- From: Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol) <skw@hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 15:19:11 +0100
- To: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>, "www-tag" <www-tag@w3.org>
I think that we decided to withdraw an action on Henry [1]: "Henry to extend his paper to a definition of monotonicity and its relevance to our versioning finding." record of which seems to be missing. BTW: That's not to say to "Henry don't to that", only to say that the TAG is not waiting for it to be done. Does anyone recall different? Stuart -- [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2006/10/05-afternoon-minutes#action01 -- Hewlett-Packard Limited registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN Registered No: 690597 England > -----Original Message----- > From: www-tag-request@w3.org [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org] > On Behalf Of Dan Connolly > Sent: 10 July 2007 17:52 > To: www-tag > Subject: minutes TAG 9 July for review: XMLVersioning-41, > httpRange-14, WAF-WG review request > > > http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2007/07/09-tagmem-minutes > 2007/07/10 16:45:28 > > > TAG Weekly > > 9 Jul 2007 > > See also: [2]Agenda, [3]IRC log > > [2] > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2007Jun/0146.html > [3] http://www.w3.org/2007/07/09-tagmem-irc > > Attendees > > Present > Stuart, DanC, Rhys, Raman, Ht, DOrchard, Norm > > Regrets > Noah, TimBL > > Chair > Stuart > > Scribe > DanC > > Contents > > * [4]Topics > 1. [5]Convene, review records and agenda, plan next meeting > 2. [6]Issue XMLVersioning-41 > 3. [7]Issue httpRange-14 > 4. [8]On "Enabling Read Access for Web Resources" > 5. [9](Post) Summer 'Recess' > * [10]Summary of Action Items > _________________________________________________________ > > Convene, review records and agenda, plan next meeting > > Minutes: [11]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2007/07/09-tagmem-minutes > > [11] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2007/07/09-tagmem-minutes > > PROPOSED: to meet again 16 July, Raman to scribe > > raman: OK > > RESOLUTION: to meet again 16 July, Raman to scribe > > for next week: regrets: David, Rhys, Henry > > SKW: I may cancel if we're thin on agenda > > PROPOSED: to accept > [12]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2007/07/02-minutes as a true record > > [12] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2007/07/02-minutes > > RESOLUTION: to accept > [13]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2007/07/02-minutes as a true record > > [13] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2007/07/02-minutes > > Issue XMLVersioning-41 > > SKW: withdraw 2 and continue 3 actions? > > <DanC_> [14]DaveO RE: versioning definitions... > > [14] > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2007Jul/0003.html > > discussing ACTION: DC accepted on 8 Aug 2006 Review definitions of > partial understanding, backward compatible, and forward compatible. > > DanC made progress 21 May > [15]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2007May/0040.html > > [15] > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2007May/0040.html > > DO: I answered that... > > <Stuart> " Indeed. All 3 reviewers have asked this key > question. How > about "I1 is > > <Stuart> compatible with I2 if all of the information in > I1 does not > replace or > > <Stuart> contradict any information in I2." > > DanC: sounds like "consistent" > ... I'll have to think about it. > > <scribe> ACTION: DC Review definitions of partial understanding, > backward compatible, and forward compatible. [CONTINUES] [recorded > in > [16]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2007/07/09-tagmem-minutes#action01] > > DaveO: ... now text-set has a [different relationship] to syntax... > ... I changed the diagram. > > DaveO reviews changes... faster than the scribe can summarize > > DaveO: the reviewers seemed to catch many of the same things > > <Zakim> DanC, you wanted to ask about diagram source > > DaveO: yes, I checked in .violet v6 > ... note violet has been updated; it's an eclipse plug-in. quite > convenient since I use eclipse for W3C spec editing > > <dorchard> I just checked in the .violet v6.. > > SKW: [something from a recent review message...] > > ball seems to be with NDW on XML strategies > > <scribe> ACTION: SKW complete review of terminology section of of 4 > July versioning draft [recorded in > [17]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2007/07/09-tagmem-minutes#action02] > > <trackbot-ng> Sorry, couldn't find user - SKW > > DaveO: I addressed a bunch of "add a link here" editorial comments > on the strategies stuff... > > <DanC_> [18]section 2.2.2 Forwards Compatible > > [18] > http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/versioning-strategies-20070704. > html#forwardsCompatible > > DaveO: section 6, case studies, is now one table. > > ([19]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/versioning-strategies-20070704.h > tml#iddiv194353056 ) > ... there's a new strategy 2.5 "some go in a new namespace, some go > in an existing namespace" > ... to capture the pattern where [something about ##any > and ##other] > ... I also mentioned XSLT [i.e. its versioning policy?] > > [19] > http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/versioning-strategies-20070704. > html#iddiv194353056 > > <dorchard> XSLT documents versioning, not versioning XSLT itself > from XSLT 2.0 to >2.0. > > SKW: a process question... should we aim for last call on this > material? > > DanC: umm... sounds good... last call after review of peer groups > such as HTML > > DaveO: yeah, HTML, XML Schema, XML Core > > raman: and CSS, and XHTML 2 > > DanC: yes, I'd like to think more about the CSS versioning strategy > > NDW: yes, I'm working on reviewing "strategies" and the XML part > > <scribe> ACTION: NW Produce some information about NVDL for the > finding. [CONTINUES] [recorded in > [20]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2007/07/09-tagmem-minutes#action03] > > NDW: by 23 July > ... maybe some for the 16 July meeting > > (trackbot groks due dates, but the scribe doesn't know how > to get it > to do it) > > Issue httpRange-14 > > <scribe> ACTION: Stuart to review "Cool URIs for the Semantic Web" > [DONE] [recorded in > [21]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2007/07/09-tagmem-minutes#action04] > > <DanC_> [22]SKW on "Cool URIs for the Semantic Web" > > [22] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2007Jun/0075 > > <scribe> ACTION: Norm to review "Cool URIs for the Semantic Web" > [WITHDRAWN] [recorded in > [23]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2007/07/09-tagmem-minutes#action05] > > DanC: SKW, any impact from your review on our httpRange-14 finding? > > SKW: not really; there's stuff they suggest [in "Cool URIs for the > Semantic Web"] as best practice that goes beyond what the TAG > decided. > ... OK, Dan, on to your formal description of webarch slides... > > <Stuart> [24]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/fdesc54/slides 2003/11/24 > > [24] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/fdesc54/slides > > (scribe is hardly even trying to capture the discussion as he leads > it) > > DanC: HT's msg on terminology covers some of the same ground; it's > just a few minutes/hours old... > > <DanC_> [25]HT on terminology > > [25] > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2007Jul/0021.html > > HT: in the case of the Oxaca weather report and [some common fairy > tale scribe already forgot], the french and english have > roughly the > same relationship to the resource; not so for french and english > versions of Moby Dick > > DanC: is the question of whether the translation is authorized > relevant? > > HT: not really > > SKW: ... generic resources finding relevant... ? > > HT: only trivially. [?] > ... english version of The Wasteland, by T. S. Eliot has special > status. e.g. conneg... > > <Zakim> dorchard, you wanted to mention that translations sometimes > don't hold is in GEB as well, the example being russian book (can't > remember which author) translation should perhaps be > > DanC: this is _exactly_ the authorized translation question. In > conneg, the publisher is making claims. if the publisher > says, using > conneg, "these are equivalent for my purposes", then they're > equivalent for his/her purposes > > DaveO: [scribe was totally behind and let himself get distracted] > > <dorchard> translations sometimes don't hold is in GEB as well, the > example being russian book (can't remember which author) > translation > should perhaps be Dickens > > HST: The somewhat surprising tentative conclusion is that you can't > be a responsible Webmaster until you've taken a position on the > issue of "The nature of The Work of Art" > > DanC walks through Frag Identifier Diagram > > HST explains indexicals: "I'm right and you're wrong!"... > a phase we > can both locally agree because it means different things to both of > us. > > SKW: Dan, in your investigation, where does 303 come in? > > DanC: it's sort of a noop, as far as knowledge exchange, in my > thinking. Tim's idea that it constrains things is new to me; I'm > still thinking about it > > SKW: and Rhys, does this help with httpRange-14? > > Rhys: I'm learning a lot about backgrounds that readers bring > > SKW: is httpRange-14 a comfortable place for this discussion? > > Raman: no, it's opaque > > DanC: oops; you're right > > Raman: webarch2? > > SKW: terminology for webarch2? > > DanC: that doesn't narrow it down; does that help? hmm... > yes, let's > noodle on this a bit > > <scribe> ACTION: RL to revise Dereferencing HTTP URIs finding in > response to F2F discussion. [CONTINUES] [recorded in > [26]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2007/07/09-tagmem-minutes#action06] > > On "Enabling Read Access for Web Resources" > > SKW: I did one half of my action, contacting the chairs > ... that's going well... > > <DanC_> [27]SKW to POWDER/WAF chairs > > [27] > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2007Jul/0008.html > > SKW: on technical comments, I wrote up the 2 we discussed and added > several more based on reading and discussion; are those others > better as TAG comments or as my own? > > <Stuart> > [28]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2007Jul/0015.html > > [28] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2007Jul/0015.html > > DanC: tactically, separate messages for separate subjects > ... I don't know enough to endorse #6 > > DO: likewise; can't say yes nor no > > SKW: OK, I'll send the ones we discussed (1 and 2) as from the TAG > and the others personally > > (Post) Summer 'Recess' > > SKW: perhaps we did this last week, but just to be sure: > > RESOLUTION: to cancel 23rd, 30th July and 6th Aug > > SKW: if we're to meet 13 Aug, I need help with agenda prep; I'll > just be returning from holiday. > > a few others will be in a similar position > > NDW: OK, I'll prepare an agenda (or cancellation notice) for 13 Aug > > ADJOURN. > > Summary of Action Items > > [NEW] ACTION: SKW complete review of terminology section of of 4 > July versioning draft [recorded in > [29]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2007/07/09-tagmem-minutes#action02] > > [PENDING] ACTION: DC Review definitions of partial understanding, > backward compatible, and forward compatible. [recorded in > [30]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2007/07/09-tagmem-minutes#action01] > [PENDING] ACTION: NW Produce some information about NVDL for the > finding. [recorded in > [31]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2007/07/09-tagmem-minutes#action03] > [PENDING] ACTION: RL to revise Dereferencing HTTP URIs finding in > response to F2F discussion. [recorded in > [32]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2007/07/09-tagmem-minutes#action06] > > [DONE] ACTION: Stuart to review "Cool URIs for the Semantic Web" > [recorded in > [33]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2007/07/09-tagmem-minutes#action04] > > [DROPPED] ACTION: Norm to review "Cool URIs for the Semantic Web" > [recorded in > [34]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2007/07/09-tagmem-minutes#action05] > > [End of minutes] > _________________________________________________________ > > > Minutes formatted by David Booth's [35]scribe.perl version 1.128 > ([36]CVS log) > $Date: 2007/07/10 16:45:28 $ > > [35] > http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm > [36] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/ > > > -- > Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ > > > >
Received on Thursday, 12 July 2007 14:21:19 UTC