- From: Ian B. Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 15:52:44 -0500
- To: www-tag@w3.org
- Message-ID: <3C96539C.8070901@w3.org>
Hello,
A summary of today's TAG teleconference is available [1].
Per requests on this list, the IRC log (also available [2])
has been edited to make it more readable. The summary is
quoted below as text.
Here's how the summary processing should work:
* Inspired by an XSLT style sheet contributed by Chris
Ferris [3], I asked Max Froumentin to write me another
one that leaves the good bits from Zakim, but eliminates
time stamps, joins and leaves, questions to zakim about
queue, ack's of people on the queue, and combines multiple
statements by the same person.
If people are interested in the unadulterated log,
it will remain available.
The xslt style sheets we used to do this are attached.
Prune-zakim.xsl is applied, then prune-zakim2.xsl. Thanks
to Max for being so helpful.
* I will then chop off manually the boring bits at
the front and back of the result, add a summary of
participants, agenda items discussed, and action items.
We should be able to automate a lot of this second part
with some standard notations, but we're not there yet.
It will probably require about 30 minutes to take an
IRC log and publish the final summary.
- Ian
[1] http://www.w3.org/2002/03/18-tag-summary
[2] http://www.w3.org/2002/03/18-tagmem-irc
[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Mar/0042
--
Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org) http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel: +1 718 260-9447
Summary of 18 March 2002 TAG teleconference
Note: This is an edited version of the 18 March TAG IRC
log.
Previous meeting: 11 March | Next meeting: 25 March
2002
Participants: Tim Berners-Lee (TBL), Tim Bray (TB), Dan
Connolly (DC), Paul Cotton (PC), Chris Lilley (CL),
David Orchard (DO), Norm Walsh (NW), Stuart Williams
(SW), Ian Jacobs (IJ)
Absent: Roy Fielding
Agenda items:
* TAG presentation at May 2002 AC meeting
* Review of one-page summaries of sections of
architecture categorization
Action item review:
Closed:
* Actions regarding one-page summaries all closed
* DC: check with workshop chair, make the XML PM ws
minutes available to the public, per CFP
Open:
* IJ: Integrate issues & findings into TAG arch doc
toc
New:
* TB: Work on bullet three of arch intro summary
* NW: Send revision of summary of "What does a
document mean?" this week to www-tag
* DO: Write text about "Web as information space", to
be integrated by IJ.
* IJ: Once summaries are done, integrate them.
Minutes
[Ian]
Ian has changed the topic to: TAG teleconference
http://www.w3.org/2002/03/18-tag
[TimBL]
Zakim, who is here?
[Zakim]
I see TimBL, Norm, Stuart?, Paulc, Ian, DanC,
TBray
[TimBL]
Missing Roy, DOrchard
Meeting starts
[Ian]
TBL: Problems with previous minutes? Additions?
TBL: DanC suggested that we do action items by
email in advance, or that I summarize.
Actions for one page summaries: Closed.
Action DC: check with workshop chair, make the
XML PM ws minutes available to the public, per
CFP
DC: To my satisfaction, it's public.
...I tested from external machine.
Please test:
http://www.w3.org/XML/2001/07/xmlpm-minutes.html
PC: I'll publicize once it's public.
[Norm]
That url is public
[Ian]
TB: I strongly feel that it's public.
[TimBray]
I checked it
[Ian]
Action IJ: Integrate issues & findings into TAG
arch doc toc
IJ: I will try to do that this week.
TAG presentation at AC meeting in Hawaii.
[Ian]
TimBL: Top three questions we'd ilke to ask AC?
TimBL: What should we put out before the AC
meeting?
IJ: I suggest that I try to integrate one-piece
documents and that that be available before AC
meeting.
[Norm]
Color me ignorant as well. It's a pale shade of
chartreuse, I think.
[Ian]
TimBL summarizes AC meeting
- Twice a year, summary of w3c activities to
Membership
[ChrisL]
Given the time period for this, we can't really
'ask the AC' something like our three hardest
issues and expect to get anything done in 45
minutes or whatever
[Ian]
Chris, I don't expect us to ask the AC technical
questions. More about, say, direction of TAG.
[ChrisL]
OK
[Ian]
TimBL: AC likes to be asked, not told.
TiMBL: The TAG should basically listen to the
AC.
[ChrisL]
So brandishing the collection of one page
summaries and saying 'what do you think so far'
is the sort of question
[Ian]
PC: We have a mandate to report.
CL, yes, I think so.
[TimBL]
Ian describes AC agenda
[Ian]
IJ: Currently, TAG allotted 30 minutes for
presentation, 30 for discussion.
