W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > May 2003

[Minutes] 5 May 2003 TAG teleconf (uriMediaType-9, abstractComponentRefs-37, arch doc)

From: Ian B. Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: 06 May 2003 12:02:04 -0400
To: www-tag@w3.org
Message-Id: <1052236923.4132.15.camel@seabright>


The minutes of the 5 May 2003 TAG teleconf are available
as HTML [1] and as text below.

 _ Ian

[1] http://www.w3.org/2003/05/05-tag-summary.html


                   Minutes of 5 May 2003 TAG teleconference

1. Administrative

    1. Roll call: NW (Chair), RF, DC, DO, CL, IJ (Scribe). Regrets: SW,
       PC, TBL, TB
    2. Accepted [8]28 Apr teleconference minutes
    3. Accepted this [9]agenda
    4. Next meeting: 12 May with Voice Browser WG. Possible regrets: DO.

      [8] http://www.w3.org/2003/04/28-tagmem-irc
      [9] http://www.w3.org/2003/05/05-tag.html

  1.1 Meeting planning

     * Please register for AC meeting and WWW2003 if you are a speaker.
     * TAG virtual meetings 2 and 19 June (no meeting 16 June).
       Completed action SW 2003/04/14: Propose meeting times, structure
       to TAG. ([10]Done)

     [10] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2003May/0009.html

  1.2 W3C Track Presentation

     * [11]W3C track
     * Action PC 2003/04/14: Propose TAG's WWW2003 report to TAG. Due 5
       [To be discussed 12 May]

     [11] http://www2003.org/t_www.htm

  1.3 TAG report at AC meeting

    1. [12]Suggestions for TAG presentation at May AC Meeting from DO and
    2. Action DO, CL: Present TAG's AC meeting report to TAG. Due 5 May
       [To be discussed 12 May]

     [12] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2003Apr/0027.html

2. Technical

    1. [13]whenToUseGet-7
    2. [14]contentTypeOverride-24
    3. [15]uriMediaType-9
    4. [16]abstractComponentRefs-37
    5. [17]Architecture Document

  2.1 whenToUseGet-7

     * [18]whenToUseGet-7
          + Solicit review of [19]revised draft finding from IJ?
          + IJ proposal: Take into account DC's comments and then solicit

     [18] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist.html#whenToUseGet-7
     [19] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/get7-20020610.html

   IJ: I propose to accept DC's proposed simplifications (talk about
   "read"/"write") and put out for review.

   Resolved: IJ can publish get7 finding with DC's suggestions.

   Action IJ: Publish revised get7 finding with modifications.

  2.2 contentTypeOverride-24

     * [20]contentTypeOverride-24
          + Solicit review of [21]draft finding from IJ?
          + Completed action SW, NW 2003/04/17: Read Client handling of
            MIME headers. If +2, then IJ will send to www-tag. ([22]Done)

     [20] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#contentTypeOverride-24
     [21] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/mime-respect-20030405.html
     [22] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003May/0019.html

   Action IJ: Send email to the Voice Browser WG.

  2.3 uriMediaType-9

     * [23]uriMediaType-9
          + Action DC 2003/02/06: Start discussion on
            discuss@apps.ietf.org, but not urgent
          + IANA appears to have responded to the spirit of this draft
            (see [24]email from Chris Lilley).What's required to close
            this issue?

     [23] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#uriMediaType-9
     [24] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Feb/0302.html

          DC: I propose to withdraw that action. Chris pointed out in
          [25]email that looks like battle over.

     [25] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Feb/0302.html

          nearly over
          I gave specific feedback on how to complete it

          DC: But in minutes of [26]13 March IETF/W3C teleconf, some
          relevant actions taken.
          RF: I'm not sure that IETF finished the tasks that CL
          CL: It might be handy if the TAG confirmed my position.: I
          suggest the following changes

     [26] http://www.w3.org/2003/03/13-ietf-w3c.html#iana-uri

         1. The first column should be the subtype string, as now, and
            should always link to
         2. The second column should contain, as now, the name of the
            format, which is or should be provided for all types.
         3. The third column, which does not seem super necessary and
            could be omitted, would be a link to the person that
            registered that type or wrote the rfc that registered it or
            wrote the email that registered it or whatever. I don't see a
            lot of use for this, really.

