[Minutes] 10 Nov 2003 TAG teleconf (Meeting planning, XML Versioning)


Minutes of the TAG's 10 Nov 2003 teleconf are available
as HTML [1] and as text below.

 _ Ian

[1] http://www.w3.org/2003/11/10-tag-summary.html

                Minutes of 10 November 2003 TAG teleconference

1. Administrative (15min)

    1. Roll call: SW (Chair), TBL, DO, NW, DC, PC, TB, RF, IJ (Scribe).
       Regrets: CL
    2. Accepted the minutes of the [9]27 Oct teleconference
       Completed action IJ: Ping DO and PC for help filling in the
    3. The TAG did not accept the minutes of the [10]3 Nov teleconference.
       DO: I will look them over over the next few days.
    4. Accepted this [11]agenda
    5. Next meeting: 15-17 Nov 2003 TAG ftf meeting in Japan

      [9] http://www.w3.org/2003/10/27-tag-summary.html
     [10] http://www.w3.org/2003/11/03-tag-summary.html
     [11] http://www.w3.org/2003/11/10-tag.html

  1.1 TAG ftf meeting at Tech Plenary?

    1. The TAG will meet face-to-face on Tues 5 Mar, during the Tech
       Plenary week.
    2. The TAG will try to liaise with at least the following groups
       during that week (including Tuesday): HTML, I18N, WSDL, XML
    3. New and current TAG participants will be invited to attend.

   Action SW: Follow up on TAG ftf meeting with Tech Plenary organizers
   and with Chairs of other groups to determine their availability..

   Action SW/PC: Explore possibility of TAG videolink TAG distributed
   meeting in February.

  1.2 TAG Nov face-to-face meeting agenda

    1. [12]Meeting and agenda page
    2. Agenda outline:
         1. Review of Architecture Document. 12 November version?
         2. Last call decision, timetable, plan.
         3. Breakout sessions to address must do items.
         4. [13]deepLinking-25
              1. Completed action IJ 2003/11/03: Invite Janet to TAG's
                 ftf meeting in Japan.
         5. Other [14]issues...

     [12] http://www.w3.org/2003/11/15-tag-mtg.html
     [13] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html#deepLinking-25
     [14] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html


          SW: My proposal was to have people send written reviews of the
          arch doc.
          DC: I can't read anything new between now and meeting.
          IJ: I was planning to have next editor's draft tomorrow, based
          [15]27 Oct 2003 Editor's Draft.
          DC: That will be counter-productive for my purposes. Stuart,
          please get endorsement for the document before you ask for

     [15] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/webarch-20031027/

          Expect to do a review of the (upcoming) 11 Nov draft: RF, NW,

          Trouble is, I was going to edit slides on the plane.

          DC: Re ftf agenda and last call decision: I think it would be
          great to say at the meeting "Yes, this doc is ready for last
          call." I think that we are likely to make more edits.
          TBray: I'd like to have a TAG decision on the substance of my
          DO: I can agree to no more major structural changes, but not to
          point on new material (since NW and I have been working on
          extensibility and versioning material).
          NW: I am unhappy with the current extensibility section and
          would like it fixed.
          TBray: I think that abstractcomponentrefs is not cooked enough
          to be in the arch doc.

          grumble. I did my action item to create material in
          abstractcomponentrefs for inclusion in the web arch....

          yeah, but it's a way harder issue.

          IJ: I don't have need to make big structural changes; I suspect
          TAG may want to at FTF meeting.
          NW: My comment was that nobody on the TAG should make
          substantial changes except for versinoing sectino.
          PC: I think the TAG needs to be date-driven.

          +1 to Norm's formulation

          IJ: I would like to walk through my announced intentions before
          I make a complete commitment.
          PC: I think we need to be date-driven at this point.

          Ian, did the
          [16]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/webarch/uri-res-rep.png rep'n
          diagram have text in the "representation" box?

     [16] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/webarch/uri-res-rep.png

          DC: I am not yet satisfied that the TAG ftf meeting is clear
          enough about which document we'll be discussing.

          I think the diagram is misleading now.

