IRC log of 14 Jan 2002 TAG teleconference

IRC log of 14 Jan 2002 TAG teleconference

Note: This IRC log has been edited, primarily to remove interactions
prior to discussion beginning in earnest, and after the meeting was

Timestamps are US Pacific Standard Time.

[07:36:03] <Ian> Regrets: DanC
[07:36:10] <Ian> zakim, who's here?
[07:36:12] <Zakim> I see NWalsh, TimBL, Stuart, PaulCotton, TBray,
[07:37:01] <Ian> Where is Chris, Roy, David?
[07:37:12] <Zakim> +DOrchard
[07:37:50] * Ian general sentiment that 7:30 PT is early....
[07:37:55] * Ian is in PT today. :)
[07:37:58] <DanC> not to mention the agenda was late ;-)
[07:38:14] <Ian> Action item review:
[07:38:33] <Ian> PC: I"d like to see agenda sent Friday.
[07:38:39] <Ian> --------------
[07:38:47] <Ian> On the previous minutes:
[07:38:59] * TimBL will try to get agenda out on Friday
[07:39:00] <Ian> IJ: Thanks to DanC for help.
[07:39:10] <Ian> (No comments on previous minutes)
[07:39:21] <Ian> TimBL: Requests for agenda items?
[07:39:29] <Ian> * Face-to-face meeting
[07:39:55] <Ian> TimBray: We received a formal request for input.
[07:40:28] <Ian> Media types (Mark Baker)
[07:40:29] <Ian>
[07:40:31] <Ian> ---------------------
[07:40:34] <Ian> IPR requirements
[07:40:55] * DanC wanders off to WebOnt ftf, where the break is over...
[07:41:06] <Ian> TimBL: Patent disclosures necessary to TAG by TAG.
Also, people who are not employees of Member companies need to sign
collaborators' agreement.
[07:41:09] <Ian> ...this means Roy.
[07:41:15] <Ian> ...and Tim Bray.
[07:41:16] <Zakim> + +
[07:41:52] <Ian> +Roy.
[07:42:02] <TimBL> Zakim, + is Roy
[07:42:03] <Zakim> sorry, TimBL, I do not recognize a party named '+'
[07:42:07] <TimBL> Zakim, who is here?
[07:42:08] <Zakim> I see NWalsh, TimBL, Stuart, PaulCotton, TBray,
IJacobs-CA, DOrchard, ??P11
[07:42:31] <TimBL> Zakim, ??P11 is Roy
[07:42:32] <Zakim> +Roy; got it
[07:42:33] <TimBL> Zakim, who is here?
[07:42:34] <Zakim> I see NWalsh, TimBL, Stuart, PaulCotton, TBray,
IJacobs-CA, DOrchard, Roy
[07:42:41] <Ian> Invited expert agreement:
[07:42:49] <Ian>
[07:42:55] <Ian> Tech reports release form:
[07:43:02] <Ian>
[07:43:57] <Ian> IJ: Do you have to print and fax?
[07:44:04] <Ian> TimBL: I think an email is ok, but we need to check.
[07:44:12] <Ian> Action IJ: Check out what's sufficient; contact RF and
[07:44:15] <Ian> -------------------------
[07:44:21] <Ian> First ftf meeting
[07:45:05] --> roy ( has
joined #tagmem
[07:45:13] * Ian welcomes Roy.
[07:45:48] <Ian> Proposed day: Tuesday 29 January in D.C.
[07:46:02] <Ian> TBL: Limitation on that - we're having a Team dinner
that evening.
[07:46:07] <roy> I can't make that date either.
[07:46:12] <Ian> DO: Can't either.
[07:46:33] <Ian> CL, TB, PC are speaking during the conf.
[07:46:44] <Ian> 30 Jan: W3C steering committee meeting in BOS.
[07:46:56] <Ian> PC: TBL, do you have any alternate dates?
[07:47:13] <Ian> What was wrong with 1 Feb?
[07:47:51] <Ian> DO, TB, PC:  Can't make the 28th.
[07:48:13] <Ian> CL: Can't make 1 Feb - I18N Workshop
[07:48:23] <Ian> So that means: 28, 29, 1 out.
[07:49:23] <Ian> TBL: Do people have a preference for meeting mid-week
or end week?
[07:49:40] <Ian> TB: I think we'll have to take what we can get....
[07:49:53] <Ian> Proposals: 4 Feb, 7 Feb, 8 Feb.
[07:50:01] <Ian> Norm: Monday 4 Feb no good for me.
