16:57:55 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #tagmem
16:57:55 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2005/05/10-tagmem-irc
16:58:03 <noah> noah has joined #tagmem
16:58:14 <ht> meeting: TAG
16:58:19 <ht> scribe: Henry S. Thompson
16:58:26 <ht> scribe-nick: ht
16:59:14 <ht> Scribe: Henry S. Thompson
16:59:17 <ht> ScribeNick: ht
16:59:22 <ht> Meeting: TAG
16:59:23 <Vincent> Vincent has joined #tagmem
16:59:45 <ht> Chair: Vincent Quint
17:00:40 <ht> Topic: Roll call
17:00:51 <ht> Regrets: Norm Walsh, Tim Berners-Lee
17:01:12 <Zakim> TAG_Weekly()12:30PM has now started
17:01:15 <Zakim> +[INRIA]
17:01:20 <ht> zakim, please call ht-781
17:01:20 <Zakim> ok, ht; the call is being made
17:01:35 <Zakim> +Noah
17:01:37 <Zakim> -Noah
17:01:38 <Zakim> +Noah
17:01:51 <ht> uh-oh DanC, mine isn't either
17:01:55 <ht> I'll ping ralph
17:02:00 <Vincent> Zakim, INRIA is Vincent
17:02:00 <Zakim> +Vincent; got it
17:02:36 <Zakim> +DanC
17:02:40 <ht> Looks like Ralph is at lunch :-(
17:02:48 <ht> zakim, please call ht-781
17:02:48 <Zakim> ok, ht; the call is being made
17:02:50 <Zakim> +Ht
17:03:14 <Vincent> zakim, who is here?
17:03:14 <Zakim> On the phone I see Vincent, Noah, DanC, Ht
17:03:15 <Zakim> On IRC I see Vincent, noah, RRSAgent, Zakim, ht, DanC
17:03:48 <Vincent> Right!
17:04:29 <Zakim> +Dave_Orchard
17:05:13 <Zakim> +Roy
17:05:28 <Zakim> +Kevin
17:06:04 <Ed> Ed has joined #tagmem
17:06:06 <ht> Topic: Review of Agenda
17:06:17 <ht> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2005/05/10-agenda.html
17:06:46 <ht> Next telcon next week (17 May)
17:07:25 <ht> Regrets from Ed Rice, Henry Thompson, Roy Fielding, Vincent Quint, Noah and Tim at risk
17:07:42 <Ed> +1
17:08:06 <ht> RESOLUTION: Meeting cancelled
17:08:24 <ht> Date of next telcon 24 May?
17:08:28 <DanC> I'm travelling 24 May for XTech... haven't done the timezone calculations to see if I'm available.
17:09:17 <ht> DO is at risk, VQ is travelling
17:09:31 <ht> VQ: Should meet, need a chair -- volunteer
17:10:21 <DanC> (I'm happy for VQ to ask NDW to chair 24 May)
17:11:00 <ht> NM: Will chair if NDW is not able to, would prefer NDW, who is more experienced
17:11:08 <ht> VQ: Will help with agenda
17:11:38 <ht> RESOLUTION: NDW will be asked to chair, whom failing NM
17:11:59 <ht> RESOLUTION: Next telcon will be 24 May
17:12:32 <DanC> "Memorial Day  	Last Monday in May  	Monday, May 30, 2005" -- http://web.mit.edu/hr/empservices/mit_holidays.html
17:13:03 <DanC> DO: regrets 31 May
17:13:07 <DanC> RF: regrets 31 May
17:13:13 <Zakim> -Roy
17:13:30 <Zakim> +Roy
17:13:43 <DanC> NM: small risk 31 May
17:13:59 <ht> Topic: Last week's minutes
17:14:12 <ht> Minutes script fell over
17:14:22 <ht> DO: Will try to recover today
17:14:36 <ht> Raw minutes are at http://www.w3.org/2005/05/03-tagmem-irc
17:15:04 <ht> ACTION: VQ to return to approval of these minutes in two weeks
17:15:32 <ht> Topic: Agenda for June F2F
17:15:48 <ht> VQ: Will prepare a first draft later this week
17:16:21 <ht> ... Floor is open for some preliminary suggestions
17:16:24 <Vincent> ack DanC
17:16:35 <noah> Q+
17:16:36 <ht> DC: Acked to discuss RDDL and the XQuery namespace
17:16:52 <ht> ... Plus SCDs and issue ??? [scribe missed]
17:17:02 <Zakim> +DOrchard
17:17:02 <ht> ... Also outline of what next
17:17:12 <Zakim> -DOrchard
17:17:34 <Zakim> +DOrchard
17:17:36 <Zakim> -Dave_Orchard
17:17:40 <Zakim> -DanC
17:17:53 <Zakim> +DanC
17:18:09 <DanC> DC: (1) xquery namespaces, schema component designators, and abstractComponentRefs-37/WSDL (2) outline of next doc
17:18:30 <Ed> Ed has joined #tagmem
17:18:55 <ht> NM: Rather than next doc, the larger question of agenda for the next year
17:19:20 <ht> ... Goals, planned pubs (vol 2 vs. revised vol 1)
17:19:35 <ht> ... A large topic, split over several slots might be good,
17:19:50 <DanC> +1 multiple sessions for what's next. (I still prefer working on an outline)
17:19:51 <ht> ... so that OOB discussion can happen and have a place to feed back.
