- From: Rice, Ed (HP.com) <ed.rice@hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2006 16:04:58 -0800
- To: "Norman Walsh" <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>, <www-tag@w3.org>
Norm,
These look good. As an editorial comment, I'd replace the initials in
the 'Present' with names (or put initials in Scribe to be consistent).
-Ed
-----Original Message-----
From: www-tag-request@w3.org [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org] On Behalf
Of Norman Walsh
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 12:08 PM
To: www-tag@w3.org
Subject: Draft minutes of 3 January 2006 TAG teleconference
The draft minutes from today's telcon are now available:
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2006/01/03-minutes.html
Text version follows:
W3C
- DRAFT -
TAG Weekly Teleconference
3 Jan 2006
Agenda
See also: IRC log
Attendees
Present
DC, HT, ER, NM, NDW, TBL, VQ, RF_(arrived_late),
DO_(arrived_late)
Regrets
Chair
VQ
Scribe
Norman Walsh
Contents
* Topics
1. Approve minutes of 20 Dec
2. Next telcon: 10 January
3. Accept this agenda?
4. namespaceState-48
5. Issue namespaceDocument-8
* Summary of Action Items
----------------------------------------------------------------------
<Norm> Scribe: Norman Walsh
<Norm> ScribeNick: Norm
Date: 03 Jan 2006
<DanC> hmmm... I have ht's "What is a namespace, anyway?" message
flagged
for response... would be nice to have one or more issues connected to
it
for prioritization
I would guess it's related to nsState-48 and perhaps the whole
"grounded
in the web" issue of self-describing documents that ht and I still
have
open.
Hey, timbl, I sent you something about that before Christmas, did you
ever
get a chance to read it?
<DanC> I think you'd rather I *didn't* associate it with nsSate-48,
right,
ndw?
<DanC> Vincent, I see actions re issue 8 still in
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2005/03/action-summary.html and not synced
with
the issues list
<ht> Well, I have to confess that email
(http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2005Dec/0120.html) did
start
from our discussion of nsState-48 last time . . .
<noah_montreal> +n5c2 n6ah
Approve minutes of 20 Dec
They looked fine to me
ER: They looked fine to me too
RESOLUTION: Approved
Next telcon: 10 January
No regrets given
<DanC> minutes 20 Dec (1.2 2006/01/03 18:05:15)
RESOLUTION: Confirmed; DO to scribe, ER in his absence
Accept this agenda?
DC: Related actions pointers to go the issues list
... As far as I can tell, the old pending list still has novel
information
VQ: I've made progress on the issues list but the actions are not yet
up-to-date
... The only complete action list we have is still the separate small
list.
... I'm still planning to move everything to the issues list.
RESOLUTION: Agenda accepted
namespaceState-48
NDW proposed
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2006Jan/0007.html
<DanC> looks good... [[ An XML namespace has a namespace name (a URI)
and
a set of local
<DanC> names (NCNames as defined in [XML Namespaces]). ]]
NDW: That's what I came up with from the minutes
HT: I can live with it, but I'd like to see if we could live with
more.
... I wondered if we have consensus about what the namespace name
identifies.
... Sometimes I think it identifies a set of names and sometimes I
think
it identifies a namespace. Since we don't have a good definition of
the
latter ,that's not helpful
... Suppose I said: "A namespace is identified by a namespace URI
(aka the
namespace name)" Would that attract consensus.
DC: It's tautologically true, but not useful
<Zakim> timbl, you wanted to say that there is a pun going on: the ns
uri
is a string and a URI of a document
HT: I'd like to find an answer to the question "what is identified by
a
namespace uri" in the webarch document.
TBL: The namespace URI identifies a namespace document. The namespace
doesn't have a URI; it's a set of names which start with this common
prefix which is kind of a string.
... It's a little architectural kludge. It happens to be the same URI
used
for all the names, but it identifies the namespace document.
... You could have a separate URI for the namespace, e.g.,
namespace-document-uri#thisnames, but it's not really worth doing
... Maybe we should be able to talk about namespaces in the abstract,
but
we don't very often.
NM: I
<Zakim> noah, you wanted to remind ourselves that we should decide
whether
we're talking specifically about namespaces in XML
NM: I've been troubled about our lack of clarity about when we're
talking
about namespaces in XML (a W3C Rec) vs. namespaces in a broader sense
which almost certainly include namespaces as used in RDF in the
abstract
which are often serializeable in XML and could go on to include
anything
on the web that feels like a structured namespace.
