See also: IRC log
<DanC_mtg> "DC: Acked to discuss 1) RDDL, the XQuery namespaces, Schema Component Designators and abstractComponentRefs-37/WSDL"
<DanC_mtg> -- http://www.w3.org/2005/05/10-tagmem-minutes.html#item04
<DanC_mtg> Norm has arrived in Stata601
<DanC_mtg> ndw offers for Tue am
<DanC_mtg> ER for Wed PM
<scribe> scribe: timbl
Ed: Wed pm
HT: Thu am
RF: Thu pm
NM: Tue pm
Norm and Henry will duck out for a 10 minutes at 11:00 ET tomorrow.
Switch: Now we have Ed Wed am, Norm Wed pm
The minute takers should take responsibility for the end product.
Changes to scribing: Noah offers to do Tim's work, starting now
<noah> scribe: noah
<scribe> scribenick: noah
<timbl> Dan this afternoon
Date: 14 June 2005
<DanC_mtg> 31 May minutes
RESOLUTION: approve minutes of 31 May minutes at http://www.w3.org/2005/05/31-tagmem-minutes.html
VQ: Should we have another telcon on 21 June?
DC: Yes, let's assume for now that we'll have a call.
NW: possible regrets
... never mind, no regrets
<timbl> Regrets for 21st.
TBL: Regrets for 21st
NM: Regrets for 21st, at W3C Schema futures meeting.
VQ: for now, the meeting is on
<DanC_mtg> (regrets from me too for 21 Jun)
DC: Regrets for 21st
Agenda is at: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2005/06/14-agenda.html
<timbl> When do we expect Dave to call in?
VQ: Our main goal for this meeting is to figure out our goals and strategies leading to, say, 2006
... propose to discuss tag directions every morning at this meeting?
DC: is all morning too much time?
NM: Rest of our time is flexible, can we just adapt.
TBL: Dave should be there, especially for discussing web services arch?
<DanC_mtg> Amy, DaveO said he plans to call in to this meeting around now; I wonder if there's a number for him to call
HT: Should spend at least this morning, and should do round robin.
<amy> need a bridge?
<amy> just a sec....
VQ: OK, for today we'll do it all morning, then see where we stand.
... Is 8:30 OK for Wed & Thurs?
<timbl> Amy, we have just a phoe ... no polycom
<amy> ok, I'll get the one from your office and bring it up
<amy> do you also want a bridge for all three days?
TBL: may not make 8:30, but start without me
NM: Suggest we start 8:30 and do issues of minor interest until Tim shows at 9.
VQ: As to rest of agenda, I've listed some other issues and findings to be considered. Got these by reviewing prev telcon minutes. I missed the one Dan wanted to raise.
<Norm> QT F&O Namespace document: http://www.w3.org/2005/04/xpath-functions/
DC: My concerns cross several of these. I want to review the namespace document for the XQuery stuff (http://www.w3.org/2005/04/xpath-functions/). That relates to namespaceDocument-8, abstractComponentRefs-37, and possibly some others. This is not a new issue, but relates to several existing.
HT: I would like to talk more about security issues later.
NM: Note that I sent a draft on schemeProtocols-49. See http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2005Jun/0024.html and http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2005Jun/0025.html . Read it before our discussions of that issue if you have a chance.
VQ: Current schedule is for 20-22 September in Edinburgh, Scotland
HT: We may be invited to dinner Tues night, please let me know if any spouses are likely to attend.
... OK, I'll assume 9 +/- 2. That uncertainty is no problem.
... Bed crunch shouldn't be too bad then, as festival has ended.
<scribe> ACTION: Henry Thompson to send F2F logistics to Vincent for meeting page [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/06/14-tagmem-irc#T18-22-46]
VQ: there is an AC meeting in Montreal
... Tech plenary will be in late Feb, early March, probably on riviera.
<ht> will do
NM: What if we do tech plenary to meet other groups, and then split difference to do late fall?
HT: Right, which puts us at the AC meeting in Montreal late November.
VQ: Dates of AC are Nov. 29 - Dec. 1 in Montreal
... Who will go in Montreal. Many positive responses. Dave O. says he cannot travel that entire week.
HT: What about week before. Uh... US Thanksgiving.
DO: Proceed without me. I'll be in Edinburgh.