     [27] http://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/typename/subtypename

          RF: I don't think they would disagree; question of resources
          CL: We could also point out that these changes would address a
          lot of what DanC talks about in his internet draft.
          RF: You could suggest changes to the RFC : How they should
          maintain their site.
          DC: Next sync point for W3C/IETF is 17 June. I propose we
          withdraw my action and check in 17 June.
          Resolved: DC's action withdrawn on this issue.
          Action CL: Propose CL's three changes to registration process
          to Ned Freed. [What forum?]
          DC: You can find out who's editor of MIME spec that talks about
          registration. You could write editors and cc public-ietf-w3c.


     [28] http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-freed-mime-p4-00.txt

          DC: I'll likely ping Ned on this (e.g., one week before) 17
          June IETF/W3C meeting.
          IJ: Sounds like we're not quite ready to move issue 9 from
          DC: Indeed.

  2.4 abstractCompontentRefs-37

     * [29]abstractComponentRefs-37
          + See [30]issue description from David Orchard
          + Next steps?

     [29] http://www.w3.org/2003/05/24-tag-summary.html#abstractComponentRefs-37
     [30] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Apr/0089.html

          DO: One issue from SW has to do with getting type info out of
          the URI. Question of "no metadata in URI". Little traffic
          (publicly or privately) expressing preference for various
          CL: I commented on syntax ; use of xpointer.
          DO: I understand that there's some question about whether it's
          a desirable requirement that the type info be in the URI.
          CL: Example in schema: "#" followed by "float".
          RF: If you're dealing with polymorphic operators where function
          distinguished by type, then you would need something.

          DanC, you wanted to respond to opacity and constraints

          DC: Opacity has to do with freedom of choosing URIs.

          eg [31]http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#float.minExclusive

     [31] http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#float.minExclusive

          DC: E.g., if you require first path component to be WSDL type,
          then you restrict what server manager can do. If you are making
          up URIs, then you can say "this part of it is the type"

          haven't we agreed that things that have #'s in them are URIs

          NW, CL: See also TB email on Apple Music Store and use of URI
          schemes instead of headers
          DC: We don't have much good motivation for not making new URI
          schemes. Apple folks did it and people seem to be happy. Which
          of DO's options is likely to bite me if I ignore it? Has the
          WSDL WG picked one?
          DO: They picked the one they suggested - namespace + fragid :
          8. Use namespace name and new fragment identifier syntax.

          DC: I don't hate option 8 all that much.
          The sample URI is
          RF: Hash marks are usually left to people who have no choice,
          not for designers of the media type.
          DC: I don't agree that this is a "violation of URI fragment
          identifier rules that fragment identifiers are based upon the
          media type of the dereferenced content."
          DO: If somebody puts a RDDL doc instead of a WSDL doc, the URI
          producer will have to use a different URI, depending on the
          media type.
          DC: The answer then is don't put a RDDL document there. You can
          use this syntax and be consistent with the URI spec; but you
          can't have all your cakes and eat all of them (i.e., can't also
          be able to put a RDDL doc with this same syntax).
          NW: If you are relying on use of a frag id, then you'd better
          expect to get back a RDDL doc.

     [32] http://airline.wsdl/ticketagent/#input(TicketAgent/listFlights/listFlightsR

          all roads lead to issue 8. there is no other issue 1/2 ;-)

          DO: The consequence is tight coupling between URI syntax and
          WSDL doc.

          so, we need a sort of double dereference - from a namespace to
          a (part of) a rddl document to whatever that part points to///

          DO: If you don't use fragids, you might have other probs but
          not this particular one.


     [33] http://airline.wsdl/ticketagent/TicketAgent/listFlights/listFlightsRequest

          RF: Slash characters can't be used for something other than
          [Discussion of option 10]

          option 10
          stFlightsRequest) is inconsistent with timbl's position on
          issue 14, which I sympathize with

     [34] http://airline.wsdl/ticketagent/TicketAgent/listFlights/listFlightsRequest

          RF: Use of parens is problematic (e.g., if relative URIs used
          within 2 ref items).
          DC: TBL's position on issue 14 is that if you want to refer to
          a non-doc thing, you need to have a "#" in the URI.

          Roy, I think you are saying you'd change
          hts/listFlightsRequest" or

     [35] http://airline.wsdl/ticketagent/input(TicketAgent/listFlights/listFlightsRe
     [36] http://airline.wsdl/ticketagent/input/TicketAgent/listFlights/listFlightsRequest
     [37] http://airline.wsdl/ticketagent/TicketAgent/listFlights/listFlightsRequest/input

          DC: It's antisocial to constrain Web site managers to use URIs
          in a particular way in order to use your format. Don't tell me,
          e.g., that I have to put all WSDL files at the server root.
          NW: The proposal would said that the WSDL doc could go anywhere
          on the server, but the "/input...." is controlled by the WSDL
          spec; not really "on your web server"; these are parameters to
          the service.
          [Some agreement from DO, DC, NW that that's reasonable]
          NW: Is it reasonable to say that wsdl docs and expected
          interactions are something server manager would be controlling,
          not just any user.
          zakim, who's here?
          IJ: In option 11, what is problem of "no hierarchy of names":
          Can't that be captured in another parameter?