          W3C process calls for ftf agendas 2 weeks in advance. I expect
          documents to stabilize in at that time. I gather I'm not gonna
          get what I want this time.

          Resolved: If IJ finishes draft by tomorrow, we will review that
          at the ftf meeting.

          I can't seem to find my last end-to-end review... I'm pretty
          sure it was a bit before 1Aug.

  1.3 TAG update at Nov 2003 AC meeting.

    1. Action CL 2003/10/27: incorporate input on AC slides and produce
       another draft. See ([17]proposed slides from CL)

     [17] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2003Nov/att-0026/all.xhtml

   The TAG expects to review slides during its face-to-face meeting.

2. Technical (75min)

    1. [18]XML Versioning

  2.1 XML Versioning (XMLVersioning-41)


     [19] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html#XMLVersioning-41

   Current draft is [20]3 Oct 2003 finding
    1. Action IJ 2003/11/03: ([21]Issue XMLVersioning-41) Review [22]XML
       Versioning text, propose a shortened form to DO and NW for their
       consideration, including good practice notes. See [23]proposal
       from Ian.

     [20] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/versioning-20031003
     [21] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html#XMLVersioning-41
     [22] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Oct/0169.html
     [23] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2003Nov/0021.html


          DO: IJ, NW, and I also talked about use of namespaces names on
          the thread.
          IJ: See status section for my expectations regarding

          DanC, you wanted to note problems with "Only namespace owner
          can change namespace"
          DC: Not all namespaces have owners. Delegated ownership is a
          special case. I'd prefer to generalize rather than limit scope.
          The general point is that the Web community agrees on what URIs

          IJ: I wanted to address issue of "changing namespaces" by
          saying "Document your change expectations"
          TBL: I think we can include the specific case of http; you lose
          a lot of power in generalizing.
          DO: What about URN?
          TBL: What if they use a UUID? Depends on the URN scheme.
          NW: The URI Scheme shouldn't have any bearing on this
          TBL: HTTP allows you to own a URI, through DNS delegation, you
          have a right to declare what it means. In those circumstances,
          it makes sense to state your change expectations.
          [TBL seems to support IJ's proposal to include a good practice
          note to document change policy]
          DO: One of the problems I had with IJ's proposal is that it
          didn't include all of the good practice notes that were in our
          text. In particular, requiring a processing model for

          [good practice notes are fine in specific cases of general
          principles; but if we can't say what the general principle is,
          we haven't done our job]

          s/User agent/agent/

          IJ: Yes, that's a bug.

          is there some reason to rush this discussion?

          I want some text in the 11 Nov webarch draft.

          ah; I see, thx Norm.

          DO: I think these strategies need to be called out even more.
          PC: I have not yet read IJ's proposal since he sent Friday.
          Stability of namespaces should appear in finding. I would
          support more advice on namespace change policies. There seems
          to be a tremendous amount of content on single-namespace
          languages; less on multiple namespace strategies. Is the
          finding focused on a single namespace problem?
          DO: That is one of the splits in the finding. The finding
          doesn't go into enough detail on pros and cons of extension
          strategies on the use of multiple namespaces.
          PC: I was just pointing to IJ's point on stability. I think we
          have to seriously consider talking about mixed namespace docs
          since that's one of our issues.
          TBL: namespace policy for W3C specs is linked from W3C Guide.
          The requirement is to indicate change policy; also when
          namespace becomes fixed (at CR).

          It is policy.

          PC: We could include W3C policy as an example in arch doc.

          Norm, you wanted to note that Ian said "only make backwards
          compatible" but left that out of his proposed text

          NW: Warning about putting namespace material in section on
          [IJ expects to include xrefs]
          NW: For draft tomorrow, I'd like for us to err on the side of
          including more text rather than less. The one critical piece
          not in IJ's proposal is forwards/backwards, closed/open
          systems, development times.