<noah> [Definition: An XML namespace is identified by an IRI
reference;
element and attribute names may be placed in an XML namespace using
the
mechanisms described in this specification. ]
NM: I understood the history of this issue to be largely about
Namespaces
in XML.
... I'm happier just to avoid scope creep and keep this finding
focused on
namespaces in XML.
... This issue started by raising the question "gee, we've got these
XML
namespaces (specifically the xml: one), and some folks think they're
mutable and some don't and we need to say something about that"
... I think we've all agreed with NDW's analysis. I don't think we
should
go very far in restating or bending what the recommendations say
about
what the URI identifies or anything else.
<Zakim> DanC, you wanted to say that I prefer not to dereference
(use)
namespace names; I prefer to combine them with localnames to come up
with
a URI-term and look that up and to note
DC: If you're happy with NDW's text, then we're fine. If you're
saying
namespaces in RDF are different than namespaces in XML, then I
object.
NM: I don't think we need to go there for purposes of this issue.
<ht> HST wonders why the httpRange-14 compromize isn't the right way
to
approach the identifies a namespace/a namespace document issue . . .
TBL: The TAG document says that this URI identifies the namespace
document. Now we've got this recommendation that says "identifies
this
namespace". One way out is to say that it's indirect identification.
... You can say that the namespace is the one that has that namespace
document, for example.
... We can weaken the sense of "identifies" in the namespace
document.
<noah> I agree with Tim that there is some issue as to whether the
URI
should identify the document, the namespaces, or perhaps the document
as
representative of the namespace. What I'm quesitonning is whether we
need
to go into any of that in order to resolve >this< issue.
<ht> "namespace URI can be used to identify an information resource
that
contains useful information,"
<Zakim> noah, you wanted to say HTTP range 14 doesn't talk about
documents, it talks about info resources
DC/TBL discuss where this is actually grounded in the webarch
document
<ht> http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#namespace-document
NM: The httpRange-14 resolution talks about info resources not
documents
TBL: Do you really want to go there?
NM: My definition of an information resource leaves open the
possibility
that our httpRange-14 resolution allows me to return 200 for the
namespace
document. I think they fit well in a computer message.
TBL: Informally, we mean "document" when we say information resource
NM: Information resource is either a synonym of document or very
close
TBL: Yes
VQ: I'd like to separate nsDocument-8 and namespaceState-48. Can we
reach
a conclusion about 48?
... We can let the discussion about namespace documents go to the
next
item.
<timbl> I am happy with the text.
VQ: To me the last issue that was relevant to the finding was just
this
first paragraph. NDW has rewritten it, I have heard several people
agreeing with (or satisified with) what NDW has drafted. Can we focus
on
that paragraph?
... Does anyone have a problem with it?
<Roy> link?
DC: I'm happy with that paragraph but I have another comment
<noah> No problem with Norm's proposed text.
VQ: Is there consensus on NDW's para?
... Yes, I conclude that there is.
DC: The good practice suggests that it's OK not to have it in the
namespace document. That seems bad.
NDW points two paragraphs done.
DC: Can we combine the two shoulds into one.
<noah2> +1 to separating them
HT: No that's weaker because it says if you don't have a namespace
document you're off the hook.
<Roy> s/namespace name and a local name, the qualified/namespace name
and
a local name: the qualified/?
DC: Yes, you're off the hook but in the doghouse.
NM: I agree with HT and NDW.
<EdR> I like it the way it is.
VQ: I guess we can keep the document as it is for that part. Ok, DC?
DC: Yeah.
VQ: Any other comments?
NDW makes the change RF suggested
<DanC> (ndw, can you save to
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/namespaceState.html )
<EdR> +1 to approve now
NDW: Proposed: approve NDW's namespaceState-48 finding with the new
paragraph and the editorial suggestions proposed by RF and NM as an
approved TAG finding.
<DanC> 2nd
<Roy> +1
VQ: Anyone object?
RESOLUTION: the proposal carries
<scribe> ACTION: make the changes, publish the finding, and post to
www-tag [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2006/01/03-tagmem-minutes.html#action01]
DC: Who's waiting for this?
NDW: Core was waiting, but since xml:id has already gone to REC...
NDW promises to dot the i's and cross the t's wrt XML Core after he's
made
the announcement
DC: I wonder if there's anyone else that cares
DC asks about xml:base
NDW pushes back successfully.
