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

minutes TAG 6 Jun for review

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2006 11:07:02 -0500
To: www-tag@w3.org
Message-Id: <1149696422.6515.84.camel@dirk.w3.org>

Hypertext: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2006/06/06-tagmem-minutes

plain text:

   [1]W3C

      [1] http://www.w3.org/

                              TAG Weekly

6 Jun 2006

   See also: [2]IRC log

      [2] http://www.w3.org/2006/06/06-tagmem-irc

Attendees

   Present
          [IBMCambridge], noah, Norm, Raman, Ht, DanC, Vincent, TimBL,
          Dave_Orchard

   Regrets
   Chair
          VQ

   Scribe
          DanC

Contents

     * [3]Topics
         1. [4]next teleconference
         2. [5]review of minutes
         3. [6]agenda review
         4. [7]f2f meeting next week
         5. [8]Repositories vs. web pages
         6. [9]New issue? State in Web application design
         7. [10]URNsAndRegistries-50
     * [11]Summary of Action Items
     _________________________________________________________

   <scribe> Scribe: DanC

   NDW: yes, TV, I'm able to read your document

next teleconference

   PROPOSED: to meet again 20 June

   TBL: I seem to have conflicts 20, 27 June

   VQ: so that's 3 missing for 20 June
   ... we'll decide later

   <timbl> We quiet often miss the teleconf afterthe face to face
   meeting

review of minutes

   <DanC_> [12]minutes 30 May

     [12] http://www.w3.org/2006/05/30-tagmem-minutes.html

   DC/VQ: we could have done better with the TOC of 30 May minutes....

   DC: but they're close enough

   RESOLUTION: to accept minutes 30 May

agenda review

   (wondering what became of my action to contact Misha; ah... it's
   there... [13]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/actions_owner.html#DC )

     [13] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/actions_owner.html#DC

   <scribe> ACTION: DanC to Contact Misha to follow up on f2f
   discussion on CURIEs at AC meeting [CONTINUES] [recorded in
   [14]http://www.w3.org/2006/06/06-tagmem-irc]

     [14] http://www.w3.org/2006/06/06-tagmem-irc

   HT: on urns/registries... agenda+ please

   VQ: ok

f2f meeting next week

   <DanC_> [15][DRAFT] Agenda of TAG face-to-face meeting, 12-14 June
   2006, Amherst, MA, USA

     [15] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2006/06/12-agenda.html

   VQ: meant to make more progress on the agenda...
   ... ETA tomorrow afternoon France time

   NDW: [confirms lots of logistics]

   DC: phone times?

   VQ: we have all day 9-5 reserved all 3 days
   ... yes, we'll do the stuff most interesting to tlr on Tue AM

Repositories vs. web pages

   <DanC_> [16]The MWI device repository, tbl to www-tag 3 May

     [16] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2006May/0005.html

   TimBL: if it's multiple repositories, that's one thing, but if it's
   one repository, I have more concerns
   ... it's not clear to me why phone data isn't just published by the
   manufacturers 1st hand.
   ... is this a case where a central iana-style registry is merited?

   HT: I see "logical" repository in the abstract; maybe it's
   federated?

   (the doc says "The Device Vendor makes available and maintains for
   accuracy device descriptions for public usage, e.g. by Content
   Providers." )

   DanC: the doc says "The Device Vendor makes available and maintains
   for accuracy device descriptions for public usage, e.g. by Content
   Providers." that seems OK to me. I have also heard strange things
   about reluctance on the part of device vendors, but if that's the
   plan of record, it's OK by me

   Noah: there's a spectrum of centralization... on the one hand,
   IANA-like centralized, and on the other RDDL, which is a format that
   anybody can use anywhere in the web

   <timbl> 2.1.5: 4. Using the identity of the device the Content
   Provider queries the DDR to determine one or more capabilities
   supported by the device.

