W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > February 2006

minutes TAG weekly 14 Feb for review: least power, XMLVersioning-41, ...

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 12:48:47 -0600
To: www-tag@w3.org
Message-Id: <1140202127.26363.262.camel@dirk.w3.org>

hypertext: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2006/02/14-tagmem-minutes
           2006/02/17 18:48:10

plain text follows...


                               - DRAFT -

                              TAG Weekly

14 Feb 2006

   [2]Agenda

      [2] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2006/02/14-agenda.html

   See also: [3]IRC log

      [3] http://www.w3.org/2006/02/14-tagmem-irc

Attendees

   Present
          Norm, Noah, Vincent, Ht, DanC, DOrchard, Ed_Rice, TimBL

   Regrets
   Chair
          Vincent

   Scribe
          DanC

Contents

     * [4]Topics
         1. [5]Administrative: role call, review records and agenda,
            plan next meeting
         2. [6]Face-to-face in Cannes/Mandelieu
         3. [7]Heartbeats
         4. [8]Principle of Least Power
         5. [9]Issue XMLVersioning-41
     * [10]Summary of Action Items
     _________________________________________________________



Administrative: role call, review records and agenda, plan next meeting

   <scribe> Scribe: DanC

   <DanC_> [11]minutes 7 Feb

     [11] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2006/02/07-tagmem-minutes.html

   <DanC_> minutes 7 Feb good enough for me

   RESOLUTION: to accept minutes 7 Feb

   RESOLUTION: to meet again 21 Feb, NDW to scribe

   regrets timbl 21 Feb

Face-to-face in Cannes/Mandelieu

   <DanC_> [12]meeting page

     [12] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2005/02/27-agenda.html

   DO: I'm working on the state finding... how about that for the
   agenda?

   DC: suggest moving metadataInURI-31 after the other 3 technical
   things

   NM: if we don't finish least power, it might merit ftf discussion.
   leave it off for now, if the agenda is fluid.

   "Monday 27 February: 13:30 - 17:30 @@@"

   some sentiment for 2p, some for 1:30

   RESOLUTION: to start at 13:30 on Monday, 27 Feb

   NM: did we end up with any liaison meetings scheduled?

   VQ: not at this time

   Ed: previously we had a "what's important for the coming year"
   session... shall we do that again?

   HT: I prefer the current contents of the agenda to that sort of
   thing

   DC: me too

   NM: perhaps make some time to chat with TV, but otherwise, yes,
   technical topics

   TBL: hmm.. indeed, looking forward would be good... do we have a
   social time scheduled? it's hard to swap between technical topics
   and looking ahead

   DC: perhaps the "what did we learn this week?" session will be
   sufficient?

   HT: I'm constrained to Monday evening for an evening thing

   NM: I'll be on US east coast time, so not too late

   <scribe> ACTION: VQ organize a monday evening quiet social event
   recorded in [13]http://www.w3.org/2006/02/14-tagmem-irc]

     [13] http://www.w3.org/2006/02/14-tagmem-irc

   VQ: around 7pm

Heartbeats

   DC: there's a convention of publishing on /TR/ at least every 3
   months. We haven't done it in over a year. I'm inclined to take
   something and publish it. Maybe the next one we approve... say,
   didn't we just approve one recently?

   NDW: yes, the ns48 finding is approved

   TimBL: how about concatenating the approved findings?

   DC: that's more work than I'm offering now

   <timbl> [14]namespaceState finding

     [14] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/namespaceState.html

   <Ed> [15]list of findings

     [15] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/findings

   (norm, I'm inclined to work from the .html only and not bother with
   the xml)

   <noah> Speaking of which, the approved finding link at
   [16]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html?type=1 is to the xml

     [16] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html?type=1

   <timbl> This page contains the following errors:

   <timbl> error on line 17 at column 140: Entity 'http-ident' not
   defined

   <timbl> error on line 19 at column 199: Entity 'draft.day' not
   defined

   <timbl> error on line 20 at column 226: Entity 'draft.monthname' not
   defined

   <timbl> error on line 21 at column 247: Entity 'draft.year' not
   defined

   <timbl> error on line 24 at column 283: Entity 'http-ident' not
   defined

   <timbl> error on line 27 at column 370: Entity 'http-ident' not
   defined

   <timbl> error on line 30 at column 431: Entity 'http-ident' not
   defined

   <timbl> error on line 33 at column 488: Entity 'http-ident' not
   defined

   <timbl> Below is a rendering of the page up to the first error.

   <Norm> What page was that timbl?