17:20:25 <ht> NM, DC: Can do both
17:21:04 <DanC> hmm... another idea: diagrams, formalisms, for extensibility esp
17:21:49 <ht> q+ ht to enter language defn
17:21:53 <noah> ack noah
17:22:00 <noah> I think we want to ask ourselves "what is success for the TAG this year"?
17:22:20 <ht> DO: More diagramming might go in a companion to versioning and extensibilyt finding
17:22:21 <noah> e.g., is it to make sure the architecture supports the semantic web?
17:22:30 <noah> With that in hand, I think we can do an outline to support the goal
17:22:48 <noah> I have some ideas on goals that I will send in email, probably later this week
17:22:52 <ht> HST: Difference between namespace documents and language definitions
17:22:57 <ht> ack ht
17:22:57 <Zakim> ht, you wanted to enter language defn
17:23:05 <DanC> yes, I expect to need diagrams or formalisms of some sort to get very far on "Difference between namespace documents and language definitions"
17:23:35 <ht> DO: More on extensibility and versioning, Noah to contribute?
17:23:57 <ht> NM: Yes, I will try to work with DO
17:24:39 <noah> Noah notes: this week not too bad for doing some work.  Next week I'm traveling Tues-Fri, including to Schema meeting
17:24:53 <ht> Topic: Binary XML 
17:25:15 <ht> VQ: Continuation of previous discussion -- where are we, what will we say to whom?
17:25:50 <ht> ... Conclusion of that discussion: update the email-exchanged docs, and ER has done this
17:26:02 <ht> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2005May/0007.html
17:26:22 <ht> ER: Try to capture the discussion from last week
17:26:32 <ht> ... Hoping for review and feedback
17:26:43 <ht> DC: Hoping to go through point-by-point
17:26:51 <ht> VQ: yes, a bit faster than last time
17:26:58 <ht> ... 12 points
17:27:16 <DanC> I'd like #2 (and others?) reduced to one sentence? "The Working Group did not provide benchmarks that
17:27:16 <DanC> indicate a high likelihood that a single format will sufficiently alter
17:27:16 <DanC> the mix of properties of text xml to be worth standardization at the
17:27:16 <DanC> W3C.  "
17:27:21 <ht> [grammar needs fixing]
17:27:48 <ht> DC: This is the conclusion, not a particular point
17:28:02 <ht> NM: Needs re-writing
17:28:17 <ht> ER: Yes, this isn't polished from-the-TAG version
17:29:10 <ht> DC: Would like to reduce 2 to 2(b), as above
17:29:36 <ht> VQ: Editorial issue:  ER and DO were main contributors, either in position to produce a clean version?
17:29:50 <ht> ER: Yes, I can do that, after point-by-point discussion
17:30:02 <ht> VQ: Point 1 should be intro or summary
17:30:13 <ht> DC: Or neither -- let's wait until the end of the discussion
17:31:41 <ht> VQ: Point 2 -- just (b)?
