W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > July 2003

[Minutes] 28 July 2003 TAG teleconf (URI/Resource/Representation/httpRange-14)

From: Ian B. Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: 28 Jul 2003 18:50:23 -0400
To: www-tag@w3.org
Message-Id: <1059432622.873.93.camel@seabright>

Hello,

Minutes of the 28 July teleconf are available as
HTML [1] and as text below.

Please note that the TAG has not yet accepted the
21-23 July ftf meeting minutes; the draft is not
yet public.

 _ Ian

[1] http://www.w3.org/2003/07/28-tag-summary.html

=======================================================

                  Minutes of 28 July 2003 TAG teleconference

   Nearby: [4]IRC log | [5]Teleconference details  [6]issues list 
   [7]www-tag archive

      [4] http://www.w3.org/2003/07/28-tagmem-irc.html
      [5] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/#remote
      [6] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist
      [7] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/

1. Administrative

    1. Roll call: NW (Chair), DC, TBL, PC, CL, Pat Hayes [PH], TB, DO
       (briefly), IJ (Scribe). Regrets: SW. Missing: RF.
    2. We did not accept the [8]21 Jul face-to-face meeting minutes. DC
       looked at them and did not find them acceptable as is.
    3. Accepted this [9]agenda.
    4. Next meeting: 4 August teleconf. Regrets: DC, DO
    5. Resolved: Meet face-to-face in Bristol 6-8 October 2003 (Mon to
       Wed) with the expectation that some people may participate by
       telephone or video remotely. DanC gave regrets for any type of
       participation.

      [8] http://www.w3.org/2003/07/21-tag-summary.html
      [9] http://www.w3.org/2003/07/14-tag.html

2. Technical

   The TAG invited Pat Hayes to the meeting to discuss the terms URI,
   identify, resource, representation, and issue httpRange-14.

   [Ian]

          NW: For technical agenda, we can either talk about (1)
          httpRange-14 or (2) define resource and representation.
          DO: In case of a vote, my proxy vote goes to TB. [DO leaves.]
          TBray: Procedural point: If we write up text along the lines we
          agreed to at the ftf meeting (information resource mentioned),
          I think several of us can live with that compromise. We can
          address the issue(s) in detail in a subsequent version of the
          arch doc.

   [Chris]
          I agree that information resource really helps as a concept

   [Ian]
          DC: On "information resources": Roy said there was no such
          thing. We did not *decide* to make the distinction at the
          meeting. I think RF is on the record as saying we should not
          make the distinction.

   [Zakim]
          timbl, you wanted to mention that Roy had views on this and to
          proceede without him is a shame.

   [Ian]
          TBL: Right, I think RF opposed the notion of information
          resource. RF's absence today is a shame. We invited Pat Hayes
          (PH) to discuss the use of terms. I think RF might agree that
          in practice there are information resources, but he would not
          like to make the distinction in the model.
          PH: Please explain RF's position. Is the position that there is
          no such thing as an information resource, or that the
          distinction is not useful?
          TBray: I think I can convey RF's position. RF and I both
          observe that the existing deployed base of software has no
          opinion about what the nature of a resource is. Deployed
          software doesn't care whether the resource is a mountain or a
          picture of a mountain. The distinction has nothing to do with
          respresentational state transfer. While I agree with him
          technically, I am aware of the angst caused by the issue.
          DC: In particular, RF has pointing out that http URIs (without
          #fragid) exist in practice that refer to robots (not
          information resources).
          TBray: Another example is XML namespace URIs that begin with
          http and have no frag ids.
          PH: Seems like XML Namespace URIs are a good example of URIs
          that (can) have nothing at the end. It's hard to get ahold of
          the namespace. You get documents back saying "I am a
          namespace."
          PC: Don't forget the use of Namespace URIs as declared without
          making available any representations.
          PH: Seems frequent to have URIs without representations
          available; no need to make this illegal. When you get
          persnickety about nature of resource, you continue to find
          ambiguities (e.g., resource at given moment in time v. resource
          at any moment time).
          TBray: Suppose we proceed in document by making distinction
          between information resource and "other types" of resources.
          TBL has said that ambiguous denotation with URIs is dangerous
          to sem web. What would need to be said in arch doc to make
          building sem web sanely possible?
          PH: What bothers me is that there is the axiom on the current
          draft: The claim that a URI must *identify* a unique resource.
          TBray: What do you mean by "unique"?
          PH: If the axiom could be weakened or removed, a lot of these
          problems would just go away.
          TBL: There's a philosophical debate issue (denotations and
          interpretations). But there are practical problems when someone
          wants to use a URI to refer to a page and also to a person.
          These people haven't been playing with the semantic web.

