Minutes of 10 Jan 2005 Telcon

The (lightly edited) minutes are attached along with the (lightly edited)
IRC log used to produce them. (I can't check things into dated space,
team: feel free.)

A text version follows:

   W3C

                                   TAG telcon

10 Jan 2005

   Agenda

   See also: IRC log

Attendees

   Present
           Paul, Chris, Norm, Stuart, DanC, Noah, TimBL, DOrchard_(partial)

   Regrets
           None

   Absent
           RoyF

   Chair
           Stuart

   Scribe
           Norm

Contents

     * Topics
         1. Administrivia
         2. W3C Technical Plenary
         3. TAG Liasons; Extensibility and Versioning
         4. Tag Liasons; XML Core
         5. TAG Liasons; QA-WG
         6. TAG Liasons; WS-Addressing
         7. 2. Technical; Extensibility and Versioning
         8. 2. Technical; XML Chunk Equality
     * Summary of Action Items

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   <Chris> Scribe: Norm

   <Chris> ScribeNick: Norm

   Absent: RF

  Administrivia

   Chair notes a fair amount of administrivia on today's agenda.

   5-10 minutes on issues list maintainance

   <noah> Regrets for next week

   Regrets for next week

   <Chris> I can scribe next week

   pbc gives regrets as well

   <DanC> (I'll be on my way to the airport 17 Jan)

   Next meeting: 24 Jan 2005

   Meeting of 17 Jan 2005 cancelled.

   <Chris> "The Last Call review period ends 28 January 2005, at 23:59 EDT"

   <DanC> try all caps ACTION:

   <DanC> and ACTION Chris: ... is sometimes better than ACTION: Chris

   <scribe> ACTION: CL to Post QA review comments for email discussion.

   Minutes of 20 Dec 2004 accepted.

   Discussion of
   http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-rsalz-qname-urn-00.txt

   DO asks if we want discussion of this ID on www-tag?

   This seems related to the QNames as Identifiers issue.

   General agreement that it's ok for discussion to go to www-tag

   <scribe> ACTION: SW to Respond to DO approving discussion of the ID on
   www-tag.

  W3C Technical Plenary

   <Zakim> DanC, you wanted to comment re minutes/agenda tools

   SW opens discussion of TAG contribution to technical plenary day

   PC: volunteered to participate in the planning committee but has had to
   back out. Suggest that we ask for 1+ hours and put together a
   comprehensive proposal including our issues, perhaps E+V.
   ... It would have broad interest which is important at the plenary

   CL: TP is the first f2f after 1 Feb?

   SW: Yes, although we're talking about the Wednesday day.

   <Chris> okay

   Wednesday is 2 Feb, fwiw.

   <noah> Reminder: I believe that David Orchard is planning to join us on
   this call in part to discuss our plans for versioning discussion at the
   Plenary. Am I remembering correctly?

   Wednesday is 2 MAR, not 2 Feb. Oops.

   <DanC> (heh... the dbooth script will change that to "... is 2 MAR, not 2
   Mar")

   SW: Housekeeping: introduce new members of the TAG.
   ... WebArch? Substantive issues, E+V or httpRange-14?

   Some discussion of how an E+V presentation might work with participation
   from TAG, Schema and other relevant participants.

   SW: We need to introduce the new TAG.

   PC: I disagree; Wednesday should be as technical as possible with the
   minimum amount of administrive overhead

   noah: If the reason to have the TAG there as a whole is introductions,
   that's 3-5 min. What really do we want to have covered though on behalf of
   the TAG at this session? Versioning is one interesting issue, but it's odd
   because it spills over beyond the tag. We have others, httpRange-14,
   looming WS-Addressing issues, perhaps others?
   ... Did we collect a set of intersting things as we went through the arch
   document? Should we survey the state of play on unresolved issues; listing
   them with a 2-3 min introduction to each. Note that we're entering a
   process of looking at these and tyring to set our agenda for the coming
   year. Should we share that with the plenary so that they can have some
   input.
   ... Perhaps we should do a "state of the TAG" and split E+V off into
   another slot.

