OKd for world-access in 18 Oct telcon. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
attached mail follows:
TAG F2F minutes, Tue 10 Aug PM <paulc> Swapping AM2 and PM1 slots in original agenda. <paulc> Swapping AM2 and PM1 slots in original agenda. <paulc> Let's review the changes Norm is proposing to the WebArch document. <paulc> Link to the Editor's draft: <paulc> http://www/w3.org/2001/tag/webarch/July7-Aug10-diff.html <timbl> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/webarch/July7-Aug10-diff.html <paulc> Green material is changed. Yellow material is new. <paulc> Section 2.2 changed to include definition of "resource". <paulc> TimBL: I do not like "can retrieve". <clilley> a representation of the resource could be requested over a network *** Norm [ndw@192.18.98.64] has joined #tagmem *** Stuart [skw@192.6.10.2] has joined #tagmem *** DanC [connolly@209.226.93.226] has joined #tagmem <clilley> a representation of the resource could be requested over a network <paulc> DanC: I would prefer a forward pointer to the defn of Information Resource. <DanC_jam> in 2.2, suggest changing "We use the term information resource to refer to those resources for which you can retrieve a representation over the network." to "A special class of resources, information resources, is discussed in section 3.1. Information Resources and Representations" *** DanC left #tagmem [Client exiting] <timbl> The term "Information Resources" refers to the class of things which carry information. <paulc> Dan proposes a two part change: <paulc> a) make forward reference to 3.1 <paulc> b) change 3.1 "If a resource has a representation then it is an information resource. <DanC_jam> in section 3.1, I prose that rather than define Information Resource, we bound it below as: if a resource has a representation, then it is an information resource. * timbl proposes the above text <timbl> The term "Information Resource" refers to the class of things that convey information. <paulc> In 3.1, "Information resources are resources that convey information." <paulc> ... along with: <paulc> "If a resource has a representation then it is an information resource." <paulc> In Section 2.2 add a forward pointer "A special class of resources, information resources, is discussed in section 3.1, Information Resources and Represetantions." <paulc> The forward pointer replaces the existing text "We use the term information resource to refer to those resources for which you can retrieve a representation over the network." CGI:IRC (EOF)] <paulc> TAG members decided to live with the above proposed change. <paulc> Section 2.3.1 with regards to URI aliases. <paulc> use the following text: <DanC> (I think this is editorial and it's ok for the minutes to just say "the TAG worked on the wording of 2.3.1") <paulc> Deployment of URI aliases reaises the cost or may even make it impossible for software to determine that the URIs identify the same resource. <paulc> This was previously the third sentence and will now be the second sentence. <DanC> SW gives the example of "meter"; PC gives an example of 2 WGs specifying the same datatype <paulc> Change the story to ask the question "Does it matter which URI I bookmark?" and Nadia explains why it matters (it depends on weather you want the 08.03 weather or the current weather. <paulc> In section 2.5 remove "sequence of characters". <DanC> I'm uncomfortable with "URI Ownership". I'd rather do without it. Masinter asked for this again recently, which reminded me to re-find http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Oct/0287.html <paulc> Change 2.5 to say: <paulc> A widely deployed technique to avoid URI overloading is delegated ownership." <Stuart> +1 to DanC reservation on the concept of URI Ownership <Stuart> Also, http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#pps1 <paulc> Section 2.5 should be named URI allocation with the text in 2002Oct/0287.html and then there would be a 2.5.1 URI Ownership <DanC> the "... global agreement... " paragraph might overlap with the existing "... useful for a URI scheme to establish ..." parap <paulc> And we will add a section 2.5.2 URIs that are not owned <DanC> q+ to suggest demoting the box "Good practice: Avoiding URI Overloading" <DanC> q+ to review the TOC of 2.x esp to suggest that overloading goes under uri/resource relationship <paulc> At TimBL's suggestion Section 2.4 was shortened (and clarified). <paulc> Dan C's suggestions to Section 2.4 were also adopted. <paulc>Dan C: Section 3.3.1 