- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 12:24:06 -0600
- To: www-tag@w3.org
Sorry these are late.
Hypertext: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2005/11/08-tagmem-minutes
plain text follows...
[1]W3C . [2]TAG
[1] http://www.w3.org/
[2] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/
TAG Weekly
8 Nov 2005
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2005/11/08-tagmem-irc
Attendees
Present
DanC, Ed, Norm, [IBMCambridge], noah, Roy_Fielding,
Dave_Orchard
Regrets
Tim, Henry, Vincent, DavidO
Chair
Ed
Scribe
DanC
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]Administrative
2. [6]Preparing agenda for Dec. f2f at MIT
3. [7]namespaceDocument-8
4. [8]authentication
5. [9]versioning, esp. formally defining W3C's namespace
change policy options...
6. [10]action review
* [11]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________
Administrative
<scribe> Scribe: DanC
Next teleconference: propose 15 November
<Norm> Norm: regrets for 15 November
<noah> I will chair next week.
regrets 15 Nov: Norm, Vincent; Ed; at risk: Tim, Dan
RESOLUTION: to cancel 15 Nov and meet next 22 Nov, VQ to chair
agenda comments?
DanC: some auth stuff... and norm's ns8 stuff
endpointrefs stuff postponed pending DO, HT's availability
NM: without henry, endpointRefs might be tricky
<DanC_> [12]minutes 1 Nov
[12] http://www.w3.org/2005/11/01-tagmem-minutes.html
RESOLVED to accept
RESOLUTION: to confirm 12-14 June 2006 in Western MA meeting plans
Preparing agenda for Dec. f2f at MIT
<DanC_> [13]Dec. F2F Agenda Items [NM to www-tag]
[13] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2005Nov/0015.html
NM summarizes msg of Tue, 8 Nov 2005 12:27:32 -0500
<Ed> * Followup to Edinburgh discussions of versioning: we seemed to
be off to a useful if somewhat slow start in settling terminology,
etc., and I think there was some sense that versioning-related work
could be a key theme for the TAG's work in the coming year or two.
<Ed> (from Noah's email)
<Ed> * Self-describing documents: I don't think we have an issue
around this, but Tim at least informally seemed to feel it would be
worth attention. I agree, and I might be convinced to do some work
on a finding (though we'll have to set priorities relative to TAG
commitments already made).
<Zakim> DanC, you wanted to note progress on versioning
<Ed> * schemeProtocols-49: I owe the TAG a reworked position to be
available within the next few weeks, allowing time for TAG members
to read and consider before the F2F. I think a couple of hours on
this would be worthwhile. The goal would be either to finally agree
that there's something worth pursuing, or to formally put it aside
for the forseeable future.
DanC: Self-describing documents .. umm... yeah... worth some time...
not sure how.
... on schemeProtocols-49 ... I should get in touch with some of the
proponents of http: synonyms...
NM: mms: is relevant there too
<Ed> * Web Services and the Web: I think we're using endPointRefs-47
as an excuse for the TAG to come up to speed on Web Services and
perhaps to discover new issues worth pursuing. Henry's worked
example seems useful.
NM: perhaps "principle of least power" merits some time at the ftf
too.
Ed: perhaps focus more on this bit of our charter: "when setting
future directions, help establish criteria for starting new work at
W3C, and help W3C coordinate its work with that of other
organizations."
DanC: how would that be different from what we're doing now?
Ed: e.g. mobile web... perhaps put together something on
content/presentation before mobile web inititative publishes
something
DanC: I can see both sides of that, but I'm concerned about whether
we're doing what we say we're going to do... long list of actions
with slow progress... which things to preempt?
NM: it occurs to me that there will [may] be some turn-over... we
could think about what we're going to hand to the incoming folks
... "issue list and assignments"?
Ed: anything else? well, that's it for now; we can add more later
... priorities?
DanC: prioritize stuff based on work that gets done before the
meeting
Ed: hmm...
NM: agenda seems fluid enough to let incoming writing influence it
namespaceDocument-8
<DanC_> [14]Associating Resources with Namespaces 7 November 2005
[14] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/nsDocuments/
NDW: pls excuse encoding noise... working on .htaccess
... am I on the right track?
DanC: it's not so much "instead of" RDDL... we're also endorsing
RDDL as is, right?
NDW: right.
<noah> Noah thinks that Norm's "We hope to: 1)... 2)... 3)..." is
balanced on the status of RDDL.
DanC: I'm not in a good position to review... I'll just see what I
want to see
Ed: I'm OK to review it.
<scribe> ACTION: NDW to fill in section 5 of
[15]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/nsDocuments/ recorded in
[16]http://www.w3.org/2005/11/08-tagmem-irc]
[15] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/nsDocuments/
[16] http://www.w3.org/2005/11/08-tagmem-irc
<scribe> ACTION: Ed to review
[17]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/nsDocuments/ after NDW updates
w.r.t section 5, perhaps by 22 Nov [recorded in
[18]http://www.w3.org/2005/11/08-tagmem-irc]
[17] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/nsDocuments/
[18] http://www.w3.org/2005/11/08-tagmem-irc
<Norm> Funny characters fixed
DanC: status... hmm... it's in the shape of a finding... we've been
asked for a REC... a finding is OK by me, at least for now
NDW: let's shop it around as a finding for now
authentication
<DanC_> [19]Web Auth: state of the art, some notes
[19] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2005/09/auth453.html
<noah> If you mean Microsoft Infocard, Noah is surprised that it is
purely WS-Trust based. I thought it was a general repository and
associated "non scary to ordinary mortals" UI for all credentials.