   <Zakim> noah, you wanted to suggest maybe we survey unresolved issues?

   <Zakim> DanC, you wanted to say oh... no, not httpRange-14 for the big
   meeting on weds. only a small thing, with position papers prerequisite for
   attendance and to question the logistics

   DanC: I can imagine presenting in a survey style; collecting data will be
   frustrating if we don't use the WBS survey.
   ... If we're going to do a survey, we should use the machine to help
   ... on httpRange-14: please no, not with a large audience.
   ... I think that should be a small group with a 1 page position paper
   required to even get in the door

   SW: So I've heard noah suggest that we make this a two bite sort of thing:
   TAG for one and E+V for another.

   TBL: For what extent are we concentrating on what we haven't decided yet?

   <noah> FWIW, the survey aspect was somewhat secondary in my thinking. I
   had in mind more of a: "let us remind you what issues look challenging to
   us and why". Now, we can either discuss a few in the remaining time,
   and/or solicit your sense of which are important and whether there are
   other directions we're missing.

   TBL: Should we use this time to present the architecture document or a
   number of things which are not in dispute?

   DanC: While I think we should present the webarch document, I wonder if
   this is the right audience. If there's a new WG, they should get a
   presentation, but this group participated in review of the document.

   SW: Last year we had theme-oriented panels and that seemed like a good
   thing

   <DanC> yes, please, theme-oriented. E+V

   <DanC> yes, content/presentation... CSS, XSL, DI, ... .

   CL: I suggest separation of content and presentation because there are
   several different approaches to the problem (CSS, XSL, vs. Device
   Independence)
   ... Might be interesting to see if we have more or less agreement than we
   expect.
   ... If we decided to do that, I'm prepared to do some preparation for
   that.

   SW: Is there a third choice, or should we stick with two?
   ... I can go back to Steve Bratt with those two.

   <Chris> I can do some introductory slides on that, to set the scene

   <noah> Are we at the point where we should invite DaveO to dial in?

  TAG Liasons; Extensibility and Versioning

   SW: The idea, I think, is to hold one meeting early in the half of the
   week, a "stakeholders meeting" where we focus on motivating needs and
   requirements.

   Some discussion of the email about this topic

   noah: Will the meeting be best served by inviting everybody? It's just a
   matter of logistics.

   Message in question:
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/chairs/2005JanMar/0002.html

   noah: scratch comment about inviting everybody; was confused, thought we
   were still talking about the Wednesday panel session
   ... The Schema WG feels that they have some ownership over the
   extensibility and versioning issue. But they also see that it's a much
   larger issue.
   ... My guess is that we need to do a deep dive to get organized and
   complement each other going forward
   ... There are also other communities that are our users and they have
   different needs as well.

   PC: Why would we wait until the plenary to get together with schema on
   this issue?
   ... We've got a few meetings in February and at least one more in January

   noah: I think it might be more valuable to do it face-to-face.

   <scribe> ACTION: SW to To schedule some sort of meeting with Schema
   between now and the plenary

   DanC: any news on getting the Schema work public?

   noah: Yes, I did the narrow part of the action to alert the chair.
   ... Maybe I should take another actoin to follow up?

   <scribe> ACTION: NM to Attempt to get the Schema WG to make their
   extensibility and versioning use cases work public.

   Some discussion about administrivia associated with doing this in a WG
   that has experienced some shrinkage.

   SW: wrt E+V, we're talking about a panel session, we might also have a
   shareholders meeting if we get feedback; and we'll try to have liason with
   schema before the plenary

  Tag Liasons; XML Core

   Norm: No issues at present, but it's easier to cancel than schedule if we
   decide we do have issues

   <Zakim> DanC, you wanted to ask what of "ACTION NM: to explore means of
   getting current and future Schema WG work on versioning into public
   spaces"

  TAG Liasons; QA-WG

   They would like to meet. Will work with SW on topics.

