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

RE: Minutes of 10 Jan 2005 Telcon

From: Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol) <skw@hp.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 14:11:54 -0000
Message-ID: <8D5B24B83C6A2E4B9E7EE5FA82627DC9601526@sdcexcea01.emea.cpqcorp.net>
To: "Norman Walsh" <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>, <www-tag@w3.org>

Small glicth but I can't see a record that we approved the record for
20th Dec (which we did).

Stuart
-- 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-tag-request@w3.org [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org] 
> On Behalf Of Norman Walsh
> Sent: 10 January 2005 22:03
> To: www-tag@w3.org
> Subject: Minutes of 10 Jan 2005 Telcon
> 
> The (lightly edited) minutes are attached along with the 
> (lightly edited) IRC log used to produce them. (I can't check 
> things into dated space,
> team: feel free.)
> 
> A text version follows:
> 
>    W3C
> 
>                                    TAG telcon
> 
> 10 Jan 2005
> 
>    Agenda
> 
>    See also: IRC log
> 
> Attendees
> 
>    Present
>            Paul, Chris, Norm, Stuart, DanC, Noah, TimBL, 
> DOrchard_(partial)
> 
>    Regrets
>            None
> 
>    Absent
>            RoyF
> 
>    Chair
>            Stuart
> 
>    Scribe
>            Norm
> 
> Contents
> 
>      * Topics
>          1. Administrivia
>          2. W3C Technical Plenary
>          3. TAG Liasons; Extensibility and Versioning
>          4. Tag Liasons; XML Core
>          5. TAG Liasons; QA-WG
>          6. TAG Liasons; WS-Addressing
>          7. 2. Technical; Extensibility and Versioning
>          8. 2. Technical; XML Chunk Equality
>      * Summary of Action Items
> 
>      
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
>    <Chris> Scribe: Norm
> 
>    <Chris> ScribeNick: Norm
> 
>    Absent: RF
> 
>   Administrivia
> 
>    Chair notes a fair amount of administrivia on today's agenda.
> 
>    5-10 minutes on issues list maintainance
> 
>    <noah> Regrets for next week
> 
>    Regrets for next week
> 
>    <Chris> I can scribe next week
> 
>    pbc gives regrets as well
> 
>    <DanC> (I'll be on my way to the airport 17 Jan)
> 
>    Next meeting: 24 Jan 2005
> 
>    Meeting of 17 Jan 2005 cancelled.
> 
>    <Chris> "The Last Call review period ends 28 January 2005, 
> at 23:59 EDT"
> 
>    <DanC> try all caps ACTION:
> 
>    <DanC> and ACTION Chris: ... is sometimes better than ACTION: Chris
> 
>    <scribe> ACTION: CL to Post QA review comments for email 
> discussion.
> 
>    Minutes of 20 Dec 2004 accepted.
> 
>    Discussion of
>    http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-rsalz-qname-urn-00.txt
> 
>    DO asks if we want discussion of this ID on www-tag?
> 
>    This seems related to the QNames as Identifiers issue.
> 
>    General agreement that it's ok for discussion to go to www-tag
> 
>    <scribe> ACTION: SW to Respond to DO approving discussion 
> of the ID on
>    www-tag.
> 
>   W3C Technical Plenary
> 
>    <Zakim> DanC, you wanted to comment re minutes/agenda tools
> 
>    SW opens discussion of TAG contribution to technical plenary day
> 
>    PC: volunteered to participate in the planning committee 
> but has had to
>    back out. Suggest that we ask for 1+ hours and put together a
>    comprehensive proposal including our issues, perhaps E+V.
>    ... It would have broad interest which is important at the plenary
> 
>    CL: TP is the first f2f after 1 Feb?
> 
>    SW: Yes, although we're talking about the Wednesday day.
> 
>    <Chris> okay
> 
>    Wednesday is 2 Feb, fwiw.
> 
>    <noah> Reminder: I believe that David Orchard is planning 
> to join us on
>    this call in part to discuss our plans for versioning 
> discussion at the
>    Plenary. Am I remembering correctly?
