See also: IRC log
<Norm> Hi Stuart
<Stuart> Lo... dinner calls... be back soon...
<DanC> Scribe: Ed
<scribe> Scribe: Ed Rice
<scribe> ScribeNick: EdR
<Ed> Title: Tag weekly meeting Feb 7, 2005
<Ed> Ed: Next meeting Feb 14th, xml schema team will join
<Ed> ACTION: Stuart to send note to xml schema team to confirm meeting
<ht_sof> HST sends regrets for the joint meeting on 14 Feb
<Ed> ACTION: noah and Norm agree to scribe Feb 14th
<Ed> RESOLUTION: Resolved to accept the minutes of Jan 31st 2005
<DanC> 4 answers so far http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/34270/telweekly/results
<Ed> ACTION: All Tag members to respond to on-line survey as to best meeting time.
<ht> I.e. Monday and Thursday
<Ed> ACTION: Deadline to respond to on-line Survey is Feb 10th 2005
<DanC> I'm flexible too.
<DanC> (I added mon11 and thru11; I sure hope that doesn't screw up the answers already given... I think it does not...)
<DanC> (ah; good; it doesn't screw up the extant answers)
<DanC> (hmm... it might invalidate comments ala "All of the times work for me except ...")
<Ed> ACTION: Stuart contact Rich to see if there is room on the panel for session three
<Ed> Vincent has agreed to chair/drive face to face
<noahm> Noah preliminary answers posted on Web Survey. Monday and Thurs 11AM are OK, maybe just a bit less desirable than mid-afternoon, but given our European participants, I'd be glad to do either one. I should say that I have a conflict with this Thurs, 2/10, but I suspect we wouldn't go for another meeting this week in any case.
<noahm> Also, regarding change of schedule, I note that we seem committed to doing 2/14 with the XML Schema WG, so suggest that any changes be not before then.
<Ed> ACTION: Vincent to send out tentative agenda by next weeks meeting for review and email discussion.
<DanC> ACTION: Vincent to to send out tentative agenda by next weeks meeting for review and email discussion.
<Norm> FYI: The Core WG now expects it will be valuable to meet to discuss XML 2.0
<Ed> voice browswer WG is a lunch time agenda
<Roy> I can attend all of the liaison meetings.
<noahm> Possible other item to discuss briefly: we've talked about possible Monday dinner. I've offered to make a reservation and thrown one possible restaurant into the suggestion pool. No rush yet, but at some point we'll want to figure out what we're doing.
<Ed> chairs of the qa working group
<ht> Noah, I can make Monday
<Ed> Noah, I am open on Monday.. open to trying new types of food (or old)
<Ed> Noah will coordinate and schedule.
<Zakim> DanC, you wanted to suggest keeping IRIEverywhere open until we have timbl's questions (http://www.w3.org/2003/04/iri.html) answered and to ask if RF would like to continue "ACTION
<Ed> ACTION: DanC to enter actions relative to issues list.
<Ed> review all;
<Ed> namespaceDocument-8: Tim was champion of, the direction we were heading is the suggestion that this be published as a working group note from the TAG along with an action from Paul Cotton to publish a working not. No progress has been made in the last six months.
<Ed> ACTION: norm to pick up Paul Cotton's work on namespaceDocument-8
<Roy> Please continue my action on IRIEverywhere, may be good for discussion at F2F.
<DanC> (I'm happy to sorta reboot, HT; I'd be happy to review "the original RDDL" (whatever that is; I lose track) if that's what your experience suggests. I think my reason for not liking some version of RDDL was that there wasn't an RDF mapping, when it looked so close)
<ht> That's a good reason -- RDDL was supposed to be automatically exploitable, if it can't be mapped to RDF trivially that's evidence that it's not
<Norm> I'm happy to do a little reboot too, I don't have all the versions in wetware now either
<Ed> Dan states, the strong signal is that people want this solved in the particulars. If the TAG does not agree, we should respond that we're not going to.
<Ed> Henry will work with Norm to take up namespaceDocument-8 topic.
<Ed> ACTION: Henry to produce a RDDL1 to RDF Style sheet or explain why not
<Ed> if you use a URI and you use an http without a hash, it needs to point to a network resource (information resource)
<Ed> other side if you use an http: with no hash mark, it may as well be an html algorithm
<Ed> there is no consensus
<Ed> should http be uses as a substrate protocal
<Ed> Noah: send email right before the call proposing to open new tag issue.
<DanC> (SemWeb IG agenda-in-progress makes no mention of httpRange-14 http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/interest/meetings/tp2005.html )
<DanC> (it doesn't appeal to me that clustering will help. 31 and this new issue seem very different, to me)
<Ed> Proposal: Noah suggests to take a cluster of these and set them aside for a week to see if we should adress these
<Ed> substrate 16 is currently deferred.
<Ed> deferred = until there is new information about this topic we will not discuss further.
<Ed> background - where should we be using xlink.
<Ed> Should be returned to once the xml working group resolves a couple of minor bugs. The xml core working group has committed to doing this quickly.
<Norm> XLink extensions note from Core WG: http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/NOTE-xlink10-ext-20050127/
<DanC> (I was going to ask henry to take an action re xlinkScope-23 or tell us how it'll get from the /TR/ page to our agenda, but it would probably fall on me to get that into the issues list, and I'm hopelessly behind on that sort of thing, so never mind.)
<Ed> there was a draft finding from Chris. But it has not been discussed.
<ht> DanC, I'll keep it in mind, not to worry
<DanC> draft finding
<Ed> Ed asked if we should all review offline and discuss in two weeks during weekly meeting
<DanC> ah... no, having us "all" review it is the anybody/somebody/nobody pattern. a pattern that works is to have 2 reviewers.
<Ed> Ed offers to be a reviewer on this topic, will contact Chris.
<Ed> ACTION: Ed to meet with chris and review/update the document.
<Ed> already discussed.
<Ed> Note: Chris has an action to write up a resolution, but current status is not know.
<Ed> ACTION: Henry to monitor and bring back up when time is appropriate.
<Ed> a workshop and working group is studying issue, should be complete in March.
<Ed> the current work-group is mostly made up of people who want a binary xml, the TAG may need to understand and represent the users who want a text xml.
<ht> DanC has a process concern, that once they recommend we do a _real_ Binary XML WG, it will go ahead without much/any critical review
<ht> Their output will be a Group Note, not a WD
<ht> DanC, I'm happy to talk to you about this, but it's Liam and Philippe, not me, who are on point
<Ed> I'm back.
<DanC> I have comments on the XBC WDs; if I manage to write them up and send them, I'll let the tag know.
<DanC> (ah... now I see the connection to the issue noah proposed)
<noahm> Does metadataInUri also relate to the various WS Addressing issues, at least insofar as some are tempted to ask: "why don't you put all those properties and/or parameters into a URI"
<Ed> Stuart has agreed to continue working on this issue if the TAG would prefer.
<Ed> Stuart: asks to partner with noah on 31 on an informal basis.
<Ed> Norm: this one is the process of wrapping up. The CR draft is expected to be published tomorrow.
<Ed> Norm: High confidence in closure soon.
<Ed> This one and xmlFunctions-34 and RDFinXHTML-35 are grouped.
<Zakim> DanC, you wanted to note we decided the mixedNamespaceMeaning-13 issue had a dependency on issue 42
<Ed> There is a new compound documents working group working which may be working on 33.
<Ed> ACTION: Chair to negotiate joint meeting to review during boston trip.
<Zakim> noahm, you wanted to say that SOAP headers violate functional view of XML, I think