W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > March 2011

Re: Draft Minutes from 03-03

From: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2011 08:23:46 -0500
Message-ID: <AANLkTinUJi+X-XQOHh764v_B3OtG9-ydacu-NZop=yn7@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Appelquist, Daniel, VF-Group" <Daniel.Appelquist@vodafone.com>
Cc: tag <www-tag@w3.org>
I would add before the line "<noah> referent" an explanation that Noah
had called a poll asking for everyone's preference of 'meaning' vs.
'referent'.

I would tend to edit out lines like "<noah> RESOLUTIO:  ..." where a
correction immediately follows. A similar case is

<noah> RESOLUTION: to change tile of issue-57 to Mechanisms for
obtaining information about the intended
<noah> meaning of a given URI
<noah> meaning of a given URI and add para of description per jonathans email

which is fixed right away... don't think this adds any value to the
record, and detracts a bit. If someone really cares they can look at
the IRC log.

I'll make these changes if you like.

Thanks
-Jonathan


On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 3:40 AM, Appelquist, Daniel, VF-Group
<Daniel.Appelquist@vodafone.com> wrote:
> Hi all ­ please find draft minutes from 03-03 call here:
>
> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/03/03-minutes.html
>
> Also, text version pasted below. Please let me know if there should be any
> revisions.
>
> Dan
>
> ---
>   [1]W3C
>
>      [1] http://www.w3.org/
>
>                               - DRAFT -
>
>                              TAG telcon
>
> 03 Mar 2011
>
>   [2]Agenda
>
>      [2] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/03/03-agenda.html
>
>   See also: [3]IRC log
>
>      [3] http://www.w3.org/2011/03/03-tagmem-irc
>
> Attendees
>
>   Present
>          Larry Masinter, Jonathan Rees, Peter Linss, Noah Mendelsohn,
>          Henry S. Thompson, Yves Lafon, Daniel Appelquist, John Kemp
>
>   Regrets
>
>   Chair
>          Noah Mendelsohn
>
>   Scribe
>          Henry S. Thompson
>          Daniel Appelquist
>
> Contents
>
>     * [4]Topics
>         1. [5]IAB Panel
>         2. [6]interaction story for web applications
>         3. [7]303 related issues.
>     * [8]Summary of Action Items
>     _________________________________________________________
>
>   <johnk> hmmm, I'm having trouble getting into the call...
>
>   <ht> scribe: Henry S. Thompson
>
>   Peter: Regrets for next week
>
>   <johnk> johnk
>
>   <Yves> I read the first two days, and thought they were OK.
>
>   <jar_> have scanned the f2f minutes (for lines with my own initials
>   and a bit more)
>
>   Noah: f2f minutes read by anyone?
>
>   Jonathan: Scanned, but not read in detail
>
>   <johnk> FWIW, I read the first day and thought it was OK
>
>   Yves: Read first two days carefully, since I wasn't there, they were
>   fine
>
>   <Larry> +1 approve minutes
>
>   Noah: RESOLVED: Approve the 8--10 Feb f2f minutes
>
>   <noah> PROPOSE: Approve minutes of 8-10 Feb 2011
>   [9]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/08-agenda
>
>      [9] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/08-agenda
>
>   <noah> RESOLUTIO: Minutes of 8-10 Feb 2011
>   [10]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/08-agenda are approved
>
>     [10] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/08-agenda
>
>   <noah> RESOLUTION: Minutes of 8-10 Feb 2011
>   [11]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/08-agenda are approved
>
>     [11] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/08-agenda
>
>   Noah: Some concerns about the initial draft, please try harder
>   ... Minutes of 24 Feb?
>
>   <noah> RESOLUTION: Minutes of 24 Feb 2011
>   [12]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/24-minutes are approved
>
>     [12] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/24-minutes
>
>   Peter: I reviewed a bit
>
>   Noah: John is coming back for this call for his work item.
>   ... Put one thing ahead - IAB panel.
>   ... Also - at f2f Dan suggested we talk about offline web
>   application packaging.
>   ... Also we should discuss 303 redirections.
>
> IAB Panel
>
>   Noah: anything you'd like to spend time on, Henry?
>
>   Henry: Not at this time.
