[Minutes] 24 Feb 2003 TAG teleconf (site metadata, namespaceDocument-8)


Minutes of the TAG's 24 Feb 2003 teleconf are
available as HTML [1] and as text below.

Please note that I have cleaned up the IRC
log, but did not attend the meeting, so I have
left most of the log untouched.

 _ Ian

[1] http://www.w3.org/2003/02/24-tag-summary


                   Minutes of 24 Feb 2003 TAG teleconference

   Nearby: [4]IRC log | [5]Teleconference details  [6]issues list 
   [7]www-tag archive

      [4] http://www.w3.org/2003/02/24-tagmem-irc.html
      [5] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/#remote
      [6] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist
      [7] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/

1. Administrative

    1. Roll call: NW (Chair), TB (Scribe), DC, RF, TBL, SW, CL, PC.
       Regrets: IJ, DO?
    2. Accepted [8]17 Feb telecon minutes
    3. Accepted this [9]agenda
    4. Next meeting: 10 March.

      [8] http://www.w3.org/2003/02/17-tag-summary.html
      [9] http://www.w3.org/2003/02/24-tag.html

  1.1 Meeting planning

   May and Nov meeting dates left open until 10 Mar meeting. IJ to update
   Member cal when known.


     * Proposed 22, 23, 24 May (2003/02/17)
       Completed action IJ: Start email thread to TAG to suggest
       alternate May dates of 22 (All day), 23 (Morning), 24 (Morning).
       DO, TB, PC, NW, IJ can meet those days. CL not sure yet.


          Chris can do alternate Budapest dates
          DanC: might not be able to make dev-day session
          Stuart may have trouble with 24th too

          I can juggle my dev day presentation most likely to avoid a

          No input from TimBL on these dates yet, need to get it

   Holding May dates open a little longer...


     * Proposed 14-15 Nov Japan
       Completed Action IJ: Start separate thread on tag to try to get
       confirmation of 14-15 November in Japan. TB, PC, DO, NW, IJ, CL
       can meet those days.


          okay by me

          Need input from DC & TBL
          DanC: not aware of any conflicts
          Leave these open, try to close on 10th of March
          Keio can host us on those dates

          we did get confirmation from keio that they could host us
          but CL is sure now

  1.2 Technical Plenary presentations

   Resolved: Review slides Tuesday, 4 Mar in Boston.
     * SW: TAG overview
     * DC: Arch Doc overview
     * CL: xmlIDSemantics-32
     * NW: xmlProfiles-29
     * PC: namespaceDocument-8

  1.3 Mailing list management

     * Action SW: Send draft mailing list policy to tag@w3.org. (See
       [10]preliminary announcement)

     [10] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Feb/0196.html


          SW: has action item outstanding to update policy & publish it.
          Made an interim intervention, which seems to have helped
          Dan: post-f2f, we did everything wrong; flameburst following on
          TimBL's post with TBL on vacaation
          SW: wait for my action item?

          we can ask for better quoting discipline; three pages of quoted
          matter without comment is not acceptable

          Proposal from someone: ask people not to post more than once
          per day without reply

          prefer leading by example to constraining by rules

          TBray: don't like doing by policy, it's an individual
          judgement. Propose offline intervention with people causing
          Dan: some people are way out into the territory of wasting
          everyone's time; perhaps a private email to them?
          Norm: SW will finish action item, and when individuals get out
          of line, it's appropriate for the chair to intervene
          DanC: of course this may take days to get to
          Norm: of course TAG members could send direct email to chair
          acting for intervention

  1.4 Other stuff

     * Action IJ 2003/02/06: Modify issues list to show that
       actions/pending are orthogonal to decisions. IJ is working with
       PLH on this.

2. Technical (70min)

  2.1 Site metadata hook

     * Site metadata hook? See [11]email from TBL

     [11] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Feb/0093.html



          with only 3 thiings, not too bad a prob, but this is a slippery

          reserved urls /robots.txt, /w3c/p3p, /favico

          TBL reviews points in his posting referenced above

          guys, stop putting technical discussion in /me
          is the question : given a uri x, how to get metadata about x?
          or is it given a site s, get metadata?

