IRC log of tagmem on 2009-12-09

Timestamps are in UTC.

01:27:52 [noah]
noah has joined #tagmem
02:08:43 [timbl]
timbl has joined #tagmem
03:16:58 [DanC_]
DanC_ has joined #tagmem
14:15:45 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #tagmem
14:15:45 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/12/09-tagmem-irc
14:15:55 [ht]
ScribeNick: ht
14:15:59 [ht]
Scribe: Henry S. Thompson
14:16:07 [ht]
Chair: Noah Mendelsohn
14:16:16 [ht]
Meeting: TAG f2f
14:16:37 [ht]
Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/12/08-agenda.html
14:17:47 [ht]
Present: Tim Berners-Lee, Dan Connolly, Ashok Malhotra, Larry Masinter, Noah Mendelsohn, Jonathan Rees, Henry S. Thompson
14:17:57 [ht]
[Agenda planning. . .]
14:18:38 [ht]
NM: Let's try issue HttpRedirections-57
14:18:41 [DanC_]
agenda order is 6, 17
14:19:16 [ht]
Present+ John Kemp
14:19:21 [DanC_]
agenda order is 6, 10, 17
14:19:45 [ht]
Topic: Metadata Architecture (HTTP Semantics): ISSUE-57 (HttpRedirections-57): The use of HTTP Redirection
14:19:51 [ht]
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/12/08-agenda.html#HttpRedire
14:20:34 [DanC_]
Zakim, remind us in 40 minutes to wrap up redirections and move to versioned specs
14:20:34 [Zakim]
ok, DanC_
14:20:35 [Ashok]
Ashok has joined #tagmem
14:21:17 [ht]
JR: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Jun/0057.html
14:21:49 [ht]
JR: Going through the history---first two points are the origin of this
14:21:56 [masinter]
masinter has joined #tagmem
14:22:13 [ht]
JR: 1) 303s aren't supposed to be cached -- bug in 2616 -- fixed in HTTPbis
14:22:24 [ht]
DC: Let's endorse that fix
14:22:53 [ht]
LM: Not sure about that -- not prepared to endorse -- abstain
14:23:42 [ht]
NM: This becomes relevant because we encouraged people to _use_ 303
14:24:08 [ht]
JR: Any reason not cache 303 responses?
14:24:10 [ht]
LM: No
14:24:50 [ht]
NM: draft RESOLUTION: TAG endorses the proposed change to HTTPbis to allow caching of 303 responses
14:25:30 [ht]
DC: Specific proposal is where?
14:25:44 [jar]
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-08#section-8.3.4
14:25:44 [johnk]
johnk has joined #tagmem
14:26:06 [DanC_]
is this OK? "A 303 response SHOULD NOT be cached unless it is indicated as
14:26:06 [DanC_]
cacheable by Cache-Control or Expires header fields."
14:26:42 [ht]
JR: This is different from 307. . .
14:27:09 [ht]
DC: I think the HTTP spec. is usually neutral wrt caching
14:27:29 [ht]
JR: OK, we need to explore this further -- the difference from 307 is worrying
14:27:38 [noahm]
I heard DC say HTTP was neutral in the absence of cache-control or expires header
14:27:40 [DanC_]
ACTION jonathan: research 303 caching change in HTTPbis
14:27:40 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-347 - Research 303 caching change in HTTPbis [on Jonathan Rees - due 2009-12-16].
14:28:50 [ht]
JR: Sub-issue 2) There's a need for a non-3xx response, in order that the original URI stays in the status bar
14:29:23 [ht]
... Unlike 302 or 307, where the target goes in the address bar
14:29:35 [DanC_]
(researching the bug...)
14:29:37 [ht]
... This is described as a security concern
14:31:31 [ht]
s/302/302, 303/
14:31:43 [DanC_]
(many/most purl users want the purl bookmarked, not the redirected addressed)
14:32:59 [ht]
TBL: But we really don't want that for e.g. 307, because it's only a _temporary_ redirect, so people shouldn't e.g. bookmark it
14:33:16 [ht]
LM: The single result is insufficient for what we want to tell the user
14:33:29 [ht]
s/result/result display in the address bar/
14:33:44 [ht]
LM: Doing UI design is inappropriate for us. . .
14:34:00 [ht]
JR: I agree, that's why I want to lose this part of the issue
14:34:31 [ht]
LM: The principle we can endorse is that the URI you see should be a URI you can use to get you what you see
14:35:00 [ht]
... Going further to say it should be a long-term, bookmarkable, etc. URI is a bit fuzzier
14:35:26 [ht]
NM: WebArch says use one URI for a resource
14:36:26 [ht]
... even when they're not going away, it can be a problem, for example when example.com redirects to example-1.com or example-2.com for load balancing
14:36:40 [ht]
JR: What should I do
14:37:02 [jar]
For all practical purposes it's impossible to get a purl.org URI into your bookmarks list
14:37:19 [ht]
DC: Let's find out why Mozilla decline to address the PURL folks' request to fix this, so that you could bookmark PURLs
14:38:08 [ht]
TBL: Flight of fancy on 303x, 303y, 303z. . .
14:38:15 [DanC_]
"304622 min -- All nobody RESO INVA Adding a live bookmark via feedview uses the location of the feed rather than the location given in the referring page's link element; redirects, PURLs don't work "
14:38:27 [DanC_]
maybe this is the bug https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=304622
14:38:54 [masinter]
masinter has joined #tagmem
14:39:56 [noahm]
proposed ACTION: Jonathan to research reasons why browser providers (e.g. Mozilla) aren't willing to meet requests (e.g. from purl) to switch address bar URL following successful redirect
14:40:12 [noahm]
ACTION: Jonathan to research reasons why browser providers (e.g. Mozilla) aren't willing to meet requests (e.g. from purl) to switch address bar URL following successful redirect
14:40:12 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-348 - Research reasons why browser providers (e.g. Mozilla) aren't willing to meet requests (e.g. from purl) to switch address bar URL following successful redirect [on Jonathan Rees - due 2009-12-16].
14:40:58 [jar]
or to *not* switch
14:42:30 [ht]
JR: 3) Rhys Lewis was working on a finding wrt httpRange-14, but that work stopped when the SWEO note Cool URIs for the SemWeb was published
14:42:51 [ht]
JR: I think that work should be picked up and made into a finding
14:43:22 [ht]
... which would replace/elaborate the email message which currently stands as the resolution of httpRange-14
14:44:14 [ht]
JR: That was the context for ISSUE-57 at its inception
14:45:09 [ht]
JR: Additional points that have been added, are my points 4--6
14:46:28 [timbl]
timbl has joined #tagmem
14:46:31 [ht]
JR: Latest news: AWWSW task force has reported: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/awwsw/http-semantics-report-20091204.html
14:47:10 [ht]
JR: A number of forms for this work, of which I'm the main editor
14:47:23 [ht]
... helped along by our discussion at the last f2f
14:47:44 [ht]
... A lot of text to introduce one key definition:
14:48:55 [ht]
... for the phrase "corresponds to", which comes from the definition of the 200 response code, in 2616 and HTTPbis
14:49:53 [ht]
LM: I wouldn't take this too seriously -- we didn't when we wrote it
14:50:32 [ht]
JR: We agree entirely. It's the practice which matters to actually pin this down
14:51:04 [ht]
LM: I note that this story works/should work pretty much for ftp: as well
14:51:22 [masinter`]
masinter` has joined #tagmem
14:52:00 [ht]
JR: Wrt WebArch, 'representation' corresponds to 'entity' or 'content entity'
14:52:47 [ht]
... and 'represents' corresponds to 'corresponds to'
14:53:04 [DanC_]
LMM: the HTML spec uses 'resource' for what HTTP calls entity. I filed a bug; we'll see...
14:53:29 [ht]
LM: Note that the correspondence as at a particular instant
14:53:47 [ht]
JR: Yes, at a particular time
14:53:56 [ht]
LM: And in a particular context
14:54:46 [ht]
JR: It's hard to pare things down to the point where we could focus
14:55:02 [ht]
... So there's now a bunch of stuff which has been moved _off_ the table
14:56:05 [ht]
JR: Section *HTTP Exchanges* summarizes what we all know about GET requests
14:58:47 [DanC_]
DC: hmm... in pt 5, "preferably"? the server decides which resource the name refers to...
14:58:54 [DanC_]
JAR: but an intermediary might get confused
14:59:04 [DanC_]
DC: ah... "preferably" makes more sense for intermediaries
15:00:02 [ht]
TBL: 304? 307?
15:00:22 [ht]
JR: Yes, step 6 pbly should be clarified wrt responses other than 200
15:00:34 [Zakim]
DanC_, you asked to be reminded at this time to wrap up redirections and move to versioned specs
15:00:44 [ht]
JR: [works through the RDF formalization]
15:01:13 [ht]
TBL: Why did you avoid 'representation'
15:01:34 [ht]
JR: Because people objected to giving a URI to something called 'representation' a URI
15:02:50 [ht]
TBL: All I was concerned is to distinguish the original resource, identified by its URI, and the 'resource' which is some representation of that resource, which also may have a URI, but is not the same
15:02:57 [ht]
JR: Right
15:04:05 [ht]
JR: correspondence is a 4-place rel'n between resource, a content entity, a start time and an end time
15:05:16 [ht]
HST: Context is richer than just time
15:05:35 [ht]
LM: Accept headers
15:05:46 [ht]
TBL: But there's still something core
15:05:59 [ht]
JR: I try to work breadth first
15:07:09 [ht]
HST: I didn't mean Accept Headers, but rather deixis, e.g. http://localhost/
15:07:19 [ht]
DC: or http://my.yahoo.com/
15:07:40 [ht]
JR: On to section *What this semantics is careful _not_ to say"
15:07:53 [masinter]
masinter has joined #tagmem
15:08:11 [masinter]
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-masinter-dated-uri-05
15:08:54 [masinter]
vs http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-masinter-dated-uri-06
15:09:51 [ht]
LM: Server response is a speech act
15:10:48 [ht]
JR: Precisely -- let's look at some more recent slides
15:11:56 [ht]
... How do you prove correctness of an HTTP proxy, cache, API or theory
15:13:07 [DanC_]
-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2009Dec/att-0024/z.html Potatoes don't say anything
15:13:54 [DanC_]
bug in "Content negotiation" slide: speaks_for should be corresponds_to
15:14:33 [ht]
slide21 should have corresponds_to instead of speaks_for in conneg slide (21?)