          You could have

          DO: One advantage of putting in a query string is that you can
          use relative URIs.
          CL: If I have a namespace, doesn't necessarily mean that
          everything "below" a piece of path is co-opted by the
          namespace. However, with the proposed URIs of option 10, that
          part of the path is co-opted.
          DC: The same is true with RDF when used with namespaces.
          Doesn't blow away space, but allows short local names. There's
          an issue on our list about making URI from local name and
          namespace name.
          (Issue 6)

          cf rdfmsQnameUriMapping-6 : Algorithm for creating a URI from a

     [38] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#rdfmsQnameUriMapping-6

          Next steps?
          drum up more feedback?
          get evidence people have read it

          DO: Need more input. Maybe straw poll, with deadline.
          C: Some of these are just hard issues.. Some people have read
          some of the issues, even though we don't have consensus yet.
          NW summarizing perceived state of affairs:
          1) WSDL group ready to adopt option 8.
          2) The TAG needs to register a comment/objection if the TAG
          doesn't think 8 is a good idea.
          NW: Please be prepared (i.e., read proposals) for discussion
          (and I hope closure) at 26 May teleconf.
          RF: Once I understand what the goal is, I should have a clearer

   I do believe that balanced parens should be avoided

  2.5 Architecture document

   See also: [39]findings.
    1. [40]26 Mar 2003 Working Draft of Arch Doc:
         1. Completed action DC 2003/02/06: Attempt a redrafting of 1st
            para under [41]2.2.4 of 6 Feb 2003 draft. See [42]request
            from DanC to consider this subsumed based on 26 Mar 2003 Arch
            Doc text.
         2. Action DC 2003/01/27: write two pages on correct and
            incorrect application of REST to an actual web page design
         3. Action DO 2003/01/27: Please send writings regarding Web
            services to tag@w3.org. DO grants DC license to cut and paste
            and put into DC writing.

     [39] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/findings
     [40] http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-webarch-20030326/
     [41] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2002/webarch-20030206#uri-use
     [42] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Apr/0119.html

                      DO: In progress. I hope that it will be published
                      by late next week.

         4. Action DC 2003/03/17: : Write some text for interactions
            chapter of arch doc related to [43]message passing, a dual of
            shared state.

     [43] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Mar/0018.html


          IJ: 26Mar draft is now more than a month old...

          ij has comments on arch doc from timbl, will incorporate

          ... I got comments from timbl and Graham Klyne; I responded,
          though some of them merit discussiong

          ij recalls chris has text, chris not sure what this refers to
          no momentum for new draft without new text
          could incorporate draft findings, seems early though
          not quiter at three month mark, but not ready for last call in

          IJ: What do people expect to generate for new text?
          CL: I agree with IJ that once findings are reviewed/accepted,
          that putting conclusions in arch doc a good way to go.

          adding conclusions from draft findings 9after some discussion)
          is good

          DC: Suppose we tried being schedule driven rather than
          feature-driven: last call in June with what we've got? Can we
          wall off the parts where issues are not resolved?
          CL: Let's go through issues list and try to gauge whether we
          expect to advance on these issues by the summer.
          [Moving on to 2.3]

          ie, which issues will make a summer 1.0 arch doc



          CL, NW: Probably not for arch doc 1.0.
          NW: I think we can probably proceed without that done for 1.0.
          DC: Where does that hurt?
          CL: Not static, but lots of dependencies.