   [Zakim]
          timbl, you wanted to explain NS and to also mention Roy's model
          of all the bits as being representatation of the robot.

   [Ian]
          TBL: There's a philosophy question (how do we determine we mean
          the same thing when using URIs). But there's another thing
          (hair-splitting) about whether we mean a photo or a photo
          including its frame. I'm worried about neither of these (for
          the moment). I am concerned when people are expressly referring
          to two things with the same URI.
          PH: For the purposes of today's discussion, I agree with
          TBL.(But I don't actually agree with TBL) I agree that the
          current technology doesn't care what the nature of the
          resources is.

   [timbl]
          Pat: Current technology not on teh sem web doesn't give a rat
          what these resources really are.

   [Zakim]
          tbray, you wanted to ask in what sense it is unique and to ask
          where the assertion Pat talks about is made

   [Ian]
          PH: The problem is what's said in the arch doc. The document
          says important about resources that matter.

   [Zakim]
          also, you wanted to menation Roy's model of all the bits as
          being representatation of the robot.

   [Ian]
          TBray: What language is bothering you in the [10]16 July Web
          Arch draft?
          2. Identification and Resources "Uniform Resource Identifiers
          (URI), defined by "Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI): Generic
          Syntax" [URI], are central to Web Architecture. Parties who
          wish to communicate about something will establish a shared
          vocabulary, i.e. a shared set of bindings between identifiers
          and things. This shared vocabulary has a tangible value: it
          reduces the cost of communication. The ability to use common
          identifiers across communities is what motivates global naming
          in Web Architecture."
          [TB reads second para as well]
          PH: I don't establish a link to a galaxy by using a URI. Let's
          define "link"

     [10] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/webarch/

   [Chris]
          link is a context of use of uris

   [Zakim]
          Norm, you wanted to ask how to distinguish between the nits and
          the real distinctions

   [Ian]
          PH: URI-makes-link if we think about resources as being
          networked resources.
          TBray: I'm sorry, I just don't see the problem.
          PH: How do you link from an imaginary entity to something 100s
          of 1000s of light years away.

   [Zakim]
          timbl, you wanted to mention confusion betweb Rs and IRs

   [Ian]
          PH: You can link the representations, but not the things.

   [Chris]
          PH just said what I was queued up to say!!

   [Zakim]
          Chris, you wanted to point out links are only found in resource
          representations

   [Ian]
          DC: The doc says "When a REPRESENTATION of one resource..."
          CL: You can only have a link from a representation. The link is
          to a resource, not a representation. (CL: Modulo fragid
          nonsense.) One knows about links by fetching representations
          and determining that there's a link. A link IS formed between
          resources; the link is accomplished via representations.

   [Chris]
          a link IS NOT* fomed merely by the existence of two resources
          a link has to be explicitly established, in a representation
          not all representations have links

   [Ian]
          PH: "shared set of bindings". Can we assume that looking at
          this from a sem web that "parties" can be software agents?
          DC: Yes.
          PH: So how do software agents establish a shared vocabulary?

   [Chris]
          eg I can have an image in SVG that has links, and a JPEG image
          that does not

   [Ian]
          DC: The document doesn't say that they "have to", we just
          observe that they do.

   [Chris]
          and those could be two representations of the same resource

   [Ian]
          TBL: Software agents pick up knowledge by being written by
          humans.

   [timbl]
          [11]http://www.cacr.caltech.edu/~roy/vermeer/ucyh.jpg "The
          Astronomer"

     [11] http://www.cacr.caltech.edu/~roy/vermeer/ucyh.jpg

   [Ian]
          TBray: It's safe to assume (by software agents) that same URI
          refers to same thing.
          DC: Both names and what they refer to is bootstrapped.
          PH: There's no way to communicate "the thing". You can only
          refer to it with symbols.
          DC: That's exactly what we do.
          PH: It works between people in a room because they all see the
          dog and observe understanding.
          TBray: Why doesn't it work on the Web.
          PH: Vocab is defined in terms of bindings, not shared URIs. I
          don't think that's true. Software can do a lot without knowing
          bindings. It doesn't matter in some cases whether there is even
          a binding. Only agreement is the agreement to use URIs in the
          same way (in a given context).
          TBray: I agree with PH here - I think the discussion of "shared
          set of bindings" is gratuitous; we never actually define the
          bindings. We could delete that phrase; we don't need to talk
          about bindings at this point in the doc.
          DC: But names refer to something. There is tangible value when
          our views of binding are the same.