15:15:09 [jar]
TOPLAS 1993 ?
15:15:10 [DanC_]
(I think of it as BAN logic)
15:15:28 [ht]
JR: Now make use of Abadi, B??, Lampson and Plotkin logic (ABLP)
15:15:38 [ht]
... originally for crypto
15:15:49 [ht]
... and access control
15:15:52 [masinter]
masinter has joined #tagmem
15:16:24 [DanC_]
(a larch formalization http://www.w3.org/Architecture/iiir-larch/BAN.lsl based on a 1989 SRC Research Report )
15:16:44 [DanC_]
s/B??/Burrows/
15:21:59 [ht]
LM: What's good about this is precisely that it qualifies everything with the principal who/which/that says it
15:23:20 [ht]
JR: Crucial observation -- HTTP defines corresponds_to as follows:
15:23:51 [ht]
"example.com controls {http://example.com/foo corresponds_to foo}"
15:24:24 [ht]
s/foo}/E}/
15:28:34 [ht]
JR: The domain of "says" is principals, Non-principals don't say anything
15:30:57 [ht]
JR: Not all resources are principals
15:31:09 [ht]
NM: Break for 15 minutes
15:43:47 [jar]
There are two versions of ABLP, the DEC SRC TR from 1991, and the TOPLAS paper from 93 or 94
15:45:13 [jar]
not to be confused with the earlier BAN paper from 1990, which overlaps in content
15:55:28 [ht]
NM: Resumed
15:55:55 [ht]
JR: [Gets to slide 12, reconstruction of httpRange-14]
15:56:05 [ht]
NM: So this is stronger than the original conclusion?
15:56:09 [ht]
JR: Yes
15:56:42 [ht]
... The original 'resolution' simply constrained the range of the corresponds_to relation
15:56:56 [ht]
... but it didn't actually address the original problem
15:58:03 [ht]
NM: [image conneg example]
15:58:30 [ht]
JR: This theory as it stands isn't articulated enough to determine the relationship between corresponds_to and speaks_for
15:58:42 [ht]
NM: Good progress here, wrt httpRange-14
15:59:25 [ht]
NM: Note that we're OK, mostly, when we ask for, say, the Declaration of Independence, and what we get back has some advertising in a sidebar
15:59:35 [ht]
... and I think this can address that
15:59:58 [ht]
LM: I think this is very good stuff. I hope we can use it to clarify what is meant by Origin
16:00:30 [noahm]
Elaborating the "image conneg example": URI identifies a photo. Conneg used to retrieve either jpeg or gif. They agree up to a point in conveying the photo, but not completely, does the theory allow/explain that?
16:00:36 [ht]
... The whole CORS, confused deputy, etc. debate is hampered by a lack of clear definition of precisely this kind of thing: what _is_ an origin, a deputy, etc.
16:00:50 [noahm]
Jonathan's answer was: the theory would need to be elaborated to give a clear answer.
16:00:56 [ht]
... Linking SemWeb and Security would be a great thing, possibly a win for both sides
16:01:38 [ht]
NM: Great idea -- specific action?
16:01:55 [ht]
DC: I'd like to write this up in a different editorial style
16:02:04 [timbl]
Have we finished JAR's slide set?
16:02:07 [ht]
JR: Sure
16:02:20 [timbl]
ah
16:02:47 [ht]
JR: Connects with CAPDESC (?), DARPA-funded xxx
16:02:49 [noahm]
The chair would very much like for Dan to propose an action for himself.
16:02:56 [DanC_]
. ACTION Dan write up speaks_for applied to httpRedirections and httpRange using motivating examples
16:03:01 [noahm]
Thank you!
16:03:19 [DanC_]
ACTION Dan write up speaks_for applied to httpRedirections and httpRange using motivating examples
16:03:19 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-349 - Write up speaks_for applied to httpRedirections and httpRange using motivating examples [on Dan Connolly - due 2009-12-16].
16:04:42 [johnk]
Pointing out Miller et al's Horton paper: http://www.erights.org/elib/capability/horton/
16:05:00 [johnk]
re: "delegating responsibility in digital systems"
16:05:12 [jar]
JAR is babbling about Mark Miller's previous work: DARPAbrowser and CAPdesk (w.r.t our discussion of 307 and what's in the browser URI bar, etc. )
16:05:30 [ht]
TBL: Slides done, can we try to find a replacement for 'speaks_for'
16:05:48 [ht]
TBL: We have a URI, we get a 200
16:06:36 [ht]
... Using 'speaks_for' as the relationship which relates content to the resource
16:06:58 [ht]
... but if R is a person, the content can't 'speak_for' a person
16:07:15 [DanC_]
contexts in which the term gets used "a secure channel from Bob speaks for bob"
16:07:16 [ht]
... that is, and entity speaking for the agent
16:07:21 [ht]
s/and/an/
16:07:47 [ht]
q+ how do you get a 200 from a person?
16:07:58 [ht]
q+ to ask how do you get a 200 from a person?
16:08:14 [masinter]
you get a 200 from a server, where the server speaks for the person
16:08:19 [ht]
JR: In the old days we sent letters, and my letter did 'speak_for' me
16:09:52 [ht]
JR: No resource speaks for me, it doesn't say that
16:10:15 [DanC_]
(it's clear to me that offline witing is going to be more efficient than group discussion, but if Tim has a clear example, I'm interested to capture it.)
16:11:43 [DanC_]
i identifies Pat Hayes
16:12:15 [DanC_]
2. 200 from resource identified by i
16:12:43 [ht]
Slide 9 appears to back Tim
16:12:58 [DanC_]
conjecture: 200 response speaks for Pat
16:13:04 [ht]
HST: Stipulate that we have a URI for Pat Hayes
16:13:46 [ht]
... Then your slides appear to say that if I get a ContentEntity from GETting that URI
16:14:15 [ht]
... that it a) corresponds_to Pat and therefore, per the 'Controversial Axiom', that it speaks_for Path
16:14:19 [ht]
s/Path/Pat/
16:14:26 [masinter]
give us a reason to ask Pat not to assert such things, because it breaks our theory
16:14:50 [masinter]
s/give/JAR: would give/
16:14:50 [ht]
JR: Ah -- the ContAx isn't licensed by any existing spec.
16:15:03 [ht]
... I think it's useful to explain a lot of WebArch
16:15:21 [DanC_]
q?
16:15:28 [DanC_]
queue = noah, ashok, Dan
16:15:32 [DanC_]
ack noah
16:15:39 [ht]
TBL: So if it is, we have a reductio wrt Pat saying what he says about that URI
16:15:40 [DanC_]
phpht
16:15:44 [DanC_]
q+ noah
16:15:46 [ht]
q- ht
16:15:46 [DanC_]
q+ ashok
16:15:47 [DanC_]
q+ dan
16:15:53 [DanC_]
ack noah
16:16:28 [ht]
JR: Oh, yes, and, the ContAx should include server says that E speaks for R
16:16:39 [ht]
... not E speaks for R directly
16:18:37 [noah]
noah has joined #tagmem
16:19:03 [ht]
AM: Looking at R doesn't say any s, then E doesn't (mustn't) say any s
16:19:27 [ht]
JR: This is meant just to be a restatement of the positive direction
16:19:50 [ht]
AM: This says E's only role is to say what R says
16:19:57 [ht]
JR: Yes, that's the ContAx
16:20:02 [DanC_]
JAR: yes, advertising conflicts
16:20:13 [ht]
q+ ht to talk about (re)presentation
16:20:18 [ht]
q- ashok
16:20:20 [ht]
ack danc
16:20:23 [ht]
ack dan
16:20:47 [ht]
DC: I'm getting useful input, not guaranteed to end up in the same place
16:20:54 [ht]
LM: Please try to include Origin
16:21:03 [noah]
DC: Not sure how, but I'll at least try.
16:21:39 [noah]
HT: I think perhaps there are too many levels at which entities say things. It's clear to me that an XML document says some things, because of the semantics of XML. I.e. the infoset.
16:21:47 [noah]
TBL: I dispute that it says those things.
16:21:51 [noah]
DC: I understand both positions.
16:21:53 [noah]
JAR: Me too.
16:22:34 [masinter]
A potato says "help i'm a potato" ?
16:22:42 [noah]
HT: I'm being intentionally obtuse in part to get to talking about a 3rd party, which is the interpreter of the message. We often think of this as a human observing a screen, can also be listening to audio.
16:22:52 [noah]
HT: It's that which ultimately says things.
16:23:05 [noah]
JAR: Similar to the crypto case, in which the interpreters have to be part of the proof system.
16:23:10 [DanC_]
(the dispute between TBL and HT is issue ISSUE-28 fragmentInXML-28; odd that tracker considers it closed when it's plain that the TAG doesn't have consensus.)
16:23:35 [ht]
TBL: When it's RDF, what it says is the triples it produces
16:23:53 [DanC_]
(the resolution in tracker sides with Tim)
16:24:17 [noah]
HT: Isn't that analagous to my statement that what an XML document "says" is first order the Infoset, and then 2nd order the interpretation of those.
16:24:26 [noah]
TBL: No, I'm talking about the interpretation of the graph.
16:24:28 [noah]
HT. Ah.
16:25:20 [noah]
HT: What I scribed is wrong when I attributed to TBL "what it says is the triples it produces"; should have scribed "what it says is what the triples it produces say"
16:25:25 [noah]
q?
16:25:29 [noah]
ack ht
16:25:29 [Zakim]
ht, you wanted to talk about (re)presentation
16:25:53 [ht]
NM: good progress here, great work JR
16:26:02 [ht]
... DC is going to try to restate/elaborate
16:27:06 [DanC_]
action-201?
