- From: Ian B. Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- Date: 28 Jul 2003 18:50:23 -0400
- To: www-tag@w3.org
Hello,
Minutes of the 28 July teleconf are available as
HTML [1] and as text below.
Please note that the TAG has not yet accepted the
21-23 July ftf meeting minutes; the draft is not
yet public.
_ Ian
[1] http://www.w3.org/2003/07/28-tag-summary.html
=======================================================
Minutes of 28 July 2003 TAG teleconference
Nearby: [4]IRC log | [5]Teleconference details · [6]issues list ·
[7]www-tag archive
[4] http://www.w3.org/2003/07/28-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), DC, TBL, PC, CL, Pat Hayes [PH], TB, DO
(briefly), IJ (Scribe). Regrets: SW. Missing: RF.
2. We did not accept the [8]21 Jul face-to-face meeting minutes. DC
looked at them and did not find them acceptable as is.
3. Accepted this [9]agenda.
4. Next meeting: 4 August teleconf. Regrets: DC, DO
5. Resolved: Meet face-to-face in Bristol 6-8 October 2003 (Mon to
Wed) with the expectation that some people may participate by
telephone or video remotely. DanC gave regrets for any type of
participation.
[8] http://www.w3.org/2003/07/21-tag-summary.html
[9] http://www.w3.org/2003/07/14-tag.html
2. Technical
The TAG invited Pat Hayes to the meeting to discuss the terms URI,
identify, resource, representation, and issue httpRange-14.
[Ian]
NW: For technical agenda, we can either talk about (1)
httpRange-14 or (2) define resource and representation.
DO: In case of a vote, my proxy vote goes to TB. [DO leaves.]
TBray: Procedural point: If we write up text along the lines we
agreed to at the ftf meeting (information resource mentioned),
I think several of us can live with that compromise. We can
address the issue(s) in detail in a subsequent version of the
arch doc.
[Chris]
I agree that information resource really helps as a concept
[Ian]
DC: On "information resources": Roy said there was no such
thing. We did not *decide* to make the distinction at the
meeting. I think RF is on the record as saying we should not
make the distinction.
[Zakim]
timbl, you wanted to mention that Roy had views on this and to
proceede without him is a shame.
[Ian]
TBL: Right, I think RF opposed the notion of information
resource. RF's absence today is a shame. We invited Pat Hayes
(PH) to discuss the use of terms. I think RF might agree that
in practice there are information resources, but he would not
like to make the distinction in the model.
PH: Please explain RF's position. Is the position that there is
no such thing as an information resource, or that the
distinction is not useful?
TBray: I think I can convey RF's position. RF and I both
observe that the existing deployed base of software has no
opinion about what the nature of a resource is. Deployed
software doesn't care whether the resource is a mountain or a
picture of a mountain. The distinction has nothing to do with
respresentational state transfer. While I agree with him
technically, I am aware of the angst caused by the issue.
DC: In particular, RF has pointing out that http URIs (without
#fragid) exist in practice that refer to robots (not
information resources).
TBray: Another example is XML namespace URIs that begin with
http and have no frag ids.
PH: Seems like XML Namespace URIs are a good example of URIs
that (can) have nothing at the end. It's hard to get ahold of
the namespace. You get documents back saying "I am a
namespace."
PC: Don't forget the use of Namespace URIs as declared without
making available any representations.
PH: Seems frequent to have URIs without representations
available; no need to make this illegal. When you get
persnickety about nature of resource, you continue to find
ambiguities (e.g., resource at given moment in time v. resource
at any moment time).
TBray: Suppose we proceed in document by making distinction
between information resource and "other types" of resources.
TBL has said that ambiguous denotation with URIs is dangerous
to sem web. What would need to be said in arch doc to make
building sem web sanely possible?
PH: What bothers me is that there is the axiom on the current
draft: The claim that a URI must *identify* a unique resource.
TBray: What do you mean by "unique"?
PH: If the axiom could be weakened or removed, a lot of these
problems would just go away.
TBL: There's a philosophical debate issue (denotations and
interpretations). But there are practical problems when someone
wants to use a URI to refer to a page and also to a person.
