07:41:54 RRSAgent has joined #tagmem 07:42:41 Norm has changed the topic to: TAG f2f, agenda: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/10/05-07-tag 07:42:42 Meeting: TAF f2f Day 2 AM 07:42:47 Zakim has joined #tagmem 07:42:54 noah has joined #tagmem 07:43:03 timbl__ has joined #tagmem 07:43:17 fjhsdkjfhsjkdhfkjq 07:43:18 Present: Tim, Dan, Norm,Paul, Chris, Noah, Roy, Stuart 07:43:24 Chair: Stuart 07:43:35 Scribe: Chris 07:43:39 paulc has joined #tagmem 07:43:52 Stuart: Scribe for this afternoon please? 07:43:57 TBL: Me 07:44:47 Roy has joined #tagmem 07:44:51 http://www.w3.org/2004/09/27-tag-summary.html is bad 07:45:46 Minutes of telcon 27 Sept http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2004Sep/att-0170/minutes.html 07:46:04 Stuart has joined #tagmem 07:46:29 DanC_ has joined #tagmem 07:47:34 minor joshing re URI opacity and location of those monutes 07:47:43 27 minutes, ammended to show regrets from RF, is fine to me. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2004Sep/att-0170/minutes.html 07:47:45 s/monutes/minutes 07:47:55 Minutes accepted 07:48:16 Stuart: Next meeting 18 Oct 07:48:17 TimBL abstains 07:48:48 Paul: 22 Nov, week before f2f, meeting? Also US thanksgiving 07:49:00 Stuart: I have a conflict 07:49:14 Noah: So do I 07:49:21 Paul: Potentially so do I 07:49:39 I will have to give regrets for 15th and 22nd Nov 07:53:12 Stuart: So, we need a chair for the 15th and 22nd 07:54:02 Chris: So are we having a telcon on 6 Dec? 07:54:15 Norm: Happy to chair those two 07:55:02 Topic: f2f minutes 07:55:14 . http://www.w3.org/2004/07/19-tagmem-irc 07:56:56 ah... aug ftf http://www.w3.org/2004/08/09-tagmem-irc http://www.w3.org/2004/08/10-tagmem-irc http://www.w3.org/2004/08/11-tagmem-irc 07:57:15 Minutes from yesterday 07:57:17 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2004Oct/att-0006/tagtest.html 07:58:04 Action: Chris collect IRC logs from last f2f and turn into minutes 07:58:15 Topic: people changes 07:58:16 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2004Oct/att-0006/tagtest.html 07:58:30 # pointers for assembling meeting minutes Dan Connolly (Wednesday, 11 August) http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2004Aug/0026.html 07:58:42 Stuart: TAG welcomes Noah again 07:59:13 Stuart: Mail from Ian, we no longer have Ian available 07:59:37 Tim: We should use WBS more eg for meeting surveys 08:01:00 Tim: Issues and actions tracking - how to do; better to have a system like WBS that all groups can use 08:01:23 Norm: OK but we need a body to do that meanwhile 08:01:34 (issue tracking is all-the-worlds-problems-complete, in my experience) 08:07:33 Paul: Ian set a high bar with our home page and issues list 08:08:15 Paul: this issues list was immensely valuable 08:09:38 CL: the "Topic:" convention results in automated minutes tables-of-contents 08:09:50 Chris: small amount of effort to use topic separators in IRC pays off witjh minuteswhose sections can be linked to 08:10:26 I agree that the richness of linking in the minutes, and precision of linking for example into the minutes, has been very useful. 08:10:37 Paul: We may need a staff contact. Norm has dona a valiant job with editing, but the staff contact areas need to be done 08:10:38 (I'm all for a small investment in meeting records and automating various ways of consuming them. cf http://esw.w3.org/topic/MeetingRecords) 08:12:02 DanC: The home page used to always point to the next meeting, now I have reduced those expectations. 