- From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2009 10:59:41 -0400
- To: www-tag@w3.org
- Message-ID: <OF2BF3ADAE.02010C00-ON8525757F.00833E30-85257581.00525FB9@lotus.com>
Shortly I will send out a note suggesting next steps for setting TAG priorities. As background to that, I have tried to gather here pretty much everything I could find regarding progress so far, I.e. links to or copies of F2F notes, e-mails TAG members have sent with suggestions on organizing our work, etc. So, although this is a very long email, it's primarily intended as reference material. Read it all if like or else refer to it as needed while working on the items in the note to follow. I do suggest you at least skim all of this so you'll know what's here if you need it. This note is intended primarily for members of the TAG. Nothing here is member-only, so I'm sending it to www-tag in case anyone else is interested in following our efforts to organize or work. F2F Review ---------- Looking back over our sessions at the F2F, we made progress in the three areas I hoped we would, that is: * Reviewing ongoing work and clarifying the status of open issues * Gathering and discussing ideas for specific work we might do in the future * Thinking about organizing our work under broad themes vs. more isolated initiatives Each of those efforts is at this point incomplete. We only reviewed in detail and updated descriptions for about 1/3 of our open issues, we took only a first pass at identifying larger themes, and we haven't yet shown that organizing some or all of our work under these themes will actually focus us on high value deliverables. Indeed, in parallel with the above activities, we have had at least one short term item jump to the head of our agenda (discussing HTML in time for the AC meeting), and we've received input from members who have indicated preferences for working on particular ongoing activities [1]. FWIW, I'm relatively pleased with where we stand, unsettled as it is. I'm not prejudging what the right mix of top down or bottom up will be, and I'm not surprised that one round of work at a F2F left is at best half done in this round of planning. Open Issues ----------- Open issues are listed in tracker at [2]. Tracker doesn't let users create queries and tailor reports on the fly, so I've manually updated my own table of open issues including pertinent status information from the F2F. It's available at [3], and for easy reference by those who use HTML email readers, it's also copied inline below (Appendix I). I've indicated which issues have had their descriptions updated in tracker, who the shepherds are, and most importantly, what the proposed priority (rank) is. Of the ten issues that were considered in detail, two (errorHandling-20 and contentTypeOverride-24) were given proposed ranks of high. Three more were medium. We also opened a new issue, UniformAccesstoMetadata-62, but did not give it a rank. Information Gathered at the F2F ------------------------------- At one point early in the meeting, we went around the room asking for ideas on what would constitute success for the TAG, who our audience might be, and what might be good things for the TAG to work on. That list is available at [4], and for your convenience, a copy is included following the issues list at the end of this note (Appendix II). Later we prioritized some of those possible work items and gathered a table. That was edited in a spreadsheet and saved as a csv text file [5]. The file includes indications of which TAG members were interested in each issue. (Appendix III) Our last planning exercise was to try and identify key themes, with ideas under them for what we might actually do. Those notes were gathered on flip charts. Transcriptions are in reference [6] and in Appendix IV. Suggestions received in email, meetings, etc. --------------------------------------------- Some TAG members have sent emails with suggestions on what we should do or how we should set priorities. It's quite likely that I've lost track of some, but these are the ones I've noted. If there are some I've missed, please let me know. I generally list only the first in a thread. Most of what I found were in threads started by Larry: * Endorses "operational approach" [7] * Priorities and topics for discussion (some of these did come up at the F2F - initial member-only copy at [8], later publicly archived at [9]) * Followup on metadata in particular [10] (public copy at [11]) In addition to email, some suggestions have been made in meetings. I haven't been through all the recent minutes in detail, but I notice in particular from Tues at the F2F [12]: HT: What I want us to do is: "produce a document which specifies a mechanism for bridging the gap between namespaced and non-namespaced forms of languages conveying the same things" If I've missed or misrepresented anything, please