   [DanC_g]
          "a shared set of identifiers on whose meanings they agree"
          I like that

   [TBray]
          +1

   [Chris]
          I observe that in real life, subsets of communities can agree
          on the meaning of a given term, but entire communities rarely
          ever do. hence schools of thought, different factions,
          political parties, and so on. a canonical set of definitions
          only goes so far

   [Ian]
          TBL to PH: On this phone call, we say "Pat's on the queue." Pat
          is animate, the queue is virtual. But there's no confusion
          about these things. We've exchanged a huge amount of
          information, and it would be inconceivable to be confused about
          what "Pat" means. A vast number of URIs will work that way on
          the semantic web. E.g., those published by the OWL WG.
          [TBL on cost in time of continuing to debate fine points.]

   [Zakim]
          DanC_g, you wanted to reiterate pat's proposal

   [Ian]
          [PH proposal: "establish a shared set of identifiers on whose
          meanings they agree."]
          PC: Do we define "identifiers"?
          TBray: I don't think we need to define "identifiers"
          DC: It's clear that we mean URIs.

   [timbl]
          [12]http://www.cacr.caltech.edu/~roy/vermeer/ucy.jpg

     [12] http://www.cacr.caltech.edu/~roy/vermeer/ucy.jpg

   [Ian]
          Proposed: s/a shared set of bindings between identifiers and
          things/a shared set of identifiers on whose meanings they agree
          NW: If we adopt this, does this help clarify what we mean by
          resources/respresentations?
          Resolved: In section 2, s/a shared set of bindings between
          identifiers and things/a shared set of identifiers on whose
          meanings they agree

   [Ian]
          [Second issue is on information resources.]
          PH: "The networked information system is built of linked
          resources, and the large-scale effect is a shared information
          space. The value of the Web grows exponentially as a function
          of the number of linked resources (the "network effect")."
          Whoa. This seems to be talking about information resources.
          DC: I agree.
          TBray: I don't agree.
          TBL: In my terminology, you have a picture/form of a robot;
          those are information-bearing objects.
          TBray: Software can't tell the difference.
          TBL: My software can.
          [On meaning of "link"]

   [Norm]
          Stupid is not illegal.

   [DanC_g]
          but harmful can be, and perhaps should be, promoted to
          counter-to-web-architecture

   [Zakim]
          timbl, you wanted to discuss what
          <[13]http://www.cacr.caltech.edu/~roy/vermeer/ucy.jpg> is.

     [13] http://www.cacr.caltech.edu/~roy/vermeer/ucy.jpg

   [Ian_]
          TBL: Web works because we have expectations about the same
          content.
          NW: What if you do a GET on a URI and get back an RDF
          representation that says "That URI refers to a person."

   [DanC_g]
          I think this "expectation of same content" issue is much more
          subtle... doesn't work for W3C home page, for example, which
          has different information on different days.

   [Ian_]
          TBL: The system would stop. "I'm sorry, I told you that the URI
          refers to a person; not a painting."
          NW: If I own a URI, I don't know why I don't get to say
          definitively what it refers to.
          TBL: It's useful to be able to limit scope to information
          resources rather than have to call up a person to ask what a
          URI refers to.

   [DanC_g]
          we can, and we do go thru doing just that.

   [Ian_]
          TBL :The Web is built of networked information objects. The
          identity of those things is defined by what is invariant when
          you do GET with that URI.

   [timbl]
          and what is invariant is that that is a picture of an oil
          painting.

   [Ian_]
          PH: If you say that what the URI denotes is fixed by the owner,
          then any URI can denote anything.

   [Chris]
          yes, and that would be useless, but is still possible

   [Ian_]
          PH: I don't think that's feasible as a network architecture.

   [Zakim]
          DanC_g, you wanted to state my position on httpRange-14: I
          don't think we shoulld resolve it in this version. I think we
          should make and use the distinction between resources in
          general and information resources; i.e. those resources that
          can have representations.

