- From: Stuart Williams <skw@hp.com>
- Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 09:06:51 +0000
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org
FYI... while we are in a period of transition I did send regrets in [1]. It may be that it is inappropriate for them to be recorded. Regards Stuart [1] http://www.w3.org/mid/8D5B24B83C6A2E4B9E7EE5FA82627DC9855069@sdcexcea01.emea.cpqcorp.net (Member visible) -- Dan Connolly wrote: >Please review: > Technical Architecture Group (TAG) Weekly Teleconference -- 22 Feb 2005 > http://www.w3.org/2005/02/22-tagmem-minutes.html > $Revision: 1.14 $ of $Date: 2005/02/22 21:15:26 $ > >Plain text copy attached. > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > [1]W3C > > Technical Architecture Group (TAG) Weekly Teleconference > >22 Feb 2005 > > [2]Agenda > > See also: [3]IRC log > >Attendees > > Present > Vincent Quint (VQ), Henry Thompson (HT), Norm Walsh (NDW), Roy > Fielding (RF), Dan Connolly (DC), Chris Lilley (CL), Ed Rice (ER) > , Dave Orchard (DO), PaulC (PC) > > Regrets > TimBL, Noah > > Chair > Vincent > > Scribe > DanC > >Contents > > * [4]Topics > > 1. [5]Roll call, review records and agenda > 2. [6]Change location of June f2f? (Edinburgh?) > 3. [7]W3C Technical Plenary TAG F2F Monday am 28th February 2005 > 4. [8]W3C Technical Plenary TAG Liaisons > 5. [9]New Issue?: Adding terms to a namespace, xml:id/C14N > discussions > 6. [10]New Issue?: Relationship of URI schemes to protocols > 7. [11]issue review: RDFinXHTML-35 > 8. [12]issue review. siteData-36 > 9. [13]issue review. abstractComponentRefs-37 > 10. [14]issue review: putMediaType-38 > 11. [15]issue review rdfURIMeaning-39 > 12. [16]issue review URIGoodPractice-40 > > * [17]Summary of Action Items > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Roll call, review records and agenda > > propose Tuesday 8 March 2005 for next meeting > > regrets DaveO for 8 Mar > > VQ has a conflict with 8 Mar > > VQ is available to prepare an agenda, but not to run the meeting > > <ht> regrets HST for 8 March > > NDW offers to run the 8 Mar telcon > > (are we resolved? doesn't seem critical... can decide 28Feb, I suppose) > > * [18]minutes 7 Feb > > * [19]14 Feb minutes > > DC: 2nd proposal to OK 7 Feb minutes > > VQ: I've reviewed actions from the telcons... many seem to be done; I'll > get back to the others 28Feb > ... unless there are comments now > > noah notes being done with his action on extensibility > > Change location of June f2f? (Edinburgh?) > > VQ: recall we agreed to meet near Nice just after the W3C AC meeting, but > it's no longer convenient for Chris... > ... and HT has offered to host... > ... some preferences each way... > > <Roy> Edinburgh +1 > > <noah> France +1 > > <noah> (if someone will host, of course) > > Chris: I have not told Coralie (prospective INRIA local organizer) to > cancel our meeting in June > > <noah> Edinburgh OK if not, just trying to save travel wear n tear > > VQ: to expects to attend the AC meeting? > > DC: I do > > DO: I do > > <noah> NM: I do > > HT: I do > > NDW: I prefer Edingburgh, though that reduces the chance I'll attend the > AC meeting > > <Ed> I will not be at the AC meeting > > VQ: I expect TimBL to attend the AC meeting > > Roy: I think timbl had a conflict with the June 8 Date > > "TimBL was also unable to comfirm in-person attendance." re 8-10 June. > [20]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/10/05-07-tag.html#meeting-plans > > HT: I think I can hold my hosting reservations for a month without much > cost in case I cancel > > VQ: so let's take another week to consider it > > <scribe> ACTION: VQ to contact Coralie re 8-10 June meeting arrangements > at INRIA. [recorded in > [21]http://www.w3.org/2005/02/22-tagmem-minutes#action01] > > CL: you might ask her about Cannes vs Sophia while you're at it > > W3C Technical Plenary TAG F2F Monday am 28th February 2005 > > * [22]proposed agenda > > DC: hmm... .5hr of admin seems like a lot for a 2hr meeting... > > VQ: some is more than admin... issues list maintenance > > <Chris> start discussing issue list stuff in email to get up to speed? > > VQ: I expect to update the agenda tomorrow with comments received; I'm > willing to take comments up to the meeting day > > W3C Technical Plenary TAG Liaisons > > VQ: re XML Core joint meeting... > > * [23]Tentative TAG Liaison Meeting Schedule > > VQ: PaulG