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

Re: straw-man agenda for WS-A/TAG Joint Meeting

From: Mark Nottingham <mark.nottingham@bea.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 14:48:08 -0800
Message-Id: <03c90b019ab84f51cddc302efaeea899@bea.com>
Cc: www-tag@w3.org, Vincent Quint <Vincent.Quint@inrialpes.fr>, public-ws-addressing@w3.org, timbl@w3.org
To: Noah Mendelsohn <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>, Paul Downey <paul.downey@bt.com>

Hi Noah,

Responses inline.

On Feb 23, 2005, at 11:15 AM, noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com wrote:

> Mark,
>
> Thank you for pulling together the attached proposal.  My  reaction to 
> the
> attached is that it's an excellent start.  Suggestions/concerns, etc.
> might include:
>
> * If time is short, I wonder whether we could shortcircuit the "What is
> the TAG discussion".  I'm not against it in principle, just trying to 
> save
> time.  If you have many members who don't know what we do, I wonder
> whether you might cover it either in an email in advance, perhaps 
> linking
> our charter, findings, and AWWW (all of which area available from the 
> TAG
> page at [1]) or some sort of brief intro in your f2f before we meet.  
> I'm
> just guessing that time for technical discussion will inevitably run
> short.  If you do want an intro in the room, I'm sure one of us can do 
> it.
>  Still, I bet that with some advance setup, we'd need little more than
> intros, maybe with very brief Q&A.

Seems reasonable; could one of the TAG send such an e-mail to the list, 
and we'll just ask for questions at the beginning? My main concern in 
including this was scoping the discussion between the groups and 
setting expectations about next steps, etc.

> * re: WSA overview and status:  I know you don't have formal use cases,
> but I still think it will be nearly essential to have someone stand up 
> and
> show 1, 2 or 3 representative interactions involving likely uses of 
> EPRs.
> It would be good if one or two of these represented near consensus of 
> the
> WSA WG;  I think it's OK if one or two are controversial. Given that
> you're publishing a REC, the TAG may be interested in possible uses as
> well as those that are surely expected.  Maybe you should have one 
> that's
> straight point-to-point case and one that involves intermediaries or
> gateways?  If you're not totally at consensus on the latter, you might 
> at
> least outline the state of play regarding WSA debates.  I say all this
> because in my discussions with individual members of the WSA groups,
> working through such scenarios has been essential to considering 
> questions
> regarding how web architecture is being used, what is identified by 
> EPRs,
> etc.  Presumably these are questions that interest the TAG.

Paul Downey from BT will be giving the initial presentation; I believe 
he's going to include some use cases, and I expect that others will 
surface in Q&A.

>  * I think it would be helpful if you could give a bit of history and
> guidance on what you consider to be metadata (I know there is recent
> evolution in this area), maybe or maybe not going into the history of
> refParms vs. refProperties, etc.  Basically I think the tag will have 
> some
> interest in anything that has to do with data you carried that might be
> viewed as identification of any sort (including things that 
> participate in
> routing to a server), vs. things that are clearly parameters or 
> metadata.
> Maybe or maybe not controversy will erupt in this area, and if so we
> should have some time allocated for it.  So, I suppose I'm suggesting 
> some
> time for discussion of information used to identify things vs. other
> metadata.  Note that the tag had an issue [2] and a draft finding [3] 
> on
> metadata in URIs.  FWIW, there's also a finding called "Authoritative
> Metadata"; though my intuition is that this is less pertinent to your
> work, you might want to have someone take a quick look to make sure I
> didn't miss a connection.

Paul, can you please include some status on metadata in your 
presentation, to seed discussion here?


> * The discussion time for epr-47 is clearly appropriate.
>
> I expect the rest of the TAG will have opinions on how to focus our 
> time,
> and they may or may not agree with the guidance above.  Feel free to
> respond on www-tag, including a copy of this note from me if you like.
> Thank you.
>
> Noah
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/
> [2] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html#metadataInURI-31
> [3] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/metaDataInURI-31.html
> [4] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/mime-respect.html
>
> --------------------------------------
> Noah Mendelsohn
> IBM Corporation
> One Rogers Street
> Cambridge, MA 02142
> 1-617-693-4036
> --------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Mark Nottingham <mark.nottingham@bea.com>
> 02/17/2005 06:31 PM
>
>
>         To:     Noah Mendelsohn <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
>         cc:
>         Subject:        straw-man agenda for WS-A/TAG Joint Meeting
>
>
> Hi Noah,
>
> Thoughts? I'm not sure who should initially present on the issue,
> because it's your issue, but we're the domain experts.
>
>
> * Introductions (5 minutes)
>
> * Agenda Review (3 minutes)
>
> * The TAG's role (7 minutes)
>    - brief explanation of what the TAG is, what it does, its relation 
> to
> WGs, etc.
>      [presentation by a TAG member, followed by Q&A]
>
> * Web Services Addressing: Overview and Status (30 minutes)
>      [presentation by a WS-A member, followed by Q&A; along the lines 
> in
> your e-mail]
>
> * TAG Issue endPointRef-47 (30 minutes)
>     [presentation by (?), followed by discussion]
>
> * AOB (time permitting)
>
> --
> Mark Nottingham   Principal Technologist
> Office of the CTO   BEA Systems
>
>
>
>
>

--
Mark Nottingham   Principal Technologist
Office of the CTO   BEA Systems
Received on Wednesday, 23 February 2005 22:48:53 GMT

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