IRC log of tagmem on 2005-12-06

Timestamps are in UTC.

01:48:14 [timbl]
timbl has joined #tagmem
02:50:29 [noah_montreal]
noah_montreal has joined #tagmem
03:03:36 [Norm]
Norm has joined #tagmem
03:13:35 [timbl]
timbl has joined #tagmem
07:51:51 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #tagmem
13:48:28 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #tagmem
13:48:28 [RRSAgent]
logging to
13:48:31 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #tagmem
13:48:46 [timbl]
6 December 2005. The TAG reconvenes.
13:50:03 [timbl]
Vincent: This morning, we will address 3,4,5,6 this morning, and 7 and 8 this afternoon, which is a lot to do, but we will spend an hour on each. Roy me be late.
13:52:09 [timbl]
Topic: Principle of Least Power
13:52:41 [DanC_csail]
-> RF's review
13:52:57 [timbl]
Dan: There seems to be a consensus on this, no outstanding issues or comments, two positive reviews.
13:53:10 [DanC_csail]
oops... 0033 isn't RF's review...
13:53:28 [DanC_csail]
-> RF's review of Principle of Least Power
13:53:32 [timbl]
Noah: I did point someone at this and they didn't seemt o get it.
13:53:55 [timbl]
.. Let's format it as a finding and put it out as a draft.
13:54:03 [DanC_csail]
-> Principle of Least Power section
13:54:19 [DanC_csail]
-> NDW's review
13:54:21 [timbl]
[We are discussing the section only of the DesignIssues document]
13:55:42 [timbl]
ACTION Norm: Format the section as a finding.
13:55:43 [DanC_csail]
-> Noah's view in the thread
13:57:47 [Roy]
Roy has joined #tagmem
13:57:52 [timbl]
RESOLVED: We will publish it as a draft finding and promote it to finding in a month. Noah will edit it and respond to comments.
13:58:15 [Norm]
Norm has joined #tagmem
13:59:27 [DanC_csail]
ACTION NM: announce draft finding of principle of least power to www-tag in ~ 2 weeks
14:00:43 [timbl]
Topic: Self-describing documents
14:01:23 [DanC_csail]
q+ to tell a story, perhaps more about "grounded in the web" than self-describing
14:02:17 [DanC_csail]
queue = tim, HT, DC, NM
14:02:24 [DanC_csail]
Zakim, queue = tim, HT, DC, NM
14:02:24 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'queue = tim, HT, DC, NM', DanC_csail
14:02:32 [DanC_csail]
queue=tim, HT, DC, NM
14:02:36 [DanC_csail]
ack tim
14:06:49 [DanC_csail]
ack nm
14:07:39 [noah]
Proposed bumper sticker: GOOD PRACTICE: Resource representations should, to the extent practical, be self-describing.
14:07:39 [noah]
Specifically, the correct and complete interpretation of Web documents should, to the extent practical, depend only on widely used standards, convenentions and languages (including both natural languages and computer languages.) The remainder of this finding explores some more detailed issues relating to the creation and sharing of self-describing documents on the Web.
14:07:40 [Roy]
ack DC
14:20:54 [timbl]
14:21:15 [Vincent]
ack ht
14:21:25 [DanC_csail]
stories I'm interested in: * how to introduce a new format to the web, esp an XML format, esp an RDF vocabulary
14:21:35 [noah]
TBL: Writes on white board the following:
14:21:37 [noah]
14:21:43 [noah]
Content-type registry
14:21:46 [DanC_csail]
stories I'm interested in: * engineers discovering and implementing a new format
14:21:50 [noah]
14:21:54 [noah]
14:21:55 [noah]
14:22:20 [DanC_csail]
stories I'm interested in: * user encounters un-handled media type, chooses an app
14:22:23 [noah]
I believe the above are a proposed (partial) list of standards that the W3C would assume to be universally known as the basis for interpreting self-describing documents
14:22:41 [timbl]
The interpretation of a Information Resource must be available through knowledge of a certian core set of specs plus things found by following pointers on the web.
14:22:48 [DanC_csail]
stories I'm interested in: * designer deploys new media type * designer deploys new XML format * designer deploys new RDF vocab
14:22:51 [noah]
Underneath TIM then wrote a list of two types of specL
14:22:56 [noah]
14:23:04 [noah]
Human readable languages:
14:23:14 [noah]
14:23:16 [noah]
14:23:19 [noah]
14:23:21 [noah]
14:23:23 [noah]
14:23:26 [noah]
14:23:48 [noah]
Then we have a partial list of machine-processable language descriptionsL
14:23:55 [noah]
14:23:58 [noah]
14:24:02 [noah]
14:25:09 [noah]
Tim discusses dispatching on MIME type vs. grokking namespaces etc.
14:25:35 [noah]
NM: should we get into agents that understand application/unknownsubtype+xml
14:25:41 [timbl]
Bug: Safari doesn't adv ertize it will habndel SVG when it gets the SVG plugin.
14:25:53 [noah]
Norm, Tim and others: yes, but we don't know of any user agents that do
14:26:08 [timbl]
Bug: Browsers don't dipatch on +xml eg in unknown application/foobar+xml
14:26:58 [noah]
Note to editor of minutes: the line below OWL in the list above should indeed be RIF (Rule Interchange Format)
14:27:20 [noah]
DC: Have you intentionally left out downloading code as needed?
14:27:43 [noah]
DC: That means that some of the universally shared understanding is "we know how to run a Turing machine":
14:28:27 [noah]
TBL: Yes, this is the download a plugin model. You're right, this is important.
14:29:28 [timbl]
DanC: Plain text eg text/n3 does not fall back to text/plain presetntaion in a borwser
14:29:43 [timbl]
HT: Bug: Firefox never comes back when asked to look for a plugin.
14:30:57 [timbl]
HT: Should there be a dispatch poin on NS of document element?
14:30:58 [DanC_csail]
-> Go-Karting rush tainted by lack of OpenID for bug reporting about hypertext editing
14:31:25 [DanC_csail]
^ a little story about how I should have reported a browser bug but didn't because it's a pain to manage yet another password
14:34:28 [Norm]
q+ to ask about schema validation
14:34:39 [Norm]
14:34:47 [timbl]
ack No
14:34:47 [Zakim]
Norm, you wanted to ask about schema validation
14:34:47 [Vincent]
ack norm
14:36:07 [ht_hotel]
ht_hotel has joined #tagmem
14:36:23 [ht_hotel]
q+ to talk about several layers of semantics
14:36:36 [noah]
14:37:06 [noah]
q+ to say there's no one schema for a given media type
14:37:32 [timbl]
Norm: What if schma processing of eg default atrributes is necessar
14:37:34 [Vincent]
ack ht
14:37:34 [Zakim]
ht_hotel, you wanted to talk about several layers of semantics
14:38:02 [timbl]
DanC: So long as the trail by looking up the ns of the doc ele leads you to that one way or another.