   <timbl>
   [17]http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-DDR-requirements-20060410/#iddiv323
   3209928

     [17] http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-DDR-requirements-20060410/#iddiv3233209928

   <DanC_> (ok, 2.1.5 Normal Flow is the sort of thing that merits
   review.)

   TimBL: perhaps due to OEM rebranding etc., the business of building
   phones is disconnected from the business of running web sites about
   phones

   <Zakim> timbl, you wanted to ask whether this (2.1.5) should be
   SPARQL.

   DO: why would the TAG say SPARQL as opposed to SOAP or WSDL?
   ... why not XQuery?

   TimBL: SPARQL includes an HTTP/URI-based protocol

   DanC: somebody in the SPARQL WG (DAWG) already has an action to look
   at this [I'm pretty sure]

   DO: isn't SPARQL more detailed than the level of thing the TAG
   advocates?

   TimBL: I regard SPARQL as pretty generic

   NM: I think it's appropriate to advocate using existing standards;
   if they're re-inventing existing stuff, we should be concerned, but
   they should choose the best fit for their needs.

   [er... something like that.]

   TimBL: perhaps they've got a fixed schema for which XML
   Schema/XQuery are a good match...
   ... but if their schema is "object/property/value", then that's
   reinventing RDF.

   VQ: I'm not sure about the current work, but CC/PP data was in RDF
   at one point...

   TimBL: yes, the original architecture was pretty good, until they
   hit this social issue of device vendors running web sites

   VQ: so... back to the one repository/many... how shall we proceed?

   DC: invite somebody from that group to explain it to us? that's most
   convenient for me.

   <scribe> ACTION: VQ to invite a DD WG person to a TAG meeting to
   discuss DDR requirements [recorded in
   [18]http://www.w3.org/2006/06/06-tagmem-irc]

     [18] http://www.w3.org/2006/06/06-tagmem-irc

New issue? State in Web application design

   DO: no strong preference

   DC: feels like two or three issues, to me... but I'm not clear on
   what they are, so I'm OK to just muddle along for a bit

   DO: if it's to be a new issue, let's make it a short one [?] like
   versioning

   NM: actually, I think the finding is suffering from that sort of
   broad approach, as I said in my comments

   VQ: there doesn't seem to be a critical mass of sentiment in any
   particular direction; we'll have more data after the current round
   of reviews.

URNsAndRegistries-50

   <ht>
   [19]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/URNsAndRegistries-50.html#authori
   ty

     [19] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/URNsAndRegistries-50.html#authority

   HT: I expect to send mail calling for review tomorrow.
   ... I'd like ftf time to finish it.
   ... I persued the idea of an http/dns alternative to info: ... and
   in fact [20]http://lccn.info/2002022641 is live.

     [20] http://lccn.info/2002022641

   VQ: note "reviewing URNs, Namespaces and Registries -- reviewers:
   DanC, Ed" -- [21]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2006/06/12-agenda.html

     [21] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2006/06/12-agenda.html

   HT: so review should please wait just one more day

   NM: my attempts to have for the F2F a new draft of metaDatainURI-31
   continues to be at risk.

   <noah> metaDatainURI-31

   ADJOURN.

   <Norm> See you all in six days! :-)

Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: VQ to invite a DD WG person to a TAG meeting to
   discuss DDR requirements [recorded in
   [22]http://www.w3.org/2006/06/06-tagmem-irc]

     [22] http://www.w3.org/2006/06/06-tagmem-irc

   [PENDING] ACTION: DanC to Contact Misha to follow up on f2f
   discussion on CURIEs at AC meeting [recorded in
   [23]http://www.w3.org/2006/06/06-tagmem-irc]

     [23] http://www.w3.org/2006/06/06-tagmem-irc

   [End of minutes]
     _________________________________________________________


    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [24]scribe.perl version 1.127
    ([25]CVS log)
    $Date: 2006/06/07 16:04:08 $

     [24] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
     [25] 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 Wednesday, 7 June 2006 16:07:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:40 GMT