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

Minutes of 21 February 2006 TAG teleconference

From: Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 15:02:57 -0500
To: www-tag@w3.org
Message-ID: <8764n81nv2.fsf@nwalsh.com>
See http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2006/02/21-minutes.html


                                   - DRAFT -


21 Feb 2006


   See also: IRC log[3]


           Norm, Vincent, Ed, Noah, Henry, Dan, Dave, TV[+0:10]





     * Topics
         1. Administrative
         2. IRW workshop
         3. Face-to-face in Cannes/Mandelieu
         4. Publication
         5. Draft State finding
         6. Issue XMLVersioning-41
         7. Issue namespaceDocument-8
     * Summary of Action Items



   Vincent: Next meeting is f2f, Monday and Friday

   Possible regrets for Norm on Monday afternoon

   <DanC> I'm available 7 Mar but inclined to cancel

   <ht> HST can't make 7 Mar

   Next telcon: tenatively 7 Mar, though we're likely to decided at the f2f
   that it's unnecessary and skip to 14 Mar.

   Tim has sent regrets for 14 Mar

   Vincent is at risk for 14 Mar

   Accept this agenda?

   Dan requests discussion of IRW workshop


   Approve minutes of 14 Feb?


  IRW workshop

   <DanC> http://www.ibiblio.org/hhalpin/irw2006/[4]

   Dan: Workshop looks interesting

   Dan is slated to talk about the TAG position

   Dan: I don't consider myself a disinterested party; I can give my slant
   and a little bit of what the TAG is up to,or I can give just my slant. I
   can't report impartiallhy on the TAG position.

   Henry: Speaking as an organizer, we're happy for you to make that call
   ... Speaking as a TAG member, I'd be happy for you to make the balance as
   you see fit.

   Noah: For the TAG side, would you intend to take mainly about positions in
   the Arch doc or also about unresolved, ongoing discussion?

   Dan: I would probably only quote from TAG approve things; but ad libbing
   I'd probably leak some current discussions.

   Noah: Is there more than use URIs and range-14?

   Dan: Yeah, there are still questions about ambiguity.

   Norm: I'm happy for Dan to wing it.

   Vincent: returning to administrivia for a moment: the Jan 10 minutes are
   member only
   ... Any objection to making a public copy?

   <DanC> (wow... indeed.


   Vincent: Ok, I'll take care of that.

  Face-to-face in Cannes/Mandelieu

   -> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2006/02/27-agenda.html#Admin[6]

   Vincent: Dinner is arranged for Monday evening at 7pm at La Riou[sp?]
   ... we should be able to get a quite place in the restaurant
   ... should we add endPointRefs-47 per Mark Baker?

   Henry: Although we settled the general issue, we never addressed his
   original question.

   Vincent: Mark also reminded me that I had an action to invite him to a
   ... Mark will be in Cannes next week.

   <DanC> (discussion of epr47 raises an intersting question about whose
   issue it is. Seems to me the issue is what the TAG says it is, though
   we're obliged to seek consensus with all interested parties.)

   TV: Maybe we can invite him to have lunch with us on Monday or Friday?
   ... Or some other day.

   Noah: If we want everyone involved, it should be at a formal meeting

   Vincent: I agree.

   Noah: I think Mark is telling us that if we want our comments to matter,
   we need to get them in soon

   <DanC> "16 February 2006: Web Services Addressing 1.0 - WSDL Binding -
   Last Call Ends 31 March 2006" -- http://www.w3.org/TR/[7]

   Vincent: I'll meet with him during the week and see if I can arrange to
   meet with him at a teleconference.

   Norm: Ok by me.

   Vincent: Do we want to talk about httpRange-14 per David Booth?

   -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2006Feb/0067.html[8]

   DanC: I think the questions he asks are as much about
   HTML-fragments-some-other-issue. I don't want to reopen httpRange-14.
   ... Fragments in XML seems like the one that's most relevant.

   <DanC> fragmentInXML-28 : Use of fragment identifiers in XML

   <DanC> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html?type=1#fragmentInXML-28[9]

   Norm proposes that we constrain the amount of time we spend talking about
   it if we decide to take it up

   Noah: I've had this question inside IBM. But I don't care if we do it at
   the f2f or put it in the queue.

