See also: IRC log
VQ: Agenda sent yesterday http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2005/03/15-agenda.html
... Any requests for changes? No.
VQ: Next week 22 March
Regrets for 22 March: Roy, Tim
Tim joins the call
Next week's scribe will be Norm.
RESOLUTION: approve minutes of F2F minutes from http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2005/02/28-minutes.html with additional note that Paul was present
VQ: now consider minutes of last week's telcon
RESOLUTION: approve minutes of 8 March from http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2005Mar/att-0038/08-tagmem-minutes.html
VQ: Paul Cotton reports Query WG may meet the week immediately following TAG in Edinburgh.
... Paul wants to know whether our date of Sept. 20-22 is firm?
HT: I have reserved rooms for Query
NM: Fine for me, but note that I am depending on XML Schema meeting during the early part of the Query week, I.e. on Sept. 19.
Ed: Good for me too.
VG: Regarding June F2F, at the tech plenary several people requested we move from France in June, which Tim would miss, to Cambridge or Boston sometime before or after AC meeting.
VQ: There was email discussion of May 23rd, I can't make that.
TB: Following week is bad due to Memorial day and flying to France on Thursday the 2nd.
<Roy> I need to be in Tanglewood/Norm area on June 16
<dorchard> I'll be at AC mtg
Discussion of who is going to AC.
Henry, and Vincent, Dan probably, David Orcahrd and Tim will be at AC
Roy: week of 13th is good
Several agree.
VQ: Proposal for 14-16 of June in somewhere in Mass
... Amy had offered hosting at MIT in May
NM: I can host at IBM, but network access only for the chair.
TB: We'll have to check MIT, but it's probably the best option.
<scribe> ACTION: Vincent to check with MIT on hosting TAG F2F 14-16 June [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/03/15-tagmem-irc]
<timbl> (I note that 15th is Ben's birthday so I will leave the f2f early that day in the afternoon :) )
VQ: Reviewing pending action item list at http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2005/03/action-summary.html
... Ed, what about ACTION: Ed to meet with chris and review/update the [contentPresentation-26.html] document. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/02/07-tagmem-irc] ?
Ed: That one is complete.
VQ: Regarding ACTION: norm to pick up Paul Cotton's work on namespaceDocument-8 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/02/07-tagmem-irc]
NW: I have that action, no progress yet.
VQ: OK, will move that to list of pending actions.
... Please report other complete actions by email.
VQ: We discussed this somewhat at F2F. Tag members seemed impatient to review work product of binary characterization workgroup.
<DanC> er... so we're no longer decided to meet "in/near Cannes for the June meeting" as per http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2005/02/28-minutes.html#item01 ?
VQ: Characterization WG chair reports their first two docs are quite stable.
NW: I am already starting on the first of their docs.
ED: I can do it as long as next week is OK.
<scribe> ACTION: Ed and Norm to review XML Binary Characterization use cases document. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/03/15-tagmem-irc]
NM: what was their other doc, performance characterization?
VQ: they are working on a taxonomy of performance issues, but that one isn't stable.
... The other one they have is a properties doc.
NM: I had hoped that if they were going to propose actual work on a binary standard (which they are about to propose), that it would be backed not with general information about performance, but with concrete measurements showing that text is too slow.
TB: I share Noah's concern that there are too many use cases, and not enough focus on truly important ones.
... If anything is done, it needs to meet truly common needs.
DO: See the BEA paper to the binary workshop. I was looking for more justification that there truly are common mechanisms that would meet a core set of needs.
VQ: More comments before reviewing?
... We'll revisit after the first round of reviews are in from Ed and Norm, but we need volunteers to review the 2nd doc. Anyone?
(silence)
VQ: OK, we'll start with the use cases. Maybe we'll find reviewers for the other ones later.
TB: I might have more time later.
HT: I'm tempted to say: "I won't support a charter that doesn't say that a CR exit criteria is to provide X-times benefit in time or speed"
ED: They need some concrete criteria
HT: Right, though I know I am being a bit too aggressive.