   [Ian_]
          DC: On this issue, I don't think that we should resolve it
          entirely in v1 of arch doc. There's a lot of work to be done
          before we do.

   [timbl]
          PH: If it were really true that yo had to ask someone what
          their URI meant, the web would not work. It isnt a working
          network architecture

   [Ian_]
          DC: But I do think it's useful to make the distinction between
          information resources and other resources. It will help the
          community talk about the problem.

   [timbl]
          seconded

   [Zakim]
          TBray, you wanted to say that the information system includes
          only those things for which people publish URIs, and they're
          only good citizens if they make representations available

   [Ian]
          PH: I don't know what it means to build a networked ifnormation
          system with galaxies.
          DC: Is it useful to make a decision about adding "information
          resource" without RF here?
          NW: I'd like to move forward even if RF's not here. He can
          object.
          Proposd action DC: Propose text for architecture document that
          distinguishes "information resource" from other types of
          "resources".
          DC: I'd like to resolve to include such language.
          PC: No chance.
          [Others may have said no as well]
          DC: I don't accept the action if we are not deciding.
          Action TB: Propose text for architecture document that
          distinguishes "information resource" from other types of
          "resources".
          [On httpRange-14]
          NW: I fear that we simply disagree. What's the best way to
          frame the discussion that will be constructive?
          DC: I move to adjourn.
          NW: Several people wrote back and said that my summary was
          flatly wrong.

   [timbl]
          Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI), defined by "Uniform
          Resource Identifiers (URI): Generic Syntax" [URI], are central
          to Web Architecture. Identifier here is used here in the sense
          of name. Parties who wish to communicate about something will
          establish a shared vocabulary, i.e. a shared set of bindings
          between identifiers and things. This shared vocabulary has a
          tangible value: it reduces the cost of communication. The
          ability to use common identifiers across URIs identify
          resources. A resource can be be anything. Certain resources are
          information resources, which convey information. These are
          termed information resources. Much of this document discusses
          information resources, often using the term resource.
          An information resource is on the Web when it can be accessed
          in practice. When a representation of one information resource
          refers to another information resource with a URI, a link is
          formed between the two resources. The networked information
          system is built of linked resources, and the large-scale effect
          is a shared information space. The value of the Web grows
          exponentially as a function of the number of linked resources
          (the "network effect").

   [Ian]
          PH: Perhaps question producing more contention than it needs
          to. If an http URI is used with "#fragid", then, it should be
          that the URI before the "#" SHOULD denote an information
          resource.

   [Chris]
          oh, magic hashes again

   [Ian]
          PH: This gives an opening to folks like Patrick Stickler. But
          the point is not to have one's cake and eat it too.

   [Zakim]
          DanC_g, you wanted to doubt that hayes's suggestion helps...
          I'm pretty sure roy thinks robot#topPart works while robot
          refers to a non-document

   [Ian]
          DC: I don't think this suggestion helps. RF might say that
          <URI#top> refers to top part of robot and <URI> refers to
          entire robot.
          [TB notes that MIME type doesn't say anything about resource,
          just type of representation]

   [Chris]
          its not clear that resources even have a type

   [DanC_g]
          not in general, no, chris.

   [TBray]
          It's pretty clear that they *don't* have a "type" absent
          external assertions e.g. in RDF

   [Ian]
          PC: Imagine I had an XML namespace (paulcotton.name/foobar)
          describing a bunch of things, and I don't make available a
          namespace document. And I want to refer to subpieces of the
          namespace. I can do something like #part1, #part2 to refer to
          pieces. That seems to make something illegal that folks are
          already doing today.

   [TBray]
          paulcotton.name/foobar#2

   [Ian]
          PC: I use /foobar#part1, /foobar#part2.... I hear PH saying
          that if I use "#fragid" then there had better be a document
          available even when the fragid is stripped.
          PH: Yes, I was saying that.

   [Chris]
          Is 'a document' the same as 'an information resource
          representation'

   [TBray]
          don't think so, Chris
          I think a document is a representation

   [Ian]
          TBL: The question is whether I can use a URI to refer to a
          painting, or what magic I have to do to figure out whether the
          URI refers to a painting or an information object that refers
          to it. I'd like to be able to refer to an invoice for a robot,
          and be sure that someone else doesn't use the URI to get the
          sound of the robot hitting the floor.
          NW: That might happen; there's nothing that can be done about
          it.

