IRC log of tagmem on 2006-01-24

Timestamps are in UTC.

17:17:27 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #tagmem
17:17:27 [RRSAgent]
logging to
17:20:37 [ht]
Scribe: Henry S. Thompson
17:20:40 [ht]
ScribeNick: ht
17:20:56 [ht]
Meeting: TAG teleconference
17:21:10 [ht]
Chair: Vincent Quint
17:44:51 [DanC]
DanC has joined #tagmem
17:45:49 [DanC]
DanC has changed the topic to: Scribe: Noah?
17:48:25 [DanC]
hmm... no actions in the agenda.
17:49:28 [DanC]
ah... now i see an action
17:55:45 [noah]
noah has joined #tagmem
17:56:19 [noah]
We've switched scribes: Henry will be scribing today.
17:56:43 [Zakim]
TAG_Weekly()12:30PM has now started
17:56:49 [DanC]
DanC has changed the topic to: Scribe: ht
17:56:50 [Zakim]
17:57:40 [DanC]
note to self: 2 agenda requests: (1) security workshop deadline 25 Jan (2) WSDL/RDF mapping and semantic annotations
17:59:53 [Vincent]
Vincent has joined #tagmem
17:59:55 [ht]
Topic: Administrative
18:00:47 [ht]
Regrets from Ed Rice, Norm Walsh
18:01:04 [ht]
zakim, please call ht-781
18:01:04 [Zakim]
ok, ht; the call is being made
18:01:05 [Zakim]
18:01:47 [Zakim]
18:02:01 [Vincent]
Zakim, INRIA is Vincent
18:02:01 [Zakim]
+Vincent; got it
18:03:19 [Zakim]
18:03:29 [noah]
zakim, who is talking?
18:03:40 [Zakim]
noah, listening for 10 seconds I could not identify any sounds
18:03:43 [noah]
zakim, who is talking?
18:03:54 [Zakim]
noah, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Vincent (5%)
18:04:20 [Zakim]
18:04:20 [noah]
zakim, who is on the phone?
18:04:21 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Noah_Mendelsohn, Ht, Vincent, TimBL, DOrchard
18:04:40 [Zakim]
18:06:23 [ht]
zakim, who is on the call?
18:06:23 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Noah_Mendelsohn, Ht, Vincent, TimBL, DOrchard, DanC
18:06:37 [dorchard]
dorchard has joined #tagmem
18:07:21 [ht]
VQ: Roy is at risk, we won't wait for him
18:07:52 [Zakim]
18:09:19 [ht]
NH, HT: Revised minutes will take a day or two, but will appear
18:09:48 [ht]
VQ: Next telcon: HT, NM regrets for Schema f2f
18:10:03 [ht]
... TBL regrets, RF regrets
18:10:46 [ht]
... One more regret and I will cancel, but with 5 we will try to go ahead
18:11:04 [DanC]
I'm available to scribe 31 Jan
18:11:22 [ht]
VQ: ER to scribe, DC fallback
18:11:57 [DanC]
q+ 2 agenda requests: (1) security workshop deadline 25 Jan (2) WSDL/RDF mapping and semantic annotations
18:11:57 [ht]
... Proposed agenda for today:
18:12:05 [DanC]
q+ to make 2 agenda requests: (1) security workshop deadline 25 Jan (2) WSDL/RDF mapping and semantic annotations
18:14:36 [ht]
VQ: Agenda agreed with Security Wkshp at the front and WSDL/RDF added at the back
18:15:06 [ht]
... Propose to adopt minutes of 10 Jan:
18:15:29 [ht]
... Approved
18:15:46 [ht]
VQ: Activity summary due
18:16:43 [ht]
ACTION: VQ to prepare a summary in the next few days, circulate to for review, then go public depending on feedback
18:17:07 [ht]
VQ: TP starts in one month, no joint meetings yet scheduled. . .
18:17:25 [ht]
... What opportunities are we at risk of missing?
18:17:40 [ht]
DC: Like to talk to Compound Document WG. . .
18:18:17 [ht]
DO: Working with Hoylen Sue on XML Schema versioning stuff, hoping to work with Schema WG on that, also spooling up on our own versioning work
18:18:40 [ht]
... So want to ask Schema WG to take part to go over the use cases, maybe get an updated draft finding in time
18:19:04 [ht]
NM: XML Schema WG is not meeting at the Tech Plenary, meeting in Florida next week instead
18:19:18 [ht]
... But in fact at least HST, NM, MSM will be there
18:19:30 [ht]
s/there/in Mandelieu/
18:19:41 [ht]
VQ: Formal meeting with CDF WG?