16:27:06 [trackbot]
ACTION-201 -- Jonathan Rees to report on status of AWWSW discussions -- due 2009-12-01 -- PENDINGREVIEW
16:27:06 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/201
16:27:17 [DanC_]
. action-201 due 15 Mar 2010
16:28:02 [ht]
[procedural discussion]
16:28:13 [DanC_]
action-201 due 15 Mar 2010
16:28:13 [trackbot]
ACTION-201 Report on status of AWWSW discussions due date now 15 Mar 2010
16:28:47 [ht]
TBL: I'd like to see some interaction with the Tabulator work
16:29:04 [DanC_]
ACTION-116 due 31 Dec 2009
16:29:04 [trackbot]
ACTION-116 Align the tabulator internal vocabulary with the vocabulary in the rules http://esw.w3.org/topic/AwwswDboothsRules, getting changes to either as needed. due date now 31 Dec 2009
16:29:07 [noah]
ACTION-201 Due 2 March 2010
16:29:07 [trackbot]
ACTION-201 Report on status of AWWSW discussions due date now 2 March 2010
16:30:04 [noah]
zakim, agenda?
16:30:04 [Zakim]
I see 16 items remaining on the agenda:
16:30:06 [Zakim]
6. Metadata Architecture (HTTP Semantics): ISSUE-57 (HttpRedirections-57): The use of HTTP Redirection [from DanC_]
16:30:09 [Zakim]
10. HTML 5 review: References to versioned specs (#15 in our HTML 5 review topics) etc. [from DanC_]
16:30:11 [Zakim]
17. morning break [from DanC_]
16:30:12 [Zakim]
3. Metadata Architecture: ISSUE-62 (UniformAccessToMetadata-62): Uniform Access to Metadata [from DanC_]
16:30:15 [Zakim]
4. Web Application Architecture [from DanC_]
16:30:16 [Zakim]
5. Metadata Architecture: ISSUE-63: Metadata Architecture for the Web [from DanC_]
16:30:19 [Zakim]
7. ISSUE-53 (genericResources-53): Generic resources [from DanC_]
16:30:21 [Zakim]
8. HTML 5 review: ISSUE-20 (errorHandling-20): What should specifications say about error handling? [from DanC_]
16:30:25 [Zakim]
9. HTML 5 review: ISSUE-33 (mixedUIXMLNamespace-33): Composability for user interface-oriented XML namespaces [from DanC_]
16:30:29 [Zakim]
11. HTML 5 review: ISSUE-54 (TagSoupIntegration-54): Tag soup integration [from DanC_]
16:30:31 [Zakim]
12. HTML 5 review: misc. [from DanC_]
16:30:32 [Zakim]
13. ISSUE-50 (URNsAndRegistries-50): URIs, URNs, "location independent" naming systems and associated registries for naming on the Web [from DanC_]
16:30:36 [Zakim]
14. ISSUE-34 (xmlFunctions-34): XML Transformation and composability (e.g., XSLT,XInclude, Encryption) [from DanC_]
16:30:39 [Zakim]
15. widget URI Scheme [from Larry via DanC_]
16:30:40 [Zakim]
16. Admin (next telcon) [from DanC_]
16:30:41 [Zakim]
18. lunch break [from DanC_]
16:30:55 [DanC_]
Zakim, close item 17
16:30:55 [Zakim]
agendum 17, morning break, closed
16:30:56 [Zakim]
I see 15 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
16:30:57 [Zakim]
6. Metadata Architecture (HTTP Semantics): ISSUE-57 (HttpRedirections-57): The use of HTTP Redirection [from DanC_]
16:31:20 [ht]
LM: Could we have used a Link Header in a 404 response?
16:31:24 [ht]
JR: Yes
16:31:43 [ht]
LM: But not a link in the body of 404 document itself?
16:31:46 [ht]
DC: No
16:32:19 [ht]
LM: But I like the idea of having links in the body, because you can have lots of them
16:33:43 [DanC_]
Zakim, take up item versioned
16:33:43 [Zakim]
agendum 10. "HTML 5 review: References to versioned specs (#15 in our HTML 5 review topics) etc." taken up [from DanC_]
16:33:57 [DanC_]
Zakim, close item 6
16:33:57 [Zakim]
agendum 6, Metadata Architecture (HTTP Semantics): ISSUE-57 (HttpRedirections-57): The use of HTTP Redirection, closed
16:33:59 [Zakim]
I see 14 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
16:34:01 [Zakim]
10. HTML 5 review: References to versioned specs (#15 in our HTML 5 review topics) etc. [from DanC_]
16:34:16 [ht]
Topic: HTML 5 review: References to versioned specs (#15 in our HTML 5 review topics) etc.
16:34:38 [ht]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Oct/0075.html
16:34:42 [DanC_]
agenda + HTML Versioning Change proposal [Larry]
16:35:18 [noah]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Oct/0075.html
16:35:30 [noah]
This is in relation to ACTION-303
16:38:09 [noah]
q+ to talk about problems with >requiring< future proofing
16:40:22 [noah]
ack next
16:40:22 [ht]
AM: Doesn't this allow me to just support an earlier version?
16:40:23 [Zakim]
noah, you wanted to talk about problems with >requiring< future proofing
16:40:39 [ht]
HST: The 'earliest appropriate' sentence is meant to rule that out.
16:40:48 [johnk]
q+ to wonder whether it is confusing to combine conformance and referencing behaviour in one statement
16:40:53 [ht]
... Maybe that needs to be stronger
16:41:04 [ht]
NM: I have a long history of interest in this
16:41:23 [DanC_]
q+ to ask for a reminder of a specific case we're particularly interested in... it was somewhere in the HTML 5 references, yes?
16:41:26 [ht]
... I like this as a goal for many circumstances
16:41:47 [ht]
... But there are cases where it doesn't work
16:41:59 [ht]
... The XML 1.1 experience is illustrative in this case
16:42:21 [potato]
q+
16:42:22 [ht]
... So we shouldn't _require_ this kind of future-proofing of references
16:42:40 [masinter]
q+
16:42:42 [ht]
... Specifically in terms of systems which are involved in communication
16:42:44 [DanC_]
+1 "should future-proof" is too strong. The simple case of citing a frozen spec is fine in many cases
16:42:49 [noah]
q?
16:42:53 [noah]
ack johnk
16:42:53 [Zakim]
johnk, you wanted to wonder whether it is confusing to combine conformance and referencing behaviour in one statement
16:43:00 [ht]
q+ to reply to Noah wrt editions vs. versions
16:43:29 [noah]
Seeing where you're going, Henry, unless new editions >never< allow for new content, I think my concern stands.
16:43:33 [ht]
JK: Conformant implementations? Should that be separated from what is referenced? Trying to pack too much in?
16:43:42 [noah]
Or maybe I'm not guessing right as to what your concern/suggestion will be.
16:43:52 [ht]
... How references are written is different from what is a conformant implementation
16:43:54 [noah]
ack DanC
16:43:54 [Zakim]
DanC_, you wanted to ask for a reminder of a specific case we're particularly interested in... it was somewhere in the HTML 5 references, yes?
16:44:13 [ht]
DC: There was a specific case wrt the HTML 5
16:44:15 [masinter]
think IETF tradition is to make the 'future proofing' more part of general policy than being specific in each draft. A1 references B1. When B2 updates B1, implementations of A1 may or may not follow B2
16:44:28 [noah]
HT: As it stands, there are only stubs in the HTML 5 references.
16:44:29 [noah]
DC: No.
16:44:47 [potato]
q+ to point out that anyone using this language assumes there is a contract with future working groups to maintain the operability of the referencing spec, when developing new versions of the referenced spec. Some WGs make various sorts of commitment, some don't, and you can't generalize. The way a sepc evolves may in fact affect two different refering specifications quite differently.
16:44:47 [noah]
HT: Last I looked. E.g. following link from content-sniffing you got something that just said content sniffing.
16:44:54 [noah]
q?
16:45:21 [DanC_]
http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/references.html#references
16:45:33 [noah]
For those reading the minutes, potato is the current screen name of W3C Director Tim Berners-Lee
16:45:54 [jar]
q+ jar to consider classes of comforming implementations (conforming to various combinations of specs)
16:45:57 [noah]
We pause to read HTML 5 references section....
16:46:02 [noah]
HT: Ah, it's better than it was.
16:46:27 [ht]
DC: So if we pushed on any of these, we would pbly find the editor would have a reason
16:47:09 [noah]
HT: E.g. the text in the references says "[CSS]
16:47:09 [noah]
Cascading Style Sheets Level 2 Revision 1, B. Bos, T. Çelik, I. Hickson, H. Lie. W3C, April 2009."
16:47:18 [noah]
But links the undated copy.
16:47:27 [ht]
HST: So what does it mean for an implementor
16:47:43 [johnk]
q?
16:47:58 [noah]
HST: Specifically, implementors 5 years from now have to figure out what was meant. We're trying to fix that.
16:48:00 [noah]
ack potato
16:48:00 [Zakim]
potato, you wanted to point out that anyone using this language assumes there is a contract with future working groups to maintain the operability of the referencing spec, when
16:48:04 [Zakim]
... developing new versions of the referenced spec. Some WGs make various sorts of commitment, some don't, and you can't generalize. The way a sepc evolves may in fact affect two
16:48:06 [Zakim]
... different refering specifications quite differently.
16:48:28 [ht]
TBL: If you propose we use the present and the future -- why not earlier ones?
16:48:59 [ht]
... As for the future, that depends on the sort of WG and the sort of spec.
16:49:21 [ht]
... If the group doesn't commit to back compatibility, you can't rely on it
16:49:41 [masinter]
Is the distinction between "edition" and "version" important?
16:49:58 [ht]
... You might try to negotiate a commit from the WG that they wont' change. .. .
16:50:06 [ht]
s/commit/commitment/
16:50:18 [noah]
q+ to mention that there can be issues with 3rd party specs.
16:50:19 [ht]
... Or you might just require people to check
16:50:38 [masinter]
Can distinction between "technical specification" and "applicability statement" be useful? "applicability statement" calls out specific dated versions, while general "technical specification" doesn't? Two documents, one of which updates.
16:50:40 [noah]
ack masinter
16:50:54 [ht]
... So it's not clear that we can go with what you propose
16:51:09 [ht]
LM: I like the difference between edition and version
16:51:38 [ht]
... We use to differentiate between applicability statements and language specs.
