RE: TAG minutes from 11th September 2008

John,

Thanks,  yes that could have been clearer, things got played out of order.

My "That's not the proposal" was recorded by the scribe with the incantation from <jar>  "/me'd" into the log which means it does
not propagate into the meeting record. To help the scribe <jar> reincanted his utterance out of order (as noted) to which the
'That's *not* the proposal" was my response.

> >   SKW: That's not the proposal
> >
> >   <jar> (Out of order) saying "[14]http://xri.*/*" are XRIS 
> is same as
> >   saying "[15]http://*/ark:*" are ARKs ...
> >
> >     [14] http://xri.*/*
> >     [15] http://*/ark:*
> >
> >   <ht> And I think there is _some_ room to argue that both of these
> >   are OK, if not ideal

Apologies for any confusion caused - we should have reordered that in the published (draft) record.

BR

Stuart
--
Hewlett-Packard Limited registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN
Registered No: 690597 England
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Bradley [mailto:john.bradley@wingaa.com] 
> Sent: 16 September 2008 17:29
> To: Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol)
> Cc: www-tag@w3.org
> Subject: Re: TAG minutes from 11th September 2008
> 
> 
> I just want to clarify that when David boot and I refer to 
> URI prefix  
> we are defiantly not talking about the DNS sub-domain as 
> indicated in  
> the minutes.
> 
> A URI prefix must follow the chain of authority.
> http://xri.*/*   is not following the DNS chain of authority and  
> though used as an example in the current XRI spec,  it is not 
> part of  
> the proposal.
> 
> The booth+bradley proposal requires URI prefixes in the form:
> http://*.xri/*    (if registering a new TLD)
> http://*.xri.net/*  (if using the existing proxy domain)
> http://thing-described-by.org  (if using David's thing described by  
> sub-scheme)
> 
> I agree that the examples
> >     [14] http://xri.*/*
> >     [15] http://*/ark:*
> 
> 
> Are not ideal and at least on the the XRI side we have moved beyond  
> that.
> 
> Some discussion we have had regarding a way of doing "Dynamic booth 
> +bradley" may work well with the existing ARK syntax.
> That however is a separate topic.
> 
> Regards
> John Bradley
> 
> On 16-Sep-08, at 8:34 AM, Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol) wrote:
> 
> >
> > Draft minutes from our meeting of 11th September 2008 are 
> available  
> > in plain text below and at:
> >
> >        http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2008/09/11-minutes
> >
> > My thanks to our scribe.
> >
> > Best regards
> >
> > Stuart Williams
> > --
> > Hewlett-Packard Limited registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell,  
> > Berks RG12 1HN
> > Registered No: 690597 England
> > = 
> > = 
> > = 
> > = 
> > = 
> > = 
> > = 
> > = 
> > = 
> > 
> ======================================================================
> >
> >
> >   [1]W3C
> >
> >      [1] http://www.w3.org/
> >
> >                               - DRAFT -
> >
> >                           TAG Weekly Telcon
> >
> > 11 Sep 2008
> >
> >   [2]Agenda
> >
> >      [2] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2008/09/11-agenda
> >
> >   See also: [3]IRC log
> >
> >      [3] http://www.w3.org/2008/09/11-tagmem-irc
> >
> > Attendees
> >
> >   Present
> >          Stuart_Williams, Jonathan_Rees, T.V._Raman, Henry_Thompson,
> >          Ashok_Malhotra, Dan_Connolly, Dave_Orchard, Noah_Mendelsohn
> >
> >   Regrets
> >          Noah, Norm, DaveO(partial)
> >
> >   Chair
> >          Stuart Williams
> >
> >   Scribe
> >          Ashok Malhotra
> >
> > Contents
> >
> >     * [4]Topics
> >         1. [5]Convene
> >         2. [6]binaryXML-30 (ISSUE-30)
> >         3. [7]UrnsAndRegistries-50 (ISSUE-50)
> >         4. [8]Self-Describing Web
> >         5. [9]F2F Agenda
> >         6. [10]abbreviatedURI-56 (ISSUE-56)
> >     * [11]Summary of Action Items
> >     _________________________________________________________
> >
> >
> >
> >   <skw> Scribe: Ashok Malhotra
> >
> > Convene
> >
> >   <scribe> scribenick: Ashok
> >
> >   No comments on agenda
> >
> >   Resolution: Minutes from Sep 4 approved
> >   [12]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/04-tagmem-minutes
> >
> >     [12] http://www.w3.org/2008/09/04-tagmem-minutes