> 
>    Wednesday is 2 MAR, not 2 Feb. Oops.
> 
>    <DanC> (heh... the dbooth script will change that to "... 
> is 2 MAR, not 2
>    Mar")
> 
>    SW: Housekeeping: introduce new members of the TAG.
>    ... WebArch? Substantive issues, E+V or httpRange-14?
> 
>    Some discussion of how an E+V presentation might work with 
> participation
>    from TAG, Schema and other relevant participants.
> 
>    SW: We need to introduce the new TAG.
> 
>    PC: I disagree; Wednesday should be as technical as 
> possible with the
>    minimum amount of administrive overhead
> 
>    noah: If the reason to have the TAG there as a whole is 
> introductions,
>    that's 3-5 min. What really do we want to have covered 
> though on behalf of
>    the TAG at this session? Versioning is one interesting 
> issue, but it's odd
>    because it spills over beyond the tag. We have others, 
> httpRange-14,
>    looming WS-Addressing issues, perhaps others?
>    ... Did we collect a set of intersting things as we went 
> through the arch
>    document? Should we survey the state of play on unresolved 
> issues; listing
>    them with a 2-3 min introduction to each. Note that we're 
> entering a
>    process of looking at these and tyring to set our agenda 
> for the coming
>    year. Should we share that with the plenary so that they 
> can have some
>    input.
>    ... Perhaps we should do a "state of the TAG" and split 
> E+V off into
>    another slot.
> 
>    <Zakim> noah, you wanted to suggest maybe we survey 
> unresolved issues?
> 
>    <Zakim> DanC, you wanted to say oh... no, not httpRange-14 
> for the big
>    meeting on weds. only a small thing, with position papers 
> prerequisite for
>    attendance and to question the logistics
> 
>    DanC: I can imagine presenting in a survey style; 
> collecting data will be
>    frustrating if we don't use the WBS survey.
>    ... If we're going to do a survey, we should use the 
> machine to help
>    ... on httpRange-14: please no, not with a large audience.
>    ... I think that should be a small group with a 1 page 
> position paper
>    required to even get in the door
> 
>    SW: So I've heard noah suggest that we make this a two 
> bite sort of thing:
>    TAG for one and E+V for another.
> 
>    TBL: For what extent are we concentrating on what we 
> haven't decided yet?
> 
>    <noah> FWIW, the survey aspect was somewhat secondary in 
> my thinking. I
>    had in mind more of a: "let us remind you what issues look 
> challenging to
>    us and why". Now, we can either discuss a few in the 
> remaining time,
>    and/or solicit your sense of which are important and 
> whether there are
>    other directions we're missing.
> 
>    TBL: Should we use this time to present the architecture 
> document or a
>    number of things which are not in dispute?
> 
>    DanC: While I think we should present the webarch 
> document, I wonder if
>    this is the right audience. If there's a new WG, they should get a
>    presentation, but this group participated in review of the 
> document.
> 
>    SW: Last year we had theme-oriented panels and that seemed 
> like a good
>    thing
> 
>    <DanC> yes, please, theme-oriented. E+V
> 
>    <DanC> yes, content/presentation... CSS, XSL, DI, ... .
> 
>    CL: I suggest separation of content and presentation 
> because there are
>    several different approaches to the problem (CSS, XSL, vs. Device
>    Independence)
>    ... Might be interesting to see if we have more or less 
> agreement than we
>    expect.
>    ... If we decided to do that, I'm prepared to do some 
> preparation for
>    that.
> 
>    SW: Is there a third choice, or should we stick with two?
>    ... I can go back to Steve Bratt with those two.
> 
>    <Chris> I can do some introductory slides on that, to set the scene
> 
>    <noah> Are we at the point where we should invite DaveO to dial in?
> 
>   TAG Liasons; Extensibility and Versioning
> 
>    SW: The idea, I think, is to hold one meeting early in the 
> half of the
>    week, a "stakeholders meeting" where we focus on 
> motivating needs and
>    requirements.