   <DanC> issue 47 is also nearby

   Vincent: I don't see a lot of enthusiasm. Let's see if we have time left
   on Friday afternoon.
   ... My inclination is not to change the agenda for the f2f at this point.
   ... Any other comments about the agenda?

   None offered at this time.



   Norm asserts that it's ready to go except for the status

   Dan: It competes with a whole bunch of things

   Norm: how about we work together at the f2f and we pick another date

   Vincent: Let's do that.

   Noah asks about publication for least power

   <DanC> (I have no plans to publish least-power stuff as a WD)

   Vincent points out that this is just an internal finding so there's no
   issue about the moritorium

   Vincent: If I remember correctly, last week we agreed to take nsState-48
   to the TR page as an experiment.
   ... For the moment, I think it makes sense to just publish it as a usual

   Noah: When we take a finding to a "next stage" should I remove the

   DanC: My preference is that you and Norm do what you like.

  Draft State finding

   Dave: I published a lengthy document on state today.
   ... I'm hoping we can take a look at it at the f2f. Roughly, it points out
   that designing for state is one aspect of system design.
   ... To meet the various requirements of your application, you may need
   several kinds of state
   ... I tried to enumerate the kinds and give some examples.
   ... There's a fairly lengthy discussion of state in the web context and
   then another using more XML-related technologies.
   ... I've been working on it for a while, I'm hoping that the work the TAG
   was doing around end point references will fit in here.

   Vincent: Ok, Dave. I think it's too early to have a discussion of the
   document today, but I'll put it on the f2f.

   Dave: Ok

   Some discussion of whether or not there's time to read the text before the

   Noah: It would be helpful Vincent if you would tell us what you would like
   us to have read before the f2f

   Vincent: I'll update the agenda tomorrow.
   ... It doesn't seem clear if there will be time to read it before the
   ... If we take it up, it will be on Friday.
   ... I'll put it at the end of the agenda, if enough folks have read it,
   then we'll discuss it.

  Issue XMLVersioning-41

   Vincent reviews the open actions

   Vincent: Henry to make sure that what he is doing with ontology of XML
   infoset fits with what DanC is doing on ontology of Language etc.

   Henry: that's ongoing, but in so far as I'm keeping up with what Dan's
   doing, I'm happy.

   <DanC> msg about RDF/OWL version of versioning terms[11]

   Henry: I haven't reviewed Dan's most recent edits

   <DanC> in particular,

   Vincent: Dave to update extensibility finding with the result of Edinburgh
   F2F discussion and related diagrams.

   Dave: I think I've done that.
   ... There have been a couple of comments since I posted my most recent
   stuff to the xml-versioning mailing list.
   ... Dan's proposed some changes and we had some discussions on the TAG
   call recently.
   ... I made some more changes taking into account some of what Dan had
   done. I published this to the xml-versioning list.

   Vincent: Ok, so I guess that action is closed.
   ... Comments?

   Noah: I'm struggling to put together the various pieces that different
   people have been contributing.

   <noah> Dan is this what you were looking for:

   Noah: I find that diagram to be pretty close to what came out of Edinburgh
   ... My impression is that Dave's finding still tends towards saying that a
   language consists of pieces of XML

   <DanC> dorchard, I'm just reading your msg of 15 Feb now. I haven't gotten
   a round to subscribing to xml-versioning yet. sigh.

   Noah: So maybe I'm misreading, but I wanted to signal that in terms of the
   meat of converging the content, I'm not sure we've moved as close as would
   be ideal.

   Dan: Which differences do you see?

   Noah: I've got a PNG from Dan that looks good, and then I've got
   [something] from Dave which has some of that diagram and some text.
   ... Well, probably the best thing for me to do is punt here and go back
   and put the pieces together.

   Dan: I'd prefer that we discussed this in substance now.

   <dorchard> Here's what I posted from the f2f in edinburg

   Noah: I just don't have the stuff handy that I need.

   <dorchard> Then there's an update..

