- From: Rice, Ed (ProCurve) <ed.rice@hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 17:27:05 -0700
- To: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>, <www-tag@w3.org>
Dan,
Couple of quick points;
1) I had sent regrets for this meeting.
2) The reviewed minutes were the rough draft generated by the system,
not the final version I mailed out at;
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2006May/0057.html The main
content is the same except I cleaned up formatting/removed draft etc.
Up to Vincent if we want to re-approve at the f2f I guess or just stick
with what you have noted below.
-----Original Message-----
From: www-tag-request@w3.org [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org] On Behalf
Of Dan Connolly
Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2006 9:07 AM
To: www-tag@w3.org
Subject: minutes TAG 6 Jun for review
Hypertext: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2006/06/06-tagmem-minutes
plain text:
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
TAG Weekly
6 Jun 2006
See also: [2]IRC log
[2] http://www.w3.org/2006/06/06-tagmem-irc
Attendees
Present
[IBMCambridge], noah, Norm, Raman, Ht, DanC, Vincent, TimBL,
Dave_Orchard
Regrets
Chair
VQ
Scribe
DanC
Contents
* [3]Topics
1. [4]next teleconference
2. [5]review of minutes
3. [6]agenda review
4. [7]f2f meeting next week
5. [8]Repositories vs. web pages
6. [9]New issue? State in Web application design
7. [10]URNsAndRegistries-50
* [11]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________
<scribe> Scribe: DanC
NDW: yes, TV, I'm able to read your document
next teleconference
PROPOSED: to meet again 20 June
TBL: I seem to have conflicts 20, 27 June
VQ: so that's 3 missing for 20 June
... we'll decide later
<timbl> We quiet often miss the teleconf afterthe face to face
meeting
review of minutes
<DanC_> [12]minutes 30 May
[12] http://www.w3.org/2006/05/30-tagmem-minutes.html
DC/VQ: we could have done better with the TOC of 30 May minutes....
DC: but they're close enough
RESOLUTION: to accept minutes 30 May
agenda review
(wondering what became of my action to contact Misha; ah... it's
there... [13]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/actions_owner.html#DC )
[13] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/actions_owner.html#DC
<scribe> ACTION: DanC to Contact Misha to follow up on f2f
discussion on CURIEs at AC meeting [CONTINUES] [recorded in
[14]http://www.w3.org/2006/06/06-tagmem-irc]
[14] http://www.w3.org/2006/06/06-tagmem-irc
HT: on urns/registries... agenda+ please
VQ: ok
f2f meeting next week
<DanC_> [15][DRAFT] Agenda of TAG face-to-face meeting, 12-14 June
2006, Amherst, MA, USA
[15] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2006/06/12-agenda.html
VQ: meant to make more progress on the agenda...
... ETA tomorrow afternoon France time
NDW: [confirms lots of logistics]
DC: phone times?
VQ: we have all day 9-5 reserved all 3 days
... yes, we'll do the stuff most interesting to tlr on Tue AM
Repositories vs. web pages
<DanC_> [16]The MWI device repository, tbl to www-tag 3 May
[16] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2006May/0005.html
TimBL: if it's multiple repositories, that's one thing, but if it's
one repository, I have more concerns
... it's not clear to me why phone data isn't just published by the
manufacturers 1st hand.
... is this a case where a central iana-style registry is merited?
HT: I see "logical" repository in the abstract; maybe it's
federated?
(the doc says "The Device Vendor makes available and maintains for
accuracy device descriptions for public usage, e.g. by Content
Providers." )
DanC: the doc says "The Device Vendor makes available and maintains
for accuracy device descriptions for public usage, e.g. by Content
Providers." that seems OK to me. I have also heard strange things
about reluctance on the part of device vendors, but if that's the
plan of record, it's OK by me
Noah: there's a spectrum of centralization... on the one hand,
IANA-like centralized, and on the other RDDL, which is a format that
anybody can use anywhere in the web
<timbl> 2.1.5: 4. Using the identity of the device the Content
Provider queries the DDR to determine one or more capabilities
supported by the device.
