W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > September 2008

minutes TAG weekly 4 Sep for review: tagSoupIntegration-54, abbreviatedURI-56

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2008 16:11:49 -0500
To: www-tag <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1220562709.6800.34.camel@pav.lan>

http://www.w3.org/2008/09/04-tagmem-minutes.html


                               - DRAFT -

                              TAG Weekly

4 Sep 2008

   [2]Agenda

      [2] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2008/09/04-agenda

   See also: [3]IRC log

      [3] http://www.w3.org/2008/09/04-tagmem-irc

Attendees

   Present
          Stuart, Raman, Ht, Jonathan_Rees, Ashok_Malhotra, DanC.a,
          TimBL, Dave_Orchard

   Regrets
          Noah, Norm

   Chair
          Stuart

   Scribe
          DanC

Contents

     * [4]Topics
         1. [5]Convene, review agenda/minutes
         2. [6]News/New Items
         3. [7]Issue tagSoupIntegration-54 (ISSUE-54)
         4. [8]Issue abbreviatedURI-56 (ISSUE-56)
         5. [9]Responding to WS-*inquiry
         6. [10]Issue XMLVersioning-41 (ISSUE-41)
     * [11]Summary of Action Items
     _________________________________________________________

Convene, review agenda/minutes

   <skw> Scribe: DanC

   PROPOSED: to accept minutes 28 Aug
   [12]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2008/08/28-minutes

     [12] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2008/08/28-minutes

   so RESOLVED

   thanks to the scribe, Noah Mendelsohn

   close action-168

   <trackbot> ACTION-168 Circulate draft of our next Quarterly Summary
   closed

   RESOLUTION: to meet again next week 11 Sep; regrets Noah, Norm;
   ashok to scribe

News/New Items

   SKW: how about we do this less frequently... once a month?

   AM: as long as we can bring up things that come up

   SKW: yes, I solicit input to each week in email

Issue tagSoupIntegration-54 (ISSUE-54)

   action-145?

   <trackbot> ACTION-145 -- Tim Berners-Lee to add public prose around
   his slides at the AC meeting to make the case for extensiblity and
   flexible XML -- due 2008-06-26 -- OPEN

   <trackbot> [13]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/145

     [13] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/145

   TimBL: yes, I did some writing and thanks for feedback so far.

   [some discussion of interaction between Tim's writing and the TPAC
   (near NCE) agenda, TAG ftf (near MCI) agenda]

   <Zakim> ht, you wanted to query whether TimBL plans to publish
   before or after TAG f2f

   <timbl_tag> Concern oabout spec toglodites

   <timbl_tag> (sp?)

   <Zakim> raman, you wanted to say that tpac day spent entirely on
   html and xml would be a good idea as proposed originally by Stuart

   <Ashok> Raman, why don't you recommend that

   <ht> DC: We are not fixing the holes and moving forward -- IE6 is
   still very much with us

   <ht> HST: I thought Tim's focus was on individual page authors
   fixing their pages, which I really liked, likewise the bit about
   giving them good guidance on incremental improvements

   <timbl_tag> Exaclty. In HTML we have not been fxing hles and moving
   forward.

   <timbl_tag> But I think in other area we do make teh HTTP a system
   whcih has got so cruddy and no more , just a 10x blowup from HTTOP
   1.0, and then no real changes for 10 years, and a huge amount built
   i on top

   [discussion of consortium priorities and TPAC agenda]

   <timbl_tag> I note that we HAVE a fork

   <timbl_tag> it is a question as to wheth er we can bring it back to
   one.

   [discussion of TPAC concludes, with emphasis on tagSoup/XML/HTML]

   (postscript)

   <steve> Heard you were interested in Tech Plenary topics, which is
   great

   <steve> If someone from the TAG would submit their ideas to
   member-techplenary@w3.org , that would great

   <steve> Page with place holder ideas:
   [14]http://www.w3.org/2008/10/TPAC/TPDay-Agenda.html

     [14] http://www.w3.org/2008/10/TPAC/TPDay-Agenda.html

   <steve> .. also please suggest who would lead each discussion and
   who might participate

   <steve> The program committee would, I'm sure, would appreciate your
   input. **

   <steve> bye

   <raman> need to run

   [discussion of tagSoup agenda for KC takes the form of something of
   a preview of the KC discussion...]

Issue abbreviatedURI-56 (ISSUE-56)

   SKW: I've seen some email... is it coming to anything?

   AM: yes, I think there's a commet the TAG should make

   JAR: I'm not sure how deep this XML Schema aspect is.

   <timbl_tag> [15]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/56

     [15] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/56

   JAR: I think the curie spec should be more clear on the XML types of
   CURIE and SafeCURIE

   TimBL: I have a long-standing action re IRI/URI --

   JAR: I'm not concerned by IRI/URI stuff, though there are some
   editorial things that might be misleading

   <Zakim> ht, you wanted to talk about decl for CURIE

   HT: w.r.t. both typing and URI/IRI... did my summary message of a
   few days ago agree with your thinking?

   <ht> My message is
   [16]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2008Sep/0008.html

     [16] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2008Sep/0008.html

   JAR: yes

   DanC: re whether the XML Schema data type issue is substantive, is
   it visible from a test case?

   JAR: I'm not sure... the "result must be an IRI" constraint can't be
   checked on the parts independently
   ... saying "the value space is IRI" is different from xsd;anyURI,
   whose value space is string

   <ht> TimBL, but the lexical space is xxx:yyy, not IRI at all

   TimBL: it's coherent for the CURI spec to say the value space is
   IRI. [?]

