W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > February 2010

Re: Revised draft minutes of call 28 January 2010

From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 11:10:02 -0500
To: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
Cc: "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OF15E7D28A.355E0532-ON852576D3.00588C13-852576D3.0058CBE3@lotus.com>
Having received no requests for further updates to the TAG minutes of 28 
January 2010 [1], I have marked them as approved (I.e. removed the DRAFT 
indication).  I have also marked my ACTION-385 as PENDING REVIEW.

I don't recall seeing a text-only form of these minutes go out, so I have 
attached that below.  Thank you.

Noah

[1] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/01/28-minutes

--------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn 
IBM Corporation
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
1-617-693-4036
--------------------------------------


   [1]W3C

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

              Technical Architecture Group Teleconference

28 Jan 2010

   [2]Agenda

      [2] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/01/28-agenda

   See also: [3]IRC log

      [3] http://www.w3.org/2010/01/28-tagmem-irc

Attendees

   Present
          Raman, Masinter, Jonathan_Rees, noah, DanC, HT, DKA

   Regrets
          TimBL, JohnK

   Chair
          Noah Mendelsohn

   Scribe
          Larry Masinter

Contents

     * [4]Topics
         1. [5]1. Convene
         2. [6]2. Approval of minutes from 21 Jan
         3. [7]3. Administrative items
         4. [8]5. W3C TAG position on policy mechanisms for Web APIs
            and Services
         5. [9]4. ACTION-351 Workshop on persistence
         6. [10]6. Authoritative metadata
         7. [11]7. TAG Contributions to W3C Web Site
         8. [12](new) Resource vs. Representation
         9. [13]8. "Speaks for" formalism
        10. [14]12. Pending Review Items
     * [15]Summary of Action Items
     _________________________________________________________

   <DanC> trackbot, start meeting

   <trackbot> Date: 28 January 2010

   <jar> Scribe: Larry Masinter

   <jar> scribenick: masinter

1. Convene

   Next Meeting: Noah notes his tag work is backing up; he is tempted
   to cancel next meeting, but will leave meeting scheduled and hoping
   John can scribe.

2. Approval of minutes from 21 Jan

   RESOLUTION: approval of ->
   [16]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/01/21-minutes minutes of January
   21

     [16] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/01/21-minutes

3. Administrative items

   Noah: prioritizing agenda: good news in that there is work
   happening. difficulty getting balance.
   ... request: TAG members active in a discussion, please step up and
   moderate discussion to reach conclusion, summarize different
   positions, etc.

5. W3C TAG position on policy mechanisms for Web APIs and Services

   <noah> Email from Frederick Hirsch:
   [17]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Jan/0014.html

     [17] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Jan/0014.html

   <noah> The DAP WG is only beginning to consider the privacy topic
   and would appreciate all help it can obtain from anyone that can
   help us achieve a good practical result in a reasonable time. Our
   initial starting point will be to examine the decision of the
   Geolocation Working Group in more detail. [...describes a
   proposal...] While we intend to look at each of the assertions made
   in that resolution and see if and how they would apply to our own
   set of APIs, we would very much welcome the TAGs perspective on that
   resolution

   <scribe> scribenick: noah

   LM: There was significant unhappiness with geolocation resolution,
   and I think we should say it's not a good precedent.

   DKA: When I sat in on the first working group meeting as an
   observer, not sure I can concur

   LM: Don't concur there was unhappiness?

   Noah thinks LM meant "the TAG was unhappy"

   LM: There was a letter from IETF, and formal objections from Cisco
   and Center for Privacy and Freedo

   DKA: I spoke to the area director for IETF recently.

   <DanC> "the TAG was unhappy" needs a pointer to records. I'm pretty
   sure the TAG hasn't decided anything in this space

   noah: Right, Dan. My recollection is that we had discussion of the
   unhappiness of TAG members. I also think we did send an email, but
   not sure "unhappiness" quite characterizes what that email said.
   Can't find reference now. Can anyone?