>
>   Noah: Anyone else?
>
>   Larry: Relationship between scalability and registries - I had some
>   thoughts.
>   ... We had this issue and discussion on role of registries and IANA.
>   ... We had a discussion on MIME types.
>   ... Architectural issue is preference in webarch for using URIs
>   rather than registered values (DTD style).
>
>   <noah> Good point, Larry
>
>   <jar_> jar +1 larry saying: Scalability of URI access relates to the
>   registry question.
>
>   <Larry> I was trying to talk about a somewhat vague thought
>   connecting work on registries to work on scalability
>
>   <noah> What I heard was: if you're going to encourage people to use
>   URIs for things that otherwise would have been in registries, you
>   tempt them to make accesses to those URIs, and we've seen that as a
>   source of scalability problems.
>
>   <Larry> if the web architecture prefers using URI-assignment rather
>   than registry allocation by IANA....
>
>   <jar_> E.g. putting the registries and schemas in URI space under
>   urn: instead of http: might somehow help with scalability question.
>   Yes?
>
>   Larry: In so far as this talk at IETF is to start some discussions
>   on web architecture and internet architecture: we can have topics we
>   want to talk about even if we don't have answers.
>
>   <Zakim> noah, you wanted to say it's only one bit of the scalability
>   problem.
>
>   <jar_> maybe.
>
>   <Larry> well, if the URI used was "data:", there wouldn't have been
>   a scalability issue
>
>   Noah: I see the scalability problem as a fundamental issue for the
>   web. This type of problem is one concern but not the only one that
>   might arise.
>
>   <Larry> early discussions were about unexpected flash crowds, where
>   some TV commentator says "look up this cool picture at NASA" and
>   suddenly NASA's web space is cut down
>
>   Noah: For example, the home page for nytimes and cnn - these people
>   aren't surprised about heavy access, but you could imaging lots of
>   different resources that might have the same scalability issues.
>
>   <Larry> [13]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content-centric_networking
>
>     [13] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content-centric_networking
>
>   Noah: ... when you use URIs, there are scalability issues because
>   people do [dereference] them inappropriately.
>
>   Larry: I am also worried about content-centric networking... would
>   like to understand this better.
>
>   <Yves> scalability issue depends also on cache infrastructures in
>   the network
>
>   MN: [it might be premature to discuss it at the IETF meeting]
>
>   <Zakim> ht, you wanted to add that if I put in a slide on this, I
>   should add two lines about the registry<->URI connection in e.g.
>   XPointer scheme names
>
>   Henry: I think it's important to realise that there are a number of
>   cases in which the boundaries between registries and URIs have been
>   blurred.
>   ... It's worth mentioning : we do have a very intentional hybrid
>   system - the xpointer registry - a database backed registry which
>   results in a URI being served for everything in the registry.
>
>   Larry: Can you give an overview for the panel?
>
>   Henry: Yes I think so.
>
>   Noah: Moving on to John's topic.
>
>   ACTION-355?
>
>   <trackbot> ACTION-355 -- John Kemp to explore the degree to which
>   AWWW and associated findings tell the interaction story for Web
>   Applications -- due 2011-02-02 -- PENDINGREVIEW
>
>   <trackbot> [14]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/355
>
>     [14] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/355
>
> interaction story for web applications
>
>   Noah: To frame: identification (URIs), interaction (protocols), ...
>   ... when we started to look at extending work on web arch to
>   application (as opposed to docuemnts) and we started to see
>   interactions which are not simple request-response, John undertook
>   this issue to frame the interaction issues for webapps.
>
>   <noah> ACTION-355?
>
>   <trackbot> ACTION-355 -- John Kemp to explore the degree to which
>   AWWW and associated findings tell the interaction story for Web
>   Applications -- due 2011-02-02 -- PENDINGREVIEW
>
>   <trackbot> [15]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/355
>
>     [15] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/355
>
>   <johnk>
>   [16]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Jun/0034.html
>
>     [16] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Jun/0034.html
>
>   John: I did an investigation of awww. What I found I sent in an
>   email to the TAG list.
>
>   <noah> Email:
>   [17]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2011Feb/0058.html
>
>     [17] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2011Feb/0058.html
>
>   John: the way the interaction model is currently described is over
>   http.