08:12:09 Noah: smal lamount of effort here really pays off 08:12:36 Roy: what tools to systeam use? 08:13:08 Chris: Exit is one system, not maintained 08:13:20 Dan: generally PHP and XSLT are okay 08:13:26 The EXIT system ran on desktop 08:13:38 Norm: Exit was difficult to deal with, web based forms tend to suck 08:15:03 (a little bit of automation around the email archive: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004lc/lc-status-report.html ) 08:15:33 Roy: tools tend to split the load because everyone contributes 08:17:14 Paul: by what date should the Team report back on how we are going to proceed, any other resources available 08:18:05 Action: Tim to investingate possible staff contact for TAG 08:19:46 See http://www.w3.org/2004/10/06-tagmem-irc#T08-18-05 08:20:15 Action: Tim to investingate possible staff contact for TAG, due date 20 October 2004 08:21:32 ACTION: Tim to investingate possible staff contact for TAG, due date 20 October 2004 08:23:30 (actually, the good news is we _don't_ have hundreds of webarch LC2 comments ;-) 08:25:35 Topic: Charter update 08:26:11 Stuart: for Patent Policy purposes, TAG members are treated as Invited Experts 08:33:41 (discussion on patent disclosure and licensing requirements) 08:36:35 Paul: we need to see the charter well before the elections come around; it likely wil laffect whether people choose to run 08:37:34 Paul: The director has at least one appointment to make, and if an appointee was from a W3C member they would need to know even earlier 08:38:04 ACTION: Stuart get a timescale from ian about charter revision and availability 08:38:25 Paul: Glad the Team has been responsive to TAG discussions and input here 08:38:32 Stuart: Yes +1 08:39:16 Topic: future meeting plans 08:39:22 rrsagent, pointer? 08:39:22 See http://www.w3.org/2004/10/06-tagmem-irc#T08-39-22 08:40:36 Dan makes play for scenic Kansas City, "The City of Fountains" 08:41:21 (were dates in Feb/Mar given by Stuart?) 08:41:22 TimBL:not available right after AC meeting 08:42:08 Norm: ifff I run and get elected then OK to host in Western Mass.. 08:43:31 Stuart: week before AC? June 6-7 08:43:42 Paul: works for me 08:44:07 (are we skipping planning a Feb/Mar meeting?) 08:46:14 Noah: For TP Feb 28 or Mar 1, the proposal was a half day TAG meeting and the rest of the time meetings with other groups 08:46:30 TP calendar is not out yet, but our preference is earlier in the week 08:48:01 Dan: Mon/Tues is sufficiently constrained for now 08:48:19 PROPOSED: to meet 28Feb and 1Mar 2005 in Cannes, France 08:48:30 Tim: so this is mainly liaisons...... 08:49:00 Paul: If we have a Proposed Rec we will be collecting input on WebArch Volume Two 08:49:38 Stuart: From last TP, TAG participation was welcomed 08:50:21 PROPOSED: to meet 1/2 day on 28Feb 2005 in Cannes, France, and for TAG members to participate on a best-effort basis in liaison meetings thruought the week 08:50:41 Paul: assume new TAG members would be introduced by telcon 08:51:30 PROPOSED: to meet 1/2 day on 28Feb 2005 in Boston, MA, USA, and for TAG members to participate on a best-effort basis in liaison meetings thruought the week 08:51:54 +1 to that (Boston) proposal 08:51:57 assorted +1s 08:52:18 Resolved: to meet 1/2 day on 28Feb 2005 in Boston, MA, USA, and for TAG members to participate on a best-effort basis in liaison meetings thruought the week 08:52:46 timbl: I have a possible conflict with the 2nd half of that week 08:54:18 SKW: 1, 2, 3 June.... [where?] 08:54:34 timbl no avail 8, 9, 10 June 08:54:36 8-10 June was not availab;e 08:55:17 Paul: avoid the new member briefing 08:55:26 the AC meeting is in Cannes, France in June 08:55:32 looking at co-locating there 08:56:12 Roy: half the group is unknown, so why discuss this now? 08:57:15 which days are you offering to host, Chris? 08:57:27 iff still on TAG I would be ok with hosting to be close to TP in Cannes 08:57:40 close to TP? you mean close to AC, no? 08:57:45 Uh yes 08:57:50 which days? 08:57:59 whenever people are available 08:58:04 not 8-10 08:58:14 see my earlier comment: I like to start with a specific offer from the host. 08:58:21 would you please offer specific days? 08:59:08 I propose Weds 1 to Fri 3 June 09:00:20 Noah modulo some flexibility as to Tims availability, sounds ok 09:00:33 Dan: cannt commit to onsite but can attend remotely 09:01:26 Tim: propose 8-10 and I will join remotely 09:02:03 Noah: if it turns out that not enough are at AC, why colocate? 