- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 09:56:57 -0600
- To: www-tag@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/02/12-tagmem-minutes
2009/02/13 15:54:32
plain text copy...
Technical Architecture Group Teleconference
12 Feb 2009
[2]Agenda
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Feb/0042.html
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2009/02/12-tagmem-irc
Attendees
Present
Jonathan_Rees, Raman, noah, Danc, masinter, John_Kemp,
Ashok_Malhotra, DaveO, Stuart
Regrets
TimBL, Henry
Chair
Noah
Scribe
DanC
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]Convene
2. [6]F2F Content and Agenda Planning (Brief)
3. [7]F2F Logistics (Brief)
4. [8]Metadata
5. [9]Web Services Resource Access (WS-RA)
6. [10]Link maintenance in TAG documents
* [11]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________
Convene
trackbot, start meeting
<trackbot> Date: 12 February 2009
RESOLUTION: to meet again 19 Feb, ashok to scribe
NM: re agenda review, error handlingn didn't work out for this week
RESOLUTION: to approved
[12]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/01/22-minutes
[12] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/01/22-minutes
RESOLUTION: to approve
[13]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/02/05-minutes
[13] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/02/05-minutes
F2F Content and Agenda Planning (Brief)
NM: our ftf meeting is in 3 weeks...
... 1. progress on substantial topics 2. step back and look ahead
for the year
... those are my 2 points/goals re the ftf
... let's have reading materials available well in advance
<Zakim> raman, you wanted to discuss agenda f2f
<masinter> [14]My contribution about TAG priorities
[14] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2009Feb/0016.html
TVR: last Sep, we talked about HTML and tag soup; I'd like Larry and
John to look at the way the agenda was put together and what we
discussed...
... also, I'd like to know from Tim and Dan what follow-up there has
been since the TPAC
<DanC_> (I did report at our Dec FTF on follow-up from the TPAC; I'm
happy to do so again)
<masinter> Re HTML5 and "tag soup" etc.: I've tried to read the
background material and previous activities here, and frankly, can't
really see a "TAG position" here
<scribe> ACTION: DanC report at March on tagSoup progress since TPAC
[recorded in
[15]http://www.w3.org/2009/02/12-tagmem-minutes.html#action01]
[15] http://www.w3.org/2009/02/12-tagmem-minutes.html#action01
<trackbot> Created ACTION-226 - Report at March on tagSoup progress
since TPAC [on Dan Connolly - due 2009-02-19].
NM: we're drifting into technical discussion, which is natural...
error handling looks similar...
LMM: error handling is perhaps a bit more broad than tag soup, but
yes, it's related
<masinter> it's a generalization of one (but only one) of the issues
with HTML5
<Zakim> raman, you wanted to summarize Sep tagsoup for Larry and
John
<DanC_> [16]Sep KC meeting record
[16] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2008/09/f2fkc-agenda
TVR: the Sep ftf was just before TPAC... so I'd like to see what
came out
NM: so it looks like yes, tagSoup should be on the ftf agenda; one
session or more?
TVR: let's do something similar to what we did in Sep, with
substantial prep
LMM: the TAG has met with the HTML WG... [missed some?] we should
have a TAG finding on [did he say all the web standards?]
... for example, should W3C propose accessibility techniques that
have not been implemented?
NM: is the ftf a good time to talk about this?
LMM: yes
DO: on XML, HTML... I'm interested in a consensus position of the
TAG on HTML, XML, and such; we've discussed it without resolution
DanC: I'm still at-risk to attend the ftf
F2F Logistics (Brief)
NM: Ashok, any logistic details?
<DanC_> [17]March meeting logistics
[17] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/03/03-f2f-local-arrangements
Ashok: I'll distribute a cell phone to TAG members
Metadata
<noah> [18]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/02/05-minutes#item10
[18] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/02/05-minutes#item10
close action-224
<trackbot> ACTION-224 Schedule discussion of metadata (scope, issue,
coordination, workshop, etc) as item on next telecon closed
LMM: I'm happy to defer this to the ftf agenda
NM: as telcon time is cheaper, maybe better here?
AM: I note a new draft of the site metadata work [by mnot, yes?]
LMM: I think what's needed is a background survey on metadata; I'm
hesitant to offer something soon...