14:38:15 [timbl]
... otheriwse your document is not grounded on the web.
14:41:59 [timbl]
HT: We start with the infoset ... canwe using specs define how to get from that to the application data model?
14:45:23 [Vincent]
ack noah
14:45:23 [Zakim]
noah, you wanted to say there's no one schema for a given media type
14:45:36 [timbl]
... The question is can we say whether or not to do things like xinclude and decryptioon etc
14:46:09 [timbl]
14:47:18 [DanC_csail]
q+ to try a story that might clarify xinclude, and ask if/why schema validation is different: suppose a community norm/law says "every restaurant menu must include information about calories" and a menu has <xml:include ref="calorie-info" /> (or, analagously, some link by default attribute)
14:47:37 [DanC_csail]
q+ to stick <img> and <iframe> in there too, maybe
14:49:52 [DanC_csail]
q+ to ask if the HTML spec needs to be rev'd to cite xinclude
14:54:28 [timbl]
Noah: There are dangers when your content depends on an external document.
14:54:28 [Norm]
Norm has joined #tagmem
14:55:17 [timbl]
... there is no well defiend way of findg a schema
14:55:28 [timbl]
DanC; the AWWW says the namespace is a godo way to look
14:56:00 [timbl]
Nah: Maybe we shoudl say don't use defaults
14:56:27 [timbl]
Henry: defaults are irrelevant ... you can get the same problem with types anyway.
14:56:30 [Norm]
14:56:46 [ht_stata]
s/irrelevant/not the only problem/
14:57:05 [ht_stata]
timbl: Please clarify what the failure scenario is
14:58:25 [timbl]
Noah: There is no way yet to create a URI for a schema, which would do what you need: that every time you visit the inisance document, you will get the schema whcih will do eth right thing. At best, the schjema spec gives you pointers to various schemas... so long as no one ever changes anything...
14:58:51 [timbl]
DanC: We can just use namespce pointers
15:00:13 [timbl]
Noah: Some people belive that there are multoiple schemas for theh same namespace
15:03:42 [timbl]
Noah: I think people change schems afetr documents have been written so you should be careful and wee should awrn against using them
15:03:52 [timbl]
Tim: [shock, horror]
15:04:51 [timbl]
Noah: People change schemas when those schemas do not have effects of changing eth document
15:04:56 [ht_stata]
Noah: People who write a new schema for a namespace they don't own are doing so to gear up for a form of processing they want to do, _not_ changing the 'fundamental meaning' of the original document
15:05:02 [timbl]
... those people don't use defaults
15:06:24 [timbl]
... They may point from RDDL dcouemnt to many schemas, all by different people.
15:06:51 [ht_stata]
I find that implausible, because the RDDL document _is_ owned by the namespace owner, by construction
15:07:15 [DanC_csail]
ack danc
15:07:15 [Zakim]
DanC_csail, you wanted to try a story that might clarify xinclude, and ask if/why schema validation is different: suppose a community norm/law says "every restaurant menu must
15:07:18 [Zakim]
... include information about calories" and a menu has <xml:include ref="calorie-info" /> (or, analagously, some link by default attribute) and to stick <img> and <iframe> in there
15:07:23 [Vincent]
ack danc
15:07:23 [Zakim]
... too, maybe and to ask if the HTML spec needs to be rev'd to cite xinclude
15:07:59 [timbl]
DanC: Does the HTML spec need to be revvd to say that XInclude can be used inside XML, or did teh XIncldue spec trump HTML so that it is automatically included.
15:10:16 [timbl]
..Story: Suppose I publish aa menu in HTML and I xinclude the nutrition information, and someone reads it with a browser which does not recognixe it and dies? who was at fault
15:11:19 [Vincent]
ack norm
15:11:20 [DanC_csail]
(I heard a 'yes' answer. Yes, the HTML has to be rev'd to normatively cite xinclude before the restaurant owner can satisfy the "must include calorie info" norm by way of xinclude)
15:13:18 [timbl]
Norm: How does what you said about Xinclude work....
15:13:29 [timbl]
Tim: XHTML has to say it accepts XML functions
15:13:46 [timbl]
Norm talska bout document photo'd
15:16:03 [ht_stata]
NW: Is this 1) A broken XHTML document; 2) An XHTML document with a <P>Hi Mom</P> element; 3) Not consistent with self-describing Web
15:21:14 [ht_stata]
TBL, DC[summarizing]: There is _one_ meaning for the information content of an XML document, and to understand what that is reference to some other specs, e.g. XInclude, XML Encryption, must be made (unless blocked by/provided enabled by) scoping namespace
15:21:49 [noah]
15:21:57 [noah]
q+ to ask about backward compatibility
15:22:25 [ht_stata]
NW: fizbar example
15:22:54 [ht_stata]
TBL: That's functional iff it can be understood as replacing itself with new info, dependent only on its own contents
15:23:10 [DanC_csail]
agenda + on the boundaries of the text/html mime type, e.g. CDF, encryption
15:23:56 [ht_stata]
NM: What about DSig
15:24:11 [ht_stata]
TBL: Some uses are functional, some [those which point over to the signed part] are not
15:25:30 [ht_stata]
NM: Suppose we go there, will you have to opt in on an instance-by-instance basis, or will pre-existing documents get captured?
15:25:52 [ht_stata]
... It would be a pain to have to mark everything going forward
15:26:27 [ht_stata]
TBL: Not a big problem
15:27:12 [ht_stata]
NM: We encourage apps to use the definitive interpretation, specs to say they depend on it
15:27:37 [ht_stata]
DC: You shouldn't have to opt in
15:28:05 [noah]
15:28:22 [DanC_csail]
I misspoke; yes, for stuff like xml:base, you should have to opt in. sigh.
15:28:51 [ht_stata]
NW: The HTML spec could say that <PRE> blocks function interpretation?
15:29:27 [ht_stata]
TBL: Yes, <PRE> is function-opaque, all else is function-transparent
15:29:35 [timbl]
How to say in a schema that one can implement functions.