IJ: Director usually gives a report. Is this
separate?
[ChrisL]
TAG report is clearly separate from Director
report
[Ian]
PC: There's also a free-for-all slot at the end
of the day.
TimBL: The question for us to think about:
[ChrisL]
Recently, a move from 'presentation' to 'top
questions/issues' to involve AC more, not give
them bland reports
[Ian]
- We are going to ask the AC for help in solving
TAG problems. How can we use the AC to help us?
Homework: Think about this this week. For
discussion next week.
If you won't be there, please indicate on IRC.
TimBL: We can create a panel, give an overview
of where we fit in, what we've done.
...and then ask 3 questions.
[TimBL]
?
[Ian]
PC: Here's a provocative one: TAG session wasn't
technical enough at tech plenary. Does that
feedback influence us about having a more
technical discussion in front of AC? Or what
that feedback specific to the tech plenary?
DC: I don't mind little blood on the floor in
Cannes.
DC: If we present a technical issue, I'd like to
present by way of analogies. Allow us to
illustrate the issue for a large audience.
[ChrisL]
We are going for useful feedback and clarity on
how to contribute, not 'blood on floor'
AC is a little different to the chairs/WG
menmber audience
[Ian]
TimBL to PC: I think the AC does not expect
technical discussion. More likely things like
"what happens if a WG flagrantly violates the
architecture. What can the TAG really do?" How
do we deal with overload, etc.
DC: Please don't get into penalty phase (until
problems actually arise).
IJ: Note that AB will talk about penalties for
process violations at AC meeting.
[DanC]
i.e. please let's trust unless/until we have
reason to do otherwise.
[Ian]
PC: note that we are delegating questions to WGs
when they are appropriate. Important to tell AC
when we do that.
[ChrisL]
More important that AC know how to raise an
issue to TAG, how we resolve them, etc
[Ian]
TimBL: Please think about this during the next
week.
On one-page summaries
[Ian]
TimBL: IJ has offered to put these togethers
into a harmonious whole.
TimBL: Also, IJ should start to create a
glossary that will allow us to coordinate our
writing.
[DanC]
yes, a glossary; e.g. web vs. Web
[Ian]
I was thinking of glossary as semantic rather
than manual of style.
[There is consensus about doing a glossary.]
[DanC]
and object/thing has come up in intro feedback.
[Ian]
TimBL: If a term is already defined, point out
where it's defined (and quote it).
[ChrisL]
And in particular, note when there are multiple
definitions for the same term in different
communities
[Ian]
TimBL: We are likely to rewrite terms in terms
of each other until the whole thing is
consistency.
TimBL: There are likely traps like "entity" and
"resource" since defined differently in
different contexts.
==============
Intro
CL: I objected strongly to earlier draft, but we
cleared up the misunderstanding.
...but I wanted to ensure that, e.g., DOM,
appear.
TB: There wasn't much disagreement on the list.
..just a question of how we write stuff down. We
agree that bullet 3 needs more kicking around.
TimBL: Do you think there's still a big gap?
[DanC]
for the record, the current version is
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/intro $Revision:
1.2 $ of $Date: 2002/03/18 20:48:04 $
[Ian]
CL: Yes, it's still mostly about network
protocols.
..less obvious; not as widely understood.
DC: Maybe better on what a doc means?
TB: Am I only one uncomfortable about
distinction between documents and messages.
?
[ChrisL]
message = body plus header
[Ian]
TBL: DC and I share model where message is a
"point" event. A document is something that can
change over time.
[ChrisL]
document is instance-of body
[Ian]
TBL: You can't build a protocol out of
documents, but you can out of messages.
...there's a relationship between the two (docs
and messages).
..see DC's model in Larch
[DanC]
Ian, an analogy to explain documents/messages:
the way T.V. Raman (who is blind) can "see"
what's on the whiteboard just by listening to
the conversation (messages) about it.
[Ian]
CL: TimBL on messages is fine, but seems to
imply that a resource only changes based on
messages.
DC: Not exactly: only time when parties learn of
changes is when messages are exchanged.
TimB: So sounds like agreement that item 3 needs
more work.
Action TB: Have a go at #3
DC: I'm prepared to hand off now.
[Dave]
BRB
[Ian]
IJ: I will take it as soon as TB says "Take it."
------------------------
*
* What does a URI identify?: NW and SW
[Stuart]
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/identify.html
[Ian]
NW: I think we should do one more pass.
TBL: I've never used the word "Uniform" in this
way. I think it's a good rule.