          TBray: 1. support adopting the issue

          one persons data is another persons metadata

          HTTP DNA domain metadata could well include delegation
          information giving actual notional "sites"

          TBray 2. web arch currently doesn't have notion of a "site" and
          to the extent it does it's coupled to host (e.g. robots.tx); so
          this is new but might be good
          TBray: recent proposal along same lines from (I think) Roger
          TBray: TBL said HTTP "tag" meant header
          Roy: robots.txt isn't necessarily a file
          Roy: this isn't metadata it's just data about a resource

          any resource is not necessarily a file

          timMIT, you wanted to define site in the context of this issue
          proposal only

          no, data about a site
          not a resource


          Roy: we need to manage this whole area of per-site names

          there is no way to give a URI of a site as opposed to a URI for
          a welcome page for it
          hmm... sites are significant resources, no? so they should have


          TBL on lack of distinction between data/metadata
          TBL on whole family of interesting metadata you could have
          about a site
          TBL: need a hook to hang this stuff

          Chris, you wanted to talk about subsites, tenants, server
          sharing etc

          No, "/" isn't the site it's the server, they're not the same

          Server isn't a perfect name eitehr ... tends to be a computer.

          Chris: echoing problem of site/server disconnect, bad
          architecture to require everyone to write one file
          Chris: if a Site is an important thing, it should have a URI;
          right now there's no such thing
          Chris: per our axioms
          Roy: When robots.txt was invented.. (Chris: everyone had their
          own server) .. the idea was to knock politely on some part of a
          naming authority's domain
          Roy: haven't seen a proposal yet with equivalent semantics

          it has had excellent expressive power at ultra low
          implementation cost

          timMIT, you wanted to explain to roy where this fits in

          TBray: wants to introduce a new notion called "site" a
          collection of resources (on one server?)
          TBray: "Site" has a URI, which could be provided in an HTTP
          header and an HTML <link>
          TBray: could contain robotrs policies, RSS feed, all sorts of

          I can't see how you're going to give site a URI independent of
          the pages on the site...

          Roy/TBL: Problem because many sites consider the root URI to be
          revenue-significant and don't want robots to go there

          A head would work

          Roy: but likes TBL's idea

          a HEAD would work.

          Roy: wants the issue to be tightly circumscribed
          Roy: i.e. we're just solving /robots.txt (but that cat's out of
          the bag) or more generally, algorithm for determining
          appropriate metadata for a site
          TBL: but doesn't like metadata/data distinction
          TBL: how would we design robots.txt if we were doing it now or
          ina couple years
          Bray: propose we accept SiteData-NN


          Chris: does that include defining notion of a site?
          Bray: yes
          Roy: rather empower authors to define their own site
          Roy: rather than define for them what it is

          DanC, you wanted to support the issue as proposed in Proposed
          issue: site metadata hook
          Chris, you wanted to clarify

     [12] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Feb/0093.html

          Just found "What if I can't make a /robots.txt file?" at

     [13] http://www.robotstxt.org/wc/faq.html#noindex

          Chris just wants to make sure we don't leave undefined terms
          like "site" hanging
          Roy: can we define it reflectively
          TBray doesn't understand Roy


          Norm: any objection?
          Resolved: Accept issue siteData-36.
          Chris: owner?

          all resources on "site" point to same "site URI"

          what roy said
          Issue owner: TBL
          Action item: proposal to close it
          TBL: not till after discussion

          next number is 36

          I think this is SiteData-36
          Action TBL: Summarize discussion & recast issue
          Action TBray: Post a strawman proposal

   Actions accepted

  2.2 namespaceDocument-8

     * [14]namespaceDocument-8
          + Next steps on [15]RDDL Proposal from Tim Bray/Paul Cotton

     [14] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#namespaceDocument-8
     [15] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Feb/0213


          Bray: proposal:
          Very minimal, see exegesis in my covering email
          Dan: this isn't XHTML, they own the syntax (Chris doesn't
          Dan: would prefer a custom XML or RDF language, but not enough
          to object; would abstain
          Norm: you really think that HTML-WG has to approve any
          attributes in any namespaces
          Dan: yes
          Chris: flabbergasted

     [16] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Feb/0213

          I'm a bit flabbergasted as well

          Dan: doesn't like it but thinks that's the way it is

          Actually to clarify - they DO own the syntax, no argument; the
          syntax of the HTML namespace. Attributes in other namespaces
          they do not own and this was what I objected to in Dan's

          Bray: what about modularization
          Dan: then you have to change the DOCTYPE
          Chris: if you want it to be valid

          if you want it to be valid you would need to change the doctype
          and write a driver dtsd for it etc

          Bray: Granted

          chris, there aren't any XHTML documents that aren't valid XML,
          are there?

