- From: Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>
- Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 15:13:32 -0400
- To: www-tag@w3.org
- Message-id: <87hdq2kmn7.fsf@nwalsh.com>
The following constitutes our best efforts at a meeting record for 19
July 2004.
1. Roll call. Regrets: TBL, PC, SW, IJ (possible regrets)
2. Accept the minutes of the 12 July teleconf?
3. Accept this agenda?
4. Next meeting: 26 July. Norm Walsh to Chair. Regrets: SW. Possible regrets from IJ
1.1 Meeting schedule
1. Ottawa meeting update
1. Action NW/PC 2004/06/14: Prepare ftf meeting agenda. See email from Paul.
* Zakim sees on the phone: Norm, Roy, DanC, Chris
<DanC> Regrets: TBL, PC, SW, IJ
Chair: Norm
Scribe: Chris
Paul and Norm wil meet tomorrow to discuss the agenda of the meeting.
DC: Goals of meeting?
NW: figure out which lc comments are overtaken by events, whch need further changes to the doc
versioning on the agenda would be nice.
New issues?
DC: So, work towards second lc and work on other issues. Good.
1.3 TAG Charter
Pending further updates from Team/AB
no news
2.1 Action Item List
1. Action NW 2004/07/12: Write XMLChunk-44 as a finding.
continued
2. Action TBL/RF 2004/05/13: Write up a summary position to close httpRange-14, text for document (need to reschedule httpRange-14 when TBL available-single issue telcon? guest?)
continued, TBL not present
RF: related news, a new draft of 2396bis is available
2.5 Web Architecture Document Last Call
2.5.1 Last Call Issues
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html?view=wg&closed=1&expert=1&editorial=1&clarification=1&stateAgreed=1&stateDeclined=1&stateSubsumed=1
stickler7 : Section 3.4, para 2: URI ownership questions
(tag notes the links seem to be broken)
DC: doc has not changed much in this area. Not overtaken by events.
NW: since we are doing a second LC, do we need to respond to this one?
CL: Yes
DC: Nice to do so, but not required. Argument was not persuasive.
NW: Propose this is not on critical path for last call.
stickler9 : Good practice note on URIs without fragids?
CL 3.3.1 says "One cannot carry out an HTTP POST operation using a URI that identifies a secondary resource."
NW: Overtaken by events. Document now adresses this.
hawke1 : Proposed good practice note on looking inside protocol interactions
NW: Overtaken by events
hawke2 : Section 2: Full agreement not required for communication
NW: Overtaken by events
hawke7 : 2.7.2. Assertion that Two URIs Identify the Same Resource
NW: We have more explicit text about URI overloading now.
DC: We tried, ask if its good enough. Adopted some suggested text.
NW: Overtaken by events
weitzner1 : Proposed summary format
DC: editorial
kopecky5 : 4.5.5 More info on qnames, fragids, ns docs
DC: spoke to kopecky, response was:
30 Mar 2004 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webarch-comments/2004JanMar/1071.html
RF: yes, we identified one useful mapping. Section 4.5.5
"One particularly useful mapping in the case of flat namespaces is to combine the namespace URI, a hash ("#"), and the local name; see the section on XML namespaces for more examples." -- 4.5.5 (near http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#xml-formats)
NW: Overtaken by events
kopecky6 : 4.5.6 What's the conclusion?
CL: conclusion is someone else is fixing it
DC: Concluion is 'stay tuned'
NW: Overtaken by events
diwg1 : Add scenario(s) with dynamically generated URI
DC: We need to discuss this. No examples with a ? in the URI for example
CL: agreed. Prefer to ask them for more details
diwg3 : Suggest discussion of accessing different representations (transformed) of the same resource
NW: should discuss this one also
CL: yes, this is a good comment
schema2 : [Section 2] Unwise confluence of identification and retrievability
DC: need to discuss with them, f2f or in telcon, soon
CL, NW: Yes
ACTION DC: ask Schema WG for a slot soon
NW: prefer Friday slot
schema3 : [Section 2.3] Clarity required on nature of "resource"
DC: talk with them about this too. Its like a point n gometry, abstract.
dd to 'still needs work' pile
schema5 : [3.3.1] Inconsistency with RFC2396bis about frag id meaning?
CL: (prattles on at leanght about fetching resources and moving between different handlers and not breaking relative URIs and stuff)
NW: sounds complicated, ok put on the 'needs work'
schema8 : [3.4.1] Authority and trust
NW: Overtaken by events
schema9 : [3.4.1] Are peer-to-peer interactions covered?