NDW: The problem with mentioning xml:base is simply that it would
cause
more editorial changes than I'm comfortable making after we've
approved
the finding :-)
<noah> scribenick: noah
Issue namespaceDocument-8
NW: I noticed last time that the examples were bad and that the
appendices
were confusing people.
... The 13th Dec. draft more carefully uses the actual RDDL
namespaces for
natures and purposes.
... I've also added the list of RDDL natures and purposes to sections
5 &
6. BTW: those sections are therefore no longer blank.
Noah also thanks Norm for adopting some of his more minor
suggestions.
VQ: Who else has reviewed this?
NM: I've reviewed the lastest and I'm quite happy with it.
RF: I've skimmed.
<Norm> RF: there's not really an example of a namespace that isn't
flat in
nature
<scribe> scribenick: Norm
RF: I suggest mentioning a namespace where the namespace isn't flat
DC: Clearly HTML is in that space. Constructing a namespace document
for
HTML would be much harder.
RF: I don't have a better example in mind
DO: Do you mean something like WSDL that has symbol spaces?
RF: I was thinking of XML documents where there'd be a link element
named
"a" and some other element with an attribute named "a"'
TBL: Isn't that what you meant?
DO: Yes
HT: I can't think of any that are as well know as HTML that have an
example of this
DC: I think it'd be great if it wasn't quite so well known.
TBL: Should we as the TAG say that this is a bug. These things aren't
universal names.
<Roy> and also the case where the element (e.g., <address>) means
different things depending on what elements encapsulate it.
DO: How are they not universal if the fragid specification tells you
how
to make the names?
<Zakim> noah, you wanted to suggest that deprecating
symbol-space-like
constructs is its own issue, not a no brainer
TBL gives the example of "cite" in HTML meaning either the element or
the
attribute
NM: I don't think that this example is sufficiently obvious or
straightforward that we want to slip it into this finding. Maybe this
is a
good new issue.
... I think there's a lot to discuss before we get there.
DC: I don't think you need to split the issue.
NM outlines why he thinks its a different issue
NM: I think your critique is about the nature of the namespace not
the
namespace document
<ht> Well, the schema for schema documents has two distinct element
types
whose local name is 'group', and that name also is used for an
identity
constraint
DC: I think a lot of folks won't be a happy if we close this issue
without
addressing this issue
TBL: we should point out that there are cases where the names aren't
universal and maybe point to another issue.
NM: That's what I was saying. It's too big to go in a namespace
document
<Zakim> Roy, you wanted to suggest adding an algorithmic mapping of
names
to URIs within the RDDL document
<noah> Actually, I said it's beyond the scope of this >issue<
DC: I'd be happy just ot not close any of these issues until we close
the
"self describing documents" issue.
<ht> I would have said 'not unique' or 'not unequivocal' rather than
'not
universal'. . .
<noah> as this issue is about Namespace Documents, not the design of
namespaces themselves.
RF: I'd suggest that this is one of those places where we can address
the
question independently of various opinions about what's an
appropriate
namespace. A lot of these things already exist. I'd rather have a way
to
say "if you need to know the URI of something" then here's how to do
it.
<noah> Therefore, I would prefer to open a new TAG issue on whether
symbol
spaces are or are not bad practice. I don't think we have consensus
to say
that here, and I think that in any case doing so would be beyond the
scope
of this issue.
RF: I'd rather point to a namesapce document that describes an
algorithm
for doing the mapping
... For example, in a flat namespace it could be concat(uri,'name').
There
are lots of ways (editorially) that this could be expressed.
TBL: For a more complex example, I guess we could point to the WSDL
case.
<Zakim> ht, you wanted to ask Roy about expressing sorts in URIs via
path
components vs. via parameters
<ht> i.e. .../1999/xhtml/element#cite vs.
1999/xhtml/?sort=element&name=cite
HT: Suppose we take one of these example, Roy, do you have an
inclination
about putting the "sort" in the path or the parameter or a
syntactically
complex fragid.
RF: It's irrelevant to me so what's important is that there be no
restriction.
VQ: It's still not clear if we need a new issue
<DanC> (when TimBL says "cite from HTML" is ambiguous, one
possibility is:
no, it's not ambiguous; it refers to the element. attributes don't
have
top-level names. Another is to say html#cite is indeed a hosed URI;
it's
ambiguous; don't use it. use html#element_cite or
html#attribute_cite)
DO: I think it should be in this finding. It seems awfully darned
related.
