- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 12:48:47 -0600
- To: www-tag@w3.org
hypertext: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2006/02/14-tagmem-minutes
2006/02/17 18:48:10
plain text follows...
- DRAFT -
TAG Weekly
14 Feb 2006
[2]Agenda
[2] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2006/02/14-agenda.html
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2006/02/14-tagmem-irc
Attendees
Present
Norm, Noah, Vincent, Ht, DanC, DOrchard, Ed_Rice, TimBL
Regrets
Chair
Vincent
Scribe
DanC
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]Administrative: role call, review records and agenda,
plan next meeting
2. [6]Face-to-face in Cannes/Mandelieu
3. [7]Heartbeats
4. [8]Principle of Least Power
5. [9]Issue XMLVersioning-41
* [10]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________
Administrative: role call, review records and agenda, plan next meeting
<scribe> Scribe: DanC
<DanC_> [11]minutes 7 Feb
[11] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2006/02/07-tagmem-minutes.html
<DanC_> minutes 7 Feb good enough for me
RESOLUTION: to accept minutes 7 Feb
RESOLUTION: to meet again 21 Feb, NDW to scribe
regrets timbl 21 Feb
Face-to-face in Cannes/Mandelieu
<DanC_> [12]meeting page
[12] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2005/02/27-agenda.html
DO: I'm working on the state finding... how about that for the
agenda?
DC: suggest moving metadataInURI-31 after the other 3 technical
things
NM: if we don't finish least power, it might merit ftf discussion.
leave it off for now, if the agenda is fluid.
"Monday 27 February: 13:30 - 17:30 @@@"
some sentiment for 2p, some for 1:30
RESOLUTION: to start at 13:30 on Monday, 27 Feb
NM: did we end up with any liaison meetings scheduled?
VQ: not at this time
Ed: previously we had a "what's important for the coming year"
session... shall we do that again?
HT: I prefer the current contents of the agenda to that sort of
thing
DC: me too
NM: perhaps make some time to chat with TV, but otherwise, yes,
technical topics
TBL: hmm.. indeed, looking forward would be good... do we have a
social time scheduled? it's hard to swap between technical topics
and looking ahead
DC: perhaps the "what did we learn this week?" session will be
sufficient?
HT: I'm constrained to Monday evening for an evening thing
NM: I'll be on US east coast time, so not too late
<scribe> ACTION: VQ organize a monday evening quiet social event
recorded in [13]http://www.w3.org/2006/02/14-tagmem-irc]
[13] http://www.w3.org/2006/02/14-tagmem-irc
VQ: around 7pm
Heartbeats
DC: there's a convention of publishing on /TR/ at least every 3
months. We haven't done it in over a year. I'm inclined to take
something and publish it. Maybe the next one we approve... say,
didn't we just approve one recently?
NDW: yes, the ns48 finding is approved
TimBL: how about concatenating the approved findings?
DC: that's more work than I'm offering now
<timbl> [14]namespaceState finding
[14] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/namespaceState.html
<Ed> [15]list of findings
[15] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/findings
(norm, I'm inclined to work from the .html only and not bother with
the xml)
<noah> Speaking of which, the approved finding link at
[16]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html?type=1 is to the xml
[16] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html?type=1
<timbl> This page contains the following errors:
<timbl> error on line 17 at column 140: Entity 'http-ident' not
defined
<timbl> error on line 19 at column 199: Entity 'draft.day' not
defined
<timbl> error on line 20 at column 226: Entity 'draft.monthname' not
defined
<timbl> error on line 21 at column 247: Entity 'draft.year' not
defined
<timbl> error on line 24 at column 283: Entity 'http-ident' not
defined
<timbl> error on line 27 at column 370: Entity 'http-ident' not
defined
<timbl> error on line 30 at column 431: Entity 'http-ident' not
defined
<timbl> error on line 33 at column 488: Entity 'http-ident' not
defined
<timbl> Below is a rendering of the page up to the first error.
<Norm> What page was that timbl?
TimbL: good to put all this in the SOTD: (1) it's approved by the
tag (2) this is one of many issues in the TAG's list (3) The
eventual disposition of this text is not cler, but one possibility
is it being integrated wioth other finids into a new AWWW or a
second volume AWWW
PROPOSED: to publish
[17]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/namespaceState.html as a W3C
Working Draft
[17] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/namespaceState.html
<Norm> Uhm, with what shortname?
