- From: Ian B. Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2002 18:12:25 -0500
- To: www-tag@w3.org
Dear www-tag,
Minutes from the 4 Nov 2002 TAG teleconf are available
as HTML [1] and as text below.
- Ian
[1] http://www.w3.org/2002/11/04-tag-summary
--
Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org) http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel: +1 718 260-9447
--------------------------------------------------------
W3C | TAG | Previous: 28 Oct teleconf | Next: 11 Nov
Minutes of 4 Nov 2002 TAG teleconference
Nearby: IRC log | Teleconference details ? issues
list ? www-tag archive
1. Administrative
1. Roll call: TBL, SW (Chair), TB, DC, NW, PC, RF,
IJ (scribe). Regrets: DO, CL
2. Accepted 28 Oct minutes
3. Accepted this agenda
4. Next meeting: 11 Nov. Regrets: RF (and possibly
for 18 Nov).
1.1 Meeting planning
TAG presentation at AC meeting
* Resolved: Approved TAG summary for AC (TAG-only).
* Action SW, TB, DO: Send slides for AC discussion
to TAG for review by 11 November. Review to take
place primarily by email.
TAG face-to-face meeting
SW: I imagine four slots. One on namespace docs, one
on AC meeting prep. Other two? See proposal from Tim
Bray (TAG-only)..
[Ian]
DC: Let's talk about document formats.
SW: Please email me input to the ftf agenda by
the end of this week.
DC: Arch doc doesn't say much about a
self-describing Web (following your nose from
one doc to another to build context).
DC: TBL, do you believe this is web arch doc?
Can we discuss this at the ftf meeting? TBL
can you write something in advance of the ftf
meeting?
SW: See RF's posting from today, which I think
touches on this topic somewhat.
DC: I hadn't read it from that angle.
DC to TBL: Have you written on learning what
document X means by following links from X->Y,
where you know what Y is?
TBL: I think that's captured by "grounded
documents" in "Meaning".
Action DC: Review Meaning to see if there's any part
of self-describing Web for the arch doc.
Completed Action TB 2002/10/28: invite Jonathan
Borden to the meeting (afternoon) to discuss RDDL.
TB: Bad news is that Jonathan won't attend meeting;
Good news is that JB and I have reached agreement and
I will be posting something about RDDL in the next
few days.
2. Technical
* 2.1 Potential issue re consistency XQuery/Xschema
* 2.2 Use of fragments in SVG v. in XML
* 2.3 Findings
* 2.4 Architecture Document
* 2.5 Postponed
2.1 Potential issue re consistency XQuery/Xschema
See issues from TB and responses from PC (TAG-only).
[Ian]
TB summarizes his issues: I have some
technical issues with directions proposed by
Query WG. Sharpest aspect is that parts of
Query require XML Schema semantics. I sent
info to XML Query WG; received a short reply;
since then I've received longer replies from
individuals of the group.
My latest message is an attempt to break down
the problem. This may be a process issue
rather than an arch issue. We are moving
beyond DTDs (after decades) into new
territories of schemas. It seems to me at this
point highly architecturally unsound for any
really important Recommendation to bet the
farm on a particular schema language. XQuery
is bigger than it needs to be. The WG has done
the sensible thing of defining Basic Query
(leaving out most of schema bits). There needs
to be architectural pressure on groups to do
less; ship sooner; ship simpler.
PC: Sorry for not replying in a more timely
fashion to TB's points. On the topic of
required integration: WG chartered (twice) to
use XML Schema. There haven't been comments
prior saying that this is a bad thing. If this
dependency is to be changed, then Query WG
needs to be rechartered.
[timmit]
Firstly, I am surprised that TimBray is not
encouraging interdependence between w3c specs
- see HTML and Xlink discussion - PC
[Ian]
PC: This makes this a process issue. IMO, the
primary concern in public fora is not
dependency on xschema. But rather whether
update language is critical (public split
50/50). On living in a multiple-schema world:
Just because someone waves a standards banner
does not mean that the XML Query WG has to
change its plans and delay its work to pay
attention to such a banner waver.: Perhaps the
XML world needs an abstraction that would
include the various schema languages. I think
there's a work item in the schema charter that
covers this item.