          Chris, you wanted to correct TimB

          Bray: not sure what the correct term is
          Chris: It's an XHTML-family doc, which is a defined term in the
          XHTML spec
          Bray: in technical terms, it's XHTML + 2 attributes, which is
          easy to understand and implement


          Norm: want to change proposal?
          Bray: no
          Dan: does proposal want to change DOCTYPE

          timMIT, you wanted to express the concern that teh semantics
          are notwell defined in rddl

          Bray: silent on that subject
          Paul: we're open to suggestions

          got it

     [17] http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xhtml-modularization-20010410/conformance.html#s_conform_document

          TBL: covering letter said RDF wouldn't give semweb people what
          they wanted; ?

          thx, chris. that's new to me. but it does involve changing the
          doctype... "A conforming XHTML family document is a valid

          TBL: suggests that RDDL semantics be given in RDF terms, as
          classes & properties

          1. The cover note suggets the RDDL document does not meet its
          SWeb goals. In what way?

          Bray: Various RDF instantiations either fail to capture the
          linkage to the namespace as a resource, or are really complex
          Bray: prepared to believe that RDF-defined semantics are a
          agood idea, who's going to write it down?
          Dan: I would, but I wouldn't use XHTML, I'd use RDf anyhow
          TBL: if introducing a thing called "nature", if you make it an
          RDF Class then that explains it to a lot of people and you
          don't need to say anything more


          Norm: proposal could be left alone and people who wanted to do
          the RDF definition could do so
          TBL: no, interoperability suffers
          Paul: pushing back on Dan's thesis that we should use RDF
          Paul: we agreed that NS doc should be human readable
          Paul: and there were other issues with regards to using RDF in
          Dan: RDF can be as human-readable as you like
          Dan: consumer is a machine not a human
          Paul: disagrees strongly
          Paul: we have two objectives, hard to achieve both

          TBray, you wanted to say that I don't know what an RDF class is

          TBray: can we publish a XSLT or other code that would process a
          minimal-RDDL and emit the RDF that you'd like to see?
          Chris: user-agents, given XML & a stylesheet, typically don't

          DanC, you wanted to ask for a use case to focus on

          Bray: Consider WordML; human perl programmer could dereference
          namespace name to figure it out

          ok, thanks for the use case.

          timMIT, you wanted to wade into this one

          Bray: Also the desperate perl hacker could dispatch to code via
          RDDL to generate postscript etc
          Dan: but that's hard, subtle, hard to believe, given the
          experience of MIME dispatching
          TBL: agree that it's usable to have both;

          would people please stop saying "we've agreed to X"? I'm quite
          confident we have resolved *nothing* anywhere near this issue.

          TBL: consider high-volume applicatios, apps hitting this
          thousands of times a second, the architecture has to support

          I'm not sure I agree it's infrequent...

          TBL: use case only appeals to fairly infrequent access
          TBL: If it doesn't have well-defined semantics people won't use
          it. Dan & I would both put RDF there.

          scenario: human wants info about namespace (I don't care about
          automation here)


          Paul: perplexed how to handle at technical plenary, this has
          been going on for a long time and he hasn't seen statements
          from TBL, DC in public that non-RDF was unacceptable

          wondering about proposing reserved paths nsURI/rdf/ and
          nsURI/schema and so forth

          Dan: not saying "has to be RDF" - he's saying he would prefer
          RDF & would abstain on this proposal

          I don't know what Paul meant by "RDDL-based" of all these
          various proposals for RDDL


   ... discussion of technial minutiae of how to make it valid, with
   DOCTYPE wrangling and so on ...