15:30:08 [ht_stata]
... RDF has the same sort of issue. . .
15:30:21 [ht_stata]
... Don't interpret it within <PRE>
15:30:21 [timbl]
The idea of having a separate software module making the xml functions, being independent of HTML or XML processing, handed fucntiosn for elboration.
15:30:27 [ht_stata]
15:30:42 [ht_stata]
HST: I like BLOCKQUOTE better than PRE
15:31:23 [ht_stata]
NW: So xmllint would no longer be conformant, because it does XInclude all or nothing, independent of enclosing namespace
15:31:46 [ht_stata]
TBL: Norm, is this making sense?
15:32:15 [timbl]
Norm: I see a consident picture now whcih is making sense, which is new
15:33:49 [ht_stata]
NW: I see a coherent picture now, which I didn't see before -- whether I like it or not, I'm not sure
15:35:03 [ht_stata]
HST: Parallel here with XML infoset wrt processors which don't do external subsets -- the result is not a different infoset for the same document, it's not the document's real infoset at all
15:36:56 [ht_stata]
ACTION: Norm, with help from Henry, to produce a draft finding on this in January
15:37:12 [timbl]
s/this/XML functions/
15:49:16 [timbl]
[Break reconvenes]
15:49:29 [timbl]
15:49:58 [Roy]
15:50:12 [timbl]
Roy: The entire document i snew.
15:50:31 [timbl]
some of the words and phrases were recycled.
15:50:32 [noah]
15:50:54 [timbl]
It now focusses on metadata and containers in general, rather than just messages reveived by the server.
15:51:14 [timbl]
So for example an embedded bit of SVG inside an XML document, this would apply now.
15:51:26 [timbl]
I have looked atthe various way sin which metadata comes in and is applied.
15:51:56 [timbl]
Section 6.4 i smissing, covering conflicting metadta during the distributed authoring process. It does not yet have the examploe of using the web server.
15:52:05 [timbl]
It doesn't say what a web server should do.
15:52:45 [Roy]
15:52:56 [timbl]
it is a fairly detailed draft. The only comment I received on teh mailing list was from Mak Baker, who indcated it should also reference Issue RFC3023Charset-21.
15:54:00 [timbl]
HT: I now understand this better.
15:54:08 [timbl]
... I wanted to come back to the 6.3 example.
15:54:34 [timbl]
.. The misconfiguration of metadata hints area.
15:55:05 [timbl]
In the last sentnec of thie first para, it says "As it interprets the representation data, Janet's user agent reads the type hint and does not fetch the style sheet."
15:55:25 [timbl]
This is not what I expected ... i thought Janet's UA would send accept:text/css, and teh server would 404
15:55:38 [timbl]
or rather 408 no acceptable
15:56:04 [timbl]
HT: Why swould and HTML agent not fetch CSS?
15:56:19 [timbl]
RF: Because it is one which diesn't grok CSS
15:56:21 [DanC_csail]
PROPOSED: that of 5 Dec, plus edits in response to Baker, reviewed by ?SOMEBODY, addresses putMediaType-38, contentTypeOverride-24
15:56:37 [timbl]
HT: That is not obvious, need s explanation as it is not clear to teh reader.
15:56:57 [timbl]
DanC: For exampl,e we could imagine an imaginary news language, maybe.
15:57:14 [timbl]
HT: Orwe could talk about 408 no acceptable form response.
15:57:38 [timbl]
DanC: It isn't usual to have the type attribute affect the accept header.
15:57:44 [noah]
15:58:32 [timbl]
DanC: It is normal to send accept: for everything one understands, no?
15:59:17 [timbl]
rF: Yes, but an optional. One can trim the things things in the metadata
15:59:40 [noah]
q+ to discuss processing vs. interpretation
15:59:54 [timbl]
RF: It would be better if Stuart did not misconfigure the server, and changed teh style sheet language for some reason.
16:00:41 [timbl]
That is, the title of teh section should be changed.
16:00:41 [Roy]
6.3 example would be better if it doesn't say misconfiguration, and instead Stuart replaces one stylesheet language with another
16:00:43 [Vincent]
ack noah
16:00:43 [Zakim]
noah, you wanted to discuss processing vs. interpretation
16:00:59 [ht_stata]
q+ to ask about text/plain as a form of protection
16:01:09 [Roy]
6.3 should also describe 4xx case of content negotiation with accept
16:01:18 [Norm]
Norm has joined #tagmem
16:01:19 [timbl]
Noah: I had sent a response to Roy on an intermediate version.
16:01:42 [timbl]
... This has made great steps , helping you know how to interpret the data.
16:02:06 [timbl]
.. That different agents can process things difefrently.
16:02:33 [timbl]
... However, in 3.1, it says [...]
16:02:51 [timbl]
I woul dprefer "the mediatyupe gives the preferred interpretation"
16:03:14 [timbl]
We shouldn't tell people what to do.... we should say "this is music" not "play this".
16:03:44 [timbl]
Tim: Not preferred ... intended or definitive
16:03:44 [Roy]
NM: "The media type indicates the intended interpretation for a representation"
16:04:33 [timbl]
Tim: I like the word "interpretation"
16:04:48 [timbl]
RF: I ran out of new an interesting examples -- send your suggestions!
16:05:12 [noah]
So, I'm suggesting that in many of the places where it refers to "intended processing", I would prefer "intended interpretation"
16:05:20 [timbl]
... I added some more teeth to the sugegstions, wiht SHOULD and MUST... we should look at those probably.
16:05:27 [noah]
I'm fine with Tim's suggestions that those should in fact be "Definititive Interpretation"
16:05:36 [noah]
16:05:43 [timbl]
The previous finding said the findings MUST not work against eth web architecture.
16:06:10 [timbl]
DanC: I am OK with that
16:06:11 [Roy]
sec 1: Specifications MUST NOT work against the Web architecture by requiring or suggesting that a recipient override authoritatve metadata without user consent.
16:06:14 [timbl]
Tim: Me too,
16:06:43 [timbl]
Ed: How do we tell what the most authoritative when there is a clash?
16:07:12 [timbl]
DanC: The readers should pick the most authoritative.
16:07:24 [timbl]
... If there is anconsistency they won't notice
16:07:42 [timbl]
ed: In eth summary of the key points, it says the processing should be stopped
16:08:10 [timbl]
rf: No.. it says should be detected and reported... Doesn't say what happens to the processing.