should not use the WebArch terminology in the story. Text was removed which stated "authoritative interpretation ...". <paulc>Section 3.4, Metadata Association example added and approve. <paulc> www-tag archive 2004Aug/0012.html <paulc> contains TimBl's text for Section 3.4 <paulc> The meeting decided incorporate TimBl's text and to add some references to this text (to http spec and Apache docs). <paulc> next change is in Section 3.5 to point out reasons to do post. <paulc> Editor will add examples of why you should use post when no oblications are implied (reasons can be found in the finding). <paulc> next change in Section 3.6. <paulc> Delete text "There are applications ... web resources." <DanC> scalability from masinter http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Oct/0248.html <paulc>Add reference to spec writer in Good Practise (to ensure they don't force access to URI representations). <paulc>DanC: Do we really need this good practise since it is not enough of a bumper sticker saying. <paulc>PaulC: leave the material in or go back and discuss the original comment again. <paulc>DanC: Let's delete the new text and not revisit the comment. <paulc>TAG agreed to move on leaving the new text in place. <paulc>Reviewing changes in Section 4.3: <paulc>TAG changed the text "For instance ... access to content" to "Designers should consider appropriate technologies such as access control and encryption for limiting the audience." <paulc> Reviewing changes to Section 4.5.1: <paulc> Accepted except for number 9 (since it seems to define a loop: reasons for using a text format - it is a text format). <paulc> Reviewing changes to Section 5.1: <paulc> We added an Orthogonality priniciple and completely renovated the first paragraph to simplify and shorten it. <paulc>Editor agreed to take another attempt at the example linking a bad change in HTML based on the HTTP spec. <paulc> Reviewing changes to Section 5.2: <paulc> The Editor's change was accepted. <paulc> Reviewing changes to Glossary: defn of Resource. <paulc> Delete "A general term for". <paulc> Discussion on Outstanding issues: <paulc> HTTPSubstrate-16: Should HTTP be used as a substrate protocol? Does W3C agree with RFC 3205? <paulc> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html?type=1#HTTPSubstrate-16 <paulc> Original comment from Mark is in: <paulc>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Mar/0182 <paulc> and original feedback from XML Protocol WG is in: <paulc>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2000Dec/0061.htm l <paulc> RoyF reported that there is very little application work being done in IETF at the moment. <paulc> PaulC: Either the problems in the IETF and XMLP different opinion on using HTTP are important or they are not important since they don't seem to have harmed us over the last three+ years. <paulc> DanC: The best way of moving this forward would be to get someone to draft a new BCP and to engage the IETF via doing the work. <paulc> DanC: Asked to poll the group: <paulc> Option 1: Recruit someone from WS Activity to write a new BCP draft <paulc> Option 2: Close the issue. <paulc> Responses: <paulc> ChrisL: Option 1 <paulc> RoyF: No preference <paulc> Paulc: Option 1 <paulc> DanC: Option 1 <paulc> StuartW: Option 1 (try to recruit Mark N) <paulc> TimBL: Option 1 <paulc> NormW: Option 1 <paulc> TimBL: maybe we should start writing a finding to clearly define the differences. <paulc> PaulC: lets start a finding on how the RFC differs from the WebArch document. <paulc> Summary: Action on DanC to recruit an author to draft a response to HTTPSubstrate-16 forward. <paulc> RE: WebArch comment from QA WG >paulc> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webarch-comments/2004JanMar/1 056.html <paulc> Summary: Action on StuartW to reply to QA WG that TAG will consider this input in is re-started work on Extensibility and Versioning <paulc> Re: Pat Hayes comments in: <paulc> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webarch-comments/2004JanMar/1 057.html <paulc> Summary: Action on StuartW to respond that we have tried to address many of his comments and that he invite is review of the Second Last Call. <paulc> The meeting recessed at 5:02pm EDT. /paulc Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada 17 Eleanor Drive, Nepean, Ontario K2E 6A3 Tel: (613) 225-5445 Fax: (425) 936-7329 mailto:pcotton@microsoft.comReceived on Monday, 18 October 2004 22:19:45 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:32:34 UTC