   [TBray]
          NW: shit happens

   [Ian]
          TBL: But that case is broken. People shouldn't do that. It's
          damaging.
          TBray: We have language to that effect (on ambiguity).
          TBL: I want language that says that if you use a URI that
          refers to a picture and to a person, that that's wrong.
          NW: I agree that that's wrong. But I can't swallow assertions
          related to URIs "with #".

   [Chris]
          'wrong' and 'inconsistent' are human value judgements and as
          such, it will be possible to argue for and against them

   [Ian]
          TBL: Which assertion is wrong?
          NW: Don't say that the URI refers to a document.
          DC: TBL's argument is rationale, but it's not compelling.
          TBL: So the argument that the information content will always
          be there is not compelling?
          [TBL and CL disagree whether consistency is a human value
          judgment.]
          DC: The CYC ontology is coherent, but saying it's web arch at
          this point seems premature to me. Not every web master has
          agreed to CYC documentation and agreed to it.

   [TBray]
          The genie's out of the bottle already, just like qnames in
          content

   [Ian]
          TBL: The cost of not agreeing to this point is very high. The
          language (which one?) will have to be reverse engineered in a
          year.
          NW: I don't think TBL has made the argument in a compelling
          fashion yet.

   [Norm]
          what tbray said

   [Ian]
          IJ: Any summary on this part of the discussion?

   [DanC_g]
          (I'm OK with gaps in the IRC log; in fact, if people have
          higher expectations than that, they should think again.)

   [Ian]
          TBray: no.

   [DanC_g]
          hey... we got a decision about changing "bindings" to meaning!
          That's non-trivial!

   [TBray]
          This isn't supposed to be easy

   [Ian]
          NW: Thanks to all, especially PH.
          PH: I won't make my "crazy suggestion" anymore; it's been shot
          down. :)

3. Not discussed

  Actions related to Architecture Document

     * Action RF 2003/06/02: Rewrite section 5. Section 5 is expected to
       be short.
     * Action IJ 2003/06/16: Attempt to incorporate relevant bits of
       "[14]Conversations and State" into section to be produced by RF.
     * Action TBL 2003/07/14: Suggest changes to section about
       extensibility related to "when to tunnel".
     * Action CL 2003/07/21: Redraw diagram showing relationship between
       URI/Resource/Representation with (1) English words (2) no more
       "isa" arrows; just label objects.
     * Action CL 2003/07/21: Create an illustration of two resources, one
       designated by URI without fragment, and one designated by same URI
       with fragment..
     * Action IJ 2003/07/21: Revise text in section 2.1 about risk of
       false negatives in comparing URIs.
     * Action IJ 2003/07/21: Reword the good practice note with new term
       for "spelling" based on "character string".
     * Action IJ 2003/07/21: Prune instances of "scheme name" except when
       referring to string component before ":"; RF calls this "scheme
       component".
     * Action IJ, CL 2003/07/21: Discuss and propose improved wording of
       language regarding SVG spec in bulleted list in 2.5.1.
     * Action IJ 2003/07/21: Include POST (and other methods) as examples
       of deref methods at beginning of 2.5.
     * Action TBL 2003/07/21: Propose a replacement to "URI persistence
       ...person's mailbox" in 2.6 and continue to revise [15]TBL draft
       of section 2.6 based on TAG's 23 July discussion.
     * Action DC 2003/07/21: Propose language for section 2.8.5 showing
       examples of freenet and other systems.
     * Action TB 2003/07/21: Continue Oaxaca story for beginning of
       section on messages, showing GET (with details) and POST (with
       details).
     * Action TB and CL 2003/07/21: Propose a replacement sentence in
       section 3.2.2.1 regarding advantages of text formats.
     * Action NW 2003/07/21: Rewrite 3.2.2.3.
     * Action IJ 2003/07/21: Produce Editor's Draft Weds or Thurs of next
       week.

