[VM] Agenda - telecon Tue Dec 06 1400 UTC

Vocabulary Management telecon, Tue, Dec 06, 1400 UTC (1500 Berlin)

Zakim: +1.617.761.6200
Conference code 8683# ('VMTF')
irc://irc.w3.org:6665/vmtf
http://www.w3.org/Guide/1998/08/teleconference-calendar#s_1678

AGENDA

1. Updated Task Force Description:
   http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/VM/

   There was an action on me [1] in the last BPD telecon to
   update the description.  Please check this for accuracy and
   completeness.  Note that it incorporates elements of [2]
   and [3].  Note the added dependencies on the TAG decision
   on httpRange-14 and on the BPD response to that decision.

2. Editor's Draft "HTTP configuration cookbook"
   http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/VM/http-examples/2005-11-18/

   Question: Should we go for "Note" status?  The meaning of
   "note" is described at [4].  "Note" status would increase
   the chances that draft will survive the BPD working group
   into the next charter period.  In order to go for Note
   status, two things would need to happen: 1) the external
   review would need to take place (see Agenda Point 3); and 2)
   we, the active members of the TF, would need to agree that
   the draft represents our best understanding of the issues
   "at this point" (i.e., it "reflects current thinking").
   If we can think of no remaining objections, we simply
   request publication as a Note (and not let ourselves be
   put off by the mechanics of publication).  In other words,
   the Note documents a consensus but does not constitute a
   "recommendation" of BPD, or even of the TF (and certainly
   not a "recommendation" over the whole consortium.)

   The result of our discussion will be reported back to the
   next BPD telecon on 12 December.

3. Steps towards Note status

   David Booth <dbooth@hp.com> and Andreas Harth
   <andreas.harth@deri.org> have volunteered to review Cookbook.  When
   would that review need to be completed, and by when would the VM Task
   Force need to decide to request note status?

4. (Time permitting) DCMI implementation scenario

   Given the current structure of DCMI Web documents, 
   the following scenario looks possible:

       A GET on 
            http://purl.org/dc/terms/Box 
       would dereference either to:
            http://dublincore.org/documents/2005/06/13/dcmi-terms#Box
       or to:
            http://dublincore.org/2005/06/13/dcq#Box

   Questions to all:
       1) Any problems with this?  (What about the hash in the third URI above?)
       2) This would be Recipe 9, correct?
          http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/VM/http-examples/2005-11-18/#recipe9
       3) Do I correctly understand that this solution would be flawed inasmuch
          it does not strictly conform with the TAG resolution on httpRange-14
          because the purl.org servers use a 302 redirect code and not a 303?

References

[1] http://www.w3.org/2005/11/28-swbp-minutes.html#action19
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Nov/0122.html
[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Nov/0165.html
[4] http://www.w3.org/2003/glossary/keyword/Process.rdf/?keywords=Note


-- 
Dr. Thomas Baker                      baker@sub.uni-goettingen.de
SUB - Goettingen State                            +49-551-39-3883
and University Library                           +49-30-8109-9027
Papendiek 14, 37073 Göttingen

Received on Monday, 5 December 2005 09:37:50 UTC