18:20:05 [noah]
q+ to mention binary WG
18:20:14 [timbl]
timbl has joined #tagmem
18:20:21 [ht]
DC: I don't think a formal meeting is required, happy to just talk informally
18:20:42 [ht]
VQ: I wouldn't mind chatting with them. . .
18:21:05 [Vincent]
ack noah
18:21:05 [Zakim]
noah, you wanted to mention binary WG
18:21:07 [ht]
NM: I'd prefer to save formal meetings for times when we have formal business to do, so perhaps not this time for CDF
18:21:08 [DanC]
(Noah, did you say we've met with the CDF WG before? I don't believe we have.)
18:21:38 [ht]
HST believes we met CDF WG last year in Boston
18:22:16 [ht]
NM: I don't have any particular item we need to talk to EXI about -- just pointing out that they're just starting up
18:22:48 [noah]
EXI is meeting Thurs/Fri at the plenary, as I recall.
18:23:09 [ht]
VQ: So doesn't sound like any formal meetings are required, but no reason this can't change in the intervening month. . .
18:23:20 [ht]
Topic: Security Workshop
18:23:36 [DanC]
18:24:23 [ht]
DC thinking about turning his contributions to this group on security into a position paper for this workshop
18:24:32 [ht]
... Digest authentication
18:25:03 [ht]
DO: In our discussion about state, this has come up, and there's some discussion about forms-based security
18:25:20 [ht]
... taking over from http-based security, in my draft finding about state
18:25:28 [ht]
... Will find URI and paste here
18:25:50 [ht]
DC: Haven't come up with a thesis statement for a paper
18:25:57 [ht]
q+ to suggest a thesis
18:26:24 [Vincent]
ack ht
18:26:24 [Zakim]
ht, you wanted to suggest a thesis
18:26:47 [dorchard]
18:26:51 [ht]
HST: "We already know what we need to do, why aren't we doing it?"
18:27:05 [ht]
TBL: I'm interested, but I can't fit it in
18:27:09 [dorchard]
The primary reasons for customized security are security concerns, that
18:27:09 [dorchard]
is wanting greater control over the security timing out, and ease of use
18:27:09 [dorchard]
concerns, particularly wanting direct control over the look and feel of
18:27:09 [dorchard]
the screens including helpful tips and links to forgotten passwords.
18:27:30 [ht]
... I have a UK trip already scheduled for that week, which is a shame
18:28:14 [ht]
DO: Not in the same direction as HST's digest authentication suggestion -- my thesis is we don't have what we need
18:28:30 [DanC]
aha... found my slides ->
18:28:44 [ht]
TBL: Just display the name of the holder of the certificate in the browser, half the phishing stuff would go away
18:28:47 [DanC]
oops; no, those are daveS's slides
18:29:02 [ht]
DO: People want control of the look and feel, timing out, etc.
18:30:18 [ht]
VQ: So, nothing for this group?
18:30:41 [ht]
DC: I've got helpful input, all I was hoping for, not planning to represent the TAG if I go
18:30:54 [ht]
VQ: OK, nothing more to say
18:31:21 [ht]
Topic: Reply from WS Addressing WG wrt epr-27
18:31:38 [ht]
18:31:48 [noah]
Our original proposed text:
18:31:48 [noah]
Note: Web Architecture dictates that resources should be identified with
18:31:48 [noah]
URIs. Thus, use of the abstract properties of an EPR other than
18:31:48 [noah]
wsa:address to identify resources is contrary to Web Architecture. In
18:31:48 [noah]
certain circumstances, use of such additional properties may be convenient
18:31:49 [noah]
or beneficial, perhaps due to the availability of QName-based tools. When
18:31:51 [noah]
building systems that violate this principle, care must be taken to weigh
18:31:53 [noah]
the tradeoffs inherent in deploying resources that are not on the Web.
18:31:59 [ht]
VQ: WG has modified their document, asking for our feedback
18:32:04 [DanC]
aha! finally found minutes of our security discussion.