   <noah> " By language, we just mean the set of elements and attributes, or
   components, used by a particular application. "

   <DanC> (please don't bother with history; the TAG hasn't decided anything)

   Noah: I thought in Edinburgh, we said something like "by language we mean
   the class of strings" or something liek that that's independent of XML.
   ... I'm not sure I like the title. I think the TAG could offer more
   architecturally if we did something about versioning of web documents
   (XML, N3, etc.) not just XML.

   <DanC> yes, we keep having the discussion over and over. That's the cost
   of collaboration. it will repeat until we converge.

   Dave: To the extent that we can abstract away from XML in a time-bound
   manner, I'm ok. But at the end of the day, the goal put into this
   deliverable have been about XML

   Noah: Dan pressed me and I showed you an example of some text that was
   bothering me

   Dan: Let's start suggesting text

   Noah: "A language is a class of strings" or "A version of a language is a
   class of strings"


   Dave: (Looking at the diagram)
   ... What I did here is say that a language uses a vocabulary and I
   extracted out the XML vocabulary
   ... I said that an XML vocabulary is a type of vocabulary

   <DanC> (hmm... why a 0..1 on the subclass link? odd.)

   Noah: That's good. I'm still trying to decide what our story is about
   languages and instances
   ... Do you have a definition for language?
   ... What does this diagram try to tell me?

   Dan: A language is related to membership by a "string_set"

   Noah: How do you read that?

   Dan: An instance (a string of characters) that's in the string set of a
   ... No one was ever happy with "Membership"

   Dave: Instances relate to language by being members of the language

   Dan: The reason for the box is to distinguish the different languages that
   might have the same strings

   Noah: I almost view membership as "string sets" and languages as
   "interpretable string sets"

   <DanC> interesting question: does the UML say that every instance encodes
   an infoset?

   General regret that several of us can't really read the UML well enough to
   undertand the diagram

   Noah: Given that there's a star there, how do you read that in English?

   <DanC> (I wonder what TV makes of this diagram-based discussion, and
   whether the RDF/OWL stuff helps at all.)

   Dave: I think instances have infosets.

   Noah: There's a sense in which you can leave all the XML stuff out and the
   diagram would still hold up

   <DanC> hmm... interesting idea... an xml-ignorant diagram, and and an
   xml-specialized diagram

   Noah: You could talk about a lot of interesting things, like partial
   understanding, in the xml-ignorant diagram
   ... Then you could say that when you build meta-languages, you can share a
   lot of mechanisms across different meta-language vocabularies

   <DanC> yes, please, dave, try the xml-specific and generic diagrams.

   Some agreement that it would be good to try an xml-ignorant and
   xml-specific diagrams

   Noah: And then the middle ground is to say that XML is an example of a
   meta-langauge. What we expect is that lots of versioning solutions that
   apply to this XML-language might also apply to that other XML-language.
   And that's true of meta-languages in general.

   Noah goes on to describe how this might work out [scribe couldn't type
   fast enough]

   Dave describes interface descriptions that might be able to express all
   the constraints of the various components. With an abstract notion of
   languages and versioning you could apply it to several parts of the

   Noah: My particular proposal was to scope this to roughly web documents:
   MIME-typed octet-streams.

   <DanC> (I also find it appealing to think about protocol versioning along
   with language versioning, but my thoughts on that are *much* less mature.)

   Dan: I think I come down on the side of doing the string thing for now and
   adding new issues later.

   Dave: At the end of the day, I think this serves a different purpose that
   I have as well. Hopefully it'll hang together well anyway.

   <raman> was this a two hour call?

   <DanC> no, 90min

   Vincent: Dave would you commit to providing two diagrams?

   <scribe> ACTION: Dave to provide two diagrams: one XML-ignorant, one
   XML-aware. [recorded in

   <DanC> (is it worth the meeting's time for me to talk to dorchard about
   CVS issues?)

   Dan plans to call his action on RDF/OWL versioning done

   (collaboration without CVS is a pain so, yes, from my perspective, DanC )

   <dorchard> ( apparently not Dan :-)

   Vincent: For the moment, let's try to finish today's agenda
   ... DanC, what about your action a?
   ... You want to consider it done, is that right?