[07:50:13] <Ian> IJ: I'll be in Chicago on the 8th.
[07:50:33] <Ian> TB: That week bad for me (4-8 Feb)
[07:50:56] <Ian> Week of 25-28 Feb out (tech plenary)
[07:51:02] <Ian> 11 Feb: AB meeitng
[07:51:23] <Ian> TB, DO: 18-22 works well
[07:51:36] <Ian> NW: People going to plenary likely to leave on Friday
of that week.
[07:52:00] <Ian> DO: 14 Feb is V-day.
[07:52:24] <Ian> 13 Feb?
[07:52:31] <Ian> PC: Weds are always bad for me.
[07:52:40] <Ian> Proposed 12 Feb.
[07:52:52] * Ian will be in Boston 11 Feb.
[07:53:18] <Norm> Boston works for me
[07:53:35] <Stuart> Boston 12th Feb would work for me
[07:53:49] <Ian> TB: I think you should all come to Vancouver!
[07:54:08] <Ian> TBL: I can manage the 12th in Boston.
[07:54:23] <Ian> PROPOSED: 12 Feb in Boston.
[07:54:26] <Ian> Stuart: Fine for me.'
[07:54:28] <Ian> PC: Not sure yet.
[07:54:45] <roy> Are we responsible for our own travel costs?
[07:55:05] <Ian> PC: Can we have video conf from Vancouver?
[07:55:20] <Ian> TB: I don't know about logistics, but DO and TB can ask
[07:56:21] * DanC offers tentative regrets for any ftf meeting in Jan,
Feb, Mar, or May
[07:56:33] <Ian> TB: Any objections to checkout out video conf as a
[07:56:40] <Stuart> no
[07:56:46] <Ian> TimBL: I am in favor of video conf.
[07:56:51] <Ian> Plan A: Everyone flies to MIT.
[07:56:56] <Ian> Plan B: Find videoconf.
[07:57:18] <DanC> video is all well and good, but don't expect it to
substitute for a ftf meeting
[07:58:36] <TimBL> We were considering a 2-site, DanC
[07:58:57] <TimBL> Maybe we should think about 3.
[07:59:26] <Ian> TBL: The AB handled a 3-site video conf pretty well,
but Ann Bassetti on her own. Not so great.
[07:59:43] <Ian> --On meeting at WWW2002---
[08:00:06] <Ian> PC: I had suggested Sunday morning 5 May.
[08:00:12] <Ian> ...DanC pointed out Team meeting.
[08:00:20] <Ian> PC: Another alternative is Friday 3 May.
[08:00:27] <Ian> " Currently the AC meeting is planned for
[08:00:27] <Ian>      May 5-7 with the main part of the meeting being on
Mon-Tue May 6-7 and the
[08:00:27] <Ian>      introductory sessions on Sun May 5. The AB is
planning to meet on Sat May 4. "
[08:01:09] <Ian> TBL: Team rehearsal has less emphasis than in previous
years due to change in AC meeting format.
[08:01:42] <Ian> PC: The WWW conf is from 7-11 May.
[08:02:09] <Ian> TBL: I need to be present for some of new AC rep
[08:02:25] <Ian> PC: All-day meeting 5 May with people walking in and
[08:02:32] <Ian> TB: Not sure this is a good idea.
[08:03:09] <Ian> PC: We are expect to present to the AC on M or T.
[08:03:20] <Ian> ...(We should have ftf time before that).
[08:03:36] <Ian> (No conflicts to meeting on Sunday)
[08:03:52] <Ian> TBL: By the time we get to this point, we may have
subgroups working on projects. Could report to main group on Sunday.
[08:04:04] <Ian> [Several people intend to scuba, including PC, TB, IJ]
[08:04:23] <Norm> Alas, no scuba for me, but I'll snorkle along side
[08:04:33] <Ian> PROPOSED: all-day 5 May
[08:04:50] <Ian> (with some people possibly dropping out periodically)
[08:05:05] <TimBL> DanC? 
[08:05:07] <roy> 5 May is okay for me
[08:05:32] <Ian> PC: You might ask Steve Bratt (COO) to take over some
of TBL's role at the new AC rep meeting.
[08:05:40] <Ian> ---------------------------------------
[08:05:59] <Ian> Charter issues.
[08:06:09] <Ian> - Setting up a process for hearing appeal.  See
[08:06:09] <Ian>   We have to elaborate this.  Discuss briefly, possible
[08:06:33] <Ian> TBL: A requirement to provide a process to hear an
appeal. Don't know whether all will be formal appeals. Will get requests
for input as well.