>
>   <noah> Links to document:
>   [18]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/10/interaction-examples.html
>
>     [18] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/10/interaction-examples.html
>
>   John: some of the things I mentioned were client-side manipulation
>   and generation of URIs...
>   ... what is the relationship between a server-side application and
>   the client-side javascript that's running and what enables the
>   client-side script to know it can construct a URI reliably?
>   ... comet, websocket, ajax-based polling: information rendered to
>   the user is different than what was downloaded initially.
>   ... In the old model, you had to be running a server to expose a
>   resource on the web; now you have clients that are servers, also
>   exposing client resources (e.g. gps) exposed as web resources to
>   another entity.
>   ... multi-party security is an issue - multiple pieces of content
>   are mashed up to create a running application.
>   ... More recently I wrote some examples.
>   ... one is the use of websockets; another is the use of geo api to
>   expose the client's location to the document they've downloaded;
>   another is client-side URI generation.
>
>   <noah> I think when we expose something like an accelerometer using
>   Javascript APIs as opposed to URIs, then it's best not to call that
>   a "Web resource". What we have are resources that are linkable
>   through the mechanisms of the Web, others (like the acceleromotere)
>   available only at the client, and others that are networked with
>   non-Web protocols.
>
>   John: I think it would be useful to use these examples as a
>   framework to talk about [webapps architecture]
>   ... All of these things are dependent on an eventing based model
>   associated with javascript and a document object model that runs on
>   the client - different from http - so different from what is
>   document in awww.
>
>   Noah: Open floor for discussion.
>   ... How deep and how broad is our investigation of webapps going to
>   be?
>   ... is this close to a TAG finding?
>   ... doesn't really draw conclusions yet.
>   ... do we want to carry forward with work based on this?
>   ... to elaborate some principles / best practices - terminology for
>   the abstractions and good practices.
>
>   DKA+1 to us building on John's work.
>
>   Larry: WebApps are [where it's at]
>
>   <jar_> mnot: "Open Source is taking the place of Open Standards"
>
>   Noah: Do we have one or two individuals who can work aggressively on
>   this - 5 to 10 hours a week to write and gain consensus - on this
>   topic?
>
>   Larry: We have a motivation to work on this in terms of starting
>   some conversations ... at the IETF panel ... IETF has raised some
>   issues on webapps ...
>
>   <jar_> noah would prefer to talk about who is doing the work, rather
>   than the work.
>
>   Noah: We set ourselves a goal of writing a new section of webarch -
>   new story about interaction. If we're going to write something we
>   need to write it.
>
>   Dan: I think we need to engage with a webapps community of practice
>   to work on this - worried about being able to do this.
>
>   Noah: we should be challenging that community by asking some
>   questions [ / making some assertions].
>   ... Webarch has good stuff like cool URIs don't change, etc..
>   provides real advice.
>   ... we should get to that point. Where we can say : here's good
>   practice and here's bad - and here's useful terminology...
>   ... We should say something specific.
>
>   Larry: In the general problem - where we have something to say
>   that's important but we don't have the resources - could we e.g. ask
>   the webapps working group what should happen to awww to make it more
>   relevant to them?
>
>   Noah: Goal here is to update the TAG document.
>   ... I'm frustrated we can't find the time to do this.
>
>   Larry: What if we publish this as a blog post, ask for suggestions
>   from the community?
>
>   <johnk> I would not want to publish what I've already done as a blog
>   post
>
>   Noah: Chapters suggest terminology, they have principles, good
>   practices notes...
>
>   <jar_> What problem does web architecture solve? ... the answer
>   would tell us what to do in the apps space.
>
>   <Larry> maybe we will get some feedback from IETF meeting on what we
>   need to do?
>
>   Dan: I am happy to reach out the webapps chairs... am worried about
>   the impactfulness of this proposed document to the community we are
>   trying to influence.
>
>   Noah: We committed to do some work in this space...
>   ... I think you [Dan] are saying the deliverable might be premature.
>   ... then I think we should stop telling the community we're going to
>   do comprehensive work on webapps.
>
>   <jar_> Every journey begins with a single step.