   <scribe> scribenick: masinter

   dka: there was a meeting. The browser vendors, Google, and our
   opinions were that it was inappropriate things to put privacy hooks
   into the API
   ... the input from the EFP and GeoPriv working group was taken very
   seriously by the group chairs, and there was a lot of text put into
   the document. I wasn't a direct participant but I was mentoring
   someone who was, and my understanding was there was a lot of
   outreach. Still we got a formal objection.

   <Zakim> DanC, you wanted to ask whether this decision predates those
   objections

   danc: Did the Geolocation decision (see the email we've been
   reading) come before the IETF letter, or vice versa?

   DC: Trying to figure out if the asserted "unhappiness" is cause or
   effect

   dka: i think it was last call, and it was not a single decision in
   the GeoLocation working group resolution

   (discussion about chronology)

   <DanC> I concur with "don't generalize"

   LM: What i am trying to say is that the GeoLocation decision was
   reached after much discussion which seemed to be localized to a
   single decision about a single API to access a single bit of
   information: geographic location. Because this was so finely argued
   and the compromise reached after much discussion and contextualized,
   the Device API working group should not use this decision as a
   precedent.

   <noah> Larry mentioned this note from me:
   [18]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Jan/0102.html ,
   agreed with reasons why issues for Geolocation may not generalize,
   even if we posit that the geolocation solution was OK for that.

     [18] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Jan/0102.html

   dka: there was some politics around the responses

   <Zakim> noah, you wanted to get back to Frederick's request

   danc: Frederick Hirsch seems to be happy with the email exchange,
   are we done?

   noah: gets back to question. His note says:

   <noah> From Frederick's note: "Our initial starting point will be to
   examine the decision of the Geolocation Working Group in more
   detail. This decision was *not* to include privacy rules as part of
   the API. That decision is documented with the following Geolocation
   WG resolution:

   noah: what he's saying that we're taking this as a possible starting
   point. Some of us weighed in and the TAG discussed it.
   ... we could more formally say something as the TAG, given the
   concerns, the TAG wishes to signal real reservations

   LM: I met at the IETF in Stockholm with IETF area directors and WG
   chairs. They were concerned. Part of that discussion was that
   compromise might be reached in this case, but it should not be taken
   as a good prededent.

   <DanC> (Noah, is what you're saying in your msg?
   [19]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Jan/0046.html )

     [19] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Jan/0046.html

   <Zakim> noah, you wanted to discuss technical solution

   noah: I have suggested several times: if you're not going to put it
   in the API, show that your API has sufficient extensibility
   mechanism, possibly those that allow you to decide whether
   extensions are present.... and show how this can be used. (noah
   explains details of how this can be written).

   naoh: I'd be unhappy if the document did not at least talk about
   that.

   dka: on the issue of what we tell Frederick, it's appropriate to say
   that you should not take this as a precedent. There are some
   specific technical reservations that Google, Opera and Mozilla have
   to the kind of approach that Noah is suggesting, that essentially
   boil down to something that is non-enforcable

   noah: worth noting, but shouldn't resolve this

   <DanC> (stronger than "not enforceable"; as I recall, it was
   "misleading")

   noah: Want ask DanA with help from Larry to draft a short response
   that you think the TAG should send.

   <Zakim> DanC, you wanted to try "Don't take it as precedent" today

   larry: agrees to review what DKA writes

   <DanC> trackbot, status?

   <scribe> ACTION: Daniel to draft response to Fredrick, short and to
   the point. Larry to review. [recorded in
   [20]http://www.w3.org/2010/01/28-tagmem-minutes.html#action01]

     [20] http://www.w3.org/2010/01/28-tagmem-minutes.html#action01

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-380 - Draft response to Fredrick, short
   and to the point. Larry to review. [on Daniel Appelquist - due
   2010-02-04].

   note: Daniel in tracker is DKA

4. ACTION-351 Workshop on persistence

   ht: We've been talking off and on since last summer's F2F about
   persistent domain names as one component of the reservations people
   have about using URIs for persistent identifiers
   ... 100 years for now if W3C doesn't exist and MIT screws up, W3C
   documents won't be available at their well-known address. We've
   discussed many solutions, including new IANA top level domain, or
   creating some public body to insure the persistence of these domain
   names. At our discussion in December consensus was we shouldn't take
   this on, and that we should hold a workshop.
   ... have spoken to director of Digital Curation Centre

   <DanC> [21]Digital Curation Centre at University of Edinburgh

     [21] http://www.dcc.ac.uk/

   ht: might be in June
   ... procedural questions:
   ... do we agree to sponsoring such a workshop
   ... and to colocate a TAG meeting in Edinburgh in June

   <noah> What does sponsoring involve? Money? Our good name?

