IRC log of tagmem on 2005-03-15

Timestamps are in UTC.

17:55:23 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #tagmem
17:55:23 [RRSAgent]
logging to
17:55:41 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #tagmem
17:56:11 [noah]
zakim, this will be TAG_Weekly
17:56:11 [Zakim]
ok, noah; I see TAG_Weekly()12:30PM scheduled to start 26 minutes ago
17:56:37 [noah]
scribe: Noah Mendelsohn
17:56:40 [noah]
scribenick: noah
17:57:10 [noah]
Meeting: 15 March 2005 Tag Teleconference
17:57:32 [noah]
Chair: Vincent Quint
17:58:19 [Norm]
Be there soon
17:59:08 [Zakim]
TAG_Weekly()12:30PM has now started
17:59:16 [Zakim]
17:59:26 [noah]
zakim, [IBMCambridge] is me
17:59:26 [Zakim]
+noah; got it
18:01:56 [ht]
zakim, please call ht-781
18:01:56 [Zakim]
ok, ht; the call is being made
18:01:57 [Zakim]
18:01:59 [Zakim]
18:03:09 [Zakim]
18:04:25 [Zakim]
18:04:38 [Vincent]
Zakim, who is here?
18:04:38 [Zakim]
On the phone I see noah, [INRIA], Ht, Roy, Norm
18:04:40 [Zakim]
On IRC I see RRSAgent, noah, Vincent, Norm, ht, DanC
18:05:33 [noah]
zakim, [INRIA] is Vincent
18:05:33 [Zakim]
+Vincent; got it
18:05:38 [Zakim]
18:06:18 [Norm]
zakim, mute me
18:06:18 [Zakim]
Norm should now be muted
18:06:23 [Zakim]
+ +6aaaa
18:06:48 [noah]
topic: Attendance
18:06:56 [Norm]
The echo wasn't me :-)
18:06:57 [Norm]
zakim, unmute me
18:06:57 [Norm]
zakim, who's on the phone?
18:06:57 [Zakim]
Norm should no longer be muted
18:06:59 [Zakim]
On the phone I see noah, Vincent, Ht, Roy, Norm (muted), Dave_Orchard, +6aaaa
18:07:21 [noah]
Present: Norm, Noah, Vincent, Dave Orchard, Roy
18:07:33 [noah]
Not present: Dan, Tim
18:07:41 [noah]
Topic: Agenda Review
18:07:54 [noah]
VQ: Agenda sent yesterday
18:08:02 [noah]
VQ: Any requests for changes? No.
18:08:06 [noah]
Topic: Next Telcon
18:08:11 [ht]
s/Roy/Roy, Henry/
18:08:18 [timbl]
timbl has joined #tagmem
18:08:29 [noah]
VQ: Next week 22 March
18:08:33 [Zakim]
18:08:40 [noah]
Regrets for 22 March: Roy
18:08:44 [noah]
Tim joins the call
18:08:57 [noah]
s/Roy/Roy, Tim/
18:09:17 [noah]
Next week's scribe will be Norm.
18:09:27 [noah]
Topics: approvals of minutes
18:10:20 [noah]
RESOLUTION: approve minutes of F2F minutes from with additional note that Paul was present
18:10:52 [noah]
RESOLUTION: approve minutes of 8 March from
18:11:05 [noah]
Topics: Scheduling future F2F meetings
18:11:42 [noah]
VQ: Paul Cotton reports Query WG may meet the week immediately following TAG in Edinburgh.
18:12:23 [noah]
VQ: Paul wants to know whether our date of Sept. 20-22 is firm?
18:12:38 [noah]
HT: I have reserved rooms for Query
18:13:31 [dorchard]
dorchard has joined #tagmem
18:13:36 [noah]
NM: Fine for me, but note that I am depending on XML Schema meeting on Sept. 19, as opposed to later in the week.
18:13:36 [Roy]
Roy has joined #tagmem
18:13:46 [noah]
Ed: Good for me too.
18:14:16 [Zakim]
18:14:20 [noah]
VG: Regarding June F2F, at tech plenary several people requested we move from France in June, which Tim would miss, to Cambridge or Boston sometime before or after AC meeting.
