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

[Agenda] 15 Sep 2003 TAG teleconf (namespaceDocument-8, Findings)

From: Ian B. Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: 11 Sep 2003 12:47:34 -0400
To: www-tag@w3.org
Message-Id: <1063298853.1241.128.camel@seabright>

Hello,

The agenda of the 15 Sep 2003 TAG teleconf is available
as HTML [1] and as text below.

 - Ian

[1] http://www.w3.org/2003/09/15-tag

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

                Agenda of 15 September 2003 TAG teleconference

   Nearby: [4]Teleconference details  [5]issues list ([6]handling new
   issues) [7]www-tag archive

      [4] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/#remote
      [5] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist
      [6] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2003Jul/0054.html
      [7] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/

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

1. Administrative (15min)

    1. Roll call. Regrets: CL
    2. Accept the minutes of the [8]8 Sep teleconf?
    3. Accept this [9]agenda?
    4. Next meeting 22 Sep teleconf?

      [8] http://www.w3.org/2003/09/08-tag-summary.html
      [9] http://www.w3.org/2003/09/15-tag.html

   Upcoming events:
     * 12 Sep: DO sends comments on [10]get7 finding
     * 17 Sep: Next Editor's draft of arch doc
     * 18 Sep: Next draft from NW/DO of extensibility draft finding
     * 22 Sep telcon: Review of Editors' draft of arch doc
     * 29 Sep telcon: Focus on Findings
     * 1 Oct: TR page draft of arch doc
     * 6-8 Oct ftf: arch doc review primarily, publishing expectations

     [10] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/whenToUseGet-20030709.html

2. Technical (75min)

  2.1 NamespaceDocument-8

   Status of work on [11]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.
       From 21 July ftf meeting, due 31 August.
     * Action PC 2003/04/07: Prepare finding to answer this issue,
       pointing to the RDDL Note. See [12]comments from Paul regarding TB
       theses. From 21 July ftf meeting, due 31 August.
     * Action PC 2003/09/08: Providing WebArch text as well for this
       issue.
     * Refer to draft TAG [13]opinion from Tim Bray on the use of URNs
       for namespace names.

     [11] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/07/21-tag#namespaceDocument-8
     [12] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2003Apr/0046.html
     [13] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Jun/0003.html

  2.2 Findings

     * Completed action IJ 2003/07/21: Update Deep linking finding (i.e.,
       create a new revision) with references to [14]German court
       decision regarding deep linking. No additional review required
       since just an external reference. ([15]Done)
     * [16]whenToUseGet-7: 9 July 2003 draft of [17]URIs, Addressability,
       and the use of HTTP GET and POST
          + Action DO 2003/09/08: DO to send additional comments, due 12
            Sep.
          + See [18]comments from Noah
     * [19]contentTypeOverride-24: 9 July 2003 draft of [20]Client
       handling of MIME headers
         1. [21]Comments from Roy on charset param
         2. [22]Comments from Philipp Hoschka about usability issues when
            user involved in error correction. Is there a new Voice spec
            out we can point to for example behavior?
         3. [23]Comments from Chris Lilley
         4. Change "MIME headers" to "server metadata" in title?

     [14] 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
     [15] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Sep/0020.html
     [16] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist.html#whenToUseGet-7
     [17] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/whenToUseGet-20030709.html
     [18] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Jul/0297.html
     [19] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#contentTypeOverride-24
     [20] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/mime-respect.html
     [21] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Jul/0051.html
     [22] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2003Jul/0076.html
     [23] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Jul/0113.html

     _________________________________________________________________

  2.3 Architecture Document

   Reference draft: [24]1 August 2003 Editor's Draft of the Arch Doc. See
   also [25]rewrite of the abstract and introduction.

     [24] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/webarch-20030801
     [25] http://www.w3.org/2003/08/webarch-intro-20030813.html

    2.3.1 Review of actions related to Architecture Document

   Open action items:
     * Action RF 2003/06/02: Rewrite section 3. From 21 July ftf meeting,
       due 18 August.
     * Action IJ 2003/06/16: Attempt to incorporate relevant bits of
       "[26]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: Create an illustration of two resources, one
       designated by URI without fragment, and one designated by same URI
       with fragment...
     * Action TB 2003/08/18: Bring some Vancouver ftf meeting photos to
       IJ attention (of whiteboard, re: CL action about illustration of
       two resources)
     * Action IJ, CL 2003/07/21: Discuss and propose improved wording of
       language regarding SVG spec in bulleted list in 2.5.1.
     * Action TBL 2003/07/21: Propose a replacement to "URI persistence
       ...person's mailbox" in 2.6 and continue to revise [27]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 2003/08/04: Write a definition of "XML-based"
     * Action IJ 2003/08/04: s/machine-readable/something like: optimized
       for processors, w/ defn that includes notion that it can be
       processed unattended (by a person).
     * Action TB and CL 2003/07/21: Propose a replacement sentence in
       section 3.2.2.1 regarding advantages of text formats. IRC log of
       [28]18 Aug teleconf suggested done, but can't find evidence.

     [26] http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Conversations
     [27] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/webarch/tim
     [28] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Aug/0076.html

   The following action items were follow-up from the 22 July
   face-to-face meeting in Vancouver:
     * Identification and resources
         1. TBL 2003/08/21: Write replacement text for Moby Dick example
            in section 2.6 (on URI ambiguity). Is this done in [29]TBL's
            draft?
     * Representations
         1. TB, IJ 2003/08/21: Integrate findings. What does this mean?