NM: Keep in mind that some of the popular parsers for text-based XML don't come close to the performance that's possible with careful tuning. The justification, if any, has to be against the best of what standard text XML can do.
DO: I thought that one of the interesting presentations at the workshop from Sun analyzed not just message size (and thus network overhead) but also what was happening in the processor.
... A lot of time was spent in the binding frameworks.
... Even if you came along and doubled the network performance by halving the size, you might get only 1/3 of improvement, which also might be possible with a better processor for regular text XML.
ED: there may be opportunities involving encryption of the binary.
... I agree, they have to justify what's being proposed.
Henry email: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2005Mar/0046.html
TB: I have just forwarded something from the ITU (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2005Mar/0051.html)
... They are running a repository
HT: Sounds parallel to the IETF effort
VQ: Dan is not on the phone, but we've seen some emails about using URN's for namespace names.
HT: They are proposing four separate standard forms for namespaces, DTDs, W3C XML/RDF Schemas and public identifiers.
... They have ways of doing retrieval, but HTTP is better.
TB: We have liaisons with them. We can ask them to stop.
... We have a TAG and some findings under our belt in this area already.
HT: I think we need an issue.
VQ: Yes, and start drafting findings or comments.
... Time is important.
... We should raise with IETF as soon as possible, which means we need an explanation of our concerns.
... With the caveat that I'm not 100% up on the scope of existing issues, I think this is a new one and we should open it.
ED: Agree. We need our story together before we talk to them.
HT: Should we suggest that perhaps they should have used liaison mechanisms to warn us in advance?
DO: We should open an issue and write a clear finding as to why http schemes are great, and maybe compare with some non-http schemes.
... Was at a customer last week that wanted to use URNs for namespaces. This is coming up over and over.
... We should nail this issue for the public.
... We should also explain why alternate schemes have problems.
HT: There is a connection here with http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html?type=1#namespaceDocument-8, but this is separate.
VQ: Question, do you agree this is a new issue we should register?
<Norm> RFC 3688
HT: Not clear whether this is one issue or two. 1) URNs for namespace names, which is where Dan started and separately 2) the RFC 3688 IETF XML Registry which is not about namespacs but is for things like RDF schemas
TB: What's the status in IETF?
NW: Best Current Practice (BCP).
TB: Sort of like a W3C Note for us. Allowed through their process, but not endorsed with force of RFC.
<ht> Written by Mealling, of Verisign
<ht> Another phrase which occurs a lot is "non-dereferencable names"
DO: Maybe there are three issues a) URIs for namespace names b) URNs for location independent names c) XML registries, and perhaps centralized vs. decentralized vocabulary tracking.
... Is it a positive thing that people >want< a way of centrally registering and controlling vocabularies?
... So, a potential issue on when you want centralized vs. decentralized management of vocabularies.
VQ: How many issues?
ED: The all seem tied together to me. Can you solve them separately?
HT: Yes, I think you could separately resolve the XML registry issue. Things should have one name not two. Putting your schema in a registry gives it a second name.
ED: We should make sure we know what they're trying to do before openning an issue.
HT: Intention isn't the point, creating a second name is a consequence whether they planned it or not.
ED: Would rather open one issue now and split later if necessary.
HT: sure
VQ: Dave, are you convinced it should be one issue?
DO: fine
<ht> suggest URNsAndXMLRegistry-50
<ht> URNsAndRegistries-50
<Roy> agree
RESOLUTION: we will open issue URNsAndRegistries-50 to cover a) URIs for namespace names b) URNs for location independent names c) XML registries, and perhaps centralized vs. decentralized vocabulary tracking
VQ: anyone have any free time to work on this one?
DO: I vote for Roy
RF: Probably not the best approach. Too many opportunities to rehash old arguments.
TB: I've written on this in DesignIssues. I will certainly be involved in reviewing.
HT: I'm willing to do this, but have taken on some things ahead of this in the queue. Would be happier if David would help.
DO: I can help.