17:31:46 <DanC> "The TAG should not consider administrative, process, or organizational policy issues of W3C, which are generally addressed by the W3C Advisory Committee, Advisory Board, and Team." -- http://www.w3.org/2004/10/27-tag-charter
17:32:07 <ht> DO: Why can't we have (c) -- seems to me we should be able to contribute input to e.g. the AB on process points
17:32:24 <ht> DC: It's in the charter -- see above
17:32:53 <ht> NM: But that's not what DO is saying -- i.e. not "The Process is broken, you should fix it ..."
17:32:57 <Zakim> +Roy_Fielding
17:33:02 <Zakim> -Roy
17:33:25 <ht> ... Rather, we are suggesting how the W3C could/should _use_ the Process at this point
17:33:36 <Roy> Roy has joined #tagmem
17:33:48 <ht> DC: Still not happy with 2(c)
17:34:44 <ht> NM: I agree that 2(c) is not productive, it's retrospective
17:35:02 <ht> ... What we should do is say something prospective -- what should happen next
17:35:36 <ht> DO: But the arg't about what happens next follows from what _didn't_ happen yet
17:36:17 <ht> VQ: Separated from technical discussion, at any rate
17:36:23 <ht> DO: OK, move from here
17:36:38 <ht> VQ: OK, we'll come back to this at the end of the (document,discussion)
17:37:03 <ht> ... On to point 3
17:37:45 <ht> DC: Don't see a crisp statement here, prefer to remove
17:39:05 <ht> DO: Finding this point-by-point traversal difficult, because I can't tell where we're going to end up
17:39:22 <ht> ... So maybe I'll be arguing to pull things back at the end.
17:40:05 <ht> VQ: Yes, we go item by item but can bring stuff back to discuss at the end
17:40:29 <ht> VQ: Item 3 out, fttb
17:40:35 <ht> ... On to item 4
17:41:05 <ht> q+ to query DanC's goal of one sentence
17:41:20 <ht> DC: Isn't this a repeat of the benchmarking point
17:41:50 <ht> ER: No, the parser impl question is about opportunities for improving the status quo, instead of a new approach
17:42:11 <ht> VQ: DC, ER's point make sense?
17:42:51 <dorchard> dorchard has joined #tagmem
17:43:10 <ht> HST: DC, what's your goal here, wrt one sentence?
17:43:30 <ht> DC: Not necessarily 1 sentence, just need to concrete propositions I can agree to
17:43:33 <ht> ack ht
17:43:33 <Zakim> ht, you wanted to query DanC's goal of one sentence
17:43:59 <Vincent> ack ht
17:44:19 <ht> DO: Trying to focus on properties of the parser that can be modified
17:44:39 <ht> VQ: Back to point 3, aren't you?
17:45:19 <ht> ER: The fact they never apparently _considered_ improving the status quo is what's being discussed here
17:46:09 <ht> NM: Maybe what's going on here is that the ordering of these points isn't right
17:46:13 <DanC> (that's a quite reasonable tactic... rather than going in ascending order, call for anybody to nominate a point they like)
17:46:39 <ht> ... Downside as well as upside to a new format, is starting point of TAG response
17:46:54 <ht> ... So we need to see whether advantages outweigh the disadvantages
17:47:16 <ht> ... So we need to see the detailed assessment of the room for improvement
17:47:45 <ht> ... and identify a small number of key use cases which are compelling argued to be the sweet-spot that must be hit
17:47:58 <ht> ... [scribe fell too far behind]
17:48:34 <ht> VQ: OK, we will open up the order and allow to start anywhere -- NM, you want to start with item 7?
17:49:15 <ht> NM: Not really, rather adapt this to start with the 0 or 1, not 1 or 2 or 3
17:49:34 <ht> ... Clear disadvantages, as well as potential advantages, to doing a bf
17:49:43 <ht> ... List some of the disadv.
17:50:06 <ht> ... So to justify a bf effort, compelling case has to be made that the adv outweight the disadv
17:50:21 <ht> ... The work to date doesn't appear to make that case
17:50:39 <ht> ... Then move on to individual points
17:51:14 <ht> DC: Thought most of this goes w/o saying, or is just the conclusion
17:52:36 <ht> VQ: We can't take too long over this, or the point is lost
17:52:45 <ht> ... Must comment this month 
17:53:06 <ht> DO: Suggesting we stop now?