          TBray, you wanted to agree with Stuart's comment that the level
          of detail in webarch and the walsh/orchard draft is violently

          TBray: I don't think the community is close on semantics or
          even desirability of mixed namespace docs. I don't think we can
          go there yet. I have just read IJ's text. I agree with IJ's
          point that the level of detail of DO/NW text is greater than
          rest of arch doc. I would by and large be ok with IJ's text. I
          think IJ has come close to an 80/20 point. On for/back
          compatibility, I don't know that it is required to be included.
          I agree that the finding should have the details since these
          are complex issues. I am concerned that if you talk about f/b
          compatibility, you fall over the slippery slope that might
          require 8 pages of details. Perhaps mention f/b compatibility
          as an example of what's important, with a link to the finding.
          DO: Do you think additional material is required to be
          TBray: IJ's draft is close to being sufficient. It's fine for
          the arch doc to point off to findings for more detail.

          timbl, you wanted to note that the ownership and change issues
          with nmaepsaces are similar to te problems with document in
          general, and expectation shoudl be set. And to say yes there is
          something. and to say yes there is something.
          [24]http://www.w3.org/1999/10/nsuri : Note that a condition of
          documents reaching CR status will be that the clauses 2 and 3
          will no longer be usable, to give the specification the
          necessary stability.

     [24] http://www.w3.org/1999/10/nsuri

          TBray: I don't think IJ's draft is seriously lacking anything.
          Mention of f/b compatibility a good idea.
          TBL: On the issue of mixed namespaces, it may be worth saying
          that if you are designing a mixed name doc in XML right now, no
          general solution. But that if you do so for RDF, there is a
          well-defined solution.

          There is a well-defined solution for mixing of RDF ontologies.
          RDF does not provide a solution for how to mix arbitrary XML
          namespaces for non-RDF applications.

          DO: I propose to work with IJ to find a middle ground.
          DC: It's ok for me if last call draft says nothing about
          TBray: I"d be happier with IJ's most recent draft rather than
          DC: The tactic of putting more text in and cutting back is not
          working for me.
          NW: I would like the arch doc to include some text in the arch
          doc. I am happier with IJ's text than nothing; but I'd like to
          work with IJ to include a few more things in tomorrow's draft,
          and discuss at ftf meeting.

          I would be OK with skipping versioning for the arch doc last
          call in the interests of expediancy of consesnsus of tag. Would
          be happier with ian's current text, if consesnus of tag.

          NW: My slightly preferred solution is to add all of DO/NW good
          practice notes for discussion at ftf meeting.
          PC: I have to go; I'm flexible on solution.
          TBray: I am sympathetic for a subgroup to work on some text for
          inclusion in tomorrow's draft. I am not excited about adding a
          lot more stuff. Note that I'm a big fan of the finding. But I
          think we need to stick closer to IJ's level of detail and
          DO: I would be disappointed if IJ's draft was the extent of
          material that was included in the arch doc.

          I got lost somewhere; In Vancouver, we had a list of the issues
          that were critical path for last call for a "backward looking"
          last call. Now versioning seems to be in there. I guess I'll
          have to pay more attention.

          DO: I believe more material needs to be in the arch doc (in
          particular good practice notes); the arch doc will go through
          Rec track. I think that things that don't go through the Rec
          track will not be taken as seriously, not get as much review,
          SW: If the TAG agrees that we consider versioning that
          important, we can put a separate doc through the Rec track.
          DO: I think the middle ground for this text is closer to the

          For the record: IMHO Ian's text is better leaving this
          uncovered, but Ian is coming close to the 80/20 point and I
          don't want to see it get much longer than that

          DC: So there's no principles in here about versioning.
          TBL: Perhaps we need to get into sync on the timing of this.

          I think procedurally the right thing to do is let Ian/Norm/Dave
          saw off what they can by tomorrow.

          TBL: My assumption is that we will dot I's and cross T's if we
          are to be on last call track soon. We are going to find small
          things we want to clean up in the existing text.

          is that a question from the chair? NO! we are *not* anywhere
          near "last call sign off". I think 2/3rds of the current draft
          isn't endorsed by various tag memebers.

          TBL: The versioning text is interesting, but i need to look
          more closely at the text. In any case, we need a disclaimer
          that we are not done by virtue of going to last call. We will
          need a place to put ongoing ideas for the next draft.

