W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > February 2005

Re: minutes TAG 22 Feb for review

From: Stuart Williams <skw@hp.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 09:06:51 +0000
Message-ID: <421C47AB.5050908@hp.com>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: www-tag@w3.org

FYI... while we are in a period of  transition I did send regrets in 
[1]. It may be that it is inappropriate for them to be recorded.

Regards

Stuart
[1] 
http://www.w3.org/mid/8D5B24B83C6A2E4B9E7EE5FA82627DC9855069@sdcexcea01.emea.cpqcorp.net 
(Member visible)
--

Dan Connolly wrote:

>Please review:
> Technical Architecture Group (TAG) Weekly Teleconference -- 22 Feb 2005
> http://www.w3.org/2005/02/22-tagmem-minutes.html
> $Revision: 1.14 $ of $Date: 2005/02/22 21:15:26 $
>
>Plain text copy attached.
>
>  
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>   [1]W3C
>
>            Technical Architecture Group (TAG) Weekly Teleconference
>
>22 Feb 2005
>
>   [2]Agenda
>
>   See also: [3]IRC log
>
>Attendees
>
>   Present
>           Vincent Quint (VQ), Henry Thompson (HT), Norm Walsh (NDW), Roy
>           Fielding (RF), Dan Connolly (DC), Chris Lilley (CL), Ed Rice (ER)
>           , Dave Orchard (DO), PaulC (PC)
>
>   Regrets
>           TimBL, Noah
>
>   Chair
>           Vincent
>
>   Scribe
>           DanC
>
>Contents
>
>     * [4]Topics
>
>         1. [5]Roll call, review records and agenda
>         2. [6]Change location of June f2f? (Edinburgh?)
>         3. [7]W3C Technical Plenary TAG F2F Monday am 28th February 2005
>         4. [8]W3C Technical Plenary TAG Liaisons
>         5. [9]New Issue?: Adding terms to a namespace, xml:id/C14N
>            discussions
>         6. [10]New Issue?: Relationship of URI schemes to protocols
>         7. [11]issue review: RDFinXHTML-35
>         8. [12]issue review. siteData-36
>         9. [13]issue review. abstractComponentRefs-37
>        10. [14]issue review: putMediaType-38
>        11. [15]issue review rdfURIMeaning-39
>        12. [16]issue review URIGoodPractice-40
>
>     * [17]Summary of Action Items
>
>   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>  Roll call, review records and agenda
>
>   propose Tuesday 8 March 2005 for next meeting
>
>   regrets DaveO for 8 Mar
>
>   VQ has a conflict with 8 Mar
>
>   VQ is available to prepare an agenda, but not to run the meeting
>
>   <ht> regrets HST for 8 March
>
>   NDW offers to run the 8 Mar telcon
>
>   (are we resolved? doesn't seem critical... can decide 28Feb, I suppose)
>
>     * [18]minutes 7 Feb
>
>     * [19]14 Feb minutes
>
>   DC: 2nd proposal to OK 7 Feb minutes
>
>   VQ: I've reviewed actions from the telcons... many seem to be done; I'll
>   get back to the others 28Feb
>   ... unless there are comments now
>
>   noah notes being done with his action on extensibility
>
>  Change location of June f2f? (Edinburgh?)
>
>   VQ: recall we agreed to meet near Nice just after the W3C AC meeting, but
>   it's no longer convenient for Chris...
>   ... and HT has offered to host...
>   ... some preferences each way...
>
>   <Roy> Edinburgh +1
>
>   <noah> France +1
>
>   <noah> (if someone will host, of course)
>
>   Chris: I have not told Coralie (prospective INRIA local organizer) to
>   cancel our meeting in June
>
>   <noah> Edinburgh OK if not, just trying to save travel wear n tear
>
>   VQ: to expects to attend the AC meeting?
>
>   DC: I do
>
>   DO: I do
>
>   <noah> NM: I do
>
>   HT: I do
>
>   NDW: I prefer Edingburgh, though that reduces the chance I'll attend the
>   AC meeting
>
>   <Ed> I will not be at the AC meeting
>
>   VQ: I expect TimBL to attend the AC meeting
>
>   Roy: I think timbl had a conflict with the June 8 Date
>
>   "TimBL was also unable to comfirm in-person attendance." re 8-10 June.