These people haven't been playing with the semantic web.
[Zakim]
timbl, you wanted to explain NS and to also mention Roy's model
of all the bits as being representatation of the robot.
[Ian]
TBL: There's a philosophy question (how do we determine we mean
the same thing when using URIs). But there's another thing
(hair-splitting) about whether we mean a photo or a photo
including its frame. I'm worried about neither of these (for
the moment). I am concerned when people are expressly referring
to two things with the same URI.
PH: For the purposes of today's discussion, I agree with
TBL.(But I don't actually agree with TBL) I agree that the
current technology doesn't care what the nature of the
resources is.
[timbl]
Pat: Current technology not on teh sem web doesn't give a rat
what these resources really are.
[Zakim]
tbray, you wanted to ask in what sense it is unique and to ask
where the assertion Pat talks about is made
[Ian]
PH: The problem is what's said in the arch doc. The document
says important about resources that matter.
[Zakim]
also, you wanted to menation Roy's model of all the bits as
being representatation of the robot.
[Ian]
TBray: What language is bothering you in the [10]16 July Web
Arch draft?
2. Identification and Resources "Uniform Resource Identifiers
(URI), defined by "Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI): Generic
Syntax" [URI], are central to Web Architecture. Parties who
wish to communicate about something will establish a shared
vocabulary, i.e. a shared set of bindings between identifiers
and things. This shared vocabulary has a tangible value: it
reduces the cost of communication. The ability to use common
identifiers across communities is what motivates global naming
in Web Architecture."
[TB reads second para as well]
PH: I don't establish a link to a galaxy by using a URI. Let's
define "link"
[10] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/webarch/
[Chris]
link is a context of use of uris
[Zakim]
Norm, you wanted to ask how to distinguish between the nits and
the real distinctions
[Ian]
PH: URI-makes-link if we think about resources as being
networked resources.
TBray: I'm sorry, I just don't see the problem.
PH: How do you link from an imaginary entity to something 100s
of 1000s of light years away.
[Zakim]
timbl, you wanted to mention confusion betweb Rs and IRs
[Ian]
PH: You can link the representations, but not the things.
[Chris]
PH just said what I was queued up to say!!
[Zakim]
Chris, you wanted to point out links are only found in resource
representations
[Ian]
DC: The doc says "When a REPRESENTATION of one resource..."
CL: You can only have a link from a representation. The link is
to a resource, not a representation. (CL: Modulo fragid
nonsense.) One knows about links by fetching representations
and determining that there's a link. A link IS formed between
resources; the link is accomplished via representations.
[Chris]
a link IS NOT* fomed merely by the existence of two resources
a link has to be explicitly established, in a representation
not all representations have links
[Ian]
PH: "shared set of bindings". Can we assume that looking at
this from a sem web that "parties" can be software agents?
DC: Yes.
PH: So how do software agents establish a shared vocabulary?
[Chris]
eg I can have an image in SVG that has links, and a JPEG image
that does not
[Ian]
DC: The document doesn't say that they "have to", we just
observe that they do.
[Chris]
and those could be two representations of the same resource
[Ian]
TBL: Software agents pick up knowledge by being written by
humans.
[timbl]
[11]http://www.cacr.caltech.edu/~roy/vermeer/ucyh.jpg "The
Astronomer"
[11] http://www.cacr.caltech.edu/~roy/vermeer/ucyh.jpg
[Ian]
TBray: It's safe to assume (by software agents) that same URI
refers to same thing.
DC: Both names and what they refer to is bootstrapped.
PH: There's no way to communicate "the thing". You can only
refer to it with symbols.
DC: That's exactly what we do.
PH: It works between people in a room because they all see the
dog and observe understanding.
TBray: Why doesn't it work on the Web.
PH: Vocab is defined in terms of bindings, not shared URIs. I
don't think that's true. Software can do a lot without knowing
bindings. It doesn't matter in some cases whether there is even
a binding. Only agreement is the agreement to use URIs in the
same way (in a given context).