> 
>    Some discussion of the email about this topic
> 
>    noah: Will the meeting be best served by inviting 
> everybody? It's just a
>    matter of logistics.
> 
>    Message in question:
>    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/chairs/2005JanMar/0002.html
> 
>    noah: scratch comment about inviting everybody; was 
> confused, thought we
>    were still talking about the Wednesday panel session
>    ... The Schema WG feels that they have some ownership over the
>    extensibility and versioning issue. But they also see that 
> it's a much
>    larger issue.
>    ... My guess is that we need to do a deep dive to get organized and
>    complement each other going forward
>    ... There are also other communities that are our users 
> and they have
>    different needs as well.
> 
>    PC: Why would we wait until the plenary to get together 
> with schema on
>    this issue?
>    ... We've got a few meetings in February and at least one 
> more in January
> 
>    noah: I think it might be more valuable to do it face-to-face.
> 
>    <scribe> ACTION: SW to To schedule some sort of meeting with Schema
>    between now and the plenary
> 
>    DanC: any news on getting the Schema work public?
> 
>    noah: Yes, I did the narrow part of the action to alert the chair.
>    ... Maybe I should take another actoin to follow up?
> 
>    <scribe> ACTION: NM to Attempt to get the Schema WG to make their
>    extensibility and versioning use cases work public.
> 
>    Some discussion about administrivia associated with doing 
> this in a WG
>    that has experienced some shrinkage.
> 
>    SW: wrt E+V, we're talking about a panel session, we might 
> also have a
>    shareholders meeting if we get feedback; and we'll try to 
> have liason with
>    schema before the plenary
> 
>   Tag Liasons; XML Core
> 
>    Norm: No issues at present, but it's easier to cancel than 
> schedule if we
>    decide we do have issues
> 
>    <Zakim> DanC, you wanted to ask what of "ACTION NM: to 
> explore means of
>    getting current and future Schema WG work on versioning into public
>    spaces"
> 
>   TAG Liasons; QA-WG
> 
>    They would like to meet. Will work with SW on topics.
> 
>   TAG Liasons; WS-Addressing
> 
>    They would like to meet. We've had a possible new issue that may be
>    related.
> 
>    <Zakim> DanC, you wanted to ask didn't SKW take an action 
> to contact
>    ws-addressing WG?
> 
>    <noah> +1 to idea that we meet with WS-Addressing. 
> Suggested agenda: they
>    walk through their design and issues, preparing to defend 
> non-use of URIs
> 
>    DanC wonders who has the ball on setting up that meeting
> 
>    SW: I have the ball.
> 
>    PC: Which WGs would we meet with if we were going to 
> flatten all the
>    deferred issues
> 
>    <Chris> Note that I don't have an SVG f2f competing with 
> TAG at the TP,
>    this time
> 
>    <Chris> However I am meeting with some WG on SVG behalf
> 
>    <scribe> ACTION: SW to give Steve Bratt a response to how 
> the TAG would
>    like to participate in the Plenary
> 
>    <Zakim> DanC, you wanted to ask if SKW has all the TP 
> balls, and wonder if
>    spreading the work around would be easier or just 
> introduce more mess
> 
>   2. Technical; Extensibility and Versioning
> 
>    SW: We've got to the piece on E+V. I think you sent out a couple of
>    revised drafts just before Christmas.
>    ... Do you want to tell us what's changed?
> 
>    <DanC> (hmm... when we left our hero, the ball was with 
> the readers, not
>    the writers)
> 
>    dorchard: I thought I went through that in Boston.
> 
>    <noah> Were they just before Christmas, or just before Boston?
> 
>    SW: Ok, unfortunatly I wasn't present.
> 
>    <DanC> "ACTION PC: to review parts 1 and 2 of 
> extensibility and versioning
>    editorial draft finding prior to discussion for 10 Jan. 