AM: Jonathan's piece on metadata use cases is perhaps a good summary
<jar>
[19]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/uniform-access-20090205.html#cros
s_site
[19] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/uniform-access-20090205.html#cross_site
<jar> that has use cases
<DanC_> (gee; evidently I'm behind on email)
<Zakim> DanC, you wanted to wonder about POWDER and site metadata
DC: POWDER let you say things like, everything in this subtree OK
for children. Mark Nottingham's stuff as similar capability. Are we
the only ones looking at both?
<Zakim> jar, you wanted to ask LM what he had in mind
JAR: I could do something, but I wonder if it's too narrow; I can
summarize work by Eran, mnot, [??], ...
<Stuart> fyi... a good summary from Eran is at:
[20]http://groups.google.com/group/metadata-discovery/browse_thread/
thread/b4f60d20896ad7c5
[20] http://groups.google.com/group/metadata-discovery/browse_thread/thread/b4f60d20896ad7c5
<masinter> that sounds like a good start
JAR: I wonder if LMM had other stuff in mind; of course metadata is
a huge area...
LMM: I've been working on metadata for a couple years, esp Adobe
XMP, ...
... I'm interested to reconcile what I've seen with [other stuff?]
<Zakim> DanC, you wanted to suggest LMM look at
tag/doc/uniform-access
DC: I think uniform access to metadata by Jonathan and Phil Archer
is as good a starting point for overall review as we had.
(request to discuss this cites
[21]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2008Nov/0008.html
TAG Resolution endorsing W3C Team Comment on the identifications of
WS Transfer resources. )
[21] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2008Nov/0008.html
DC: Request to discuss today somehow related to W3C Team work on WS
TRansfer. Jonathan do you remember?
JAR: No.
DC: Ashok?
AM: There's a thin connection.
... in WS-Transfer context, they talk about XML representation of
resource; to them, a resource is a web service...
... that's one style of metadata...
<Zakim> noah, you wanted to talk about coordinating this
<Stuart> Ashok, are you trying to say (roughly) that the WSRA
resourse has (roughly) a schema that might be thought of as resource
metadata?
NM: I'm interested to have 1 or 2 tag members to be point-person on
issues/areas...
... jonathan is offering to do something... I wonder about expanding
it to an overall tracking role...
<Ashok> Stuart, The metadata they talk about is usually XML Schema,
WSDL etc
JAR: I'm willing to try, though I wonder about mixing my biases in
with TAG priorities...
<masinter> I can work with JAR offline
good, masinter
<Stuart> Ashok... thx.
. ACTION: jonathan summarize TAG work on metadata, with Larry
<Ashok> Stuart, Typically Schema, WSDL and Policy (forgot abt policy
last time)
<scribe> ACTION: jonathan summarize TAG work on metadata, with Larry
[recorded in
[22]http://www.w3.org/2009/02/12-tagmem-minutes.html#action02]
[22] http://www.w3.org/2009/02/12-tagmem-minutes.html#action02
<trackbot> Created ACTION-227 - Summarize TAG work on metadata, with
Larry [on Jonathan Rees - due 2009-02-19].
johnk: we should try to become clear on what we mean by "metadata";
the definition of metadata isn't clear enough
LMM: my sense is that this merits W3C work, not just a TAG issue, so
I hope the TAG will prompt W3C work
NM: Dan, care to comment as staff comment?
DanC: it's straightforward for the TAG to suggest new W3C work,
though starting things in W3C is naturally a very involved process
NM: I have some hesitation... I think the TAG has good standing to
suggest others do work >after< we've done some serious work
understanding why there's a problem somewhere. Not clear we've done
that here. But I'm happy to see what Jonathan and Larry come up with
LMM: I acknowledge that just saying "this looks interesting" isn't
useful, but it seems that there are architectural issues that none
of the individual efforts are addressing, and it's the TAG's role to
coordinate in those cases
action-227?
<trackbot> ACTION-227 -- Jonathan Rees to summarize TAG work on
metadata, with Larry -- due 2009-02-19 -- OPEN
<trackbot> [23]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/227
[23] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/227
<Zakim> jar, you wanted to discuss reading list deadline for f2f
<DanC_> +1 2 weeks before
JAR: we had a 2 weeks-before goal in previous ftfs...
