W3C

Technical Architecture Group (TAG) Weekly Teleconference

22 Feb 2005

Agenda

See also: IRC log

Attendees

Present
Vincent Quint (VQ), Henry Thompson (HT), Norm Walsh (NDW), Roy Fielding (RF), Dan Connolly (DC), Chris Lilley (CL), Ed Rice (ER) , Dave Orchard (DO), PaulC (PC)
Regrets
TimBL, Noah
Chair
Vincent
Scribe
DanC

Contents


Roll call, review records and agenda

propose Tuesday 8 March 2005 for next meeting

regrets DaveO for 8 Mar

VQ has a conflict with 8 Mar

VQ is available to prepare an agenda, but not to run the meeting

<ht> regrets HST for 8 March

NDW offers to run the 8 Mar telcon

(are we resolved? doesn't seem critical... can decide 28Feb, I suppose)

DC: 2nd proposal to OK 7 Feb minutes

VQ: I've reviewed actions from the telcons... many seem to be done; I'll get back to the others 28Feb
... unless there are comments now

noah notes being done with his action on extensibility

Change location of June f2f? (Edinburgh?)

VQ: recall we agreed to meet near Nice just after the W3C AC meeting, but it's no longer convenient for Chris...
... and HT has offered to host...
... some preferences each way...

<Roy> Edinburgh +1

<noah> France +1

<noah> (if someone will host, of course)

Chris: I have not told Coralie (prospective INRIA local organizer) to cancel our meeting in June

<noah> Edinburgh OK if not, just trying to save travel wear n tear

VQ: to expects to attend the AC meeting?

DC: I do

DO: I do

<noah> NM: I do

HT: I do

NDW: I prefer Edingburgh, though that reduces the chance I'll attend the AC meeting

<Ed> I will not be at the AC meeting

VQ: I expect TimBL to attend the AC meeting

Roy: I think timbl had a conflict with the June 8 Date

"TimBL was also unable to comfirm in-person attendance." re 8-10 June. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/10/05-07-tag.html#meeting-plans

HT: I think I can hold my hosting reservations for a month without much cost in case I cancel

VQ: so let's take another week to consider it

<scribe> ACTION: VQ to contact Coralie re 8-10 June meeting arrangements at INRIA. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/02/22-tagmem-minutes#action01]

CL: you might ask her about Cannes vs Sophia while you're at it

W3C Technical Plenary TAG F2F Monday am 28th February 2005

DC: hmm... .5hr of admin seems like a lot for a 2hr meeting...

VQ: some is more than admin... issues list maintenance

<Chris> start discussing issue list stuff in email to get up to speed?

VQ: I expect to update the agenda tomorrow with comments received; I'm willing to take comments up to the meeting day

W3C Technical Plenary TAG Liaisons

VQ: re XML Core joint meeting...

VQ: PaulG proposes 10:30 to noon Thu for XML Core/TAG join telcon

<scribe> ACTION: NDW: let XML Core WG know yes, we agree to meet Thu 3 Mar 10:30am in Boston [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/02/22-tagmem-minutes#action02]

VQ: note "14:45-15:45 Joint with CDF-WG"
... on Monday

HT: no liaison meetings Tuesday?

VQ: right

VQ reviews liaison schedule Revision 1.21 2005/02/22 17:26:09 vquint

New Issue?: Adding terms to a namespace, xml:id/C14N discussions

(hmm... seems to fall under versioning41, but so does all of life, the universe, and everything, so maybe a specific issue is good)

DC: issue name ideas?

NDW: nameSpaceTerms-NN, maybe?

<Roy> nameAdditions-NN ?

<Chris-again> reservedNoReally?

NDW: some urgency motivates a separate issue from versioning41: having a TAG decision before end of xml:id CR period would be nice

<Zakim> DanC, you wanted to ask about timing expectations

<Roy> digestable +1

DO: so the results of this new issue could be folded into work on versioning41?

NDW: sure, but this seems independent of schema languages etc. [?]

HT: people often read more into the namespace REC than is there; I'd like to take this opportunity to clarify

DO: one thing that's in the [draft] finding now is a discussion of relationship between terms, [missed?], which seems relevant

RF: [good point about issues : findings. can't summarize real-time]. I suggest "nameAddition" because the identity questions don't seem to be the main thing

NDW: ...[missed?]... crux of it is xml: namespace [?]

<Chris-again> ... and is it bounded or not

CL: yes, that is the main thing... one spec made an assuption about the xml: namespace, and unless "will not change" is explicitly stated, that's not safe

<Zakim> ht, you wanted to disagree with Norm

[scribe gives up trying to keep up]

<Roy> We can have one finding answer multiple issues, but tracking multiple issues under a single issue name simply because we expect them to be answered in one finding would be a mistake, IMO.

HT: to speak of "adding names to a namespace" doesn't make sense. the names are all there.

NDW: while I might agree, that's not universally agreed

<noah> +1, I agree with Henry. At the very least, we shouldn't preclude in advance that possible formulation

<Chris-again> HT: namespace is a set, unbounded, all names already exist in it

<dorchard> The first part of the finding has an attempt at formal description of the architecture of languages http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2004Nov/att-0071/versioning-part1.html

<noah> If you're looking for a name for an issue (I can't quite tell), how about "immutableNamespaces"?

<ht> namespaceState?

+1 namespaceState

<Ed> +1 namespaceState

VQ: seems we're agreed (agreeing?) to add an issue, in addition to, while perhaps related to, issue 41

<Chris-again> +1 namespaceState

<Roy> +1 namespaceState

<dorchard> +1 namespaceState

<Norm> +1 namespaceState

RESOLUTION: to accept issue namespaceState.