18:32:10 [noah]
Their proposal:
18:32:11 [noah]
The Architecture of the World Wide Web, Volume One [AoWWW]
18:32:11 [noah]
recommends [Section 2 of AoWWW] the use of URIs to identify
18:32:11 [noah]
resources. Using abstract properties of an EPR other than
18:32:11 [noah]
[destination] to identify resources is contrary to this
18:32:11 [noah]
recommendation. In certain circumstances, such a use of additional
18:32:13 [noah]
properties may be convenient or beneficial; however, when building
18:32:15 [noah]
systems, the benefits or convenience of identifying a resource using
18:32:17 [noah]
reference parameters should be carefully weighed against the
18:32:19 [noah]
benefits of identifying a resource solely by URI as explained in
18:32:21 [noah]
[Section 2.
18:32:23 [noah]
The Architecture of the World Wide Web, Volume One [AoWWW]
18:32:25 [noah]
recommends [Section 2 of AoWWW] the use of URIs to identify
18:32:27 [noah]
resources. Using abstract properties of an EPR other than
18:32:29 [noah]
[destination] to identify resources is contrary to this
18:32:31 [noah]
recommendation. In certain circumstances, such a use of additional
18:32:33 [noah]
properties may be convenient or beneficial; however, when building
18:32:35 [noah]
systems, the benefits or convenience of identifying a resource using
18:32:37 [noah]
reference parameters should be carefully weighed against the
18:32:39 [noah]
benefits of identifying a resource solely by URI as explained in
18:32:41 [noah]
[Section 2.
18:32:43 [noah]
[Section 2.1] of the Web Architecture.
18:33:51 [ht]
NM: We could quibble -- they toned things down a bit, we could push back, but I think it's a straight yes-no call
18:34:01 [ht]
DC: I can't see the difference . . .
18:34:21 [ht]
... I've seen various drafts, can't tell the difference any more
18:34:58 [ht]
TBL: I don't see anything worth fighting about there
18:35:09 [ht]
DC: What about the example?
18:35:24 [noah]
Our note to WSA:
18:35:32 [ht]
HST: I think that was an illustration for their benefit, not suggested for inclusion in their REC
18:36:07 [ht]
... I think their proposal represents some positive movement on their part, should accept with thanks
18:36:36 [ht]
DO: +1
18:36:39 [ht]
DC: I'd like to think a bit out loud about this before agreeing
18:36:54 [ht]
... Were we trying to change the world, or just get some words in the doc't
18:37:18 [ht]
DO: I wanted us to change the world, in the direction of proposing encoding of EPRs in URIs, but we haven't gone there
18:37:31 [ht]
NM: [scribe missed some]
18:38:08 [ht]
... DO helped us in E'burgh to see what some of the reasonable motivations were for using EPR parameters for despatching
18:39:05 [ht]
... So rather than just saying to WSAWG "don't go there", we decided to try to get acknowledgement of the costs as well as the benefits
18:39:15 [DanC]
q+ to ask if anybody is motivated to take this note from WSA and discuss it with the WS-RF folks
18:39:26 [ht]
DC: Was there a GRID spec that uses EPRs?
18:39:31 [ht]
18:39:56 [ht]
TBL: Worried none-the-less that we'll start seeing EPRs turning up as the only identifier for some resources
18:40:33 [ht]
DO: I still think we should push for EPR-in-URI work, maybe from WSA WG, maybe with help from us
18:40:55 [noah]
q+ discuss meta issue, scope of WG charters
18:40:56 [ht]
... Until that happens, as long as dispatching on QNames isn't addressed, people will use EPRs
18:41:06 [ht]
DC: Thanks, that has helped
18:41:08 [Vincent]
ack noah
18:41:46 [DanC]
(I wonder if WS-RF is done, or still asking under review. I get "done" vibes from )
18:42:19 [ht]
NM: I'm concerned about the meta-question of scenarios in which a WG is doing something (SOAP endpoints, WSDL component naming, WSA and EPRs) where TAG feels more should be done -- how should we deal with this
18:42:46 [ht]
... I think this should be made more explicit in group charters, so that they're not surprised/upset when we come to them
18:42:54 [DanC]
18:43:33 [ht]
DO: I think we are there with XMLP, WSDL did the HTTP binding for us, contributed to the schedule slip for WSDL2.0
18:43:42 [DanC]
q+ to suggest 1st WG ftf as a time to expose WGs to webarch, no just charter, and to think again about CDF, EXI
18:44:00 [ht]
... WSA is moving much faster, maybe that's because they _didn't_ take so much care about WebArch issues
18:44:12 [Vincent]
ack DanC
18:44:12 [Zakim]
DanC, you wanted to suggest 1st WG ftf as a time to expose WGs to webarch, no just charter, and to think again about CDF, EXI
18:44:23 [ht]
... Certainly agree that if we're going to enforce expectations about WebArch on groups, we should signal that early
18:44:54 [ht]
DC: Doing it via the charter is not clearly the best route, rather get it in the culture at their first f2f. . .