From XML Schema WG charter: "interoperability
with other schema languages such as RELAX-NG
and Schematron"
On item three on simplicity: We have worked
hard to meet our requirements. To come along
and say that the requirements are too big
surprises me. I don't think that WGs at W3C
should be constrained to pursuing only small
specs.. Basic Query handles Schema Part 2. If
we publish Basic Query as our only
deliverable, we would not meet our
requirements. I don't think that at this point
in time we should split our deliverables given
the progress we've made on the document. I
think it's ok that the query spec is big. Some
of the size has to do with clearer
expectations about interoperability. TB has
identified a long-term goal -- clearer
relationships among schema specs -- but I
don't think that this should affect Query 1.0.
There are a number of XQuery 1.0
implementations, even prior to last call (both
Member and non-Member implementers). So TB's
arguments sway me less since we have so much
implementation experience that suggests we are
doing the right thing.
DC: Is PC arguing that this or is not a TAG
issue?
PC: Could be that the TAG issue is on multiple
schema languages. Perhaps we could synthesize
an abstract model for PSVI processors.
DC: Is there an issue in the first place?: I'm
convinced there's an issue given the
substantive email exchanged.
TB: Tie-in to XLink is a big bogus; the
arguments in that case were purely technical,
not about it being a W3C spec.: In the
community of Web designers, there is a wave of
horror at the astounding complexity of schema
and xpath 2.0. A strong feeling that something
has gone amiss somewhere.
DC: I have heard similar.
TB: I am not simply running off at the mouth
here, but I think accurately representing a
feeling that's out there.
[Zakim]
DanCon, you wanted to share concerns from the
public about XML schema "leaking" into other
specs; mostly XPath and to say that nearing
last call is *exactly* the time to revisit and
confirm or reconsider requirements.
[Zakim]
Timmit, you wanted to say that this is
primarily an architectural issue in the sense
of high-level modular design. It is a question
of whether a flexible interface to the schema
language should be provided. Of course the
process and social issues are intertwined.
[Ian]
TBL: The question is architectural (whatever
the charter said).: Modularity is a good
thing; can the specs be more modular? PC and
TB do talk to different people (and it's good
to hear from all of those people). It would be
obviously costly to do anything to XQuery. I
read Xquery and it seemed pretty
straightforward to me. PC's social point holds
(cost of change).
TB: Query allows querying by types. Allowing
query by those 19 data types seems reasonable.
[TBL summarizes that TB's concern is about the
dependency on part 1 of XML Schema.]
SW: Is the focus on a dependency on a single
schema language or more specifically on XML
Schema?
[Stuart]
s/Schema/Query
[Scribe is unsure whether this substitution is
appropriate.]
[Ian]
TB: I think that PC is correct -- there's a
key technical question about whether XML
Schema is a cornerstone of future XML specs.
[DanCon]
well, tim, techincally, XML Schema part 2
depends on XML Schema part 1.
[Ian]
PC: I think the issue is more about multiple
schema languages.
[Zakim]
Timmit, you wanted to say that this sort of
choice has to be made in each case on its
merits.
[Ian]
TBL: I am concerned by extreme stances such as
"one should one always use w3c specs"; each
case is different. Several good principles
here - reuse stuff; modularity. Need to
consider each case. Just talking about the
schema, case I think that it's not interesting
to reset the Query WG. What is possible is for
someone to find a clever way of achieving what
is required. I haven't understood whether
"Basic" is what TB needs. Is Basic what TB
prefers, or is Basic not adequate (and needs
tweaking)?
SW: Please frame comments in terms so we can
define this issue.
TB: I think that it's a good thing to have
lots of schema languages out there since this
area is new. We don't have enough experience
to know which schema language meets which
needs. I highly approve of XQuery Basic and
would strongly recommend that the WG release
that on a separate Rec track. It might even
shorten time to Recommendation (for that part
of the spec). I have argued (with specifics)
about how query/schema can be decoupled. I
haven't heard substantive replies to my
specific syntax.
TB: issue proposal: "Schema languages: What
can be said about multiple existing schema
languages and their appropriate uses in W3C
and the Web more generally?"
TBL: More specific than "What can be said
about...?"
TB revised proposal: "Given the existence of
more than one XML schema languages; what
architectural implications does the use of a
particular language have? To what extent is it
useful to bind to all schema languages or a
particular one?"
DC issue proposal: "To what extent should
schema be integrated into xpath and xquery?"