16:08:47 [timbl]
DanC: It is not an error to ignore the less authoratitive.
16:08:57 [timbl]
Ed: That makes sense.
16:09:36 [timbl]
DanC: Example, if a text/plain document starts "<DOCTYPE''... then it is an error to ignore the text/plain and try to interpret the document.
16:10:46 [DanC_csail]
Ed: in the summary, "authoritative" seems ambiguous; there are multple authorities. I'd rather it were more clear to say "the most authoritative"
16:12:12 [DanC_csail]
... esp point 3
16:12:27 [DanC_csail]
RF: I'll think about that and see if I can find better words
16:13:00 [DanC_csail]
RF: let's look at the admonitions in 4.2...
16:14:17 [timbl]
RF: It should say in the third bullet "when the media type is unknown"
16:14:32 [DanC_csail]
1st bullet in 4.2
16:15:03 [timbl]
DanC: Suggest put the two SHOUDL NOTs at the end
16:16:27 [timbl]
DanC: You mean really don't send anything if the media type is unknown? Not text/plain or application/octet-stream?
16:16:32 [timbl]
RF: Yes.
16:16:56 [timbl]
HT: Yes, importantly, as if it says somethinhg then that stops the client from being able to sniff, etc
16:17:00 [DanC_csail]
ack ht_stata
16:17:00 [Zakim]
ht_stata, you wanted to ask about text/plain as a form of protection
16:17:12 [timbl]
HT: Section 5
16:17:51 [timbl]
RF: All the charset issues are fixed in Apache now, but inly now
16:18:13 [DanC_csail]
'Example: Format specifications cannot redefine authoritative metadata' in
16:18:22 [timbl]
HT: In 5, you say "xample: Format specifications cannot redefine authoritative metadata"
16:18:36 [timbl]
but I think we have allowed XIncldue to break this rule.
16:18:40 [timbl]
16:19:12 [noah]
q+ to talk about supertypes
16:19:26 [timbl]
HT: We should ahve an exception for text/plain. If someone wants to defuse the interpretation and just get the source, then as XInclude we should allow that.
16:20:50 [DanC_csail]
(I'm looking up DerivedResources-43 ... wondering if we decided it...)
16:22:04 [timbl]
Tim: XInclude should not have to happen again, what it does is beneath the hood when it expands a document as source code.
16:22:06 [Roy]
Sec 5: should say that some applications (e.g., Xinclude) will disregard metadata on purpose and that is okay
16:22:07 [DanC_csail]
ack danc
16:22:39 [DanC_csail]
PROPOSED: that of 5 Dec, plus edits in response to Baker, reviewed by ?SOMEBODY, addresses putMediaType-38, contentTypeOverride-24
16:23:51 [DanC_csail]
RF: I'm not done with the most relevant example
16:24:31 [timbl]
[back to section 5]
16:25:01 [timbl]
RF: SMIL is an example of how o do it wrong.
16:25:18 [timbl]
"In contrast, the W3C Recommendation Synchronized Multimedia Integration Language (SMIL 2.0) [SMIL20] is inconsistent with this finding. The definition of the type attribute in section 7.3.1 specifies that the value of type takes precedence over authoritative metadata for some protocols."
16:26:45 [timbl]
VQ: SMIL 2.1 is due to go to REC next week.
16:27:16 [timbl]
HT: Stop it at this stage?
16:27:43 [DanC_csail]
16:28:38 [timbl]
DanC: Proposed rec request in Sept
16:29:47 [timbl]
16:30:02 [DanC_csail]
16:30:07 [Roy]
The type attribute value takes precedence over other possible sources of the media type (for instance, the "Content-type" field in an HTTP exchange, or the file extension).
16:30:16 [timbl]
NM: Bzzt
16:30:22 [DanC_csail]
"The type attribute value takes precedence over other possible sources of the media type (for instance, the "Content-type" field in an HTTP exchange, or the file extension)."
16:30:38 [Roy]
SMIL 2.1 is stll broken: "The type attribute value takes precedence over other possible sources of the media type (for instance, the "Content-type" field in an HTTP exchange, or the file extension)."
16:31:48 [timbl]
DanC: It was the speech recognition group we invited.
16:32:21 [timbl]
RF: And they fixed their spec.
16:34:18 [ht_stata]
16:36:45 [DanC_csail]
draft comment
16:39:42 [Roy]
The Apache directive is "AllowOverride FileInfo"
16:39:59 [Roy]
and it is present in all Apache versions
16:40:59 [Roy]
16:42:23 [Roy]
This is in reference to TimBL's comment that there should be a way for server's to give permission to authors to change only the media type information (i.e., nothing dangerous)
16:42:37 [DanC_csail]
draft comment
16:42:39 [noah]
16:43:42 [timbl]
Norm: in favor
16:43:54 [Roy]
Add the Apache example of AllowOverride to the suggestions in section 4.2
16:44:01 [timbl]
HT: We should add that we will work withpeople to fix the server probklems
16:44:26 [timbl]
... This is absoluetely NOT something to be done piecemeal one spec at a time.
16:44:32 [timbl]
This would confuse our users!
16:46:22 [ht_stata]
16:46:31 [DanC_csail]
comment sent:
16:46:33 [DanC_csail]
phpth. screwed up the subject heading
16:46:41 [DanC_csail]
and neglected to cite the new version of the fingind.
16:46:59 [ht_stata]
That's the message where Lanphier asks for most of what Roy is about to give himm
16:47:49 [timbl]
RESOLVED to send it modulo editorial and adding a section number.
16:48:13 [timbl]
ACTION DanC edit and send on
16:50:03 [ht_stata]
16:50:30 [timbl]
HT: In december 2003, Ian sent a new draft finding which PH said seems to address the issues in the group's response.
16:51:12 [timbl]
Tim: It was sent to the WG not to the comments list.
16:53:42 [noah]
16:54:25 [Vincent]
ack timbl
16:54:48 [timbl]
DanC's action discharged.
16:55:02 [Vincent]
ack noah
16:55:02 [Zakim]
noah, you wanted to talk about supertypes
16:56:25 [timbl]
Noah: Going back to henry's comment about xionclude
16:57:00 [timbl]
... i would sythat it follows from the fact that a type effectively had supertypes doesn't contradct the finding.
16:58:14 [Norm]
Norm has joined #tagmem
16:58:34 [timbl]
Noah: Eg XMLm document is subtype of unicode, rdf/xml is subtype of xml
16:58:56 [timbl]
I could treat it as any level -- i'm not overridin it.
