See also: IRC log
<scribe> Scribe: Chris
<DanC> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2004Oct/att-0111/_tag.html OK by me as a record of 18 Oct telcon
Resolved: accept minutes of 18th October telcon
PC: was not able to get them done,
but AC chairs etc will be done later today
... rest of summary depends on what happens today
Dan: Does Steve know that it might be late?
Paul: Deadline is 28th
Timbl: we don't have a spare, so Dan and Chris will share this task
<Norm> +1 to Dan and Chris for volunteering
Timbl: Working on tools like issue tracking that will help TAG and WGs alike
<DanC> 1Nov ok by me
Stuart: Any regrets?
<DanC> Noah Note early regrets for 2 weeks out on Nov8.
people consult agendas and mutter
<DanC> PC at risk due to travel, but plans to attend 1 Nov
<Noah> Actually, let's make the probably regrets. Schema is meeting West Coast; I may be able to slip away for the call.
<DanC> oh yeah... I'd rather spend the 1 Nov slot on a director's decision call.
Stuart: volunteer for scribe?
Noah i will do it
Noah: I sent in comments, to the tag list
Stuart: coments are individual
Members, not a TAG consensus.
... everyone okay with that
Dan: okay I guesss
Norm: made a draft 19 Oct, produced another on 21st that included comments arising
Dan: Comments from Roy, before or after 21st draft?
<DanC> Subject: comments on NM mods: sec 2.4.1
<DanC> . Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 13:01:55 -0700
Norm: did best to incorporate these
Roy: additional comments after
<DanC> Subject: Re: CVS Notification of http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/webarch/webarch.html
<DanC> . Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 14:54:33 -0700
Norm: no recollection of that
Paul: Subject says CVS notification ...
Norm: can't find it. Oh well
<Zakim> DanC, you wanted to ask if Roy's most recent comments were before or after the 21Oct draft
Stuart: Decision to be made, move forward on 19th or 21st? The latter includes material fro Noah
Noah: Having read Roys comments, i sense we are converging
Chris: 19-October-2004 Editors Draft
21-October-2004 Editors Draft
timbl: have reviewed a little, not recently.
Stuart: what about the octet sequences?
timbl: not overly comfortable, changing lots of words for a smal change in the actual ontology
Noah: intention is to take it from an
implied must to a strog should
... concerns over multiple streams
... concerns over future interaction protocol that has a typing mechanism other than internet media types
timbl: sorry, not checked if this upsets other things, prepared to trust others here
<DanC> (found it http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html?type=1#uriMediaType-9 )
<Zakim> DanC, you wanted to suggest that it's still bits, no? the big change is whether Web resource types shall be Iana super/sub types for all time (hmm.... we have a relevant issue; do
Chris: like the wording about multiple streams, and desirability of a typing mechanism
Dan: big change to say we are not grounded i IANA media types for all time
Dan: prefer to go with 21 draft, assuming we get agreement today. Would have preferred more discussion ideally but there we are
<Norm> ACTION: NW to add a pointer to uriMediaType-9 in the appropriate place
<DanC> (did norm hear my suggestion to cite issue 9 near http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/webarch/#def-representation ?)
Stuart: anyone want to speak in favor of the 19th draft
no one does
<Noah> Noah Thanks everyone for your careful attention to this rather large issue raised by a late-arriving TAG member.
<DanC> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004lc/prreq.html $Revision: 1.32 $
Stuart: Dan sent a pointer to a draft PR request
Dan leads us through the text
Dan: traditionally this is also an agenda for the Director meeting
The changes since last call include a number of editorial modifications, plus:
* refined URI ownership (section 2.2.2) to be more clearly a relationship between identifiers and resources
* softened extensibility (section 4.2)
* clarified "information resource" (section 2.2)
* relaxed constraints on representations (sections 3.2, 2.2, etc.)
Dan: director might decide this is too many changes, or not
Norm; Dan and I looked over the cange logs and agree those four things are non editorial
Dan: In the first last cal, roenberg said some things we didn't really address
Thats a pretty broad definition; as it would include resources defined
by other URI schemes (such as sip and tel) which I don't think are
normally associated with the "web". The intent of the document, I think,
is to generally think about resources that correspond to content.
Chris: nice to tell tham that we agree or not
timbl: this is about inforesources or
... so prefer to say that we introduce IR to clarify the point that they make
chris: sip is an IR
Dan: its call setup
Roy: its another http-like
Timbl: clear that we have already covered this, just have not responded
Dan: concern that waiting for a
response on that blows our schedule
... we issued a second LC so , as they did not respond to that, we assume they have n comments
<tagmem> Please change "tagmeme" to PaulC
timbl: a response from them would need a meeting of IAB
Chris: Happy to move on, if it does not affect W3C/IETF relations in a negative way'
Dan: moving on to formal objections
<DanC> " LMM wants us to review the URI guideline specs before finishing webarch."