<ht> DanC, right -- that's the third (syntactically complex fragid)
approach
<noah> My main concern is that we not try to do a rush job on symbol
spaces. If the group wants to take the time to do a careful analysis
and
see whether it fits well here, I have no objection.
NDW proposes to make a stab at expanding section 4
<Roy> +1
NDW agrees to have it done by 17 Jan
<ht> DanC, none of the three approaches in their simplest form will
cope
with arbitrarily nested scopes, as in W3C XML Schema (and many
programming
languages)
<Roy> NDW's proposal
<noah> Fine with me too.
DC: I'd rather not try to patch this. I don't want to prempt the
stuff on
self describing documents
DC expresses concern about the number of hours in the day and the
fact
that NDW is on the hook for self-describing documents
<Roy> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/nsDocuments/#div.fragid
TBL: Are you proposing that we widen the scope
DC: Yes, let's talk about the whole range of issues related to
self-describing documents right now
... That's the highest priority for me at this point
NM ponders how we'll structure our time if we do this
DC: I don't want to add an issue on self-describing documents because
it's
already in so many of our existing issues. We keep dividing ht
equestion
so we can't actually talk about what we need to talk about.
... I think the best bang for the buck is to discuss something on
shared
text.
<noah> I'm surprised. I think self describing documents makes a great
standalone finding.
DC: I think ns-8 is responsive as it is.
<noah> Me too. That's one reason I didn't want to broaden now, as we
are
close to publishing something useful.
HT: Agrees assuming we add something to the preface about the
complexity
of non-uniqueness.
NDW ponders calling this fiding finished and doing the same work he
earlier proposed under a different title
RF: If the topic comes up again in the future, I think section 4 is
where
the answer belongs.
VQ asks DC about closing it
<ht> HST would like the docbook example graph diagram to use
'validation'
as the purpose of the top two links
DC: I'm of several minds. It's acceptable to me to try to call it
done as
it is.
<DanC> <http://www.w3.org/2005/12/assoc#>
<noah> Should the doc state that this URI is new for purposes of this
doc?
<DanC> 404 there
DC: I want to point out that 2005/12/assoc# is created by this
document.
The 404 is unacceptable.
<Roy> It is acceptable to me to call it done for now, but I think the
TAG
should consider adding such an algorithm statement (how to contruct
URI
for each term in my namespace) to NS descriptions and then revising
section 4 accordingly
<DanC> (ouch. still finding typos in the examples.)
In draft finding: assoc:relaxng-validation should be
purpose:relaxng-validation
HT: The purposes of both these first two is validation.
... In the prose you say "validation"
NM: I think this leads to a long discussion in which both sides are
right.
... I can imagine use cases where it really matters that they provide
overlapping but different services and some use cases where they
really
are the same
HT: At the very least they need to be made consistent.
VQ: I hear consensus about publishing the document more-or-less as it
is,
just fixing a few details.
... Is there any objection about that?
DC: And closing issue 8?
VQ: Yes, and closing issue 8.
HT: Why is the ontology non-normative.
NDW professes ignorance in ontology creation
HT agrees it's tricky.
DC: Now we're into issue RDF meaning...
<DanC> rdfURIMeaning-39
NDW: It's the prose that's normative. The ontology is just an
expression.
DC: asks about following your nose
<Zakim> DanC, you wanted to recall why we can't close 8 just yet
<DanC> "DanC to ask for "default nature" to be changed to "implicit
nature" in RDDL spec"
HT: agrees you don't find these statements now, but I believe
Jonathan
Borden would add the link if the community agrees
DC: I thin it'd be nice if App B said "we'd like the RDDL folks to
point
to this"
HT: I wouldn't mind asking him first. This has been pointed to from
www-tag several times.
DC: I have an action earlier, I could add this to that.
<Zakim> timbl, you wanted to asl whether these nature URIs identify
natures as URIs.
TBL: Asks about the nature of natures
<timbl> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2026.txt
<timbl> http://www.iso.ch/
TBL: Is "http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2026.txt" the nature of an IETF
RFC?
... Is "http://www.iso.ch/" the nature of an ISO spec?
DC: In RDDL land, yes. Pretty weird, but yes.
TBL: So these aren't URIs?