>
>   Noah: I am willing to back off on the notion that one of our big
>   deliverables is a comprehensive webapps architecture.
>
>   Jonathan: I think the goal has been a good one -- in that we have
>   looked at topics [in this space].
>
>   Noah: if what we're doing is chaining from "major document" to
>   "umbrella theme which is influencing a number of point pieces of
>   work" then we should [be clear on that
>   ... ]
>
>   <jar_> Has to do with the TAG status report, setting W3C mgmt
>   expectations.
>
>   Jonathan: There's no crisis here -
>   ... the people who did AWWW felt like there was a real reason to do
>   it.
>   ... one thing we need here - we should try to figure out what are
>   the dangers - what are the bad things that might go wrong if we
>   don't publish this.
>
>   Noah: My perception on webarch - the TAG has principles in its
>   charter; one of these is to document principles of web architecture.
>   Web apps architecture f[follows on from this]. When you read webarch
>   and then look at [web apps] [they don't fit together.]
>   ... We should document the web architecture as used today.
>
>   Jonathan: I think it's not just a matter of responsibility and
>   charter - bad things can actually happen and we care about them.
>
>   Henry: I don't want to lose this task. If I have time between now
>   and the end of my time on the TAG this will be the next thing up
>   because I think it's hugely important.
>
>   [discussion on priorities]
>
>   Noah: Propose we close ACTION-355 with thanks to John - then see
>   what else we can propose in the short term.
>
>   <ht> ACTION: Noah to work with HST to identify a way forward wrt
>   interaction [recorded in
>   [19]http://www.w3.org/2011/03/03-tagmem-minutes.html#action01]
>
>     [19] http://www.w3.org/2011/03/03-tagmem-minutes.html#action01
>
>   <trackbot> Created ACTION-536 - Work with HST to identify a way
>   forward wrt interaction [on Noah Mendelsohn - due 2011-03-10].
>
>   <noah> ACTION-355?
>
>   <trackbot> ACTION-355 -- John Kemp to explore the degree to which
>   AWWW and associated findings tell the interaction story for Web
>   Applications -- due 2011-02-02 -- PENDINGREVIEW
>
>   <trackbot> [20]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/355
>
>     [20] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/355
>
>   close ACTION-355
>
>   <trackbot> ACTION-355 Explore the degree to which AWWW and
>   associated findings tell the interaction story for Web Applications
>   closed
>
>   <ht> action-536 due 2011-08-01
>
>   <trackbot> ACTION-536 Work with HST to identify a way forward wrt
>   interaction due date now 2011-08-01
>
>   Noah: Now - proposals on short-term work?
>
>   John: Larry mentioned mark N's comments - related to this issue.
>   ... we could link these together....
>
>   <noah> ACTION Dan to reach out to Web apps chair to solicit help on
>   framing architecture (incluing terminology, good practice) relating
>   to interaction
>
>   <trackbot> Created ACTION-537 - Reach out to Web apps chair to
>   solicit help on framing architecture (incluing terminology, good
>   practice) relating to interaction [on Daniel Appelquist - due
>   2011-03-10].
>
>   <Larry> hmmm, s/web apps chair/web apps working group/
>
>   <jar_> larry email was sent feb 18...
>
>   Noah: Anything else under this interaction topic? If not, let's move
>   on...
>
>   <Yves>
>   [21]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2011Feb/0128.html
>
>     [21] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2011Feb/0128.html
>
>   Noah: Please put links to this in ACTION-355 and ACTION-356.
>
>   <johnk>
>   [22]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2011Feb/0128.html
>
>     [22] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2011Feb/0128.html
>
>   <ht> +1 to JR's proposal to regroup under a renamed ISSUE-57
>
> 303 related issues.
>
>   <jar_> I proposed
>   [23]http://www.w3.org/mid/AANLkTik5oUpZLs6MVQ5QZEtjqVjLUDWWAo0yLFiXR
>   9e0%2540mail.gmail.com
>
>     [23]
> http://www.w3.org/mid/AANLkTik5oUpZLs6MVQ5QZEtjqVjLUDWWAo0yLFiXR9e0%2540mail
> .gmail.com
>
>   <ht> +1 to JR's proposed new name for ISSUE-57 -- close enough for
>   government work
>
>   Jonathan: I did a survey of URI meaning issues... Rather than
>   opening a new issue it might be better to use ISSUE-57.