> ACTION DC: paulc
>    to review parts 1 and 2 of extensibility and versioning 
> editorial draft
>    finding prior to discussion for 10 Jan"
> 
>    <DanC> oops!
> 
>    Correction: Before Boston not before Christmas.
> 
>    <DanC> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/11/29-30-tag#xmlv41
> 
>    DanC, PC have not yet completed review; action pending.
> 
>    <Zakim> DanC, you wanted to say sorry, no, didn't read it, 
> see earlier
>    agend request to discuss issue list maintenance
> 
>    noah: Is it appropriate to go over at least my recollection of our
>    tentative decisions
> 
>    <DanC> "ACTION NM: to work with DO to come up with 
> improved principles and
>    background assumptions that motivate versioning finding"
> 
>    <noah> Right, thanks for finding that.
> 
>    SW: At the moment we are a little lacking in feedback. 
> Apologies for
>    dragging dorchard here before we were well prepared.
> 
>    <DanC> ACTION: DC to review blog entry on RDF versioning 
> [pointer?].
>    CONTINUES.
> 
>    dorchard: The only thing that's happened since then is 
> that I did write up
>    a paper that examines RELAX NG in this context.
>    ... I tried to come up with a small set of scenarios that I've been
>    working with.
> 
>    <dorchard>
>    
> http://www.pacificspirit.com/Authoring/Compatibility/OWLRDFExt
> ensibility.html
> 
>    <Zakim> Chris, you wanted to suggest an example
> 
>    CL: One example that might be interesting for RELAX NG 
> would be taking an
>    empty element and adding an attribute co-constraint that 
> says whether or
>    not it should be empty.
> 
>    <noah> Dave specifically contrasts his scenarios, which are sort of
>    mechanistic (add an attribute to a type) to the more 
> general user level
>    scenarios the schema wg has been using as motivation (I.e. 
> phrased as
>    business scenarios)
> 
>    SW: Should we continue or cancel some of these actions? If they're
>    continued, can you set expectations?
> 
>    DanC reviews them:
> 
>    <DanC> ACTION: NM to to work with DO to come up with 
> improved principles
>    and background assumptions that motivate versioning 
> finding. CONTINUES.
>    bigger than a 1-week thing
> 
>    NM: to work with DO to come up with improved principles 
> and background
>    assumptions that motivate versioning finding
> 
>    <DanC> PC asks to withdraw: ACTION PC: to review parts 1 and 2 of
>    extensibility and versioning editorial draft finding prior 
> to discussion
> 
>    <DanC> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/11/29-30-tag#xmlv41
> 
>    <DanC> SKW offers to review part 1
> 
>    <timbl> To review ...
>    
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Oct/att-0137/v
> ers-adoc.html
>    ?
> 
>    dorchard observes that the TAG is in flux until the 
> elections finish
> 
>    <DanC> ACTION: DC to paulc to review parts 1 and 2 of 
> extensibility and
>    versioning editorial draft finding prior to discussion.
> 
>    <DanC> (I think I can do it this week)
> 
>    <DanC> . ACTION PC: paulc to inform QA and Schema WGs of 
> the new version
>    of the e&v draft
> 
>    <Stuart>
>    
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Oct/att-0137/v
> ers-adoc.html
> 
>    <DanC> ACTION: SW to to inform QA and Schema WGs of the 
> new version of the
>    e&v draft
> 
>    <Stuart>
>    
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2004Nov/att-0071/v
> ersioning-part2.html
> 
>    <dorchard> 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2004Nov/att-0071/
> 
>    <dorchard>
>    
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2004Nov/att-0071/v
> ersioning-part1.html
> 
>    SW notes that he's put the wrong link in the agenda
> 
>    dorchard: between now and February 12, is very bad for scheduling
>    additional meetings
> 
>    noah: but you will be at the Tech Plenary
> 
>    dorchard: yes
> 
>    SW: Should we shoot for the 14th?
> 
>    <DanC> yes, 14 Feb looks like an interesting sync-point
> 
>    noah: You're hoping Schema WG will be available then?