16:51:54 [ht]
... So you would only have to update the appl. statement
16:52:12 [noah]
ack ht
16:52:12 [Zakim]
ht, you wanted to reply to Noah wrt editions vs. versions
16:52:12 [ht]
LM: Alternatively, you could have policy outside the doc. altogether
16:52:20 [johnk]
q+ to ask how can we apply henry'd text to the specific issue noted?
16:52:31 [johnk]
s/henry'd/henry's/
16:54:15 [ht]
NM: YOu haven't addressed my concern
16:54:23 [noah]
HT: The response to Noah and Tim is to say "yes, all those criticisms apply to unrestricted blank checks" (leaving aside for a sec refs to older versions), by relying on the W3C Policy for Edtions (stepping gently around XML 1.1/10 5th edition in particular), is precisely because it makes this plausible.
16:54:31 [noah]
NM: Do new editions allow new content?
16:54:33 [ht]
... because it wasn't lack of back-compat that broke the XML 1.1 situation
16:54:34 [noah]
HT: Yes.
16:55:43 [noah]
NM: Then I still have a problem. See problems deploying XML 1.0 5th edition. A sometimes inappropriate (depending on the specs) expectation is created that implementations that haven't been updated will support new content sourced by those that have been.
16:55:46 [ht]
JR: Conformance to a spec. that has a variable in it is intrinsically vague
16:55:56 [noah]
q?
16:55:58 [noah]
ack jar
16:55:58 [Zakim]
jar, you wanted to consider classes of comforming implementations (conforming to various combinations of specs)
16:56:16 [ht]
... So there's a time-sensitivity wrt the answer to "does this conform?"
16:56:34 [ht]
q+ to elaborate on JR's answer
16:56:50 [noah]
ack noah
16:56:50 [Zakim]
noah, you wanted to mention that there can be issues with 3rd party specs.
16:57:00 [ht]
NM: TBL mentioned SOAP in passing
16:57:05 [ht]
[AM leaves]
16:57:16 [ht]
... SOAP wasn't sure about supporting XML 1.1
16:58:00 [ht]
... It depended on the Infoset, and we weren't sure that even if we went to XML 1.1, the Infoset would have been well-future-proofed enough for it all to hold together
16:58:35 [ht]
... So in some ways, my willingness to future-proof my references depends on other specs _also_ being well future-proofed
16:58:36 [noah]
ack next
16:58:37 [Zakim]
johnk, you wanted to ask how can we apply henry'd text to the specific issue noted?
16:59:39 [ht]
HST: Yes, we have a real case of this with XML 1.0 5e and XML NS 3e
16:59:50 [noah]
q?
16:59:56 [noah]
zakim, close the queue
16:59:56 [Zakim]
ok, noah, the speaker queue is closed
17:00:34 [ht]
JK: Addressing dated prose in conjunction with an undated URI is separate from xxxx?
17:01:00 [ht]
LM: My assumption is that the dated ref. is normative
17:01:10 [jar]
If dated spec A normatively cites undated spec B, and artifact Z conforms to A - what does that mean? Maybe: (1) it conforms to A(B(t)) for some t, or (2) it conforms to A(B(t)) for all t, or (3) if conforms to A(B(t)) for t >= now
17:01:14 [ht]
DC: Hidden URIs are less significant
17:01:29 [ht]
ack ht
17:01:29 [Zakim]
ht, you wanted to elaborate on JR's answer
17:02:24 [noah]
HT: Jonathan attempted to answer John. I agree as far as it goes but want to go further. You're right, I was trying to address two problems: 1) dated vs. undated refs conflict, and BTW some peoples' styles to make the URI explict...
17:03:28 [DanC_]
(editorially I like including the full, dated URI in a citation, but I much prefer using the document title as the link text.)
17:03:29 [noah]
HT: ...there are many variations on that 2) usually, all that people tend to say is by grouping into normative and non-normative. It's rare for the conformance section to clarify what is meant by making a reference normative.
17:04:02 [noah]
FWIW, Dan, though it's clunky, I tend to feel that making both live links, to the same URI, is the least bad approach.
17:04:23 [jar]
the normative reference speaks for the spec that refers to it
17:04:37 [DanC_]
(oh... and I don't like "available at"; I consider the semantics "identified by", and I leave it implicit)
17:05:21 [DanC_]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-comments/2009Dec/0002.html
17:05:23 [noah]
zakim, open the queue
17:05:23 [Zakim]
ok, noah, the speaker queue is open
17:05:33 [noah]
Queue is open only for next steps discussion
17:06:25 [ht]
DC: I asked the HTML 5 editor to add 'work in progress' to links to documents which identify themselves as work in progress
17:06:40 [ht]
... The response was 'busywork'
17:07:28 [ht]
NM: I don't think this can go further unless my concerns and maybe TBL's are addressed
17:07:36 [DanC_]
(aha! found some work I did in this area: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Sep/0136 'formally defining W3C's namespace change policy options w.r.t. recent TAG versioning terminology' )
17:07:53 [ht]
JR: I thought restricting to editions was good enough
17:08:19 [ht]
TBL: I had missed that HST meant to constrain to editions, that satisfies me
17:08:48 [noah]
What I have in mind is something along the lines of:
17:09:23 [DanC_]
I think the short para HT proposed is "too clever by half"; it'll only be an effective communication if it recapitulates critical parts of the edition policy
17:09:48 [noah]
The TAG believes that this is good practice in many cases, but not in all. We recognize that, particularly in cases where no assurance is given that future editions won't support use of new (I.e. previously invalid) content, the advice given here may be impractical.
17:09:58 [DanC_]
also, I want to make it clear that it's not the only "template" we endorse by providing more than one template; e.g. another one for really frozen, dated specs
17:10:08 [ht]
. ACTION: Henry to revise http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-comments/2009Dec/0002.html based on feedback on www-tag/html-comments, and the feedback from TAG f2f 2009-12-09 discussion
17:10:37 [jar]
whether in practice the "edition" process as specified and executed is sufficient to protect investment is something I'm not qualified to answer. it sounds as if it would be, as specified, if followed, but haven't checked...
17:10:51 [DanC_]
close action-303
17:10:52 [trackbot]
ACTION-303 Draft text on writing references closed
17:10:57 [DanC_]
close action-304
17:10:57 [trackbot]
ACTION-304 Write up issue around normative references to particular versions of specs closed
17:11:36 [ht]
ACTION: Henry to revise http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Oct/0075.html based on feedback on www-tag and the feedback from TAG f2f 2009-12-09 discussion
17:11:36 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-350 - Revise http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Oct/0075.html based on feedback on www-tag and the feedback from TAG f2f 2009-12-09 discussion [on Henry S. Thompson - due 2009-12-16].
17:13:25 [johnk]
http://www.erights.org/elib/capability/horton/
17:13:32 [DanC_]
Miller et. al.
17:17:16 [jar]
rrsagent, pointer
17:17:16 [RRSAgent]
See http://www.w3.org/2009/12/09-tagmem-irc#T17-17-16
17:31:18 [timbl]
http://pinpoint.microsoft.com/en-US/Dallas
17:43:58 [noah]
Tim, if you're interested in Microsoft's Dallas, it was introduced at their developer's conference a couple of weeks ago. You can go to the transcript of the keynote at http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/exec/ozzie/2009/11-17pdc.mspx and look for the word "Dallas". The video of the keynote, with demos, is at http://cdn-smooth.ms-studiosmedia.com/presspass/mpeg2/1001009_PDCD1_500k.mpg
17:44:12 [noah]
You can use the transcript to find the right place in the video.
18:06:57 [noah]
zakim, agenda?
18:06:57 [Zakim]
I see 15 items remaining on the agenda:
18:06:58 [Zakim]
10. HTML 5 review: References to versioned specs (#15 in our HTML 5 review topics) etc. [from DanC_]
18:07:01 [Zakim]
3. Metadata Architecture: ISSUE-62 (UniformAccessToMetadata-62): Uniform Access to Metadata [from DanC_]
18:07:04 [Zakim]
4. Web Application Architecture [from DanC_]
18:07:06 [Zakim]
5. Metadata Architecture: ISSUE-63: Metadata Architecture for the Web [from DanC_]
18:07:08 [Zakim]
7. ISSUE-53 (genericResources-53): Generic resources [from DanC_]
18:07:10 [Zakim]
8. HTML 5 review: ISSUE-20 (errorHandling-20): What should specifications say about error handling? [from DanC_]
18:07:13 [Zakim]
9. HTML 5 review: ISSUE-33 (mixedUIXMLNamespace-33): Composability for user interface-oriented XML namespaces [from DanC_]
18:07:16 [Zakim]
11. HTML 5 review: ISSUE-54 (TagSoupIntegration-54): Tag soup integration [from DanC_]
18:07:19 [Zakim]
12. HTML 5 review: misc. [from DanC_]
18:07:21 [Zakim]
13. ISSUE-50 (URNsAndRegistries-50): URIs, URNs, "location independent" naming systems and associated registries for naming on the Web [from DanC_]
18:07:25 [Zakim]
14. ISSUE-34 (xmlFunctions-34): XML Transformation and composability (e.g., XSLT,XInclude, Encryption) [from DanC_]
18:07:29 [Zakim]
15. widget URI Scheme [from Larry via DanC_]
18:07:30 [Zakim]
16. Admin (next telcon) [from DanC_]
18:07:31 [Zakim]
18. lunch break [from DanC_]
18:07:32 [Zakim]
19. HTML Versioning Change proposal [from Larry via DanC_]
18:12:32 [noah]
rrsagent, draft minutes
18:12:32 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/12/09-tagmem-minutes.html noah
18:15:58 [Ashok]
Ashok has joined #tagmem
18:35:58 [ht]
rrsagent, make logs public-visible
18:36:04 [ht]
rrsagent, draft minutes
18:36:04 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/12/09-tagmem-minutes.html ht
18:36:11 [timbl]
http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/PersitentDomains
18:36:23 [DanC_]
Zakim, clear agenda
18:36:23 [Zakim]
agenda cleared
18:36:25 [jar]
scribenick: jar
18:36:35 [timbl]
or rather http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/PersistentDomains
18:39:44 [masinter]
I believe the TAG asked me to review widget:
18:39:46 [masinter]
I did so
18:39:54 [masinter]
the webapps working group replied
18:40:00 [masinter]
i answered their replies this morning
18:40:39 [masinter]
if the TAG would like to review the correspondence and chime in later, then we don't need to take up meeting time here. If you'd like, I can go over what I think the open issues are. Opinions?
