W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > September 2004

minutes: TAG teleconference 2004-09-20 for review

From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 20:34:59 -0700
Message-Id: <36BA0C62-0B7F-11D9-946B-000393753936@gbiv.com>
To: W3C TAG <www-tag@w3.org>

                            TAG Weekly Teleconference
                                   20 Sep 2004
See also:

   Agenda:  <http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/09/20-tag>
   IRC log: <http://www.w3.org/2004/09/20-tagmem-irc.txt>
   Minutes: <http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/09/20-tag-minutes>

Attendees

    Present
            PaulC, Stuart, TimBL, Roy, Chris, DanC
    Regrets
            Norm
    Chair
            Stuart
    Scribe
            Roy Fielding

Contents
      * Topics
          1. Roll Call
          2. Meeting records
          3. Accept this agenda
          4. Next meeting
          5. Basel meeting update
          6. TAG Vacancies
          7. TAG charter
          8. Report on completed LC#2 Actions
      * Summary of Action Items

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

   Roll Call

    Date: 20 Sep 2004

   Meeting records

    Minutes 19 July

    <DanC> 19July minutes
    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2004Sep/0116.html

    RESOLVED: Accept minutes 19 July

    RESOLVED: Accept minutes 13 September

    PaulC: will get minutes of last F2F done for next meeting

   Accept this agenda

    <DanC> (hmm... I have news on httpSubstrate; not sure whether it  
merits
    discussion.)

   Next meeting

    Next meet: 27 Sep, regrets: none, possible regrets: RF (in Basel)

    Stuart: meet with QA WG on 27 Sep?

    PaulC: This is to deal with last call comments?

    DanC: thinks it will be the general topic of finding + last call

    <Chris> best to set expectations about which comments are LC and  
which are
    for the finding

    PaulC: want to set expectations right, have deliverable in hand  
before we
    talk

    Stuart: we have: 1) set of comments on webarch from QA; 2) general
    comments on extensibility and versioning
    ... will make clear to QA that our priority is to address the webarch
    comments
    ... will work on that in next week's agenda
    ... volunteer to scribe next week?

    Chris: volunteers to scribe for 27 Sep

    <Roy> at risk due to Basel travel

   Basel meeting update

    <Chris> Roy, is it easier to get to the meeting/hotel from Zurich  
airport
    or Mulhouse airport?

    <Chris> I can get flights to either

    Stuart: F2F meeting planning for Basel

    <Roy> Mulhouse is closer if you don't mind the bus or paying for taxi

    <Roy> I am happy to invite non-TAG guests

   TAG Vacancies

    TimBL: in progress, nothing official to report yet

   TAG charter

    Stuart: no updates

   Report on completed LC#2 Actions

    <Stuart> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004lc/lc-status-report.html

    5. Definition of agent in the Web Architecture

    <DanC> [DONE] PaulC: explain to a.p.meyer that we didn't mean any  
more
    than we said

    PaulC: Meyer was disappointed but expressed acceptance

    6. information resource

    <DanC> stuart's reply
     
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webarch-comments/2004JulSep/ 
0062.html

    Stuart: sent message, action item done

    <Stuart>
     
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webarch-comments/2004JulSep/ 
0086.html

    <DanC> stuart's substantive reply ^

    Stuart: (reads proposal from mail to webarch-comments)

    TimBL: doesn't help me a lot because of emphasis on accessibility
    ... did the TAG see Sandro's proposal?

    DanC: last week, it was briefly mentioned

    <Chris> That strikes me as a good feature

    <Chris> something that implements an electronic protocol is a  
information
    resource and is testably 'on the web'

    TimBL: web resource definition is a bit circular

    <timbl> What strikes you as a good feature, Chris?

    <Chris> the emphasis on whether you can access it

    <Chris> in particular, its a testable statement

    Stuart: Patrick didn't like information resource, suggested web  
resource
    because it better fits our definition
    ... discussion centered around literal interpretation of "information
    resource" rather than what was in webarch

    TimBL: we are trying to get a common understanding for the concept,  
and
    find words to do that -- possibly change words later

    Stuart: ack that TimBL is not happy with that resolution

    <DanC> Sandro proposed text in
     
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webarch-comments/2004JulSep/ 
0057.html

    TimBL: Sandro put a lot of effort into that

    <Chris> seems a lot of thread to go through on this call

    <Chris> I think conflating 'information resource' and 'on the web'  
is the
    source of the problem here

    Roy: (made a lot of comments generally in support of Patrick's  
position,
    but I can't speak and type at the same time)

    <timbl> Roy I think said he supported
     
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webarch-comments/2004JulSep/ 
0057.html

    <timbl> sorry not that

    <timbl> Patrick's message

    <timbl>
     
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webarch-comments/2004JulSep/ 
0058.html

    <Chris> **punt** it

    <Stuart>  
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2004Sep/0089.html

    <DanC> punt it how? leave the doc as is, Chris? I could perhaps  
accept
    that.

    <Chris> punt it as in, move on to do the other issues.