proposes 10:30 to noon Thu for XML Core/TAG join telcon > > <scribe> ACTION: NDW: let XML Core WG know yes, we agree to meet Thu 3 Mar > 10:30am in Boston [recorded in > [24]http://www.w3.org/2005/02/22-tagmem-minutes#action02] > > VQ: note "14:45-15:45 Joint with CDF-WG" > ... on Monday > > HT: no liaison meetings Tuesday? > > VQ: right > > VQ reviews liaison schedule Revision 1.21 2005/02/22 17:26:09 vquint > > New Issue?: Adding terms to a namespace, xml:id/C14N discussions > > * [25]Norm's request > > (hmm... seems to fall under versioning41, but so does all of life, the > universe, and everything, so maybe a specific issue is good) > > DC: issue name ideas? > > NDW: nameSpaceTerms-NN, maybe? > > <Roy> nameAdditions-NN ? > > <Chris-again> reservedNoReally? > > NDW: some urgency motivates a separate issue from versioning41: having a > TAG decision before end of xml:id CR period would be nice > > <Zakim> DanC, you wanted to ask about timing expectations > > <Roy> digestable +1 > > DO: so the results of this new issue could be folded into work on > versioning41? > > NDW: sure, but this seems independent of schema languages etc. [?] > > HT: people often read more into the namespace REC than is there; I'd like > to take this opportunity to clarify > > DO: one thing that's in the [draft] finding now is a discussion of > relationship between terms, [missed?], which seems relevant > > RF: [good point about issues : findings. can't summarize real-time]. I > suggest "nameAddition" because the identity questions don't seem to be the > main thing > > NDW: ...[missed?]... crux of it is xml: namespace [?] > > <Chris-again> ... and is it bounded or not > > CL: yes, that is the main thing... one spec made an assuption about the > xml: namespace, and unless "will not change" is explicitly stated, that's > not safe > > <Zakim> ht, you wanted to disagree with Norm > > [scribe gives up trying to keep up] > > <Roy> We can have one finding answer multiple issues, but tracking > multiple issues under a single issue name simply because we expect them to > be answered in one finding would be a mistake, IMO. > > HT: to speak of "adding names to a namespace" doesn't make sense. the > names are all there. > > NDW: while I might agree, that's not universally agreed > > <noah> +1, I agree with Henry. At the very least, we shouldn't preclude in > advance that possible formulation > > <Chris-again> HT: namespace is a set, unbounded, all names already exist > in it > > <dorchard> The first part of the finding has an attempt at formal > description of the architecture of languages > [26]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2004Nov/att-0071/versioning-part1.html > > <noah> If you're looking for a name for an issue (I can't quite tell), how > about "immutableNamespaces"? > > <ht> namespaceState? > > +1 namespaceState > > <Ed> +1 namespaceState > > VQ: seems we're agreed (agreeing?) to add an issue, in addition to, while > perhaps related to, issue 41 > > <Chris-again> +1 namespaceState > > <Roy> +1 namespaceState > > <dorchard> +1 namespaceState > > <Norm> +1 namespaceState > > RESOLUTION: to accept issue namespaceState. > > PC: we need to announce the issue to tag-announce > > VQ: ndw's request serves as an issue summary? > > ER: OK > > <Roy> +1 > > <scribe> ACTION: NDW to announce TAG's acknolwedgement of issue > nameSpaceState-NN [recorded in > [27]http://www.w3.org/2005/02/22-tagmem-minutes#action03] > > <Zakim> DanC, you wanted to note traditions and to > > NDW, HT, DO volunteer to "work on it" > > <scribe> ACTION: NDW to work with HT, DO on namespaceState [recorded in > [28]http://www.w3.org/2005/02/22-tagmem-minutes#action04] > > <Zakim> Chris-again, you wanted to add that a cc should be sent to > affected WGs > > <ht> HST has in mind to try to summarise, in a way the owners would > acknowledge as fair, the various positions so far articulated at the base > of the ongoing discussion > > tx for the sketch, ht. pls do > > (not in this meeting, I assume) > > <ht> Correct DanC > > PC: add this to the 3 Mar TAG/XML Core agenda? > > NDW: yes, quite > > PC: pending XML Core work depends on this? > > NDW: xml:id CR exit > > PC: is there room for this on the TAG/XML Core agenda? > > NDW/VQ: think so, yes > > <Roy> my input is already in www-tag > > New Issue?: Relationship of URI schemes to protocols > > * [29]Noah's request > > DC