> >
> >   Next week call a risk. Regets from Tim. Stuart may not be able to
> >   make it
> >
> >   HT: Use the time to read our documents
> >
> >   Cancel next week's meeting
> >
> >   <jar> +1 use the time to read
> >
> >   Next meeting f2f
> >
> >   Raman: If we are serious abt this, all TAG members should read the
> >   HTML spec
> >
> >   DanC: Please let's finish reading list and Agenda for f2f
> >
> > binaryXML-30 (ISSUE-30)
> >
> >   <Zakim> ht, you wanted to acknowledge my EXI actions
> >
> >   HT: I will read these on the 'plane and make a recommendation on
> >   what we should do
> >
> >   DanC: Last, we said tell us how you are better than gzip
> >
> >   HT: That's where we are, the ball is bak in our court.
> >
> >   SKW: We will discuss this again at our FTF.
> >
> > UrnsAndRegistries-50 (ISSUE-50)
> >
> >   <DanC> (though Dec sounds wierd... I thought our request was since
> >   Dec)
> >
> >   HT: I'm working on a new document. Shd have it ready 
> middle on next
> >   week
> >
> >   <DanC> close action-167
> >
> >   <trackbot> ACTION-167 S to start a thread on non-DNS authority
> >   resolution on www-tag closed
> >
> >   DanC: What's happening with XRIs?
> >
> >   SKW: Summarizes situation
> >
> >   We have not had a formal proposal saying would you be 
> happy with ...
> >
> >   SKW: We had a discussion on how the discussion was going
> >
> >   <Zakim> DanC, you wanted to check whether skw meant it 
> when he said
> >   "prefix", since DNS names go least-significant-first
> >
> >   <DanC> does either booth or bradly advocate an actual prefix?
> >
> >   <Zakim> ht, you wanted to say there's one thing we will need to
> >   chase no matter what
> >
> >   <ht> Abstract Identifier document:
> >   [13]http://wiki.oasis-open.org/xri/AbstractIdentifierArchitecture
> >
> >     [13] 
> http://wiki.oasis-open.org/xri/AbstractIdentifierArchitecture
> >
> >   SKW: That's not the proposal
> >
> >   <jar> (Out of order) saying "[14]http://xri.*/*" are XRIS 
> is same as
> >   saying "[15]http://*/ark:*" are ARKs ...
> >
> >     [14] http://xri.*/*
> >     [15] http://*/ark:*
> >
> >   <ht> And I think there is _some_ room to argue that both of these
> >   are OK, if not ideal
> >
> > Self-Describing Web
> >
> >   Noah has incorporated feedback from Norm and SKW:
> >
> >   SKW: Norm and I would be supportive of publication
> >
> >   <Zakim> ht, you wanted to ask a question
> >
> >   ht: In a discussion with a student I realized ...
> >
> >   <ht> I believe the following: "FYN works iff every party to the
> >   story is a) publically accountable
> >
> >   <ht> and b) aware of the dependency of the FYN story on their part
> >   of it.
> >
> >   <ht> "
> >
> >   <DanC> I think you can follow-your-nose into policies and 
> such that
> >   aren't world-readable
> >
> >   DanC: I would not say 'publically accounatable"
> >
> >   HT: The parties have to be publically accountable
> >
> >   SKW: The draft does not say this
> >
> >   HT: I would like to discuss this
> >
> >   SKW: Pl. send comment
> >
> >   DanC: I disagree for 3 reasons
> >
> >   <DanC> (I ran out after 2)
> >
> >   <DanC> (1) need not be world-readable
> >
> >   <DanC> (2) the URI for text/plain isn't actually critical path
> >
> >   <DanC> ... currently
> >
> >   <DanC> (though it's nice that the text/plain full URI is 
> in an RFC)
> >
> >   HT: I will send mail on this
> >
> >   <Zakim> DanC, you wanted to think about whether RDFa is critical
> >   path: if we leave it aside, what's the audience/purpose? and to
> >
> >   DanC: How can we finish without RDFa story?
> >   ... I'm not sure story holds up
> >
> >   SKW: can we document missing link and encourage them to put it in
> >   place.
> >
> >   <skw> [16]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2008/09/f2fkc-agenda
> >
> >     [16] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2008/09/f2fkc-agenda
> >
> > F2F Agenda
> >
> >   SKW: Talks about the f2f agenda. Thanks Raman for his help
> >
> >   DanC: I would like to negotiate the reading list now
> >
> >   <DanC> I hear from skw: urnsregs, binaryxml, html*,
> >
> >   <DanC> digest of ?
> >
> >   SKW: Should read binary XML specs, HTML spec, collected digest of
> >   refernces from Raman's thread
> >
> >   <DanC> self-describing web draft
