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

[Minutes] 2 June 2003 TAG teleconf (Arch Doc walk-through, Budapest feedback)

From: Ian B. Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: 02 Jun 2003 17:59:23 -0400
To: www-tag@w3.org
Message-Id: <1054591163.15215.269.camel@seabright>

Hello,

The TAG walked through (most of) the Arch Doc today during
a several-hour-long teleconference. Minutes are available
as HTML [1] and as text below. However, I have left a fair
amount of detail out of the minutes; that detail is in the
IRC log. My view of the principle proposed changes is in
the minutes; TAG participants should let me know if I
left any out or summarized key points incorrectly.

The TAG intends to meet again to complete the walk-through
9 June. After that I expect to produce a new Editor's Draft
in short order to incorporate changes and new text.

Thank you,

 _ Ian

[1] http://www.w3.org/2003/06/02-tag-summary.html
[2] http://www.w3.org/2003/06/02-tagmem-irc.html

--------------------------------------------------------

                   Minutes of 2 June 2003 TAG teleconference

1. Administrative

    1. Roll call: SW (Chair), NW, TBL, DC, DO, TB, RF, CL, IJ. Regrets:
       PC.
    2. The TAG did not accept [8]12 May teleconference minutes;
       postponed.
    3. Accepted this [9]agenda
    4. Next meeting: 9 June, for 2.5 hours. Partial regrets from NW. In
       turn, 19 June meeting is cancelled.

      [8] http://www.w3.org/2003/06/12-tag-summary.html
      [9] http://www.w3.org/2003/06/02-tag.html

  1.1 Feedback from Budapest

    1. In particular, AC responses to [10]questions from the TAG?

     [10] http://www.w3.org/2003/Talks/AC-0520-TAG/12.svg

   [Ian]

          CL: I think the AC session went well. Gave AC reps an idea of
          what we do. I suspect they feel more comfortable about the TAG.
          We did two straw polls. I think AC said they wanted arch doc
          both better and sooner.
          TBL: For that question, I think people wanted us to cover
          historic Web, Sem Web, Web services, ... I think our best
          course is to give them what we've got when we've got it.
          SW: What about feedback on RDDL doc?
          TB: I've received queries from Robin Berjon about future of
          RDDL (see [11]TB latest version of RDDL). Web3D folks
          interested in knowing about RDDL.
          SW: I heard from IJ that at least one suggestion was to publish
          as a Note, then take it from there.
          DC, IJ: I don't remember much feedback to TAG presentation at
          WWW2003.
          IJ: other ideas:

     [11] http://www.tbray.org/tag/rddl/rddl3.html

         1. Allow people to register as customers of an issue and be
            notified of state changes.

2. Technical

  2.1 Architecture Document

    1. [12]26 Mar 2003 Working Draft of Arch Doc:
         1. Action DC 2003/01/27: write two pages on correct and
            incorrect application of REST to an actual web page design.
            DC requests to withdraw this one.
         2. Action DO 2003/01/27: Please send writings regarding Web
            services to tag@w3.org. DO grants DC license to cut and paste
            and put into DC writing.
         3. Action DC 2003/03/17: : Write some text for interactions
            chapter of arch doc related to [13]message passing, a dual of
            shared state. DC refers us to [14]Conversations and State

     [12] http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-webarch-20030326/
     [13] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Mar/0018.html
     [14] http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Conversations

   Norm Walsh walked the TAG through two documents during the remainder
   of the call (which lasted several hours):
    1. [15]TB proposal for rewriting section 4
    2. [16]26 Mar 2003 Working Draft of Arch Doc

     [15] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003May/0101.html
     [16] http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-webarch-20030326/

   The general sentiment was that this was time well-spent. As a result
   of the exercise, the following actions were assigned:
    1. RF to rewrite section 5. Section 5 is expected to be short.
    2. TB to rewrite section 4 based on his proposal and suggestions from
       the TAG.
    3. CL to make available a draft finding on content/presentation.
    4. DO to update [17]description of [18]issue abstractComponentRefs-37
    5. SW: to continue work on and make available a draft finding related
       to the opacity of URIs.
    6. IJ: to start incorporating detailed suggestions on Arch Doc made
       by the TAG (see [19]IRC log for details)