let me know. I hope that collecting all this will give a sense of the different angles we've explored so far, and that it will be useful as reference material. Now the challenge will be to turn this into an operational agenda for what we actually want to do in the coming months. Please see email to follow on what I think we should do next. Thank you. Noah References: [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2009Mar/0030.html [2] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/open [3] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/03/03-TAG-issue-status.html [4] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/coordination/groupPriority.txt [5] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/coordination/groupPriority.csv [6] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/03/05-whiteboard-priorities.txt [7] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Jan/0113.html [8] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2009Feb/0016.html [9] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2009Feb/0105.html [10] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2009Feb/0036.html [11] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2009Feb/0106.html [12] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/03/03-tagmem-minutes.html#item04 -------------------------------------- Noah Mendelsohn IBM Corporation One Rogers Street Cambridge, MA 02142 1-617-693-4036 -------------------------------------- Appendix I: TAG Open Issue Status as of 20 March 2009 The following list was extracted from Tracker's list of open issues. The "F2F" column indicates issues that appeared as explicit agenda items for the 3 March 2009 F2F. ISSUE # F2F Tracker Updated F2F Rank Shepherd Old Issue Name Description Raised on Number of Open Actions 7 Y Background Kemp whenToUseGet-7 (1) GET should be encouraged, not deprecated, in XForms(2) How to handle safe queries 23-Jan-02 0 16 Y PENDING REVIEW Masinter HTTPSubstrate-16 Should HTTP be used as a substrate protocol? Does W3Cagree with RFC 3205? 24-Mar-02 0 20 X Y (except shepherd) High No shepherd - raised by Berners-Lee errorHandling-20 What should specifications say about error handling? 22-May-02 0 24 Y High Masinter contentTypeOverride-24 Can a specification include rules for overriding HTTPcontent type parameters? 14-Jun-02 1 27 Y Medium None - Raised by Berners-Lee IRIEverywhere-27 Should W3C specifications start promoting IRIs? 9-Oct-02 2 30 Y Medium Mendelsohn binaryXML-30 Standardize a "binary XML" format? 9-Oct-02 1 33 Y - a bit sketchy Background None - Raised by Berners-Lee mixedUIXMLNamespace-33 Composability for user interface-oriented XML namespaces 6-Feb-03 0 34 X Y Medium Thompson xmlFunctions-34 XML Transformation and composability (e.g., XSLT,XInclude, Encryption) 6-Feb-03 1 36 Y Background None - Raised by Connolly siteData-36 Web site metadata improving on robots.txt, w3c/p3p and favicon etc. 10-Feb-03 0 37 Y Background None - Raised by Berners-Lee abstractComponentRefs-37 Definition of abstract components with namespace names and frag ids 3-Feb-03 0 39 rdfURIMeaning-39 Meaning of URIs in RDF documents 13-Jul-03 0 40 URIGoodPractice-40 What are good practices for URI construction? 16-Oct-03 0 41 XMLVersioning-41 What are good practices for designing extensible XMLlanguages and for handling versioni 27-Jun-03 3 42 ultimateQuestion-42 What is the answer to life, the universe, and everything. 15-Nov-03 4 43 DerivedResources-43 How are secondary resources derived? 15-Nov-03 0 45 mediaTypeManagement-45 What is the appropriate level of granularity of the media type mechanism? 14-May-04 0 46 xml11Names-46 Impact of changes to XML 1.1 on other XML Specifications 19-May-04 0 47 endPointRefs-47 WS-Addressing SOAP binding & app protocols 3-Jan-05 0 49 schemeProtocols-49 Relationship of URI schemes to protocols and operations 7-Feb-05 0 50 X URNsAndRegistries-50 URIs, URNs, "location independent" naming systems and associated registries for namin 15-Mar-05 2 53 X genericResources-53 Generic resources 04-May-06, reopened at 3 March 2009 F2F 2 54 X TagSoupIntegration-54 Tag soup integration 17-Oct-06 0 55 utf7Encoding-55 Security issues with incorrect metadata 14-Dec-06 0 56 abbreviatedURIs-56 Abbreviating URIs in Web Languages 30-Mar-07 0 57 X HttpRedirections-57 The use of HTTP Redirection 22-Aug-07 2 58 scalabilityOfURIAccess-58 Scalability of URI Access to Resources 22-Aug-07 1 60 X webApplicationState-60 Web Application State Management 14-Dec-07 3 61 uriBasedPackageAccess-61 URI Based Access to Packaged Items 8-Jul-08 0 62 Malhotra UniformAcessToMetadata-62 Uniform Access to Metadata 04-Mar-09 0 Appendix II: These notes were generated during discussion by the W3C Technical Architecture group during its F2F meeting of 3-5 March 2009. These are working notes, intended primarily for internal use by the