   TimbL: good to put all this in the SOTD: (1) it's approved by the
   tag (2) this is one of many issues in the TAG's list (3) The
   eventual disposition of this text is not cler, but one possibility
   is it being integrated wioth other finids into a new AWWW or a
   second volume AWWW

   PROPOSED: to publish
   [17]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/namespaceState.html as a W3C
   Working Draft

     [17] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/namespaceState.html

   <Norm> Uhm, with what shortname?

   <timbl> TAG-namespaceState

   namespaceState

   RESOLUTION: to publish
   [18]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/namespaceState.html as a W3C
   Working Draft

     [18] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/namespaceState.html

   <scribe> ACTION: NDW to with DanC, publish WD of ns48 finding
   recorded in [19]http://www.w3.org/2006/02/14-tagmem-irc]

     [19] http://www.w3.org/2006/02/14-tagmem-irc

   VQ: this is just one finding; we'll see what we learn from this

   <Norm> What publication date should we use for namespaceState, DanC
   ?

   <DanC_> dunno

   <Norm> Returning to the publication of namespaceState, I chose 23
   Feb as the publication date because that's the last day before the
   moritorium.

Principle of Least Power

   <DanC_> [20]least power finding, latest version

     [20] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/leastPower.html

   <DanC_> [21]13 Feb draft

     [21] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/leastPower-2006-2-13.html

   NM: there has been much www-tag discussion of chomsky hierarchies
   and complexity...

   <noah> There are many dimensions to language power and complexity
   that should be considered when publishing information. For example,
   a language with a straightforward syntax may be easier to analyze
   than an otherwise equivalent one with more complex structure. A
   language that wraps simple computations in unnecessary mechanics,
   such as object creation or thread management, may similarly inhibit
   information extraction. The intention of this finding is neither to
   rigor

   <noah> necessarily interferes with information reuse. Rather, this
   finding observes that a variety of characteristics that make
   languages powerful can complicate or prevent analysis of programs or
   information conveyed in those languages, and it suggests that such
   risks be weighed seriously when publishing information on the Web.

   <noah> Indeed, on the Web, the least powerful language that's
   suitable should usually be chosen. This is The Rule of Least Power:

   <noah> Good Practice: Use the least powerful language suitable for
   expressing information, constraints or programs on the World Wide
   Web.

   HT: why not just say "occam's razor applies to computers too"?

   DanC: yes, the principle is 2 lines, but what we add is to relate it
   to the history of web technology development.
   ... e.g. how HTML is and why

   TimBL: yes, examples. CSS vs javascript.
   ... the fact that you can cascade to CSS stylesheets is a result of
   a decision to make it declarative

   <Zakim> DanC, you wanted to suggest going specific-to-general

   <ht> HST doesn't understand why Turning-completeness is bad

   <ht> Prolog is Turing-complete, and dead easy to analyze!

   <DanC_> hmm... I thought validator.w3.org would be
   impossible/impractical if the web had used TeX rather than HTML

   <ht> SQL is Turing-complete (or close), and probably more analyzed
   than almost any other language

   <Zakim> noah, you wanted to discuss scope of this rewrite...are we
   thrashing?

   the analysis of SQL is precicely on the bits that are *not* turning
   complete, no?

   <raman> belated regrets -- I shamefully admit that I just plain
   forgot to call in...

   <DanC_> VQ, I suggest a straw poll: how many think it's reasonable
   to approve as is.

   <noah> If you have a Turing-complete program, you don't in general
   know whether it even gets done

   <noah> If I have a table in a relational database, or a list of
   name/value pairs, I don't have that problem.

   DC: due to the halting problem, Most of the other things you want to
   know follow from it.

   PROPOSED: to approve "The Rule of Least Power" as 12 Feb draft,
   incorporating edits agreed by from NDW and NM.

   HT: some discomfort, but I concur if others are OK

   TBL: likewise, I concur.

   RESOLUTION: to approve "The Rule of Least Power" as 12 Feb draft,
   incorporating edits agreed by from NDW and NM.

   <scribe> ACTION: NM to announce approved least power finding, when
   discussion with NDW concludes [recorded in
   [22]http://www.w3.org/2006/02/14-tagmem-irc]

     [22] http://www.w3.org/2006/02/14-tagmem-irc

Issue XMLVersioning-41

   . ACTION DO: contextualize his scenarios, such as more on what is
   happening with SOAP and WSDL

   DO: I did some work on this...
   ... sent them to the schema WG a few weeks ago
   ... haven't seen [which?] draft posted as I expected
   ... I hope to talk with interested people at the TP in France
   ... so I think this is done

   DC: pointer?

