- From: Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>
- Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2011 10:34:20 -0500
- To: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
- CC: "Appelquist, Daniel, VF-Group" <Daniel.Appelquist@vodafone.com>, tag <www-tag@w3.org>
Yes, thank you Jonathan. This is exactly the sort of cleanup I've been trying to encourage everyone to do, most especially the substantive bits such as explaining what the poll was about. I think cleaning up the clerical mistakes, such as the duplicate resolution, is useful primarily in showing that we care about the quality of our work, so I'd encourage that where practical too. I find it usually takes just a few minutes, editing either the IRC input to the script, and/or the HTML output. Noah On 3/4/2011 8:23 AM, Jonathan Rees wrote: > 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 15:34:52 UTC