09:02:24 Norm: we have to report to AC anyway 09:02:49 2 prefer after, one prefer before AC 09:03:21 3 prefer after *8-10), one prefer before AC 09:04:09 Resolved: 8-10 June, South of France near Cannes host ERCIM 09:04:29 I can only confirm for remote attendance 09:04:42 Stuart calls for a Kansas City proposal 09:04:51 in September 09:05:05 Noah prefers not week of 5th 09:05:19 Dan 13-15 Sept Kansas City 09:05:23 Paul:conflict 09:05:38 Noah: prefer not then, no actual conflict 09:05:46 Dan: propose 20-22 September 09:06:00 Dan: propose 20-22 September Kansas City 09:06:17 Dan: has done preliminary investigation of location 09:08:18 Dan: Airport is MCI, Kansas City International 09:08:38 Resolved: 20-22 September, Kansas City, hosted by Dan 09:09:38 Topic: AC report for TAG 09:09:50 Paul: volunteer to do next monthly report 09:10:07 Paul: AC report is cumulative of the previous three reports 09:10:32 Paul: get this to Steve Bratt by Oct 22 09:11:19 Dan: Last time there was little contribution from AC - not a hot topic apparently 09:12:34 Tim: Status report in the sense of are we doing OK, rather than the technical issues 09:13:55 Paul: in general agree; decline offer to do a panel at AC 09:14:09 For the record, quick search of American airlines suggests that return options from Kansas City to Boston are (Lv: 3:04P Ar: 8:42P) or (Lv: 5:13P Ar: 10:30P)...those are for March dates, Sept. 2005 is not posted yet. 09:14:45 tx, noah; so ending the meeting at noon on Thursday would let BOS-based folks get back for bed-time 09:16:13 ACTION: Paul to create new monthly summary 09:16:20 Easily. Depending how much lead time one needs at MCI, I could see going into early afternoon. Tim and Norm's mileage may vary. 09:16:27 ACTION: Paul create draft summary for AC 09:16:45 09:41:53 topic: Agenda review redux 09:42:03 Stuart: How much time to allocate to this 09:42:12 Dan: I offer to chair to next break 09:42:32 Chair: Dan 09:43:18 Dan: So we want a proposed Rec document that answers the remaining open issues 09:44:25 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/10/05-07-tag 09:45:20 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004lc/lc-status-report.html 09:45:21 current text: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/webarch-20040816/#information-resource 09:46:47 Dan constructs straww poll with three options 09:47:03 1) is current text, does not satisfy Stickler 09:47:12 2) is text on Web Resource 09:47:17 3) is Sandros text 09:47:50 Noah asks if this closes HTTPRange-14 09:47:57 Dan says probably not 09:48:45 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webarch-comments/2004JulSep/0086.html 09:48:58 "The term Web Resource is applicable to resources for which web 09:48:58 acesssible representations are available and/or which may be interacted 09:48:58 with through an exchange of representations." 09:50:28 Sandros text 09:50:28 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webarch-comments/2004JulSep/0057.html 09:50:44 Dan: fourth option: there are two sides, both have problems 09:51:13 http://esw.w3.org/topic/HashSlashDuality 09:51:22 These would replace current section 3.1 09:51:32 Summary of (2) is in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webarch-comments/2004JulSep/0063.html 09:52:32 Paul prefers option 4 09:52:41 Chris prefers 2 and can live with 4 09:53:03 TBL prefers 1, Noah sort of 09:53:20 three prefer option 2 09:53:27 RF CL SKW 09:54:03 Three TBL, Noah 09:54:20 Four: NW, PC, CL, SKW, TBL 09:55:10 Objections to 1) CL PC 09:55:31 Roy: its what comes *after* these paras that people object to 09:56:41 Objections to 2: Tim, Noah 09:56:53 Objections to 3: NW, CL, RF 09:56:59 Objections to 4: None 09:57:20 Roy: The objectionable text is this: 09:58:12 the limitation of what is an information resource 09:58:38 Stuart:Tim seems tonot want information resource to involve having a representation 09:58:55 Noah: The more text we delete the more hangs on the exact meaning of 'convey' 09:59:38 Tim: a poem conveys information 09:59:55 Noah: ok so convey is underqualified 10:00:44 TimBL: I agree with Patick Sticklers view 10:00:59 TimBL: I move that we don't accept his comment 10:01:08 s/agree/disagree 10:01:41 Tim: I absolutely reject removing Information resource from this document 10:01:52 Stuart: Its merely a