W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > August 2006

Minutes of 29 August 2006 TAG teleconference

From: Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 15:05:12 -0400
To: www-tag@w3.org
Message-ID: <87y7t7fjmf.fsf@nwalsh.com>
See http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2006/08/29-minutes.html


                                   - DRAFT -

                                  29 Aug 2006


   See also: IRC log[3]


           Vincent, Henry, Norm, Dan, Dave, TV, Noah

           TimBL, Ed




     * Topics
         1. Administrivia
         2. Issue GenericResources-53
         3. Issue URNsAndRegistries-50
         4. XMLVersioning-41
         5. Any other business
     * Summary of Action Items



   Next telcon is 5 Sep 2006

   Dan is at risk.

   Scribe for next week: TV

   Approve minutes of 8 Aug 2006


   <DanC> +1 approve 8 Aug minutes


   Approve minutes of 15 Aug 2006

   <DanC> likewise +1 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2006/08/15-minutes.html[6]

   -> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2006/08/15-minutes.html


   Accept this agenda?

   DanC: Is there a list of outstanding actions?

   Vincent: Not handy; will be ready for 5 Sep 2006.

   Agenda accepted.

  Issue GenericResources-53

   <Noah> Comments from Noah:

   TAG reviews Noah's comments.

   Noah: In 2.3.1, "Pointers to alternative content are encoded as link

   elements, and the same mechanism is used within RSS/ATOM feeds to

   advertize permalinks and other pointers to make them discoverable."

   Noah: This seems to assume the reader is familiar with RSS/Atom

   TV: That's intended to demonstrate that we're not inventing something new.

   <DanC> (defining it in terms of Atom has some appeal; Atom is perhaps the
   first standards-track take on "this verion" vs "latest version")

   Editorial suggestions for clarity accepted.

   Noah: Chapter 3: "When creating a multiplicity of URIs for a given
   canonical resource, ensure that the relationship amongst these multiple
   URIs is captured in a machine-readable form."
   ... I don't think you mean "machine readable", you mean "crawl through a
   fully linked graph"

   TV: Yes

   Noah: I didn't propose alternate text, but suggest something along the
   lines of "reachable, at least transitively, through links"
   ... More editorial comments, but we don't need to discuss them

   TV: One of the top level concerns we had was that some of the issues of
   discoverability hadn't been called out very explicitly. I tried to fix
   that. Success?

   Noah: I think if you're comfortable, I'm comfortable...

   Some discussion of editorial process for publishing dated copies

   Dan: It comes through except in the conclusions.

   <Zakim> DanC, you wanted to go over the "bumper sticker" conclusions; the
   1st one doesn't say anything explicit about alternative/generic stuff

   Noah: I thought the conclusions were a bit short, to the point where they
   can be read several ways. I think they could be a little more explicit.

   DanC: The bumper sticker versions are what I actually use in discussions

   <DanC> "each representation of interest should get its own URI"

   <DanC> er... rather "each alternative of interest should get its own URI"

   Noah: I'd prefer something like "each representation of interest should
   get it's own URI and there should be one additional URI representing the
   resource generically"
   ... "And the generic one should normally be used when sending references",
   or something like that.
   ... The other thing is, make sure that they're linked so you can find them

   TV: Would a diagram be helpful?

   <DanC> +1 a diagram

   <Noah> neutral on diagram

   DanC: I think a diagram would help.

   <DanC> a diagram of the N+1 URIs of one of the scenarios, I suggest

   <DanC> (I prefer that the conclusions be revised before the TAG approves

   <DanC> (but I think it's already in the right direction.)

   TV: I'll have a revision ready by mid-September.

   <scribe> ACTION: TV to produce a new revision of generic-Resources-53 by
   15 Sep 2006 [recorded in

   <Noah> +1 to waiting for Dave for Item 3

  Issue URNsAndRegistries-50

   HT: No progress. Won't have anything ready before 19 Sep 2006.

   Vincent: That's ok, I just wanted to make sure we could schedule the

   DanC: The Semantic Web Life Sciences IG is meeting in Amsterdam, 3-4 Oct

   DanC: There are a number of agencies looking to the IG for information.

   <DanC> October 3 to 4, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

   DanC: Looks like the Amsterdam meeting will be substantive but not
   decision making.
   ... I'd like to have a draft ready before that IG meeting.

   HT: Noted. I agree.

   DO: I don't think I'll get to it before that time frame.

   HT: I'll take a look and make a proposal.

