W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > February 2009

TAG minutes 12 Feb for review: March meeting planning, metadata, WS-RA, link maintenance

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 09:56:57 -0600
To: www-tag@w3.org
Message-Id: <1234540617.28267.1443.camel@pav.lan>

http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/02/12-tagmem-minutes
 2009/02/13 15:54:32


plain text copy...

              Technical Architecture Group Teleconference

12 Feb 2009

   [2]Agenda

      [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Feb/0042.html

   See also: [3]IRC log

      [3] http://www.w3.org/2009/02/12-tagmem-irc

Attendees

   Present
          Jonathan_Rees, Raman, noah, Danc, masinter, John_Kemp,
          Ashok_Malhotra, DaveO, Stuart

   Regrets
          TimBL, Henry

   Chair
          Noah

   Scribe
          DanC

Contents

     * [4]Topics
         1. [5]Convene
         2. [6]F2F Content and Agenda Planning (Brief)
         3. [7]F2F Logistics (Brief)
         4. [8]Metadata
         5. [9]Web Services Resource Access (WS-RA)
         6. [10]Link maintenance in TAG documents
     * [11]Summary of Action Items
     _________________________________________________________

Convene

   trackbot, start meeting

   <trackbot> Date: 12 February 2009

   RESOLUTION: to meet again 19 Feb, ashok to scribe

   NM: re agenda review, error handlingn didn't work out for this week

   RESOLUTION: to approved
   [12]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/01/22-minutes

     [12] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/01/22-minutes

   RESOLUTION: to approve
   [13]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/02/05-minutes

     [13] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/02/05-minutes

F2F Content and Agenda Planning (Brief)

   NM: our ftf meeting is in 3 weeks...
   ... 1. progress on substantial topics 2. step back and look ahead
   for the year
   ... those are my 2 points/goals re the ftf
   ... let's have reading materials available well in advance

   <Zakim> raman, you wanted to discuss agenda f2f

   <masinter> [14]My contribution about TAG priorities

     [14] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2009Feb/0016.html

   TVR: last Sep, we talked about HTML and tag soup; I'd like Larry and
   John to look at the way the agenda was put together and what we
   discussed...
   ... also, I'd like to know from Tim and Dan what follow-up there has
   been since the TPAC

   <DanC_> (I did report at our Dec FTF on follow-up from the TPAC; I'm
   happy to do so again)

   <masinter> Re HTML5 and "tag soup" etc.: I've tried to read the
   background material and previous activities here, and frankly, can't
   really see a "TAG position" here

   <scribe> ACTION: DanC report at March on tagSoup progress since TPAC
   [recorded in
   [15]http://www.w3.org/2009/02/12-tagmem-minutes.html#action01]

     [15] http://www.w3.org/2009/02/12-tagmem-minutes.html#action01

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-226 - Report at March on tagSoup progress
   since TPAC [on Dan Connolly - due 2009-02-19].

   NM: we're drifting into technical discussion, which is natural...
   error handling looks similar...

   LMM: error handling is perhaps a bit more broad than tag soup, but
   yes, it's related

   <masinter> it's a generalization of one (but only one) of the issues
   with HTML5

   <Zakim> raman, you wanted to summarize Sep tagsoup for Larry and
   John

   <DanC_> [16]Sep KC meeting record

     [16] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2008/09/f2fkc-agenda

   TVR: the Sep ftf was just before TPAC... so I'd like to see what
   came out

   NM: so it looks like yes, tagSoup should be on the ftf agenda; one
   session or more?

   TVR: let's do something similar to what we did in Sep, with
   substantial prep

   LMM: the TAG has met with the HTML WG... [missed some?] we should
   have a TAG finding on [did he say all the web standards?]
   ... for example, should W3C propose accessibility techniques that
   have not been implemented?

   NM: is the ftf a good time to talk about this?

   LMM: yes

   DO: on XML, HTML... I'm interested in a consensus position of the
   TAG on HTML, XML, and such; we've discussed it without resolution

   DanC: I'm still at-risk to attend the ftf

F2F Logistics (Brief)

   NM: Ashok, any logistic details?

   <DanC_> [17]March meeting logistics

     [17] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/03/03-f2f-local-arrangements

   Ashok: I'll distribute a cell phone to TAG members

Metadata

   <noah> [18]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/02/05-minutes#item10

     [18] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/02/05-minutes#item10

   close action-224

   <trackbot> ACTION-224 Schedule discussion of metadata (scope, issue,
   coordination, workshop, etc) as item on next telecon closed

   LMM: I'm happy to defer this to the ftf agenda

   NM: as telcon time is cheaper, maybe better here?

