- From: Ian B. Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2004 16:28:38 -0500
- To: www-tag@w3.org
- Message-Id: <1086643718.13607.328.camel@seabright>
Hello,
Minutes of the TAG's 7 June 2004 teleconf are available
as HTML [1] and as text below.
- Ian
[1] http://www.w3.org/2004/06/07-tag-summary.html
========================================================
Minutes of 7 June 2004 TAG teleconference
1. Administrative
1. Roll call. All present: SW (Chair), TBL, CL, PC, MJ, RF, DC, NW,
IJ (Scribe).
2. Resolved: Accepted the [8]minutes of the 12-14 May F2F
3. Resolved: Accepted the [9]minutes of the 24 May teleconference
4. Accepted this [10]agenda
5. Resolved: Next meeting: 14 June. Chair: NW. Regrets: SW, TBL, IJ.
6. Action TBL 2004/05/12: Talk to TB and DO about editor role.
[8] http://www.w3.org/2004/05/14-tag-summary.html
[9] http://www.w3.org/2004/05/24-tag-summary.html
[10] http://www.w3.org/2004/06/07-tag.html
1.1 Future meetings
1. 5 July 2004 TAG teleconference at risk. Regrets: PC
2. Resolved to hold ftf meeting in Basel 5-7 October 2004. RF to
follow up on meeting organization.
3. August ftf meeting in Ottawa: PC will send hotel information to
TAG; more info in [11]IRC log.
4. Discussion postponed: AC meeting [12]rescheduled for 2-3 December.
Does this affect whether to hold TAG ftf meeting in November?
5. Regrets:
1. SW: I'll be unavailable from 19 July to 9 Aug.
2. PC: Regrets 28 June and 5 July.
Action TAG: Send summer regrets to TAG list.: Send summer regrets
to TAG list.
[11] http://www.w3.org/2004/06/07-tagmem-irc.html
[12] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/chairs/2004AprJun/0050.html
1.3 TAG Charter
Action IJ: Report back on next AB meeting to discuss TAG charter and
relation to patent policy.
2. Technical
See also [13]open actions by owner and [14]open issues.
[13] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/actions_owner.html
[14] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html?view=normal&closed=1
2.1 Possible New Issues
1. [15]XML 1.1 Question from XMLP-WG
[15] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2004May/0039.html
[Ian]
[PC summarizing]
PC: Qnames in xschema broken by xml 1.1.
[DanC]
"broken"? an example scenario would help
[Ian]
PC: I propose that the tag adopt this as an issue and then push
to xml activity.
[Norm]
A QName using an XML 1.1 character cannot be validated with
Schema 1.0
[Ian]
PC: I suggest that the TAG not spend lots of time on this.
[Norm]
Characters in Names is the more general issue
[Ian]
NW: I agree that we should adopt an issue and hand it off to
someone.
CL: I agree with PC's plan generally, and sending it to XML CG
appropriate. I agree with NW that this is wider than schema.
[Zakim]
DanC, you wanted to ask why this belongs on the TAG issues
list, and shouldn't be handled by XML foo?
[Ian]
DC: How does this impact architecture?
[Chris]
xml is architectural
[Ian]
NW: I think that this goes beyond xml (e.g., n3)
TBL: n3 doesn't make reference to the bnf in the xml spec.
[Chris]
true, links *into* xml are affected
[Ian]
CL: I think this is of the same ilk as the xml id issue.
PC: XML CG likely to accept this issue from the TAG.
[Example]
NW: Take an xml doc that contains a qname that has one of the
new unicode characters in it (i.e., in xml 1.1, not in xml
1.0). Now try to put an xpointer in a document that uses a
qname. Which version of qnames does it use for the local name
part?
DC: Did people see this coming at PR?
PC: Yes.
NW: I think W3C made the right decision, but that some loose
ends need to be tied down. I am for adopting the issue, then
helping getting it fixed.
TBL: The way that [16]xml 1.1 was presented was that it should
only be used "when necessary."
[16] http://www.w3.org/TR/xml11/
NW: Necessary, e.g., if you want to create documents in
Ethiopian language.
Suppport for new issue: RF, CL, NW, PC, TBL, MJ. Abstaining:
DC, SW.
Resolved to accept new TAG issue xml11Names-46
Action NW: Write up the issue for the TAG. If there are no
objections to formulation, forward to the XML CG on behalf of
TAG.
2.2 httpRange-14 status
Action TBL/RF 2004/05/13: Write up a summary position to close
httpRange-14, text for document.
[Ian]
RF: There is no proposed resolution on the uri mailing list
that any two people can firmly agree to. See [17]thread and
[18]another thread started by Larry Masinter.