18:14:21 [Zakim]
18:16:03 [noah]
VQ: Vincent can't make suggested date of week of 23rd
18:16:21 [noah]
TB: Following week is bad due to Memorial day and flying to France on Thursday the 2nd.
18:17:00 [Roy]
I need to be in Tanglewood/Norm area on June 16
18:18:14 [dorchard]
I'll be at AC mtg
18:18:27 [noah]
Discussion of who is going to AC. Henry, and Vincent, Dan probably, David Orcahrd and Tim will be at AC
18:18:40 [noah]
Roy: week of 13th is good
18:18:45 [noah]
Several agree.
18:19:58 [noah]
VQ: Proposal for 14-16 of June in Cambridge
18:20:23 [noah]
s/Cambridge/somewhere in Mass/
18:21:09 [noah]
VQ: Amy had offered hosting at MIT in May
18:21:28 [noah]
NM: I can host at IBM, but network access only for the chair.
18:21:40 [noah]
TB: We'll have to check MIT, but it's probably the best option.
18:22:05 [noah]
ACTION: Vincent to check with MIT on hosting TAG F2F 14-16 June
18:23:04 [timbl]
(I note that 15th is Ben's birthday so I will leave the f2f early that day in the afternoon :) )
18:23:33 [noah]
VQ: Reviewing pending action item list at
18:23:53 [noah]
VQ: Ed, what about ACTION: Ed to meet with chris and review/update the [contentPresentation-26.html] document. [recorded in] ?
18:24:10 [noah]
Ed: That one is complete.
18:24:26 [noah]
VQ: Regarding ACTION: norm to pick up Paul Cotton's work on namespaceDocument-8 [recorded in]
18:24:34 [noah]
NW: I have that action, no progress yet.
18:24:40 [noah]
VQ: Will move to first list.
18:25:17 [noah]
VQ: Please report other complete actions by email.
18:25:43 [noah]
Topic: Binary XML
18:26:11 [noah]
VQ: We discussed this somewhat at F2F. Tag members seemed impatient to review work product of binary characterization workgroup.
18:26:20 [DanC]
er... so we're no longer decided to meet "in/near Cannes for the June meeting" as per ?
18:26:32 [noah]
VQ: Characterization WG chair reports their first two docs, which he reports are quite stable.
18:27:48 [noah]
s/docs, which he reports/docs/
18:28:04 [noah]
NW: I am already starting on them.
18:28:21 [noah]
ED: I can do it as long as next week is OK.
18:28:37 [noah]
ACTION: Ed and Norm to review XML Binary Characterization use cases document.
18:29:07 [noah]
NM: what was their other doc, performance characterization?
18:30:58 [noah]
VQ: they are working on a taxonomy of performance issues, but that one isn't stable.
18:31:10 [noah]
VQ: The other one they have is a properties doc.
18:33:11 [noah]
NM: I had hoped that if they were going to propose actual work on a binary standard (which they are about to propose), that it would be backed not with general information about performance, but with concrete measurements showing that text is too slow.
18:33:36 [noah]
TB: I share Noah's concern that there are too many use cases, and not enough focus on truly important ones.
18:33:58 [noah]
TB: If anything is done, it needs to meet truly common needs.
18:34:49 [noah]
DO: See the bea paper to the binary workshop. I was looking for more justification that there truly are common mechanisms that would meet a core set of needs.
18:35:37 [noah]
VQ: More comments before reviewing?
18:36:09 [noah]
VQ: We'll revisit after the first round of reviews are in from Ed and Norm, but we need volunteers to review the 2nd doc. Anyone?
18:36:15 [noah]
18:36:54 [noah]
VQ: OK, we'll start with the use cases. Maybe we'll find reviewers for the other ones later.
18:37:57 [noah]
TB: I might have more time later.
18:38:54 [noah]
HT: I'm tempted to say: "I won't support a charter that doesn't say that a CR exit criteria is to provide X in time or speed"
18:39:04 [noah]
ED: They need some concrete criteria
18:39:15 [noah]
HT: Right, I am being a bit too aggressive.
18:41:36 [noah]
NM: Keep in mind that some of the popular parsers for text-based XML don't come close to the performance that's possible with careful tuning. The justification, if any, has to be against the best of what standard text XML can do.
