17:57:16 RRSAgent has joined #tagmem 17:57:16 logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/01/06-tagmem-irc 17:57:53 johnk has joined #tagmem 17:58:15 zakim, this is TAG 17:58:21 Ashok, I see TAG_Weekly()1:00PM in the schedule but not yet started. Perhaps you mean "this will be TAG". 17:58:45 trackbot, start telcon 17:58:47 RRSAgent, make logs public 17:58:49 Zakim, this will be TAG 17:58:49 ok, trackbot, I see TAG_Weekly()1:00PM already started 17:58:50 Meeting: Technical Architecture Group Teleconference 17:58:50 Date: 06 January 2011 17:59:14 chair: Noah_Mendelsohn 17:59:30 DKA has joined #tagmem 17:59:51 +Ashok_Malhotra 18:00:23 +plinss 18:00:49 +Jonathan_Rees 18:01:01 noah has joined #tagmem 18:01:28 +Noah_Mendelsohn 18:01:55 zakim, who is here? 18:02:00 On the phone I see DKA, Ashok_Malhotra, plinss, Jonathan_Rees, Noah_Mendelsohn 18:02:04 +Masinter 18:02:08 On IRC I see noah, DKA, johnk, RRSAgent, Zakim, Ashok, jar, Norm, timbl, plinss, trackbot, Yves 18:02:52 +John_Kemp 18:03:01 zakim, who is talking? 18:03:02 ht has joined #tagmem 18:03:11 noah, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Ashok_Malhotra (77%), Jonathan_Rees (30%), John_Kemp (14%) 18:03:31 zakim, who is here? 18:03:31 On the phone I see DKA, Ashok_Malhotra, plinss, Jonathan_Rees, Noah_Mendelsohn, Masinter, John_Kemp 18:03:34 On IRC I see ht, noah, DKA, johnk, RRSAgent, Zakim, Ashok, jar, Norm, timbl, plinss, trackbot, Yves 18:03:51 present: Noah_Mendelsohn, Ashok_Malhotra, Jonathan_Rees, Yves_Lafon, Larry_Masinter, Dan_Applequist, John_Kemp, Peter_Linss 18:03:53 +Yves 18:03:54 +[IPcaller] 18:04:24 present+: Henry_Thompson 18:05:14 scribenick: Ashok 18:05:20 scribe: Ashok 18:05:33 Larry has joined #tagmem 18:05:51 Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/01/06-agenda 18:06:00 Topic: Convene 18:06:14 yes, I can scribe 18:06:22 Noah: We will have a call next week. 18:06:42 +TimBL 18:06:44 Topic: Approve minutes of prior meeting(s) + [12]16 December 2010 18:07:00 present+: TimBL 18:07:23 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/12/16-minutes 18:07:52 Topic: Admin Items 18:08:05 Noah: We have a f2f in about a month 18:08:34 ... outgoing and incoming members are welcome to attend. 18:08:41 I will try to participate remotely 18:08:45 Yves: Regrets for the f2f 18:09:47 Noah: There is a new HashINUri document. We will discuss next week. Please review. 18:10:27 s/HashINUri/HashInUri 18:10:54 Topic: Privacy Workshop 18:11:32 Noah: We discussed briefly ... there are some action items 18:11:47 Dan: Tim was there at the workshop 18:12:31 ... perhaps he has comments also 18:15:30 Tim: There was a range of people there 18:16:32 It sounds good to "respect people's wishes" if we believed people understood what their wishes were, and those could be expressed reasonably 18:16:35 ... Dan: We may need a W3C focus ... maybe a get together 18:16:39 q? 18:17:24 Noah: Difference between expectations and contents which 18:17:27 action-507? 18:17:27 ACTION-507 -- Daniel Appelquist to with Noah to suggest next steps for TAG on privacy -- due 2011-01-03 -- OPEN 18:17:27 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/507 18:17:35 Tim mentioned something about detecting someone's TCP/IP stack by observing the timing of their packets 18:17:47 ... we have action 507 which is to suggest next steps about privacy 18:18:09 NM: re ACTION-507, next steps for TAG, what should we do? 18:18:09 Dan: Minimization is important .... but it is a micro issue 18:18:19 Tim said something about whether trying to solve the problem at the application layer by cutting off identifying information doesn't address the problem 18:18:31 ... buiding block but does not solve user privacy 18:18:32 DanA: one bit of my answer on 507 is the minimization stuff, but that's a pretty narrow slice of the privacy pie 18:18:42 "the whole fingerprinting issue" I think this is key 18:19:10 ... fingerprinting issue is important ... should be in context of new initiative in W3C about privacy 18:19:28 s/be/be discussed/ 18:19:29 q+ to discuss whether TAG could summarize a W3C view of "what is Privacy" and "why is it hard?" to start with 18:21:00 q+ to mention p3p 18:21:06 q- 18:21:12 Tim said what I was going to say 18:21:23 ack next 18:21:24 Larry, you wanted to discuss whether TAG could summarize a W3C view of "what is Privacy" and "why is it hard?" to start with 18:22:21 Larry: Workshop focused on solutions ... there may be a initiave but could we summarize "what is Privacy" and "why is it hard?" 18:22:37 ... this may be something the TAG should do 18:22:43 sometimes when there's a hard problem, just framing the problem can be valuable 18:22:56 -TimBL 18:23:09 Dan: Valuable