suggests straw poll; if we can say "yes" today, very well. if not, > let's wait 'till noah can make his case > > RF: having trouble differentiating this from work going on in uri mailing > list > > DC: why do you want/need to differentiate? > > RF: good question... > ... not sold by Noah's request as is. > > DC: let's wait 'till Noah can make his case. > > VQ: very well. > > <noah> Roy, either in these minutes or by email, maybe you could send URIs > to pertinent thread in URI list? Thanks. > > <Roy> Noah, there is ongoing discussion on uri@w3.org regarding > rfc2717-2718 replacement that contains instructions on what to include in > scheme spec. > > <Roy> Noah, [30]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/uri/2005Feb/0042.html > > issue review: RDFinXHTML-35 > > * [31]issues list > > VQ: continuing from 7 Feb > ... continuing from 7 Feb, when we got to xmlFunctions-34 ... > ... I'm interested in names relevant to each issue. > > DC: There are variuos questions about how to embed RDF in HTML/XHTML. > Practice includes putting RDF in comments inside HTML. > > <Norm> Appalling but true > > * [32]Storing Data in Documents: The Design History and Rationale for > GRDDL > > DC: I'd like reviewer for "Storing Data..."; I think there's perhaps more > work to cover, but that's my work to date toward a finding on this issue. > > HT: I'm happy to review > > NDW: [cut off?] > > <scribe> ACTION: HT to review [33]Storing Data in Documents: The Design > History and Rationale for GRDDL [recorded in > [34]http://www.w3.org/2005/02/22-tagmem-minutes#action05] > > <scribe> ACTION: NDW to review [35]Storing Data in Documents: The Design > History and Rationale for GRDDL [recorded in > [36]http://www.w3.org/2005/02/22-tagmem-minutes#action06] > > issue review. siteData-36 > > DC: [can't type and summarize] > ... something like: next time a /robots.txt situation comes around, I'd > like to have something in place that's better than a hard-coded name > > CL: meanwhile, /robots.txt is quite useful. > > VQ: any takers? > > NDW: some interest, but not much bandwidth > > DC: haven't have a "lightbulb" idea. prefer to leave it in the "someday" > pile > > issue review. abstractComponentRefs-37 > > DO: this came from a request from the web services description WG... > ... (1) when we come up with a component designator, is it designating an > abstract component, or a piece of syntax in the WSDL doc? > ... (2) [missed?] > ... and the TAG said: (1) designates abstract component (2) we discussed > lots of options and said "yeah, the one in your WD is OK" > > ( trying to confirm that we've approved this finding... > [37]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/abstractComponentRefs-20031030 ) > > HST: XML Schema work on component designators is relevant... > > * [38]Abstract Component References Draft TAG Finding 30 Oct 2003 > > HT notes... > > * [39]Comments from MSM on behalf of Schema WG > > <ht> MSM reports Schema WG was not happy > > <ht> HST hears DO saying that it doesn't actually answer the question, yet > > <Zakim> ht, you wanted to volunteer to take this finding on, in a month or > two > > VQ: ok, so we are where we are. > > issue review: putMediaType-38 > > DC: offshoot of issue 7 > > CL: there was some WEBDAV criticism in the discussion? > > DC: yes, I think so > > RF: perhaps it should be reassigned to me > > * [40]putMediaType-38 > > <Roy> ACTION: Roy to prepare putMediaType-38 for further discussion > [recorded in [41]http://www.w3.org/2005/02/22-tagmem-minutes#action07] > > issue review rdfURIMeaning-39 > > * [42]Re: New issue - Meaning of URIs in RDF documents > > DanC: gee... can't remember the gist of this. let's wait 'till TimBL is > around > > issue review URIGoodPractice-40 > > <Roy> I am planning to work on URIGoodPractice-40 next week during TP when > I can talk to DaveO > > RF: related to abstractComponentRefs-37 ... > > DO: in discussion of XPointer () stuff, I recall some criticism from RF, > which spawned this issue > > VQ: ok, that's it for today > > ADJOURN. > >Summary of Action Items > > [NEW] ACTION: HT to review " Storing Data in Documents ..." [recorded in > [43]http://www.w3.org/2005/02/22-tagmem-minutes#action05] > [NEW] ACTION: NDW to announce TAG's acknolwedgement of issue > nameSpaceState-NN [recorded in > [44]http://www.w3.org/2005/02/22-tagmem-minutes#action03] > [NEW] ACTION: NDW let XML