Its in the 5 July draft 3.7 future directions
NW: Overtaken by events
schema10 : [3.5] Breadth of "safe" interactions
DC respnded to them, asked if finding adressed thei comments, no response yet
Open, not in critical path for last call.
schema12 : [3.6.1] [3.6.1] Good practice: Available representation. Too preferential to dereferencable URIs
NW: thats why we said should not must
DC: Add to telcon pile
schema16 : [4.5.1] Section on when to use XML formats underdeveloped
CL: We used to have some of these points, but it was cut (text vs binary)
NW: I like these points
CL: Me too
RF: YTes
ACTION: Editor add these four points to existing ones
msm3 : WD-webarch-20031209, 1.2.1 para 1: Assigning identifiers without knowing about representations
DC: some is editorial, other parts are unclear
NW: This is now 5.1 in the latest draft
NW: editorial
RF: Ian lists a proposal that was adopted, can't follow the link though
DC: So Ian already did this
NW: OK so now, overtaken by events
msm4 : WD-webarch-20031209, 1.2.1, final bulleted list, final item.: Authoritative metadata and the principle of decentralization
CL: I agree with this comment, and argued about this in the past (config of parts of servers, shared servers, etc)
RF: current situation only works snce clients ignore media types
CL: some do, yes, others don't and get hit by this
DC: If CL wants to talk about it more, fine by me
CL: yes
NW: needs more discussion
msm5 : WD-webarch-20031209, 1.2.2 para 5: Extensibility is a not a property of languages in isolation
NW: needs more discussion
msm6 : WD-webarch-20031209, 1.2.2 para 5: Ignoring the unknown as a default action no decision
NW: needs more discussion
msm7 : WD-webarch-20031209, 1.2.2 para 6: Ignoring elements and ignoring tags
NW: needs more discussion
msm8 : WD-webarch-20031209, Section 2, introductory paragraphs: The term 'resource' needs to be defined
NW: open but not critical path; related to schema comment on same topic
CL: Agree
msm9 : WD-webarch-20031209, Section 2 para 3: The vastness of URI space
RF: Already done?
NW: Yes, Ian added some new text
NW: Overtaken by events
msm10 : WD-webarch-20031209, Section 2: Assigning URIs to resources others will expect to refer to
CL: So http://realnumbers.example.org/cgi-bin/reals?<insert-real-here>
DC: No, sorry
RF: no practical difference between countably and unclountably infinite
NW: not critical path
RF: We no longer have that text in the document, or I can't find it
DC: changed significantly
NW: Overtaken by events
msm11 : WD-webarch-20031209, Section 2.2, bulleted list, first item: Delegation of authority in hierarchical URIs
NW: Overtaken by events
msm12 : WD-webarch-20031209, Section 3.3.1, para 1: Are there constraints on the interpretation of fragment identifiers?
(discussion on implementing and/or blogging this)
DC: Yes, and No.
NW: Not critical path
baker2 : More info on non-browser Web
DC: See 'future directions'
NW: Overtaken by events
baker4: 4.5.2: Preference for RDF linking over XLink linking
NW: Disagree with the comment
CL: Needs to say how its better
NW: Not closed, not critical path
parsia5: LC Comment, Section 2: Agreement on identifiers
NW: Overtaken by events
parsia6: LC Comment, Section 2: Identification mechanism of the Web
NW: text no longer occurs
NW: Overtaken by events
parsia7: LC Comment, Section 2: On requirement to assign a URI to a resource
NW: Overtaken by events
parsia9: LC Comment, Section 2: On resources being able to have zero URIs
NW: Overtaken by events
DC: Process issue, will this triage show up oin the auto issues list?
NW: Yes, I will do that
parsia10 : LC Comment, Section 2: On URI assignment
DC: prefer to talk about this
RF: Same as msm10
DC: Overtaken by events (but may follow up offline)
parsia11 : URI assignment v. use. Who are URI producers?
NW: Editorial?
RF: yes
parsia12 : Ambiguous use of URIs v. URI Ambiguity?
DC: OBE, we rewrote this text
NW: OK
parsia15 : Social implications of URI ownership.
CL: Consensus is process not social
RF: Para is fine to me, note 'however'
NW: Not critical path
parsia20: Drop definition of "on the Web"
NW: Rewritten, still no definition, used lots
CL: Huh?
DC: Phrase 'in the bathtub' is not defined either
parsia21: Drop sentence on successful communication
NW: OBE
2.5.2 Reviews
See the 8 June 2004 Editor's Draft.
* Action CL 2004/05/14 revised to:
Done, see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2004Jul/0012.html
Actions from 2004/06/14:
PC to review sections 1, 5, and 6 of 8 June draft.
CL to review section 4 of 8 June draft.
SW, NW to review entire 8 June draft. (SW Done[partial] PDF, HTML)
[Will add references to any other completed reviews submitted for discussion]
all continued, but on latest draft ot 8 June one.
Next telco will pick up where we left off in issues
RF: Draft 06 of rfc2396bis is now available from <http://gbiv.com/protocols/uri/rev-2002/issues.html> and will most likely go to IESG last call during the IETF meeting during the first week of August.
Be seeing you,
norm
--
Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM / XML Standards Architect / Sun Microsystems, Inc.
NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended
recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information.
Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited.
If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by
reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.
Received on Monday, 13 September 2004 19:13:44 UTC