> 
>    SW: yes
> 
>    dorchard agrees that falling back to 21 Feb would be ok
> 
>    SW: Plan is to have our reviews finished for discussion on 14 Feb
> 
>    <scribe> ACTION: NM to Coordinate with chair of Schema for 
> meeting on 14
>    Feb
> 
>    noah: Schema chair agrees informally
> 
>   2. Technical; XML Chunk Equality
> 
>    <Chris> NW: posted a draft a while back, went through 
> www-tag discussion
> 
>    <Chris> nw: mostly discussion was about a single issue
> 
>    <DanC> (agenda cites 
> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/xmlChunkEquality.html
>    )
> 
>    <Chris> nw: xml:lang and case folding and non-ascii 
> characters and stuff
> 
>    <DanC> ([EditorA-c-\u20ac\u2122s Draft] TAG Finding 07 
> September 2004)
> 
>    <Chris> nw: apart from that, little feedback
> 
>    <DanC> action 11 = NM: Coordinate with chair of Schema for 
> meeting on 14
>    Feb
> 
>    <Chris> sw: how was that recieved by xml core?
> 
>    <Chris> nw: reluctant as there was not a single correct 
> response for all
>    of xml
> 
>    <Chris> nw: however, this was juts 'a' notion of equality 
> not 'the' one,
>    so they declined
> 
>    <Chris> nw: thus, the ball is in TAG court again
> 
>    <Chris> nw: Core is fine with TAG doing 'a' way
> 
>    <Chris> dc: looks like an interesting note
> 
>    <Chris> nw: can tag publish a wg note?
> 
>    <Chris> dc, cl, sw: yes (probably)
> 
>    <Chris> pc: why bother changing the finding to a note?
> 
>    <Chris> nw: one psychological step less normative. not in all caps.
> 
>    <Zakim> DanC, you wanted to review actions from
>    http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/11/29-30-tag#xmlv41 and to 
> and to say that
>    my instinct about xml:lang is to write a test case and then see
> 
>    <Zakim> noah, you wanted to ask about precendents of 
> findings as notes
> 
>    <Chris> nm: don't want to get into duplicat work, 
> republish findings and
>    notes. rather train people how to read findings
> 
>    <Zakim> Chris, you wanted to expound about xml:lang
> 
>    <Zakim> DanC, you wanted to say that my instinct about 
> xml:lang is to
>    write a test case and then see what implementations do, 
> but hey, with a
>    note, just stick a "xml:lang looks hairy.
> 
>    <noah> slight clarification: I'm not necessarily against 
> publishing as
>    notes if we can convince ourselves there's a good reason 
> that justifies
>    the duplicate investment in publication and ongoing 
> maintenance in the
>    face of possible bugs. I'm suggesting we decide on the criteria in
>    general. I think Dan is now suggesting such a criterion.
> 
>    <pbc> as an example of another algorithm.
> 
>    <Chris> cl: bogus language codes do not affect well formedness, but
>    anything not conforming to the prose of xml still does not 
> conform to
>    prose
> 
>    <pbc> should we also point to
>    http://www.w3.org/TR/xquery-operators/#func-deep-equal
> 
>    <Chris> cl: its well defined, except for this theoretical 
> corner case
> 
>    <Zakim> timbl, you wanted to ask whhy we started this.
> 
>    <DanC> yes, noah
> 
>    pbc: yes, we should
> 
>    <Chris> tbl: can we take norms finding and see to what 
> exent dsig breaks
>    on things that are the same, if RDF would be happy with it 
> as a definition
>    of RDF litteral, etc
> 
>    <Chris> tbl: xml has a deep equality issue (from scribbled notes)
> 
>    <Chris> pc: xquery and xpath, rather than xml??
> 
>    <timbl> s/scribbled
>    notes/http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2004Jan/0013.html
> 
>    <Chris> pc: so, this is one possible way to compare two chunks
> 
>    <timbl> Woudl they have prefered it with ':'?