>   [20]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/10/05-07-tag.html#meeting-plans
>
>   HT: I think I can hold my hosting reservations for a month without much
>   cost in case I cancel
>
>   VQ: so let's take another week to consider it
>
>   <scribe> ACTION: VQ to contact Coralie re 8-10 June meeting arrangements
>   at INRIA. [recorded in
>   [21]http://www.w3.org/2005/02/22-tagmem-minutes#action01]
>
>   CL: you might ask her about Cannes vs Sophia while you're at it
>
>  W3C Technical Plenary TAG F2F Monday am 28th February 2005
>
>     * [22]proposed agenda
>
>   DC: hmm... .5hr of admin seems like a lot for a 2hr meeting...
>
>   VQ: some is more than admin... issues list maintenance
>
>   <Chris> start discussing issue list stuff in email to get up to speed?
>
>   VQ: I expect to update the agenda tomorrow with comments received; I'm
>   willing to take comments up to the meeting day
>
>  W3C Technical Plenary TAG Liaisons
>
>   VQ: re XML Core joint meeting...
>
>     * [23]Tentative TAG Liaison Meeting Schedule
>
>   VQ: PaulG proposes 10:30 to noon Thu for XML Core/TAG join telcon
>
>   <scribe> ACTION: NDW: let XML Core WG know yes, we agree to meet Thu 3 Mar
>   10:30am in Boston [recorded in
>   [24]http://www.w3.org/2005/02/22-tagmem-minutes#action02]
>
>   VQ: note "14:45-15:45 Joint with CDF-WG"
>   ... on Monday
>
>   HT: no liaison meetings Tuesday?
>
>   VQ: right
>
>   VQ reviews liaison schedule Revision 1.21 2005/02/22 17:26:09 vquint
>
>  New Issue?: Adding terms to a namespace, xml:id/C14N discussions
>
>     * [25]Norm's request
>
>   (hmm... seems to fall under versioning41, but so does all of life, the
>   universe, and everything, so maybe a specific issue is good)
>
>   DC: issue name ideas?
>
>   NDW: nameSpaceTerms-NN, maybe?
>
>   <Roy> nameAdditions-NN ?
>
>   <Chris-again> reservedNoReally?
>
>   NDW: some urgency motivates a separate issue from versioning41: having a
>   TAG decision before end of xml:id CR period would be nice
>
>   <Zakim> DanC, you wanted to ask about timing expectations
>
>   <Roy> digestable +1
>
>   DO: so the results of this new issue could be folded into work on
>   versioning41?
>
>   NDW: sure, but this seems independent of schema languages etc. [?]
>
>   HT: people often read more into the namespace REC than is there; I'd like
>   to take this opportunity to clarify
>
>   DO: one thing that's in the [draft] finding now is a discussion of
>   relationship between terms, [missed?], which seems relevant
>
>   RF: [good point about issues : findings. can't summarize real-time]. I
>   suggest "nameAddition" because the identity questions don't seem to be the
>   main thing
>
>   NDW: ...[missed?]... crux of it is xml: namespace [?]
>
>   <Chris-again> ... and is it bounded or not
>
>   CL: yes, that is the main thing... one spec made an assuption about the
>   xml: namespace, and unless "will not change" is explicitly stated, that's
>   not safe
>
>   <Zakim> ht, you wanted to disagree with Norm
>
>   [scribe gives up trying to keep up]
>
>   <Roy> We can have one finding answer multiple issues, but tracking
>   multiple issues under a single issue name simply because we expect them to
>   be answered in one finding would be a mistake, IMO.
>
>   HT: to speak of "adding names to a namespace" doesn't make sense. the
>   names are all there.