18:41:22 [noah]
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/12/08-agenda.html
18:41:41 [masinter]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/
18:42:08 [masinter]
see "Comment on Widget IRI" messages
18:42:10 [jar]
(still working on the agenda)
18:46:34 [jar]
topic: ISSUE-50 and persistent domains
18:47:02 [jar]
close action-311
18:47:03 [trackbot]
ACTION-311 Schedule discussion of a persistent domain name policy promotion closed
18:47:49 [jar]
timbl: Above link is old, but background
18:48:27 [jar]
... Argument against using http: URIs as names, is that DNS doesn't socially support you. The domain name is rented, not owned.
18:49:47 [jar]
... One proposal, if it's broken, fix it.
18:50:09 [jar]
.... DNS was controlled by IETF, ICANN, and it being up for rent was assumed a good idea
18:50:19 [jar]
... now the dangers are becoming known.
18:50:46 [jar]
... All the white house pages disappeared when the administration changed (e.g.)
18:51:02 [jar]
danc: (asks about how that example bears...)
18:51:28 [masinter]
points to http://larry.masinter.net/9909-twist.pdf again
18:51:43 [jar]
timbl: Many companies put up things that people would like to find later
18:51:55 [jar]
danc: There is a third-party business around finding things like that
18:52:17 [DanC_]
(I don't see how domains would help in either of the supposedly-motivating cases timbl just gave)
18:52:28 [jar]
timbl: Anyhow. One way to tackle is to make a new TLD that has different rules
18:52:35 [Noah_phone]
Noah_phone has joined #tagmem
18:53:18 [jar]
... You might use it for archivable web pages , under a set of rules
18:53:45 [jar]
... concerning transfer of rights to other entities so that pages can continue to stay live
18:54:00 [masinter]
points to http://larry.masinter.net/duri.html and previous version http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-masinter-dated-uri-05
18:54:04 [jar]
... there might be a pot of $ to pay for this
18:54:38 [jar]
... Problem is to design a social system, maybe as a DNS play, or by setting up a consortium
18:54:50 [masinter]
points to whitehouse.gov
18:55:10 [jar]
... Suggesting that to help make this happen, the TAG could write a finding advocating it
18:55:10 [noah]
q?
18:55:20 [ht]
q+ to suggest a workshop
18:55:24 [DanC_]
q+ to note that it's not any more broken that it could/should be. New domains are not going to get companies to keep their product manuals online or stop the whitehouse from forgetting the previous president, and there's endowed publication with PLOS and there's archive.org and national libraries
18:55:26 [jar]
ashok: These would be *unalterable* pages?
18:55:32 [jar]
timbl: To be determined
18:55:32 [masinter]
q+
18:56:15 [jar]
ashok: Can you then sell something in this archive space?
18:56:22 [noah]
q+ to say that the TLD with persistent assignment seems very appealing, restricting the owner's ability to alter the pages doesn't. Seems best approached as an orthogonal issue.
18:56:35 [jar]
timbl: What transfers is responsibility - not any right to change
18:56:42 [noah]
ack next
18:56:42 [jar]
jar: It's a contract with the public
18:56:43 [Zakim]
ht, you wanted to suggest a workshop
18:57:29 [jar]
ht: There are many design points. We could spend time talking about alternatives...
18:58:14 [jar]
... I wonder is for the TAG to host a workshop before we write a finding, to scare up a representation of the interested parties
18:58:45 [jar]
... a new TLD is a problem for existing URIs that are supposed to have persistent resolution
18:58:53 [jar]
... but might be worth paying the cost
18:59:18 [jar]
... Another way to go is to talk ICANN into a process around existing domains & persistence
18:59:22 [DanC_]
(ah.. that would be better... a way for any domain to get permanent status, sorta like 5013(c) )
18:59:59 [johnk]
s/5013(c)/501(c)3/
19:00:13 [jar]
... Can we get theorists, library community, other constituencies together to talk
19:00:58 [masinter]
q?
19:01:07 [jar]
ht: How about a workshop?
19:01:09 [DanC_]
+1 workshop
19:01:34 [masinter]
points out talks from previous 1999 workshop on Internet Scale naming
19:01:48 [DanC_]
ack next
19:01:48 [noah]
Wondering whether cost/logistics would work out for workshop proposal. If so, seems appealing, but not sure whether we can get
19:01:49 [Zakim]
DanC_, you wanted to note that it's not any more broken that it could/should be. New domains are not going to get companies to keep their product manuals online or stop the
19:01:52 [noah]
q?
19:01:53 [Zakim]
... whitehouse from forgetting the previous president, and there's endowed publication with PLOS and there's archive.org and national libraries
19:02:06 [jar]
danc: Tim's examples didn't motivate a TLD for me...
19:02:06 [timbl]
___________________/me "All your bits are blong to us" - danc
19:02:19 [jar]
danc: Giving more visible to best practices is a good idea though
19:02:21 [timbl]
s/_//g
19:02:56 [jar]
danc: There's a running business that does endowed web publication
19:03:06 [jar]
ht: I haven't found any reference to DNS insurance
19:03:34 [jar]
danc: There are journals like PLoS that charge authors because they agree to host the content in perpetuity
19:03:55 [jar]
... you pay once, it's there forever
19:04:02 [jar]
noah: (pokes fun at this)
19:04:27 [ht]
http://www.arkhold.org/
19:04:29 [jar]
danc: The White House doesn't have the URI persistence ethic
19:04:39 [DanC_]
ack next
19:04:40 [masinter]
points to "This American Life" story about a cyrogenics firm which promised perpetual freezing: http://thisamericanlife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?sched=1239
19:05:18 [jar]
masinter: Points to 1999 workshop "problems URIs don't solve"
19:05:29 [Ashok]
Q+
19:05:30 [masinter]
points to http://larry.masinter.net/9909-twist.pdf again
19:06:22 [jar]
masinter: Organizations split. They merge. They go out of business. Sub-sites move. Countries disappear.
19:06:39 [jar]
... In perpetuity has to be around content, not just names
19:07:08 [jar]
... People will look to organizations like archive.org for long-term resolvable names
19:07:16 [timbl]
./me quickly runs a script to change all the links in all his HTML to point to an internet archive version of the URL just in case
19:07:27 [jar]
... Getting a guarantee is not the same thing as getting a credible guarantee
19:07:50 [masinter]
points to http://larry.masinter.net/duri.html and previous version
19:07:50 [masinter]
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-masinter-dated-uri-05
19:08:22 [jar]
lm: would like advice on how to progress with these two projects
19:09:14 [jar]
... duri = dated URI, guarantees persistent reference, but resolution may be tricky
19:09:51 [timbl]
I wonder whether "that described by" is one word in Latin
19:09:52 [jar]
... still puzzled about this approach
19:10:08 [jar]
danc: Use cases?
19:10:12 [noah]
q?
19:10:41 [johnk]
q+ to ask what is the incentive for someone to use duri and if not sufficient incentive, and not all using them, wouldn't we still have the problems described by Tim?
19:10:58 [jar]
lm: tdb: has an optional date... actually two of them, when the resource was read, and when it was interpreted
19:11:58 [jar]
danc: I've never seen a situation where the complexity of duri: is required
19:12:20 [ht]
q+ to mention transparency
19:12:46 [noah]
ack next
19:12:47 [Zakim]
noah, you wanted to say that the TLD with persistent assignment seems very appealing, restricting the owner's ability to alter the pages doesn't. Seems best approached as an
19:12:49 [Zakim]
... orthogonal issue.
19:12:53 [jar]
danc: The URI scheme space is high price real estate, so better to do as an RDF property if possible
19:13:26 [DanC_]
s/if possible/for those who are happy to use RDF/
19:13:29 [jar]
noah: Something was said about locking down the content, Tim hesitated
19:13:43 [jar]
timbl: source code repository with version control
19:13:45 [masinter]
1999 workshop: http://www.isr.uci.edu/events/twist/twist99/
19:14:07 [DanC_]
q+
19:14:11 [jar]
noah: What about perpetual ownership of name - should be orthogonal to an obligation to preserve
19:14:40 [jar]
noah: Preservation of content should be more granular
19:14:42 [DanC_]
q+ to push back: why should IBM get "ibm.com" in perpetuity without giving back to the commons/community a persistence promise (e.g. re content of homepage)
19:15:08 [noah]
ack next
19:15:40 [jar]
ashok: Who will host all this stuff? Not a private company, which can go away.
19:15:52 [jar]
timbl: A consortium of libraries.
19:16:03 [jar]
ht: Replication is the only assurance of permanence
19:16:03 [noah]
q?
19:16:21 [noah]
ack next
19:16:21 [jar]
ht: This is a huge design space.
19:16:22 [Zakim]
johnk, you wanted to ask what is the incentive for someone to use duri and if not sufficient incentive, and not all using them, wouldn't we still have the problems described by
19:16:23 [masinter]
q+ who gets "att.com" when AT&T is broken up into baby bells, lucent, etc.
19:16:25 [Zakim]
... Tim?
19:16:31 [masinter]
q+ to ask who gets "att.com" when AT&T is broken up into baby bells, lucent, etc.
19:17:10 [DanC_]
q+ to suggest we've reached a point of diminishing returns, provided HT will take an action to follow up on the possibility of a workshop... maybe give a date to the resolution of a quarter-year
19:17:15 [jar]
johnk: This is a social problem. Not sure we can solve this. All of the institutions and agreements go away.
19:17:58 [jar]
johnk: Not sure this is web architecture
19:18:09 [noah]
q?
19:18:10 [jar]
timbl: We need to kick it from the technical into the social
19:18:25 [ht]
ack ht
19:18:25 [Zakim]
ht, you wanted to mention transparency
19:18:26 [masinter]
points to http://www.lockss.org/lockss/Home
19:18:30 [jar]
johnk: There's no technical solution here
19:18:37 [DanC_]
yes, lockss is great work in this space
19:19:18 [noah]
Heads up: before Dan goes, I want to remind everyone that we should switch to generic resources within 5+ mins
19:19:31 [jar]
ht: Footnote: The motivation for things like tdb: and wpn: was transparency, so that you can tell by looking at a URI that it named a non-information-resource (not sure i still believe that)
19:19:35 [noah]
q?