relabelling 10:02:03 Dan: But the inferences drawn from the term differs 10:02:44 Noah: distinction between thing is browsable or not; but Web is wider and has things that are not browsable 10:03:11 A Web Service might not be an information resource 10:04:33 Stuart: OK changing the term sometimes matters 10:05:04 Chris: We can define Web Resource now and that does not prohibit later disuccuon of whether something has information or not 10:05:47 Tim: Information resource predates the Web and is independent of the Web 10:06:37 Tim: Don't tie Info Resource to the Web 10:07:27 Dan: pick only one this time 10:08:45 Norm: 4 10:08:49 Paul: 4 10:08:52 Cris: 4 10:08:55 Tim: 1 10:09:04 s/Cris/Chris 10:09:24 Stuart: 4 10:09:28 Noah: 1 10:09:55 Roy: none of them 10:10:23 Roy: prefer to strike the term Information Resource entirely 10:10:56 Roy: don't distinguish between "Information Resource' and 'Resource' 10:11:45 Option 5 added: do as roy says, remove 3.1, change all info resource to resource 10:12:07 Roy: Patrick disliked that we added Info Resource but didnt really talk about it 10:13:04 Stuart: Looking at Pats comments, he says 'does anything apply to non Information resources' 10:13:43 Stuart: So Pat Hayes argues that there is no distinction between resource and info resource 10:14:37 "How could a non represented resource do anything on the web"? 10:15:58 Thos are nmot the same comment BTW 10:16:31 Stuart: throughout Pat Hayes comments he says things to the effect of "glad we talk about a weather report, not the weather, nbut can the weather itself be a resource?" 10:18:40 Chris: A resource thsat offers no representation but can be interacted with (representations sent to it) is clearly on the web according to option 2 but has no representations itself 10:19:13 Norm: 200 Ok response does not define an info resource 10:20:09 Norm: Can't tell an info resource from not an info resource 10:20:38 Tim: Important thing is to be able to work by reference instead of exchanging representations 10:20:57 soo i can talk about a table by URI instead of physically taking the table to you 10:21:59 Tim: its not that when i dereference I get something about the table, its that I always get a picture of the table 10:22:35 Norm: You added some additional context, like a message in which a URI was embedded 10:23:34 How is a message "i like this table " and "I like the bible" different; if table is a noninfo resource and bible is an inforesource 10:23:45 Norm: How is a message "i like this table " and "I like the bible" different; if table is a noninfo resource and bible is an inforesource 10:24:23 Noah: and why would the weight of the table be odd but the weight of the bible not odd 10:24:43 Norm: so far, no differences between inforesource or not 10:26:44 Chris hears no differences yet between the two classes 10:27:30 Stuart: I note Tim shifted things to a picture of the table, rather than an abstract table 10:27:58 Stuart: similarly the abstract bible and particular translations or editions were not clearly distinguished 10:28:15 Stuart: Tim, is the particular bible in my house an info resource 10:28:18 Tim: No 10:28:43 Noah: Claud Shannon (?sp) invented information theory 10:29:07 s/Claud/Claude 10:29:23 http://www.comp.nus.edu.sg/~yuenck/ccst01/notes17 10:29:42 Claud Shannon's mathematical theory of information was a major breakthrough 10:29:42 in communication engineering: it allows system designers to estimate the 10:29:42 capacity of communication channels and the requirements of information sources, 10:29:42 and also has some application in data storage (since storing away information 10:29:42 and getting it back is rather similar to sending and receiving information) 10:29:43 and possibly psychology. Relation with other subjects has also been suggested 10:29:45 though so far not much imortant impact has occurred. 