> >
> >   <DanC> passwords in the clear
> >
> >   Self-describing Web, Password in Clear, Versioning
> >
> >   <DanC> versioning revision from david
> >
> >   Need two readers for Binary XML, HT is one.
> >
> >   URNsAndRegistries-50 ... HT writing paper. Due Tuesday. 
> Shd be read
> >   by f2f
> >
> >   <DanC> * tim's bit
> >
> >   HT: We should all have read Tim's paper
> >
> >   <skw> also had an explicit request from David for Jar's formal
> >   treatment...
> >
> >   <ht> s/alll/all/
> >
> >   <DanC> "the document"... one document on versioning?
> >
> >   <DanC> DO nominates JAR's formalism
> >
> >   DaveO: What is new is Jonathan's formalism. Recommend people read
> >   this by f2f
> >
> >   <DanC> DO: key chapter is ch5
> >
> >   DaveO: Please review Chapter 5. That is new and is key
> >
> >   <DanC> HT nominates SVG and HTML thread from 
> public-html... a dozen
> >   messages
> >
> >   HT: Read SVG and HTML thread. Read 10 msgs and get a 
> feeling of the
> >   context
> >
> >   <DanC> TVR 2nds... long thread... read for motivations
> >
> >   <DanC> (looks like TVR's agenda input subsumes HT's suggestion to
> >   read a thread)
> >
> >   TVR: Read HTML spec with a view thru the structuring lens 
> I proposed
> >
> >   JR: Is there a document that tells why W3C got involved in html5
> >
> >   <noah> Are you discussing reading list?
> >
> >   <jar>
> >   [17]http://wiki.oasis-open.org/xri/AbstractIdentifierArchitecture
> >
> >     [17] 
> http://wiki.oasis-open.org/xri/AbstractIdentifierArchitecture
> >
> >   <jar> ?
> >
> >   DanC: I can point to formal mataerial but that's not what you want
> >
> >   <DanC> on mime types... a section of the html spec
> >
> >   <DanC> pwinc fri
> >
> >   <noah> Friday's OK if short, I think.
> >
> >   <DanC> (thanks; I was just gonna ask for irc convirmation)
> >
> >   Noah: Are we all supposed to read whole HTML spec?
> >
> >   <DanC> nm nominates thread on meeting goals
> >
> >   Noah: Please read thread on Tag Soup
> >
> >   HT: Norm is not coming to Kansas City
> >
> >   <skw> I think that the thread Noah referred to is based at:
> >   [18]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2008Aug/0019.html
> >
> >     [18] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2008Aug/0019.html
> >
> >   DanC: I will send mail before EOD after editing agenda page
> >
> >   Possible topic GenricResources-53
> >
> >   Content negotiation and Abstract Documents
> >
> >   Not on agenda currently. You can lobby me.
> >
> >   TVR: Steve said he was pulling in my TPAC proposal
> >
> > abbreviatedURI-56 (ISSUE-56)
> >
> >   SKW: Asks abt status of CURIE comments
> >
> >   <DanC> (anybody have a summary of the comment? the 
> subject line was
> >   a generic "comments on X")
> >
> >   Noah: That's for responder to say
> >
> >   SKW: Summarizez comments
> >
> >   Editorial: Qnames never inted as attribute values. Some discussion
> >   on this
> >
> >   <DanC> (pls promote that "main substantive comment" to the subject
> >   line)
> >
> >   SKW: Definition of XML Schema datatype
> >
> >   <ht> Please remember that we have already fed back on this point,
> >   see
> >   
> [19]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html-editor/2008JanMar/0
> >   014.html
> >
> >     [19] 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html-editor/2008JanMar
> /0014.html
> >
> >   <skw> ?
> >
> >   AM: Noah you had a comment on lack of clarity between 
> CURIE and URI
> >   where there is ambiguity
> >
> >   Noah: I sent this as a personal comment. If no objection, 
> I can add
> >   to my note
> >
> >   <jar> the whole point of safecurie was so that they can be put in
> >   uri contexts
> >
> >   <DanC> yes, now that I understand the comment, it seems 
> to miss the
> >   point of safecuries
> >
> >   <noah> Well, it hijacks the use of [ in everyone's languages.
> >
> >   Raman: I'm uncomfotable with this. We need to allow new syntax in
> >   old contexts
> >
> >   jar: If there was no intention of extensing URI content 
> there would
> >   be no SafeCURIEs
> >
> >   <jar> RDFa already would violate a prohibition on safecuries. It's
> >   too late to prohibit safecuries
> >
> >   HT: We should be careful abt distinguishing between CURIE's and
> >   SafeCURIES
> >