   (discussion about scheduling and conflicts)

   <DKA> I'm happy with Edinburgh in June.

   <DKA> ...or I would be happy to host the TAG meeting in London
   around this time as well...

   <lmm> Note 1999 workshop:
   [22]http://www.isr.uci.edu/events/twist/twist99/program.html

     [22] http://www.isr.uci.edu/events/twist/twist99/program.html

   <DanC> workshp should be at least 1.5 days

   <scribe> (continued discussion of scheduling)

   LM: I would argue against the workshop as a priority

   noah: could be independent of having a TAG meeting at all

   <jar> The TAG doesn't need to be involved, but it ought to be

   noah: you asked that we 'sponsor' this?

   ht: be one of the two organizations that is holding the meeting

   larry: I wonder about XRI and persistence as another constituency

   noah: change action back to open with new due dates

   danc: wants this to be W3C workshop and not TAG
   ... stop discussion for now

   ht: let's talk about this offline (to DanC)

   larry: I'm not interested enough to do more as TAG

   <ht> HST has updated
   [23]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/351

     [23] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/351

6. Authoritative metadata

   (postponing because JK not here)

7. TAG Contributions to W3C Web Site

   <noah> Ian sent a note asking if TAG want to contribute to new W3C
   Web Site content: "Another of the 7 areas is "Web Architecture"
   [$1\47]. We've not yet had the opportunity to flesh out the
   introduction pages that are linked from there. Right now, the titles
   of those intros (drawn from Webarch):

   <noah> Architecture Principles

   <noah> Identifiers

   <noah> Protocols

   <noah> Meta Formats

   <noah> Protocol and Meta Format Considerations

   <noah> Internationalization (already done by Richard Ishida)

   noah: That structure reflects the WebArch document.
   ... We talked about this at an early meeeting but didn't find the
   resoures to do it

   <noah> I also said I thought not just any resource will do. We need
   people who can write for some particular audience(s), write it well,
   etc.

   LM: Who does the work?

   DC: We do.

   <jar> [24]http://www.w3.org/standards/webarch/

     [24] http://www.w3.org/standards/webarch/

   noah: this is where people come to talk about the web. Would the TAG
   like to help the W3C tells the story
   ... if we could allocate the person-months of writing skill etc.
   ... seeing these things done well is person-weeks or person-months

   <jar> masinter: another approach is to start with what they have and
   improve it

   <DanC> "This intro text is boilerplate for the beta release of
   w3.org." -- [25]http://www.w3.org/standards/webarch/protocols

     [25] http://www.w3.org/standards/webarch/protocols

   larry: I'm willing to help, but more on the order of hours rather
   than weeks

   noah: whatever they do, we'll review it?

   danc: let individuals volunteer

   <jar> ACTION jar to spend 2 hours helping Ian with
   [26]http://www.w3.org/standards/webarch/

     [26] http://www.w3.org/standards/webarch/

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-381 - Spend 2 hours helping Ian with
   [27]http://www.w3.org/standards/webarch/ on Jonathan Rees - due
   2010-02-04].

     [27] http://www.w3.org/standards/webarch/

   raman: this should allow comments; saying we will do it ... (makes
   it one-way communication)

   <jar> action-381 due 2010-02-11

   <trackbot> ACTION-381 Spend 2 hours helping Ian with
   [28]http://www.w3.org/standards/webarch/ due date now 2010-02-11

     [28] http://www.w3.org/standards/webarch/

   <noah> ACTION-381?