10:29:56 Tim: I am using info resource the same way as claude shannon 10:31:01 Roy: people use commonly understood terms and human ambiguity resolving mechanisms 10:31:25 if someone likes the design of the table, people work out the differences 10:32:59 Chris: ambiguities would be resolved by further interactions and progressive refinement of those ambiguities that were relevant 10:33:13 Roy: same in Semantic Web, further assertions clarify 10:36:47 Roy: We have to distinguish between tables and pictures of tables 10:36:56 Norm: i never said a picture of a table 10:38:11 Dan: One difference occured to me, if you can get hold of the resource itself for commercial purposes 10:38:38 can the resource be duplicated, or consumed, bu looking at it 10:39:26 so therefore a movie, donloaded anfd not paid for is an info resource while the table is not 10:39:43 because looking at the table did not consume it 10:40:33 Roy: all the responses to Sandros text tora apart the second and third paras, such as is the number one an info resource or not 10:41:22 Roy: info resource is self contradictiory with URI opacity 10:41:27 Tim: i disagree 10:41:51 Norm: if I give you a URI, is it an info resource or not 10:41:58 Tim: Depends, show me the URI 10:42:06 Dan: You just made Roys point 10:42:29 Tim: but this is licensed by the HTTP spec 10:42:34 Roy: No it isn't 10:44:37 Zakim has left #tagmem 10:46:18 Dan: (another round of which is preferred, and who objects to each one) 10:46:38 Dan: W3C process now onliges me to pursue 4 as it has no articulated onjections 10:47:38 Noah: We have said that some combination of existing texts might be preferable 10:47:52 Tim: I prefer one side of thw hash/slash debate 10:48:19 Paul: And others have the opposite view, hence the preference for option 4 10:49:49 Norm: if asked to will incorporate that into the WebArch, tonight 10:52:46 Chris: Prefer to have the testable option 2 but not make it exclusive. if its interactable with then its a wenb resource, if its not interactable then *you don't know* 10:52:53 Tim: We already have that 10:53:09 Noah: So you want web resource not Infor rsource throughout 10:53:12 Chris: Yes 10:53:23 Paul: I could agree with Chris's definition 10:54:09 Norm: distinction with being consumed or not might be persuasive 10:54:36 Stuart: replace info resource with foobar could be okay depends on which sentences are definitive and which are informative 10:55:48 Chris (point about Heisenberg uncertainty principle, spin, observing, and thus an electron is an info resource - lets not go there) 10:56:43 Noah: what makes something an info resource is its fundamental essence is to convey information 10:57:09 Noah: convey and carry involves motion or interaction 10:57:28 Noah: table is not fundamentally information 10:58:37 Close, but would prefer not to use the word "convey", which I find a bit (pun intended) problematic 10:58:41 Noah(info resource = intellectual property .. no? ok nevermind) 10:59:02 s/Noah(info/Norm: (info 10:59:28 I'm happy to suggest that the editor chew on the log of this discussion and propose something specific. 10:59:40 (information theory and web architecture has been on my SomedayPile forever.) 11:01:28 Language, Truth and Redundancy 11:01:35 http://members.cox.net/xocxoc/philosophy/redundancy.htm 11:02:01 "Still, even if we return philosophy back to the land of ideas where it belongs, we must still have a means of communicating so that ideas can be transmitted and understood. The answer is redundancy. It is the means by which any form of communication can reduce any inherent noise." 11:02:29 "This redundancy idea comes from mathematician Claud Shannon. His "Information Theory" states that all forms of communication is subject to noise. This noise problem ultimately reduces the amount of information that the medium can carry successfully. Redundancy in the message can dramatically increase its chances of successful transmission. 