- From: Ian B. Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- Date: 26 Feb 2003 20:54:14 -0500
- To: www-tag@w3.org
Hello,
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.
May
* 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.
[TBray]
Chris can do alternate Budapest dates
DanC: might not be able to make dev-day session
Stuart may have trouble with 24th too
[C3s]
I can juggle my dev day presentation most likely to avoid a
clash
[TBray]
No input from TimBL on these dates yet, need to get it
Holding May dates open a little longer...
Nov
* 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.
[Roy]
okay by me
[TBray]
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
[Chris]
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
[TBray]
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?
[Chris]
we can ask for better quoting discipline; three pages of quoted
matter without comment is not acceptable
[TBray]
Proposal from someone: ask people not to post more than once
per day without reply
[Chris]
prefer leading by example to constraining by rules
[TBray]
TBray: don't like doing by policy, it's an individual
judgement. Propose offline intervention with people causing
problems
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
[Roy]
favicon.ico
[TBray]
with only 3 thiings, not too bad a prob, but this is a slippery
slope
[Chris]
reserved urls /robots.txt, /w3c/p3p, /favico
[TBray]
TBL reviews points in his posting referenced above
[Chris]
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]
TBray: 1. support adopting the issue
[Chris]
one persons data is another persons metadata
[timMIT]
HTTP DNA domain metadata could well include delegation
information giving actual notional "sites"
[TBray]
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
Costello
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
[Chris]
any resource is not necessarily a file
[Zakim]
timMIT, you wanted to define site in the context of this issue
proposal only
[Roy]
no, data about a site
not a resource
[Chris]
ok
[TBray]
Roy: we need to manage this whole area of per-site names
[Chris]
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
URIs.....
[Roy]
/
[TBray]
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
[Zakim]
Chris, you wanted to talk about subsites, tenants, server
sharing etc
[TBray]
No, "/" isn't the site it's the server, they're not the same
things
[timMIT]
Server isn't a perfect name eitehr ... tends to be a computer.
[TBray]
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
[Chris]
it has had excellent expressive power at ultra low
implementation cost
[Zakim]
timMIT, you wanted to explain to roy where this fits in
[TBray]
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
stuff
[Norm]
I can't see how you're going to give site a URI independent of
the pages on the site...
[TBray]
Roy/TBL: Problem because many sites consider the root URI to be
revenue-significant and don't want robots to go there
[timMIT]
A head would work
[TBray]
Roy: but likes TBL's idea
[timMIT]
a HEAD would work.
[TBray]
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
[timMIT]
SiteData-$int(ian++)
[TBray]
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
[Zakim]
DanC, you wanted to support the issue as proposed in Proposed
issue: site metadata hook
[12]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Feb/0093.ht
ml
Chris, you wanted to clarify
[12] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Feb/0093.html
[Stuart]
Just found "What if I can't make a /robots.txt file?" at
[13]http://www.robotstxt.org/wc/faq.html#noindex
[13] http://www.robotstxt.org/wc/faq.html#noindex
[TBray]
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
[Roy]
aww
[TBray]
Norm: any objection?
Resolved: Accept issue siteData-36.
Chris: owner?
[Roy]
all resources on "site" point to same "site URI"
[TBray]
what roy said
Issue owner: TBL
Action item: proposal to close it
TBL: not till after discussion
[Roy]
next number is 36
[TBray]
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
[TBray]
Bray: proposal:
[16]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Feb/0213
Very minimal, see exegesis in my covering email
Dan: this isn't XHTML, they own the syntax (Chris doesn't
agree)
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
[Norm]
I'm a bit flabbergasted as well
[TBray]
Dan: doesn't like it but thinks that's the way it is
[Chris]
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
statement
[TBray]
Bray: what about modularization
Dan: then you have to change the DOCTYPE
Chris: if you want it to be valid
[Chris]
if you want it to be valid you would need to change the doctype
and write a driver dtsd for it etc
[TBray]
Bray: Granted
[DanC]
chris, there aren't any XHTML documents that aren't valid XML,
are there?
[Zakim]
Chris, you wanted to correct TimB
[TBray]
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
[timMIT]
3
[TBray]
Norm: want to change proposal?
Bray: no
Dan: does proposal want to change DOCTYPE
[Zakim]
timMIT, you wanted to express the concern that teh semantics
are notwell defined in rddl
[TBray]
Bray: silent on that subject
Paul: we're open to suggestions
[Chris]
got it
[17]http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xhtml-modularization-20010410
/conformance.html#s_conform_document
[17] http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xhtml-modularization-20010410/conformance.html#s_conform_document
[TBray]
TBL: covering letter said RDF wouldn't give semweb people what
they wanted; ?
[DanC]
thx, chris. that's new to me. but it does involve changing the
doctype... "A conforming XHTML family document is a valid
instance"
[TBray]
TBL: suggests that RDDL semantics be given in RDF terms, as
classes & properties
[timMIT]
1. The cover note suggets the RDDL document does not meet its
SWeb goals. In what way?
[TBray]
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]
PC+
[TBray]
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
XML
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
[Zakim]
TBray, you wanted to say that I don't know what an RDF class is
[TBray]
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
work
[Zakim]
DanC, you wanted to ask for a use case to focus on
[TBray]
Bray: Consider WordML; human perl programmer could dereference
namespace name to figure it out
[DanC]
ok, thanks for the use case.
[Zakim]
timMIT, you wanted to wade into this one
[TBray]
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;
[DanC]
would people please stop saying "we've agreed to X"? I'm quite
confident we have resolved *nothing* anywhere near this issue.
[TBray]
TBL: consider high-volume applicatios, apps hitting this
thousands of times a second, the architecture has to support
this
[Norm]
I'm not sure I agree it's infrequent...
[TBray]
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.
[Roy]
scenario: human wants info about namespace (I don't care about
automation here)
[timMIT]
?RDDL_based?
[TBray]
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
[Chris]
wondering about proposing reserved paths nsURI/rdf/ and
nsURI/schema and so forth
[TBray]
Dan: not saying "has to be RDF" - he's saying he would prefer
RDF & would abstain on this proposal
[timMIT]
I don't know what Paul meant by "RDDL-based" of all these
various proposals for RDDL
[TBray]
... 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
uri@w3.org.
+ 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
meeting]
* [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
www-tag.
* [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
2.2.4
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
CP10.
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