   <trackbot> ACTION-381 -- Jonathan Rees to spend 2 hours helping Ian
   with [29]http://www.w3.org/standards/webarch/ -- due 2010-02-11 --
   OPEN

     [29] http://www.w3.org/standards/webarch/

   <trackbot> [30]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/381

     [30] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/381

   <noah> Looks good to me.

   <DanC> (I concur, larry, that findings don't communicate stuff
   well... though I have advocated using the blog genre; I'm not
   opposed to using the buckets as well or instead.)

   larry: i'm wondering whether we should focus on the web site vs.
   working on findings and web arch and findings.

   noah: the charter says how we are supposed to publish results

   LM: Even if this means updating TAG charter

   <scribe> ACTION: larry to review Web Arch web material and make
   proposals for changes or TAG action [recorded in
   [31]http://www.w3.org/2010/01/28-tagmem-minutes.html#action02]

     [31] http://www.w3.org/2010/01/28-tagmem-minutes.html#action02

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-382 - Review Web Arch web material and
   make proposals for changes or TAG action [on Larry Masinter - due
   2010-02-04].

(new) Resource vs. Representation

   <noah> Discussion from last week:
   [32]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/01/21-minutes#item04

     [32] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/01/21-minutes#item04

   <DanC> action-378?

   <trackbot> ACTION-378 -- Dan Connolly to draft suggested text re
   resource/representation in HTML 5 for discussion with LMM and JAR --
   due 2010-02-03 -- OPEN

   <trackbot> [33]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/378

     [33] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/378

   LM: htmlwg was going to close the issue, but i asked that it stay
   open to allow the TAG to volunteer to produce a change proposal
   ... they don't need us to produce the proposal by tomorrow, just for
   someone to commit to producing one that meets the criteria for
   change proposals.

   DC: I made some progress. Between me and Noah we didn't get it on
   the agenda for today. I could work on it, but promising dates is
   hard.

   NM: Implicitly, not for tomorrow?

   LM: By tomorrow, we just need a committed date.

   DC: Maybe we can pick a date.

   LM: How about March 31, after our next F2F?

   DC: Wonder if they'll accept that.

   LM: Well, the concern expressed was that Roy couldn't even start for
   4 months.

   (discussion of
   [34]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Jan/0811.htm
   l)

     [34] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Jan/0811.html)

   noah: proposed action, the TAG will by march 31, deliver definitions
   plus sample text showing use of those terms in a couple of example
   sections

   <DanC> -1 definitions

   danc: this is an editorial exercise, and my opinion, now, is that
   using definitions and samples isn't a good way to go

   I suggest we make a commitment to produce, by March 31, a change
   proposal that meets the stated HTML-WG requirements for change
   proposals, to address the resource vs. representation issue

   <DanC> I can go with that proposal, as it's silent on definitions

   <noah> RESOLUTION: the TAG will commit to produce, by March 31, a
   change proposal that meets the stated HTML-WG requirements for
   change proposals, to address the resource vs. representation issue

   <DKA> +1

   <DanC> action-378?

   <trackbot> ACTION-378 -- Dan Connolly to draft suggested text re
   resource/representation in HTML 5 for discussion with LMM and JAR --
   due 2010-02-03 -- OPEN

   <trackbot> [35]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/378

     [35] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/378

   action-372?

   <trackbot> ACTION-372 -- Larry Masinter to tell the HTML WG the TAG
   encourages the direction Roy's headed on resource/representation and
   endorse his request for more time. -- due 2010-01-20 -- CLOSED

   <trackbot> [36]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/372

     [36] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/372

   NM: Does ACTION-378 cover it for now?

   DC: Yes

   RESOLUTION: the TAG will commit to produce, by March 31, a change
   proposal that meets the stated HTML-WG requirements for change
   proposals, to address the resource vs. representation issue

8. "Speaks for" formalism

   DC: Did the examples I sent work for you, Larry?

   <DanC> "Larry and everybody, Do the examples in this make sense? "
   -- [37]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Dec/0105.html

     [37] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Dec/0105.html

   See: [38]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/dj9/story.html

     [38] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/dj9/story.html

   DC: Don't know is OK.