11:02:29 Philosophers should follow this example. Since language is just a form of communication, we should try repeating what we are saying in different ways. Use illustrations, parables, analogies, explain your entire belief system if you have to, to avoid being misunderstood. Language is an art form, not a wall to hang the picture on. Use it." 11:02:39 Noah suggests out of order: what makes Tim's definition of information resource interesting is that those are the resources for which ALL the interesting characteristics can in principle be conveyed through a computer communication protocol. For a physical resource such as a table it's only SOME. 11:03:47 Chair: Tim 11:07:33 Chris: redundancy helps succesful conveyance of information accurately. Hence the need for surrounding context when using a URI to transfer information 11:11:27 Lunch!! 11:15:14 I expect the semantic web to do the same -- the technology must do what the humans do -- changing the humans is not an option. 12:03:18 noah has joined #tagmem 12:04:56 ____________________________________________________ 12:05:04 scribe: timbl__ 12:05:14 CONVENES 12:05:25 Topic: QA WG lc comments 12:06:22 [Chris missing at the moment] 12:07:35 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webarch-comments/2004JulSep/0082.html 12:07:51 dbooth's script http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribe.perl 12:09:28 [http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=representation -- Could we split tim:representation and roy:representation into two words] 12:10:17 SW: We had an inconclusive discsion with teh QA working gorup. 12:10:31 q+ to note a QA WG response to current editor's draft seems to be pending 12:10:37 NW: We pushed something off until a time when we were discussing the webach coments. 12:11:56 PC: We say that you should provide an extensability mechanism. The QA comments suggest that extensiion is always hrmful and therefore the advanatges and disadvantages are considered before extensability is introduced in a design. 12:12:45 NW: I understand and maybe even agree with QAWG. But we don't always enumerate *all* the things one has tto think about. And I don't want to delete this. 12:12:53 PC: We should look at the findding. 12:13:36 ... I think we will find that extensability as a ay of doing versioning. 12:13:42 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/versioning-20031003 12:13:50 ... The actual issue is: what are the best practices for versioning in XML? 12:13:53 q+ to note http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webarch-comments/2004OctDec/0002.html 12:15:19 PC: The finding deos not admit to the fact that ou might *not* want extenmsibility. 12:15:54 PC: The solution for some systems may be no extensibility at all. 12:15:59 q+ to briefly reprise what I said yesterday: "even seemingly extensible systems are usually not extensible in even a majority of the dimensions you might consider interesting." 12:16:11 q? 12:16:20 NW: I added text at the start of 4.2 to admit that possibility. 12:16:39 editors' draft http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/webarch/ 12:16:42 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/webarch-20040816/ 12:16:57 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/webarch-20040928/Overview.html#information-resource 12:17:05 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/webarch-20040928/Overview.html 12:17:15 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/webarch/ 12:17:26 Note: The 20040816 link above was WRONG. 12:17:44 editor's draft snapshot 28 Sep http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/webarch-20040928/Overview.html 12:17:47 20040928 link is what we are discussing. 12:18:12 esp 4.2 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/webarch-20040928/Overview.html#ext-version 12:18:40 q? 12:19:10 Zakim has joined #tagmem 12:19:14 dom's reply http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webarch-comments/2004OctDec/0002.html 12:19:19 q+ Noah 12:19:33 q+ to briefly reprise what I said yesterday: "even seemingly extensible systems are usually not extensible in even a majority of the dimensions you might consider interesting." 12:19:40 "I'll pass it to the QA WG; I expect that you should hear a reply from us 12:19:40 by Monday EOB." -- Dom, 5Oct 12:20:05 DC: FTI, Dom sent this comment before the QAWG did, and Chris followed up with Dom to ask about the new 0928 text, and Dom replied (oct/5) that he would ask the QAWG and we would have their answer by next Monday 10/11. 