PC: we need to announce the issue to tag-announce

VQ: ndw's request serves as an issue summary?

ER: OK

<Roy> +1

<scribe> ACTION: NDW to announce TAG's acknolwedgement of issue nameSpaceState-NN [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/02/22-tagmem-minutes#action03]

<Zakim> DanC, you wanted to note traditions and to

NDW, HT, DO volunteer to "work on it"

<scribe> ACTION: NDW to work with HT, DO on namespaceState [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/02/22-tagmem-minutes#action04]

<Zakim> Chris-again, you wanted to add that a cc should be sent to affected WGs

<ht> HST has in mind to try to summarise, in a way the owners would acknowledge as fair, the various positions so far articulated at the base of the ongoing discussion

tx for the sketch, ht. pls do

(not in this meeting, I assume)

<ht> Correct DanC

PC: add this to the 3 Mar TAG/XML Core agenda?

NDW: yes, quite

PC: pending XML Core work depends on this?

NDW: xml:id CR exit

PC: is there room for this on the TAG/XML Core agenda?

NDW/VQ: think so, yes

<Roy> my input is already in www-tag

New Issue?: Relationship of URI schemes to protocols

DC suggests straw poll; if we can say "yes" today, very well. if not, let's wait 'till noah can make his case

RF: having trouble differentiating this from work going on in uri mailing list

DC: why do you want/need to differentiate?

RF: good question...
... not sold by Noah's request as is.

DC: let's wait 'till Noah can make his case.

VQ: very well.

<noah> Roy, either in these minutes or by email, maybe you could send URIs to pertinent thread in URI list? Thanks.

<Roy> Noah, there is ongoing discussion on uri@w3.org regarding rfc2717-2718 replacement that contains instructions on what to include in scheme spec.

<Roy> Noah, http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/uri/2005Feb/0042.html

issue review: RDFinXHTML-35

VQ: continuing from 7 Feb
... continuing from 7 Feb, when we got to xmlFunctions-34 ...
... I'm interested in names relevant to each issue.

DC: There are variuos questions about how to embed RDF in HTML/XHTML. Practice includes putting RDF in comments inside HTML.

<Norm> Appalling but true

DC: I'd like reviewer for "Storing Data..."; I think there's perhaps more work to cover, but that's my work to date toward a finding on this issue.

HT: I'm happy to review

NDW: [cut off?]

<scribe> ACTION: HT to review Storing Data in Documents: The Design History and Rationale for GRDDL [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/02/22-tagmem-minutes#action05]

<scribe> ACTION: NDW to review Storing Data in Documents: The Design History and Rationale for GRDDL [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/02/22-tagmem-minutes#action06]

issue review. siteData-36

DC: [can't type and summarize]
... something like: next time a /robots.txt situation comes around, I'd like to have something in place that's better than a hard-coded name

CL: meanwhile, /robots.txt is quite useful.

VQ: any takers?

NDW: some interest, but not much bandwidth

DC: haven't have a "lightbulb" idea. prefer to leave it in the "someday" pile

issue review. abstractComponentRefs-37

DO: this came from a request from the web services description WG...
... (1) when we come up with a component designator, is it designating an abstract component, or a piece of syntax in the WSDL doc?
... (2) [missed?]
... and the TAG said: (1) designates abstract component (2) we discussed lots of options and said "yeah, the one in your WD is OK"

( trying to confirm that we've approved this finding... http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/abstractComponentRefs-20031030 )

HST: XML Schema work on component designators is relevant...

HT notes...

<ht> MSM reports Schema WG was not happy

<ht> HST hears DO saying that it doesn't actually answer the question, yet

<Zakim> ht, you wanted to volunteer to take this finding on, in a month or two

VQ: ok, so we are where we are.

issue review: putMediaType-38

DC: offshoot of issue 7

CL: there was some WEBDAV criticism in the discussion?

DC: yes, I think so

RF: perhaps it should be reassigned to me

<Roy> ACTION: Roy to prepare putMediaType-38 for further discussion [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/02/22-tagmem-minutes#action07]

issue review rdfURIMeaning-39

DanC: gee... can't remember the gist of this. let's wait 'till TimBL is around

issue review URIGoodPractice-40

<Roy> I am planning to work on URIGoodPractice-40 next week during TP when I can talk to DaveO

RF: related to abstractComponentRefs-37 ...

DO: in discussion of XPointer () stuff, I recall some criticism from RF, which spawned this issue

VQ: ok, that's it for today

ADJOURN.

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: HT to review " Storing Data in Documents ..." [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/02/22-tagmem-minutes#action05]
[NEW] ACTION: NDW to announce TAG's acknolwedgement of issue nameSpaceState-NN [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/02/22-tagmem-minutes#action03]
[NEW] ACTION: NDW let XML Core WG know yes, we agree to meet Thu 3 Mar 10:30am in Boston [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/02/22-tagmem-minutes#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: NDW to review " Storing Data in Documents ..." [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/02/22-tagmem-minutes#action06]
[NEW] ACTION: NDW to work with HT, DO on namespaceState [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/02/22-tagmem-minutes#action04]
[NEW] ACTION: Roy to prepare putMediaType-38 for further discussion [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/02/22-tagmem-minutes#action07]
[NEW] ACTION: VQ to contact Coralie re 8-10 June meeting arrangements at INRIA. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/02/22-tagmem-minutes#action01]
 
[End of minutes]

DanC for VQ and the TAG
$Revision: 1.14 $ of $Date: 2005/02/22 21:15:26 $
formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.111 (CVS log)