     [29] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/webarch/tim#URI-persistence

  2.4 Findings

   See also [30]TAG findings home page.

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

    2.4.2 Draft findings that require more discussion

     * [31]xmlIDSemantics-32:
         1. [32]Chris Lilley draft finding.
         2. Action CL 2003/06/30: Revise this draft finding with new
            input from reviewers.
     * [33]contentPresentation-26: Action CL 2003/06/02: Make available a
       draft finding on content/presentation. From 21 July ftf meeting,
       revision due 8 August.
     * [34]metadataInURI-31: 8 July 2003 draft of "[35]The use of
       Metadata in URIs"
          + Action SW 2003/07/21: Produce a revision of this finding
            based on Vancouver ftf meeting discussion.
          + Action DO 2003/07/07: Send rationale about why WSDL WG wants
            to peek inside the URI.
          + See also [36]TB email on Apple Music Store and use of URI
            schemes instead of headers
          + See comments from [37]Mark Nottingham and [38]followup from
            Noah M.
     * [39]abstractComponentRefs-37
          + Action DO 2003/06/23: Point Jonathan Marsh at options. Ask
            them for their analysis.
     * NW, DO 2003/09/08: Produce new draft of Extensibility/Versioning
       finding, due 18 Sep.

     [31] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#xmlIDSemantics-32
     [32] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/xmlIDSemantics-32.html
     [33] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#contentPresentation-26
     [34] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#metadataInURI-31
     [35] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/metaDataInURI-31
     [36] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Apr/0151.html
     [37] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Aug/0048.html
     [38] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Aug/0055.html
     [39] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#abstractComponentRefs-37

    2.4.3 Expected new findings

    1. [40]contentPresentation-26: Action CL (and IJ from ftf meeting)
       2003/06/02: Make available a draft finding on
       content/presentation. From 21 July ftf meeting, revision due 8
       August.
    2. Action IJ 2003/06/09: Turn [41]TB apple story into a finding.

     [40] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#contentPresentation-26
     [41] http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2003/04/30/AppleWA

  2.5 Issues

   The TAG does not expect to discuss these issues at this meeting.

    2.5.1 Identifiers ([42]URIEquivalence-15 , [43]IRIEverywhere-27)

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

     * [44]URIEquivalence-15
          + SW proposal: Track RFC2396bis where [45]Tim Bray text has
            been integrated. Comment within the IETF process. Move this
            issue to pending state.
     * [46]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. [47]TBL draft not yet
            available on www-tag.
          + See TB's [48]proposed step forward on IRI 27.

     [44] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#URIEquivalence-15
     [45] http://www.textuality.com/tag/uri-comp-4
     [46] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#IRIEverywhere-27
     [47] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2003Apr/0074.html
     [48] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Apr/0090.html

    2.5.2 Qnames, fragments, and media types([49]rdfmsQnameUriMapping-6,
    [50]fragmentInXML-28, [51]abstractComponentRefs-37, [52]putMediaType-38)

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

     * [53]rdfmsQnameUriMapping-6
          + Action DC 2003/02/06: Propose TAG response to XML Schema
            desideratum ([54]RQ-23).
     * [55]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.
     * [56]abstractComponentRefs-37(discussed [57]above).
     * [58]putMediaType-38

     [53] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#rdfmsQnameUriMapping-6
     [54] http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-xmlschema-11-req-20030121/#N400183
     [55] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#fragmentInXML-28
     [56] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#abstractComponentRefs-37
     [57] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/07/21-tag.html#findingsInProgress
     [58] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#putMediaType-38

    2.5.3 New and other Issues requested for discussion.
    ([59]mixedUIXMLNamespace-33, [60]RDFinXHTML-35, [61]siteData-36 plus
    possible new issues)

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

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

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

    2.5.4 Miscellaneous issues

     * [65]uriMediaType-9
          + IANA appears to have responded to the spirit of this draft
            (see [66]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?]
     * [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]xlinkScope-23
          + See [70]draft, and [71]SW message to CG chairs.
          + Action CL 2003/06/30: Ping the chairs of those groups asking
            for an update on xlinkScope-23.
     * [72]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 [73]summary from Chris.
     * [74]xmlFunctions-34
          + Action TBL 2003/02/06: State the issue with a reference to
            XML Core work. See [75]email from TimBL capturing some of the
            issues.
     * [76]charmodReview-17
         1. Action SW 2003/09/08: Follow up with I18N folks on status of
            TAG's charmod comments.
         2. [77]Mail from DC to I18N WG in light of new Charmod draft
     * [78]rdfURIMeaning-39

     [65] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#uriMediaType-9
     [66] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Feb/0302.html
     [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/ilist.html#xlinkScope-23
     [70] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2003Mar/0094.html
     [71] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2003Mar/0104
     [72] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#binaryXML-30
     [73] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Feb/0224.html
     [74] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#xmlFunctions-34
     [75] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Feb/0309.html
     [76] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#charmodReview-17
     [77] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2003Sep/0019.html
     [78] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist.html#rdfURIMeaning-39

3. Other actions

     * Action IJ 2003/02/06: Modify issues list to show that
       actions/pending are orthogonal to decisions. PLH has put the
       issues list in production; see the [79]DOM issues list.

     [79] http://www.w3.org/2003/06/09-dom-core-issues/issues.html

     _________________________________________________________________


    Ian Jacobs for Stuart Williams and TimBL
    Last modified: $Date: 2003/09/11 16:38:55 $

-- 
Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                     +1 718 260-9447
Received on Thursday, 11 September 2003 12:49:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:20 GMT