<timbl> TAG-namespaceState
namespaceState
RESOLUTION: to publish
[18]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/namespaceState.html as a W3C
Working Draft
[18] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/namespaceState.html
<scribe> ACTION: NDW to with DanC, publish WD of ns48 finding
recorded in [19]http://www.w3.org/2006/02/14-tagmem-irc]
[19] http://www.w3.org/2006/02/14-tagmem-irc
VQ: this is just one finding; we'll see what we learn from this
<Norm> What publication date should we use for namespaceState, DanC
?
<DanC_> dunno
<Norm> Returning to the publication of namespaceState, I chose 23
Feb as the publication date because that's the last day before the
moritorium.
Principle of Least Power
<DanC_> [20]least power finding, latest version
[20] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/leastPower.html
<DanC_> [21]13 Feb draft
[21] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/leastPower-2006-2-13.html
NM: there has been much www-tag discussion of chomsky hierarchies
and complexity...
<noah> There are many dimensions to language power and complexity
that should be considered when publishing information. For example,
a language with a straightforward syntax may be easier to analyze
than an otherwise equivalent one with more complex structure. A
language that wraps simple computations in unnecessary mechanics,
such as object creation or thread management, may similarly inhibit
information extraction. The intention of this finding is neither to
rigor
<noah> necessarily interferes with information reuse. Rather, this
finding observes that a variety of characteristics that make
languages powerful can complicate or prevent analysis of programs or
information conveyed in those languages, and it suggests that such
risks be weighed seriously when publishing information on the Web.
<noah> Indeed, on the Web, the least powerful language that's
suitable should usually be chosen. This is The Rule of Least Power:
<noah> Good Practice: Use the least powerful language suitable for
expressing information, constraints or programs on the World Wide
Web.
HT: why not just say "occam's razor applies to computers too"?
DanC: yes, the principle is 2 lines, but what we add is to relate it
to the history of web technology development.
... e.g. how HTML is and why
TimBL: yes, examples. CSS vs javascript.
... the fact that you can cascade to CSS stylesheets is a result of
a decision to make it declarative
<Zakim> DanC, you wanted to suggest going specific-to-general
<ht> HST doesn't understand why Turning-completeness is bad
<ht> Prolog is Turing-complete, and dead easy to analyze!
<DanC_> hmm... I thought validator.w3.org would be
impossible/impractical if the web had used TeX rather than HTML
<ht> SQL is Turing-complete (or close), and probably more analyzed
than almost any other language
<Zakim> noah, you wanted to discuss scope of this rewrite...are we
thrashing?
the analysis of SQL is precicely on the bits that are *not* turning
complete, no?
<raman> belated regrets -- I shamefully admit that I just plain
forgot to call in...
<DanC_> VQ, I suggest a straw poll: how many think it's reasonable
to approve as is.
<noah> If you have a Turing-complete program, you don't in general
know whether it even gets done
<noah> If I have a table in a relational database, or a list of
name/value pairs, I don't have that problem.
DC: due to the halting problem, Most of the other things you want to
know follow from it.
PROPOSED: to approve "The Rule of Least Power" as 12 Feb draft,
incorporating edits agreed by from NDW and NM.
HT: some discomfort, but I concur if others are OK
TBL: likewise, I concur.
RESOLUTION: to approve "The Rule of Least Power" as 12 Feb draft,
incorporating edits agreed by from NDW and NM.
<scribe> ACTION: NM to announce approved least power finding, when
discussion with NDW concludes [recorded in
[22]http://www.w3.org/2006/02/14-tagmem-irc]
[22] http://www.w3.org/2006/02/14-tagmem-irc
Issue XMLVersioning-41
. ACTION DO: contextualize his scenarios, such as more on what is
happening with SOAP and WSDL
DO: I did some work on this...
... sent them to the schema WG a few weeks ago
... haven't seen [which?] draft posted as I expected
... I hope to talk with interested people at the TP in France
... so I think this is done
DC: pointer?