   LM: I'll take an action for next week to review.

   <scribe> ACTION: larry to review DanC's email [recorded in
   [39]http://www.w3.org/2010/01/28-tagmem-minutes.html#action03]

     [39] http://www.w3.org/2010/01/28-tagmem-minutes.html#action03

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-383 - Review DanC's email [on Larry
   Masinter - due 2010-02-04].

   <noah> DC: Hmm, action is pending review.

   <DanC> action-368?

   <trackbot> ACTION-368 -- Dan Connolly to write up version change
   ontology as blog item
   [40]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Sep/0136
   -- due 2010-03-01 -- OPEN

     [40] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Sep/0136

   <trackbot> [41]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/368

     [41] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/368

   <DanC> ^ an action related to language versioning terminology

12. Pending Review Items

   <DanC> close ACTION-371 (edit)

   <DanC> close ACTION-375

   <trackbot> ACTION-375 Schedule discussion of TAG contributions to
   W3C Web Site (self-assigned, TRIVIAL) closed

   <DanC> close ACTION-371

   <trackbot> ACTION-371 Schedule TAG discussion of DAP WG query on
   policy (self-assigned) closed

   <DanC> ACTION-163 due 1 Mar

   <trackbot> ACTION-163 Coordinate with Ted to build a sample catalog
   due date now 1 Mar

   <DanC> . close ACTION-231

   <DanC> ACTION-232?

   <trackbot> ACTION-232 -- Henry S. Thompson to follow-up to
   Hausenblas once there's a draft of HTTPbis which has advice on
   conneg -- due 2010-02-03 -- OPEN

   <trackbot> [42]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/232

     [42] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/232

   <DanC> close ACTION-231

   <trackbot> ACTION-231 Draft replacement for \"how to use conneg\"
   stuff in HTTP spec closed

   <DanC> action-232 due 29 Jan

   <trackbot> ACTION-232 Follow-up to Hausenblas once there's a draft
   of HTTPbis which has advice on conneg due date now 29 Jan

   <DanC> action-232?

   <trackbot> ACTION-232 -- Larry Masinter to follow-up to Hausenblas
   once there's a draft of HTTPbis which has advice on conneg -- due
   2010-01-29 -- OPEN

   <trackbot> [43]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/232

     [43] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/232

   <trackbot> ACTION-308 -- John Kemp to propose updates to
   Authoritative Metadata and Self-Describing Web to acknowledge the
   reality of sniffing -- due 2010-01-14 -- PENDINGREVIEW

   <trackbot> [44]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/308

     [44] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/308

   LMM: adam barth updated mime sniff last week
   ... i haven't reviewed

   <trackbot> ACTION-326 -- Henry S. Thompson to track HTML WG progress
   on their bug 8154 on polyglot documents -- due 2010-01-21 --
   PENDINGREVIEW

   <trackbot> [45]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/326

     [45] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/326

Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: Daniel to draft response to Fredrick, short and to the
   point. Larry to review. [recorded in
   [46]http://www.w3.org/2010/01/28-tagmem-minutes.html#action01]
   [NEW] ACTION: larry to review DanC's email [recorded in
   [47]http://www.w3.org/2010/01/28-tagmem-minutes.html#action03]
   [NEW] ACTION: larry to review Web Arch web material and make
   proposals for changes or TAG action [recorded in
   [48]http://www.w3.org/2010/01/28-tagmem-minutes.html#action02]

     [46] http://www.w3.org/2010/01/28-tagmem-minutes.html#action01
     [47] http://www.w3.org/2010/01/28-tagmem-minutes.html#action03
     [48] http://www.w3.org/2010/01/28-tagmem-minutes.html#action02

   [End of minutes]
     _________________________________________________________


    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [49]scribe.perl version 1.135
    ([50]CVS log)
    $Date: 2010/02/23 16:05:58 $

     [49] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
     [50] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Tuesday, 23 February 2010 16:10:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:48:19 GMT