>
>   NDW: while I might agree, that's not universally agreed
>
>   <noah> +1, I agree with Henry. At the very least, we shouldn't preclude in
>   advance that possible formulation
>
>   <Chris-again> HT: namespace is a set, unbounded, all names already exist
>   in it
>
>   <dorchard> The first part of the finding has an attempt at formal
>   description of the architecture of languages
>   [26]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2004Nov/att-0071/versioning-part1.html
>
>   <noah> If you're looking for a name for an issue (I can't quite tell), how
>   about "immutableNamespaces"?
>
>   <ht> namespaceState?
>
>   +1 namespaceState
>
>   <Ed> +1 namespaceState
>
>   VQ: seems we're agreed (agreeing?) to add an issue, in addition to, while
>   perhaps related to, issue 41
>
>   <Chris-again> +1 namespaceState
>
>   <Roy> +1 namespaceState
>
>   <dorchard> +1 namespaceState
>
>   <Norm> +1 namespaceState
>
>   RESOLUTION: to accept issue namespaceState.
>
>   PC: we need to announce the issue to tag-announce
>
>   VQ: ndw's request serves as an issue summary?
>
>   ER: OK
>
>   <Roy> +1
>
>   <scribe> ACTION: NDW to announce TAG's acknolwedgement of issue
>   nameSpaceState-NN [recorded in
>   [27]http://www.w3.org/2005/02/22-tagmem-minutes#action03]
>
>   <Zakim> DanC, you wanted to note traditions and to
>
>   NDW, HT, DO volunteer to "work on it"
>
>   <scribe> ACTION: NDW to work with HT, DO on namespaceState [recorded in
>   [28]http://www.w3.org/2005/02/22-tagmem-minutes#action04]
>
>   <Zakim> Chris-again, you wanted to add that a cc should be sent to
>   affected WGs
>
>   <ht> HST has in mind to try to summarise, in a way the owners would
>   acknowledge as fair, the various positions so far articulated at the base
>   of the ongoing discussion
>
>   tx for the sketch, ht. pls do
>
>   (not in this meeting, I assume)
>
>   <ht> Correct DanC
>
>   PC: add this to the 3 Mar TAG/XML Core agenda?
>
>   NDW: yes, quite
>
>   PC: pending XML Core work depends on this?
>
>   NDW: xml:id CR exit
>
>   PC: is there room for this on the TAG/XML Core agenda?
>
>   NDW/VQ: think so, yes
>
>   <Roy> my input is already in www-tag
>
>  New Issue?: Relationship of URI schemes to protocols
>
>     * [29]Noah's request
>
>   DC suggests straw poll; if we can say "yes" today, very well. if not,
>   let's wait 'till noah can make his case
>
>   RF: having trouble differentiating this from work going on in uri mailing
>   list
>
>   DC: why do you want/need to differentiate?
>
>   RF: good question...
>   ... not sold by Noah's request as is.
>
>   DC: let's wait 'till Noah can make his case.
>
>   VQ: very well.
>
>   <noah> Roy, either in these minutes or by email, maybe you could send URIs
>   to pertinent thread in URI list? Thanks.
>
>   <Roy> Noah, there is ongoing discussion on uri@w3.org regarding
>   rfc2717-2718 replacement that contains instructions on what to include in
>   scheme spec.
>
>   <Roy> Noah, [30]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/uri/2005Feb/0042.html
>
>  issue review: RDFinXHTML-35
>
>     * [31]issues list
>
>   VQ: continuing from 7 Feb
>   ... continuing from 7 Feb, when we got to xmlFunctions-34 ...
>   ... I'm interested in names relevant to each issue.
>
>   DC: There are variuos questions about how to embed RDF in HTML/XHTML.
>   Practice includes putting RDF in comments inside HTML.
>
>   <Norm> Appalling but true
>
>     * [32]Storing Data in Documents: The Design History and Rationale for
>       GRDDL
>
>   DC: I'd like reviewer for "Storing Data..."; I think there's perhaps more
>   work to cover, but that's my work to date toward a finding on this issue.
>
>   HT: I'm happy to review
>
>   NDW: [cut off?]