[08:06:52] <Ian> ....question of accountability on www-tag.
[08:07:20] <Ian> TB: Example of email signed XML Protocol WG
[08:07:21] <Ian>
[08:07:29] <Ian> TBL: We need an internal and an external process.
[08:07:48] <Ian> - Need to keep an issues list (Ian?)
[08:08:12] <Ian> - Have a representative of the issue in the TAG present
to the TAG at a meeting.
[08:08:50] <Ian> DO: I suggest that, since we will have a large number
of issues over time. People who bring issues should also bring possible
[08:09:55] <Ian> DO: Choices that we recommend will be based on
different use cases.
[08:10:41] <Ian> TBL: We need a page that says "If you're asking the TAG
a question, here's what the TAG needs to know."
[08:10:59] <Ian> point would be "Are there a set of apparent
alternatives? If not, could you write them up?"
[08:11:18] <Ian> TB: A couple of obvious points:
[08:11:30] <Ian>  - TAG first decides whether they will address the
[08:11:51] <Ian> TBL: We may address it on the spot as a local issue,
but put into a long-term agenda.
[08:11:55] <Ian> TB continuing:
[08:12:05] <Ian>  - We need a system for numbering and referring to
[08:12:14] * TimBL apologizes for butting on TimB
[08:12:20] * TimBL apologizes for butting in on TimB
[08:12:54] <Ian> IJ: Any bug-tracking tool suggestions?
[08:13:20] <Norm> I'm quite happy with the SourceForge trackers; if
there was any plan to run a W3C Forge
[08:13:26] <Ian> TB: Issue number can be opaque string useful in email
headers. Our primary form of records is mailing list. As long as you use
issue numbers there, you're ok.
[08:13:48] <TimBL> [open]
[08:13:51] <TimBL> [open][close]
[08:15:01] <Ian> DO: I suggested for SAML WG - not just an issue number
or opaque string, but a transparent string: rough categorization, longer
string (short version of the issue name), the issue number itself.
[08:15:42] <Ian> TB: I'd like to avoid getting into an extended process.
[08:15:56] <Ian> ...key for me is gating (yes/no we will handle) and
public record with issue numbers.
[08:16:21] * Ian notes NW's comments.
[08:16:53] <Ian> Action IJ: Write up summary: (1) based on email (2)
will use mnemonics (3) will be public and we will be accountable to it.
[08:17:23] <TimBL> and (4) it will aloow reject as well as accept
[08:17:30] <Ian> IJ: I think an index is also necessary.
[08:17:50] <Ian> TB: Chairs need an internal system for keeping track.
But mailing list subject lines are the root of everything.
[08:18:53] <Ian> TB: Policy is only that the email has the unique id in
the subject line.
[08:19:10] <Ian> PC: Issue numbers aren't reusable.
[08:19:57] <Ian> PC: How do we address the XLM Protocols issue in
[08:20:07] <Ian> - Do we take this on?
[08:20:24] <Ian> ------------------
[08:20:27] <Ian> XML Protocols issue
[08:20:34] <Ian>
[08:20:43] <Ian> TB: Propose we take this on and call it issue 1. 
[08:20:49] <Ian> TBL: I'd like someone to present it to the WG now.
[08:21:03] <Ian> Q. 1; What are the general guidelines or policies (if
any) for W3C
[08:21:03] <Ian> working groups in defining their own media types? 
Should they be
[08:21:03] <Ian> defining them at all?
[08:21:20] <Ian> Q. 2; If custom media types are required, should there
be any
[08:21:20] <Ian> commonality between them?
[08:21:20] <Ian> Q. 3; What is, or what should be, the relationship
between a media type
[08:21:20] <Ian> and an XML namespace?
[08:21:44] <Ian> TB: Some people responded that didn't understand Q2.
[08:22:16] <Ian> DanC's reply:
[08:23:44] <Ian> TBL: Q3 first came up with MathML WG- mixing math with
[08:24:10] <Ian> ...if you serve mixed doc as xml to netscape, netscape
will recognize math through namespace and will display the math.
[08:24:19] <Norm> Mark's Q:
[08:24:32] <Ian> TBL: ...but if you send to IE, IE will feed it only to
generic HTML machine, which would display as raw source.
[08:24:35] <Norm> Dan's reply:
[08:24:42] <Ian> TBL: might be able to fix with a style sheet.