At confs I hear concerns about XPath.
NW: I have a lot of the same concerns as TB.
Though I'm not sure what the issue is,
exactly. I think the pragmatic issue will be
setting the conformance levels right.
Substitution groups and inheritence look like
they'd be hairy to decouple.
[DanCon]
sigh. conformance levels are evil. This was a
priniciple of XML 1.0 (which XML 1.0 didn't
quite meet, actually) and it continues to be
important.
[Ian]
PC: What about extending DC's proposal to
xforms and wsdl?
DC: Not concerned about those as much as
xpath, and xquery.
NW: I'd support DC's proposal
PC: I vote against the issue as proposed.
XQuery 1.0 handles DTD and XML Schema. It's
not been on the WG's work plan to handle other
schema languages. And it seems that the XQuery
WG charter has as a work item addressing
additional schema languages. I don't
understand why the TAG has to take this up
since the WGs have items on their work plans.
NW: I don't think that there's evidence that
xquery and xpath will support xml schema and
dtds equally well.
RF: There seems to be an awful lot of support
for Relax
SW Proposed: Adopt as a new issue "To what
extent should xml schema be integrated into
xpath and xquery?"
PC: I oppose this as an issue; I don't see
what the architectural issue is from this
wording.
For: DC, TB, NW.
Abstain: TBL, RF, SW
PC: If there an arch issue, I think it's about
how schema languages interrelate. I'd like to
take offline with TB and refine this.
No issue accepted at this time. No action item
assigned.
2.2 Use of fragments in SVG v. in XML
* Action DC 2002/09/26: Describe this issue in more
detail for the TAG. Done
[Ian]
DC proposed issue: "Use of fragment
identifiers in XML". I think that CL might
disagree with me, but I take that as evidence
that there is an issue.
TB: Is there not already an architectural slam
dunk: RFC2396 says that what comes after # is
up to the spec.
DC: There are cases where two specs define
what happens. It seems to me that it means
something, but it doesn't have to be
exhaustive or exclusive.
TB: I could almost see a principle that says
"When there is a language that might be served
wtih one of multiple media types,
inconsistencies in meaning for frag ids is
harmful."
SW: RFC2396 also discourages inconsistency.
TBL: We can ack the inconsistency in the
architecture (e.g., when coneg is used). You
can serve an HTML page as text/plan. You could
serve up, similarly, a bag of bits using the
appropriate mime type to give the meaning of a
dog or car.
TBL: I have resisted bringing in mime types.
I've become more comfortable with the idea of
using mime types to give a particular view on
data.: I think there is an issue here that we
should write up. Fortunately, I think we can
write it up and resolve it.
[Straw poll]
PC: I'm uncomfortable about doing this without
Chris Lilley present.
DC: That doesn't convince me that we shouldn't
call the question, see if there's support
today, and moving on.
SW: Active support for the proposed issue?
For: NW, TBL, DC, SW, RF
Abstain: PC, TB
[Norm]
People would like to be able to inject
processing instructions (not PIs, but
semantics) into fragment identifiers. That's
where I'm feeling the pain today.
[Ian]
Resolved: Accept new issue fragmentInXML-28.
Action IJ: Add fragmentInXML-28 to issues
list.
2.3 Findings
See also: findings.
1. Findings in progress:
1. deepLinking-25
1. TB 2002/09/09: Revise "Deep Linking" in
light of 9 Sep minutes. Status of
finding?
2. Findings versioning
1. SW 2002/09/09: Discuss with IJ versioning of
findings. Done.
On findings versioning:
DC: Formalizing this is burdensome; I feel
differently for Tech Reports.
SW: I didn't want people to refer to things
that would change.
DC: Such is life. Do other people really want
to do this?
SW: For me, this is what I'd like for
findings.
PC: Works for me.
NW: It works for me, too.
IJ: Number of findings per year (6 in 2002)
seems manageable.
Resolved: Accept this proposal for the time being.
Action IJ: Send this policy to www-tag and make
available from/on findings page.
2.4 Architecture document
See 29 Oct 2002 Architecture document
1. Completed action RF 2002/09/25: Propose a rewrite
of a principle (rationale -> principle ->
constraint) to see whether the TAG prefers this
approach. It was suggested that the example be
about HTTP/REST, as part of section 4.