18:42:13 [noah]
DO: I thought that one of the interesting presentations at the workshop from Sun analyzed not just network size but also what was happening in the processor.
18:42:30 [noah]
DO: A lot of time was spent in the binding frameworks.
18:43:08 [noah]
DO: Even if you came along and doubled the network performance by halving the size, you might get only 1/3 of improvement, which might be possible with a better processor.
18:43:29 [noah]
ED: there may be opportunities involving encryption of the binary.
18:43:51 [noah]
ED: I agree, they have to justify what's being proposed.
18:44:25 [noah]
Topic: URNs for namespace names used in IETF XML formats
18:44:36 [noah]
See Dan's mail at:
18:44:46 [noah]
zakim, who is here?
18:44:46 [Zakim]
On the phone I see noah, Vincent, Ht, Norm, Dave_Orchard, +6aaaa, TimBL, Roy_Fielding
18:44:49 [Zakim]
On IRC I see Roy, dorchard, timbl, Zakim, RRSAgent, noah, Vincent, Norm, ht, DanC
18:45:34 [noah]
TB: I have just forwarded something from the ITU
18:46:02 [noah]
(Scribe notes that he can't yet find the link in the www-tag archives)
18:46:18 [noah]
TB: They are running a repository
18:46:26 [noah]
HT: Sounds parallel to the IETF effort
18:47:13 [noah]
VQ: Dan is not on the phone, but we've seen some emails about using URN's for namespace names.
18:48:02 [noah]
Tim's email link from above:
18:48:31 [noah]
Henry email:
18:49:00 [noah]
They are proposing four separate standard forms for namespaces, DTDs, W3C XML/RDF Schemas and public identifiers.
18:49:10 [noah]
s/They/HT: They/
18:49:29 [noah]
HT: They have ways of doing retrieval, but HTTP is better.
18:49:40 [noah]
TB: We have liaisons with them. We can ask them to stop.
18:50:01 [dorchard]
18:50:02 [noah]
TB: We have a TAG and some findings under our belt in this area already.
18:50:08 [noah]
HT: I think we need an issue.
18:50:16 [noah]
VQ: Yes, and start drafting findings or comments.
18:50:23 [noah]
VQ: Time is important.
18:50:42 [noah]
VQ: We should raise with IETF as soon as possible, which means we need an explanation of our concerns.
18:51:21 [noah]
VQ: With the caveat that I'm not 100% up on the scope of existing issues, I think this is a new one and we should open it.
18:51:34 [dorchard]
18:51:40 [noah]
ED: Agree. We need our story together before we talk to them.
18:51:59 [noah]
HT: Should we suggest that they perhaps should have used liaison mechanisms to warn us in advance.
18:52:31 [noah]
DO: We should open an issue and write a clear finding as to why http schemes are great, and maybe compare with some non-http schemes.
18:52:48 [noah]
DO: Was at a customer last week that wanted to use URNs for namespaces. This is coming up over and over.
18:52:57 [noah]
DO: We should nail this issue for the public.
18:53:13 [noah]
DO: We should also explain why alternate schemes have problems.
18:53:50 [noah]
HT: There is a connection here with, but this is separate.
18:54:02 [noah]
VQ: Question, do you agree this is a new issue we should register?
18:55:39 [Norm]
RFC 3688
18:56:14 [noah]
HT: Not clear whether this is one issue or two. 1) URNs for namespace names, which is where Dan started and separately 2) the RFC 3688 IETF XML Registry which is not about namespacs but is for things like RDF schemas
18:56:21 [noah]
TB: What's the status?
18:56:31 [noah]
NW: Best Current Practice (BCP).
18:56:50 [noah]
TB: Sort of like a note for us. Allowed through, but not endorsed with force of RFC.
18:56:54 [ht]
Written by Mealling, of Verisign
18:57:38 [ht]
Another phrase which occurs a lot is "non-dereferencable names"
18:57:46 [noah]
DO: Maybe there are three issues a) URIs for namespace names b) URNs for location independent names c) XML registries, and perhaps centralized vs. decentralized vocabulary tracking.
18:58:18 [noah]
DO: Is it a positive thing that people >want< a way of centrally registering and controlling vocabularies?