  2.3 Other issues

   The TAG is likely to review action items associated with these issues.
     * [18]deepLinking-25
          + Action TB 2003/02/06: Send URI equiv draft finding to
          + Completed action IJ: Announce to www-tag with updated status
            section to highlight that this does not represent a W3C
            position. Ask for comments within seven days. ([19]Done)
     * [20]rdfmsQnameUriMapping-6
          + Action DC 2003/02/06: Propose TAG response to XML Schema
            desideratum ([21]RQ-23). See input from Jonathan Marsh
            ([22]forwarded by Paul Cotton).
     * [23]xmlFunctions-34
          + Action TBL 2003/02/06: State the issue with a reference to
            XML Core work. Deadline 17 Feb.
     * [24]binaryXML-30
          + Action TB 2003/02/17: Write to www-tag with his thoughts on
            adding to survey.
          + Next steps to finding? See [25]summary from Chris.
     * [26]contentPresentation-26
          + Action CL 2003/02/06: Create a draft finding in this space.
            Deadline 3 March.
     * [27]URIEquivalence-15
          + Completed action TB: Revise draft finding on URI equivalence
            bearing in mind DC presentation (slides) at ftf meeting.
            Deadline: 1 March. Done, see [28]draft 4. See also [29]email
            from Larry Masinter on xml namespaces.
          + TBL 2003/01/20: Send email to uri@w3.org requesting
            terminology change (regarding definition of "URI").
     * [30]uriMediaType-9
          + Action DC 2003/02/06: Start discussion on
            discuss@apps.ietf.org, but not urgent
     * [31]RDFinXHTML-35
          + Action DC 2003/02/06: Write up a crisp articulation of issue
            RDFINHTML-35. [DC says - don't expect results before May 2003
     * [32]HTTPSubstrate-16
          + Action RF 2003/02/06: Write a response to IESG asking whether
            the Web services example in the SOAP 1.2 primer is intended
            to be excluded from RFC 3205
          + See [33]message from Larry Masinter w.r.t. Web services.
     * [34]errorHandling-20
          + Action CL 2003/02/06: Write a draft finding on the topic of
            (1) early/late detection of errors (2) late/early binding (3)
            robustness (4) definition of errors (5) recovery once error
            has been signaled. Deadline first week of March.
     * [35]IRIEverywhere-27
          + Action CL 2003/01/27: Send piece that CL/MD/IJ wrote to
     * [36]metadataInURI-31
          + Action SW 2003/02/06: Draft finding for this one.
     * [37]fragmentInXML-28 : Use of fragment identifiers in XML.
         1. Connection to content negotiation?
         2. Connection to opacity of URIs?
         3. No actions associated.
     * [38]contentTypeOverride-24
          + See [39]email from DC to Voice Browser WG. Does this resolve
            this issue?

     [18] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#deepLinking-25
     [19] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Feb/0227.html
     [20] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#rdfmsQnameUriMapping-6
     [21] http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-xmlschema-11-req-20030121/#N400183
     [22] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Feb/0207.html
     [23] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#xmlFunctions-34
     [24] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#binaryXML-30
     [25] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Feb/0224.html
     [26] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#contentPresentation-26
     [27] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#URIEquivalence-15
     [28] http://www.textuality.com/tag/uri-comp-4.html
     [29] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Feb/0090.htm
     [30] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#uriMediaType-9
     [31] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#RDFinXHTML-35
     [32] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#HTTPSubstrate-16
     [33] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Feb/0208.html
     [34] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#errorHandling-20
     [35] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#IRIEverywhere-27
     [36] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#metadataInURI-31
     [37] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#fragmentInXML-28
     [38] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#contentTypeOverride-24
     [39] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Feb/0085.html

  2.4 Architecture document

   See also: [40]findings.
    1. [41]21 Feb 2003 Editor's Draft of Arch Doc:
         1. Resolve to request publication of this draft (with
            modifications?) on TR page?
         2. Action DC 2003/02/06: Attempt a redrafting of 1st para under
         3. Action DC 2003/01/27: write two pages on correct and
            incorrect application of REST to an actual web page design
         4. Action DO2003/01/27: Please send writings regarding Web
            services to tag@w3.org. DO grants DC license to cut and paste
            and put into DC writing.
         5. Action CL 2003/0127: Draft language for arch doc that takes
            language from internet media type registration, propose for
            arch doc, include sentiment of TB's second sentence from
         6. Action TB 2003/01/27: Develop CP11 more: Avoid designing new
            protocols if you can accomplish what you want with HTTP. DC
            suggested describing GET/PUT/POST in a para each, then say
            "if your app looks like that, use HTTP". [42]Proposal from TB
            to withdraw the proposal.

     [40] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/findings
     [41] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2002/webarch-20030221
     [42] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Feb/0005


    Ian Jacobs for Norm Walsh and TimBL
    Last modified: $Date: 2003/02/27 01:44:10 $

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

Received on Wednesday, 26 February 2003 20:54:30 UTC