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

[Agenda] 9 June 2003 TAG teleconf (Arch Doc, Findings next steps, Issues near closing)

From: Ian B. Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: 04 Jun 2003 10:40:44 -0400
To: www-tag@w3.org
Message-Id: <1054737643.3903.128.camel@seabright>

Hello,

The agenda for the 9 June 2003 TAG teleconf (2.5 hours)
is available as HTML [1] and as text below. 

Summary:

 - Finish walk-through of Arch Doc
 - Next steps for 3 findings
 - Identification of issues near closing

 - Ian

[1] http://www.w3.org/2003/06/09-tag.html

====================================================================
                   Agenda for 9 June 2003 TAG teleconference

   Note: The Chair does not expect the agenda to change after close of
   business (Boston time) Thursday of this week.

1. Administrative (20min)

    1. Confirm Chair (SW), Scribe (IJ). Partial regrets: NW
    2. Accept minutes of [7]12 May teleconf? [8]2 Jun teleconference?
    3. Accept this [9]agenda?
    4. Next meeting: 16 June?

      [7] http://www.w3.org/2003/05/12-tag-summary.html
      [8] http://www.w3.org/2003/06/02-tag-summary.html
      [9] http://www.w3.org/2003/06/02-tag.html

2. Technical (2 hours)

  2.1 Architecture document (1 hour)

   The TAG expects to pick up where it left off (approximately section
   3.2) and to complete its walk-through of the Arch Doc.
    1. [10]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 [11]message passing, a dual of
            shared state. DC refers us to [12]Conversations and State

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

   Actions from 2 June meeting:
    1. RF to rewrite section 5. Section 5 is expected to be short.
    2. TB to rewrite section 4 based on his [13]proposal for rewriting
       section 4and suggestions from the TAG from 2 Jun teleconf.
    3. CL to make available a draft finding on content/presentation.
    4. DO to update [14]description of [15]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 [16]IRC log for details)

     [13] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003May/0101.html
     [14] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Apr/0089.html
     [15] http://www.w3.org/2003/06/24-tag-summary.html#abstractComponentRefs-37
     [16] 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 [17]IRC log

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

  2.2 Findings (30 mins)

   Break

   See also: [18]findings.

     [18] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/findings

   Next steps for draft findings:
     * [19]Client handling of MIME headers; see [20]summary of comments.
     * [21]URIs, Addressability, and the use of HTTP GET and POST; see
       [22]summary of comments. See also [23]comments from Larry
       Masinter.
     * [24]How should the problem of identifying ID semantics in XML
       languages be addressed in the absence of a DTD?

     [19] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/mime-respect.html
     [20] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003May/0099.html
     [21] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/whenToUseGet-20030509.html
     [22] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003May/0099.html
     [23] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003May/0104.html
     [24] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/xmlIDSemantics-32.html

  2.3 Issues the TAG intends to discuss (30 mins)

   The TAG expects to do a walk-through of the open and pending
   [25]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

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

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

  2.4 New issues?

  2.5 Issues that have associated action items

     * [26]rdfmsQnameUriMapping-6
          + Action DC 2003/02/06: Propose TAG response to XML Schema
            desideratum ([27]RQ-23).
     * [28]whenToUseGet-7
          + Next step for [29]revised draft finding?
     * [30]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 [31]1 June version.
          + Action PC 2003/04/07: Prepare finding to answer this issue,
            pointing to the RDDL Note. See [32]comments from Paul
            regarding TB theses.
          + Refer to draft TAG [33]opinion from Tim Bray on the use of
            URNs for namespace names.
               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.
     * [34]uriMediaType-9
          + IANA appears to have responded to the spirit of this draft
            (see [35]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?]
     * [36]URIEquivalence-15
          + SW proposal: Track RFC2396bis where [37]Tim Bray text has
            been integrated. Comment within the IETF process. Move this
            issue to pending state.
     * [38]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 [39]message from Larry Masinter w.r.t. Web services.
     * [40]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.
     * [41]xlinkScope-23
          + Status report?
          + See [42]draft, and [43]SW message to CG chairs.
     * [44]contentTypeOverride-24
          + Next step on finding "[45]Client handling of MIME headers"
          + [46]Speech Recognition Grammar Specification Version 1.0,
            section [47]2.2.2 External Reference by URI
     * [48]contentPresentation-26
          + Action CL 2003/02/06: Create a draft finding in this space.
            Due 3 March.
     * [49]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. [50]TBL draft not yet
            available on www-tag.
          + See TB's[51]proposed step forward on IRI 27.
     * [52]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.
     * [53]binaryXML-30
          + Action TB 2003/02/17: Write to www-tag with his thoughts on
            adding to survey.
          + Next steps to finding? See [54]summary from Chris.
     * [55]metadataInURI-31
          + Action SW 2003/02/06: Draft finding for this one. See [56]SW
            proposal
          + See also [57]TB email on Apple Music Store and use of URI
            schemes instead of headers
     * [58]xmlIDSemantics-32
          + See [59]Chris Lilley draft finding.
            Action NW 2003/05/05: Point Core WG to CL finding once made
            public.
     * [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]siteData-36
          + Action TBL 2003/02/24 : Summarize siteData-36
     * [63]abstractComponentRefs-37
          + See [64]issue description from David Orchard. Next steps?

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

3. 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: 2003/06/04 14:15:52 $

-- 
Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                     +1 718 260-9447
Received on Wednesday, 4 June 2003 10:40:48 UTC

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