>   ... if we just fix the title and amend it then it will serve
>   perfectly well.
>   ... I found one caution from Tim.
>
>   <jar_> @f2f timbl: Let's not re-define issues under the same number,
>   that's fraud :-)
>
>   Jonathan: but this isn't a redefinition - just a re-titling.
>
>   Noah: Do you want to make a case for the scope / new title.
>
>   Jonathan: The issue was opened up because of an email to the TAG
>   regarding 303's - that they weren't working and urging the TAG to
>   look at other ways to do the same thing.
>
>   <noah> [24]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2007/07/16-minutes#item06
>
>     [24] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2007/07/16-minutes#item06
>
>   <noah> [25]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues#httpRange-14
>
>     [25] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues#httpRange-14
>
>   <noah> [26]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Mar/0273
>
>     [26] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Mar/0273
>
>   <noah> [27]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Mar/0092
>
>     [27] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Mar/0092
>
>   [some discussion on history of the issue]
>
>   <noah> At their meeting in 16th July 2007 [$1\47] the TAG resolved
>   to create a new issue, HttpRedirections-57 as a response to a
>   community request
>
>   <noah> [$1\47]
>   [28]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2007/07/16-minutes#item06
>
>     [28] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2007/07/16-minutes#item06
>
>   <noah> [29]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/57
>
>     [29] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/57
>
>   <jar_> [30]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2007Jul/0034
>
>     [30] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2007Jul/0034
>
>   <jar_> that's giovanni's email which i consider the heart of
>   issue-57
>
>   <Larry> I don't understand what we're talking about and why we're
>   taking meeting time to talk about it
>
>   <Larry> maybe JAR and Noah can take this offline and come back with
>   one or two proposals for what to do?
>
>   Jonathan: the way I think of this - issue-14 was closed with a
>   decision about how 200s are used - our alternative for those
>   troubled by this is 303.
>   ... years passed by ...
>   ... then people started saying the solution (using 303) doesn't
>   work.
>   ... that's a problem that never got fixed - that I'm trying to fix
>   this year.
>   ... hence issue-57.
>
>   <noah> From issue-57 description:
>
>   <noah> At the TAG F2F of 4 March 2009
>   ([31]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/03/04-minutes#item03), the TAG
>   agreed to "split Issue-57 into two issues as edited by NM, with one
>   abstention DanC". Issue 62 was opened immediately. Later issue 63
>   was opened.
>
>     [31] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/03/04-minutes#item03)
>
>   <Larry> If people who are trying to deploy something don't like the
>   implementation consequences of a TAG finding.... it just shows to me
>   the risk of the TAG coming out with "findings" that propose
>   technology solutions, without the 'direct' participation of the
>   implementation community
>
>   [discussion on whether or not issue-57 was superseded]
>
>   <Larry> and this should be a topic of a working group, not the TAG
>
>   <Larry> I have no problem with JAR changing issues to match his
>   understanding of the issue
>
>   <jar_> larry: The TAG made a recommendation (little R) for 303, and
>   it didn't get review.
>
>   <noah> I disagree...it didn't get formal AC review, but it got a ton
>   of community review (if not complete consensus)
>
>   <jar_> larry: People said, we tried it and it didn't work for us...
>   therefore need a WG
>
>   Larry: What should happen now is to tell people who are trying to
>   engineer solutions : you should form a working group. Because we
>   suggested a direction, but if it's not working then I don't think
>   the response should be we should go back and review them. The
>   response should be : Ok - the thing we recommended has performance
>   requirements, go and form a working group to come up with something
>   different.
>
>   Noah: It could also be one of the existing semantic web working
>   groups...
>   ... the community has chosen not to invest before...
>
>   Jonathan: Tim has said this is a TAG issue, not specific to RDF.
>
>   Noah: Jonathan has made a concrete proposal - an update for issue-57
>   and an agreement to use that issue to track our upcoming work on
>   this (which may not be very much).
>   ... going back to Jonathan's specific proposal, I am willing to say
>   "OK."
>
>   <DKA>+1 sounds OK to me.