     [14] http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Conversations
     [15] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/webarch/tim

   Action items related to SVG spec that IJ does not intend to continue
   to track here:
     * Action CL 2003/07/21: For SVG 1.2, tighten up language regarding
       use of GET for a element/href attribute. Also, ensure that SVG 1.2
       is clear on CE vs CTE

  Identifiers ([16]URIEquivalence-15 , [17]IRIEverywhere-27)

     [16] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#URIEquivalence-15
     [17] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#IRIEverywhere-27

     * [18]URIEquivalence-15
          + SW proposal: Track RFC2396bis where [19]Tim Bray text has
            been integrated. Comment within the IETF process. Move this
            issue to pending state.
     * [20]IRIEverywhere-27
          + Action CL 2003/04/07: Revised position statement on use of
            IRIs.
          + Action TBL 2003/04/28: Explain how existing specifications
            that handle IRIs are inconsistent. [21]TBL draft not yet
            available on www-tag.
          + See TB's [22]proposed step forward on IRI 27.

     [18] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#URIEquivalence-15
     [19] http://www.textuality.com/tag/uri-comp-4
     [20] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#IRIEverywhere-27
     [21] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2003Apr/0074.html
     [22] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Apr/0090.html

  Qnames, fragments, and media types([23]rdfmsQnameUriMapping-6,
  [24]fragmentInXML-28, [25]abstractComponentRefs-37, [26]putMediaType-38)

     [23] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#rdfmsQnameUriMapping-6
     [24] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#fragmentInXML-28
     [25] http://www.w3.org/2003/07/24-tag-summary.html#abstractComponentRefs-37
     [26] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#putMediaType-38

     * [27]rdfmsQnameUriMapping-6
          + Action DC 2003/02/06: Propose TAG response to XML Schema
            desideratum ([28]RQ-23).
     * [29]fragmentInXML-28 : Use of fragment identifiers in XML.
         1. Connection to content negotiation?
         2. Connection to opacity of URIs?
         3. No actions associated / no owner.
     * [30]abstractComponentRefs-37(discussed [31]above).
     * [32]putMediaType-38

     [27] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#rdfmsQnameUriMapping-6
     [28] http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-xmlschema-11-req-20030121/#N400183
     [29] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#fragmentInXML-28
     [30] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#abstractComponentRefs-37
     [31] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/07/21-tag.html#findingsInProgress
     [32] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#putMediaType-38

  New and other Issues requested for discussion. ([33]mixedUIXMLNamespace-33,
  [34]RDFinXHTML-35, [35]siteData-36 plus possible new issues)

     [33] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#mixedUIXMLNamespace-33
     [34] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#RDFinXHTML-35
     [35] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#siteData-36

   Existing Issues:
     * [36]mixedUIXMLNamespace-33
     * [37]RDFinXHTML-35
     * [38]siteData-36
          + Action TBL 2003/02/24 : Summarize siteData-36

     [36] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#mixedUIXMLNamespace-33
     [37] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#RDFinXHTML-35
     [38] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#siteData-36

   Possible New Issues
     * [39]Visibility of Web Services, raised by Mark Baker
     * [40]Character model conformance, raised by TBL
     * [41]Meaning of URIs in RDF documents, raised by TBL

     [39] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003May/0069.html
     [40] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Jun/0009.html
     [41] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Jul/0022.html

  Findings in Progress

   Expect [42]contentTypeOverride-24 and [43]whenToUseGet-7 to have made
   significant progress ahead of F2F. [44]xmlIDSemantics-32 has a stable
   and mature draft finding and XML Core WG are working toward a
   resolution of this issue.]
     * [45]contentTypeOverride-24: 9 July 2003 draft of [46]Client
       handling of MIME headers
         1. Action CL, NW 2003/06/30: Read the draft finding by 7 July.
            [47]NW Done
     * 9 July 2003 draft of [48]URIs, Addressability, and the use of HTTP
       GET and POST
          + [49]whenToUseGet-7
               o Subsumed action DO 2003/07/07: Send text that DO and
                 Noah M. can agree to to tag@w3.org. (DO should verify 9
                 July text)
     * [50]xmlIDSemantics-32:
         1. [51]Chris Lilley draft finding.
         2. Action CL 2003/06/30: Revise this draft finding with new
            input from reviewers. 7 July Deadline.
     * [52]contentPresentation-26: Action CL 2003/06/02: Make available a
       draft finding on content/presentation.
     * [53]metadataInURI-31: 8 July 2003 draft of "[54]The use of
       Metadata in URIs"
          + Action DO 2003/07/07: Send rationale about why WSDL WG wants
            to peek inside the URI.
          + See also [55]TB email on Apple Music Store and use of URI
            schemes instead of headers
     * [56]abstractComponentRefs-37
          + Action DO 2003/06/23: Point Jonathan Marsh at options. Ask
            them for their analysis.
     * Action IJ 2003/07/21: Update Deep linking finding (i.e., create a
       new revision) with references to [57]German court decision
       regarding deep linking. No additional review required since just
       an external reference.
     * Action IJ 2003/06/09: Turn [58]TB apple story into a finding.