19:20:16 [jar]
ht: One component is a board of trustees with the power to wind it all up (e.g. if there were no web, at some future time)
19:20:31 [masinter]
points to http://larry.masinter.net/0603-archiving.pdf for long-term archiving also (and see references)
19:20:59 [jar]
ht: The digital curation people worry about: Where do the resources come from to carry resources forward (e.g. archaic disks)
19:21:11 [jar]
timbl: lots of ways for accessibility to fail
19:21:33 [noah]
ack next
19:21:34 [Zakim]
DanC_, you wanted to push back: why should IBM get "ibm.com" in perpetuity without giving back to the commons/community a persistence promise (e.g. re content of homepage) and to
19:21:39 [Zakim]
... suggest we've reached a point of diminishing returns, provided HT will take an action to follow up on the possibility of a workshop... maybe give a date to the resolution of a
19:21:41 [Zakim]
... quarter-year
19:22:06 [jar]
ht: Aim for June?
19:23:31 [noah]
suggest phrasing, "perhaps in June"
19:23:56 [DanC_]
ACTION Henry to look into a workshop on persistence... perhaps the June 2010 timeframe
19:23:56 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-351 - Look into a workshop on persistence... perhaps the June 2010 timeframe [on Henry S. Thompson - due 2009-12-16].
19:24:20 [noah]
q?
19:24:27 [noah]
ack next
19:24:28 [Zakim]
masinter, you wanted to ask who gets "att.com" when AT&T is broken up into baby bells, lucent, etc.
19:25:00 [jar]
lm: recommends references in the long term archiving paper (see above)
19:25:09 [DanC_]
... esp the references
19:25:32 [noah]
NM: To be clear, I think persistence of name assignment should be attacked (mostly) separately from encouraging providers of content to provide that content in perpetuity and/or to keep it immutable.
19:25:37 [masinter]
ack masinter
19:25:42 [noah]
s/keep it/make it/
19:26:12 [DanC_]
action-312?
19:26:12 [trackbot]
ACTION-312 -- Jonathan Rees to find a path thru the specs that I think contradicts Dan's reading of webarch -- due 2009-12-01 -- PENDINGREVIEW
19:26:12 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/312
19:26:44 [DanC_]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Dec/0061.html
19:26:48 [noah]
JAR: The email I sent on Monday was sort of "camouflaged"
19:27:18 [noah]
JAR: In a sense, some people are trying to say, 'I can prove I need URNs
19:27:30 [noah]
JAR: I was trying to set that down more rigorously.
19:27:49 [noah]
JAR: I want to relate it to the formalism I've been building.
19:28:02 [DanC_]
close action-312
19:28:02 [trackbot]
ACTION-312 Find a path thru the specs that I think contradicts Dan's reading of webarch closed
19:28:42 [DanC_]
action-121 due 15 Mar 2010
19:28:42 [trackbot]
ACTION-121 HT to draft TAG input to review of draft ARK RFC due date now 15 Mar 2010
19:28:49 [DanC_]
action-121 due 2 Mar 2010
19:28:49 [trackbot]
ACTION-121 HT to draft TAG input to review of draft ARK RFC due date now 2 Mar 2010
19:29:20 [jar]
topic: Generic resources
19:29:28 [DanC_]
action-33 due 20 Dec
19:29:28 [trackbot]
ACTION-33 revise naming challenges story in response to Dec 2008 F2F discussion due date now 20 Dec
19:29:58 [DanC_]
Topic: ISSUE-53 (genericResources-53): Generic resources
19:30:56 [noah]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Nov/0069.html
19:30:58 [jar]
masinter: I drafted replacement text
19:32:09 [jar]
... "how to use conneg" explanation for HTTPbis
19:32:57 [masinter]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2009JulSep/0763.html
19:34:49 [jar]
danc: Don't see any text about how the representations relate to one another
19:36:22 [noah]
BTW, the "problems" with the tag-weekly.html version of the agenda seem to be due to slow response by W3C servers. The tag-weekly.html version now appears to match the dated version.
19:36:28 [masinter]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Nov/0077.html
19:37:54 [jar]
masinter: sentence about server's purposes needs to be added. re-open action
19:38:30 [Noah_phone]
Noah_phone has joined #tagmem
19:40:00 [jar]
danc: This is what the speaks_for slide in the presentation is about... if representations contradict, it's incoherent
19:40:44 [jar]
danc: How about striking "for its purposes"
19:40:56 [jar]
lm: "for the purposes of this communication"
19:41:00 [DanC_]
+1
19:41:04 [jar]
+1
19:42:26 [jar]
noah: -1
19:42:45 [jar]
s/noah: -1/ /
19:42:57 [jar]
noah: (making another point about attribution)
19:43:50 [jar]
...determining, for the purposes of this communication, which representations...
19:43:54 [noah]
Note that the supplier of representations (or choices) has the responsibility of determining, for purposes of this communication, which representations might be considered to be the "same".
19:44:22 [noah]
I don't like "considered to be the same".
19:44:35 [DanC_]
how about: considered to give the same information
19:45:37 [jar]
noah: The spec already says entity corresponds to resource
19:45:53 [jar]
... Two representations each have the responsibility to correspond to.
19:46:02 [jar]
... so nothing else needs to be said.
19:46:12 [masinter]
change "might be considered 'the same'" to "might be considered to represent the same information'
19:46:15 [jar]
DanC: That's the bug we're trying to fix.
19:46:45 [noah]
Not convinced.
19:46:51 [jar]
noah: Saying "corresponds to" is enough
19:47:12 [masinter]
the proposed text in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2009JulSep/0763.html uses "represent"
19:47:37 [jar]
johnk: You're saying two things. Do we want to make the second statement, that the conneg reps have to correspond?
19:48:03 [noah]
There is already an obligation that each representation correspond. It will tend to be the case that multiple representations of a (an immutable) resource will tend to have interpretations that are in some ways similar, perhaps extremely similar, but the archicture should not rule out, e.g. a B&W gif and a color jpeg of very different resolution.
19:48:32 [johnk]
s/to correspond/to sufficiently resemble one another/ (or something similar)
19:48:33 [jar]
lm: Different ways to represent "the same information" (quoting lm's email 763)
19:49:42 [jar]
lm: I infelicitously said "same representations" when I should have said "represent the same information"
19:49:50 [jar]
noah: There are enough weasel words
19:50:03 [jar]
... good that we're talking about representing the same information
19:50:08 [noah]
I.e. to make me happy
19:50:15 [jar]
lm: And the server has responsibility.
19:50:32 [DanC_]
action-231?
19:50:32 [trackbot]
ACTION-231 -- Larry Masinter to draft replacement for \"how to use conneg\" stuff in HTTP spec -- due 2009-11-18 -- OPEN
19:50:32 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/231
19:51:19 [DanC_]
action-231 due next week
19:51:19 [trackbot]
ACTION-231 Draft replacement for \"how to use conneg\" stuff in HTTP spec due date now next week
19:51:21 [jar]
(consensus around give or represent the same information)
19:51:26 [jar]
?
19:53:07 [jar]
break.
19:53:32 [noahm]
noahm has joined #tagmem
19:55:41 [noah]
noah has joined #tagmem
19:59:31 [noahm]
noahm has joined #tagmem
20:23:14 [DanC_]
DanC_ has joined #tagmem
20:24:01 [jar]
topic: Web Application Architecture (ACTION-306 etc)
20:24:31 [jar]
noah: Let's see if we can get organized for a more comprehensive approach, or find a whole that's greater than the sum of the parts
20:24:49 [jar]
... The TOC is broader in the topic coverage than it might be
20:24:56 [DanC_]
q+ to project the web app product next to the outline, and to suggest (a) invited presentations or other get-togethers and (b) looking at relevant wikipedia pages
20:25:19 [jar]
q+ jar to ask for / suggest criteria etc
20:25:41 [jar]
noah: maybe look at the form of our products in this area
20:26:15 [jar]
ashok: From what we spoke about yesterday, it seemed there were many differences between various people think about web apps
20:26:38 [jar]
... I thought: web app = you are working with several communicating components
20:27:00 [jar]
... but maybe some people thought it was an app running on a server [with sessions]
20:27:02 [noahm]
q?
20:27:23 [noahm]
q+ to respond to ashok
20:27:26 [noahm]
ack next
20:27:27 [Zakim]
DanC_, you wanted to project the web app product next to the outline, and to suggest (a) invited presentations or other get-togethers and (b) looking at relevant wikipedia pages
20:27:29 [jar]
... In the first case, authorization etc are big issues. In 2nd case, security issues go away
20:28:11 [jar]
danc: I was looking at PhoneGap and Native Client [see previous action]
20:28:27 [jar]
... Inviting any of those folks to talk to us would be a good thing
20:29:00 [jar]
... Let's look at wikipedia pages related to security, web apps, widgets, etc
20:29:23 [jar]
... The idea is to inform the developer community; a lot of people end up at wikipedia
20:29:48 [jar]
... Maybe contributing to wp might be a way to help
20:29:56 [jar]
... (brainstorming)
20:30:02 [noahm]
ack next
20:30:03 [Zakim]
jar, you wanted to ask for / suggest criteria etc
20:30:29 [noahm]
JAR: I agree with Ashok's comment about Web applications, and assumed we were talking about the distributed case.
20:30:48 [noahm]
JAR: I assumed it involved The Common Man in the Street (TCMITS).
20:31:38 [noahm]
JAR: Regarding the TOC, it was a brain dump, first developed by the group together, and then refined by me. What I'm missing are criteria. Some sort of structure or philosophy that would guide us.
20:31:56 [johnk]
q+ to say that it was part of web arch in 1990
20:32:50 [noahm]
NM muses: maybe the criteria include: 1) architectural issues you would not get right based on what's been set out for the Web of documents and 2) clarifying points of confusion Goal: show that it's, in the end, one consistent, scalable architecture integrating documents and apps.
20:33:44 [noahm]
JAR: Consider, e.g., why a specific programming language wasn't chosen for the Web. It was deemed desirable to have competition there. Maybe there's a winner now (Javascript.) Anyway, what do we want to make the same, and what different?