TBray: I agree with PH here - I think the discussion of "shared
set of bindings" is gratuitous; we never actually define the
bindings. We could delete that phrase; we don't need to talk
about bindings at this point in the doc.
DC: But names refer to something. There is tangible value when
our views of binding are the same.
[DanC_g]
"a shared set of identifiers on whose meanings they agree"
I like that
[TBray]
+1
[Chris]
I observe that in real life, subsets of communities can agree
on the meaning of a given term, but entire communities rarely
ever do. hence schools of thought, different factions,
political parties, and so on. a canonical set of definitions
only goes so far
[Ian]
TBL to PH: On this phone call, we say "Pat's on the queue." Pat
is animate, the queue is virtual. But there's no confusion
about these things. We've exchanged a huge amount of
information, and it would be inconceivable to be confused about
what "Pat" means. A vast number of URIs will work that way on
the semantic web. E.g., those published by the OWL WG.
[TBL on cost in time of continuing to debate fine points.]
[Zakim]
DanC_g, you wanted to reiterate pat's proposal
[Ian]
[PH proposal: "establish a shared set of identifiers on whose
meanings they agree."]
PC: Do we define "identifiers"?
TBray: I don't think we need to define "identifiers"
DC: It's clear that we mean URIs.
[timbl]
[12]http://www.cacr.caltech.edu/~roy/vermeer/ucy.jpg
[12] http://www.cacr.caltech.edu/~roy/vermeer/ucy.jpg
[Ian]
Proposed: s/a shared set of bindings between identifiers and
things/a shared set of identifiers on whose meanings they agree
NW: If we adopt this, does this help clarify what we mean by
resources/respresentations?
Resolved: In section 2, s/a shared set of bindings between
identifiers and things/a shared set of identifiers on whose
meanings they agree
[Ian]
[Second issue is on information resources.]
PH: "The networked information system is built of linked
resources, and the large-scale effect is a shared information
space. The value of the Web grows exponentially as a function
of the number of linked resources (the "network effect")."
Whoa. This seems to be talking about information resources.
DC: I agree.
TBray: I don't agree.
TBL: In my terminology, you have a picture/form of a robot;
those are information-bearing objects.
TBray: Software can't tell the difference.
TBL: My software can.
[On meaning of "link"]
[Norm]
Stupid is not illegal.
[DanC_g]
but harmful can be, and perhaps should be, promoted to
counter-to-web-architecture
[Zakim]
timbl, you wanted to discuss what
<[13]http://www.cacr.caltech.edu/~roy/vermeer/ucy.jpg> is.
[13] http://www.cacr.caltech.edu/~roy/vermeer/ucy.jpg
[Ian_]
TBL: Web works because we have expectations about the same
content.
NW: What if you do a GET on a URI and get back an RDF
representation that says "That URI refers to a person."
[DanC_g]
I think this "expectation of same content" issue is much more
subtle... doesn't work for W3C home page, for example, which
has different information on different days.
[Ian_]
TBL: The system would stop. "I'm sorry, I told you that the URI
refers to a person; not a painting."
NW: If I own a URI, I don't know why I don't get to say
definitively what it refers to.
TBL: It's useful to be able to limit scope to information
resources rather than have to call up a person to ask what a
URI refers to.
[DanC_g]
we can, and we do go thru doing just that.
[Ian_]
TBL :The Web is built of networked information objects. The
identity of those things is defined by what is invariant when
you do GET with that URI.
[timbl]
and what is invariant is that that is a picture of an oil
painting.
[Ian_]
PH: If you say that what the URI denotes is fixed by the owner,
then any URI can denote anything.
[Chris]
yes, and that would be useless, but is still possible
[Ian_]
PH: I don't think that's feasible as a network architecture.
[Zakim]
DanC_g, you wanted to state my position on httpRange-14: I
don't think we shoulld resolve it in this version. I think we
should make and use the distinction between resources in
general and information resources; i.e. those resources that
can have representations.
[Ian_]
DC: On this issue, I don't think that we should resolve it
entirely in v1 of arch doc. There's a lot of work to be done
before we do.