18:58:36 [noah]
DO: So, a potential issue on when you want centralized vs. decentralized management of vocabularies.
18:58:57 [noah]
VQ: How many issues?
18:59:08 [noah]
ED: The all seem tied together to me. Can you solve them separately?
18:59:38 [noah]
HT: Yes, I think you could separately resolve the XML registry issue. Things should have one name not two. Putting your schema in a registry gives it a second name?
18:59:59 [noah]
ED: Isn't that what they're talking about? We should make sure we know what they're trying to do before openning an issue.
19:00:16 [noah]
HT: Intention isn't the point, it's a consequence whether they planned it or not.
19:00:30 [noah]
ED: Would rather open one now and split later if necessary.
19:00:35 [noah]
HT: sure
19:00:58 [noah]
VQ: Dave, are you convinced?
19:01:04 [noah]
DO: fine
19:01:30 [ht]
suggest URNsAndXMLRegistry-50
19:02:32 [ht]
19:04:15 [Roy]
19:04:17 [noah]
RESOLUTION: we will open issue URNsAndRegistries-50 to cover a) URIs for namespace names b) URNs for location independent names c) XML registries, and perhaps centralized vs. decentralized vocabulary tracking
19:05:00 [noah]
VQ: anyone have any free time to work on this one?
19:05:04 [noah]
DO: I vote for Roy
19:05:22 [noah]
RF: Probably not the best approach. Too many opportunities to rehash old arguments.
19:05:42 [noah]
TB: I've written on this in DesignIssues. I will certainly be involved in reviewing.
19:06:47 [noah]
HT: I'm willing to do this, but have taken on some things ahead of this in the queue. Would be happier if David would help.
19:06:50 [noah]
DO: I can help.
19:07:02 [noah]
ACTION: Henry and David to draft initial finding on URNsAndRegistries-50
19:07:39 [DanC]
ah... not the same issue... uriMediaType-9: Why does the Web use mime types and not URIs?
19:08:14 [DanC]
but this draft is relevant to issue 50 too: Internet Draft A Registry of Assignments using Ubiquitous Technologies and Careful Policies by D. Connolly and M. Baker
19:09:06 [noah]
Topic: Update for new members on httpRange-14
19:09:18 [noah]
VQ: I would welcome an update on this issue, as I don't totally understand it.
19:09:32 [noah]
VQ: Does the TAG want to spend time on it now or prefer something different?
19:09:47 [noah]
DO: httpRange-14 sounds good.
19:09:49 [DanC]
19:09:55 [dorchard]
dorchard has joined #tagmem
19:10:12 [noah]
Issue pointer:
19:10:30 [noah]
VQ: History, this was raised by Tim and accepted two years ago. Not sure who is last one to work on it formally.
19:11:43 [noah]
19:12:07 [DanC]
(er... dunno if it's water under the bridge, but our records include ACTION DC: with Norm, develop a finding on httpRange-14 starting with the HashSlashDuality text )
19:12:27 [noah]
TB: This is very big and I have to run. Simply put, are http identifiers used only for things like documents, or can they be more broadly applied to things liked proteins.
19:13:22 [noah]
TB: there is also controversy about use of fragment identifiers, and whether they can identify things that don't seem to be part of the document named by the left hand side of the URI.
19:13:30 [noah]
TB: there has been a huge amount of email on this.
19:13:40 [DanC]
(has TimBL relayed discussion from SemWeb Best Practices/Deployment WG in Boston?)
19:13:41 [Zakim]
19:13:56 [noah]
Tim leaves the call.
19:14:24 [noah]
VQ: How can we proceed.
19:14:32 [Zakim]
19:14:35 [noah]
NW: Not sure, we've tried for a long time.
19:14:53 [Zakim]
19:14:56 [noah]
NW: New information from tech plenary is that there are specs that can't proceed, and organizations who won't invest until this is resolved.
19:15:02 [noah]
VQ: Which groups?
19:15:14 [noah]
NW: Semantic Web Best Practices. Don't have all details.
19:15:21 [noah]
VQ: Maybe some more input from them.
19:16:34 [Norm]
19:16:44 [Norm]
That's interesting, ht
19:17:31 [ht]
q+ ht
19:17:50 [dorchard]
19:19:29 [noah]
NM: Is there a way to summarize in one place the main points of view and the main disagreements that surfaced during the last two years of debate? Should fit on a page or two, no?