NM: I mentioned 1 week in advance... in general it depends on size
etc.; in this case, 1 week in avance of the ftf seems OK
action-227 due 24 Feb
<trackbot> ACTION-227 Summarize TAG work on metadata, with Larry due
date now 24 Feb
Web Services Resource Access (WS-RA)
<Ashok> [$1\47] Team Comment:
[24]http://www.w3.org/Submission/2006/04/Comment
[24] http://www.w3.org/Submission/2006/04/Comment
<Ashok> [$1\47] TimBL:
[25]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2006Oct/0061.html
[25] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2006Oct/0061.html
<Ashok> [$1\47] Stuart Williams:
[26]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2008Nov/0008.html
[26] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2008Nov/0008.html
AM: these msgs note web services use end-point references (EPRs),
not URIs
... and there's a question of what if you do a GET on the URI found
in an EPR
... and they [who?] has asked for more specific recommendations
<johnk> EPRs contain a URI
AM: yes, for example, the WS WGs would like the TAG to be specific
about what should come back when you do a GET on the URI in an EPR
<Zakim> noah, you wanted to ask why
NM: Do we know why they're interested?
AM: there's some expectation that TAG input would help with WS specs
<Zakim> DanC, you wanted to note DaveO's suggestions that the TAG do
this and ask
DanC: DaveO suggested some work nearby...
DaveO: in the Hawaii meeting timeframe, yes...
<masinter> I think working groups who want TAG feedback should try
harder to express their question as an architectural issue rather
than "read our specs and figure out what we should do"
DanC: DaveO, do you think the market window has passed? or is it
still worthwhile?
DaveO: I've long been an advocate of filling this gap...
... I see the REST community ignoring WS-*, and vice versa...
... and then I see the OAuth community wrestling with policy
problems solved in WS-policy [but which doesn't work in the OAuth
context because it's not URI-based]
<masinter> i'm not convinced that this is an issue that can be
resolved, REST vs. WS
<masinter> it would be good if mechanisms like authentication and
naming can be common, though
DaveO: when WS-* advocates say "you can do all this automated policy
negotation, provided you use SOAP messages", the REST community
isn't interested.
<Ashok> How about a common mechanism to access metadata?
<masinter> well, common mechanisms might be hard, but common
vocabularies for metadata would be a good first step
daveO: a couple points in particular: soap RPC into HTTP GET, bind
EPRs into URIs
<masinter> general idea is: don't try to solve unresolvable problems
<Ashok> Dave, Do you have something written on this?
daveO: I can point you to work I did in that area
LMM: the perspectives of the two communities aren't clearly
resolvable...
<raman> 1+ to Larry.
<raman> RESTful services are very successful, we dont need to teach
them WS* religion
LMM: there are perhaps architectural approaches: common vocabularies
despite different mechanisms...
... choosing one's battles is important
<johnk> +1 to the *possibility* of common vocabs
<Ashok> Raman, I'm thinking the other way around
<johnk> but tend to agree with Larry that this is still a war
LMM: I'd contrast this with the HTML situation... there's really
just one HTML and we should get it right, but the world is OK having
both WS-* and REST styles.
<Zakim> noah, you wanted to talk about helping the REST community
discover the joys of Web Services
TVR: I agree with Larry; there's little impact the TAG can usefully
have in this area [?]
NM summarizes [scribe thinks it's already recorded above]
NM: to push back a bit on LMM and TVR: the Web aspires to a level of
integration that's deep and universal...
... URIs are supposed to be URIs wherever you find them [in an EPR
or otherwise]
<masinter> if there's an expression of this as an architectural
question, that would be helpful
NM: and there are expecations that you can do things [e.g. GET]
<raman> The TAG's history here is to traditionally have come heavily
on the WS* side, mostly because (perhaps) of the bodies present.
That also means that we dont get heard by the other side.
NM: [struggling to summarize tail end of what NM said]
<raman> I'm happy for the TAG to specifically answer Ashok's WSRE
question.
<masinter> GET on a URI should return a representation of the
resource
<raman> Bit BuBut as a continuing TAG member, I'd advice against
going the route Dave Orchard suggested that the TAGshould go
<masinter> (jk)
<masinter> Would like agenda items about technical topics have an
ISSUE, because I'm confused still about what they want advice about
SKW: I think it's a stretch to say they're [which they?] interested
in access to metadata... they have a particular object model, and
metadata is a small part of it. [?]