12:20:20 DC: I quite lik ethe current text 12:22:16 ... aside from the "should have extensiblity" box 12:22:23 ... though I can live with it 12:23:04 ack Noah 12:23:06 q- 12:23:27 SW: How about only making this apply to "extensible languages" ? (minor outcry) 12:23:59 NW: In XML, some of the gain in XML over SGML, some of the gainwas in locking down over-extensability in SGML. 12:24:08 s/NW/NM/ 12:24:23 NM: There is a cost-benefit tradeoff. 12:24:38 No... suggest "An extensible specification SHOULD provide mechanisms that allow *any party* to create extensions" 12:24:47 q+ 12:24:52 q? 12:24:57 a couple minutes ago I asked noah if he had alternative text and he said he'd prefer no box 12:25:03 q+ Norm 12:25:28 ack timbl 12:26:02 q+ to correct timbl's skewed version of the RDF Core WG's deliberations on extensiblity 12:27:02 ack PaulC 12:27:27 q? 12:27:42 TimBL: There *is* a tradeoff but the common mistake is for a working group to not allow for an extension, like the RDF working group disallowing extensions for new parseTypes. 12:28:00 PC: Looking at the original QA comments: 12:28:24 (reads fro http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webarch-comments/2004JulSep/0082.html the asterisked comments in particular) 12:28:37 q? 12:28:46 q+ to "Other values of parseType are reserved for future specification by RDF. With RDF 1.0 other values must be treated as identical to 'Literal'." 12:29:41 PC: Which comments, Dan, overlap with Dom's comments? 12:29:55 DC: The second one [starting * the QA WG would like to see the current wording of the first good 12:29:58 practice on extensibility (section 4.2.3) changed; i"] 12:30:22 ack danc 12:30:22 DanC_, you wanted to correct timbl's skewed version of the RDF Core WG's deliberations on extensiblity and to "Other values of parseType are reserved for future specification by 12:30:25 ... RDF. With RDF 1.0 other values must be treated as identical to 'Literal'." 12:30:33 "Other values of parseType are reserved for future specification by RDF. With RDF 1.0 other values must be treated as identical to 'Literal'." 12:30:41 q+ 12:31:58 DC: Tim, you misrepresented what the RDF WG did. 12:32:05 scribe: noah 12:32:17 Tim: How then woudl you like what I saif to be rephrased to make it correct: 12:32:22 Norm says that QA had problem with our definition of extensibility 12:32:28 DC: It was just incorrect. 12:32:41 [scrtibe was not able to determine the sense of DC's comment] 12:32:59 scribe: NM 12:33:05 Norm reports he offered new wording. This is the new wording QA says that they'll comment on by Monday. 12:33:40 Specifically, the updated text is at: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/webarch/#language-extensibility 12:34:07 The next point in their message is with respect to 4.2.3 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/webarch/#language-extensibility 12:34:32 Norm reports he has changed the good practice note to read: "Extensibility mechanisms MUST NOT interfere with conformance to the original specification." Does this help? 12:34:54 RF: NO! By definition, the term 'extensibility mechanism' implies conformance to original spec. 12:35:16 RF: I.e. it's part of the original spec. 12:37:13 Note, QA had commented on the draft at "http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/webarch-20040816/#extensibility" which said "A specification SHOULD provide mechanisms that allow any party to create extensions that do not interfere with conformance to the original specification. 12:37:13 " 12:37:50 NW: XSLT allows you to create arbitrary extensions using xslt:extension, and lays out conformance rules for use of that. 12:38:09 RF: Right, but it's impossible to design a conformance mechanism that doesn't have that characteristic. 12:38:20 NW: Right, my statement is true but vacuous. 12:38:31 CL: But makes everyone feel like. 12:39:24 NM: you're, uh, serious about putting a big box around a vacuous statement. 12:39:33 Various. Um...yeah? 12:40:09 s /around a vacuous statement/around a vacuous statement?/ 12:40:46