- From: Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol) <skw@hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 14:11:54 -0000
- To: "Norman Walsh" <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>, <www-tag@w3.org>
Small glicth but I can't see a record that we approved the record for 20th Dec (which we did). Stuart -- > -----Original Message----- > From: www-tag-request@w3.org [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org] > On Behalf Of Norman Walsh > Sent: 10 January 2005 22:03 > To: www-tag@w3.org > Subject: 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/OWLRDFExt > ensibility.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/v > ers-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/v > ers-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/v > ersioning-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/v > ersioning-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 >
Received on Tuesday, 11 January 2005 14:14:18 UTC