Core WG know yes, we agree to meet Thu 3 Mar > 10:30am in Boston [recorded in > [45]http://www.w3.org/2005/02/22-tagmem-minutes#action02] > [NEW] ACTION: NDW to review " Storing Data in Documents ..." [recorded in > [46]http://www.w3.org/2005/02/22-tagmem-minutes#action06] > [NEW] ACTION: NDW to work with HT, DO on namespaceState [recorded in > [47]http://www.w3.org/2005/02/22-tagmem-minutes#action04] > [NEW] ACTION: Roy to prepare putMediaType-38 for further discussion > [recorded in [48]http://www.w3.org/2005/02/22-tagmem-minutes#action07] > [NEW] ACTION: VQ to contact Coralie re 8-10 June meeting arrangements at > INRIA. [recorded in > [49]http://www.w3.org/2005/02/22-tagmem-minutes#action01] > > [End of minutes] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > DanC for VQ and the TAG > $Revision: 1.14 $ of $Date: 2005/02/22 21:15:26 $ > formatted by David Booth's [50]scribe.perl version 1.111 ([51]CVS log) > >References > > Visible links > 1. http://www.w3.org/ > 2. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2005/02/22-agenda.html > 3. http://www.w3.org/2005/02/22-tagmem-irc > 4. http://www.w3.org/2005/02/22-tagmem-minutes.html#agenda > 5. http://www.w3.org/2005/02/22-tagmem-minutes.html#item01 > 6. http://www.w3.org/2005/02/22-tagmem-minutes.html#item05 > 7. http://www.w3.org/2005/02/22-tagmem-minutes.html#item06 > 8. http://www.w3.org/2005/02/22-tagmem-minutes.html#item07 > 9. http://www.w3.org/2005/02/22-tagmem-minutes.html#item08 > 10. http://www.w3.org/2005/02/22-tagmem-minutes.html#item09 > 11. http://www.w3.org/2005/02/22-tagmem-minutes.html#item10 > 12. http://www.w3.org/2005/02/22-tagmem-minutes.html#item11 > 13. http://www.w3.org/2005/02/22-tagmem-minutes.html#item12 > 14. http://www.w3.org/2005/02/22-tagmem-minutes.html#item13 > 15. http://www.w3.org/2005/02/22-tagmem-minutes.html#item14 > 16. http://www.w3.org/2005/02/22-tagmem-minutes.html#item15 > 17. http://www.w3.org/2005/02/22-tagmem-minutes.html#ActionSummary > 18. http://www.w3.org/2005/02/07-tagmem-minutes.html > 19. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2005Feb/att-0112/Feb142005FormattedMinutes.html > 20. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/10/05-07-tag.html#meeting-plans > 21. http://www.w3.org/2005/02/22-tagmem-minutes#action01 > 22. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2005/02/28-agenda.html > 23. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2005/01/TechnicalPlenaryLiaisons.html > 24. http://www.w3.org/2005/02/22-tagmem-minutes#action02 > 25. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2005Feb/0015.html > 26. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2004Nov/att-0071/versioning-part1.html > 27. http://www.w3.org/2005/02/22-tagmem-minutes#action03 > 28. http://www.w3.org/2005/02/22-tagmem-minutes#action04 > 29. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2005Feb/0013.html > 30. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/uri/2005Feb/0042.html > 31. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html?view=normal&closed=1 > 32. http://www.w3.org/2004/01/rdxh/specbg.html > 33. http://www.w3.org/2004/01/rdxh/specbg.html > 34. http://www.w3.org/2005/02/22-tagmem-minutes#action05 > 35. http://www.w3.org/2004/01/rdxh/specbg.html > 36. http://www.w3.org/2005/02/22-tagmem-minutes#action06 > 37. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/abstractComponentRefs-20031030 > 38. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/abstractComponentRefs-20031030 > 39. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2004Jan/0007.html > 40. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html?view=normal&closed=1#putMediaType-38 > 41. http://www.w3.org/2005/02/22-tagmem-minutes#action07 > 42. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Jul/0127.html > 43. http://www.w3.org/2005/02/22-tagmem-minutes#action05 > 44. http://www.w3.org/2005/02/22-tagmem-minutes#action03 > 45. http://www.w3.org/2005/02/22-tagmem-minutes#action02 > 46. http://www.w3.org/2005/02/22-tagmem-minutes#action06 > 47. http://www.w3.org/2005/02/22-tagmem-minutes#action04 > 48. http://www.w3.org/2005/02/22-tagmem-minutes#action07 > 49. http://www.w3.org/2005/02/22-tagmem-minutes#action01 > 50. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm > 51. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/ > >
Received on Wednesday, 23 February 2005 09:10:56 UTC