18:44:58 [Zakim]
18:45:39 [ht]
NM: We could consider internal guidelines -- e.g. when people say "Hey, do some RDF for that too", are you allowed to ignore that, or is it obligatory, or . . .
18:46:06 [ht]
... People are legitimately confused about how this all applies to their WG
18:46:17 [ht]
... They need help getting a consistent reading on this stuff
18:46:33 [ht]
VQ: The agenda item is not about this general issue
18:46:35 [DanC]
(yes, back to the proposal to accept this wording with thanks.)
18:47:04 [ht]
... So how do we reply to their proposed text?
18:47:27 [ht]
... I think I hear consensus that they've done a good thing, as far as it goes.
18:47:52 [ht]
RESOLVED: We are satisfied with the text they propose to add
18:48:02 [ht]
ACTION: NM to convey this to the WSA WG
18:48:39 [ht]
HST: Perhaps the meta-topic would be a good agenda item for the f2f
18:49:04 [ht]
Topic: Roy Fielding issue wrap-up
18:49:19 [ht]
VQ: Roy has left the call. . .
18:49:45 [ht]
... Review his pending actions:
18:51:28 [ht]
VQ: wrt metadataInURI-31, no progress, RF suggests to drop the action
18:51:39 [ht]
... NM was involved too -- Noah?
18:52:04 [ht]
NM: I've been trying to uncover the history, I get added to this late in the game, don't really know the history
18:52:34 [ht]
... Haven't made any progress -- we should assume it has fallen through the cracks
18:53:03 [ht]
... I would prefer to get off the hook on this to focus on other issues on my plate
18:53:17 [ht]
DC: I'm torn about this
18:53:29 [ht]
TBL: Related to URIGoodPractices-40
18:53:41 [ht]
q+ to mention persistent identifiers
18:54:14 [ht]
DO: URIGP-40 was just a response to RF's assertion that parentheses are bad in fragIDs, we can let that go
18:54:32 [ht]
... but mIU-31 is more serious
18:54:53 [ht]
NM: I see we have a draft from Stewart, but I can't tell why it didn't go forward. . .
18:55:02 [ht]
[need URI for minutes]
18:55:18 [ht]
DO: I think there's lots of good stuff in there
18:55:29 [timbl]
18:55:54 [ht]
NM: I asked because if there's broad agreement on what's there I'm more sanguine about taking it on
18:56:02 [DanC]
18:56:07 [Vincent]
ack ht
18:56:07 [Zakim]
ht, you wanted to mention persistent identifiers
18:56:28 [timbl]
- HTML forms
18:57:04 [Vincent]
ack DanC
18:57:05 [ht]
... But if people aren't clear about where we are
18:57:05 [DanC]
ack danc
18:57:38 [ht]
HST: The InfSci community cares about this, it's one of the reasons they keep inventing new URI schemes
18:57:58 [DanC]
18:58:03 [ht]
... But I don't have much time now to help move the issue forward, don't even know what the draft says
18:58:19 [DanC]
(my hazy recollection of stuart's draft is that it's too long)
18:58:27 [ht]
DC: I feel similarly, would pick it up if it were going to drop altogether, but that wouldn't get it moving any time soon
18:58:53 [ht]
NM: I can pick this up, but it will go on the queue behind other things
18:59:03 [ht]
... but again, no time soon
18:59:14 [ht]
DC: Don't drop the issue, but drop all the actions against it
18:59:27 [ht]
DO: I think this is _more_ important than schemeProtocols
18:59:50 [ht]
VQ: We can't leave actions pending against people who have left
19:00:15 [noah]
NM: Actually, I can also pick this up and put it ahead of schemeProtocols
19:00:20 [ht]
... So let's withdraw the action wrt mIU-31 against his name
19:00:21 [noah]
DO: Yes, ahead of schemeProtocols
19:00:37 [DanC]
(I'd suggest dropping the action on SW similarly)
19:00:52 [ht]
NM: I need guidance on relative priority soon
19:01:29 [ht]
HST: See DC's suggestion
19:01:35 [ht]
VQ: OK, will do that too
19:01:53 [noah]
NM: I.e. I'm about to turn back to schemeProtocols as PLP settles down (I hope). If the group prefers I do metadataInURI first, then I'd rather know that before I swap SchemeProtocols back in. Thanks.