HT: What about Mon Tues week after XML 2005.
NW and HT: Doesn't work.
TBL: more travel this fall is tough.
<dorchard> Could do nov 29, Dec 2 TAG meeting.
NM: Tim, is there any way to line this up with the AC meeting for you?
HT: Uh...won't there be a team meeting Friday after the AC?
TBL: Actually, somewhat unclear.
Various: What about 5th and 6th December?
HT: Kansas City?
<DanC_mtg> considering 5-6 Dec... Montreal ... or Cambridge...
Various: What about Cambridge?
DO: What about straddling AC?
NW: Rather not.
VQ: What about 5&6 here?
<DanC_mtg> (yes, there's a w3c team day Fri 2 Dec. 99%odds. planning in the works)
VQ: Dave O., can you make that?
DO: scribe perceives a mumble from Dave that sounds like a yes.
RESOLUTION: We will have a TAG meeting for 2 days in Cambridge hosted by W3C 5-6 December 2005
RESOLUTION: We will have a TAG meeting in conjunction with the Feb/March 2006 Tech. Plenary in France, exact dates TBD.
VQ: I have to decide my summer vacation dates.
... Propose not to be involved first 3 weeks of August.
We spend some time proving that for every week over the summer, at least one person is missing.
Proposal: we will have calls through 19th of July, then take a break with next call being 23rd of August.
Tim and Noah, as well as others, will miss some in July.
>From the agenda: "Should we revise the way we maintain the issues list and pending actions?"
VQ: Should I be doing more about document management?
... Norm is tracking errata?
NW: Right, but a bit behind. Will find time to do an errata doc soon.
VQ: OK, action is continuing.
... We also have the public list email@example.com Mail Archives
... are we monitoring sufficiently?
DC & NW: yes, we are.
VQ: We also have the findings list. Noah has sent a new draft.
<Norm> NM's new finding: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2005Jun/att-0024/schemeProtocols.html
Actually, the stable link should be: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/SchemeProtocols.html
I just fixed it. Was broken over the weekend due to messing up the checkin of png's.
Some discussion of whether to put drafts on the findings list or only approved.
DC: OK either way as long as it's clear, but I don't need unapproved there.
VQ: I'll keep them straight.
<scribe> ACTION: Vincent to add draft finding on schemeProtocols-49 to findings page (link is http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/SchemeProtocols.html) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/06/14-tagmem-irc#T18-22-46]
VQ: any more logistics
??: any more discussion where to put minutes?
HT: I'll let it go?
NM: I recall that there was a strong push that something stable be linkable by the time the next agenda goes out. So, we're deciding that anything table is OK?
TBL: Well, uh stuff in email attachments isn't easily fixed,
Various: right, and that takes us into the discussion that we're not reopening, so we won't.
VQ: we've had various inputs from various people on this
... one question is, what do we plan to produce as documents?
... that said, I propose we first discuss long term directions, then the right documents to produce
... First document was Noah's
NM: No, actually first was from Tim: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2005Apr/0054.html
TBL: My feelings unchanged since writing the note.
... WebArch doc seems to have been effective. The form worked well.
... let us discuss both the core findings and the rationale behind them
... therefore, prefer to grow the scope, while working in the same general framework and style
... semantic web and web services seem to be the two major scopes to consider
... could look for other high priority issues as well, but mainly looking for high priority ones. Probably things like httpRange-14 are best seen in the context of the larger architectural issues.
... somewhat tricky...in the first phase we claimed to have topic experts in the room, that may be less true as we move into semantic web and web services. In those cases we serve more as journalists.
... there has been a lot of formal work done on sem web, but could be better integrated and tied into Web arch itself.
... on web services, the last effort at architecture, didn't gel. Some concern that the folks who drive web services haven't put in place enough clean architecture for us to help crystalize.
<timbl> TBL: If we were to work on WS arch, we would not be documenting retrospectively but doing design work, it seems.
<timbl> TBL: ... And it isn't design work which we should be doing.
HT: We started on web arch 10 years after the web, sem web would be 5 years, arguably on web services it isn't; there yet.
... we do better when there is an established body of practice. The current experts don't always give you clean answers.
ER: But in my experience, that's exactly where we could make a contribution.
TBL: doesn't ws-i do that?
ER: does architecture follow?
