege]
15:12:31 [holstege]
<p>RF: Introduci
15:12:33 [holstege]
<p>RF: Introducing balanced syntax in L-R parser. Blows up complexity. In XPath
15:12:34 [holstege]
expressions independent of XPointer. But want to use identifier for component,
15:12:36 [holstege]
far, far better off using name than expression (XPath) through XML trees.</p>
15:12:40 [holstege]
many characters long and have lots of odd characters. Simple state syntax see
15:12:43 [holstege]
no reason to be part of web arch.</p>
15:12:45 [holstege]
<p>RF: Not part of Webarch, but that wasn't question. Wasn't () originall
15:12:46 [holstege]
<p>RF: Not part of Webarch, but that wasn't question. Wasn't () originally, was
15:12:48 [holstege]
^ as escape character.</p>
15:12:56 [Zakim]
15:14:24 [mario]
mario has joined #tagmem
15:16:24 [timbl]
Ahhh . so there is a sort of "you should" put an id on things.
15:16:39 [timbl]
and a "we should" write down ath that works in a mime spec.
15:16:46 [Stuart]
Stuart has joined #tagmem
15:18:49 [timbl]
Is there a problem that schema is in fact using a different identifier, from anybody else using the #SKU uri?
15:18:57 [DaveO]
URI for schema component designators?
15:21:28 [asir]
is at
15:21:39 [Jim]
Tim: Not really
15:22:02 [holstege]
15:23:09 [Jim]
"adapter" = transformer
15:23:32 [timbl]
q+ to suggest not worrying aboy the time it takes to tregister, but do get the architectrue defined.
15:24:11 [timbl]
q_ also to say that schem ought to have schema obejcts like element types and datatypes etc as the thing fragiod used for - forget the XML level.
15:25:51 [timbl]
HT:sentence ~ OED:paragraph
15:26:45 [ht]
15:27:46 [ht]
ht believe TimBL's point is pretty much agreed by the Schema WG already
15:28:05 [ht]
ack timbl
15:28:05 [Zakim]
timbl, you wanted to suggest not worrying aboy the time it takes to tregister, but do get the architectrue defined.
15:29:15 [ht]
q+ to say Tim's point wasn't about the mime type for schema DOCS, but for schemas
15:29:30 [MSM]
ack DanC
15:29:30 [Zakim]
DanC_jam, you wanted to ask what use cases the OWL WG's "user defined data type" is competing with
15:30:10 [MSM]
ack ht
15:30:10 [Zakim]
ht, you wanted to say Tim's point wasn't about the mime type for schema DOCS, but for schemas
15:30:15 [noah]
q+ to amplify Henry's point...schemas are potentially composed from multiple schema docs (and possibly other sources). N schema docs = 1 schema. There may but need not be explicit imports connecting them.
15:31:10 [MSM]
q+ to talk about SKU a bit
15:32:05 [MSM]
ack Noah
15:32:05 [Zakim]
noah, you wanted to amplify Henry's point...schemas are potentially composed from multiple schema docs (and possibly other sources). N schema docs = 1 schema. There may but need
15:32:08 [Zakim]
... not be explicit imports connecting them.
15:33:26 [ht]
ht certainly heard DanC's request the simple things should be simple
15:33:54 [ht]
15:34:00 [skw-hplb]
skw-hplb has joined #tagmem
15:34:03 [skw]
skw has joined #tagmem
15:34:30 [skw]
skw has left #tagmem
15:37:46 [asir] is the example
15:38:12 [asir]
and the SCD is #xmlns(po= xscd(/simpleType(po:SKU))
15:39:55 [asir]
if target namespace is absent then #xscd(/type(SKU)) // well type is the new label
15:41:31 [MSM]
q+ MichaelRys
15:41:34 [MSM]
ack MSM
15:41:34 [Zakim]
MSM, you wanted to talk about SKU a bit
15:42:02 [skw-hplb]
skw-hplb has joined #tagmem
15:43:20 [MSM]
ack MichaelRys
15:43:41 [MSM]
MR: there's certainly a need for identifying things in schemas
15:43:46 [Stuart]
Stuart has joined #tagmem
15:43:53 [MSM]
e.g. QT needs to refer to locally declared element types
15:44:05 [DaveO]
15:44:11 [MSM]
it's already complex. If we make it even more complex, the usability will suffer dramatically
15:44:41 [ht]
s/it/the schema context path mechanism used by XQuery to denote local element declarations in context/
15:46:03 [MSM]
ack DaveO
15:47:45 [Stuart]
Stuart has joined #tagmem
15:49:34 [asir]
15:52:58 [DanC_jam]
15:53:07 [DanC_jam]
XMLVersioning-41: What are good practices for designing extensible XML languages and for handling versioning?