to write up what we think the issues are 18:23:22 perhaps we could have an opinion about which things are in scope for W3C and which aren't? 18:23:38 we're not going to attack packet timing, are we? 18:23:49 we definitely need to check with tlr 18:24:05 q? 18:24:05 Also check with Phillipe 18:24:48 q? 18:24:56 Noah: We should try and define the issues related to privacy 18:25:07 +TimBL 18:25:11 Action items: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Dec/att-0061/ActionItems_Workshop.pdf 18:25:11 Sorry, couldn't find user - items 18:26:01 IETF Actions 18:26:01 • Create privacy directorate 18:26:01 • Investigate possible research work in privacy (IRTF) 18:26:01 • Explore what the IETF can learn from Tor (and vice 18:26:01 versa) 18:26:02 • Support for continuing “Privacy Considerations” work 18:26:04 – Apply it to some IETF protocols 18:26:06 – Covers HTTP/non-HTTP-based Protocols 18:26:09 • Fingerprinting Considerations for IETF protocols (TCP, 18:26:10 HTTP, SIP, etc.) 18:26:15 Noah: If you go to Slide 3 you will see IETF actions ... slide 4 is W3C actions 18:26:16 W3C Actions 18:26:16 • Formation of W3C Privacy Interest Group 18:26:16 • Fingerprinting of W3C protocols 18:26:18 – How to help 18:26:20 • API Minimalization 18:26:22 • Referrer header & privacy 18:26:24 • Privacy Considerations for Non-Browser-based 18:26:26 Protocols 18:26:26 DKA has joined #tagmem 18:26:28 • Usability: 18:26:30 – Whitepapers &BCPs (?) 18:26:32 – Usability Considerations in W3C specifications 18:28:13 Dan : There was heavy IETF participation ... they wanted privacy considerations and privacy review for each spec 18:28:30 Following on Larry's thought, if you require a "privacy considerations" section, then it needs to be at least somewhat clear what's in scope under the term "privacy" 18:28:57 ... similar to security review 18:29:15 Dan: Debate abt do not track mechanism ... this is important 18:30:30 Yves: Problem with jurisdictions 18:31:40 q? 18:31:48 Dan: Our privacy lawyer said that the EU would be looking closely at the Do Not Track and would probably follow the US lead 18:32:02 ... the Canadian person said the same thing 18:32:55 q+ 18:33:14 http://donottrack.us/ 18:34:08 Dan: The Berkeley folks recommend a Do No Track header and this had some traction 18:35:36 Noah discusses use of Google Analytics on his blog 18:37:06 donottrack.us seems sort of short on analysis and detail. would be nice to know more 18:37:47 Larry: Why don't we discuss the action items? 18:38:15 Noah: First is to start a Privacy IG 18:38:43 AM: There is currently a policy languages IG 18:39:07 AM: Ends next month. That may turn into a privacy IG 18:39:33 NM: Scope will change: 18:39:42 AM: Yes, refocus on privacy. 18:40:15 q+ to hesitate 18:40:15 NM: Talk to whoever is heading the group? 18:40:19 AM: Talk to Rigo. 18:40:26 DKA: I think we need to involve Thomas 18:40:47 ack next 18:41:19 ack ht 18:41:20 ht, you wanted to hesitate 18:41:25 ack next 18:41:40 q+ askok to ask about do not track header 18:42:07 HT: Do we have guidance on what the charter should be 18:42:34 ... need guidance on the scoping of the effort 18:43:17 Larry: Is this an area that the TAG should actively participate 18:43:34 Noah: Do we have the requisite skills? 18:44:39 ... I would have others in W3C lead the charge and the TAG track and look at suggested direction such as the DoNotTrack header 18:45:43 Noah reads action list above 18:46:44 close ACTION-506 18:46:44 ACTION-506 Noah to bring proposed W3C Actions on Privacy before the TAG - TLR to report back to IETF closed 18:49:10 action-502? 18:49:10 ACTION-502 -- Jonathan Rees to report back on discussions with Ben Adida regarding fragid semantics for RDFa -- due 2010-11-29 -- PENDINGREVIEW 18:49:10 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/502 18:49:24 Topic: ACTION-502 (URIGoodPractice-40): RDFa Fragids and media types 18:51:31 Jar: Discusses RDFa fragment id and says this is a glitch in floow-your-nose-story 18:52:05 jar: Ben Adida says nothing is broken so nothing needs to be done 18:52:32 Tim: Is this an issue foe Facebook? 18:52:40 s/foe/for/ 18:54:33 Jar: Media types have to say what happens to RDFa 18:54:53 sometimes the thing you can do is just document the problem, even if you don't fix it 18:54:58 ... we should open an issue about this 18:55:26 fixing MIME type registrations is in draft-masinter-mime-web document.... 18:55:48 Tim: Mime types will catch up with rest of this ... If people are consistent there is no damage 18:55:49 suggest the RDFa document could identify the problem, even if it doesn't fix it? 18:56:16 tbl: Danger - foo#a might be used as *both* an element id and as a non-element id 18:56:28 +q to suggest (a) review of mime-web on mime type registration to identify problem and direction, and (b) to suggest amending RDFa document to at least identify issue 18:56:32 q- 18:56:51 Jar: Who is going to the work 18:57:00 s/work/work?