[timbl]
PH: If it were really true that yo had to ask someone what
their URI meant, the web would not work. It isnt a working
network architecture
[Ian_]
DC: But I do think it's useful to make the distinction between
information resources and other resources. It will help the
community talk about the problem.
[timbl]
seconded
[Zakim]
TBray, you wanted to say that the information system includes
only those things for which people publish URIs, and they're
only good citizens if they make representations available
[Ian]
PH: I don't know what it means to build a networked ifnormation
system with galaxies.
DC: Is it useful to make a decision about adding "information
resource" without RF here?
NW: I'd like to move forward even if RF's not here. He can
object.
Proposd action DC: Propose text for architecture document that
distinguishes "information resource" from other types of
"resources".
DC: I'd like to resolve to include such language.
PC: No chance.
[Others may have said no as well]
DC: I don't accept the action if we are not deciding.
Action TB: Propose text for architecture document that
distinguishes "information resource" from other types of
"resources".
[On httpRange-14]
NW: I fear that we simply disagree. What's the best way to
frame the discussion that will be constructive?
DC: I move to adjourn.
NW: Several people wrote back and said that my summary was
flatly wrong.
[timbl]
Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI), defined by "Uniform
Resource Identifiers (URI): Generic Syntax" [URI], are central
to Web Architecture. Identifier here is used here in the sense
of name. Parties who wish to communicate about something will
establish a shared vocabulary, i.e. a shared set of bindings
between identifiers and things. This shared vocabulary has a
tangible value: it reduces the cost of communication. The
ability to use common identifiers across URIs identify
resources. A resource can be be anything. Certain resources are
information resources, which convey information. These are
termed information resources. Much of this document discusses
information resources, often using the term resource.
An information resource is on the Web when it can be accessed
in practice. When a representation of one information resource
refers to another information resource with a URI, a link is
formed between the two resources. The networked information
system is built of linked resources, and the large-scale effect
is a shared information space. The value of the Web grows
exponentially as a function of the number of linked resources
(the "network effect").
[Ian]
PH: Perhaps question producing more contention than it needs
to. If an http URI is used with "#fragid", then, it should be
that the URI before the "#" SHOULD denote an information
resource.
[Chris]
oh, magic hashes again
[Ian]
PH: This gives an opening to folks like Patrick Stickler. But
the point is not to have one's cake and eat it too.
[Zakim]
DanC_g, you wanted to doubt that hayes's suggestion helps...
I'm pretty sure roy thinks robot#topPart works while robot
refers to a non-document
[Ian]
DC: I don't think this suggestion helps. RF might say that
<URI#top> refers to top part of robot and <URI> refers to
entire robot.
[TB notes that MIME type doesn't say anything about resource,
just type of representation]
[Chris]
its not clear that resources even have a type
[DanC_g]
not in general, no, chris.
[TBray]
It's pretty clear that they *don't* have a "type" absent
external assertions e.g. in RDF
[Ian]
PC: Imagine I had an XML namespace (paulcotton.name/foobar)
describing a bunch of things, and I don't make available a
namespace document. And I want to refer to subpieces of the
namespace. I can do something like #part1, #part2 to refer to
pieces. That seems to make something illegal that folks are
already doing today.
[TBray]
paulcotton.name/foobar#2
[Ian]
PC: I use /foobar#part1, /foobar#part2.... I hear PH saying
that if I use "#fragid" then there had better be a document
available even when the fragid is stripped.
PH: Yes, I was saying that.
[Chris]
Is 'a document' the same as 'an information resource
representation'
[TBray]
don't think so, Chris
I think a document is a representation
[Ian]
TBL: The question is whether I can use a URI to refer to a
painting, or what magic I have to do to figure out whether the
URI refers to a painting or an information object that refers
to it. I'd like to be able to refer to an invoice for a robot,
and be sure that someone else doesn't use the URI to get the
sound of the robot hitting the floor.
NW: That might happen; there's nothing that can be done about
it.
[TBray]
NW: shit happens
[Ian]
TBL: But that case is broken. People shouldn't do that. It's
damaging.