   AM: I note a new draft of the site metadata work [by mnot, yes?]

   LMM: I think what's needed is a background survey on metadata; I'm
   hesitant to offer something soon...

   AM: Jonathan's piece on metadata use cases is perhaps a good summary

   <jar>
   [19]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/uniform-access-20090205.html#cros
   s_site

     [19] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/uniform-access-20090205.html#cross_site

   <jar> that has use cases

   <DanC_> (gee; evidently I'm behind on email)

   <Zakim> DanC, you wanted to wonder about POWDER and site metadata

   DC: POWDER let you say things like, everything in this subtree OK
   for children. Mark Nottingham's stuff as similar capability. Are we
   the only ones looking at both?

   <Zakim> jar, you wanted to ask LM what he had in mind

   JAR: I could do something, but I wonder if it's too narrow; I can
   summarize work by Eran, mnot, [??], ...

   <Stuart> fyi... a good summary from Eran is at:
   [20]http://groups.google.com/group/metadata-discovery/browse_thread/
   thread/b4f60d20896ad7c5

     [20] http://groups.google.com/group/metadata-discovery/browse_thread/thread/b4f60d20896ad7c5

   <masinter> that sounds like a good start

   JAR: I wonder if LMM had other stuff in mind; of course metadata is
   a huge area...

   LMM: I've been working on metadata for a couple years, esp Adobe
   XMP, ...
   ... I'm interested to reconcile what I've seen with [other stuff?]

   <Zakim> DanC, you wanted to suggest LMM look at
   tag/doc/uniform-access

   DC: I think uniform access to metadata by Jonathan and Phil Archer
   is as good a starting point for overall review as we had.

   (request to discuss this cites
   [21]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2008Nov/0008.html
   TAG Resolution endorsing W3C Team Comment on the identifications of
   WS Transfer resources. )

     [21] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2008Nov/0008.html

   DC: Request to discuss today somehow related to W3C Team work on WS
   TRansfer. Jonathan do you remember?

   JAR: No.

   DC: Ashok?

   AM: There's a thin connection.
   ... in WS-Transfer context, they talk about XML representation of
   resource; to them, a resource is a web service...
   ... that's one style of metadata...

   <Zakim> noah, you wanted to talk about coordinating this

   <Stuart> Ashok, are you trying to say (roughly) that the WSRA
   resourse has (roughly) a schema that might be thought of as resource
   metadata?

   NM: I'm interested to have 1 or 2 tag members to be point-person on
   issues/areas...
   ... jonathan is offering to do something... I wonder about expanding
   it to an overall tracking role...

   <Ashok> Stuart, The metadata they talk about is usually XML Schema,
   WSDL etc

   JAR: I'm willing to try, though I wonder about mixing my biases in
   with TAG priorities...

   <masinter> I can work with JAR offline

   good, masinter

   <Stuart> Ashok... thx.
   . ACTION: jonathan summarize TAG work on metadata, with Larry

   <Ashok> Stuart, Typically Schema, WSDL and Policy (forgot abt policy
   last time)

   <scribe> ACTION: jonathan summarize TAG work on metadata, with Larry
   [recorded in
   [22]http://www.w3.org/2009/02/12-tagmem-minutes.html#action02]

     [22] http://www.w3.org/2009/02/12-tagmem-minutes.html#action02

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-227 - Summarize TAG work on metadata, with
   Larry [on Jonathan Rees - due 2009-02-19].

   johnk: we should try to become clear on what we mean by "metadata";
   the definition of metadata isn't clear enough

   LMM: my sense is that this merits W3C work, not just a TAG issue, so
   I hope the TAG will prompt W3C work

   NM: Dan, care to comment as staff comment?

   DanC: it's straightforward for the TAG to suggest new W3C work,
   though starting things in W3C is naturally a very involved process

   NM: I have some hesitation... I think the TAG has good standing to
   suggest others do work >after< we've done some serious work
   understanding why there's a problem somewhere. Not clear we've done
   that here. But I'm happy to see what Jonathan and Larry come up with

   LMM: I acknowledge that just saying "this looks interesting" isn't
   useful, but it seems that there are architectural issues that none
   of the individual efforts are addressing, and it's the TAG's role to
   coordinate in those cases

   action-227?

   <trackbot> ACTION-227 -- Jonathan Rees to summarize TAG work on
   metadata, with Larry -- due 2009-02-19 -- OPEN

   <trackbot> [23]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/227

     [23] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/227

   <Zakim> jar, you wanted to discuss reading list deadline for f2f

   <DanC_> +1 2 weeks before

   JAR: we had a 2 weeks-before goal in previous ftfs...