TAG. They do not necessarily represent the actual opinions of the TAG as to success criteria, group priorities, etc. What is success for the TAG? ============================ * Helping communities be more effective. Help where perspective is missing, or might lack background to solve. * Coordinating review of documents within W3C and outside, noticing mismatches between what groups need from each other and provide each other. * See evidence of communities who have responsibility for parts of the Web that they recognize having that responsibility. * Cause new activites, with good value, to spring pu in W3C * Good coverage of the architecture without bits out. The Web works. * Happy ending to XML/HTML. * Necessary and sufficient: TAG to evidence leadership in topics of most concern to the Web community (especially the W3C). Something recognized as causing people (especially W3C WG participants) to follow. Can measure effectiveness using TPAC surveys as to whether TAG was more help this year than last. * Win back technical credibility. * Open, Web-standard technologies continnue to win for Web-content. * Making the Web better -- be an advocate for the greater good. Effectively resolve tensions between working group short term interests and serving greater good. * Javascript security less of a black art. * XRI TC publishes drafts based on directions emerging from our discussions (I.e. no new URI scheme) * We have an integrated architecture for Web and Semantic Web. * Explain Web architecture in such a way that a random architect can discover which specs are pertinent and can succeed in using them effectively. We need a natural language explanation of >why< things are the way they are. (Integrating both in one WebArch document has proven confusing.) * Demonstrate that the architecture we propose leads to good engineering long term. * Lead in areas where Web is going: e.g. Web 2.0 and successors, video, mobile, new devices. * Ensure that Web technologies provide near state of the art capabilities for animation and other modern UI. * Dealing with services web as opposed to endpoint Web. Internet scale services is a new phenomenon. * Watch for and document cost/benefit changes in what have been core assumptions and technologies: e.g. # replacing ? for state management. * Spec writers use vocabulary we define What audiences should we address? ================================= * Anyone who creates or uses Web technologies. Spec authors, web site admins, content creators, .... * People who are building core technologies (e.g. object capability security, and semantic web semantics). Language, API and protocol designers. * Spec writers * W3C working groups, possibly OASIS TC's * W3C, and peers (IETF, OASIS, etc.) * Formal technical liaison with IETF & OASIS, etc. where possible. Should have new liaisons as necessary. * 3 parts: whom you want to reach; the channel you use; community you survey to guage effectiveness * anyone who writes or reads a Web spec. What should we do next year? What should we produce? ==================================================== * Cluster of related issues to write about or delegate to some group (or actively decide not to deal with): - Metadata - Understand relation between HTTP and RDF - Scheme/protocols - Naming systems in relation to HTTP and other protocols * Push information resource / resource debate to a conclusion * Convert architecture document into foil set and notes. * Harmominization of XHTML and HTML from DOM layer up. (We don't necessarily produce it, but help the community to succeed.) * Say something about versioning and/or error handing, if only to document history. * Avoid doing things we can't complete * Put as low priority things that have only short term value. High priority to things that produce documents that have long term value. * We should emphasize activities that produce "artifacts" of long term value (findings, etc.) * Web app state * Javascript * Mobile * xmlFunctions-34 and semantics of recursively structured documents * Web security - details TBD * Use semantic Web technologies such as ontologies to describe Web architecture. * Use formal rules to document TAG conclusions * Widget packaging * Architectural issues that affect HTML 5 - Versioning - Error handling - Extensibility - Tag soup - XML vs. XML 5 - Technical specifications vs. applicability statements - HTML as universal Web content vs. extensibilty via plugins. * Resource description access & redirections Stuart preferences: uniform access to metadata webApplicationstate distributed extensibility vs. monolithic specs. Member interests: - HTML - Web Services - (unclear whether this meant WS* or more broadly) - Semantic Web - Potholes: finishing things (e.g. file: URI scheme -- why is Web apps inventing whole new URI) What else should we talk about wrt/ TAG priorities? =================================== Appendix III: (from the csv file) Number Cluster Who Topic 27 * LM, Dan Liason with other organization 4 A HT, Tim, JK, LM, TVR Harmominization of XHTML and HTML from DOM layer up. (We don't necessarily produce it, but help the community to succeed.) 