2. Completed action TBL 2002/09/25: Propose text on
information hiding. (From 24-25 Sep TAG ftf: "The
principle of information-hiding is contrary to
global identifiers....Shall we put in the
document something about information
hiding/independent design of orthogonal specs?
You should should not be able to write an xpath
to peek into http headers....") [Done]
3. Action CL 2002/09/25: Redraft section 3,
incorporating CL's existing text and TB's
structural proposal (see minutes of 25 Sep ftf
meeting on formats).
4. Action NW 2002/09/25: Write some text for a
section on namespaces (docs at namespace URIs,
use of RDDL-like thing).
5. Completed action DC 2002/10/31: Resend redraft of
arch doc section 2.2.1 on URIEquivalence-15. DC
and IJ discussed on 30 October. Should IJ
incorporate those comments in next draft?
6. Action IJ: Incorporate DC and IJ comments about
URIEquivalence-15 into next arch doc draft.
7. Completed Action IJ 2002/10/28: Include link to
IRI issue from this point; leave as good practice
note. Done in 29 Oct 2002 Architecture document.
[DanCon]
Roy writes "I give up" as if to say "please
withdraw this action" but I found his message
quite responsive to the action.
[Ian]
RF: Regarding earlier question: are xquery and
xml schema orthogonal?
TB, DC: I found the approach appealing.
IJ, SW: Same here.
IJ: "Change is inevitable, and therefore
evolution should be planned." Seems like
"evolution shoudl be planned" is for agents,
not the system. Does "requirements" mean
requirement on the designers or the system?
RF: "The system needs to be be able to evolve
since change is inevitable."
TB: "Evolution should be planned *for*; when
change happens things should not fall apart."
TBL action regarding info hiding done.
CL Action about chapter three not done.
IJ: What are our expectations for doc before
AC meeting?
PC: I am more comfortable approving 29 Oct
draft and approving a bigger change at the ftf
meeting.
DC: I'd like IJ to get as much done as
possible by 13 Nov, with approval with one
other TAG participant's review.
Resolved: We might not get a doc out by 13
Nov, but ok for IJ + two other participants
(for this draft) sufficient to get to TR page.
IJ: I will try to get a draft with some of
RF's proposals by Thursday.
TB, SW: We commit to read and give feedback.
[DanCon]
if it's out by Thu, I intend to read it by
Monday
2.5 Postponed
1. IRIEverywhere-27
1. See comments from Paul Grosso (asking the
TAG to do this quickly).
SW: This will be a priority agenda item for
the 11 November meeting.
Action IJ: Invite Martin Duerst to the 11
Nov meeting.
2. Status of URIEquivalence-15. Relation to
Character Model of the Web (chapter 4)? See text
from TimBL on URI canonicalization and email from
Martin in particular. See more comments from
Martin.
1. CL 2002/08/30: Ask Martin Duerst for
suggestions for good practice regarding URI
canonicalization issues, such as %7E v. &7e
and suggested use of lower case. At 16 Sep
meeting, CL reports pending; action to send
URI to message to TAG.
3. xlinkScope-23
1. Coordination with XML CG? See Notes from XML
CG call 10 Oct 2002 (Member-only)
4. namespaceDocument-8
1. Action TB 2002/09/24: Revise the RDDL
document to use RDF rather than XLink. Goal
of publication as W3C Note.
5. contentPresentation-26
1. Action CL 2002/09/24: Draft text on the
principle of separation of content and
presentation for the Arch Doc.
6. rdfmsQnameUriMapping-6
1. The Schema WG is making progress; they will
get back to us when they're done. See XML
Schema thread on this topic.
7. uriMediaType-9:
+ Action DC 2002/08/30: Write a draft Internet
Draft based on this finding (Deadline 11n
Nov). This action probably subsumes the
action on TBL to get a reply from the IETF
on the TAG finding.
8. Status of discussions with WSA WG about
SOAP/WSDL/GET/Query strings?
+ DO 2002/06/24: Contact WSDL WG about this
issue (bindings, query strings and schemas)
to ensure that it's on their radar. See
discussions from 9 Sep TAG teleconf.
________________________________________________
Ian Jacobs, for TimBL
Last modified: $Date: 2002/11/04 22:53:25 $
Received on Monday, 4 November 2002 18:12:27 UTC