15:53:36 [pdowney]
15:54:40 [MSM]
q+ to apologize for not completing and sending even rough comments from the XML Schema WG, and to report on the current state of play in 1.1
15:54:46 [DanC_jam]
hmm... is current?
15:55:04 [DanC_jam]
[Editorial Draft] Versioning XML Languages
15:55:04 [DanC_jam]
Proposed TAG Finding 03 Oct 2003
15:55:39 [Stuart]
15:55:51 [Stuart]
but doesn't seem to be world visible :-(
15:56:55 [DanC_jam]
ack msm
15:56:55 [Zakim]
MSM, you wanted to apologize for not completing and sending even rough comments from the XML Schema WG, and to report on the current state of play in 1.1
16:00:19 [pdowney]
aren't greedy ?
16:00:58 [noah]
16:01:03 [DaveO]
16:01:24 [noah]
16:03:04 [MSM]
ack Davd
16:03:21 [MSM]
ack Dave
16:05:20 [Stuart]
Stuart has joined #tagmem
16:05:56 [DaveO]
q+ to ask whether it makes sense for schema 1.1 to do this change, and deployment time for xs 1.1
16:06:40 [timbl]
16:06:45 [ht]
q+ to worry about toothlessness
16:06:57 [david_ezell]
q+ want to address extension vs versioning
16:07:10 [MSM]
q+ to talk about why passive extensibility doesn't seem trivial to add (yet)
16:07:25 [MSM]
q+ MRyes
16:07:32 [timbl]
q+ to discuss naming the flexibility point: must one have th eextreme of wildacard or the extreme of pre-defined options?
16:08:24 [MSM]
DO: second question: how long will deployment take?
16:08:35 [MSM]
Is there something we can do in the meantime?
16:08:51 [MSM]
Or do we look for solutions outside of XMLSchema?
16:09:54 [MSM]
ack noah
16:09:55 [noah]
16:10:02 [ht]
ack DaveO
16:10:02 [Zakim]
DaveO, you wanted to ask whether it makes sense for schema 1.1 to do this change, and deployment time for xs 1.1
16:10:55 [MSM]
nm: i'm glad we're seeing interest in this. but it's important not to oversimplify the problem
16:11:22 [MSM]
some dimensions: (1) whom do you trust to figure this out? one answer is: the guy who developed v1 of the vocabulary
16:11:41 [MSM]
another answer is: the sender of the message (instance-based vs schema-based)
16:11:59 [MSM]
(2) I think there's an explicit assumption that a given vocabulary has a given processing model and semantics
16:12:09 [MSM]
which means you can say what it means to 'ignore' something.
16:12:32 [MSM]
But consider a purchase order vocabulary, which has a phone number (to enable call-backs when necessary).
16:12:51 [MSM]
in v1 we screwed up because we forgot to put a country code into the phone number
16:13:00 [MSM]
now we need to add it.
16:13:29 [MSM]
We don't want to refuse to store the purchase order because our old back-version schema doesn't have 'countryCode' inside the phone number
16:13:53 [MSM]
we do, however, want not to make the phone call by means of just ignoring the countryCode element.
16:14:00 [MSM]
(3) who has what schemas where when?
16:14:32 [ht]
zakim, q= timbl, ht, david_ezell, MSM, MRhys
16:14:32 [Zakim]
ht, if you meant to query the queue, please say 'q?'; if you meant to replace the queue, please say 'queue= ...'