[DanC]
Stuart, are you in the critical path too? or is
it enough if Ian hears from Norm?
[Ian]
Uniform: Any URI can be used in any place where
a URI is used.
Stuart: In RFC 2396, there's an explanation of
what "Uniform" is supposed to mean.
DC: I remember this, sort of.
DC: The spec went to the IETF as "Universal" and
folks in the IETF found another word less
encompassing than Universal.
TBL: Both are important.
TBL: I felt that "Uniform" was a kind of
downgrading.
TBL: IETF resisted this apparent totalitarian
move.
TB: I like section 4 in second document.
(Semantics of URIs)
[DanC]
[[They [URIs] reduce the tedium of "log in to
this server, then issue this magic command ..."
down to a single click.]] --
http://www.w3.org/Addressing/
[Ian]
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/identify.html#sec
-semantics
[DanC]
Bray: "an addressable unit of information or
service"
[Ian]
TB: I like definition of Resource: " An
addressable unit of information or service"
DO: Isn't that circular?
TB: I don't care that it's circular. It works.
:)
TOPIC: Define "resource"
[DanC]
google says that's from XML-Link, TimBray.
[Ian]
TBL: In URIs and RDF used differently.
[TimBray]
Iput it there... but I stole it from somewhere
[Ian]
From WCA terms
http://www.w3.org/1999/05/WCA-terms/:
Resource
The URI specification describes a resource as
the common term for "...anything that has
identity. Familiar examples include an
electronic document, an image, a service (e.g.,
"today's weather report for Los Angeles"), as
well as a collection of other resources. Not all
resources are network "retrievable"; e.g., human
beings, corporations, and bound books in a
library can also be considered resources..."
(see also the term Web Resource).
TimBL: You can't make a representation of a
telnet session. Or a mailbox. I think it's
useful to distinguish documents from other
things.
TimBL: HTTP has architecture of representations.
DC: Representations are documents. But what they
represent is not constrained, is it?
TimBL: If something were to give me a
representation of a telnet resource, it would
miss the nature of the telnet resource.
TB: My definition with service covers that.
DC: Resource is like "point" in geometry. You
don't define. They just are.
CL: Yes, it's defined.
DO: If we agree that we want a circular
definition, then we should acknowledge that
they're circular (and rationale why).
[ChrisL]
Agree.
[Ian]
TimBL: Valid questions:
- Can a car be a resource?
DC: Yes, n'est-ce pas?
TimBL: By RDF definition, yes. By URI
definition, no.
CL: You can provide a URI to a photo of a car,
but not a car.
[ChrisL]
Don't especially like it, but there are examples
of such self-booting definitions that work
[Ian]
TB: I agree with CL.
[DanC]
http://dm93.org/2002/03/dans-car-23423423 <-
that identifies my car.
[Ian]
TimBL: In RDF, you can write a thing that
describes a car.
[ChrisL]
Only because you asseret that it does
I could assert that I have a URI which defines
your car
[Ian]
SW: The definitions I have come across are
"Anything that can be identified can be a
resource."
SW: Anything that can be identified is not
necessarily everything that is net accessible.
[Zakim]
TimBray, if you meant to query the queue, please
say 'q?'; if you meant to replace the queue,
please say 'queue= ...'
[Ian]
DC: Addresses take on meaning by communication.
DC: We're not talking about unique addresses,
just unambiguous addresses.
[DanC]
TimBL said the latter
[Ian]
(s/DC/TBL last comment)
thanks DC
[ChrisL]
The World is the Universe of Resources. The Web
is the Universe of Network Acessible Resources
[Dave]
Ian, you missed my point
[Stuart]
\me just dereferenced Dan's car :-)
[TimBL]
Sorry, the requested resource does not exist <-
dan's car
[Dave]
DO: perhaps there are computational and physical
resources, and there is a separation between
them in terms of addressability
[Ian]
TB: In real terms, architecture is something
developers care about. I think that a resource
in the meaningful operational sense is one that
can be network addressable. I don't think that
operationally, it's useful to consider a car a
resource.
[TimBL]
http://dm93.org/2002/03/dans-car-23423423
[DanC]
no! please let's all lear to stop saying that
resources can be retrieved. *Representations* of
resources can be retrieved
[Ian]
NW: I am surprised that we are having this
discussion. I'm not sure what to think about us
contesting the point about URIs pointing to
real-world objects.
NW: In response to URIs being network
addressable, namespace URIs are specifically
required to not be necessarily net addressable.
SW: None of the definitions I've seen are
closed.
"As in: This thing cannot be a resource."