>
>   <scribe> ACTION: HT to review [33]Storing Data in Documents: The Design
>   History and Rationale for GRDDL [recorded in
>   [34]http://www.w3.org/2005/02/22-tagmem-minutes#action05]
>
>   <scribe> ACTION: NDW to review [35]Storing Data in Documents: The Design
>   History and Rationale for GRDDL [recorded in
>   [36]http://www.w3.org/2005/02/22-tagmem-minutes#action06]
>
>  issue review. siteData-36
>
>   DC: [can't type and summarize]
>   ... something like: next time a /robots.txt situation comes around, I'd
>   like to have something in place that's better than a hard-coded name
>
>   CL: meanwhile, /robots.txt is quite useful.
>
>   VQ: any takers?
>
>   NDW: some interest, but not much bandwidth
>
>   DC: haven't have a "lightbulb" idea. prefer to leave it in the "someday"
>   pile
>
>  issue review. abstractComponentRefs-37
>
>   DO: this came from a request from the web services description WG...
>   ... (1) when we come up with a component designator, is it designating an
>   abstract component, or a piece of syntax in the WSDL doc?
>   ... (2) [missed?]
>   ... and the TAG said: (1) designates abstract component (2) we discussed
>   lots of options and said "yeah, the one in your WD is OK"
>
>   ( trying to confirm that we've approved this finding...
>   [37]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/abstractComponentRefs-20031030 )
>
>   HST: XML Schema work on component designators is relevant...
>
>     * [38]Abstract Component References Draft TAG Finding 30 Oct 2003
>
>   HT notes...
>
>     * [39]Comments from MSM on behalf of Schema WG
>
>   <ht> MSM reports Schema WG was not happy
>
>   <ht> HST hears DO saying that it doesn't actually answer the question, yet
>
>   <Zakim> ht, you wanted to volunteer to take this finding on, in a month or
>   two
>
>   VQ: ok, so we are where we are.
>
>  issue review: putMediaType-38
>
>   DC: offshoot of issue 7
>
>   CL: there was some WEBDAV criticism in the discussion?
>
>   DC: yes, I think so
>
>   RF: perhaps it should be reassigned to me
>
>     * [40]putMediaType-38
>
>   <Roy> ACTION: Roy to prepare putMediaType-38 for further discussion
>   [recorded in [41]http://www.w3.org/2005/02/22-tagmem-minutes#action07]
>
>  issue review rdfURIMeaning-39
>
>     * [42]Re: New issue - Meaning of URIs in RDF documents
>
>   DanC: gee... can't remember the gist of this. let's wait 'till TimBL is
>   around
>
>  issue review URIGoodPractice-40
>
>   <Roy> I am planning to work on URIGoodPractice-40 next week during TP when
>   I can talk to DaveO
>
>   RF: related to abstractComponentRefs-37 ...
>
>   DO: in discussion of XPointer () stuff, I recall some criticism from RF,
>   which spawned this issue
>
>   VQ: ok, that's it for today
>
>   ADJOURN.
>
>Summary of Action Items
>
>   [NEW] ACTION: HT to review " Storing Data in Documents ..." [recorded in
>   [43]http://www.w3.org/2005/02/22-tagmem-minutes#action05]
>   [NEW] ACTION: NDW to announce TAG's acknolwedgement of issue
>   nameSpaceState-NN [recorded in
>   [44]http://www.w3.org/2005/02/22-tagmem-minutes#action03]
>   [NEW] ACTION: NDW let XML Core WG know yes, we agree to meet Thu 3 Mar
>   10:30am in Boston [recorded in
>   [45]http://www.w3.org/2005/02/22-tagmem-minutes#action02]
>   [NEW] ACTION: NDW to review " Storing Data in Documents ..." [recorded in
>   [46]http://www.w3.org/2005/02/22-tagmem-minutes#action06]
>   [NEW] ACTION: NDW to work with HT, DO on namespaceState [recorded in
>   [47]http://www.w3.org/2005/02/22-tagmem-minutes#action04]
>   [NEW] ACTION: Roy to prepare putMediaType-38 for further discussion
>   [recorded in [48]http://www.w3.org/2005/02/22-tagmem-minutes#action07]
>   [NEW] ACTION: VQ to contact Coralie re 8-10 June meeting arrangements at
>   INRIA. [recorded in
>   [49]http://www.w3.org/2005/02/22-tagmem-minutes#action01]