     [42] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#contentTypeOverride-24
     [43] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist.html#whenToUseGet-7
     [44] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#xmlIDSemantics-32
     [45] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#contentTypeOverride-24
     [46] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/mime-respect.html
     [47] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Jul/0028.html
     [48] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/whenToUseGet-20030709.html
     [49] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist.html#whenToUseGet-7
     [50] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#xmlIDSemantics-32
     [51] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/xmlIDSemantics-32.html
     [52] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#contentPresentation-26
     [53] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#metadataInURI-31
     [54] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/metaDataInURI-31
     [55] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Apr/0151.html
     [56] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#abstractComponentRefs-37
     [57] http://juris.bundesgerichtshof.de/cgi-bin/rechtsprechung/document.py?Gericht=bgh&Sort=3&Datum=2003&Art=pm&client=3&Blank=1&nr=26553&id=1058517255.04
     [58] http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2003/04/30/AppleWA

  Other issues

     * [59]namespaceDocument-8
          + Action TB 2003/04/07: Prepare RDDL Note. Include in status
            section that there is TAG consensus that RDDL is a suitable
            format for representations of an XML namespace. Clean up
            messy section 4 of RDDL draft and investigate and publish a
            canonical mapping to RDF.
          + Action PC 2003/04/07: Prepare finding to answer this issue,
            pointing to the RDDL Note. See [60]comments from Paul
            regarding TB theses.
          + Refer to draft TAG [61]opinion from Tim Bray on the use of
            URNs for namespace names.
     * [62]uriMediaType-9
          + IANA appears to have responded to the spirit of this draft
            (see [63]email from Chris Lilley).What's required to close
            this issue?
          + Action CL 2003/05/05: Propose CL's three changes to
            registration process to Ned Freed. [What forum?]
     * [64]HTTPSubstrate-16
          + Action RF 2003/02/06: Write a response to IESG asking whether
            the Web services example in the SOAP 1.2 primer is intended
            to be excluded from RFC 3205
          + See [65]message from Larry Masinter w.r.t. Web services.
     * [66]xlinkScope-23
          + See [67]draft, and [68]SW message to CG chairs.
          + Action CL 2003/06/30: Ping the chairs of those groups asking
            for an update on xlinkScope-23.
     * [69]binaryXML-30
          + Action TB 2003/02/17: Write to www-tag with his thoughts on
            adding to survey.
          + Action IJ 2003/07/21: Add link from issues list binaryXML-30
            to upcoming workshop
          + Next steps to finding? See [70]summary from Chris.
     * [71]xmlFunctions-34
          + Action TBL 2003/02/06: State the issue with a reference to
            XML Core work. See [72]email from TimBL capturing some of the
            issues.
     * [73]charmodReview-17
         1. Completed action IJ 2003/07/14: Move issue 17 to pending
            rather than resolved.
         2. Completed action DC: Remind I18N WG of what we are expecting
            regarding issue 17; send this on behalf of the TAG
            ([74]Done).

     [59] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/07/21-tag#namespaceDocument-8
     [60] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2003Apr/0046.html
     [61] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Jun/0003.html
     [62] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#uriMediaType-9
     [63] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Feb/0302.html
     [64] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#HTTPSubstrate-16
     [65] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Feb/0208.html
     [66] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist.html#xlinkScope-23
     [67] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2003Mar/0094.html
     [68] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2003Mar/0104
     [69] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#binaryXML-30
     [70] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Feb/0224.html
     [71] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#xmlFunctions-34
     [72] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Feb/0309.html
     [73] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#charmodReview-17
     [74] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2003Jul/0052.html

Other actions

     * Action IJ 2003/02/06: Modify issues list to show that
       actions/pending are orthogonal to decisions. IJ and PLH making
       substantial progress on this; hope to have something to show in
       May.

     _________________________________________________________________


    Ian Jacobs for Norm Walsh and TimBL
    Last modified: $Date: 2003/07/28 22:48:23 $


-- 
Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                     +1 718 260-9447
Received on Monday, 28 July 2003 18:50:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:19 GMT