6 A Dan, Tim, LM HTML 17 A HT, LM, TVR Architectural issues that affect HTML 5,- Versioning,- Error handling,- Extensibility,- Tag soup,- XML vs. XML 5,- Technical specifications vs. applicability statements,- HTML as universal Web content vs. extensibilty via plugins. 21 A Tim, TVR, HT distributed extensibility vs. monolithic specs. 25 A HT ErrorHandling-20 1 B Jar, Tim, LM? Cluster of related issues to write about or delegate to some group (or actively decide not to deal with): ,- Metadata,- Understand relation between HTTP and RDF,- Scheme/protocols,- Naming systems in relation to HTTP and other protocols 2 B Jar, HT Push information resource / resource debate to a conclusion 18 B Jar Resource description access & redirections 19 B Jar, Ashok, Tim uniform access to metadata 28 B Conneg 23 C Scheme/protocols 24 C HT, JAR URNS and Registries 8 D Tim Semantic Web including integration of SemWeb with Web as a whole (e.g. vocabularies, linked data synchronization and update) 10 E Jar?, Dan, JK,, LM?, TVR Javascript security 13 E Jar?, Ashok, JK Web security - details TBD 3 TW Ashok, JK Convert architecture document into foil set and notes. 15 TW Tim Use formal rules to document TAG conclusions 5 HT, JK, LM? Say something about versioning and/or error handing, if only to document history. 7 Ashok? Web Services 9 LM Potholes (e.g. file: URI) 11 LM? Mobile 12 HT, Tim xmlFunctions-34 and semantics of recursively structured documents 14 Jar, Tim, LM? Use semantic Web technologies such as ontologies to describe Web architecture. 16 JK, LM? Widget packaging 20 Dan, TVR webApplicationstate 22 ****** 26 contentTypeOverride-24 27 D Viewing AWWSW as TAG offshoot to set down HTTP semantics using OWL ontologies, etc. Appendix IV: Themes from Flip Charts on last day of F2F This is what we collected on the flip charts during our wrapup session on priorities at the F2F. I suggest these be included by the scribe at a suitable point in the minutes. Maybe or maybe not it makes sense to show each section at the head of the discussion of that topic. For your reference, the original photos of the flipcharts are attached. The capital letters identify the major topics, each of which had one flip chart: --------------------------- A. HTML Theme * Liaison: to reduce conflict - IETF * Findings: - Error handling (Postel's law / exceptions) * Distributed extensibility arguments (in ESW wiki) * Harmonize XHTML + HTML - Understand both sides * Media-type based namespace defulating, etc. (bridging the gap) * Education for: - Ourselves - HTML Group - (note, a bi-directional arrow connected this with the distributed extensibility bullet above) * Specification layering: orthogonality - finding --------------------------- B. Metadata access and HTTP use * With respect to conneg questions, respond "no" (chairs explanation: I believe this was meant to convey "no, you should not use conneg except when the reprsentations convey substantially the same information) * Firefighting - conneg * Set out core principles (Larrry) - or - * Go bottom up (Tim) * Liaison - Help with the DRD draft - Help with the link header draft - Help with the site metadata draft * Review Jonathan's metadata summary * Check the architectural soundness of the 3 documents mentioned above * Write down principles: e.g. can HTTP URI's "speak to" URI's such as "mailto" --------------------------- C. URI's; Naming; Meaning of Names * Note: HT + JAR commited to new drafts * Members asked us: - what are tradeoffs between using http vs. new naming system (e.g. URI schemes; URN namespaces) * Scheme protocols: explain to community when new protocols do/don't merit new URI schemes --------------------------- D. Semantic Web Architecture (e.g. combining vocabularies & linked data sync) * Produce revised or augmented architecture document integrating Semantic Web and Linked data --------------------------- E. Security Javascript security * Review capability-based systems: track them * Track cross-site scripting * Influence AC to invest in coverage of security - identify holes * Survey applicability of drafts such as: - Origin header (Barth / Hixie) - Security context working group / UI work * Try to greatly increase focus on security at W3C: - update AWWW for security - Liaison w/Web security organizations such as IETF security directorate - Focus phishing --------------------------- F. Mobile * Special concerns of mobile security * Survey workshop report (see F2F minutes for link) * Hear from platform providers * Device independence in era of mobile * Liaison ---------------------------
Received on Sunday, 22 March 2009 15:01:15 UTC