<DanC> RF: there will be a 2nd editiong
<DanC> DC: yeah.
<PaulC> My only concern is that Larry M's issue re "ownership" is the same item that Karl continues to be concerned about.
Stuart: substantial interaction with QA is not relected in this document
TAG checks that approbation means An expression of warm approval; praise.
Dan: closed loop with karl, checked he was satisfied this morning
Paul: dodn't get that from his email
Dan: checked with him in IRC and he
... discussion with kopecky about use of classes...
Stuart: willing to call hiom, know him fairly well
... we cshould contact him formally to see if he wants to make a formal objection
Roy: responded to Myriams comment, its now closed
<DanC> closed. non-auth... http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webarch-comments/2004OctDec/0121.html
Dan: now two cases of clear outstanding dissent
"While we regret that we were unable to achieve consensus with these reviewers, we suggest that the document is sufficiently valuable to the community in its present state to merit advancement to Proposed Recommendation."
Dan: implementation experience - WGs changing specs - what else do we have
Stuart: VB on mime type override
<DanC> yes, SMIL WG should say Voice.
<DanC> CL: SVG did likewise
Chris: SVG added type attribute after seeing TAG discussions
<DanC> Stuart: WSDL on abstractComponentRef
and made it work as TAG suggests
Dan: not clear that is succesful
... XMLP when to use get
<DanC> "4.5.6. XML ID semantics"
Paul; not clear that is specific to AWWW
Dan: points to AWW
Dan: so is this convincing?
Dan goes round the table
<PaulC> Advance to PR: Yes.
Noah: abstain, leaning to yes
<timbl_> tim: would abstain from this vote on grounds multiple roles
... prefer to incorporate the other changes I sent
<Roy> I'd prefer to incorporate my changes to Norm's 21 Oct
<DanC> PROPOSED: to request PR based on http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004lc/prreq.html http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/webarch-20041021/ subject to changes agreed by RF, NM, NDW re generalized representation
Noah: what do we fall back to?
Chris: agreed on 21st already
Stuart: puts the question
all others: aye
Stuart: woo hoo
Norm: deals with practicalities of
agreeing on text by phone, by cob tomorrow
... draft by cob tomorrow, wil lbug you after cob wednesday
Stuart: so we expect a directors meeting next week
discussion o who needs to attend and why
timbl steps out to talk to Steve
scribe: but fails to find him
Dan: prefers to have Norm there
... you may pick up action items
Stuart: ok, as far as we can thre. rest of plan to PR...
Dan reviews http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/10/05-07-tag.html#plan234 and notes we are on track so far
>>>06 Dec: English first draft of press release to Comm team
>>>08 Dec: Testimonials due
>>>08 Dec: English draft of Press Release done
>>>13 Dec: Translations of Press Release done
Chris: discusses possibility of chair testimonials
Dan: who writes first draft?
Chris: i do
Stuart: we skipped over this
... Dan suggests observers on same basis as last years
Dan: who chairs the half day meeting?
Stuart: i could do that
Dan: so you get to decide about observers
Stuart: which liaisons?
QA, XML Core,
<Paulc> It is likely that XML Schema WG will meet thu-fri.
Chris: liais with foks expected to figure largely in AWWW 2
Paul; Schema will likely meet thurs and fri
<Zakim> Noah, you wanted to remind that I've suggest early contact with David Ezell on schemas and versioning
Noah: Contact chair of Schema WG to coordinate this
Stuart: is this ex/vers special eeting - ie larger than just tag ad schema?
<DanC> yeah, I can see it both ways too.
Noah: focus was on versioning - can see this both ways.
<DanC> "RESOLVED: to meet 1/2 day on 28 Feb 2005 in Boston, MA, USA, and for TAG members to participate on a best-effort basis in liaison meetings throughout the week of the W3C Technical Plenary." -- http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/10/05-07-tag
Noah: whe are we goin to meet?
Stuart: think we prefer first half of the week
<Zakim> DanC, you wanted to request TAG/ws-addressing contact ASAP
Dan: WS-addressing and TAG. Recently chartered, charter notes a possible cnflict in early specs re use URIs
Stuart: Happy to give Mark Nottingham a call and see if we would like to meet
<scribe> ACTION: Stuart cal mark Nottingham about a meeting
Stuart: d a heados-up to chairs?
Dan: sure, might get a lot of mail
Stuart: propose an early adjourn
Paul: Norm, what is the plan for revision to extensibility and versioning
<DanC> (oops; we dropped an action...)
<DanC> "ACTION NDW: to report workplan and dates for Extensibilty and Versioning work." -- http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/10/05-07-tag
Norm: doing well but not this week. Next week is likely for Dave and I
Paul: so its likely t be ready after we request PR
<DanC> (hmm... actions related to issues might have sorta fallen by the wayside)
Chris: reports progress on xml:id