... I think the
[27]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2008Nov/0008.html
message is still what's worth saying. [?]
[27] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2008Nov/0008.html
<noah> Larry: suggest we discuss the meta topic of TAG operations at
F2F. This is the sort of stuff I'd like to agree on. Historyically,
ISSUES have been somewhat heavyweight, with some commitment to long
term TAG focus. Hence there tends to be a lot of discussion to
decide whether to open an issue. That's what's happening here, I
think.
NM: there's a metadata part to this; we have an action on jonathan
in that area...
... then there's the specific question re WS-RA... maybe AM would
like to draft something?
... meanwhile, we might want to think about whether this fits under
and existing issue or should be a new one
Link maintenance in TAG documents
action-223?
<trackbot> ACTION-223 -- John Kemp to attempt to fix the broken
links in Mapping between URIs and Internet Media Types -- due
2009-02-12 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> [28]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/223
[28] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/223
<masinter> didn't propose TAG work on this
ACTION-222?
<trackbot> ACTION-222 -- Larry Masinter to draft a note to W3C staff
regarding maintaining working links, for TAG review -- due
2009-02-12 -- OPEN
<trackbot> [29]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/222
[29] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/222
LMM: yes, I drafted something, and I see a response from Dan noting
existing policies
<masinter> I didn't want to propose the TAG should work on this, but
rather we should ask the staff to handle this kind of thing in
general, rather than take this up as a TAG work item
John: noting date of access is conventional for citing web
documents; we could do that...
NM: isn't that implicit in the date of the finding itself?
John: note chicago manual of style etc. note date accessed
<DanC_> (I find "date of access" kinda wierd. no thanks.)
LMM: how about we ask the W3C staff to use that chicago manual of
style date-of-access policy?
<masinter> hear arguments against and think they're reasonable
DanC: ISOC stable-publishes IETF drafts
<DanC_> [30]progress on ietf.org persistence, structured archive
[30] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ietf-w3c/2005Aug/0000.html
DanC: I recommend we use those in the future
NM: are those canonical?
<jar> Mary-Claire van Leunen. A Handbook for Scholars. = bible on
citation
LMM: I'm satisfied the staff maintains a policy on links in general
<masinter> that should be W3C publication policy, not just a W3C TAG
practice
<Ashok> +1
close action-222
<trackbot> ACTION-222 Draft a note to W3C staff regarding
maintaining working links, for TAG review closed
NM: how about "we considered it, but on balance, didn't find it
worthwile to update the finding"
... John?
<masinter> i don't agree with that
<masinter> I like jar's proposal better
<masinter> "Message to staff: We've talked about this. Please do
something. [We trust you.]"
Stuart: I like the intermediate page idea...
<jar> noah: w3c ends up running a proxy site for all cited
documents. not good
Stuart: I suggest that we quietly change the links to something
sensible
<jar> webcitation.org
<DanC_> -1 "please do something".
<johnk> -1 also
<Stuart> +0
SKW: the staff has very tight policy for the /TR/ page, but we're
not using that for findings...
NM: Dan, how about you draft something...
<DanC_> no, I'm not interested in any new policies.
<DanC_> I've done more than I think this merits already
<masinter> fix document is fine
NM: how about... ACTION: respond to the commentor
<DanC_> . ACTION: john consult with stuart and respond to the
commentor re broken links in uriMediaType-9
NM: so we'll leave this to email and maybe it'll come back
close ACTION-223
<trackbot> ACTION-223 Attempt to fix the broken links in Mapping
between URIs and Internet Media Types closed
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: DanC report at March on tagSoup progress since TPAC
[recorded in
[31]http://www.w3.org/2009/02/12-tagmem-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: jonathan summarize TAG work on metadata, with Larry
[recorded in
[32]http://www.w3.org/2009/02/12-tagmem-minutes.html#action02]
[31] http://www.w3.org/2009/02/12-tagmem-minutes.html#action01
[32] http://www.w3.org/2009/02/12-tagmem-minutes.html#action02
[End of minutes]
_________________________________________________________
Minutes formatted by David Booth's [33]scribe.perl version 1.134
([34]CVS log)
$Date: 2009/02/13 15:54:32 $
[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/
gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Friday, 13 February 2009 15:57:09 UTC