          To what extent should URIs be used in W3C specifications



          CL proposes a new issue: URIEverywhere-38: " To what extent
          should URIs be used in W3C specifications?" I think that once
          this issue is closed, there will be some effects on
          CL: Goal is to separate (1) issues related to IRI spec (2)
          issues strictly tied to URIs.
          DC: That's issue 15 - URIEquivalence.
          CL: Related but not the same.

          busy writing this up

          NW: I'm uncomfortable with moving the arch doc forward without
          some sort of answer re: IRIs. But perhaps we coudl.

          agree we should have something in this one for version 1.0

          # URIEquivalence-15
          DC: I hope we get this one nailed one for arch 1.0. I think
          nearly done.
          NW: I think we can be optimistic that we can close this one
          DC: I think we need a test suite for URIs (e.g., for
          [DC said this as URI CG co-chair]

          agree that there should be testsuite for uris

          DC: I don't have a mandate per the Activity Proposal to do a
          test suite for URIs, but I"m considering proposing that again.
          RF: I think there may not be many volunteers for a test suite,
          but I think nobody would stop DC.

          from forthcoming writeup: "A fairly small group of such
          identifiers can be included in specifications and in the
          associated test suite, with a great benefit to clarity. For
          example, see the cases listed at:
          xmlIDSemantics-32 is now public, will announce right after the

     [44] http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-names11/#IRIComparison

          NW: XML Core WG is actively discussing how to deal with xml:id.

          xml core is discussing how to deal with xml:id

          Action NW: Point Core WG to CL finding once made public.
          NW: I think we should plan a last call for June, with whatever
          we've got.

  2.6 Issues that have associated action items

     * [45]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 [46]comments from Paul
            regarding TB theses.
          + Action TB 2003/04/28: Draft a TAG opinion on the use of URNs
            for namespace names, for review by the TAG
               o RF: Folks assume that because the specs say so, URNs
                 will be persisitent. But persistence is a function of
                 institutional commitment and frequency of use.
     * [47]xlinkScope-23
          + Status report?
          + See [48]draft, and [49]SW message to CG chairs.
     * [50]IRIEverywhere-27
          + Completed action TB 2003/04/14: Draft a proposed step forward
            on IRI 27. ([51]Done). In that [52]email, TB proposes to
            close this issue.
          + Action CL 2003/04/07: Revised position statement on use of
            IRIs. CL says to expect this by 21 April.
          + Action TBL 2003/04/28: Explain how existing specifications
            that handle IRIs are inconsistent. (Action unclear from 28
            Apr minutes).
     * [53]URIEquivalence-15
          + SW proposal: Track RFC2396bis where [54]Tim Bray text has
            been integrated. Comment within the IETF process. Move this
            issue to pending state.
     * [55]xmlIDSemantics-32
          + See [56]Chris Lilley draft finding. Next steps?
     * [57]siteData-36
          + Action TBL 2003/02/24 : Summarize siteData-36
     * [58]xmlFunctions-34
          + Action TBL 2003/02/06: State the issue with a reference to
            XML Core work. See [59]email from TimBL capturing some of the
     * [60]binaryXML-30
          + Action TB 2003/02/17: Write to www-tag with his thoughts on
            adding to survey.
          + Next steps to finding? See [61]summary from Chris.
     * [62]contentPresentation-26
          + Action CL 2003/02/06: Create a draft finding in this space.
            Due 3 March.
     * [63]rdfmsQnameUriMapping-6
          + Action DC 2003/02/06: Propose TAG response to XML Schema
            desideratum ([64]RQ-23).
     * [65]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 [66]message from Larry Masinter w.r.t. Web services.
     * [67]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. Due first week of March.
     * [68]metadataInURI-31
          + Action SW 2003/02/06: Draft finding for this one.
          + See also [69]TB email on Apple Music Store and use of URI
            schemes instead of headers
     * [70]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.

     [45] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#namespaceDocument-8
     [46] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2003Apr/0046.html
     [47] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist.html#xlinkScope-23
     [48] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2003Mar/0094.html
     [49] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2003Mar/0104
     [50] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#IRIEverywhere-27
     [51] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Apr/0090.html
     [52] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Apr/0090.html
     [53] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#URIEquivalence-15
     [54] http://www.textuality.com/tag/uri-comp-4
     [55] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#xmlIDSemantics-32
     [56] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/xmlIDSemantics-32.html
     [57] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist.html#siteData-36
     [58] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#xmlFunctions-34
     [59] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Feb/0309.html
     [60] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#binaryXML-30
     [61] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Feb/0224.html
     [62] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#contentPresentation-26
     [63] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#rdfmsQnameUriMapping-6
     [64] http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-xmlschema-11-req-20030121/#N400183
     [65] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#HTTPSubstrate-16
     [66] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Feb/0208.html
     [67] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#errorHandling-20
     [68] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#metadataInURI-31
     [69] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Apr/0151.html
     [70] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#fragmentInXML-28

3. 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


    Ian Jacobs for Norm Walsh and TimBL
    Last modified: $Date: 2003/05/06 15:56:58 $

Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                     +1 718 260-9447
Received on Tuesday, 6 May 2003 12:02:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:55:58 UTC