16:59:07 [ht_stata]
I can't find any further discussion of the TAG comment about MediaObject/@type after a confused exchange ending at
17:04:43 [Roy]
sec 2: "Representation metadata does not constrain the receiving agent to process the representation data in one particular way. What it does is allow the sender of a representation to express its intentions regarding how the data should be interpreted by a recipient. A recipient can then choose, based on its own purpose, design, and configuration, how it will react to those intentions on...
17:04:45 [Roy]
...behalf of the party employing the agent. For example, a browser traversing a link may behave differently depending on how the link was selected, a maintenance spider may ignore a data format's rendering instructions, and an editor may treat every representation as a source for editing rather than display."
17:05:32 [timbl]
Noah: i think you can ask to look as an RDF document as a unicode string
17:09:33 [timbl]
Tim: I think that the importing of raw source as plain text when it was published as xml is a kludge ok in xinclude but should not be repeated in every application.
17:10:22 [DanC_csail]
(norm, we have 20 minutes and shrinking for ns8. If I make a point of order to move on, are you inclined to 2nd?)
17:11:32 [timbl]
ACTION RF: Produce a new veriosn of the finding by the end of the year
17:12:14 [timbl]
We decide to have a short lunch before NamepsaceDocument-8
17:16:02 [timbl]
s?the finding?/
18:00:30 [Norm]
Norm has joined #tagmem
18:16:08 [ht_stata]
zakim, this will be TAG
18:16:08 [Zakim]
"TAG" matches TAG_f2f()1:00PM, and TAG_Weekly()12:30PM, ht_stata
18:16:17 [ht_stata]
zakim, this will be TAG_f2f
18:16:17 [Zakim]
ok, ht_stata; I see TAG_f2f()1:00PM scheduled to start 16 minutes ago
18:16:54 [Zakim]
TAG_f2f()1:00PM has now started
18:17:01 [Zakim]
18:17:22 [ht_stata]
zakim, + is tagconf
18:17:22 [Zakim]
sorry, ht_stata, I do not recognize a party named '+'
18:17:32 [ht_stata]
zakim, V is tagconf
18:17:32 [Zakim]
+tagconf; got it
18:17:39 [noah]
scribe: Noah Mendelsohn
18:17:43 [noah]
scribenick: noah
18:18:20 [ht_stata]
zakim, tagconf has timbl, DanC_csail, Roy, Vincent, Ed, ht_stata, Norm
18:18:20 [Zakim]
+timbl, DanC_csail, Roy, Vincent, Ed, ht_stata, Norm; got it
18:19:02 [noah]
Topic: namespaceDocument-8 What should a "namespace document" look like?
18:19:33 [noah]
Draft finding from Norm:
18:20:48 [noah]
Noah notes he's at risk for the June meeting.
18:21:05 [noah]
VQ: what's new in the draft?
18:21:14 [noah]
NW: Rearranged some things. See section 3.
18:21:46 [noah]
NW: New section 4 suggesting URIs for specific terms. This is partially in response to Paul Cotton.
18:22:04 [noah]
NW: if the direction is broadly acceptable, I'm tempted to act on Paul C.'s suggestion to put back in schema examples.
18:22:23 [noah]
NW: Will also flesh out lists of natures and purpose from RDDL
18:22:37 [noah]
NW: I have incorporated comments from Ed Rice.
18:23:37 [Norm]
18:23:54 [noah]
Comments from Ed:
18:24:09 [noah]
DC: Editorial?
18:24:14 [noah]
ER: Yes, mostly.
18:24:54 [noah]
NW: I did not act on Ed's suggestion to say "You SHOULD use choice X", as I didn't think we could get consensus.
18:25:00 [noah]
ER: but why not a SHOULD?
18:25:11 [noah]
ER: isn't it RDDL 2.0?
18:25:15 [noah]
NW: Doesn't exist yet.
18:25:39 [noah]
NW: we were going to pick that up. Time passed. RDDL 1.0 is out there.
18:25:43 [noah]
ER: Is RDDL 2.0 dead?
18:25:51 [ht_stata]
Extacting -> Extracting
18:26:02 [noah]
NW: Not necessarily.
18:26:57 [noah]
DC: we've been told by Michael Sperberg-McQueen that RDDL 1.0 misuses XLink simple links
18:27:04 [noah]
HT: I think I might disagree with Michael
18:27:49 [noah]
DC: worth discussing in the finding? Probably not. Seems that reasonable people disagree.
18:28:13 [noah]
HT: by the same reading, many uses of <html:a> are also misuses
18:28:28 [noah]
HT: Norm, watch for "it's" vs "its"
18:29:06 [noah]
DC: people will care about list of natures
18:29:16 [noah]
NW: Yes, I'm not assuming it will be right on first try,
18:29:22 [noah]
18:29:29 [noah]
DC: adding to RDDL namespace?
18:29:35 [noah]
NW: Hmm, good question.
18:29:53 [noah]
HT: We could ask Jonathan Borden to do it for us.
18:30:10 [noah]
NW: I can list all the existing ones, but not clear what to do for now about any new ones.
18:30:18 [noah]
HT: The RDF relations should be in some other NS
18:30:28 [noah]
HT: Maybe not, could go other way.
18:30:36 [DanC_csail]
@prefix rddl: <> .
18:30:48 [noah]
NW: I didn't mean to do that!
18:30:53 [DanC_csail]
under "Here's an example of the DocBook model above, expressed in RDF using N3:"
18:31:04 [noah]
NW: or, I could claim the prefixes aren't meaningful :-)
18:31:58 [noah]
HT: I feel that is OK for the two things where you've used it. I'm less convinced about the purposes.
18:32:20 [noah]
DC: Which URIs are RDDL consumers using today
18:32:30 [Zakim]
18:32:46 [noah]
HT: The rddl:nature and rddl:purpose as properly bound.
18:33:04 [noah]
DC: How do you say "validation"
18:33:25 [noah]
HT: There's a URI for validation, among other purposes.
18:34:34 [noah]
HT: What are vendors like Microsoft doing?
18:34:55 [noah]
NW: As far as I can tell, they are using the standard URIs as suggested above.
18:35:32 [noah]
scribe notes: Norm is about to edit the draft in place...the specific version we're discussing is
18:35:41 [Zakim]
18:36:49 [noah]
HT: In my code, I do something broken. I just look for a nature which is the XML Schema namespace.