HT: getting it public has taken a back seat to other things
NM: I think we have license to make this public already
HT: yes, if you can follow up, that would be fine
<scribe> ACTION: DO to contextualize his scenarios, such as more on
what is happening with SOAP and WSDL [DONE] [recorded in
[23]http://www.w3.org/2006/02/14-tagmem-irc]
[23] http://www.w3.org/2006/02/14-tagmem-irc
<scribe> ACTION: DO to with NM continue and extrapolate the
versioning work DO et al have been doing already, updating the
terminology section. [CONTINUES] [recorded in
[24]http://www.w3.org/2006/02/14-tagmem-irc]
[24] http://www.w3.org/2006/02/14-tagmem-irc
<DanC_> [25]terminology section update from DO 13 Feb
[25] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2006Feb/0042.html
DO: I got some comments re first/last name from Misha
... main list is public-xml-versioning
DC: hmm... public-xml-versioning... partial understanding isn't
limited to xml
DO: public-xml-versioning was created at the suggestion of the TAG
as a mechanism for collaboration with XML Schema WG.
NM: [... about broadening from xml-specific story to a story about
strings, with markup as a special case]
<DanC_> (which appeals to me)
<Zakim> ht, you wanted to incline towards focussing on XML language
DO: broadening makes sense to some extent, but there's a limit, and
we need to be sure to deliver for XML authors
<noah> Isn't URI an example of a non-QNamed namespace
<DanC_> (surely notation 3 is a webized language that's not XML)
<DanC_> (webized meaning: has its terms grounded in URI space)
<ht> DanC, remind me what N3's media type is?
<ht> I.e., can I follow-my-nose to find out about N3?
<DanC_> text/n3+rdf or some such; registration pending
<noah> I thought we set up in Edinburgh that versioning was about
the conclusions drawn by a consumer and a producer for any
particular document, where the two parties have imperfect agreement
on the language they thought they were using.
<noah> I like that start a lot, and it's not XML-specific
HT: [...] XML gives us the "follow your nose" principle, with
namespaces
<noah> Follow your nose seems to give you something very important,
which is self description. I'm not convinced that versioning should
be only about self-describing documents.
TBL: all stories about versioning depend on a notion of
semantics/meaning...
... at the level of XML, there is only a basic infrastructure. At
higher levels, e.g. HTML and RDF, there's more to say
DC: meanwhile, I have a new .violet file from DO that I intend to
check against my changePolicy.n3 work
TBL: I wonder about a 4 part finding:
(1) at the level of representations
(2) at the level of namespaces in XML
(?) [...] in HTML and such
(4) an one about RDF
NM: about strings of characters?
TBL: that's what I meant by (1)
<noah> Cool.
DO: let's please have some discussion on public-xml-versioning of
the new terminology section
<DanC_> +1
<Norm> +1
<DanC_> hmm... the archive cover page of
[26]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-versioning/
doesn't say that it's a joint tag/xml-schema thingy
[26] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-versioning/
VQ: with regret, it's time to curtail this discussion
... maybe next time we'll get to ns8
<Norm> I'll try to get back to Jonathan and make progress on ns8 for
next week
ADJOURN.
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: NDW to with DanC, publish WD of ns48 finding [recorded
in [28]http://www.w3.org/2006/02/14-tagmem-irc]
[NEW] ACTION: NM to announce approved least power finding, when
discussion with NDW concludes [recorded in
[29]http://www.w3.org/2006/02/14-tagmem-irc]
[NEW] ACTION: VQ organize a monday evening quiet social event
recorded in [30]http://www.w3.org/2006/02/14-tagmem-irc]
[28] http://www.w3.org/2006/02/14-tagmem-irc
[29] http://www.w3.org/2006/02/14-tagmem-irc
[30] http://www.w3.org/2006/02/14-tagmem-irc
[PENDING] ACTION: DO to with NM continue and extrapolate the
versioning work DO et al have been doing already, updating the
terminology section. [recorded in
[31]http://www.w3.org/2006/02/14-tagmem-irc]
[31] http://www.w3.org/2006/02/14-tagmem-irc
[DONE] ACTION: DO to contextualize his scenarios, such as more on
what is happening with SOAP and WSDL [recorded in
[32]http://www.w3.org/2006/02/14-tagmem-irc]
[32] http://www.w3.org/2006/02/14-tagmem-irc
[End of minutes]
_________________________________________________________
Minutes formatted by David Booth's [33]scribe.perl version 1.127
([34]CVS log)
$Date: 2006/02/17 18:48:10 $
[33] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[34] 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 Friday, 17 February 2006 18:48:59 UTC