  TAG Liasons; WS-Addressing

   They would like to meet. We've had a possible new issue that may be
   related.

   <Zakim> DanC, you wanted to ask didn't SKW take an action to contact
   ws-addressing WG?

   <noah> +1 to idea that we meet with WS-Addressing. Suggested agenda: they
   walk through their design and issues, preparing to defend non-use of URIs

   DanC wonders who has the ball on setting up that meeting

   SW: I have the ball.

   PC: Which WGs would we meet with if we were going to flatten all the
   deferred issues

   <Chris> Note that I don't have an SVG f2f competing with TAG at the TP,
   this time

   <Chris> However I am meeting with some WG on SVG behalf

   <scribe> ACTION: SW to give Steve Bratt a response to how the TAG would
   like to participate in the Plenary

   <Zakim> DanC, you wanted to ask if SKW has all the TP balls, and wonder if
   spreading the work around would be easier or just introduce more mess

  2. Technical; Extensibility and Versioning

   SW: We've got to the piece on E+V. I think you sent out a couple of
   revised drafts just before Christmas.
   ... Do you want to tell us what's changed?

   <DanC> (hmm... when we left our hero, the ball was with the readers, not
   the writers)

   dorchard: I thought I went through that in Boston.

   <noah> Were they just before Christmas, or just before Boston?

   SW: Ok, unfortunatly I wasn't present.

   <DanC> "ACTION PC: to review parts 1 and 2 of extensibility and versioning
   editorial draft finding prior to discussion for 10 Jan. ACTION DC: paulc
   to review parts 1 and 2 of extensibility and versioning editorial draft
   finding prior to discussion for 10 Jan"

   <DanC> oops!

   Correction: Before Boston not before Christmas.

   <DanC> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/11/29-30-tag#xmlv41

   DanC, PC have not yet completed review; action pending.

   <Zakim> DanC, you wanted to say sorry, no, didn't read it, see earlier
   agend request to discuss issue list maintenance

   noah: Is it appropriate to go over at least my recollection of our
   tentative decisions

   <DanC> "ACTION NM: to work with DO to come up with improved principles and
   background assumptions that motivate versioning finding"

   <noah> Right, thanks for finding that.

   SW: At the moment we are a little lacking in feedback. Apologies for
   dragging dorchard here before we were well prepared.

   <DanC> ACTION: DC to review blog entry on RDF versioning [pointer?].
   CONTINUES.

   dorchard: The only thing that's happened since then is that I did write up
   a paper that examines RELAX NG in this context.
   ... I tried to come up with a small set of scenarios that I've been
   working with.

   <dorchard>
   http://www.pacificspirit.com/Authoring/Compatibility/OWLRDFExtensibility.html

   <Zakim> Chris, you wanted to suggest an example

   CL: One example that might be interesting for RELAX NG would be taking an
   empty element and adding an attribute co-constraint that says whether or
   not it should be empty.

   <noah> Dave specifically contrasts his scenarios, which are sort of
   mechanistic (add an attribute to a type) to the more general user level
   scenarios the schema wg has been using as motivation (I.e. phrased as
   business scenarios)

   SW: Should we continue or cancel some of these actions? If they're
   continued, can you set expectations?

   DanC reviews them:

   <DanC> ACTION: NM to to work with DO to come up with improved principles
   and background assumptions that motivate versioning finding. CONTINUES.
   bigger than a 1-week thing

   NM: to work with DO to come up with improved principles and background
   assumptions that motivate versioning finding

   <DanC> PC asks to withdraw: ACTION PC: to review parts 1 and 2 of
   extensibility and versioning editorial draft finding prior to discussion

   <DanC> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/11/29-30-tag#xmlv41

   <DanC> SKW offers to review part 1

   <timbl> To review ...
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Oct/att-0137/vers-adoc.html
   ?

   dorchard observes that the TAG is in flux until the elections finish

   <DanC> ACTION: DC to paulc to review parts 1 and 2 of extensibility and
   versioning editorial draft finding prior to discussion.