   NM: I mentioned 1 week in advance... in general it depends on size
   etc.; in this case, 1 week in avance of the ftf seems OK

   action-227 due 24 Feb

   <trackbot> ACTION-227 Summarize TAG work on metadata, with Larry due
   date now 24 Feb

Web Services Resource Access (WS-RA)

   <Ashok> [$1\47] Team Comment:
   [24]http://www.w3.org/Submission/2006/04/Comment

     [24] http://www.w3.org/Submission/2006/04/Comment

   <Ashok> [$1\47] TimBL:
   [25]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2006Oct/0061.html

     [25] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2006Oct/0061.html

   <Ashok> [$1\47] Stuart Williams:
   [26]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2008Nov/0008.html

     [26] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2008Nov/0008.html

   AM: these msgs note web services use end-point references (EPRs),
   not URIs
   ... and there's a question of what if you do a GET on the URI found
   in an EPR
   ... and they [who?] has asked for more specific recommendations

   <johnk> EPRs contain a URI

   AM: yes, for example, the WS WGs would like the TAG to be specific
   about what should come back when you do a GET on the URI in an EPR

   <Zakim> noah, you wanted to ask why

   NM: Do we know why they're interested?

   AM: there's some expectation that TAG input would help with WS specs

   <Zakim> DanC, you wanted to note DaveO's suggestions that the TAG do
   this and ask

   DanC: DaveO suggested some work nearby...

   DaveO: in the Hawaii meeting timeframe, yes...

   <masinter> I think working groups who want TAG feedback should try
   harder to express their question as an architectural issue rather
   than "read our specs and figure out what we should do"

   DanC: DaveO, do you think the market window has passed? or is it
   still worthwhile?

   DaveO: I've long been an advocate of filling this gap...
   ... I see the REST community ignoring WS-*, and vice versa...
   ... and then I see the OAuth community wrestling with policy
   problems solved in WS-policy [but which doesn't work in the OAuth
   context because it's not URI-based]

   <masinter> i'm not convinced that this is an issue that can be
   resolved, REST vs. WS

   <masinter> it would be good if mechanisms like authentication and
   naming can be common, though

   DaveO: when WS-* advocates say "you can do all this automated policy
   negotation, provided you use SOAP messages", the REST community
   isn't interested.

   <Ashok> How about a common mechanism to access metadata?

   <masinter> well, common mechanisms might be hard, but common
   vocabularies for metadata would be a good first step

   daveO: a couple points in particular: soap RPC into HTTP GET, bind
   EPRs into URIs

   <masinter> general idea is: don't try to solve unresolvable problems

   <Ashok> Dave, Do you have something written on this?

   daveO: I can point you to work I did in that area

   LMM: the perspectives of the two communities aren't clearly
   resolvable...

   <raman> 1+ to Larry.

   <raman> RESTful services are very successful, we dont need to teach
   them WS* religion

   LMM: there are perhaps architectural approaches: common vocabularies
   despite different mechanisms...
   ... choosing one's battles is important

   <johnk> +1 to the *possibility* of common vocabs

   <Ashok> Raman, I'm thinking the other way around

   <johnk> but tend to agree with Larry that this is still a war

   LMM: I'd contrast this with the HTML situation... there's really
   just one HTML and we should get it right, but the world is OK having
   both WS-* and REST styles.

   <Zakim> noah, you wanted to talk about helping the REST community
   discover the joys of Web Services

   TVR: I agree with Larry; there's little impact the TAG can usefully
   have in this area [?]

   NM summarizes [scribe thinks it's already recorded above]

   NM: to push back a bit on LMM and TVR: the Web aspires to a level of
   integration that's deep and universal...
   ... URIs are supposed to be URIs wherever you find them [in an EPR
   or otherwise]

   <masinter> if there's an expression of this as an architectural
   question, that would be helpful

   NM: and there are expecations that you can do things [e.g. GET]

   <raman> The TAG's history here is to traditionally have come heavily
   on the WS* side, mostly because (perhaps) of the bodies present.
   That also means that we dont get heard by the other side.

   NM: [struggling to summarize tail end of what NM said]

   <raman> I'm happy for the TAG to specifically answer Ashok's WSRE
   question.

   <masinter> GET on a URI should return a representation of the
   resource

   <raman> Bit BuBut as a continuing TAG member, I'd advice against
   going the route Dave Orchard suggested that the TAGshould go

   <masinter> (jk)

   <masinter> Would like agenda items about technical topics have an
   ISSUE, because I'm confused still about what they want advice about

   SKW: I think it's a stretch to say they're [which they?] interested
   in access to metadata... they have a particular object model, and
   metadata is a small part of it. [?]
   ... I think the
   [27]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2008Nov/0008.html
   message is still what's worth saying. [?]