     [17] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Apr/0089.html
     [18] http://www.w3.org/2003/06/24-tag-summary.html#abstractComponentRefs-37
     [19] http://www.w3.org/2003/06/02-tagmem-irc.html

   Other resolutions related to the Architecture Document that were not
   strictly editorial:
    1. The TAG discussed whether to remove the underdeveloped section 5
       (one piece of the "architectural tripod"). There is support for
       keeping a section 5, even if small, and describing the limits of
       the document in the intro.
    2. In the scenario of section 1.1, remove the part about fragment
       identifiers. In general, try to elaborate on the initial scenario
       throughout the document (e.g., relate to opacity, deep linking).
       Also, make the example URI come from a printed magazine.
    3. Subordinate section 2 under section 1, after 1.1.
    4. Remove section 6 as a toplevel section, possibly to be reused by
       RF in section 5.
    5. Add a references section with links to specs and Activities that
       have architectural impact. Add Web Services Architecture to the
       list in 2.2; replace the list in 2.2 with link to new references
       section.
    6. Instead of referring to RFC2396 from the body of the document, use
       '[URI]' and in the references section, talk about RFC2396 and
       ongoing work in RFC2396bis. The TAG prefers the language of
       RFC2396bis; ok for now to refer to the draft document as one whose
       evolution we are monitoring.
    7. The editor expects to make some changes to the note on IRIs in
       section 3, shifting emphasis to I18N of identifiers, with IRIs as
       work that we are monitoring.
    8. RF suggested that we include a "future directions" section for
       each piece of the tripod
    9. The editor expects to reduce the number of different domain names
       in the document, and to not use any others than "[x.]example.com".

   Additional details and discussion are in the [20]IRC log

     [20] http://www.w3.org/2003/06/02-tagmem-irc.html

3. Not discussed

   The TAG did not discuss the following items that were on the agenda.

  3.1 Findings

   See also: [21]findings.
    1. [22]26 Mar 2003 Working Draft of Arch Doc:
         1. Action DC 2003/01/27: write two pages on correct and
            incorrect application of REST to an actual web page design.
            DC requests to withdraw this one.
         2. Action DO 2003/01/27: Please send writings regarding Web
            services to tag@w3.org. DO grants DC license to cut and paste
            and put into DC writing.
         3. Action DC 2003/03/17: : Write some text for interactions
            chapter of arch doc related to [23]message passing, a dual of
            shared state. DC refers us to [24]Conversations and State

     [21] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/findings
     [22] http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-webarch-20030326/
     [23] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Mar/0018.html
     [24] http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Conversations

  3.2 Findings status

   Next steps for draft findings:
     * [25]Client handling of MIME headers; see [26]summary of comments.
     * [27]URIs, Addressability, and the use of HTTP GET and POST; see
       [28]summary of comments. See also [29]comments from Larry
       Masinter.
     * [30]How should the problem of identifying ID semantics in XML
       languages be addressed in the absence of a DTD?

     [25] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/mime-respect.html
     [26] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003May/0099.html
     [27] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/whenToUseGet-20030509.html
     [28] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003May/0099.html
     [29] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003May/0104.html
     [30] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/xmlIDSemantics-32.html

  3.3 Issues the TAG intends to discuss

   The TAG expects to do a walk-through of the open and pending
   [31]issues in order to determine:
     * Which ones we are near closing
     * Which ones we can commit to close w.r.t. last call of the arch doc

     [31] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html

   Then, we expect to work on issues we think we are near closing.