<scribe> ACTION: Henry and David to draft initial finding on URNsAndRegistries-50 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/03/15-tagmem-irc]
<DanC> ah... not the same issue... uriMediaType-9: Why does the Web use mime types and not URIs?
<DanC> but this draft is relevant to issue 50 too: Internet Draft A Registry of Assignments using Ubiquitous Technologies and Careful Policies by D. Connolly and M. Baker
<DanC> http://www.markbaker.ca/2002/09/draft-connolly-w3c-accessible-registries-00.txt
VQ: I would welcome an update on this issue, as I don't totally understand it.
... Does the TAG want to spend time on it now or prefer something different?
DO: talking about httpRange-14 sounds good.
Issue pointer: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html?type=1#httpRange-14
VQ: History, this was raised by Tim and accepted two years ago. Not sure who is last one to work on it formally.
<DanC> (er... dunno if it's water under the bridge, but our records include ACTION DC: with Norm, develop a finding on httpRange-14 starting with the HashSlashDuality text http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/10/05-07-tag#infores234 )
TB: This is very big and I have to run. Simply put, are http identifiers used only for things like documents, or can they be more broadly applied to things liked proteins?
... There is also controversy about use of fragment identifiers, and whether they can identify things that don't seem to be part of the document named by the left hand side of the URI.
... There has been a huge amount of email on this.
<DanC> (has TimBL relayed discussion from SemWeb Best Practices/Deployment WG in Boston?)
Tim leaves the call.
VQ: How can we proceed?
NW: Not sure, we've tried for a long time.
... New information from tech plenary is that there are specs that can't proceed, and organizations who won't invest until this is resolved.
VQ: Which groups?
NW: Semantic Web Best Practices. Don't have all details.
VQ: Maybe we should get some more input from them?
NM: Is there a way to summarize in one place the main points of view and the main disagreements that surfaced during the last two years of debate? Should fit on a page or two, no?
ED: should we ask the public to help us do that formulation.
NM: no, we'd get another 3000 emails. We should do a summary draft first, then ask the public to help us refine it.
DC: SW Best Practices would probably be OK if we got out of the way.
<DanC> work some of the bias out of http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/HTTP-URI.html
DC: I picked it up in Basel, and could proceed, or else we could start with Tim's writeup at http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/HTTP-URI.html and try to make it a bit more broadly acceptable. That might be better.
<DanC> in Basel, I offered (with norm) to turn http://esw.w3.org/topic/HashSlashDuality into a draft finding
HT: I did some email review. I tend to agree with Tim and Dan. http URI's without fragids should indeed be scoped to documents. Not sure we'd go the same way to proceed from there.
<Norm> I concur, Dan and I were supposed to work on that
HT: some sympathy with Ed for starting over, but we also have people who've started.
<ht> http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/HTTP-URI starts out very well. . .
ED: would like to summary of both sides.
<ht> The above URI does pretty much what Noah is asking for, in my opinion
NM: Finding should start by setting out all sides.
HT: http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/HTTP-URI has a good start on this.
DC: Getting Tim to change words in his own document is a good way to ensure consensus. I therefore like working with http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/HTTP-URI
HT: This has been useful. Should we wait for Tim to commit a direction?
Various sounds of agreement.
VQ: OK, makes sense, both because we need Tim and because we are short of time.
DC: some risk that Tim won't be around for awhile.
<DanC> er... so I take it my action is withdrawn
NM: Your Basel action?
DC: Yes
HT: No, suggest we not change anything including action assignment until next proper meeting with Tim.
<timbl__> In two weeks, I thinks so...yes March 29
<timbl__> I am gone wed-thursday, 8 days
Scribe's note: the above response from Tim is confirming that he is likely to be on the call in two weeks should we wish to discuss httpRange-14 then.
VQ: Anything else?
NW: Oasis work on XRI's might need attention.
<Norm> XRI: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/members/200503/msg00007.html
NW: XRI URI is at http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/members/200503/msg00007.html
VQ: Meeting is adjourned. Next telcon is in one Week on 22 March 2005