20:33:54 [noahm]
q?
20:34:48 [jar]
noah: We don't talk about how you use oracle, that's an implementation detail
20:34:54 [DanC_]
(I dunno how conscious it was that javascript happened when it happened... there was talk of active content back in 1990. tcl and such. not to mention display postscript.)
20:35:23 [johnk]
well, and you have XSLT with XML and CSS too I guess
20:35:29 [jar]
noah: Things like cross-origin security, how to use URIs right - those things are in scope
20:35:40 [jar]
... What happens inside server is not in scope
20:36:09 [jar]
... typed possible criteria into IRC (above)
20:36:44 [jar]
... clarify confusion around e.g. AJAX, or say how to apply old story in new situations
20:37:34 [jar]
... to what extent is google maps one application, vs. a very large number of maps? ... more than just a document
20:37:40 [jar]
q?
20:37:48 [noahm]
q?
20:38:12 [noahm]
ack noahm
20:38:12 [Zakim]
noahm, you wanted to respond to ashok
20:39:28 [jar]
timbl: Even though mapping software allows you to display many overlays, this is always done in code. But with calendars - you can control calendar view, how they're stacked / displayed - that's richer than what you can do with maps
20:39:44 [DanC_]
(hmm... I wonder if KML is sufficient.)
20:39:49 [noahm]
I think that talking about proper use of URIs when you're composing layers might be interesting
20:40:01 [DanC_]
(... to get maps to work, like calendars, in various clients)
20:40:07 [noahm]
Ah, when Tim says music, he's thinking more iTunes than Sibelius
20:40:36 [noahm]
http://www.sibelius.com/home/index_flash.html
20:40:48 [jar]
timbl: Music: iTunes maybe - other applications - multidimensional access / view
20:40:54 [noahm]
TBL: Key point is you're looking at more than one document at a time
20:41:00 [noahm]
q?
20:41:01 [jar]
q?
20:41:48 [jar]
timbl: When you pull in the data you have to be clever. E.g. you're looking for photos tagged x. Client would do a query to get the photos of interest
20:41:58 [DanC_]
(it's really a drag that the Zakim queue isn't a UI feature, e.g. integrated with the list of names in the channel. So many times I'm this close >< to writing an ajax-based front end to Zakim/tracker/rrsagent)
20:42:00 [jar]
[?]
20:42:25 [johnk]
ack next
20:42:26 [Zakim]
johnk, you wanted to say that it was part of web arch in 1990
20:42:31 [noahm]
q+ to ask about use of core mechanisms like URIs in the Tim use case
20:42:36 [noahm]
ack johnk
20:42:54 [jar]
johnk: Want to push back on jar's idea that webarch didn't address programming / application layer
20:44:00 [jar]
... For last TAG meeting I tried to draw a parallel between local web browser vs. javascript ... original web arch did deal with this...
20:44:14 [jar]
timbl: For example, you could have faceted browsing using forms
20:44:34 [jar]
... javascript model just moves data/code onto the client
20:45:35 [noahm]
q?
20:45:38 [jar]
johnk: Phone's IP address isn't public, but a server [once it knows address] can call back to the phone to perform actions
20:46:11 [jar]
... would like to address that applications are distributed in some way [holds up piece of paper]
20:46:39 [jar]
(timbl takes photo)
20:47:35 [jar]
johnk: Here are some models. 1. server & client, server assembles a widget, client GETs widget, does a software install
20:47:48 [jar]
... interesting thing is 2 trust decisions. 1. Install? 2. Run?
20:48:07 [jar]
... side case: What is difference between this and native client, or plugin?
20:48:09 [DanC_]
q+ to look at the list of install-time capabilities/permissions in the W3C widgets spec
20:48:31 [jar]
... again you have 2 trust decisions, except that (maybe) app is given more power
20:48:58 [jar]
ashok: Model: app stays on server ---
20:49:47 [jar]
johnk: I'm not done. Case 2. For example, in iGoogle (?), Google says all this content is sanctioned by Google
20:50:37 [jar]
... Client does a GET, trust decision is: Install + run? (as one decision)
20:50:45 [jar]
... ashok: How different from widget case?
20:50:52 [jar]
s/... //
20:51:12 [jar]
johnk: Both in one step.
20:51:42 [jar]
noah: (something about cookies vs. user ids)
20:51:50 [DanC_]
q+ to note http://www.w3.org/TR/widgets/#feature seems to have no starter-set of permissions. untested hooks are evil
20:52:33 [jar]
noah: Reserve the word "install" for ...
20:53:27 [jar]
johnk: Case 3: Site A has a document, with content that calls out to site B (Fedex and airline)
20:54:13 [jar]
... Fedex has document that calls out to airline
20:54:41 [jar]
... (2nd example) Amazon is in control, compiles the content
20:55:24 [jar]
... Cross-site case. there are trust decisions in both directions
20:56:35 [jar]
danc: Line from amazon to fedex - ?
20:57:01 [jar]
johnk: Not saying this is deployed in a reasonable way, just observing
20:57:33 [jar]
Case 4: Client accesses both Amazon and Fedex
20:57:54 [jar]
... the client does the mashup
20:58:01 [jar]
danc: e.g. tabulator
20:58:13 [jar]
... We're trying to get a feel for case 4
20:58:42 [jar]
timbl: Tabulator is a browser extension
20:58:50 [jar]
danc: What's a good example?
20:59:08 [jar]
timbl: If you look up me, it pulls up information from wikipedia
20:59:17 [jar]
danc: No, where the *user* chose both sites?
20:59:38 [jar]
timbl: What people have we seen?
21:00:21 [jar]
danc: The interesting difference is that in case 4, the user chooses the sources to be combined. It's not one server referring the user to another.
21:01:31 [jar]
timbl: Consider two people on twitter, each with a bunch of tweets.
21:02:15 [DanC_]
(might have been nice if tim had drawn a separate thingy rather than erasing 4. oh well.)
21:02:21 [jar]
... Storage of the data is separate from the...
21:02:39 [jar]
... Suppose tweets are to be readable by my friends
21:02:51 [jar]
... when someone pulls in tweets, it's because they're in the group
21:03:09 [jar]
... tabulator code is completely trusted by C. Runs with user's identity
21:03:57 [DanC_]
(hmm... this speaks_for exercise might be an interesting way to look closely at OpenID phishing risks... and to explore my intuition that OAuth is sorta kerberos-shaped)
21:04:52 [jar]
johnk: The user has to decide to download the twitter app, and ...?
21:04:59 [jar]
timbl: No, it's in the cloud
21:05:15 [jar]
(scribe not quite getting it)
21:06:08 [jar]
timbl: Separate decisions about where to store their data, vs. [something about the app]
21:06:43 [jar]
johnk: (End of 4 cases as diagrammed on piece of paper and then on the whiteboard)
21:07:12 [DanC_]
(jar takes a photo)
21:07:22 [DanC_]
(er.. timbl takes a photo)
21:07:47 [jar]
johnk: web server provider / consumer issues coming out of SOAP work
21:08:09 [jar]
ashok: There are several trust decisions... made by the *user* explicitly
21:08:25 [jar]
johnk: brainstorming...
21:08:45 [jar]
johnk: The site is also making some decisions for you
21:09:01 [jar]
(jar did not take a photo because tim did)
21:09:46 [jar]
q?
21:10:08 [DanC_]
. ACTION: John integrate whiteboard drawings into a prose document about ways to distribute applications
21:10:15 [jar]
ashok: In case 2, where igoogle pulls in stuff for you, there's the question of state
21:10:20 [jar]
johnk: Yes, in all 4 cases
21:10:24 [DanC_]
ACTION: John integrate whiteboard drawings into a prose document about ways to distribute applications
21:10:24 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-352 - Integrate whiteboard drawings into a prose document about ways to distribute applications [on John Kemp - due 2009-12-16].
21:10:27 [noahm]
q?
21:10:30 [noahm]
ack noahm
21:10:30 [Zakim]
noahm, you wanted to ask about use of core mechanisms like URIs in the Tim use case
21:11:11 [jar]
noah: Tim's use case was about making maps much better. You go out and say 'tell me about this area'
21:11:18 [DanC_]
ack dan
21:11:18 [Zakim]
DanC_, you wanted to look at the list of install-time capabilities/permissions in the W3C widgets spec and to note http://www.w3.org/TR/widgets/#feature seems to have no
21:11:21 [Zakim]
... starter-set of permissions. untested hooks are evil
21:11:26 [noahm]
q+ to ask about use of core mechanisms like URIs in the Tim use case
21:11:27 [jar]
(timbl recessing himself)
21:11:50 [jar]
danc: List of install capabilities in widget spec - seems dangerous to standardize this
21:12:14 [jar]
danc: "This is xxx and it wants to look at your contacts list"
21:12:20 [jar]
(timbl back)
21:12:59 [jar]
danc: Can't find an actual starter list of particular permissions / capabilities - seems good to not standardize, but seems bad because not tested
21:13:36 [jar]
... Lets you sprinkle open dust on your distributed system
21:13:55 [jar]
noah: We're no worse off. Let the market deal with it
21:14:08 [jar]
johnk: Symbian has a specific list of caps that the OS gives you
21:14:37 [DanC_]
I'm fairly satisfied with using URI space as a marketplace of features, if it works out that way
21:14:48 [jar]
masinter: Issue of versioning APIs, registries comes up repeatedly
21:15:04 [jar]
... the problem becomes much worse regarding what might be available on the device
21:15:20 [DanC_]
but yeah... if everybody pretends to support hundred-pound-gorrila.com/featurex , then that sucks
21:15:21 [jar]
... "are you a Symbian phone"? is the wrong question. "do you support geolocation?"
21:16:04 [jar]
noah: If you have an ordinary web page, it asks, can I call the geoloc API?
21:16:26 [jar]
... or, in the install process, the question gets asked at install time
21:17:01 [jar]
... phonegap either does or doesn't give you a good answer
21:17:28 [jar]
danc: The premise of the w3c widget spec is that you could have a w3c widget store
21:17:52 [jar]
noah: The 100-pound gorilla phenomenon is still a risk
21:18:02 [jar]
s/noah:/danc:/
21:18:04 [noahm]
q?
