TAG telcon

 

 

<scribe> Scribe: Chris

Upcoming meetings

Stuart: Regrets for upcoming telcons, please say if these are not accurate

Noah will scribe on 13th Dec

Stuart: Minutes OK?

Paul: Fine by me

no objections

Resolved: approve minutes of 22 Nov

Stuart: Minutes of f2f not ready yet, in progress

AC Meeting feedback

TimBL announced that Stuart would not be running

Asked for feedback, not very much

Some private feedback on report and slides. No new action items arising

Noah: Some people reported using the arch doc, that was gratifying

Paul: Extensibility and Versioning came up several times at AC in various forms. Likely to be a TP agenda item

<scribe> ACTION: Stuart tak with David Ezell and Steve Bratt about extensibility and versioning

Last Call on xml:id

Chris: Seems good, thanks that they incorporated earlier feedback

DanC: Suggested xml:id like XInclude needs good testing

(discussion of type reported by ID assignment)

<Stuart> http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-xml-id-20041109/#with-schema-validation

Roy: some style issues, putting definitions of things in square brackets, don't like it personally

Paul: I disagree there

Stuart: OK but that is a style issue not technical

(discussion of whether to close the issue - not yet_

Stuart: OK to respond with 'no further comments'

Dan: As long as it asks again about CR plans and testing

Resolved: No further comments except testing

<scribe> ACTION: Chris send response to Core about xml:id

<Roy> Under normal English, anything inside sqquare brackets can be removed -- they are non-normative statements. Obviously, that is not the case here. I suggest that the W3C ask a literature department (like Harvard or Chicago) what they think the document says, and perhaps suggest a more useful signage for definitions

Review of QA WG Last call

<DanC> roy, that stylesheet is maintained in spec-prod@w3.org ; care to send your comment there? (not all W3C specs use that stylesheet)

Stuart: Do we want to review the whole thing, or just the E&V part?

<Roy> sure, thanks for the pointer

Paul: Didn't we askk them to review our E&V already?
... Suggest we correlate the messages in both directions

Stuart: Whole document, or more scoped?
... Who will review this?

Paul: Constrain to E&V
... Their spec is fairly positive, good material

<scribe> ACTION: Paul to point QA at E&V and pass on TAG comments as we get them

Dan: E&V finding - original issue is only XML vocabularies
... So shoul we look at just XML, or protocols and non XML formats?

Paul: Issue was not updated after Ottawa f2f were we agreed on a work plan issue is stale now

Noah: OK so the records do not relect the minutes trail
... Good to revisit the whole issue, what its scope is, and do what Paul said checking its consistent

<DanC> (I'm pretty sure the TAG hasn't made any decisions on extensibility/versioning)

<Zakim> Chris, you wanted to talk about non E&V stuff in qaframe

<pbc> Plan for Issue 41: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2004Jul/0027.html

Chris: also needs review of things likeconformance criteria (WebArch has none as agreed, might need to say why more clearly)

<scribe> ACTION: Chris together with Paul, create draft review of qaframe

Paul: Jan 10 is target meeting for more E&V discussion
... and invite DO to that

<DanC> that's from memory, and PC isn't sure it's Jan 10

WebArch publication

Stuart: Proposal for 'Volume One'

TimBL: Can't think of anything better

Stuart: Part One?

TimBL: Implies that the volumes are disjoint
... Can bring out a second version of volume One if needed

Noah: Provided the second version is clarifications rather than changes

Stuart: any objections

(none)

Resolved: Change to Volume One

<DanC> (stuart took the 'action' there?)

<scribe> ACTION: Stuart tell Ian that Volume One is fine

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2004Nov/0061.html

Chris: This is ediorial, links to empty erratta and translations

http://www.w3.org/2004/12/webarch-pressrelease.html.en

<DanC> s/announced/announces/. press releases are written in the ever-present tense (please).

<Noah> Is Janet still the right contact, as listed on the press release?

<DanC> I expect so, Noah

<DanC> her new title is something like "U.S. press officer"

<timbl> cliché: "solve all the world's problems". "describe anything like the full range of technology involved in the web today".

(Chris describes the overall structure of the press release and the points being made)

Noah: Worries over committing to "Volume Two" rather than, say "SemWeb Arch Supplement" or whatever.

Chris: "One or more subsequent volumes"

Noah: "Future publications from the TAG will build on"

Paul: Third title is bad, scrub 'world problems' be more positive

<DanC> (eek! "does not solve all of the world's problems" not in jest! indeed. let's rework)

work continues on architectute, TAG will take experience from ""

scribe: and agree with Noah

Dan: impact on web users? none, snoring, or exciting news?

TimBL: its not a final report, it should have an effect

<DanC> ("paint dries" is my comment more on the actual event than this text)

TimBL: need to get people reading it, use as course materials, already adopted by some courses, reference for building new technologies

(Dan interviews TimBL)

Stuart: This is the W3Cs first Architectural Recommendation. Loosely connect with 10 years?
... distills 10 years of experience

(Dan interviews Paul)

scribe: principles for people to build new internet standards and new web technologies
... web will continue to evolve

(further discussions)

TimBL: as web grows, new peopl eneed to get up to speed more quickly

ws sw speech and multimodal, powerfulnew parts, need to understand existing architecture

<DanC> (somehow I think mixing in voice, mobile, etc. early in the press release will punch it up)

<timbl> Noah, where Chris had had 'had", had had "had had". "had had" had had the consensus of the tag.

(Stuart interviews Dan)

Dan: most of what you need to know in one place

Roy: Orthogonality is key principle

<DanC> "Volume one of the Web Architecture provides a basis as W3C begins integrating Voice browsing and mobile access with traditional technologies"

<DanC> (begins... voicexml 2.0 is already a REC. hmm.)

Noah: URI as key naming principle, universal network

<Zakim> Chris, you wanted to talk about other quotes and testimonials

<DanC> "so that you can change one without having to change another" <- good words

<DanC> "unprecedented scale" <- good words

Noah: Web as network on unprecedented scale

<Stuart> +1 on good words

TimBL: web is so big that adding to it needs to be done with understanding

<Stuart> extending without breaking

<DanC> (how to say the opposite of "if you change one part, the whole thing falls over")

leveraging

standing on shoulders of giants

<DanC> too trite

<timbl> How one can add a new piece of technology on such a way as to constructively leverage the work which has been done by others.

agree its too trite to use those words

<Zakim> DanC, you wanted to answer stuart's #1 principle? question with: One Web

<pbc> Paul has to leave now.

<Stuart> Synergy

Dan: If you add to the One web then its much better than trying to make a separate non interoperable part

Paul: Startd bal rolling on testimonial

(further discussion of plans for WebArch)

<Noah> Chris raises the editorial suggestions made by Noah

<Noah> Noah says he's seen Chris

<Noah> Noah says he's seen Chris' email response and is fine with everything suggested

Dan: comment on clash with 3023

Stuart: yes, we know, this is why 3023 is being revised. existingissue