<timbl>
[17]http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-DDR-requirements-20060410/#iddiv323
3209928
[17]
http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-DDR-requirements-20060410/#iddiv3233209928
<DanC_> (ok, 2.1.5 Normal Flow is the sort of thing that merits
review.)
TimBL: perhaps due to OEM rebranding etc., the business of building
phones is disconnected from the business of running web sites about
phones
<Zakim> timbl, you wanted to ask whether this (2.1.5) should be
SPARQL.
DO: why would the TAG say SPARQL as opposed to SOAP or WSDL?
... why not XQuery?
TimBL: SPARQL includes an HTTP/URI-based protocol
DanC: somebody in the SPARQL WG (DAWG) already has an action to look
at this [I'm pretty sure]
DO: isn't SPARQL more detailed than the level of thing the TAG
advocates?
TimBL: I regard SPARQL as pretty generic
NM: I think it's appropriate to advocate using existing standards;
if they're re-inventing existing stuff, we should be concerned, but
they should choose the best fit for their needs.
[er... something like that.]
TimBL: perhaps they've got a fixed schema for which XML
Schema/XQuery are a good match...
... but if their schema is "object/property/value", then that's
reinventing RDF.
VQ: I'm not sure about the current work, but CC/PP data was in RDF
at one point...
TimBL: yes, the original architecture was pretty good, until they
hit this social issue of device vendors running web sites
VQ: so... back to the one repository/many... how shall we proceed?
DC: invite somebody from that group to explain it to us? that's most
convenient for me.
<scribe> ACTION: VQ to invite a DD WG person to a TAG meeting to
discuss DDR requirements [recorded in
[18]http://www.w3.org/2006/06/06-tagmem-irc]
[18] http://www.w3.org/2006/06/06-tagmem-irc
New issue? State in Web application design
DO: no strong preference
DC: feels like two or three issues, to me... but I'm not clear on
what they are, so I'm OK to just muddle along for a bit
DO: if it's to be a new issue, let's make it a short one [?] like
versioning
NM: actually, I think the finding is suffering from that sort of
broad approach, as I said in my comments
VQ: there doesn't seem to be a critical mass of sentiment in any
particular direction; we'll have more data after the current round
of reviews.
URNsAndRegistries-50
<ht>
[19]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/URNsAndRegistries-50.html#authori
ty
[19]
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/URNsAndRegistries-50.html#authority
HT: I expect to send mail calling for review tomorrow.
... I'd like ftf time to finish it.
... I persued the idea of an http/dns alternative to info: ... and
in fact [20]http://lccn.info/2002022641 is live.
[20] http://lccn.info/2002022641
VQ: note "reviewing URNs, Namespaces and Registries -- reviewers:
DanC, Ed" -- [21]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2006/06/12-agenda.html
[21] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2006/06/12-agenda.html
HT: so review should please wait just one more day
NM: my attempts to have for the F2F a new draft of metaDatainURI-31
continues to be at risk.
<noah> metaDatainURI-31
ADJOURN.
<Norm> See you all in six days! :-)
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: VQ to invite a DD WG person to a TAG meeting to
discuss DDR requirements [recorded in
[22]http://www.w3.org/2006/06/06-tagmem-irc]
[22] http://www.w3.org/2006/06/06-tagmem-irc
[PENDING] ACTION: DanC to Contact Misha to follow up on f2f
discussion on CURIEs at AC meeting [recorded in
[23]http://www.w3.org/2006/06/06-tagmem-irc]
[23] http://www.w3.org/2006/06/06-tagmem-irc
[End of minutes]
_________________________________________________________
Minutes formatted by David Booth's [24]scribe.perl version 1.127
([25]CVS log)
$Date: 2006/06/07 16:04:08 $
[24] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[25] 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 Saturday, 10 June 2006 00:28:40 UTC