19:02:05 [noah]
VQ: Noah, settle it in email?
19:02:09 [noah]
NM: fine, thanks.
19:02:13 [ht]
VQ: so, next action on RF's list is putMediaType-38
19:02:54 [DanC]
+1 continue
19:02:55 [ht]
... RF promises to deliver final draft in Mandelieu at the end of February
19:03:16 [ht]
... Next one is uriGP-40
19:03:28 [Norm]
Get Roy to deliver his action!
19:03:44 [Norm]
19:03:54 [DanC]
19:04:21 [ht]
VQ: RF does not expect he would get consensus for whatever he wrote
19:04:39 [Vincent]
ack danc
19:04:53 [ht]
DC: Let's remove this from the issues list
19:05:01 [ht]
... Covered elsewhere, I won't miss it
19:05:19 [ht]
VQ: Others happy with that?
19:05:26 [ht]
HST: Yes
19:05:57 [ht]
RESOLVED: uriGoodPractice-40 is to be removed from the list
19:06:10 [ht]
VQ: Usual announcement?
19:06:38 [ht]
TBL: We need to leave pointers for posterity
19:06:54 [ht]
DO: I don't think the () issue exists elsewhere, will just get lost
19:07:20 [ht]
DC: I'm happy for it be lost until someone cares enough to pick it up
19:08:08 [ht]
DO: History is that in the discussion of abstractComponentRefs-?? when XML Schema WG/WSDL WG said they would use XPointer, RF said "(), bleuch", so we raised a new issue
19:08:30 [ht]
... We closed aCR-37
19:08:43 [ht]
DC: Hold on, aCR-37 is open
19:09:00 [ht]
DO: We told the WSDL WG we were not going to push back further on this point
19:09:17 [ht]
... I think these two issues are orthogonal and should be treated as such
19:09:27 [timbl]
Where does it say why not to use () ?
19:09:32 [DanC]
19:09:47 [DanC]
on the contrary; XPointer, a W3C Recommendation, says _to_ use ()s
19:09:48 [ht]
... As long as we're happy that people can use ()s in fragids, we don't need this issue
19:10:00 [timbl]
Let us write soemwhere taht it is a bad idea becaus eyou can't use qname-like shorthand for them.
19:10:18 [ht]
DO: If that ever becomes a problem, then we should come back to this
19:11:07 [ht]
TBL: So QNames were iintroduced to minimize the burden of long URIs, but ()s in fragids render this solution unavailble
19:13:34 [ht]
HST: I agree with DanC -- that issue, i.e. should any kind of fragIDs other than barenames be avoided, because they bar the use of QNames, is being discussed regularly by the TAG under other headings
19:13:56 [ht]
VQ: DO, are you happy for this issue to be dropped
19:14:15 [timbl]
Let's keep the issue.
19:14:24 [ht]
DO: I think it was important to separate out from aCR-37, because it's orthogonal
19:14:39 [ht]
DC: I don't agree it's orthogonal, but I don't care about it, either
19:14:49 [ht]
TBL: Move to 'someday' pile
19:15:11 [DanC]
(I'm happy to leave 40 around until 37 is closed)
19:15:11 [ht]
DO: OK, remove all actions against it, leave it rest until someone feels we need to resurrect it
19:15:48 [ht]
VQ: To conclude, no consensus to drop the issue, we need to leave that for now
19:16:11 [ht]
... For the sake of a clear history, we'll keep it open, but remove all pending actions
19:16:35 [ht]
RESOLVED: Remove pending actions on RF wrt uriGP-40
19:17:01 [ht]
[supersedes previous resolution wrt uriGP-40]
19:17:19 [ht]
VQ: That's it for RF's outstanding actions
19:18:01 [ht]
VQ: In Norm's absence, let's postpone this to a subsequent meeting
19:18:15 [ht]
Topic: Principle of Least Power
19:18:24 [ht]
New draft:
19:18:28 [noah]
Draft in date space:
19:18:30 [noah]
19:18:38 [DanC]
(tim, did you realize you wrote DesignIssues/Meaning , re xmlFunctions-34 and self-describing web?)