[missed lots by danc]
NDW: that was SAML
NM: I got the impression InfoCard was more federated than just
ws-trust
... sorta like web browsers mostly use http, though they can use
other uri schemes
DC: I got the impression ws-trust played the pivotal role
... I hear a workshop might be in progress
<noah> FWIW: the Microsoft Web Page about Infocard appears to be at:
[20]http://msdn.microsoft.com/windowsvista/building/infocard/default
.aspx
[20] http://msdn.microsoft.com/windowsvista/building/infocard/default.aspx
Ed: perhaps we should recommend that W3C do a workshop?
... on web authentication
<Roy> *shrug*
<noah> Following up on scope of Infocard, see specifically:
[21]http://msdn.microsoft.com/windowsvista/building/infocard/default
.aspx?pull=/library/en-us/dnwebsrv/html/identitymetasystem.asp#ident
itymetasy_topic9
[21] http://msdn.microsoft.com/windowsvista/building/infocard/default.aspx?pull=/library/en-us/dnwebsrv/html/identitymetasystem.asp#identitymetasy_topic9
DanC: I'm conflicted... I'm not sure I'll be able to go. If I could
go, I'd like it to happen.
<scribe> ACTION: DanC to write a report on the state of the art
authentication in the web [CONTINUES] [recorded in
[22]http://www.w3.org/2005/11/08-tagmem-irc]
[22] http://www.w3.org/2005/11/08-tagmem-irc
versioning, esp. formally defining W3C's namespace change policy
options...
violet
<Norm> ty
<Norm> FYI: [23]http://www.horstmann.com/violet/
[23] http://www.horstmann.com/violet/
<Zakim> noah, you wanted to say we're not in 100% total agreement on
the use of the term "language"
I think stringset is what we got in
[24]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2005/09/22-diagram1.png
[24] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2005/09/22-diagram1.png
<Ed> noah: I think we should set down instructions on how we should
read that diagram we had on the white board
<Norm> brb
DC: tx for feedback... this week and next are kinda shot, but the
following week might work
meanwhile... ACTION DaveO to update finding with ext/vers
DC: I guess my target is to tell this "HTML 2 sublanguage of HTML4"
story
DO: ok, let's hope that folds into the finding
<scribe> ACTION: DanC to derive RDF/RDFS/OWL version of terminology
from whiteboard [CONTINUES] [recorded in
[25]http://www.w3.org/2005/11/08-tagmem-irc]
[25] http://www.w3.org/2005/11/08-tagmem-irc
<scribe> ACTION: DaveO to update finding with ext/vers [CONTINUES]
recorded in [26]http://www.w3.org/2005/11/08-tagmem-irc]
[26] http://www.w3.org/2005/11/08-tagmem-irc
action review
<Ed> [27]TAG actions
[27] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2005/03/action-summary.html
NM: I see my CDF review action marked done.
RF: made a little progress on mime/respect item. ()
<scribe> ACTION: RF to update Authoritative Metadata finding to
include resolution of putMediaType-38 [CONTINUES] [recorded in
[28]http://www.w3.org/2005/11/08-tagmem-irc]
[28] http://www.w3.org/2005/11/08-tagmem-irc
ADJOURN.
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: Ed to review
[29]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/nsDocuments/ after NDW updates
w.r.t section 5, perhaps by 22 Nov [recorded in
[30]http://www.w3.org/2005/11/08-tagmem-irc]
[NEW] ACTION: NDW to fill in section 5 of
[31]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/nsDocuments/ recorded in
[32]http://www.w3.org/2005/11/08-tagmem-irc]
[29] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/nsDocuments/
[30] http://www.w3.org/2005/11/08-tagmem-irc
[31] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/nsDocuments/
[32] http://www.w3.org/2005/11/08-tagmem-irc
[PENDING] ACTION: DanC to derive RDF/RDFS/OWL version of terminology
from whiteboard [recorded in
[33]http://www.w3.org/2005/11/08-tagmem-irc]
[PENDING] ACTION: DanC to write a report on the state of the art
authentication in the web [recorded in
[34]http://www.w3.org/2005/11/08-tagmem-irc]
[PENDING] ACTION: DaveO to update finding with ext/vers [recorded in
[35]http://www.w3.org/2005/11/08-tagmem-irc]
[PENDING] ACTION: RF to update Authoritative Metadata finding to
include resolution of putMediaType-38 [recorded in
[36]http://www.w3.org/2005/11/08-tagmem-irc]
[33] http://www.w3.org/2005/11/08-tagmem-irc
[34] http://www.w3.org/2005/11/08-tagmem-irc
[35] http://www.w3.org/2005/11/08-tagmem-irc
[36] http://www.w3.org/2005/11/08-tagmem-irc
[End of minutes]
_________________________________________________________
Minutes formatted by David Booth's [37]scribe.perl version 1.127
([38]CVS log)
$Date: 2005/11/14 18:21:27 $
[37] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[38] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
--
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Monday, 14 November 2005 18:24:13 UTC