DC: W3C looks better looking back.
... we don't want to be saying "stop, or I'll say stop again"
TBL: sometimes W3C needs to do design, but not TAG
... TAG designs mainly at the level of doing glue to cover things that don't line up
NM: I think our main responsibility to Sem Web and Web services should be to (a) make sure they use the core mechanisms of the Web itself appropriately and (b) in doing that, see whether they teach us more about what we need to document about the Web architecture itself.
DO: Web Services does indeed deviate from core web architecture more than Sem Web. For example, the first versions of SOAP didn't do HTTP Get.
... Clearly Web Services doesn't use the RESTful mechanisms of uniform interfaces.
... now with WSA we see lack of use of Web Arch primarily for creating asynchronous stateful services.
... service will have stateful instance, and you'll want to have async interactions with that. Client doesn't know much about state, except for need to echo things.
... there is very little reuse of REST
... note that cookies are widely used on the web for stateful things. We can learn some messages from those.
... we've not necessarily made it easy. SOAP Response hasn't been well adopted. Maybe if the web were more friendly to stateful interaction, WS would have an easier time leveraging the Web.
DC: Henry asks "who are our customers"?
... history is, we were started to answer questions about whether W3C workgroups were or were not using Web Architecture well.
... what we wrote is what everyone in every WG ought to know.
... I'm not convinced we can impact the web master community.
<Zakim> timbl, you wanted to agree that Web Services are fundamentally different architecture - a remote operations architecture, not an information space architecture. These are distinct
TBL: agree with David, Web Architecture is different architecture from REST.
... our scope is what happens in W3C. Originally was information space, but now there's more overlap, e.g. between web and email than there was before.
<Zakim> noah, you wanted to say that we may need to be a bit more careful about the layering of our use of the term Web. Is the Web really only REST, or is REST just the most widely
TBL: I therefore think it's reasonable to to WS arch if we want to because w3c does that
<scribe> scribe: ht
NM: Return to the note I wrote:
NM: Remember the W3C slogan "Lead the Web to its full potential"?
... WebArch1 covered much of the foundations of that, the Web as it was say 5 years ago when most of the foundations were new and cool
... Going forward we should be looking at what the web needs to achieve continue to achieve its potential.
... Even wrt the information space, we can see that at the moment the
... Some time ago at the tech plenary, I tried to make the case that we would do well to think of the web in terms of layers. So, if we move beyond HTTP to p2p, for example, then we can expect the URI layer of the web to be used,
(the scribe takes the liberty of mentioning that the following list of layers comes from http://www.w3.org/2003/Talks/techplen-ws/w3cplenaryhowmanywebs2.htm, even though that URI wasn't mentioned until later in our discussions.)
... 1) Names of things
... 2) Schemes that are deployed that you can use with names (all of them)
... 3) RESTful schemes
... 4) Widely deployed media types
... So saying "the Web is (only) REST" is to take a significant and potentially limiting step. Indeed, AWWW comes close to making such a leap in talking without qualification about the exchange of representations, which is pretty closelky tied to HTTP and REST.
... We can use the word 'Web' for a particular level of that layering, but that has consequences: we need to get agreement on terminology for the various layers.
... Over time, do we really want to limit the Web's information space to that which is best exposed in a "RESTful" manner or can we bring more of e.g. Web Services into the information space
<Zakim> ht, you wanted to ask where "The W W W" starts and ends
<noah> scribe: noah
HT: people are confused about distinction between Internet and Web,who invented which, etc.
... the stuff we call the Web is what is layered on one of the protocols in particular, I.e. HTTP
<DanC_mtg> (hmm... this lecture Henry is talking about is interesting... IEEE, IETF, W3C / ethernet, Internet, Web ... I'm very interested in how people learn about these technologies)
HT: in private discussion, Noah tried to convince me that Web was bigger and embraced everything that could be linked through URIs
... reading the Arch document, doesn't tell you where not to go.
... how should I know when I'm not on the Web and whether I think the Web Arch doc should apply?
TBL: we found the question am I on the Web not helpful. We did find: "is this document helpful?" to be a more useful question.
... I thought Noah was splitting hairs, but then I understood is peer to peer example.
NM: I'm actually trying to draw parallel between things like P2P and Sem web. Both of them get great value from being integrated into what we know as traditional web. Each stretches the web in new directions. Sem web because it names things not connected to computers, P2P because it deals in new types of content and security.