          As I said before, I will be sorely disappointed if we don't say
          something about this topic in V1.0 of the webarch document.

          I hear you norm, but I'm not clear why.

          timbl, you wanted to ask about timing

          TBray: I hear some consensus to hand this off to DO/NW/IJ to
          come up with something short enough and includes enough

          And I'll want to have an ad-hoc group on abstract component

   Although it was not recorded in the minutes, there was an action for
          DO/NW/IJ to work on text on extensibilitly, which indeed
          happened just after the meeting adjourned.


  2.2 Review of Architecture Document writing assignments

   The TAG did not cover the rest of the agenda.

   Comments on [25]27 Oct 2003 Editor's Draft of the Arch Doc?

     [25] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/webarch-20031027/

   Editor's expectations: Review a [26]todo list that will be
   incorporated into an Editor's Draft to be made available 12 November.

     [26] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2003Nov/0023.html

   Recent action items:


         1. Action IJ 2003/10/08: Starting from DO's diagram, create a
            diagram where the relationships and terms are linked back to
            the context where defined. Ensure that the relationships are
            in fact used in the narrative; any gaps identified? With DO,
            work on term relationship diagram.


         1. Action CL 2003/07/21: Discuss and propose improved wording of
            language regarding SVG spec in bulleted list in 2.5.1.


         1. Action NW 2003/10/08: Revise QName finding. See [27]draft
            finding from NW. We will also add those two good practice
            notes to section 2:
              1. If you use Qnames, provide a mapping to URIs.
              2. Don't define an attribute that can take either a URI or
                 a Qname since they are not syntactically

     [27] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/qnameids-2003-11-03


         1. Action RF 2003/10/08: Explain "identifies" in RFC 2396.


         1. Action TBL 2003/07/14: Suggest changes to section about
            extensibility related to "when to tunnel".


         1. Action DC 2003/07/21: Propose language for section 2.8.5
            showing examples of freenet and other systems. Progress; see

     [28] http://esw.w3.org/topic/UriSchemes_2ffreenet

  2.3 Review of 3023-related actions

    1. Should we open an issue or reopen a TAG issue?
    2. Action CL 2003/10/27: Draft XML mime type thingy with Murata-san
    3. Action TBL/DC 2003/10/08: Talk to the Architecture Domain Lead.

  2.5 Findings

   See also [29]TAG findings home page.
     * [30]whenToUseGet-7: Finding: [31]URIs, Addressability, and the use
       of HTTP GET and POST
     * [32]contentPresentation-26: Draft finding: [33]Separation of
       semantic and presentational markup, to the extent possible, is
       architecturally sound
     * [34]contentTypeOverride-24: 9 July 2003 draft of [35]Client
       handling of MIME headers
         1. Completed action RF 2003/09/15: Proposed substitute text in
            light of [36]previous comments on charset param. ([37]Done)
         2. [38]Comments from Philipp Hoschka about usability issues when
            user involved in error correction. Is there a new Voice spec
            out we can point to for example behavior?
         3. [39]Comments from Chris Lilley
         4. Lots of [40]comments from Martin Duerst
     * [41]metadataInURI-31

     [29] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/findings/
     [30] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html#whenToUseGet-7
     [31] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/whenToUseGet-20030922
     [32] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#contentPresentation-26
     [33] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/contentPresentation-26-20030630.html
     [34] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#contentTypeOverride-24
     [35] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/mime-respect.html
     [36] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Jul/0051.html
     [37] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Sep/0043.html
     [38] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2003Jul/0076.html
     [39] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Jul/0113.html
     [40] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Sep/0108.html
     [41] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#metadataInURI-31

    2.2.1 Expected new findings

     * [42]siteData-36
     * [43]abstractComponentRefs-37
       Completed action IJ 2003/11/03: Publish DO's latest draft in
       finding format ([44]Done)

     [42] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html#siteData-36
     [43] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html#abstractComponentRefs-37
     [44] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Nov/0008.html


    Ian Jacobs for Stuart Williams and TimBL
    Last modified: $Date: 2003/11/11 04:21:32 $

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

Received on Monday, 10 November 2003 23:27:18 UTC