[08:25:07] <Ian> TBL: Question is: should you be able to select your
application based on outermost namespace in a document. My opinion is
"yes", otherwise you can't create XML applications.
[08:25:46] <Ian> ...we can talk about mixed-content documents
[08:26:13] <Ian> TB: If we say it's good for software to dispatch on
namespaces (seems not to controversial), I don't think media types will
help you much for highly mixed docs.
[08:26:47] <Ian> DO: Manifest: constituents of XML "package".
[08:27:09] <Ian> ....don't think we should duplicate namespace info
outside the content.
[08:27:32] <Ian> ....we should say that media type should say that it's
an xml document. And that processes will have to unpickle at least the
first namespace in the document.
[08:27:49] <Ian> TB: It's more complicated than that - to deal with
things properly, you have to dispatch as you work through the document.
[08:27:53] * TimBL happy for people to use IRC to get on the q to speak
[08:28:03] <Ian> TB: ...not sure much can be usefully said in the media
[08:28:09] <roy> A media type should reflect the purpose of the message.
Sending a document as XML serves no useful purpose.
[08:28:17] <Ian> TB: I don't think the media type architecture is going
to help.
[08:28:40] <Ian> DO: There's no point in munging the manifest into the
MIME declaration.
[08:29:24] <Ian> RF: The media type has more to do with visibility (and
selection of handlers) than about the structure of bits in the content.
If you send a generic XML, you are expecting a generic engine to process
the namespaces. In practice, that's never the case.
[08:30:20] <Ian> TB: Rules of game - spec must define namespace and
media type. But below top level media type doesn't help.
[08:30:44] <Ian> TBL: You can create an RDF document that has an HTML
document inside it, but the HTML document is not mean to be displayed -
RDF is talking about it.
[08:31:17] <Ian> ....but the top-level semantics are important (e.g.,
"This is an HTML document first and foremost" or "This is SVG first and
[08:31:32] <roy> [agrees with TBL]
[08:31:47] <Ian> ...the outermost xml determines the meaning of the
innermost (e.g., it may quote innermost).
[08:32:33] <Ian> TBL Summarizing:
[08:32:39] <Ian>  Q3: There is some work to be done.
[08:32:49] <Ian>  Q2: Didn't quite understand.
[08:33:03] <Ian>  Q1: People seemed happy, but having discussed Q3,
perhaps not as clear.
[08:33:22] * Ian asks RF to summarize his point on IRC.
[08:33:44] <Ian> TBL: Having some visibility at the toplevel is useful,
even if it doesn't give you all the information you need.
[08:34:04] <Ian> TB: I think we should agree to provide an answer to Q1
and Q3. And assign those to tag issues 1, 2.
[08:34:55] <Ian> IJ: I'd like to put "Validation of mixed document
types" on the issues list.... is this related to Q3?
[08:35:55] <Ian> DO: My organization doesn't believe in this RFC.
[08:36:10] <Ian> sign doesn't help that much. What version
information are you talking about?
[08:36:16] <Ian>'re still going to have to do more work....
[08:36:48] <Ian> TB: Do we want to take a position on that RFC?
[08:36:58] <Ian> TBL: Then add Q2 to issues list as well.
[08:37:05] <roy> RFC 3023
[08:37:40] <Ian> TB: I think we should discuss on www-tag list.
[08:38:09] <Ian> TB: If we agree that our first step is to
accept/reject. There should be a point in the process where we say what
we are going to do (e.g., update a document, publish an arch rec, etc.).
[08:38:31] <Ian> TB: I think we formally close the issue with an email.
[08:38:52] <Ian> s/TB/TBL last comment.
[08:39:06] <Ian> TB: I think that having something in the email archive
will do.
[08:39:47] <Ian> DO: I think that it can be problematic if issue
resolved by email and nothing else happens. Better when there's a larger
context, and appropriate resolution text put in that larger context
(e.g., document).
[08:40:11] <Ian> TimBL seques into next agenda item....
[08:40:13] <Ian> ---------------------------------------------
[08:41:31] <Ian> TBL: Ideally, outline view of arch is available.
Appended to it are descriptions in detail that link to TAG replies.
[08:41:55] <Ian> TBL: I think that a glossary is important.
[08:42:40] <Ian> DO: How will tag deal with multiple uses of same term.
[08:43:16] <Ian> or two terms for same idea (e.g., namespace name and
namespace URI both used)
[08:43:26] <Ian> TBL: DanC kept a list of this type of thing.