SW: The title of RFC2396 concerns generic syntax...
RF: IANA requirements require a bit more than that. I also need
to incorporate (into RFC2396bis) comments in 2.7.1.7 and
2.7.1.8. The latter needs to go into the RFC since it doesn't
really make sense in an informational draft. Those are both
cut-and-paste actions.: The spec has primarily been held up due
to travel, not the definition. The spec won't progress with the
current defn; I don't know what the change will be to enable
progression.: Proposing concrete text would help.
DC: I was a bit surprised at direction of discussion.
RF: The issue looks resolvable; finding the right words is the
problem. Lots of disagreement about definition of "resource".
In my opinion, it seems that people are confused about what a
resource is and what it can be. Not sure whether progress will
be (1) clearer understanding or (2) less present definition. I
don't see obstacles to consensus, but discussion has not
converged.
[17] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/uri/2004May/thread.html#26
[18] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/uri/2004May/thread.html#50
No resolutions or new actions.
2.3 Web Architecture Document Last Call
IJ: Next editor's draft expected 8 June 2004.
No progress on these actions from 2004/05/14:
* Action NW: Propose text on tradeoffs for section 4.2.2.
* Action CL: Rewrite story at beginning of 3.3.1. Consider deleting
para that follows last sentence third para after story in 3.3.1.
"Note also that since dereferencing a URI (e.g., using HTTP) does
not involve sending a fragment identifier to a server or other
agent, certain access methods (e.g., HTTP PUT, POST, and DELETE)
cannot be used to interact with secondary resources."
LC Issue kopecky5
[19]Issue kopecky5
[19] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#kopecky5
[Ian]
DC: I mailed him; see his 3[20]0 March response which includes
a clarification.
IJ: I am planning on including similar text in tomorrow's draft
and will endeavor to tie in his points re: qnames.
Resolved: Close DC's action for kopecky 5.
[20] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webarch-comments/2004JanMar/1071.html
IJ: The relevant sentence I'm drafting: "One particularly
useful mapping is to combine the namespace URI, a hash ("#"),
and the local name, thus creating a URI for a secondary
resource (the identified term)."
[Roy]
I would add "(assuming the namespace is flat)" somewhere, i.e.,
the mapping is only useful when the namespace is flat.
[Ian]
DC: Also mention the one that has more wrinkles - [21]schema
component designators.
[21] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-xmlschema-ref-20040309/
PC leaves.
LC Issue stickler7
[22]Issue stickler7
[22] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html?view=normal&closed=1#stickler7
IJ: I believe that tomorrow's Editor's Draft will address stickler7.
LC Issue hawke3
[23]Issue hawke3
[23] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html?view=normal&closed=1#hawke3
[Ian]
IJ: I've incorporated his changes into the section on [24]URI
ownership. Specifically: "The generation of a fairly large
random number or a checksum reduces the risk of URI overloading
to a calculated small risk. A draft "uuid" scheme adopted this
approach; one could also imagine a scheme based on md5
checksums."
DC: s/fairly//
[24] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/webarch-20040510/#uri-ownership
[Ian]
DC: I propose to either (1) move to future directions or (2)
strike the bits about uuid and md5
[Roy]
neither uuid nor mmdf are used because they do not prevent
collisions
[Chris]
its future or non-adopted work, so does not conflict with tag
to use only registered schemes
support moving to futre directions, unless we think its a
failed approach
[Ian]
DC: I'd rather strike than move to future directions at this
point.
RF: I'd remove it.
CL: I'd move to future directions.
[Chris]
support removing it also; not hearing that its likely future
direction
[Ian]
RF: I don't consider these to be identifiers. md5, e.g.,
doesn't prevent collisions, but reduces risk. Given a document
repository the size of the web, there is a guarantee that there
are colliding docs on the web.
TBL: UUIDs have a delegated part.
RF: If properly constructed, yes.
[Chris]
rf also said that its fragile, any edit to the resource gives a
new uuid
[Ian]
RF: If properly constructed, have same properties as mid
syntax.
MJ: Large random numbers are unwieldly.
TBL: Large random numbers technically work, but raise social
issues.
[DanC]
tim, yes, lots of things might be interesting in the fullness
of time. meanwhile, nobody has done the homework to finish the
uuid: scheme. Let's strike discussion of it, no?
[Ian]
IJ propose: delete second bullet and mention large numbers in
third bullet; delete uuid and md5
[Chris]
Mario, that was my point exactly, its a theoretical example
[Ian]
TBL: Say "hypothetical"?