     [27] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2008Nov/0008.html

   <noah> Larry: suggest we discuss the meta topic of TAG operations at
   F2F. This is the sort of stuff I'd like to agree on. Historyically,
   ISSUES have been somewhat heavyweight, with some commitment to long
   term TAG focus. Hence there tends to be a lot of discussion to
   decide whether to open an issue. That's what's happening here, I
   think.

   NM: there's a metadata part to this; we have an action on jonathan
   in that area...
   ... then there's the specific question re WS-RA... maybe AM would
   like to draft something?
   ... meanwhile, we might want to think about whether this fits under
   and existing issue or should be a new one

Link maintenance in TAG documents

   action-223?

   <trackbot> ACTION-223 -- John Kemp to attempt to fix the broken
   links in Mapping between URIs and Internet Media Types -- due
   2009-02-12 -- PENDINGREVIEW

   <trackbot> [28]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/223

     [28] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/223

   <masinter> didn't propose TAG work on this

   ACTION-222?

   <trackbot> ACTION-222 -- Larry Masinter to draft a note to W3C staff
   regarding maintaining working links, for TAG review -- due
   2009-02-12 -- OPEN

   <trackbot> [29]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/222

     [29] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/222

   LMM: yes, I drafted something, and I see a response from Dan noting
   existing policies

   <masinter> I didn't want to propose the TAG should work on this, but
   rather we should ask the staff to handle this kind of thing in
   general, rather than take this up as a TAG work item

   John: noting date of access is conventional for citing web
   documents; we could do that...

   NM: isn't that implicit in the date of the finding itself?

   John: note chicago manual of style etc. note date accessed

   <DanC_> (I find "date of access" kinda wierd. no thanks.)

   LMM: how about we ask the W3C staff to use that chicago manual of
   style date-of-access policy?

   <masinter> hear arguments against and think they're reasonable

   DanC: ISOC stable-publishes IETF drafts

   <DanC_> [30]progress on ietf.org persistence, structured archive

     [30] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ietf-w3c/2005Aug/0000.html

   DanC: I recommend we use those in the future

   NM: are those canonical?

   <jar> Mary-Claire van Leunen. A Handbook for Scholars. = bible on
   citation

   LMM: I'm satisfied the staff maintains a policy on links in general

   <masinter> that should be W3C publication policy, not just a W3C TAG
   practice

   <Ashok> +1

   close action-222

   <trackbot> ACTION-222 Draft a note to W3C staff regarding
   maintaining working links, for TAG review closed

   NM: how about "we considered it, but on balance, didn't find it
   worthwile to update the finding"
   ... John?

   <masinter> i don't agree with that

   <masinter> I like jar's proposal better

   <masinter> "Message to staff: We've talked about this. Please do
   something. [We trust you.]"

   Stuart: I like the intermediate page idea...

   <jar> noah: w3c ends up running a proxy site for all cited
   documents. not good

   Stuart: I suggest that we quietly change the links to something
   sensible

   <jar> webcitation.org

   <DanC_> -1 "please do something".

   <johnk> -1 also

   <Stuart> +0

   SKW: the staff has very tight policy for the /TR/ page, but we're
   not using that for findings...

   NM: Dan, how about you draft something...

   <DanC_> no, I'm not interested in any new policies.

   <DanC_> I've done more than I think this merits already

   <masinter> fix document is fine

   NM: how about... ACTION: respond to the commentor

   <DanC_> . ACTION: john consult with stuart and respond to the
   commentor re broken links in uriMediaType-9

   NM: so we'll leave this to email and maybe it'll come back

   close ACTION-223

   <trackbot> ACTION-223 Attempt to fix the broken links in Mapping
   between URIs and Internet Media Types closed

Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: DanC report at March on tagSoup progress since TPAC
   [recorded in
   [31]http://www.w3.org/2009/02/12-tagmem-minutes.html#action01]
   [NEW] ACTION: jonathan summarize TAG work on metadata, with Larry
   [recorded in
   [32]http://www.w3.org/2009/02/12-tagmem-minutes.html#action02]

     [31] http://www.w3.org/2009/02/12-tagmem-minutes.html#action01
     [32] http://www.w3.org/2009/02/12-tagmem-minutes.html#action02

   [End of minutes]
     _________________________________________________________


    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [33]scribe.perl version 1.134
    ([34]CVS log)
    $Date: 2009/02/13 15:54:32 $

     [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/
gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Friday, 13 February 2009 15:57:09 GMT

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