TBL: Anyone claiming web is HTTP-only?
Noah: I thought maybe Henry.
HT: Statefulness is important. Security is important. In particular, having your identity established makes a big difference.
<timbl> Noah, http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/diagrams/URI-space.png
<Roy> The Web has never been HTTP-only (started with FTP and Gopher, added HTTP and WAIS, ...)
HT: for example, I get something different from W3C retrievals than you do, because I'm served by the European server.
DC: why is that a problem, it's the same resource?
HT: True in principle, but in practice the system breaks; the mirroring is imperfect, and so the experience is effectively dependent on the Web's notion of one's identity.
NM: I think Henry's point is that many things in practice depend on the system knowing who you are and where you are
HT: Google, in particular, tailors results based on partition of IP space. Cookies are another example.
... Most commercial sites give you a very different experience according to your cookies, and thus in a sense identities.
... I tried to convince Google that Web would sort of survive if something like Google disappeared. They felt it was "constitutive" of what the web is.
<dorchard> +1 to HT's point that Google is part of the architecture from the user experience
HT: note that which URI you get redirected to from google.com depends on (your IP address? something not covered in Web Arch)
<DanC_mtg> (hmm... I could replay the whole "commonname" discussion in the TAG context, I guess, re one of HT's points about search engines)
HT: partially connected and disconnected are also important. What about push (see RIM Blackberry)
<DanC_mtg> (what does RIM do different? gee... I don't even know)
ER: are you also going toward mobile web?
HT: yes, that too.
<Zakim> DanC_mtg, you wanted to offer to project and edit an outline and to realize that the long tirade I occasionally give on how broken authentication in the web is might be relevant
DC: I had offered to edit outline, looks like won't happen before lunch.
... I have a document from long ago about web forms and having authentication and a logout button using MD5. They said the would do it in next version. Hasn't happened.
... there are limits on who can deploy authenticated services because of limits on number of passwords users will maintain.
... as alternative, small sites are using clear text passwords, sometimes with HTTP due to inability to afford compute power for doing HTTPS.
... I think digest authentication is much better than clear text pwds.
... Nobody can deploy new security technology.
TBL: Do browsers do it?
<Zakim> dorchard, you wanted to mention Web service "info space type" things not on the web
DO: we've drifted away from Web Services. Liked what Noah said about relationship to parallel architectures like P2P, Gnutella, BitTorrent. Some very significant architectures are being deployed that don't use Web technology. Maybe XRI as well.
<DanC_mtg> User Agent Authentication Forms Feb 1999
DO: On Web Services side, consider WS Resource Framework. Describes generic operations, you can get, put, etc. content of these resources. They use WS-Notification to allow publish/subscribe for state changes.
... these are note computational, they are information resources. But even in these constrained cases, they still don't use HTTP protocol fully. Don't use HTTP GET. Still do SOAP messages over HTTP post. Want to be able to use WSA End Point References.
... I did a proposal at their first meeting to show how to offer these on the web. Why not use a binding that binds down to HTTP Get? They said: good ideas, but we're (Oasis-based team) aren't the ones to do it.
<ht> HST is intrigued by the apparent difference between tunneling and transfer. . .
DO: XMLP could do it, but that workgroup seems to be going into maintenance mode.
<DanC_mtg> describing HTTP in WSDL is kind of a cool idea, but nobody seems to be interested to do much with it.
<Zakim> noah, you wanted to say we are oversimplifying security story
<dorchard> when is the break?
<DanC_mtg> (quite, Noah, SSL is shared-key authentication, and public-key is the way to go for signature-workflow stuff)
<Zakim> DanC_mtg, you wanted to ask when lunch is
<ht> HST agrees that state and side-effect are worthy of further discussion, for sure
<Vincent> Lunch break
<Vincent> We reconvene at 1:00 pm Eastern time
NM: Tried (and largely failed) to convince Tim and others that one difference about Web Services is that more interactions are secured, and that more have state-changing effects at the resource owner. Therefore, Noah claims, the particular value that comes from GET in the web architecture is somewhat less significant. Whatever the other pros and cons of Web Services arch, it seems better targeted to these application-to-application secure scenarios.
VQ: Breaking for lunch.