18:37:35 [noah]
TBL: Are all natures namespaces?
18:37:40 [noah]
HT: No some are, some aren't.
18:38:03 [ht_stata]
18:38:08 [Norm]
Norm has joined #tagmem
18:38:17 [noah]
HT: Norm, please add a formal reference to N3. I was looking for one and couldn't find it.
18:38:34 [DanC_csail]
(ref for N3: is pretty good. it cites others that you might prefer)
18:38:51 [Norm]
18:38:57 [noah]
NW: Natures sometimes use media types, sometimes namespaces.
18:39:27 [noah]
"When a referenced resource is not XML and its nature can be inferred from its MIME content-type, the nature of the referenced resource is obtained by appending the content-type to the prefix"
18:41:29 [noah]
HT: The RDDL doc makes clear that it's the URI and not the referent of that URI that is a nature.
18:41:38 [noah]
DC: misusing XLink?
18:42:03 [noah]
HT: No, I don't think XLink defines role in a way that conflicts with this use.
18:42:19 [noah]
DC: So, the only way to get two roles to be the same is to have their URI's spelled the same.
18:42:34 [noah]
DC: Hmm, our conversion to RDF is probably wrong then. We should doublequote them in the N3.
18:43:01 [noah]
NW: Ugh, that's really unconvenient.
18:43:32 [noah]
NW: I inadvertently different from RDDL
18:43:42 [noah]
18:44:19 [noah]
HT: Looking at XLink spec...
18:44:46 [ht_stata]
"The URI reference [the value of the 'role' attribute] identifies some resource that describes the intended property.
18:45:25 [ht_stata]
18:46:09 [ht_stata]
So RDDL could be more precise about whether RDDL natures are namespace names or the resources they identify
18:47:02 [noah]
NW: not sure what best process is for adding new ones. What's right relationship with Jonathan.
18:47:12 [noah]
DC: we have a web registry
18:47:14 [noah]
HT: for purposes
18:48:32 [noah]
NW: RDDL defines a namespace and some starting list of purposes
18:48:39 [noah]
NW: how to add isn't clear
18:48:53 [noah]
HT: ours wouldn't deref into the RDDL spec as theirs now do
18:49:10 [noah]
DC: nothing normative here?
18:49:12 [noah]
NW: right
18:49:15 [noah]
HT: I like that.
18:50:11 [noah]
DC: are we standardizing anything here?
18:50:20 [noah]
HT: rddl:nature and rddl:purpose
18:50:34 [noah]
HT: I'm talking about the predicate itself.
18:50:42 [noah]
HT: we're standardizing that
18:51:00 [noah]
DC: if we're making one up, call it rdf:type
18:51:08 [noah]
HT: did we discuss this before?
18:51:14 [noah]
DC: yes, but with no conclusion
18:51:24 [noah]
TBL: I don't think they're putting classes there.
18:52:07 [noah]
HT: the issue is backward compatibility with what's already out there
18:52:53 [timbl]
{ ?X rddl:nature ?DOC } => { ?X a ?CLASS. ?CLASS rddl:ClassOfDocsOfNature ?DOC }
18:52:54 [noah]
DC: would specification document be better than nature?
18:54:50 [timbl]
{ ?X rddl:nature ?DOC } => { ?X a [ rddl:ClassOfDocsOfNature ?DOC] }
18:55:53 [timbl]
18:56:26 [timbl]
{ ?X doc:nature ?DOC } => { ?X a [ doc:ClassOfDocsOfNature ?DOC] }
18:56:30 [noah]
HT: Norm has agreed that "rddl:" in my examples is an error
18:57:36 [DanC_csail]
18:57:44 [noah]
HT: nature seems ok to me
18:57:59 [noah]
HT: nsmeta:nature
18:59:03 [noah]
HT: we might also want to do nsmeta:purpose
19:00:02 [noah]
TBL: purpose is the class of property, not an individual property
19:00:14 [noah]
DC: Thus, validation is type purpose
19:00:26 [noah]
s/is type/is of type/
19:00:36 [DanC_csail]
('nsmeta' is ugly)
19:01:14 [noah]
NM: what's the history of nsmeta
19:01:27 [noah]
HT: just invented it, tentatively, to stand for "namespace meta"
19:02:54 [noah]
HT: we have outstanding issue of whether 200 or 303 is appropriate for retrieving namespace
19:03:58 [ht_stata]
It would be cleaner in principle if the NSURI identified the namespace, and the NS Document is what you get _via_ a 303 if you try to dereference the NSURI
19:04:35 [ht_stata]
... being a description of the resource, but not the resource itself
19:04:51 [dorchard]
dorchard has joined #tagmem
19:05:00 [noah]
NM: I don't think a namespace is a document. I think it is an info resource for which a document is an acceptable representation. Thus I can live with 200.
19:05:33 [noah]
TBL: (who said this ahead of Noah, who forgot to scribe it) The namespace URI refers to the document.
19:05:52 [noah]
DC: I only want to use 303 for those namespaces in which people haven't put #
19:06:06 [noah]
HT: The essence of the namespace is what names are in it and with what definitions.
19:06:20 [noah]
HT: Most ns documents don't give all and only that information.
19:06:46 [noah]
HT: Many NS docs don't have anchors
19:07:05 [Ed_]
Ed_ has joined #tagmem
19:07:07 [noah]
DC: The XML namespace does that
19:08:26 [noah]
TBL: you can't expect a machines to read the HTML spec
19:08:49 [noah]
NM: We've said that information resources are in principle representable in a message, but >not< that every representation need be complete
19:09:17 [noah]
NW: I think I have what I need to move forward. I will fix errors in examples and incorporate proper natures and purposes and produce a new draft.
19:10:12 [noah]
DC: Jonathan Borden's been watching this discussion...let's find his mail.
19:10:45 [Ed_]
Ed_ has joined #tagmem
19:11:13 [DanC_csail]
... he seems mostly happy.
19:13:46 [noah]
19:20:34 [Norm]
19:20:50 [noah]
Discussing press release:
19:21:31 [noah]
DC: Review of history
19:22:02 [noah]
DC: Tag gave critical review to proposed XRI spec.
19:22:12 [noah]
DC: We've recently learned it's advancing at OASIS
19:22:39 [noah]
NW: The vote seems to have gone out, and is open through December.
19:23:28 [noah]
DC: Their process seems to require them to consider our comments, but not respond to us
19:23:36 [ht_stata]
19:23:49 [dorchard]
BEA voted No on the XRI spec btw.