DC: How do you mean?
<timbl> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2026.txt
TBL: Because ...rfc2026.txt is the URI of an RFC so how can that be a
nature?
... I don't think that's the architecture they're using.
HT: I think it is fairly parallel to the discussion we had earlier
about
indirect identification.
DC: So the rddl.org stuff has some waffly prose and such but what
this
finding says is that if you GRDDL it you can believe the RDF.
Whatever
wooliness was in the spec, you can now appeal to RDF semantics. The
RFC
*is* the nature.
HT: net net: good or bad?
<DanC> assoc:nature
DC: Borderline acceptable.
... We own 'assoc:nature' so we're saying that the nature of an RFC
is an
RFC.
HT: That one's a bit of a pun. But take the nature of HTML 4.
TBL: In all of these where there isn't a hash, I don't like the
architecture.
... In one case it's a document defining a language, in another case
it's
the home page of an organization.
<DanC> (yes, I was wondering if timbl understood what this finding
says.
I'm glad he's swapping it in, though it does seem to be undoing the
proposal we almost resolved.)
TBL expresses concern about the fact that he can't conclude anything
from
the fact that something is a nature
HT explains how the standard use case works.
TBL: I think these things are squatting in URI space, they aren't
really
URIs. You can't use the ISO home page without asking their
permission.
<timbl> natureRelatedSomehowTo
NDW: I can see how it's weird but these URIs are already deployed.
DC: We could change the mapping. We could create a more complex
mapping.
<timbl> DanC: We could make the RDF say 'the nature is something
whioch is
an org wih this homepage:"
<Zakim> noah, you wanted to talk about layering
NDW expresses concern about making the model more complex because
it's
going to make getting community consensus more difficult
NM: There's a yin-yang thing here, where sometimes a very carefully
layered ontology is constructed and sometimes "rough and ready"
weirdness
"just works". But at least if I know what I want to put in a RDDL
document
it's the same thing I put in the top of my schema document.
... If for each of these 18 things I have to go somewhere to figure
out
how to change it, that makes the problem even worse.
... Given that it's deployed and there are operational advantages to
just
leaving it alone.
... The same URI is being used for the nature and the beast itself.
It's
not ideal, but I'm inclined to leave the RDDL world alone.
<DanC> (but we're not leaving the rddl world alone. we're coining
assoc:nature )
NM: Each person doing a new one does it their own way.
TBL: I feel the other way. I'd never want to use any of the RDF
statements
from these RDDL documents in my system.
... There may be a large number of people who feel that way now, but
I'm
not willing to put a huge spoke in the reusability of data for this.
... I think we should change them all.
NM: You're impling that by using the URI for ISO here you'd be
encouraging
people to confuse ISO with a nature. But I'd have thought that what
comes
out of here is an RDF predicate. If NDW defines this not as "this is
a
nature" but "this is a resource that reminds you of a nature" I'd
have
thought this would be ok.
<DanC> interesting possibility... assoc:nature is "a resource that
will
remind you of the nature"
Scribe fails to capture the point TBL tries to make
TBL: objects to "remind" because it's hard to see how that would be
understandable to a machine.
NM: Proposes a mechanical transformation
DC: How does that help
<ht> I still like an anonymous node whose xxx:namedByRDDL1.0With
property
is http://www.iso.ch/
NM: Formally on the RDF side whenever you are refering to the nature
you
get a URI that isn't the URI of ISO
TBL: proposes how you might turn all the URIs in to local names.
<timbl> http://www.rddl.org/natures/
VQ: At this point we're running out of time.
TBL: We're in the middle of a conversation.
VQ: I propose that we get back to this next week but to try to decide
how
to progress. We need to figure out how to organize the work for the
future.
<DanC> (tbl, do you consider your action re
http://www.w3.org/1999/10/nsuri to be relevant to this issue, 8?
hmm...
perhaps more relevant to nsState48)
VQ: Think about how we can make progress and we'll come back to this
next
week.
... We also need to talk about the last call documents from the CDF
next
week.
ADJOURNED
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: make the changes, publish the finding, and post to
www-tag
[recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2006/01/03-tagmem-minutes.html#action01]
[End of minutes]
Be seeing you,
norm
--
Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM / XML Standards Architect / Sun Microsystems, Inc.
NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended
recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information.
Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited.
If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by
reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.
Received on Wednesday, 4 January 2006 00:05:15 UTC