TBray: We have language to that effect (on ambiguity).
TBL: I want language that says that if you use a URI that
refers to a picture and to a person, that that's wrong.
NW: I agree that that's wrong. But I can't swallow assertions
related to URIs "with #".
[Chris]
'wrong' and 'inconsistent' are human value judgements and as
such, it will be possible to argue for and against them
[Ian]
TBL: Which assertion is wrong?
NW: Don't say that the URI refers to a document.
DC: TBL's argument is rationale, but it's not compelling.
TBL: So the argument that the information content will always
be there is not compelling?
[TBL and CL disagree whether consistency is a human value
judgment.]
DC: The CYC ontology is coherent, but saying it's web arch at
this point seems premature to me. Not every web master has
agreed to CYC documentation and agreed to it.
[TBray]
The genie's out of the bottle already, just like qnames in
content
[Ian]
TBL: The cost of not agreeing to this point is very high. The
language (which one?) will have to be reverse engineered in a
year.
NW: I don't think TBL has made the argument in a compelling
fashion yet.
[Norm]
what tbray said
[Ian]
IJ: Any summary on this part of the discussion?
[DanC_g]
(I'm OK with gaps in the IRC log; in fact, if people have
higher expectations than that, they should think again.)
[Ian]
TBray: no.
[DanC_g]
hey... we got a decision about changing "bindings" to meaning!
That's non-trivial!
[TBray]
This isn't supposed to be easy
[Ian]
NW: Thanks to all, especially PH.
PH: I won't make my "crazy suggestion" anymore; it's been shot
down. :)
3. Not discussed
Actions related to Architecture Document
* Action RF 2003/06/02: Rewrite section 5. Section 5 is expected to
be short.
* Action IJ 2003/06/16: Attempt to incorporate relevant bits of
"[14]Conversations and State" into section to be produced by RF.
* Action TBL 2003/07/14: Suggest changes to section about
extensibility related to "when to tunnel".
* Action CL 2003/07/21: Redraw diagram showing relationship between
URI/Resource/Representation with (1) English words (2) no more
"isa" arrows; just label objects.
* Action CL 2003/07/21: Create an illustration of two resources, one
designated by URI without fragment, and one designated by same URI
with fragment..
* Action IJ 2003/07/21: Revise text in section 2.1 about risk of
false negatives in comparing URIs.
* Action IJ 2003/07/21: Reword the good practice note with new term
for "spelling" based on "character string".
* Action IJ 2003/07/21: Prune instances of "scheme name" except when
referring to string component before ":"; RF calls this "scheme
component".
* Action IJ, CL 2003/07/21: Discuss and propose improved wording of
language regarding SVG spec in bulleted list in 2.5.1.
* Action IJ 2003/07/21: Include POST (and other methods) as examples
of deref methods at beginning of 2.5.
* Action TBL 2003/07/21: Propose a replacement to "URI persistence
...person's mailbox" in 2.6 and continue to revise [15]TBL draft
of section 2.6 based on TAG's 23 July discussion.
* Action DC 2003/07/21: Propose language for section 2.8.5 showing
examples of freenet and other systems.
* Action TB 2003/07/21: Continue Oaxaca story for beginning of
section on messages, showing GET (with details) and POST (with
details).
* Action TB and CL 2003/07/21: Propose a replacement sentence in
section 3.2.2.1 regarding advantages of text formats.
* Action NW 2003/07/21: Rewrite 3.2.2.3.
* Action IJ 2003/07/21: Produce Editor's Draft Weds or Thurs of next
week.
[14] http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Conversations
[15] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/webarch/tim
Action items related to SVG spec that IJ does not intend to continue
to track here:
* Action CL 2003/07/21: For SVG 1.2, tighten up language regarding
use of GET for a element/href attribute. Also, ensure that SVG 1.2
is clear on CE vs CTE
Identifiers ([16]URIEquivalence-15 , [17]IRIEverywhere-27)
[16] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#URIEquivalence-15
[17] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#IRIEverywhere-27
* [18]URIEquivalence-15
+ SW proposal: Track RFC2396bis where [19]Tim Bray text has
been integrated. Comment within the IETF process. Move this
issue to pending state.