19:19:39 [noah]
ED: should was ask the public.
19:19:48 [noah]
NM: no, we'd get another 3000 emails.
19:20:03 [noah]
DC: SW Best Practices would probably be OK if we got out of the way.
19:20:03 [Vincent]
19:20:10 [ht]
ack DanC
19:20:11 [Vincent]
ack DanC
19:20:12 [DanC]
work some of the bias out of
19:20:44 [noah]
DC: I picked it up in Basel, and could proceed, or else we could start with Tim's writeup at and try to make it a bit more broadly acceptable. That might be better.
19:20:48 [Vincent]
ack ht
19:20:58 [DanC]
in Basel, I offered (with norm) to turn into a draft finding
19:22:38 [noah]
HT: I did some email review. I tend to agree with Tim and Dan. http URI's without fragids should indeed be scoped to documents. Not sure we'd go the same way to proceed from there.
19:22:50 [Norm]
I concur, Dan and I were supposed to work on that
19:23:14 [noah]
HT: some sympathy with Ed for starting over, but we also have people who've started.
19:23:18 [ht] starts out very well. . .
19:23:31 [noah]
ED: would like to summary of both sides.
19:24:15 [ht]
The above URI does pretty much what Noah is asking for, in my opinion
19:24:37 [noah]
NM: Finding should start by setting out all sides.
19:25:06 [noah]
HT: has a good start on this.
19:25:42 [noah]
DC: Getting Tim to change words in his own document is a good way to ensure consensus. I therefore like working with
19:26:03 [noah]
HT: This has been useful. Should we wait for Tim to commit a direction?
19:26:13 [noah]
Various sounds of agreement.
19:26:28 [noah]
VQ: OK, makes sense, both because we need Tim and because we are short of time.
19:27:02 [timbl__]
timbl__ has joined #tagmem
19:27:06 [noah]
DC: some risk that Tim won't be around for awhile.
19:27:13 [DanC]
er... so I take it my action is withdrawn
19:28:04 [noah]
NM: Your Basel action?
19:28:07 [noah]
DC: Yes
19:28:27 [noah]
HT: No, suggest we not change anything including action assignment until next proper meeting with Tim.
19:28:32 [timbl__]
In two weeks, I thinks so...yes March 29
19:28:54 [timbl__]
I am gone wed-thursday, 8 days
19:29:22 [noah]
Topic: MISC
19:29:28 [noah]
VQ: Anything else?
19:29:43 [noah]
NW: Oasis work on XRI's might need attention.
19:30:21 [noah]
NW: Hang out on IRC a min after adjournemnt and I'll past URI.
19:30:23 [Zakim]
19:30:24 [Zakim]
- +6aaaa
19:30:26 [Zakim]
19:30:29 [Zakim]
19:30:31 [Zakim]
19:30:33 [Zakim]
19:30:44 [Zakim]
19:30:46 [Zakim]
TAG_Weekly()12:30PM has ended
19:30:48 [Zakim]
Attendees were noah, Ht, Roy, Norm, Vincent, Dave_Orchard, +6aaaa, TimBL, Roy_Fielding, DanC
19:30:48 [Norm]
19:31:11 [noah]
NM: XRI URI is at
19:31:31 [noah]
VQ: Meeting is adjourned. Next telcon is in one Week on 22 March 2005
19:31:41 [Norm]
19:31:51 [Norm]
Unless you meant NM :-)
19:32:09 [noah]
Either way
19:32:30 [noah]
I suppose I meant that I was doing the pasting, since you hadn't actually made a statement on the phone.
19:33:16 [noah]
zakim, bye
19:33:16 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #tagmem
19:33:34 [noah]
rrsagent, bye
19:33:34 [RRSAgent]
I see 3 open action items:
19:33:34 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Vincent to check with MIT on hosting TAG F2F 14-16 June [1]
19:33:34 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
19:33:34 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Ed and Norm to review XML Binary Characterization use cases document. [2]
19:33:34 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
19:33:34 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Henry and David to draft initial finding on URNsAndRegistries-50 [3]
19:33:34 [RRSAgent]
recorded in