[Roy]
strike
[Ian]
SW: Who would like to see the middle example on large numbers
struck?
[Norm]
strike
[Ian]
strike
CL: strike
SW: strike
[timbl]
TBL: Concur
[DanC]
you'll have to tweak "the above approaches". Note that mid/cid
also use domain names (the hierarchical part); the number part
looks like a file name.
[Ian]
Action IJ: Remove the middle bullet from 2.3.
LC Issue hawke7
[25]Issue hawke7
[25] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html?view=normal&closed=1#hawke7
[Ian]
IJ: I note for hawke6 that we talked about at ftf and didn't
adopt.
[Ian]
IJ: I've put SH's text in section 2.7.2: Assertion that Two
URIs Identify the Same Resource. I believe some folks commented
on this text at the ftf meeting.
TBL: In RDF, sameAs applies to resources.
[timbl]
<http://weather.example.org/stations/oaxaca#ws17a"> owl:sameAs
<http://weather.example.com/rdfdump?region=oaxaca&station=ws17a
>.
[DanC]
no, I can't endorse "Note also that to URIs that are sameAs one
another ...
[Ian]
RF, SW: I don't follow this para.
TBL: I think that reviewer is saying: "If two URIs identify the
same resource, that doesn't mean that you can use them
interchangeably."
DC: Yes it does.
TBL: Suppose you use "#" in both of them; so they both refer to
the same weather station. Sandro is saying that you can, e.g.,
put one or the other in an RDF statement. But if you
dereference them you'll get different information back.
SW suggests a a response à la Pat Hayes: The two URIs denote
the same resource but identify two different information
resources?
TBL: We use "identify" in the arch doc, not "denote".
IJ: What about s/interchangeable/interchangeable for purposes
other than identification/ ?
DC: I don't think this point is worth making (and furthermore,
I don't believe it).
[Norm]
Any argument that says something would be true for URIs of one
scheme that's false for URIs of another scheme makes me wince
[Ian]
DC: The resources are interchangeable, the URIs are spelled
differently.
TBL: But it makes a difference which one you use. If SH
intentionally didn't use a "#" in the second URI, then I don't
understand his question.
Proposed: Ask SH for clarification - was "#" dropped by mistake
in second URI?
Action TBL: Ask Sandro for clarification on whether second URI
should have "#".
After the meeting, TBL fulfilled his action on IRC; the following is
the relevant excerpt:
TBL: Sandro, I thought your comment was not about hashses but others
thought it was.
Sandro Hawke: It is NOT about hashes at all. It's at the level of
owl:sameAs, where hashes are irrelevant.
TBL: I thought it was that even though two URIs (say with hashes)
identify the same thing, they deref to different resources, so
it makes a difference which one you use in communication.
Sandro Hawke: Exactly
_________________________________________________________________
The TAG did not expect to discuss issues below this line.
Completed action items:
1. Action IJ 2004/05/24/: Announce the closure of issue
URIEquivalence-15. See [26]proposal to drop this action.
[26] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2004May/0070.html
Actions 2004/03/15 (due 25 March?) to review sections:
* Norm: I volunteer for section 3 ([27]Proposed)
* TBL: I volunteer 2 hours starting at start of section 2
* Roy: I volunteer to look at section 2
* Stuart: I volunteer starting at section 2.3
* Mario: I will look at section 4
[27] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2004Apr/0011.html
3. Status report on these findings
See also [28]TAG findings
* [29]abstractComponentRefs-37:
+ 30 Oct 2003 draft finding "[30]Abstract Component References"
* [31]contentPresentation-26:
+ 30 June 2003 draft finding "[32]Separation of semantic and
presentational markup, to the extent possible, is
architecturally sound"
* [33]metadataInURI-31
* [34]siteData-36
+ "[35]There is no such thing as a Web site"
[28] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/findings
[29] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html#abstractComponentRefs-37
[30] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/abstractComponentRefs-20031030
[31] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#contentPresentation-26
[32] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/contentPresentation-26-20030630.html
[33] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#metadataInURI-31
[34] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html#siteData-36
[35] http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2004/01/08/WebSite36
4. Other action items
* Action DC 2003/11/15: Follow up on KeepPOSTRecords with Janet Daly
on how to raise awareness of this point (which is in CUAP).
* Action CL 2003/10/27: Draft XML mime type thingy with Murata-san
_________________________________________________________________
Ian Jacobs for Stuart Williams and TimBL
Last modified: $Date: 2004/06/07 21:21:21 $
--
Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org) http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel: +1 718 260-9447
Received on Monday, 7 June 2004 17:28:39 UTC