16:14:44 [MSM]
Can a processor with hard-coded v1 semantics be expected to pull down the v2 schema in order to read and understand whatever hints it gives me
16:14:48 [ht]
zakim, queue= timbl, ht, david_ezell, MSM, MRhys
16:14:48 [Zakim]
I see timbl, ht, david_ezell, MSM, MRhys on the speaker queue
16:15:16 [MSM]
queue= timbl, ht, david_ezell, MRys
16:15:21 [timbl]
q+ tim2 to talk about publishing schemas and wonrship of schemas
16:16:27 [MSM]
ack timbl
16:16:59 [MSM]
timbl: noah is right to say it's hard in general cases to say what 'ignore' means
16:17:20 [MSM]
but i'm surprised to see a conflict between wildcard and falling back on rigidly defined schema
16:18:15 [ht]
We discussed this morning that "must ignore" works well IF you make certain assumptions about the kind of languages people will define, but not otherwise
16:18:22 [MSM]
the way most programming languages export named interfaces is to say 'this is one way to match foo' but not 'these are the only ways to match foo'
16:18:25 [Ian]
Ian has joined #tagmem
16:19:03 [MSM]
q+ to describe substitution groups and how they don't help in the convenience store
16:19:05 [MSM]
ack ht
16:20:11 [timbl]
It is tricky for schema to define extensability tools for schema builders without knowin the semantics of the languaegs being defined as
16:20:17 [MSM]
q+ to talk also about toothlessness and its value\
16:20:25 [timbl]
HT, I just outlined a model which doesn't have that problem, I think.
16:21:02 [pdowney]
active model requires schema author to be able to predict the future, whereas most don't anticipate *any* future ..
16:21:22 [ht]
Tim's suggestion is actually close to what substitution groups do in schema already
16:21:31 [pdowney]
16:23:11 [MSM]
ack david_ezell
16:24:21 [MSM]
ack MR
16:25:44 [MSM]
MRys: XML is often used in a late-bound context. One way to handle this is simply to have a new schema defining the same namespace, and to use it.
16:26:05 [MSM]
Also, distinguish versioning from extensibility (scribe's note - is this correct paraphrase?)
16:26:27 [MSM]
there is no point in adding new function if the old function still isn't understood or used
16:26:53 [MSM]
adding new material will scare people back to XDR, DTDs, SOX, Relax NG
16:27:04 [MSM]
the way to address versioning is: do it at a separate level.
16:27:15 [MSM]
need guidelines
16:27:24 [MSM]
when to rev the URI, when not, ...
16:27:35 [david_ezell]
I'm forced to wonder if we couldn't make weak wildcards part of 2e
16:29:12 [MSM]
16:29:23 [ht]
HST notes that the WG has pretty much agreed that the best outcome is that 1.1 doesn't have new scary stuff which puts off users
16:29:48 [MSM]
ack tim2
16:29:48 [Zakim]
tim2, you wanted to talk about publishing schemas and wonrship of schemas
16:29:48 [timbl]
ack tim
16:31:47 [DaveO]
q+ to respond to the upcoming MSM point about transforming to add wildcards
16:32:07 [pdowney]
porsche tiptonic!
16:32:12 [ht]
ack MSM
16:32:12 [Zakim]
MSM, you wanted to describe substitution groups and how they don't help in the convenience store and to talk also about toothlessness and its value\
16:33:03 [Jim]
"tiptronic", wasn't it? I've actually seen a car (from the mid-60s) that really did have both a 2-speed automatic and a 3-speed manual in series!
16:34:11 [ht]
HST notes that "convenience store" is code for a usage scenario which we've looked at in detail
16:35:36 [timbl]
hmph - if people want extensability and tehy insist on working with one fixed schema sounds to me like provabl y impossible.
16:36:08 [timbl]
Ig you can't augment your application by letting it knwo about another one, then you are not prepared to be flexiblme, no?
16:36:21 [david_ezell]
I think clarification is that they want to be able to _tolerate_ extensions, probably not _use_ them
16:36:31 [MSM]
ack pdowney
16:36:32 [ht]
HST acks MSM's observation
16:37:22 [MSM]
pdowney: it's a really important problem; schema is by no means the only WG which will face it.
16:37:38 [MSM]
description of multiple versions and how to relate to each other
16:40:37 [MSM]
ack dave
16:40:37 [Zakim]
DaveO, you wanted to respond to the upcoming MSM point about transforming to add wildcards
16:44:15 [pdowney]
pdowney has left #tagmem
16:44:19 [Zakim]
16:44:39 [Zakim]
16:44:40 [Zakim]
TAG_(tp2004)7:00AM has ended
16:44:41 [Zakim]
Attendees were TimBL, MJ, SW, NW, DC, PC, RF, Liam, Quin, Daniel, Veillard, Paul, Grosso, TPEsterel
16:47:54 [timbl]
timbl has left #tagmem
16:51:36 [Ian_]
Ian_ has joined #tagmem
16:52:02 [Ian_]
RRSAgent, stop