   <DanC> (I think I can do it this week)

   <DanC> . ACTION PC: paulc to inform QA and Schema WGs of the new version
   of the e&v draft

   <Stuart>
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Oct/att-0137/vers-adoc.html

   <DanC> ACTION: SW to to inform QA and Schema WGs of the new version of the
   e&v draft

   <Stuart>
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2004Nov/att-0071/versioning-part2.html

   <dorchard> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2004Nov/att-0071/

   <dorchard>
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2004Nov/att-0071/versioning-part1.html

   SW notes that he's put the wrong link in the agenda

   dorchard: between now and February 12, is very bad for scheduling
   additional meetings

   noah: but you will be at the Tech Plenary

   dorchard: yes

   SW: Should we shoot for the 14th?

   <DanC> yes, 14 Feb looks like an interesting sync-point

   noah: You're hoping Schema WG will be available then?

   SW: yes

   dorchard agrees that falling back to 21 Feb would be ok

   SW: Plan is to have our reviews finished for discussion on 14 Feb

   <scribe> ACTION: NM to Coordinate with chair of Schema for meeting on 14
   Feb

   noah: Schema chair agrees informally

  2. Technical; XML Chunk Equality

   <Chris> NW: posted a draft a while back, went through www-tag discussion

   <Chris> nw: mostly discussion was about a single issue

   <DanC> (agenda cites http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/xmlChunkEquality.html
   )

   <Chris> nw: xml:lang and case folding and non-ascii characters and stuff

   <DanC> ([EditorA-c-\u20ac\u2122s Draft] TAG Finding 07 September 2004)

   <Chris> nw: apart from that, little feedback

   <DanC> action 11 = NM: Coordinate with chair of Schema for meeting on 14
   Feb

   <Chris> sw: how was that recieved by xml core?

   <Chris> nw: reluctant as there was not a single correct response for all
   of xml

   <Chris> nw: however, this was juts 'a' notion of equality not 'the' one,
   so they declined

   <Chris> nw: thus, the ball is in TAG court again

   <Chris> nw: Core is fine with TAG doing 'a' way

   <Chris> dc: looks like an interesting note

   <Chris> nw: can tag publish a wg note?

   <Chris> dc, cl, sw: yes (probably)

   <Chris> pc: why bother changing the finding to a note?

   <Chris> nw: one psychological step less normative. not in all caps.

   <Zakim> DanC, you wanted to review actions from
   http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/11/29-30-tag#xmlv41 and to and to say that
   my instinct about xml:lang is to write a test case and then see

   <Zakim> noah, you wanted to ask about precendents of findings as notes

   <Chris> nm: don't want to get into duplicat work, republish findings and
   notes. rather train people how to read findings

   <Zakim> Chris, you wanted to expound about xml:lang

   <Zakim> DanC, you wanted to say that my instinct about xml:lang is to
   write a test case and then see what implementations do, but hey, with a
   note, just stick a "xml:lang looks hairy.

   <noah> slight clarification: I'm not necessarily against publishing as
   notes if we can convince ourselves there's a good reason that justifies
   the duplicate investment in publication and ongoing maintenance in the
   face of possible bugs. I'm suggesting we decide on the criteria in
   general. I think Dan is now suggesting such a criterion.

   <pbc> as an example of another algorithm.

   <Chris> cl: bogus language codes do not affect well formedness, but
   anything not conforming to the prose of xml still does not conform to
   prose

   <pbc> should we also point to
   http://www.w3.org/TR/xquery-operators/#func-deep-equal

   <Chris> cl: its well defined, except for this theoretical corner case

   <Zakim> timbl, you wanted to ask whhy we started this.