   HT: getting it public has taken a back seat to other things

   NM: I think we have license to make this public already

   HT: yes, if you can follow up, that would be fine

   <scribe> ACTION: DO to contextualize his scenarios, such as more on
   what is happening with SOAP and WSDL [DONE] [recorded in
   [23]http://www.w3.org/2006/02/14-tagmem-irc]

     [23] http://www.w3.org/2006/02/14-tagmem-irc

   <scribe> ACTION: DO to with NM continue and extrapolate the
   versioning work DO et al have been doing already, updating the
   terminology section. [CONTINUES] [recorded in
   [24]http://www.w3.org/2006/02/14-tagmem-irc]

     [24] http://www.w3.org/2006/02/14-tagmem-irc

   <DanC_> [25]terminology section update from DO 13 Feb

     [25] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2006Feb/0042.html

   DO: I got some comments re first/last name from Misha
   ... main list is public-xml-versioning

   DC: hmm... public-xml-versioning... partial understanding isn't
   limited to xml

   DO: public-xml-versioning was created at the suggestion of the TAG
   as a mechanism for collaboration with XML Schema WG.

   NM: [... about broadening from xml-specific story to a story about
   strings, with markup as a special case]

   <DanC_> (which appeals to me)

   <Zakim> ht, you wanted to incline towards focussing on XML language

   DO: broadening makes sense to some extent, but there's a limit, and
   we need to be sure to deliver for XML authors

   <noah> Isn't URI an example of a non-QNamed namespace

   <DanC_> (surely notation 3 is a webized language that's not XML)

   <DanC_> (webized meaning: has its terms grounded in URI space)

   <ht> DanC, remind me what N3's media type is?

   <ht> I.e., can I follow-my-nose to find out about N3?

   <DanC_> text/n3+rdf or some such; registration pending

   <noah> I thought we set up in Edinburgh that versioning was about
   the conclusions drawn by a consumer and a producer for any
   particular document, where the two parties have imperfect agreement
   on the language they thought they were using.

   <noah> I like that start a lot, and it's not XML-specific

   HT: [...] XML gives us the "follow your nose" principle, with
   namespaces

   <noah> Follow your nose seems to give you something very important,
   which is self description. I'm not convinced that versioning should
   be only about self-describing documents.

   TBL: all stories about versioning depend on a notion of
   semantics/meaning...
   ... at the level of XML, there is only a basic infrastructure. At
   higher levels, e.g. HTML and RDF, there's more to say

   DC: meanwhile, I have a new .violet file from DO that I intend to
   check against my changePolicy.n3 work

   TBL: I wonder about a 4 part finding:

   (1) at the level of representations

   (2) at the level of namespaces in XML

   (?) [...] in HTML and such

   (4) an one about RDF

   NM: about strings of characters?

   TBL: that's what I meant by (1)

   <noah> Cool.

   DO: let's please have some discussion on public-xml-versioning of
   the new terminology section

   <DanC_> +1

   <Norm> +1

   <DanC_> hmm... the archive cover page of
   [26]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-versioning/
   doesn't say that it's a joint tag/xml-schema thingy

     [26] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-versioning/

   VQ: with regret, it's time to curtail this discussion
   ... maybe next time we'll get to ns8

   <Norm> I'll try to get back to Jonathan and make progress on ns8 for
   next week

   ADJOURN.



Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: NDW to with DanC, publish WD of ns48 finding [recorded
   in [28]http://www.w3.org/2006/02/14-tagmem-irc]
   [NEW] ACTION: NM to announce approved least power finding, when
   discussion with NDW concludes [recorded in
   [29]http://www.w3.org/2006/02/14-tagmem-irc]
   [NEW] ACTION: VQ organize a monday evening quiet social event
   recorded in [30]http://www.w3.org/2006/02/14-tagmem-irc]

     [28] http://www.w3.org/2006/02/14-tagmem-irc
     [29] http://www.w3.org/2006/02/14-tagmem-irc
     [30] http://www.w3.org/2006/02/14-tagmem-irc

   [PENDING] ACTION: DO to with NM continue and extrapolate the
   versioning work DO et al have been doing already, updating the
   terminology section. [recorded in
   [31]http://www.w3.org/2006/02/14-tagmem-irc]

     [31] http://www.w3.org/2006/02/14-tagmem-irc

   [DONE] ACTION: DO to contextualize his scenarios, such as more on
   what is happening with SOAP and WSDL [recorded in
   [32]http://www.w3.org/2006/02/14-tagmem-irc]

     [32] http://www.w3.org/2006/02/14-tagmem-irc

   [End of minutes]
     _________________________________________________________


    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [33]scribe.perl version 1.127
    ([34]CVS log)
    $Date: 2006/02/17 18:48:10 $

     [33] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
     [34] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/


-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Friday, 17 February 2006 18:48:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:38 GMT