W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webarch-comments@w3.org > April to June 2004

Summary of issues addressed at TAG's 12-14 May face-to-face meeting

From: Ian B. Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 12:04:41 -0400
To: cmsmcq@acm.org, stephane@w3.org, patrick.stickler@nokia.com, sandro@w3.org, kendall@monkeyfist.com, elharo@metalab.unc.edu, dmkarr@earthlink.net, dom@w3.org, srodriguez@bdgsa.net, Alfred.S.Gilman@IEEE.org, bparsia@isr.umd.edu, gk@ninebynine.org, fmanola@acm.org, jacek.kopecky@systinet.com
Cc: public-webarch-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <1085673880.1494.81.camel@seabright>
Dear Reviewer,

The TAG addressed a number of Last Call issues at their recent
face-to-face meeting in Boston [1]. Below is a summary of how the
TAG addressed Last Call issues.  Although changes have not yet
been incorporated into the document, I welcome your comments on
the TAG's intended direction. The next draft of the Architecture
Document should be available the first week of June.

If your name is in the To: line of this message, the TAG
discussed an issue that you or your Working Group raised.
Please note that for some issues listed below, further input
from you is requested.

The TAG's Last Call issues list [2] contains this information as

Thank you,

 - Ian

Reference Arch Doc: 10 May 2004 Editor's Draft

[1] http://www.w3.org/2004/05/14-tag-summary.html
[2] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html

Issues addressed

Michael Sperberg-McQueen

    The TAG has resolved to keep the drop shadow in the first
    illustration in the document.


    The TAG resolved to make the following changes to the document:

    1) Include three examples about content negotiation as
       proposed by TBL.

    2) State clearly that it's an error for representation
       providers to provide representations with inconsistent
       frag id semantics.

    3) Talk about consistency as being in the eye of the
       representation provider (not forgetting that users also
       have expectations). Thus, the answer to the reviewer's
       last question is: the notion of consistency is in the eye
       of the representation provider.


    The TAG agrees with the reviewer regarding the general case,
    but it doesn't apply to this specific instance. The TAG does
    not feel changes to the document are required.

XML Schema Working Group 


     The TAG agrees with the reviewer that the text does not
     communicate why extensibility may not be appropriate in some
     cases. Furthermore, the TAG has resolved to delete the phrase
     "falling back to default behavior". The Editor expects to
     insert a story in the section on extensibility about protocol


     Norm Walsh has an action item to write some text to address
     schema14. The TAG believes that the related finding include
     text that may satisfy the reviewer's concern.


     The TAG believes the 10 May 2004 draft addresses the
     reviewer's concerns and invites comment from the reviewer.


     The TAG resolved to:

      - Delete "that can be understood in any context" (Already
        done in 10 May 2004 draft.)

      - Modify remaining sentence to say: "Namespaces in xml use
        URIs in order to obtain the properties of a global

      - Include a reference to 2.2 URI ownership.


     The Editor expects to make changes to point to the XML Schema
     spec (possibly with the xsi ns URI in text).


     The TAG believes that the 10 May 2004 draft addresses the
     reviewer's concern, with the following changes:

      - change fourth bullet in 10 May 2004 draft to read "In
        practice, applications may have independent means of
        locating identifiers inside a document such as provided
        for and specified in the XPointer specification."

      - include a reference to section 3.2.

Device Independent Working Group


    The TAG believes that the reviewer has misunderstood the
    the notion of "URI persistence" and would like further
    input on desired changes to the 10 May 2004 draft.


    The TAG believes that it is useful to indicate that there are
    two resources (one Spanish and one Italian) but to add to the
    example some discussion of content negotiation.


    The TAG that more needs to be stated about trade-offs. The
    TAG has created a new general issue mediaTypeManagement-45 [1].
    [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html#mediaTypeManagement-45

Patrick Stickler


    It is likely that, in light of changes expected in light
    of progress on issue httpRange-14 that there will be
    a clarification regarding the definition of "namespace


    The TAG agreed with the Editor's choice not to change
    the glossary entry in the 10 May 2004 Draft. The TAG would
    like more input from the reviewer on whether the reviewer
    is satisfied with how the term is used in context.


    The TAG asked the Editor to edit this section to say that:

      * It is useful to have a URI for requests and results.
      * Here are ways to do so in HTTP...


    The TAG has resolved not to change the text. People SHOULD
    provide representations; the community is poorer where
    representations are not available.


    The Editor believes the reviewer's comments regarding URI
    ownership and authoritative metadata are addressed by changes
    in the 10 May 2004 draft.