   <DanC> yes, noah

   pbc: yes, we should

   <Chris> tbl: can we take norms finding and see to what exent dsig breaks
   on things that are the same, if RDF would be happy with it as a definition
   of RDF litteral, etc

   <Chris> tbl: xml has a deep equality issue (from scribbled notes)

   <Chris> pc: xquery and xpath, rather than xml??

   <timbl> s/scribbled
   notes/http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2004Jan/0013.html

   <Chris> pc: so, this is one possible way to compare two chunks

   <timbl> Woudl they have prefered it with ':'?

   <Chris> pc: it does not really demonstrate that other algorithms exist,
   when you might use them etc

   <DanC> (RDF uses the c14n one)

   <Chris> pc: deep=1 from F&O, plus???

   <noah> Tim's scribbled notes say: XML schema has the "Deep equality" issue
   as to when any two chunks

   <noah> are "equal".

   <noah> FWIW: I'm not immediately calling to mind any reason that XML
   Schema would care.

   <Chris> pc: dsig have various views on canonical representations

   <Chris> pc: so if we added some other alternatives, its fine as a finding

   <DanC> (hmm... it's now starting to smell like a survey of the literature
   on XML chunk comparison, more in the finding genre)

   <Chris> tbl: a list of things to avoid or known potholes, is valuable

   <noah> Schema does have equality rules for typed values of particular
   fields, e.g. when typed as an integer attribute AT="123" is equal (as a
   key for example) to AT="00123".

   <Chris> yes, more like a finding now

   <noah> I don't think there are open issues in this area.

   <Chris> sw: not overriding support for making it a note

   <noah> I note that DSIG achieves something close to chunk equality via its
   canonicalization rules (which I believe are user-pluggable).

   <Chris> pc: ok as a finding if we had time to discuss it, so suggesting
   improvements

   <Chris> sw: ok so very much as a finding

   <Chris> ACTION: NDW to make editorial improvements, point to other
   different schemes, why use them, things to avoid in XML Chunk Equality.

   <Chris> tbl: is there vagueness in RDF literal?

   <Chris> pc: good to see when F&O deep= works and when it does not

   <Chris> pc: looking for a way to select an algorithm to get least
   astonishment

   <Chris> tbl: for URI comparison, if they are trivially equal they are
   always equal with more complicated meythods

   <Chris> tbl: is the same thing true here? if two chunks are norm=, are
   they always equal??

   <Chris> sw: oops, running out of time, this is interesting

   <Chris> pc: put at front of next agenda

   <Stuart> Adjourned

Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: CL to Post QA review comments for email discussion.
   [NEW] ACTION: DC to paulc to review parts 1 and 2 of extensibility
   ... and versioning editorial draft finding prior to discussion.
   [NEW] ACTION: DC to review blog entry on RDF versioning [pointer?].
   ... CONTINUES.
   [NEW] ACTION: NDW to make editorial improvements, point to other
   ... different schemes, why use them, things to avoid in XML Chunk
   ... Equality.
   [NEW] ACTION: NM to Attempt to get the Schema WG to make their
   ... extensibility and versioning use cases work public.
   [NEW] ACTION: NM to Coordinate with chair of Schema for meeting on
   ... 14 Feb
   [NEW] ACTION: NM to to work with DO to come up with improved
   ... principles and background assumptions that motivate versioning
   ... finding. CONTINUES. bigger than a 1-week thing
   [NEW] ACTION: SW to give Steve Bratt a response to how the TAG
   ... would like to participate in the Plenary
   [NEW] ACTION: SW to Respond to DO approving discussion of the ID on
   ... www-tag.
   [NEW] ACTION: SW to to inform QA and Schema WGs of the new version
   ... of the e&v draft
   [NEW] ACTION: SW to To schedule some sort of meeting with Schema
   ... between now and the plenary
    
   [End of minutes]

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

    Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.104 (CVS log)
    $Date: 2005/01/09 05:17:05 $


                                        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.