   <ht> I recommended, in the end "In other words, CURIEs are an
   abbreviation for strings which are

   <ht> _intended_ to represent IRIs, but checking that _intent_ is not
   part

   <ht> of conformance.

   <ht> "

   JAR: perhaps this will work as a test case... a checker checks
   datatype well-fomedness...
   ... if string S passes that check, am I guaranteed that the
   expansion is an IRI?

   TimBL: no

   <Zakim> ht, you wanted to say my recommendation implies that it is
   _not_ an error

   JAR: but the CURIE draft says it is, since they say the value space
   is IRI

   TimBL: perhaps I've misunderstood...

   <jar> qname is pairs... curie is a single string

   HT: mapping from lexical to value is: concat(lookup(prefix),
   otherpart)
   ... CURIE mapping, that is...

   <noah> FWIW, if I were defining the schema datatype value space for
   CURIE, it would be the tuple {prefix, suffix, purportedURIstring},
   where prefix is the characters before the ":", suffix is the
   characters after the colon, and purportedURIstring is a string that
   SHOULD (not must) be a URI

   HT: I think the anyURI design is the way to go here: there are no
   constraints on the value space beyond that it's a string, but the
   intent is that it's an IRI... and if you try to use it as an IRI
   and/or URI, problems might happen, but that's outside the scope of
   the CURIE spec

   <noah> Reason for my suggestion: you can imagine software wanting to
   know what the prefix is, what the suffix is, and of course what the
   (purported) URI is.

   AM: indeed, in practice it's not cost-effective to validate the
   structure of a URI

   <noah> That said, I don't see anything deeply broken in making it
   like URI, and having only he purportedURIstring as the value.

   <DanC_> [jjc's code does it, but indeed, in my experience, his is
   the only one. and I agree it's not cost-effective to check.]

   <ht> jjc's code for which tool does the check?

   <DanC_> the RDF validator

   <noah> Does it check scheme-specific constraints?

   <DanC_> no

   <DanC_> even stuff like foo##bar ... in my experience, it works fine
   to find that error late or not at all

   <ht> So, now I realise I'm confused as to who jjc is. . .

   <ht> DanC, yes

   <ht> Four, I think--Ashok agrees too

   <jar> timbl, henry and jar agree: no IRI or URI validation as part
   of CURIE validation

   <jar> ... I think that's what we said ...

   HT, JAR, TBL agree that IRI well-formedness should not be a
   constraint in the CURIE spec

   <DanC_> (jjc is Jeremy Carroll as in
   [17]http://www.w3.org/RDF/Validator/documentation )

     [17] http://www.w3.org/RDF/Validator/documentation

   SKW: so... how about suggested text?

   <ht> Noah has the ball for that, right?

   <DanC_> I'd be happy for ht to send his 3-bullet thingy as a trial
   baloon

   <ht> I think we can ask Noah to take my message as a starting point

   <DanC_> or you could send it personally, ht

   <noah> Yes, I have an action. I'm more or less following the last
   few minutes. As long as the minutes from this telcon are unambiguous
   as to what the TAG wants, I can craft a draft response.

   action-170?

   <trackbot> ACTION-170 -- Noah Mendelsohn to coordinate response to
   CURIE last call (with help from Ashok) -- due 2008-09-04 -- OPEN

   <trackbot> [18]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/170

     [18] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/170

   trackbot, continue action-170

   <noah> I think I personally am OK with the direction I believe is
   being signaled.

   <noah> I'll go in and move the date -- I don't think we ever
   explicitly agreed a date. Note I have sent regrets for 11 Sept, so
   will not be on the telcon to discuss.

   SKW: use TPAC for ftf discussion of CURIEs with XHTML 2 WG?
   ... I don't hear ftf contact is critical

Responding to WS-*inquiry

   DanC: a characature of WS-Transfer is "HTTP over SOAP over HTTP";
   I'm trying to learn about contexts where that doesn't seem so silly

   <jar> well, we have tcp over tcp, right?

   <DanC_> (we do?)

   <timbl_tag> We have TCP over SSH over TCP

   <timbl_tag> Because the SSH layer provides security '

   <noah> Um, well I personally (not with IBM hat on) am a WS-Transfer
   skeptic, but one context it doesn't look quite so silly is, say,
   HTTP over SOAP over JMS.

   DaveO: if you're a shop that does everything in SOAP, then this is
   what GET looks like.

   <timbl_tag> So the problem is you can't mix soup and soap, because
   soap is clean and soup is messy.

   DanC: this "you do everything using SOAP" view seems different from
   the "use URIs" view, aka Web Architecture... hmm...

   DaveO: indeed, it makes sense to say these are parallel
   architectures. I've explored bridges and such, to little effect.
   ... and yes, there is competition at some level... resources in one
   architecture aren't readily available to the other and such

   <timbl_tag> +1 DO

   <timbl_tag> "You are locking people into using SOAP and making a
   whole slew of resources unavailable on the web"

   ACTION-171 continues

Issue XMLVersioning-41 (ISSUE-41)

   SKW: we're up against time... OK to carry to next week?

   DaveO: yes.

   <timbl_tag> tx stuart

   <jar> bye

Summary of Action Items

   [End of minutes]
     _________________________________________________________


    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [19]scribe.perl version 1.128
    ([20]CVS log)
    $Date: 2008/09/04 21:07:51 $

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


-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Thursday, 4 September 2008 21:12:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:48:06 GMT