    <DanC> i.e. postpone discussion until later, Chris? Well, I'd rather  
not
    do that unless/until somebody in particular takes the ball (i.e. an
    action)

    <timbl> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2004Sep/0046.html

    <Roy> ACTION: Roy to digest Sandro's proposal and explain why it is
    unacceptable to him

    Stuart: will post his suggested solution to Patrick's comments on  
www-tag

    7. Comments on Web Arch WD - 2004-07-05

    <DanC> let's continue NW's pile of actions in reply to Karl  
"Comments on
    Web Arch WD - 2004-07-05"

    DanC: suggest continuing actions for NW [general agreement]

    8. non-authoritative syntaxes for fragment identifiers

    <DanC> Re: non-authoritative syntaxes for fragment identifiers from  
RF
     
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webarch-comments/2004JulSep/ 
0085.html
    hasn't produce a reply from the commenter

    <Roy> I responded to commenter, no reply yet

    11. AWWW, 20040816 release, sections 1 and 2

    DanC: yet to do, GK indicates he doesn't feel strongly about them

    14. resources/representations

    <Stuart>
     
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webarch-comments/2004JulSep/ 
0067.html

    <Chris> we can always point out important architectural consequences  
of
    particular specs

    <Chris> we don't contradict the http spec, merely point out  
something in
    it

    DanC: related to information resource, will leave pending

    15. too positive on extensibility

    <Stuart>
     
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webarch-comments/2004JulSep/ 
0068.html

    <Roy> Commenter wishes us to include the negative trade-offs as well  
as
    positive for extensibility

    Chris: agrees with commenter, will draft some text

    <scribe> ACTION: Chris to draft text in response to "too positive on
    extensibility"

    PaulC: will this be on agenda for QA-TAG interaction?

    <DanC> (which finding?)

    <Roy> extensibility?

    <Chris> some text to record possible negatives; but text will still  
say
    that on balance its better to consider extensibility from the start

    <Chris> PaulC: some useful stuff in the actual finding

    16. what does it mean to 'take on meaning'

    <Stuart>
     
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webarch-comments/2004JulSep/ 
0077.html

    <Chris> "But this is a philosophical rathole that I think the  
document
    should try to avoid." yeah, what he said

    TimBL: You can talk about the meaning of a word, as well as a  
sentence

    DanC: reasonably happy with what we have

    <Stuart> The whole quote is "[URI] is an agreement about how the  
Internet
    community allocates names and associates them with the resources they
    identify. URI Scheme specifications define the protocols by which  
scheme
    specific URI are associated with resources and take on meaning. "

    TimBL: what about URIs that only identify a concept?
    ... suggests, "we agree with what you said, but can't find better  
words --
    can you supply better words"

    <DanC> ACTION: DanC to reply to djw re "take on meaning": yes, agree  
with
    your comment, think that's what webarch says. let us know if you  
think of
    something better

    17. Use of "assign" for URI -> resource

    <Stuart>
     
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webarch-comments/2004JulSep/ 
0078.html

    17. comments from Larry Masinter

    <Roy> I find Larry's comments compelling

    DanC: would like to hear what the editor thinks

    <Chris> I agree that pruning remaining 'assign' is a good idea

    <Chris> "Resources have owners. URIs have users. The owners of  
resources
    arrange the resources so that URIs can be used to identify the  
resources
    and their related resources."

    <Chris> seems very reasonable to me

    TimBL: thinks that we added URI ownership because it was needed in  
several
    places. Are we going to replace it with new words, or remove the  
concept?
    ... need to find all uses in document and see if term needed

    <DanC> (I don't know whether we need to speak of URI owners, Chris,  
but I
    know for a fact that we do.)

    <DanC> e.g. "When a URI alias does become common currency, the URI  
owner
    should "

    TimBL: architecture is set up so that the machine tells client what  
the
    "owner" says the URI means ... [scribe can't keep up]

    Stuart: also issue about "owning" versus "renting"

    Chris: owner of resource reveals how to construct URI according to  
scheme
    in a general sense, not in the URI sense

    TimBL: describes ownership in terms of allocating names within a  
domain

    <Roy> It is not the URI that is owned -- it is control of  
authoritative
    behavior at that URI

    TimBL: DNS names are owned in the sense that ICANN and name  
delegations
    are bound by community agreement/standards

    DanC: we do treat the concept in detail in webarch

    PaulC: we are using ownership as a complex set of things known as
    "responsibility"

    <Roy> URI specs use "authority" (perhaps too much)

    TimBL: Larry seems to say that URIs have users, resources have owners

    DanC: (quotes from webarch)

    PaulC: "URI owner" is useful because it makes the good practice  
easier to
    read

    Chris: Larry lists all of the cases in the document, do they all  
work?
    ... not "resource owner", because that would suggest changing the URI
    every day would not be harmful

    DanC: inclined to leave this as unsatisfied

    <scribe> ACTION: Stuart to lead another round of discussion on  
Larry's
    comment

    PaulC: wonder what Norm's plans are regarding draft before F2F?

    <scribe> ACTION: Stuart to find out what Norm's status is for F2F  
document

    18. Comments from the QA WG on WebArch 2nd LC (extensibility)

    <Stuart>  
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2004Sep/0020.html

    PaulC: Ask QA if they think draft extensibility finding addresses  
some of
    their concerns?

    ADJOURN

Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: Chris to draft text in response to "too positive on
    ... extensibility"
    [NEW] ACTION: DanC to reply to djw re "take on meaning": yes, agree
    ... with your comment, think that's what webarch says. let us know
    ... if you think of something better
    [NEW] ACTION: Roy to digest Sandro's proposal and explain why it is
    ... unacceptable to him
    [NEW] ACTION: Stuart to find out what Norm's status is for F2F
    ... document
    [NEW] ACTION: Stuart to lead another round of discussion on Larry's
    ... comment
Received on Tuesday, 21 September 2004 03:42:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:28 GMT