19:23:55 [DanC_csail]
"Following is a first draft of the proposed accounting for public comments on
19:23:55 [DanC_csail]
XRI Syntax 2.0 as required by section 3.4(g) of the OASIS TC process.
19:23:55 [DanC_csail]
19:24:26 [dorchard]
For historical purposes, we never answered an informal query from them as to how http: uris could do their use cases.
19:24:30 [DanC_csail]
19:24:31 [DanC_csail]
In particular, the HTTP URI scheme did not (and could not) fulfill this
19:24:31 [DanC_csail]
requirement because the vast majority of identifiers produced using this
19:24:31 [DanC_csail]
scheme: a) are concrete identifiers (identifiers tied to a particular
19:24:31 [DanC_csail]
domain, directory, application, or device), and b) have (by definition) a
19:24:31 [DanC_csail]
specific method of interaction (HTTP).
19:24:33 [DanC_csail]
19:24:59 [noah]
TBL: They have a set of protocols
19:25:20 [noah]
HT: Is it obvious to those of us here why the http scheme wouldn't meet their needs?
19:25:37 [DanC_csail]
requirement seems to be "consistent way of identifying resources independent
19:25:37 [DanC_csail]
of domain, location, application, and interaction method."
19:25:56 [noah]
[The XRI was chartered in January 2003 because, after considerable research,
19:25:56 [noah]
its organizers concluded that no URI scheme, including the HTTP and URN
19:25:56 [noah]
schemes, provided "the desired properties of identifiers and their relation
19:25:56 [noah]
to resources" when the desired properties were those of uniform abstract
19:25:56 [noah]
identification, i.e., a consistent way of identifying resources independent
19:25:57 [noah]
of domain, location, application, and interaction method.
19:25:59 [noah]
19:26:12 [noah]
We want to change the protocol for our names, without changing for the rest of http names.
19:26:40 [noah]
TBL: e.g. ISBN numbers are in here, and perhaps other things like RFIDs, and we'd like to use a better protocol later.
19:26:55 [noah]
TBL: playing devil's advocate, you will be able to change HTTP but it will take you 5 years,
19:28:44 [noah]
NM: Doesn't this relate to our discussion yesterday of schemes and protocols? At least in the draft we reviewed yesterday, I made clear that some http scheme resources could be served with the protocol of your choice while others might be served with HTTP 1.1. The TAG does not have consensus on that, but I neither have we concluded otherwise.
19:30:33 [noah]
DC: Does say anything about this.
19:31:16 [Roy]
19:31:21 [noah]
DC: Regarding the info scheme, IESG acknowledged dissent but decided to register it anyway.
19:31:39 [noah]
HT: Yes, the registry has been updated, and refers to an internet draft.
19:32:34 [noah]
DC: Earlier we expressed concern about URNs for naming media types. Mark Baker and I started writing but a draft, but then we dropped it.
19:32:44 [ht_stata]
Information Assets with Identifiers in Public Namespaces [RFC-vandesompel-info-uri-04.txt]
19:32:50 [noah]
DC: Maybe we should call together in IETF IG meeting.
19:44:51 [noah]
Some discussion of having a URI IG call to explore reasons why http does or doesn't solve the problem.
19:45:04 [noah]
DC: Henry, do you feel your finding is in good shape?
19:45:54 [noah]
HT: Not all the way, but as of yesterday I do know of at least one example of when a new scheme is justified (irc), and that will help me make the case. Unfortunately, due to obligations to other WGs, don't look for another draft before Feb.
19:46:16 [noah]
s/make the case/discuss the tradeoffs/
19:47:07 [DanC_csail]
q+ to go over "for names consisting of an adiminstrative hierarchy and a path, HTTP/DNS is as good as it gets"
19:47:32 [DanC_csail]
ack danc
19:47:32 [Zakim]
DanC_csail, you wanted to go over "for names consisting of an adiminstrative hierarchy and a path, HTTP/DNS is as good as
19:47:36 [Zakim]
... it gets"
19:47:40 [Norm]
Norm has joined #tagmem
19:47:45 [ht_stata]
19:50:15 [DaveO]
DaveO has joined #tagmem
19:51:42 [noah]
DC: I think they believe that http scheme URIs are supposed to be dereferencable
19:52:29 [DanC_csail]
DC: our "A URI owner SHOULD provide representations of the resource it identifies" applies to all URIs
19:52:32 [DanC_csail]
TBL: what about mailto:
19:52:33 [DanC_csail]
19:53:03 [noah]
NM: That's backwards. It is a good thing on the Web if your resource is dereferncable. Naming with http helps you do that, but the converse isn't true: just because you name with xri doesn't mean you have less advantage from being derefencable.
19:53:44 [noah]
HT: I wonder whether part of the concern is a misperception that with http scheme, you must start by interacting with the IP address returned by DNS for the identified authority.
19:54:17 [DaveO]
I think we should show how their requirements can be met by http: URIs.
19:54:33 [noah]
HT: For example, you could go to and find a registry (perhaps in RDF) who have copies of information for different
19:54:39 [noah]
NM: Is this an HTTP cache?
19:54:46 [noah]
19:54:52 [noah]
19:56:02 [DaveO]
How about a Dirk/Nadia story for creating a "location independent" identifier?
19:56:11 [noah]
DC: consider
19:56:51 [noah]
DC: ordinary Web software gets either 401, not authorized
19:57:17 [noah]
DC: but we infer that client software can be deployed (or else how would the info scheme have been implemented).
19:57:52 [noah]
DC: instead of hooking an "info" scheme handler, they periodically go to
19:58:08 [noah]
DC: Returns 200, with license and information on redirection.
19:59:46 [noah]
DC: Now I go back and ask for but I've learned to ask differently, probably with a credential or redirect determined form the directory returned from "meta"
20:01:20 [noah]
NM: I still think that some people are going to say "Yes, but hooking on the scheme in a user agent is easier than making a chain of proxies, some for "info" some for "xxxx" some for the rest of the "web".
20:01:45 [noah]
DC: Not sure that's the only concern. There seems to be some feeling that in general people have better control of their own worlds if they own a scheme.
20:03:25 [noah]
HT: I think I have the input I need to move forward, but it will probably be Feb. before I have a revision.