21:18:16 [jar]
danc: ... little guys will be disenfranchised
21:18:24 [DanC_]
s/noah: the 100/danc: the 100/
21:19:00 [noahm]
ack next
21:19:01 [Zakim]
noahm, you wanted to ask about use of core mechanisms like URIs in the Tim use case
21:19:11 [jar]
lm: If you want to name it with the name of the implementation, it's hard to extend, or you run into trademark problems
21:19:15 [noahm]
q+ to ask about use of core mechanisms like URIs in the Tim use case
21:19:22 [jar]
danc: It's in CR (widget packaging & config)
21:20:07 [jar]
noah: If they want to write a great iphone app this is a dumb way to do it
21:20:59 [jar]
lm: The failure hasn't happened because the 2 years haven't passed (you name a capability by the implementation, and there's no extensibility story, then within 2 years you'll have kludges)
21:21:10 [jar]
jar: +1 to LM
21:21:27 [noahm]
I'm not convinced we're seeing that problem is happening. Yet.
21:21:30 [jar]
danc: The spec says, URIs go here
21:21:55 [noahm]
I'm sympathetic to watching for this trouble happening; I'm unenthusiastic about getting the TAG all geared up about this until we see trouble brewing.
21:21:57 [jar]
danc: The install time ritual says, this app wants to look at x, y, z
21:22:02 [johnk]
+1 to Noah
21:22:05 [jar]
... The spec only says put URIs here
21:22:34 [jar]
... Maybe there will be a marketplace... but maybe the gorilla gets in there, and everyone else has to pretend to be the gorilla
21:22:48 [jar]
noah: It's not the user-agent string case
21:22:53 [jar]
danc: No, not interestingly different
21:23:09 [noahm]
I'm not convinced it's underspecified.
21:23:35 [jar]
lm: If there's part of a spec that's underspecified, and that part need specifications for interoperability, we (TAG) could say so
21:23:36 [johnk]
I think the basis for the widget spec is exactly _for_ interoperability
21:24:00 [jar]
timbl: Expecting that probably , there will be the equivalent of a mime type registry
21:24:01 [noahm]
I think there will be much more diversity here than for mime types.
21:24:16 [noahm]
q+ to talk about innovation vs. standardizatoin in this space
21:24:34 [jar]
timbl: current frame, focal length, lots of profiles to talk about... w3c may get involved
21:25:24 [jar]
noah: The tough thing is there's lots of innovation going on... would have been bad for standardization to rule out multitouch
21:25:32 [jar]
... the fact that it's a URI is good
21:26:25 [noahm]
q?
21:26:27 [DanC_]
(given that the players in this space seem to be acting in good faith, I'm ok to accept the 100-pound-gorrilla name-mangling risk; I'm OK to hope for a healthy market)
21:26:32 [jar]
lm: I don't want a solution, I just want to ask the question? What is the migration path e.g. from one pointer to two?
21:26:44 [jar]
s/question?/question:/
21:27:06 [jar]
danc: Maybe people will come to W3C to get a URI?
21:27:06 [noahm]
q+ to ask about use of core mechanisms like URIs in the Tim use case
21:27:34 [jar]
lm: We'd like to see, if they have a solution, let's get it documented better. If not, let's work on one.
21:28:03 [DanC_]
Larry, if you want an action, you can pretty much always assign yourself one. or you can nominate somebody.
21:28:46 [noahm]
ack next
21:28:48 [Zakim]
noahm, you wanted to ask about use of core mechanisms like URIs in the Tim use case and to talk about innovation vs. standardizatoin in this space and to ask about use of core
21:28:50 [Zakim]
... mechanisms like URIs in the Tim use case
21:29:19 [jar]
lm: Not sure I want to engage widget folks again
21:30:27 [jar]
noah: The maps could be more sophisticated... (that's what Tim was saying...) telling a story about naming and identity is import. Is there agreement on when to mint a URI, how much client/server AJAX flexibility is, who knows what the URIs are. Very interesting area to work.
21:31:02 [jar]
q?
21:31:17 [jar]
q+ jar This is the meaning story, not the identity story
21:31:33 [timbl]
q+ to say that for that class of application (map, iTune, document mgt, iPhoto, calendar, timelines, etc) there typically are *not* URIs for the total view. Tabulator has plyed with that. But maybe a language for describingthem is bettre.
21:31:40 [jar]
noah: TAG story: identity, interaction, formats
21:31:56 [jar]
danc: Identity per noah is a big story
21:32:30 [jar]
(scribe hears "semantics" when noah says "identity")
21:32:42 [jar]
noah: Portals ...
21:33:18 [DanC_]
DanC: it's interesting to me in that it includes/subsumes the concern I have about "proposal to make ajax crawlable". If success can be less than the whole thing, I'm all for it.
21:34:58 [jar]
q?
21:35:33 [jar]
q+ jar to talk about the US civil war
21:35:39 [noahm]
ack timbl
21:35:39 [Zakim]
timbl, you wanted to say that for that class of application (map, iTune, document mgt, iPhoto, calendar, timelines, etc) there typically are *not* URIs for the total view.
21:35:43 [Zakim]
... Tabulator has plyed with that. But maybe a language for describingthem is bettre.
21:35:55 [noahm]
Are not and should not be, or are not but there should be?
21:36:06 [jar]
timbl: Noah asked, do people make up URIs for the views?
21:36:26 [jar]
... Not in general.
21:36:33 [jar]
... If so, the URIs get big.
21:36:47 [jar]
... Tabulator students took a sparql query to encode a view.
21:37:16 [jar]
... When URIs get too big, they invent a data format.
21:37:31 [jar]
q+ jar to talk about sparql-over-GET + tinyurl
21:37:48 [jar]
(jar promises to be brief)
21:37:56 [noahm]
q?
21:38:08 [noahm]
ack next
21:38:09 [Zakim]
jar, you wanted to talk about the US civil war and to talk about sparql-over-GET + tinyurl
21:38:39 [noahm]
JAR: In nearly every part of this discussion, I see us dancing around, meaning, inference, and contracts.
21:39:14 [noahm]
JAR: Want to encourage people to look at OWL, which is the W3C technology in the inference space (and it's very nice)
21:39:30 [noahm]
q?
21:39:36 [Ashok]
Ashok has joined #tagmem
21:40:32 [noahm]
DC: there's a consortium of URL shortening companies
21:41:57 [jar]
noah: I said, identification is something we could work on
21:42:18 [jar]
jar: 'Identification' is meaningless without meaning / inference
21:43:39 [jar]
(discussion of agenda)
21:43:54 [jar]
s/we could/we could profitably/
21:45:33 [jar]
scribe: re OWL, e.g. a specification induces a class of conforming entities. that's DL. one of many possible applications.
21:47:18 [noahm]
. ACTION: Noah to do just a bit of work framing some issues around identification for Ajax apps (remembering the merged maps use case) Due 20 January 2009
21:47:34 [jar]
johnk: Approach of taking 3 pillars of webarch is good
21:47:42 [jar]
s/taking/starting with/
21:47:48 [noahm]
ACTION: Noah to do just a bit of work framing some issues around identification for Ajax apps (remembering the merged maps use case) Due 20 January 2009
21:47:48 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-353 - Do just a bit of work framing some issues around identification for Ajax apps (remembering the merged maps use case) Due 20 January 2009 [on Noah Mendelsohn - due 2009-12-16].
21:49:06 [noahm]
q?
21:52:12 [jar]
jar: spec / interface naming /v ersioning is one good focus, security is another
21:52:55 [jar]
danc: Minions, please check client side storage design and look for architectural issues
21:53:04 [jar]
ashok: web databases?
21:53:06 [jar]
danc: yes
21:53:50 [DanC_]
. ACTION ashok review client side storage apis (web simple storage etc.), looking for architectural issues or other critical problems... or interesting design features the TAG should know about
21:54:03 [DanC_]
ACTION ashok review client side storage apis (web simple storage etc.), looking for architectural issues or other critical problems... or interesting design features the TAG should know about
21:54:03 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-354 - Review client side storage apis (web simple storage etc.), looking for architectural issues or other critical problems... or interesting design features the TAG should know about [on Ashok Malhotra - due 2009-12-16].
21:54:19 [jar]
johnk: I could try to map AWWW section on interaction to parts of webapps TOC that seem related
21:54:44 [jar]
noah: Interesting, but how about look at interaction story in webapp & findings, and ask: could I tell the Ajax story?
21:54:58 [jar]
johnk: Yes, I was trying to be more specific, but that's the idea
21:55:47 [noahm]
. ACTION john to explore the degree to which AWWW and associated findings tell the interaction story for Web Applications
21:57:03 [noahm]
ACTION john to explore the degree to which AWWW and associated findings tell the interaction story for Web Applications due: 2 Feb 2010
21:57:04 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-355 - Explore the degree to which AWWW and associated findings tell the interaction story for Web Applications due: 2 Feb 2010 [on John Kemp - due 2009-12-16].
21:57:44 [noahm]
ACTION-355 = john to explore the degree to which AWWW and associated findings tell the interaction story for Web Applications
21:57:54 [noahm]
ACTION-355: john to explore the degree to which AWWW and associated findings tell the interaction story for Web Applications
21:57:54 [trackbot]
ACTION-355 Explore the degree to which AWWW and associated findings tell the interaction story for Web Applications due: 2 Feb 2010 notes added
21:58:05 [DanC_]
action-355 due 2 feb 2010
21:58:05 [trackbot]
ACTION-355 Explore the degree to which AWWW and associated findings tell the interaction story for Web Applications due: 2 Feb 2010 due date now 2 feb 2010
22:01:41 [jar]
lm: Do we have an exit strategy for ISSUE-50?
22:02:17 [noahm]
q?
22:05:21 [jar]
lm: The goal of Henry's action is to close the issue, right?
22:05:24 [jar]
all: yes
22:05:26 [jar]
ADJOURNED
22:06:33 [masinter]
masinter has left #tagmem
22:22:54 [Noah_phone_]
Noah_phone_ has joined #tagmem
22:23:39 [timbl]
timbl has joined #tagmem
22:30:54 [noah]
noah has joined #tagmem
22:30:54 [noahm]
noahm has joined #tagmem