/ 18:57:37 jar: My docket is full 18:58:04 ... I could draft something but cannot engage with a WG 18:58:32 q? 18:58:46 q? 18:59:01 jar: Ben and the editors have talked about this and they think this is not a problem 18:59:17 ... or if it is a problem, then it's not their problem. 18:59:17 ack next 18:59:19 askok, you wanted to ask about do not track header 18:59:20 ack next 18:59:22 if there are known problems with a technology, even if it is someone else's problem, it should be reasonable to note the problem anyway 18:59:23 Larry, you wanted to suggest (a) review of mime-web on mime type registration to identify problem and direction, and (b) to suggest amending RDFa document to at least identify 18:59:26 ... issue 18:59:26 q- 19:00:37 Larry is asking me to check the mime type draft to see if this fragid issue is covered adequately 19:00:58 Larry: The Mime doc I'm working on does address mime typem registration and we shoud review ... se above 19:01:28 s/se/see/ 19:01:37 q? 19:02:04 Larry: We can tell the edotors that other people think this is a problem. 19:02:17 ... burden should be on them 19:02:57 jar: I can draft something 19:03:11 larry: You can submit individually 19:03:51 jar: Are we asking them for words in there doc or for them to interact with HTML WG and 3032bis 19:04:16 I think the first step is to document what the problem is, or at least what some people think is the problem 19:04:30 jar: I think they are revising RDFa 19:04:52 and that needs to be noted... Getting other people to change their spec is harder, first thing is getting consensus around at least the description of the problem 19:05:23 close ACTION-502 19:05:23 ACTION-502 Report back on discussions with Ben Adida regarding fragid semantics for RDFa closed 19:05:50 action jar to communicate with RDFa WG regarding documenting the fragid / media type issue 19:05:50 Created ACTION-509 - Communicate with RDFa WG regarding documenting the fragid / media type issue [on Jonathan Rees - due 2011-01-13]. 19:06:14 Topic: ISSUE-40 (URIGoodPractice-40): Constructing RDF URIs from HTML microdata 19:06:47 Noah: There was a note describing the concern ... the HTML5 spec has a section on microdata 19:06:48 http://dev.w3.org/html5/md/#rdf 19:06:50 timbl has joined #tagmem 19:08:00 ... it says how microdata can be converted to RDF. However, in some cases microdata is not URis but just "terms" 19:08:04 Examples: http://dev.w3.org/html5/md/#examples 19:08:24 http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml/microdata#http://microformats.org/profile/hcard%23: 19:08:24 rdf:type ; 19:08:24 "Princeton" . 19:08:30 First example shows full URI 19:09:09 Second example mints a URI by ... ... 19:10:06 q+ to query the seriousness of this proposal [off the record] 19:10:26 TBL: Seems to be an attempt to use http uris (so far so good) with an effort to put fundamental control with HTML WG, then also the microdata folks, then (...didn't catch the rest...) 19:10:58 TBL: Might make a bit more sense if the 2nd URI were % encoded. 19:11:19 TBL: Seems to let W3C publish schemas for stuff that comes from microdata folks. 19:11:52 TBL: Alternative is to just ask microdata folks to publish schemas directly, or that failing, put some on the side ourselves. 19:12:01 ack ht 19:12:01 ht, you wanted to query the seriousness of this proposal [off the record] 19:12:37 HT: Is this a serious proposal? 19:13:18 ... we need someone who cares about RDF to confirm that this is serious 19:14:21 Larry: This is a problem with namespaces in RDF 19:14:58 The alternative to prefixes is full URIs throughout 19:15:36 Where is HTML5 on entity declaration -- not available to users, right? 19:16:08 Noah: So, this would require prefizes in HTML ... may be a tough battle to fight for this case 19:17:13 ... HTML5 folks would consider this a corner case 19:18:08 I think Larry's point is actually relevant input into HTML Issue-41 (decentralized extensibility) 19:18:25 Larry: Tere is a significant community that does not see metadata as useful 19:18:32 s/Tere/There/ 19:20:31 HT: If HTML5 folks adopt a prefix binding this would simplify this part of their spec also 19:21:06 Noah: Is there serious proposal along these lines for issue 41? 19:21:20 ... I don't think so. 19:22:13 HT: There is a mechanism for prefing but I think it is only for attributes 19:22:20 NM: I thought that the only options currently open for their issue-41 were do nothing, and trigger on well known root elements (a la