   DO: Ok

   <DanC> (AMS meeting cited from semweb-cg schedule, fyi.
   http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/CG/#future[11] . RDF and iCalendar versions also
   available there.)


   Vincent: I would just like a chance to get a quick update and see where we

   DO: Sure. We discussed this about three weeks ago and I promised to have a
   draft out a few days ago, which I haven't managed to do. I'm about half
   way through the comments.
   ... In the meantime, a few more comments have arrived.

   <DanC> ACTION: DanC to review definitions of partial understanding,
   backward compatible, and forward compatible [CONTINUES] (progress report:
   21 Aug http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2006Aug/0084.html[12] )
   [recorded in

   DO: I'm hoping to have another draft out in a couple of weeks (at the
   ... That's where I'm at right now.

   Noah: Are you guessing that you'd incorporate my comments in that draft?

   DO: Yes

   <Noah> Noah published extensive comments on the Versioning finding last
   night at:

   Noah: I don't think I'm entirely happy with all the conceptual

   <DanC> (I'm thrashing on this issue; I can only find time to get swapped
   in and then I get preempted before I make any substantive progress.)

   Noah: I've tried to both consider things from the draft perspective as
   well as make some notes about how it could be layered differently.
   ... This is a heads up to anyone I can encourage to look at my note.

   Where is the public discussion?

   Apparently on public-versioning (as opposed to www-tag)

   <DanC> (the question of which list didn't come to a clear conclusion to

   Noah: I don't think we have a crystalized group consensus on versioning.
   ... For example, I think it would be good to separate constraints from the
   definition of a language.

   TV: This finding is also trying to do *a lot* which is also possibly
   making it slow going.

   Noah: I see it as what information is conveyed, can the receiver use it,
   is it what the sender meant.

   <DanC> (I agree that versioning is a huge issue; I don't see an obvious
   way to split it up, though.)

   <Norm> (I'm in the same camp as DanC on dividing it up)

   <DanC> (brief visit from Schleiff, Marty <marty.schleiff@boeing.com> )

   <DanC> (oh yeah... we need to get DI review before we approve the
   genericResource finding.)

   <scribe> ACTION: Vincent to contact DI group in the next few days
   [recorded in

   Noah: I'm starting to try to think about these terms in
   application-indepenendent ways. There's a layer there. Then there are
   layers above that.

   <DanC> (that's exactly what comes up in the definition of backward/forward
   compatible, I think.)

   Noah: There's a question about, for example, is "you'll display it in my
   web browser" good enough?

   Vincent: Anything else on XML versioning?

  Any other business

   Nothing suggested.

   DanC: Not for today, but, there are a number of places where one group is
   saying "that belongs to us" (when another group is doing it a different
   ... c.f., SVG 1.2 became a CR over objection from HTML about line breaking
   ... I'm hoping the TAG gets to look into that kind of stuff.

   Vincent: I'll put it on my list of issues to be addressed "soon"


Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: DanC to review definitions of partial understanding,
   backward compatible, and forward compatible [PENDING] (progress report: 21
   Aug http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2006Aug/0084.html[16] )
   [recorded in
   [NEW] ACTION: TV to produce a new revision of generic-Resources-53 by 15
   Sep 2006 [recorded in
   [NEW] ACTION: Vincent to contact DI group in the next few days [recorded
   in http://www.w3.org/2006/08/29-tagmem-minutes.html#action03[19]]
   [End of minutes]


   [1] http://www.w3.org/
   [2] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2006/08/29-agenda.html
   [3] http://www.w3.org/2006/08/29-tagmem-irc
   [6] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2006/08/15-minutes.html
   [8] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2006Aug/0117.html
   [9] http://www.w3.org/2006/08/29-tagmem-minutes.html#action01
   [11] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/CG/#future
   [12] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2006Aug/0084.html
   [13] http://www.w3.org/2006/08/29-tagmem-minutes.html#action02
   [14] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2006Aug/0111.html
   [15] http://www.w3.org/2006/08/29-tagmem-minutes.html#action03
   [16] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2006Aug/0084.html
   [17] http://www.w3.org/2006/08/29-tagmem-minutes.html#action02
   [18] http://www.w3.org/2006/08/29-tagmem-minutes.html#action01
   [19] http://www.w3.org/2006/08/29-tagmem-minutes.html#action03
   [20] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
   [21] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/

    Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl[20] version 1.127 (CVS
    $Date: 2006/08/29 17:53:23 $

Received on Tuesday, 29 August 2006 19:05:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:13 UTC