>    
>   [End of minutes]
>
>   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>    DanC for VQ and the TAG
>    $Revision: 1.14 $ of $Date: 2005/02/22 21:15:26 $
>    formatted by David Booth's [50]scribe.perl version 1.111 ([51]CVS log)
>
>References
>
>   Visible links
>   1. http://www.w3.org/
>   2. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2005/02/22-agenda.html
>   3. http://www.w3.org/2005/02/22-tagmem-irc
>   4. http://www.w3.org/2005/02/22-tagmem-minutes.html#agenda
>   5. http://www.w3.org/2005/02/22-tagmem-minutes.html#item01
>   6. http://www.w3.org/2005/02/22-tagmem-minutes.html#item05
>   7. http://www.w3.org/2005/02/22-tagmem-minutes.html#item06
>   8. http://www.w3.org/2005/02/22-tagmem-minutes.html#item07
>   9. http://www.w3.org/2005/02/22-tagmem-minutes.html#item08
>  10. http://www.w3.org/2005/02/22-tagmem-minutes.html#item09
>  11. http://www.w3.org/2005/02/22-tagmem-minutes.html#item10
>  12. http://www.w3.org/2005/02/22-tagmem-minutes.html#item11
>  13. http://www.w3.org/2005/02/22-tagmem-minutes.html#item12
>  14. http://www.w3.org/2005/02/22-tagmem-minutes.html#item13
>  15. http://www.w3.org/2005/02/22-tagmem-minutes.html#item14
>  16. http://www.w3.org/2005/02/22-tagmem-minutes.html#item15
>  17. http://www.w3.org/2005/02/22-tagmem-minutes.html#ActionSummary
>  18. http://www.w3.org/2005/02/07-tagmem-minutes.html
>  19. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2005Feb/att-0112/Feb142005FormattedMinutes.html
>  20. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/10/05-07-tag.html#meeting-plans
>  21. http://www.w3.org/2005/02/22-tagmem-minutes#action01
>  22. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2005/02/28-agenda.html
>  23. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2005/01/TechnicalPlenaryLiaisons.html
>  24. http://www.w3.org/2005/02/22-tagmem-minutes#action02
>  25. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2005Feb/0015.html
>  26. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2004Nov/att-0071/versioning-part1.html
>  27. http://www.w3.org/2005/02/22-tagmem-minutes#action03
>  28. http://www.w3.org/2005/02/22-tagmem-minutes#action04
>  29. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2005Feb/0013.html
>  30. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/uri/2005Feb/0042.html
>  31. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html?view=normal&closed=1
>  32. http://www.w3.org/2004/01/rdxh/specbg.html
>  33. http://www.w3.org/2004/01/rdxh/specbg.html
>  34. http://www.w3.org/2005/02/22-tagmem-minutes#action05
>  35. http://www.w3.org/2004/01/rdxh/specbg.html
>  36. http://www.w3.org/2005/02/22-tagmem-minutes#action06
>  37. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/abstractComponentRefs-20031030
>  38. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/abstractComponentRefs-20031030
>  39. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2004Jan/0007.html
>  40. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html?view=normal&closed=1#putMediaType-38
>  41. http://www.w3.org/2005/02/22-tagmem-minutes#action07
>  42. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Jul/0127.html
>  43. http://www.w3.org/2005/02/22-tagmem-minutes#action05
>  44. http://www.w3.org/2005/02/22-tagmem-minutes#action03
>  45. http://www.w3.org/2005/02/22-tagmem-minutes#action02
>  46. http://www.w3.org/2005/02/22-tagmem-minutes#action06
>  47. http://www.w3.org/2005/02/22-tagmem-minutes#action04
>  48. http://www.w3.org/2005/02/22-tagmem-minutes#action07
>  49. http://www.w3.org/2005/02/22-tagmem-minutes#action01
>  50. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
>  51. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
>  
>
Received on Wednesday, 23 February 2005 09:10:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:32 GMT