17:53:18 <DanC> (I'm content to make the "lack of benchmarks" point (quoting from webarch) and leave it at that)
17:53:20 <ht> VQ: Continue briefly, then decide what to do next
17:53:40 <ht> ... What are key points we want to keep?
17:54:00 <ht> ... Hard for ER to get a document from this discussion.
17:54:17 <ht> ... Around the table
17:54:25 <ht> DC: Lack of benchmarks, leave it at that
17:54:51 <ht> DO: Provide a framework and some detail of what the TAG would like to see
17:55:06 <ht> ... Hence tradeoffs between properties and how to measure this
17:55:28 <ht> ... We have to answer the question, "So what _would_ be enough evidence?"
17:55:57 <DanC> [[ It is important to emphasize that intuition as to such matters as data size and processing speed is not a reliable guide in data format design; quantitative studies are essential to a correct understanding of the trade-offs. ]] -- http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#binary
17:56:13 <ht> ER: Agree with what's been said, add human readability as a key point
17:57:37 <ht> HST: NM's point about taking the option of improving the performance wrt the existing form
17:57:53 <ht> ... seriously
17:58:18 <ht> NM: Agree with DC, but have to suggest what the goals are for benchmarking -- what's good enough
17:58:23 <ht> RF: Anything is good
17:59:11 <ht> VQ: Measurements of technologies needed, along with specific targets that have to be reached
17:59:16 <DanC> (hmm... re "optimizing use of the present format hasn't been sufficiently considered" ... not sure what to think of that. I don't object to it.)
17:59:49 <ht> VQ: ER, are you prepared to try to produce something based on today's discussion?
17:59:57 <ht> ... Have enough information?
18:00:34 <ht> ER: I can draft "What the TAG is planning to say", will send it to tag@w3.org
18:00:41 <ht> DC: Two reviewers?
18:00:49 <ht> NM: I volunteer
18:00:52 <ht> DO: ditto
18:01:24 <ht> ACTION:  DR to draft a new version of the proposed reply, NM and DO to review
18:01:44 <ht> NM: Decide by email, or not until 2 weeks
18:01:57 <ht> s/DR/ER/
18:02:24 <ht> s/review/review by end of this week/
18:03:01 <DanC> PROPOSED: to resolve binaryXML-30 as discussed today (quantitative goals, benchmarking), contingent on agreement between Ed, Noah, DaveO on text.
18:03:01 <ht> VQ: Planning for revised, final, version of the doc't by next week, then email 'vote' to approve
18:03:40 <noah> Fine with me.
18:03:53 <noah> Actually, either Dan's or Roy's approaches are fine with me
18:04:11 <ht> DC: If I'm not happy, have to convince one of those three
18:04:17 <Roy> Dan's version is fine by me 
18:04:27 <ht> VQ: OK, so if you three get to be happy about a doc't, we're done
18:04:38 <DanC> (I gather we are so RESOLVED.)
18:04:39 <ht> ... No matter what we close in two weeks
18:06:46 <ht> PROPOSED: Once ER, DO and NM are agreed on a draft, they submit it to the whole group.  Reply in the negative within 3 days, or we will send the doc't to the XBC list.
18:06:58 <DanC> second
18:07:08 <noah>  third
18:07:23 <Ed> fourth
18:07:37 <ht> RESOLUTION: as above.
18:08:19 <ht> Topic: The use of < , > and & in XML-based languages
18:08:34 <Roy> q+
18:08:55 <ht> HST: I don't think there's an issue here -- how we say it politely is another problem
18:09:04 <ht> RF: No architectural issue here
18:09:06 <Roy> ack Roy
18:09:13 <Vincent> ack roy
18:09:15 <ht> ack DanC
18:09:15 <Zakim> DanC, you wanted to say no and to suggest a straw poll
18:09:32 <ht> DC: No issue, no reply
18:09:47 <ht> VQ: Consensus to reject
18:10:00 <ht> ... Reply?