  3.4 New issues?

  3.5 Issues that have associated action items

     * [32]contentTypeOverride-24
          + Next step on finding "[33]Client handling of MIME headers"
          + [34]Speech Recognition Grammar Specification Version 1.0,
            section [35]2.2.2 External Reference by URI
     * [36]whenToUseGet-7
          + Next step for [37]revised draft finding?
     * [38]metadataInURI-31
          + Action SW 2003/02/06: Draft finding for this one. See [39]SW
            proposal
          + See also [40]TB email on Apple Music Store and use of URI
            schemes instead of headers
     * [41]uriMediaType-9
          + IANA appears to have responded to the spirit of this draft
            (see [42]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?]
     * [43]abstractComponentRefs-37
          + See [44]issue description from David Orchard. Next steps?
     * [45]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. See TB's [46]1 June version.
          + Action PC 2003/04/07: Prepare finding to answer this issue,
            pointing to the RDDL Note. See [47]comments from Paul
            regarding TB theses.
          + Completed action TB 2003/04/28: Draft a TAG opinion on the
            use of URNs for namespace names, for review by the TAG
            ([48]done)
               o RF: Folks assume that because the specs say so, URNs
                 will be persisitent. But persistence is a function of
                 institutional commitment and frequency of use.
     * [49]xlinkScope-23
          + Status report?
          + See [50]draft, and [51]SW message to CG chairs.
     * [52]IRIEverywhere-27
          + Action CL 2003/04/07: Revised position statement on use of
            IRIs. CL says to expect this by 21 April.
          + Action TBL 2003/04/28: Explain how existing specifications
            that handle IRIs are inconsistent. [53]TBL draft not yet
            available on www-tag.
          + See TB's[54] proposed step forward on IRI 27.
     * [55]URIEquivalence-15
          + SW proposal: Track RFC2396bis where [56]Tim Bray text has
            been integrated. Comment within the IETF process. Move this
            issue to pending state.
     * [57]xmlIDSemantics-32
          + See [58]Chris Lilley draft finding.
            Action NW 2003/05/05: Point Core WG to CL finding once made
            public.
     * [59]siteData-36
          + Action TBL 2003/02/24 : Summarize siteData-36
     * [60]xmlFunctions-34
          + Action TBL 2003/02/06: State the issue with a reference to
            XML Core work. See [61]email from TimBL capturing some of the
            issues.
     * [62]binaryXML-30
          + Action TB 2003/02/17: Write to www-tag with his thoughts on
            adding to survey.
          + Next steps to finding? See [63]summary from Chris.
     * [64]contentPresentation-26
          + Action CL 2003/02/06: Create a draft finding in this space.
            Due 3 March.
     * [65]rdfmsQnameUriMapping-6
          + Action DC 2003/02/06: Propose TAG response to XML Schema
            desideratum ([66]RQ-23).
     * [67]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 [68]message from Larry Masinter w.r.t. Web services.
     * [69]errorHandling-20
          + Action CL 2003/02/06: Write a draft finding on the topic of
            (1) early/late detection of errors (2) late/early binding (3)
            robustness (4) definition of errors (5) recovery once error
            has been signaled. Due first week of March.
     * [70]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.

     [32] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#contentTypeOverride-24
     [33] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/mime-respect.html
     [34] http://www.w3.org/TR/speech-grammar/
     [35] http://www.w3.org/TR/speech-grammar/#S2.2.2
     [36] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist.html#whenToUseGet-7
     [37] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/get7-20020610.html
     [38] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#metadataInURI-31
     [39] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2003May/0050.html
     [40] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Apr/0151.html
     [41] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#uriMediaType-9
     [42] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Feb/0302.html
     [43] http://www.w3.org/2003/06/24-tag-summary.html#abstractComponentRefs-37
     [44] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Apr/0089.html
     [45] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#namespaceDocument-8
     [46] http://www.tbray.org/tag/rddl/rddl3.html
     [47] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2003Apr/0046.html
     [48] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Jun/0003.html
     [49] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist.html#xlinkScope-23
     [50] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2003Mar/0094.html
     [51] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2003Mar/0104
     [52] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#IRIEverywhere-27
     [53] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2003Apr/0074.html
     [54] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Apr/0090.html
     [55] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#URIEquivalence-15
     [56] http://www.textuality.com/tag/uri-comp-4
     [57] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#xmlIDSemantics-32
     [58] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/xmlIDSemantics-32.html
     [59] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist.html#siteData-36
     [60] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#xmlFunctions-34
     [61] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Feb/0309.html
     [62] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#binaryXML-30
     [63] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Feb/0224.html
     [64] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#contentPresentation-26
     [65] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#rdfmsQnameUriMapping-6
     [66] http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-xmlschema-11-req-20030121/#N400183
     [67] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#HTTPSubstrate-16
     [68] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Feb/0208.html
     [69] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#errorHandling-20
     [70] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#fragmentInXML-28

4. 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 Stuart Williams and TimBL
    Last modified: $Date: 2003/06/02 21:51:34 $



-- 
Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                     +1 718 260-9447
Received on Monday, 2 June 2003 17:59:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:32:38 UTC