   <DanC> > http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2006/ext-vers/[18]

   <DanC> > http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2006/ext-vers/ext-vers-uml[19]

   <DanC> > http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2006/ext-vers/ext-vers-uml.png[20]

   <DanC> > http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2006/ext-vers/ext-vers-uml.rdf[21]

   <DanC> > http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2006/ext-vers/ext-vers-uml.violet[22]

   Vincent: Ok, then let's call it done.
   ... What about Dave to produce a new draft of his versioning finding by
   the end of the year
   ... I'm not sure if it's really different

   Dave: I'm still working on it, but I haven't finished it yet.

   Vincent: anything else on versioning today?

  Issue namespaceDocument-8

   Norm reports failure to make progress. Too much to do after returning from

   Vincent: What should we do about Tim Bray's action?
   ... I propose that we drop it.

   <DanC> ok, then let's call it done, not dropped

   Henry: I think we agreed that we got a declaration from Jonathan and that
   we agreed that's the best we could do.

   Vincent: Right, we have that statement from Jonathan.
   ... Ok, then we'll call it done.
   ... Norm to follow up on Noah's message on namespace name?

   Norm: No progress.

   <DanC> (really? I thought NDW did that one. oh well.)

   Vincent: Henry to track progress of #int bug 1974 in XML Schema namespace

   (Did I? I'll have to look before I do it again :-)

   <ht> http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2005/12/XMLSchema[23]

   Henry: The WG is pretty happy. There are a few changes to the draft
   namespace document still pending, but we're busy producing anchors for all
   the things we promised would have anchors.

   <DanC> I see http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-xmlschema11-2-20060217/[24] just
   went to last call

   Henry: Not quite done, but I'm working on it.

   Dan: The namespace document isn't part of the last call?

   Henry: It's along side. Historically, namespace documents haven't been
   part of what's reviewed at transition.

   <noah> I've got to drop off...see you all in France.

   Henry: This draft will replace the 2001/XMLSchema namespace document.
   ... That should happen in a month or so.

   Dan: Please let us know when that happens.

   Vincent: Norm to propose to Jonathan changes the Natures

   Norm: I started the discussion with Jonathan, but it hasn't reached
   conclusion yet.

   Vincent: So it's in progress.

   Norm: Yes.

   Vincent: asks about Monday night's dinner at the f2f.

   <DanC> count me in for dinner monday night.

   <dorchard> +1 for dinner

   <Ed> Count me in as well.

   Norm will be there

   <ht> HST will be there

   <ht> Raman, will you be at the dinner Monday?

   Vincent: Adjourned

Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: Dave to provide two diagrams: one XML-ignorant, one
   XML-aware. [recorded in
   [End of minutes]


   [1] http://www.w3.org/
   [2] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2006/02/21-agenda.html
   [3] http://www.w3.org/2006/02/21-tagmem-irc
   [4] http://www.ibiblio.org/hhalpin/irw2006/
   [6] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2006/02/27-agenda.html#Admin
   [7] http://www.w3.org/TR/
   [8] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2006Feb/0067.html
   [9] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html?type=1#fragmentInXML-28
   [12] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2006/ext-vers/ext-vers-uml.rdf
   [13] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2006/ext-vers/ext-vers-uml.png
   [17] http://www.w3.org/2006/02/21-tagmem-minutes.html#action01
   [18] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2006/ext-vers/
   [19] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2006/ext-vers/ext-vers-uml
   [20] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2006/ext-vers/ext-vers-uml.png
   [21] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2006/ext-vers/ext-vers-uml.rdf
   [22] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2006/ext-vers/ext-vers-uml.violet
   [23] http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2005/12/XMLSchema
   [24] http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-xmlschema11-2-20060217/
   [25] http://www.w3.org/2006/02/21-tagmem-minutes.html#action01
   [26] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
   [27] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/

    Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl[26] version 1.127 (CVS
    $Date: 2006/02/21 20:00:42 $

Received on Tuesday, 21 February 2006 20:03:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:32:48 UTC