> 
>    <Chris> pc: it does not really demonstrate that other 
> algorithms exist,
>    when you might use them etc
> 
>    <DanC> (RDF uses the c14n one)
> 
>    <Chris> pc: deep=1 from F&O, plus???
> 
>    <noah> Tim's scribbled notes say: XML schema has the "Deep 
> equality" issue
>    as to when any two chunks
> 
>    <noah> are "equal".
> 
>    <noah> FWIW: I'm not immediately calling to mind any 
> reason that XML
>    Schema would care.
> 
>    <Chris> pc: dsig have various views on canonical representations
> 
>    <Chris> pc: so if we added some other alternatives, its 
> fine as a finding
> 
>    <DanC> (hmm... it's now starting to smell like a survey of 
> the literature
>    on XML chunk comparison, more in the finding genre)
> 
>    <Chris> tbl: a list of things to avoid or known potholes, 
> is valuable
> 
>    <noah> Schema does have equality rules for typed values of 
> particular
>    fields, e.g. when typed as an integer attribute AT="123" 
> is equal (as a
>    key for example) to AT="00123".
> 
>    <Chris> yes, more like a finding now
> 
>    <noah> I don't think there are open issues in this area.
> 
>    <Chris> sw: not overriding support for making it a note
> 
>    <noah> I note that DSIG achieves something close to chunk 
> equality via its
>    canonicalization rules (which I believe are user-pluggable).
> 
>    <Chris> pc: ok as a finding if we had time to discuss it, 
> so suggesting
>    improvements
> 
>    <Chris> sw: ok so very much as a finding
> 
>    <Chris> ACTION: NDW to make editorial improvements, point to other
>    different schemes, why use them, things to avoid in XML 
> Chunk Equality.
> 
>    <Chris> tbl: is there vagueness in RDF literal?
> 
>    <Chris> pc: good to see when F&O deep= works and when it does not
> 
>    <Chris> pc: looking for a way to select an algorithm to get least
>    astonishment
> 
>    <Chris> tbl: for URI comparison, if they are trivially 
> equal they are
>    always equal with more complicated meythods
> 
>    <Chris> tbl: is the same thing true here? if two chunks 
> are norm=, are
>    they always equal??
> 
>    <Chris> sw: oops, running out of time, this is interesting
> 
>    <Chris> pc: put at front of next agenda
> 
>    <Stuart> Adjourned
> 
> Summary of Action Items
> 
>    [NEW] ACTION: CL to Post QA review comments for email discussion.
>    [NEW] ACTION: DC to paulc to review parts 1 and 2 of extensibility
>    ... and versioning editorial draft finding prior to discussion.
>    [NEW] ACTION: DC to review blog entry on RDF versioning [pointer?].
>    ... CONTINUES.
>    [NEW] ACTION: NDW to make editorial improvements, point to other
>    ... different schemes, why use them, things to avoid in XML Chunk
>    ... Equality.
>    [NEW] ACTION: NM to Attempt to get the Schema WG to make their
>    ... extensibility and versioning use cases work public.
>    [NEW] ACTION: NM to Coordinate with chair of Schema for meeting on
>    ... 14 Feb
>    [NEW] ACTION: NM to to work with DO to come up with improved
>    ... principles and background assumptions that motivate versioning
>    ... finding. CONTINUES. bigger than a 1-week thing
>    [NEW] ACTION: SW to give Steve Bratt a response to how the TAG
>    ... would like to participate in the Plenary
>    [NEW] ACTION: SW to Respond to DO approving discussion of the ID on
>    ... www-tag.
>    [NEW] ACTION: SW to to inform QA and Schema WGs of the new version
>    ... of the e&v draft
>    [NEW] ACTION: SW to To schedule some sort of meeting with Schema
>    ... between now and the plenary
>     
>    [End of minutes]
> 
>      
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
>     Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 
> 1.104 (CVS log)
>     $Date: 2005/01/09 05:17:05 $
> 
> 
>                                         Be seeing you,
>                                           norm
> 
Received on Tuesday, 11 January 2005 14:14:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:31 GMT