19:19:04 [DanC]
q+ to ask why the principle is in a GPN box, twice
19:19:56 [ht]
NM: Reordered the flow, cleaned up some details (SQL Turing complete?), security concerns, what _is_ Turing completeness
19:20:15 [ht]
... Comment that there are downsides -- too simple isn't good either (Occam lives)
19:20:39 [ht]
... RDF discussion untangled from HTML discussion
19:21:07 [ht]
... New section (3) on scalable language families (OWLxxx, Javascript +/- Objects)
19:21:20 [ht]
... Hope this is close to ready to ship
19:21:31 [Vincent]
ack DanC
19:21:33 [Zakim]
DanC, you wanted to ask why the principle is in a GPN box, twice
19:21:45 [ht]
DC: Why not a principle?
19:22:08 [ht]
NM: I could see it go either way
19:22:19 [ht]
... Willing to change it
19:22:28 [ht]
DC: Why hasn't this be changed before?
19:22:36 [ht]
NM: Clerical error, I suspect
19:22:57 [ht]
TBL: It's definitely a principle
19:22:57 [noah]
Good Practice: When publishing on the Web, choose the least powerful or most easily analyzed language variant that's suitable for the purpose.
19:23:04 [ht]
NM: What about the added one about scalable
19:23:10 [ht]
HST prefers GP for that
19:23:34 [ht]
DC: That one _is_ phrased as a GP
19:23:53 [ht]
... task is to get the first one into a non-imperative form
19:24:21 [ht]
TBL: Right, rephrase it to make it look like a principle
19:24:21 [timbl]
The more powerful the language the less reusable the information.
19:24:29 [ht]
DC: Other stuff is good
19:24:42 [ht]
... Scope creep is a risk
19:24:56 [ht]
NM: Yes, everybody wants to add a bit more
19:25:16 [ht]
DC: Confirmed: the second box is to be left as a GP, but the first box needs to be a Principle
19:25:57 [DanC]
PROPOSED: to approve leastPower-2006-01-23 + change 1st GPN to principle, contingent on thumbs up by @@(me? DanC?)
19:26:11 [ht]
NM: I can make that small change in a day or two
19:26:21 [ht]
DC: I'm happy to make a decision today
19:27:02 [ht]
HST: Not ready to approve sight-unseen, sorry
19:27:27 [ht]
NM: Target is consensus two weeks today, pending new sentence in email/new draft by the end of the week
19:27:52 [ht]
ACTION: NM to circulate revised sentence for the Principle by Friday 27
19:27:55 [DanC]
(The biggest risk is that nobody will look at the revision right away, and then we'll forget in 2 weeks, and then noah will forget to change the GPN to a principle again ;-)
19:28:47 [ht]
VQ: Nearing the end of the call -- we will come back WSDL/RDF next week
19:28:57 [noah]
I think Tim's proposal of "The more powerful the language the less reusable the information." seems right, or at least very close.
19:29:08 [noah]
I'll start with that and noodle on it.
19:29:11 [ht]
DC: Two weeks, because TBL is critical resource
19:29:16 [Zakim]
19:29:17 [Zakim]
19:29:18 [Zakim]
19:29:21 [Zakim]
19:29:21 [Zakim]
19:29:27 [ht]
RRSAgent, make logs world-visible
19:29:45 [ht]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
19:29:52 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate ht
19:31:12 [ht]
Zakim, bye
19:31:12 [Zakim]
leaving. As of this point the attendees were Noah_Mendelsohn, Ht, Vincent, TimBL, DOrchard, DanC, Roy
19:31:12 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #tagmem
19:31:26 [ht]
RRSAgent, bye
19:31:26 [RRSAgent]
I see 3 open action items saved in :
19:31:26 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: VQ to prepare a summary in the next few days, circulate to for review, then go public depending on feedback [1]
19:31:26 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
19:31:26 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: NM to convey this to the WSA WG [2]
19:31:26 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
19:31:26 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: NM to circulate revised sentence for the Principle by Friday 27 [3]
19:31:26 [RRSAgent]
recorded in