>
>   <Larry> whether it's forming another working group or assigning it
>   to an existing one?
>
>   <jar_> . change per proposal given here
>   [32]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2011Mar/0000.html
>
>     [32] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2011Mar/0000.html
>
>   <Larry> note that "Community Groups" in W3C are intended to lower
>   the overhead of forming a working group
>
>   <jar_> thanks larry.
>
>   <noah> PROPOSAL:
>
>   <noah> 1) Chamge issue-57 title to: At the TAG F2F of 4 March 2009
>   ([33]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/03/04-minutes#item03), the TAG
>   agreed to "split Issue-57 into two issues as edited by NM, with one
>   abstention DanC". Issue 62 was opened immediately. Later issue 63
>   was opened.
>
>     [33] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/03/04-minutes#item03)
>
>   <noah> 2) Add a paragraph to the description per Jonathan's email:
>
>   <noah> "On its 2011-dd-dd telcon [$1\47] the TAG noted that members
>   of
>
>   <noah> the community (e.g. in [$1\47]) report that the performance
>
>   <noah> characteristics and deployment complexity of using 303
>
>   <noah> redirects leave them feeling that they have little option but
>
>   <noah> to use 200 responses for this purpose, at variance with the
>
>   <noah> TAG's httpRange-14 resolution [$1\47]."
>
>   <noah> PROPOSAL:
>
>   <noah> 1) Chamge issue-57 title to: "Mechanisms for obtaining
>   information about the intended
>
>   <noah> meaning of a given URI"
>
>   <noah> Noodling on this:
>
>   Noah: any others worried about use of word "meaning"?
>
>   <noah> 1) Chamge issue-57 title to: "Mechanisms for obtaining
>   information about the referent of a URI"
>
>   Larry: You can't ever determine the intended meaning - my worry is
>   the word "intended."
>   ... A design goal of URIs is to have uniformity of meaning.
>
>   <Yves> I am for 'intended meaning', to avoid 'intended semantic'
>
>   [debate on the meaning of meaning]
>
>   <Larry> i don't like "intended" is that it begs the question of who
>   intends it
>
>   <Larry> depends on what the meaning of 'is' is
>
>   <Yves> who intends it... whoever minted the URI
>
>   <Larry> issue-57?
>
>   <trackbot> ISSUE-57 -- The use of HTTP Redirection -- open
>
>   <trackbot> [34]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/57
>
>     [34] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/57
>
>   <Larry>
>   duri:2006:[35]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/57
>
>     [35] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/57
>
>   Noah: who prefers meaning and who prefers referent
>
>   <noah> referent
>
>   <Larry> meaning
>
>   <Yves> meaning
>
>   <DKA> meaning
>
>   <jar_> +1 meaning but not important enought to quibble about
>
>   <Larry> actually,
>   tdb:2006:[36]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/57
>
>     [36] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/57
>
>   <jar_> 'individual'
>
>   <noah> RESOLUTION: to change tile of issue-57 to Mechanisms for
>   obtaining information about the intended
>
>   <noah> meaning of a given URI
>
>   <noah> meaning of a given URI and add para of description per
>   jonathans email
>
>   <noah> RESOLUTION: Change title of ISSUE-57 to "Mechanisms for
>   obtaining information about the meaning of a given URI" and add
>   paragrph of description per Jonathan's email
>
>   Noah: OK - thanks for your patience with this. Our next call next
>   week. Let's adjourn for now.
>
>   <noah> Jonathan: please leave some tracks in the issue description
>   to point out when/why it was changed.
>
> Summary of Action Items
>
>   [NEW] ACTION 356: [37]Noah to work with HST to identify a way
>   forward wrt interaction
>
>     [37] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/536
>
>   [NEW] ACTION 357: [38]Dan to reach out to Web apps chair to solicit
>   help on framing architecture (incluing terminology, good practice)
>   relating to interaction
>   [End of minutes]
>     _________________________________________________________
>
>     [38] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/537
>
>
>    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [39]scribe.perl version 1.135
>    ([40]CVS log)
>    $Date: 2011/03/03 23:23:31 $
>
>     [39] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
>     [40] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
>
>
Received on Friday, 4 March 2011 13:24:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:48:34 GMT