* [20]IRIEverywhere-27
+ Action CL 2003/04/07: Revised position statement on use of
IRIs.
+ Action TBL 2003/04/28: Explain how existing specifications
that handle IRIs are inconsistent. [21]TBL draft not yet
available on www-tag.
+ See TB's [22]proposed step forward on IRI 27.
[18] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#URIEquivalence-15
[19] http://www.textuality.com/tag/uri-comp-4
[20] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#IRIEverywhere-27
[21] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2003Apr/0074.html
[22] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Apr/0090.html
Qnames, fragments, and media types([23]rdfmsQnameUriMapping-6,
[24]fragmentInXML-28, [25]abstractComponentRefs-37, [26]putMediaType-38)
[23] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#rdfmsQnameUriMapping-6
[24] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#fragmentInXML-28
[25] http://www.w3.org/2003/07/24-tag-summary.html#abstractComponentRefs-37
[26] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#putMediaType-38
* [27]rdfmsQnameUriMapping-6
+ Action DC 2003/02/06: Propose TAG response to XML Schema
desideratum ([28]RQ-23).
* [29]fragmentInXML-28 : Use of fragment identifiers in XML.
1. Connection to content negotiation?
2. Connection to opacity of URIs?
3. No actions associated / no owner.
* [30]abstractComponentRefs-37(discussed [31]above).
* [32]putMediaType-38
[27] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#rdfmsQnameUriMapping-6
[28] http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-xmlschema-11-req-20030121/#N400183
[29] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#fragmentInXML-28
[30] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#abstractComponentRefs-37
[31] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/07/21-tag.html#findingsInProgress
[32] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#putMediaType-38
New and other Issues requested for discussion. ([33]mixedUIXMLNamespace-33,
[34]RDFinXHTML-35, [35]siteData-36 plus possible new issues)
[33] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#mixedUIXMLNamespace-33
[34] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#RDFinXHTML-35
[35] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#siteData-36
Existing Issues:
* [36]mixedUIXMLNamespace-33
* [37]RDFinXHTML-35
* [38]siteData-36
+ Action TBL 2003/02/24 : Summarize siteData-36
[36] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#mixedUIXMLNamespace-33
[37] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#RDFinXHTML-35
[38] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#siteData-36
Possible New Issues
* [39]Visibility of Web Services, raised by Mark Baker
* [40]Character model conformance, raised by TBL
* [41]Meaning of URIs in RDF documents, raised by TBL
[39] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003May/0069.html
[40] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Jun/0009.html
[41] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Jul/0022.html
Findings in Progress
Expect [42]contentTypeOverride-24 and [43]whenToUseGet-7 to have made
significant progress ahead of F2F. [44]xmlIDSemantics-32 has a stable
and mature draft finding and XML Core WG are working toward a
resolution of this issue.]
* [45]contentTypeOverride-24: 9 July 2003 draft of [46]Client
handling of MIME headers
1. Action CL, NW 2003/06/30: Read the draft finding by 7 July.
[47]NW Done
* 9 July 2003 draft of [48]URIs, Addressability, and the use of HTTP
GET and POST
+ [49]whenToUseGet-7
o Subsumed action DO 2003/07/07: Send text that DO and
Noah M. can agree to to tag@w3.org. (DO should verify 9
July text)
* [50]xmlIDSemantics-32:
1. [51]Chris Lilley draft finding.
2. Action CL 2003/06/30: Revise this draft finding with new
input from reviewers. 7 July Deadline.
* [52]contentPresentation-26: Action CL 2003/06/02: Make available a
draft finding on content/presentation.
* [53]metadataInURI-31: 8 July 2003 draft of "[54]The use of
Metadata in URIs"
+ Action DO 2003/07/07: Send rationale about why WSDL WG wants
to peek inside the URI.
+ See also [55]TB email on Apple Music Store and use of URI
schemes instead of headers
* [56]abstractComponentRefs-37
+ Action DO 2003/06/23: Point Jonathan Marsh at options. Ask
them for their analysis.