[08:44:10] <DanC>
[08:44:14] * Ian thanks Dan.
[08:44:26] <Ian> TBL: Interest in using annotation server?
[08:44:37] <Ian> TB: Probably not. I think we should use generally
available public tools.
[08:44:47] <Ian> TBL: Can be used in Amaya or Netscape.
[08:45:08] <Stuart>
[08:45:09] <Ian> TBL: Another possibility - we keep a list of these
[08:45:14] * DanC wonders if anybody present has actually used Annotea.
[08:45:28] * Stuart I haven't
[08:45:37] <Ian> TB: I think for most of us, TAG work is going to place
another load on our time. I don't have time to debug software.
[08:45:41] <Ian> PC, DO: Agreed.
[08:45:55] <Ian> TBL: So we should stick to email and CVS.
[08:46:12] * DanC regrets not setting up a wiki last week
[08:46:14] <Norm> Is Annotea the Amaya one or the IE one? Scott Boag's
been saying how nice the IE one is, but...
[08:46:20] <Ian> (TBL notes that per his action item, he put in a
request re cvs to systems tema)
[08:46:56] <Ian> TBL: Perhaps IJ's primary job will be to create a tree
(Table of Contents) for the architecture of the Web.
[08:47:10] <Ian> ...this would be a reference for us. We write documents
to fit into the spaces.
[08:47:18] <Ian> ...and document relations between these things.
[08:47:32] <Ian> TB: Are we going to be more reactive or proactive?
[08:47:38] <Ian> TBL: Charter is that we do both.
[08:48:53] <Ian> TBL: When I find that I'm answering the same arch
question 3 times, I write down my thoughts (clear or not).
[08:49:21] <Ian> I've created a tree first, and filling it in
[08:49:43] <Ian> So, is first task to write up the tree?
[08:50:01] <Ian> TBL: Brainstorming with yellow stickies.
[08:50:26] <Ian> TBL: A tree will never be perfect.
[08:50:36] <Ian> TBL: For next time, we can brainstorm on top-level cut.
[08:51:03] <Ian> DO: We're going to have to think about the typical
taxonomy problem - what's the toplevel decider.
[08:51:14] <Ian> TBL: We have to realize that it's arbitrary, but we
have to do it for our own work.
[08:51:26] <Ian> TBL: We can design it as a Web (document dependences).
[08:51:36] <Ian> ..that's what we've done for sem web advanced
[08:51:53] <Ian> ...we generate graphs with graph viz.
[08:52:02] <DanC> contribution the TOC: formats/protocols/naming. maybe
provider-view/consumer-view too.
[08:52:08] <Ian> DO: I was referring to TB's software for navigating....
[08:52:55] <Ian> TB: Propose answering Mark Baker, and put issues on
issues list.
[08:53:14] <Ian> Action IJ: Put together a page on doing this. Publish
first few issues.
[08:53:46] <Ian> IJ: Length of ids?
[08:53:50] <Ian> TB: Short is good.
[08:53:58] <TimBL> mnonic
[08:54:00] <Ian> TBL: Would like to see mnemonic.
[08:54:16] <TimBL> Resolved - Action Ian to accept issues 1-3
[08:54:48] <Ian> Action IJ: Change name of conf on zakim from monthly to
[08:55:09] <Ian> Action item review
[08:55:14] <Ian>    TBL: Find out what kind of editing access to the W3C
Web site
[08:55:14] <Ian>         will be available to TAG participants.
[08:55:14] <Ian>  PC/IJ: Summarize issues suggested on www-tag
[08:55:14] <Ian>         technical comments, liaison request). (An
[08:55:14] <Ian>         categorization of input may be found in the IRC
[08:55:14] <Ian>     DO: As part of preparation for TAG panel at W3C's
[08:55:14] <Ian>         Plenary 2002, solicit input from chairs on what
issues the
[08:55:14] <Ian>         TAG should address, and which documents the TAG
[08:55:14] <Ian>         produce.
[08:55:30] <Ian> TBL: Looks like CVS will be available [pending]
[08:55:52] <Ian> PC/IJ: PC did his part, IJ [pending]
[08:55:56] <Ian> DO: Not done.
[08:56:03] <Ian> ...should be done by next week.
[08:56:13] <Ian> --------------------
[08:56:17] <Ian> Next meeting 21 Jan, same time.
[08:56:20] <Ian> ADJOURNED

Ian Jacobs (
Tel:                     +1 718 260-9447

Received on Monday, 14 January 2002 12:10:24 UTC