> >   <DanC> <ht> Please remember that we have already fed back on this
> >   point, see
> >   
> [20]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html-editor/2008JanMar/0
> >   014.html
> >
> >     [20] 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html-editor/2008JanMar
> /0014.html
> >
> >   HT: We should not go back on that advice
> >
> >   TVR: The way Noah phrased it it sets a very high bar for 
> new syntax
> >
> >   <jar> Two questions here! (1) CURIEs in URI contexts? (No.) (2)
> >   SafeCURIEs in URI contexts? (RDFa requires.)
> >
> >   <Zakim> noah, you wanted to say implying safecuries can be used in
> >   existing languages where URIs are expected hijacks the use of [ in
> >   those languages.
> >
> >   Noah: Explains his POV ... I should open my spec to other syntax
> >
> >   <jar> relative URIs can start with [, yes?
> >
> >   They should make clear that these things are not URis
> >
> >   DaveO: Supports Noah. CURIEs cannot be wedged into existing
> >   specifiactions
> >
> >   <jar> I repeat: There are two questions here! (1) CURIEs in URI
> >   contexts? (No.) (2) SafeCURIEs in URI contexts? (RDFa requires.)
> >
> >   <DanC> jar, does RDFa use <a href="[safecuri]">? I see deployment
> >   problems there.
> >
> >   <skw> [21]http://www.w3.org/mid/48B810F4.60807@aptest.com
> >
> >     [21] http://www.w3.org/mid/48B810F4.60807@aptest.com
> >
> >   DaveO: Must specify how CURIEs and URI are disambiguated
> >
> >   <jar> no, but it allows safecuries in other uri contexts, 
> I believe.
> >   will check.
> >
> >   <DanC> ok. deployment considerations for a/@href are somewhat
> >   special
> >
> >   TVR: XSLT uses { } is attribute value templates. Use of a special
> >   character
> >
> >   <jar> ok, URIorSafeCURIE only occurs in attributes that are newly
> >   added by RDFa
> >
> >   <noah> I did propose text to Shane on 8/29:
> >
> >   <noah> <proposed>
> >
> >   <noah> CURIEs and safe-CURIEs map to IRIs, but neither a 
> CURIE nor a
> >   safe-CURIE
> >
> >   <noah> <italic>is</italic> an IRI or URI. Accordingly, CURIEs and
> >   safe-CURIEs
> >
> >   <noah> MUST NOT be used as values for attributes that are 
> specified
> >   to contain
> >
> >   <noah> only URIs, IRIs, URI-references, IRI-references, etc.
> >   Specifications for
> >
> >   <noah> particular attribute values or other content MAY be written
> >   to allow
> >
> >   <noah> either CURIEs or IRIs (or URIs, etc.). The 
> specifications for
> >   such
> >
> >   <noah> languages MUST provide rules for disambiguition in 
> situations
> >   where the
> >
> >   <noah> same string could be interpreted as either a CURIE 
> or an IRI.
> >   One way to
> >
> >   <noah> do this is to require that all CURIEs be expressed as
> >   safe-CURIEs,
> >
> >   <noah> implying that all unbracketed strings are to be interpreted
> >   as IRIs.
> >
> >   <noah> </proposed>
> >
> >   TVR: I'm mostly OK with this.
> >
> >   <DanC> x:y
> >
> >   JAR: I'm bothered by saying "CURIES are not IRIs". There are
> >   bstrings that are both.
> >
> >   <DanC> noodling... "neither every CURIE nor every safe-CURIE
> >   <italic>is</italic> an IRI or URI"
> >
> >   Noah: I will put this in a note to the TAG list and people can
> >   comment
> >
> >   <noah> So, Stuart, what's the next step on the response.
> >
> >   SKW: Let's conclude on email.
> >
> >   <noah> SKW: Noah to redraft considering Stuart's proposal 
> on intent
> >   of qnames and add 8/29 draft text on using CURIEs where URIs
> >   expected
> >
> >   SKW: DanC, any progress on 171
> >
> >   Dan: No.
> >
> >   <DanC> p.s. any hosting issues?
> >
> >   <DanC> hmm... decisions decisions...
> >
> >   <DanC> collect all preparation materials in one place in the
> >   agenda...
> >
> >   <DanC> or tuck them under the relevant items?
> >
> >   <DanC> I lean toward tucking, so far
> >
> >   <DanC> hmm... how to do a crawl-and-zip...?
> >
> > Summary of Action Items
> >
> >   [End of minutes]
> >     _________________________________________________________
> >
> >
> >    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [22]scribe.perl version 1.128
> >    ([23]CVS log)
> >    $Date: 2008/09/15 15:05:41 $
> >
> >     [22] 
> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
> >     [23] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
> >
> >
> 
>