See also: IRC log
Scribe Ed Rice
Chair Norm
Date: 08 March 2005
RESOLTUION: MINUTES ACCEPTED FROM F2F MEETING
Resoltuion: accepted Periodic report, will be clean up and distributed.
<scribe> ACTION: Norm to clean up and distribute [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/03/08-tagmem-minutes.html#action01]
<noah_home> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2005Feb/0013.html
<noah_home> http://larry.masinter.net/draft-hansen-2717bis-2718bis-uri-guidelines-03.html
Noah to presented topic
outstanding questions;
- when you right the spec for a new URI scheme what much/should/want you do in order to specify the new URI schem?
<Zakim> timbl, you wanted to suggest that this is important for evolvability. A schem is an abstract schem, and a set of names lasts longer than a given network protocol.
<Zakim> Norm, you wanted to ask about the tension between defining operations on the scheme and the number of schemes
Tim: really what we're saying is
that invarient is for the name space.
... Post was not defined to be a catch-all but now its uses as
a SOAP catch all.
Norm: The question was about new operations.
<Zakim> noah_home, you wanted to respond to Tim: we need to explain when doing p2p when you should use http: scheme and when p2p:
Noah: Tim made the case that you
could keep a schem like HTTP and keep the operations that go
with it.
... Suggests, we should give guidence: HTTP is the last schem
or when you should move to P2P:
Ed: caution in saying we should never say never.
<timbl> Noah: "I'm going to ascribe to Tim more than I think he belives"
<timbl> (and he did!) :-)
Roy: http: schem is intended to map out an identification of resources intended on an HTTP server.
<Norm> Norm hears that a key point is that the resources are identified by http: and the system is free to use another protocol to get representations of *those resources* if it happens to know of one
<Zakim> noah_home, you wanted to ask Roy for clarification: must p2p resources also be available from http server (at least in principle) to use http: scheme for them?
<timbl> It really helps to have a clear distinctions in an architecture between different sorts of thing. Resources, Methods, TCP ports, IP addresses, telnet services, mailboxes are all fairly well defined. The architecture is strengthened by the thinsg you can't do wit hthose things as well as the things you can do. If you get confused bteween eg documents and endpoints the arch becomes a worse foundation, you can't predict what you'll be asked to do, etc. You then
tim: you update the architecture by defining blocks with have clearly defined functionality.
<Zakim> noah_home, you wanted to ask, do resources keep their names as their capabilities grow?
<timbl> For example DAACP
<timbl> as an HTTP-like protocol which someone feltr had to be inveted and be different from HTTP.
Tim: Sometimes we do need to, and
have, evolved standards
... in general, we should not slowly evolve HTTP mappings, but
we should be able to evolve the mapping under HTTP
Roy: Disagrees with Tim
... HTTP has evolved significantly
<noah_home> Noah is glad to see the p2p issue getting positive attention. Some may remember me giving talks a few years ago suggesting that the P2P community needed to integrate with the web and vice versa
Tim: The role is the same, but the main purpose is the same.
<Norm> Roy: what distinguishes the HTTP of '93 and onwards is its ability to act as a proxy protocol
<timbl> URI-Scheme-Protocol
<Norm> uriSchemesProtocolsOperations-xx?
<Roy> protocolSchemes ?
naming of the issue (suggestions)
<Norm> uriSchemesProtocolsOps-xx?
<timbl> SchemesProtocols
<Norm> schemesProtocols-48
<noah_home> Thus, I hereby propose to open a TAG issue
<noah_home> regarding the relationship of URI schemes to protocols and on-the-wire
<noah_home> application semantics.
adtoption of Schems-protocals-48
<Norm> s/Schems-protocols-48/schemesProtocols-48/
<noah_home> regarding the relationship of URI schemes to protocols, operations and on-the-wire
<noah_home> application semantics.
Resolution: Adoption of SchemsProtocols-48 noted.
<scribe> ACTION: Noah to own draft skeleton of finding and send around for comments. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/03/08-tagmem-minutes.html#action02]
<scribe> ACTION: Noah to send announcment note to www-tag to announce issue and gather feedback. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/03/08-tagmem-minutes.html#action03]
Tim to outline reasons for revisiting.
<Norm> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2005Feb/0114.html
<Norm> http://www.w3.org/1999/10/nsuri
Tim: Note: To give a
specification the necessary stability, provisions two and three
of the template MUST NOT be used in a Proposed [Edited]
Recommendation or Recommendation.
... is too strong.
<Zakim> noah_home, you wanted to suggest that we have issues at two levels, namespaces in general and w3c namespaces in particular
Noah: suggests there is a lot of
controversy about this. Some think a name space should never be
changed. Tim is referring to the w3c document.
... bigger issue, TAG should put some effort into evolution of
namespaces
<noah_home> I'm specifically saying we should be careful not to offend the sensibilities of those who will feel that an important architectural issue has been teed up but not resolved.
<scribe> ACTION: Tim to provide a draft of new URI doc and ask the propose policy around wwtag [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/03/08-tagmem-minutes.html#action04]
<noah_home> ACTION: Noah to announce schemesProtocols-48 to www-tag [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/03/08-tagmem-minutes.html#action05]
<noah_home> ACTION: Tim to provide a draft of new URI doc and ask the propose policy around wwtag [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/03/08-tagmem-minutes.html#action06]
<noah_home> Should Tim's action be about "URI doc" or namespace doc? I think the latter. I can correct the action if you all agree.
at the f2f Dan took an action to follow-up
need to setup infrasturction/pages/processes prior to soliciting feedback.
<timbl> http://www.w3.org/1999/10/nsuri
<noah_home> ACTION 1=Tim to provide a draft of namespace doc (http://www.w3.org/1999/10/nsuri) and start discussion on www-tag
meeting adjourned
<scribe> ACTION: Noah to send announcment not to www-tag to announce issue and gather feedback on SchemesProtocols-48 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/03/08-tagmem-minutes.html#action07]
<scribe> ACTION: Noah to own draft skeleton of finding of SchemesProtocols-48 and send around for comments. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/03/08-tagmem-minutes.html#action08]
rrsagend, draft minutes