    The TAG rejected the text proposed in the 10 May 2004 draft
    and asked the Editor to remove this sentence from the
    document: "Note also that since dereferencing a URI (e.g.,
    using HTTP) does not involve sending a fragment identifier to
    a server or other agent, certain access methods (e.g., HTTP
    PUT, POST, and DELETE) cannot be used to interact with
    secondary resources.""

Sandro Hawke


    There was general support for the inclusion of a
    visibility principle.

Kendall Clark


    The answer to the reviewer's question is "yes to 1."  The TAG
    believes that no change to the document is required. The
    Editor expects to add a reference to RFC2396 in context.


    The TAG believes the reviewer's question is addressed by
    section 3.6.2 of the document; no other changes are
    expected at this time.


    The TAG believes that the statements say different things and
    both are justified;  no other changes are
    expected at this time.


    The Editor expects to incorporate a suggested tweak for
    section 2:"Formats that allow content authors to use URIs
    instead of local identifiers foster the "network effect": the
    value of these formats grows with the size of the deployed

    [See dhm2 below]


    In line with the reviewer's comments, Chris Lilley will
    propose additional text regarding separation of content and
    presentation that includes more about tradeoffs.

Elliotte Rusty Harold 


    The TAG resolved to demote the first constraint of section
    2.1 to a sentence.

David M. Karr


    The TAG accepted the Editor's proposal to address this
    issue by including a parenthetical explanation of 
    what the authority component is.

Dominique Hazael-Massieux


    The TAG believes that distinguishing "error correction"
    (errors that can be corrected as though they never happened)
    from "error recovery" (situations where the agent cannot
    correct the error) will improve the text. The Editor will 
    incorporate the change.

    The TAG agreed with the reviewer and plans to define
    "extended language" and "extension" as the reviewer


    The TAG asked the Editor to include text about how, in
    general, protocols have more resilient interfaces than
    software APIs generally have.


    The TAG asked the Editor to compress sections 3.4 and 3.4.1
    into a single section 3.4. The title of the section will be
    "Message semantics".

Sergio Rodriguez 


    The TAG does not believe that Architecture Document needs
    to address the reviewer's question.

Al Gilman


    The TAG believes that "orthogonal", not "independent" is the
    proper term. E.g., the HTTP specification depends on the URI
    specification, but they are orthogonal. The TAG also decided
    to remove the term "loosely coupled" and to change
    "independent" to "may evolve independently."
Bijan Parsia


    The TAG agreed to replace the constraint at beginning of
    section 2 with a new principle and good practice note.

      - [Principle] URI assignment: global naming leads to
        beneficial network effects.

      - [GPN] It is beneficial to assign a URI to a resource
        because then others can then refer to it by URI.

Graham Klyne

    The TAG agreed with the reviewer's point, but has decided to
    keep the text and clarify it. The TAG resolved to make
    the following changes to the 10 May 2004 draft:

     - To remove "During a retrieval action" in section 3.3.1
     - Delete from "Note..." to end of paragraph (in the
       third paragraph after the story).


    The TAG believes that the following minor changes to the
    document are sufficient to address the reviewer's concern.

    - In 2.2, change to "(for example, to a server manager or
      someone who has been delegated part of the URI space on a
      given Web server).

    - s/authorities servicing URIs/URI owners


    The TAG agreed with the reviewer and plans the following
    changes to the 10 May 2004 draft:

      - Change third bullet in section 4.2.4 to: "The semantics
        of combining RDF documents with multiple vocabularies is

      - Delete "and allows text and XML to be used as a data type
        values within a statement having clearly defined
        semantics." from the same bullet.


    Chris Lilley has an action item to draft text to explain that
    there's a tradeoff in this situation.

Frank Manola

   The TAG intends to clarify the text to indicate that parties
   who draw conclusions from syntactic analysis of URIs alone do
   so at their own risk.


   The TAG agreed to accept this change, which eliminates the
   phrase "language instances": "A format specification SHOULD
   provide for version information."


   The TAG agreed to delete the sentence beginning "As part of
   defining" from section 4.2.3.


   The TAG believes this issue has been addressed by virtue of
   deletion of the text in question (in the 10 May 2004 draft).

Jacek Kopecky


   Ian Jacobs and Chris Lilley have an action item to draft a
   proposal to address this issue. (No clear direction from 14
   May 2004 minutes, but there was discussion about whether the
   content was "designed for presentation".)

Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                     +1 718 260-9447

Received on Thursday, 27 May 2004 12:06:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:55:23 UTC