* Action IJ 2003/07/21: Update Deep linking finding (i.e., create a
new revision) with references to [57]German court decision
regarding deep linking. No additional review required since just
an external reference.
* Action IJ 2003/06/09: Turn [58]TB apple story into a finding.
[42] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#contentTypeOverride-24
[43] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist.html#whenToUseGet-7
[44] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#xmlIDSemantics-32
[45] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#contentTypeOverride-24
[46] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/mime-respect.html
[47] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Jul/0028.html
[48] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/whenToUseGet-20030709.html
[49] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist.html#whenToUseGet-7
[50] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#xmlIDSemantics-32
[51] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/xmlIDSemantics-32.html
[52] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#contentPresentation-26
[53] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#metadataInURI-31
[54] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/metaDataInURI-31
[55] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Apr/0151.html
[56] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#abstractComponentRefs-37
[57] http://juris.bundesgerichtshof.de/cgi-bin/rechtsprechung/document.py?Gericht=bgh&Sort=3&Datum=2003&Art=pm&client=3&Blank=1&nr=26553&id=1058517255.04
[58] http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2003/04/30/AppleWA
Other issues
* [59]namespaceDocument-8
+ Action TB 2003/04/07: Prepare RDDL Note. Include in status
section that there is TAG consensus that RDDL is a suitable
format for representations of an XML namespace. Clean up
messy section 4 of RDDL draft and investigate and publish a
canonical mapping to RDF.
+ Action PC 2003/04/07: Prepare finding to answer this issue,
pointing to the RDDL Note. See [60]comments from Paul
regarding TB theses.
+ Refer to draft TAG [61]opinion from Tim Bray on the use of
URNs for namespace names.
* [62]uriMediaType-9
+ IANA appears to have responded to the spirit of this draft
(see [63]email from Chris Lilley).What's required to close
this issue?
+ Action CL 2003/05/05: Propose CL's three changes to
registration process to Ned Freed. [What forum?]
* [64]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 [65]message from Larry Masinter w.r.t. Web services.
* [66]xlinkScope-23
+ See [67]draft, and [68]SW message to CG chairs.
+ Action CL 2003/06/30: Ping the chairs of those groups asking
for an update on xlinkScope-23.
* [69]binaryXML-30
+ Action TB 2003/02/17: Write to www-tag with his thoughts on
adding to survey.
+ Action IJ 2003/07/21: Add link from issues list binaryXML-30
to upcoming workshop
+ Next steps to finding? See [70]summary from Chris.
* [71]xmlFunctions-34
+ Action TBL 2003/02/06: State the issue with a reference to
XML Core work. See [72]email from TimBL capturing some of the
issues.
* [73]charmodReview-17
1. Completed action IJ 2003/07/14: Move issue 17 to pending
rather than resolved.
2. Completed action DC: Remind I18N WG of what we are expecting
regarding issue 17; send this on behalf of the TAG
([74]Done).
[59] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/07/21-tag#namespaceDocument-8
[60] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2003Apr/0046.html
[61] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Jun/0003.html
[62] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#uriMediaType-9
[63] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Feb/0302.html
[64] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#HTTPSubstrate-16
[65] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Feb/0208.html
[66] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist.html#xlinkScope-23
[67] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2003Mar/0094.html
[68] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2003Mar/0104
[69] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#binaryXML-30
[70] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Feb/0224.html
[71] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#xmlFunctions-34
[72] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Feb/0309.html
[73] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#charmodReview-17
[74] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2003Jul/0052.html
Other actions
* Action IJ 2003/02/06: Modify issues list to show that
actions/pending are orthogonal to decisions. IJ and PLH making
substantial progress on this; hope to have something to show in
May.
_________________________________________________________________
Ian Jacobs for Norm Walsh and TimBL
Last modified: $Date: 2003/07/28 22:48:23 $
--
Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org) http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel: +1 718 260-9447
Received on Monday, 28 July 2003 18:50:27 UTC