[TimBL]
(The RDF URI#frag being different comes from the
web architecture .. function of mime type)
[Ian]
SW: I would prefer to not make the distinction
between an HTTP-type resource and an RDF-type
resource.
[ChrisL]
realworld://connolly/dan/car/20020318/
[Ian]
SW: ...maybe definition of resources is
expanding.
DC: Everyone please don't say "Resources can be
retrieved." No. representations can be
retrieved.
[DanC]
Norm, we don't need any new schemes to identify
my car
s/Norm,/no,/
[Ian]
TimBL: It's valuable to regard HTTP as a
protocol that talks about the class of things
called documents. They have representations you
can transfer as bits. So, a representation of an
image is a set of bits that encode visual
information.
[ChrisL]
OK except for use of the word document
[Ian]
TimBL: Around that, I feel that HTTP is
consistent. It tells you whether it can give you
the resource or not.
TimBL: HTTP is built to allow you to give a URI
to a car.
[DanC]
Norm, it doesn't lead to contradiction, tim.
s/Norm,/no,/
[Ian]
s/Norm,/no,/g
;)
[Stuart]
From RFC2396 defn of Resource: "Not all
resources are network
"retrievable"; e.g., human beings, corporations,
and bound
books in a library can also be considered
resources.
[DanC]
yes, my friggin IRC client does unauthorized
completion
[Ian]
TimBL: In RDF, fragment identifier is used to
identify abstract concepts.
TimBL: The way I saw getting over this dichotomy
between two definitions is to say:
- Without the "#", an HTTP URI is restricted to
talk about documents.
- You bootstrap yourself into the real world by
defining the connection in the format.
TimBL: I have a home page that has a URI. It was
born in 1991. I was born in 19XX.
[TimBL]
http://dm93.org/2002/03/dans-car-23423423
[Ian]
TimBL: I want to be able to distinguish the car
from the document about the car.
TimBL: HTTP doesn't give us the ability to
separately ask about the car and the document
about the car.
[Stuart]
\me process question... do we want to make it
through the other pieces too?
[Ian]
TB: One could probably built a consistent set of
mathematics about what a resource is. What turns
out to be more interesting? I could see a world
where a car has a URI. But not clear to me what
you would build there.
TB: Seems like a deep distinction between a
resource that exists as an electronic object and
something that doesn't exist.
DO: This is the bits v. atoms discussion.
[TimBL]
(IMO, A car could have a URI, but not a http URI
given HTTP 1.1)
[Ian]
TB: Perhaps a resource is something you get
representation of. The representation is always
electronic. Perhaps that's a useful place to
start building the superstructure: a resource is
something that has at least one electronic
representation.
DC: I dispute TBL's assertion that there was a
contradiction. I agree that it's unwise to use
the same identifier for two things (since you
can't tell them apart).
TBL: My interpretation is that HTTP 300, 200,
and 404 responses all talk about documents.
...anytime you dereference the URI, you get
documents. And documents and cars are distinct.
DC: You haven't shown the contradiction in my
assertion that "This URI identifies my car."
CL: Why is fragment identifier in RDF not "part
of a resource" as in other formats?
TimBL: "Fragment" is unfortunate term since not
always identifying a subpart. Meaning of what is
identified is language-dependent.
[DanC]
one way to say it: doc#name refers to whatever
doc means by name.
[ChrisL]
Dan's definition is the same as a fragment
identifier
Tims definition is very different, it seesm
[Ian]
CL: The definition here is the current
definition of the mime identifier.
[TimBL]
ack
[DanC]
but earlier in the meeting, we established (or
at least: TimBL suggested) that a telnet:
resource has no electronic representation.
[Ian]
IJ: Author can choose preferred representation.
I can therefore say "this photo is what I want
as the representation of DC's car." It follows
that DC's definition follows.
[TimBL]
TBray: A telente: resource is more lik an html
page than a car
[Ian]
SW: This discussion started as "What's a URI?".
We moved to HTTP URIs specifically. Do we want
to restrict ourselves to HTP URIs only?
SW: How do we move forward/
?
DC: Authors suggested they would give another
round?
[TimBL]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2002Mar/
att-0065/02-what-does-a-document-mean.html
------------------------------------------------
---------------
[Ian]
IJ: I suggest documenting the topic inline (can
your car be said to be a resource?)
===============
What does a document mean?
NW: I propose to come back to this in one week?
NW: No technical differences between 7 and 14
march drafts.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2002Mar/
0067.html
Action NW: Send revision this week to www-tag.
============================
Rest summary
[TimBL]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2002Mar/
0023.html
[Ian]
DC: We used "object" in intro, rather than
"resource". Got a public comment to use "thing"
instead.