18:10:07 <ht> DC: It's on the agenda so we have to
18:10:24 <ht> VQ: Could just say "We don't consider this an architectural issue" and that's it
18:11:30 <ht> ACTION: VQ to send a short reply to ERH saying "no"
18:11:55 <ht> Topic: XRIs are not designed to be URIs
18:12:18 <ht> VQ: DC started this thread, http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2005Apr/0097.html
18:12:37 <ht> VQ: ... but ended by saying we should do nothing about this
18:13:00 <ht> DC: I was more worried when I thought this was a big threat, now I don't
18:13:35 <ht> ... Minimal resolution is to say "Use URIs"
18:13:47 <ht> HST: We said that already
18:13:57 <ht> DC: No, we said "don't use a new scheme"
18:14:12 <ht> DO: And they said, we're not using URIs so we can ignore you
18:14:39 <ht> NM: They seem to be arguing that it's not a URI because we're not going to use it in any URI contexts
18:14:39 <DanC> (well, they were quite polite and didn't say "so we can ignore you" in so many words)
18:15:06 <ht> ... but you _should_ want to use them on the Web, so you _should_ want them to be URIs
18:15:17 <ht> DC: So why aren't IRIs broken?
18:15:40 <ht> NM: We've gone to great lengths to make that work as best it can
18:16:02 <ht> DC: Devil's advocate then says "We're just doing the same thing with XRIs"
18:16:23 <ht> ER: But we showed that they _could_ use existing scheme, _a fortiori_ with URIs
18:17:23 <ht> HST: I'm not happy -- it's not good citizenship to do something that confusing
18:17:32 <ht> DC: Not motivated
18:17:40 <ht> DO: HST seems motivated
18:17:45 <DanC> http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#pr-use-uris
18:17:51 <ht> HST: I'll do a single para
18:18:21 <ht> ACTION: HST to draft a para and circulate, send if no reply after 48 hours
18:19:45 <ht> DC: Nothing in the public record you can cite as what you're responding to
18:20:46 <ht> HST: Can you forward it to public list?
18:21:00 <ht> DC: Please you do so, with the copy I sent to tag@
18:21:09 <DanC> (I got his permission to forward to public fora)
18:21:28 <ht> HST: Will do
18:21:59 <DanC> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2005Apr/0097.html
18:23:05 <ht> HST: That's sufficient
18:23:21 <ht> Topic: Checking pending actions
18:24:14 <ht> HST: I'll look at this (RFC3023bis wrt fragmentInXML-28) in the coming week
18:24:38 <ht> VQ: NM, what about schemeProtocols-49?
18:24:49 <ht> NM: Will work on that this week 
18:25:10 <ht> VQ: DC, what about standardizedFieldValues-51 ?
18:25:29 <ht> DC: No progress yet, but will do it
18:25:52 <ht> VQ: I would like to add this to the issues list, but will wait for DC to post to www-tag
18:26:24 <Zakim> -DOrchard
18:26:31 <Zakim> -Roy_Fielding
18:26:31 <ht> VQ: Adjourned, until 24 May
18:26:32 <Zakim> -DanC
18:26:35 <Zakim> -Ed
18:26:46 <Roy> rrsagent, pointer?
18:26:46 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2005/05/10-tagmem-irc#T18-26-46
18:26:46 <Zakim> -Ht
18:26:47 <Zakim> -Noah
18:26:49 <ht> zakim, bye
18:26:49 <Zakim> leaving.  As of this point the attendees were [INRIA], Noah, Vincent, DanC, Ht, Dave_Orchard, Roy, Ed, DOrchard, Roy_Fielding
18:26:49 <Zakim> Zakim has left #tagmem
18:27:09 <ht> rrsagent, draft minutes
18:27:09 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2005/05/10-tagmem-minutes.html ht
18:27:32 <ht> rrsagent, make minutes public-visible
18:27:32 <RRSAgent> I'm logging. I don't understand 'make minutes public-visible', ht.  Try /msg RRSAgent help
18:27:47 <ht> rrsagent, make minutes world-visible
18:27:47 <RRSAgent> I'm logging. I don't understand 'make minutes world-visible', ht.  Try /msg RRSAgent help
18:28:19 <ht> rrsagent, make logs world-visible
18:29:01 <Roy> RRSAgent, make logs world-access
18:29:43 <DanC> VQ, it's quite nice to conclude 5 minutes early. Your sense of how much fits into one TAG teleconference is clearly getting quite good.