20:06:13 [noah]
Topic: nameSpaceState-48: Adding terms to a namespace
20:06:45 [noah]
We had agreed in Edinburgh that two changes were needed before an approved finding. See:
20:07:17 [noah]
ACTION: Norm to apply changes to nameSpaceState-48 document and recirculate for comments
20:07:49 [noah]
Topic: endPointRefs-47: WS-Addressing SOAP binding & app protocols
20:07:54 [Vincent]
Dave, could you call the bridge?
20:09:24 [noah]
Henry wrote a proposed use case, and Noah solicited comments from the public.
20:09:35 [noah]
See Noah's note at and fairly long thread that follows.
20:09:41 [noah]
Henry's use case is linked from Noah's note.
20:09:58 [noah]
Henry's use case:
20:12:33 [Zakim]
20:19:27 [Norm]
<useful-disk-drive xsi:type="eprtype">
20:19:44 [Norm]
20:19:51 [Norm]
20:19:55 [Norm]
20:25:15 [DaveO]
In WS-A, there is a <wsaw:UsingAddressing/> extension that is attached to the binding as a child to indicate wsa
20:25:31 [Norm]
20:25:57 [Norm]
Halt and catch fire
20:27:31 [DaveO]
When echoing headers, the client must mark the header with an attribute indicating it was generated via the wsa processing model, I think it's "wsa:isReferenceParameter"
20:32:29 [DanC_csail]
dave, this is rougly what's on the board
20:33:00 [DanC_csail]
can you see that?
20:33:00 [Norm]
Norm has joined #tagmem
20:33:32 [DanC_csail]
rougly what's on the board
20:34:09 [DanC_csail]
reload to get syntax highlighting
20:35:01 [DanC_csail]
daveo, note you can edit the pastebin entry, if you want us to see something different
20:37:50 [DanC_csail]
version of 20:37 spells it wsaw:useingAddressing
20:39:51 [DanC_csail]
sketch of order processing whiteboard bit
20:40:25 [DaveO]
<binding name="reservationSOAPBinding"
20:40:25 [DaveO]
20:40:25 [DaveO]
20:40:25 [DaveO]
20:40:25 [DaveO]
<wsaw:UsingAddressing wsdl:required="true" />
20:40:26 [DaveO]
<operation ref="tns:opCheckAvailability"
20:40:28 [DaveO]
wsoap:mep="" />
20:40:30 [DaveO]
<fault ref="tns:invalidDataFault" wsoap:code="soap:Sender" />
20:40:32 [DaveO]
20:41:30 [DaveO]
From the editor's copy;%20charset=utf-8#indicatinguse
20:42:45 [DanC_csail]
rev 20:42
20:43:58 [DanC_csail]
20:45:20 [DaveO]
this is really good and interactive
20:45:34 [DanC_csail] 10.2.3 202 Accepted
20:51:01 [noah]
DC: so with an EPR you wind up with this extensible detail, and then exploding it back into SOAP headers
20:51:10 [noah]
TBL: the extensibility is important
20:53:09 [ht_stata]
q+ to relay Mark Baker's concern
20:53:33 [noah]
NM: yes, I think so, but there's also the point that SOAP infrastructure to dispatch on SOAP headers and do mustUnderstand is widely deployed.
20:53:46 [Vincent]
ack ht
20:53:46 [Zakim]
ht_stata, you wanted to relay Mark Baker's concern
20:53:55 [noah]
DO: I want to emphasize that's crucial. That's probably the main reason people are excited about this stuff. Also the power of XML.
20:54:19 [noah]
HT: let's remind ourselves that the person who raised this issue (Mark Baker) wasn't concerned with any of this.
20:54:49 [noah]
HT: One of Mark's concerns is that no Recommendation tells you to send to the <wsa:address>
20:55:48 [noah]
DO: Consider multihop with HTTP first hop and JMS for second. Note that wsa:address is for the ultimate destination, not the intermediate. Mark believes that HTTP prohibits this.
20:56:13 [noah]
HT: based on yesterday's discussion, the HTTP is a proxy and Mark is right.
20:56:47 [noah]
TBL: what sort of addressing is done over non-HTTP links. MQSeries, say.
20:56:56 [noah]
TBL:P Dave?
20:57:02 [noah]
s/P Dave/Dave/
20:57:25 [noah]
NM: is there an HTTP hop there?
20:57:37 [noah]
DO: yes, sure HTTP is there.
20:57:57 [noah]
DO: one way is that the [address] is the HTTP intermediary and the refParm tells you what to do.
20:58:15 [noah]
DO: you don't need standard because refParms are OK
20:58:25 [noah]
NM: well, you could write a spec for a refParm
20:58:50 [noah]
DO: Oh, I see, you mean something generic. I was thinking a particular customer would map the refParms into the queuing system.
20:59:30 [ht_stata]
That reminds me of a crucial aspect of much of the pushback on my original example: The person who mints the EPR is the person who will decode the reference parameters in it at the end of the day
21:01:20 [noah]
NM: some queuing systems have URI schemes, and you could also put those in the [address]. Right?
21:01:27 [noah]
DO: right
21:01:38 [noah]
DO: also note these will be used a lot for session IDs, etc.
21:02:25 [noah]
HT: So the majority case is, the person who mints the EPR is the one who decodes the parms.
21:10:07 [noah]
NM: I've heard that in WSA there is some serious discussion about making our proposed text weaker.
21:11:09 [DaveO]
21:11:32 [noah]
NM: I certainly hope WSA is committed to showing us any counterproposals so we can try to get consensus before heading into the formal Rec submission.
21:11:38 [noah]
DO: I think there's a good chance that will happen.
21:11:51 [noah]
??: Do we have an answer for Mark Baker
21:11:53 [DaveO]
I think it's the right thing for WS-A to ask.
21:13:22 [noah]
FWIW: based on a quick read, the text in the proposal at the bottom of looks fine to me.
21:14:29 [noah]
NM: I think Mark's concern may be about having the [address] URI appear at two levels
21:18:40 [Zakim]
21:18:44 [Zakim]
21:18:45 [Zakim]
TAG_f2f()1:00PM has ended
21:18:46 [Zakim]
Attendees were VictorZue, timbl, DanC_csail, Roy, Vincent, Ed, ht_stata, Norm, Dave_Orchard
21:18:46 [noah]
ACTION: Vincent to invite Mark Baker to future telcon to discuss his concern.
21:46:41 [Norm]
Norm has joined #tagmem
22:35:55 [Norm]
Norm has joined #tagmem
22:55:40 [DanC_lap]
DanC_lap has joined #tagmem
23:15:36 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #tagmem