[ChrisL]
object is problematic, what are its methods?
thing is suitably vague
[Ian]
DC: The point of the web arch is that it builds
the illusion of a shared information space.
[TimBray]
we should bloody well agree what we mean and say
"resource"
[ChrisL]
grin
[Ian]
DC: Please connect to other sections. E.g., Web
servers and clients talk to each other, and the
net effect is that everyone agrees "to what's on
the whiteboard"
TimBL: We need REST to create the illusion of a
shared space. What we've been battling over is
that most people mean "shared information space"
but that some things are not part of REST (e.g.,
automotive industry, telnet).
TBL: W3C has in the past focused on the shared
information space. But we are extending the
boundaries (e.g., web services).
TBL: Perhaps we should say that the information
space model doesn't work for all things we are
interested in. Are they in fact distinct?
[ChrisL]
I wonder if Telnet is not 'in the web' because
it is a stream of text?
[Ian]
DC: Doesn't appeal to me on the surface.
IJ: Dan's scanner is on the Web already.
[ChrisL]
if so, is a streaming audio or video 'not on the
Web'?
[TimBray]
is telnet really on the web? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
if telnet is, email is
[DanC]
email very definitly is.
[Ian]
DO: I support the idea that we say what parts of
the Web conform to the notion of the shared
information space. We should say what isn't in
that space (if it's not).
[TimBray]
Any individual email message can be
[ChrisL]
TimBL alluded earlier to mailto being in the Web
but the email message itself not being (until
archived, presumablky) but its clearly a
message. And that messages are nopt on the web,
they produce the illusion of the Web
[Ian]
TB: You can give the address of a Web service
port. You can *integrate* web services (and
interconnections are important). But
conceptually, the information space metaphor
works in some areas but not others.
[DanC]
DC [also said]: a lot of the work I've done for
the last year or so is integrating my office
phone into the web... and the IRC channels I
use.
cf "Real-Time Resources in the Web: IRC,
Telephone, Instant Messaging"
http://www.w3.org/2001/01/rtriw44
[Ian]
DO: I'm on Web Services Architecture WG and have
been pounding the table to get REST components
in the Web services architectuer.
[TimBray]
when I get POPmail via Eudora, it doesn't feel
like the web is involved
[Ian]
DO: Interesting to see how close various
definitions get to qualifying.
[DanC]
POP could easily be done over HTTP.
[ChrisL]
HTTP could be (and has been) done over POP
[Ian]
TB Summarizing IRC thread: Does the Web
architecture have to comprise {email | telnet}
as a first class citizen?
[ChrisL]
TB: Is emaila first class citizen
[Ian]
TB: How far do you have to strain your
definition of URI to include telnet
sessions........
TBL: Split into two groups of URIs - information
space and not.
DC: I don't agree with that on the face of it.
SW: What about URIs being opaque (if we are
distinguishing them)?
DO: What can RF and I do to change our document
on REST?
TimBL: Rather than just documenting REST,
explain how it supports the information space.
TBL: This chapter explains "if you've got
packets, here's how you get information space"
DO: Perhaps elsewhere in the document series, we
should talk about shared info space.
DO: Should this document be expanded to talk
about the shared information space (and then
describe how REST is used to implement that0.
TimBL: Move the info space to the front of the
document.
Action DO: Write text about information space,
to be integrated by IJ.
==========================
What does a message mean?
[TimBL]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2002Mar/
0022.html
[Ian]
CL: I'm in the middle of writing these notes up.
TB: RF jumped on this one because of RFC822
TB: I would line up with RF on this.
...seems like the notion of 1-2 headers + bag of
bits is pretty useful.
[DanC]
line up "sorta".
[Ian]
TBL: Reason why people feel headers are harmful
is that the way they combined is not
well-defined.
....at least XML has well-defined structure. RDF
defines combination.
...in 822, you don't have the structure; algos
built on top are hard to rely on.
TB: Having said that, it works pretty well.
DC: About 5 work well. Very hard to extend.
TB: But we've hit the 80/20 point.
[ChrisL]
So, don't add new headers but use a core set
that works already
[Ian]
CL: What happened with HTTP extensions?
DC: Didn't take off.
[TimBray]
s/TBray/pumpkin/
[Ian]
TBL: Required everyone to implement mandatory
extensions.
========================
Next meeting: Next week same time, same place.
ADJOURNED
Attachments
- text/xml attachment: prune-zakim.xsl
- text/xml attachment: prune-zakim2.xsl
Received on Monday, 18 March 2002 15:52:42 UTC