- From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 11:10:02 -0500
- To: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
- Cc: "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
Having received no requests for further updates to the TAG minutes of 28
January 2010 [1], I have marked them as approved (I.e. removed the DRAFT
indication). I have also marked my ACTION-385 as PENDING REVIEW.
I don't recall seeing a text-only form of these minutes go out, so I have
attached that below. Thank you.
Noah
[1] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/01/28-minutes
--------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn
IBM Corporation
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
1-617-693-4036
--------------------------------------
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
Technical Architecture Group Teleconference
28 Jan 2010
[2]Agenda
[2] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/01/28-agenda
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2010/01/28-tagmem-irc
Attendees
Present
Raman, Masinter, Jonathan_Rees, noah, DanC, HT, DKA
Regrets
TimBL, JohnK
Chair
Noah Mendelsohn
Scribe
Larry Masinter
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]1. Convene
2. [6]2. Approval of minutes from 21 Jan
3. [7]3. Administrative items
4. [8]5. W3C TAG position on policy mechanisms for Web APIs
and Services
5. [9]4. ACTION-351 Workshop on persistence
6. [10]6. Authoritative metadata
7. [11]7. TAG Contributions to W3C Web Site
8. [12](new) Resource vs. Representation
9. [13]8. "Speaks for" formalism
10. [14]12. Pending Review Items
* [15]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________
<DanC> trackbot, start meeting
<trackbot> Date: 28 January 2010
<jar> Scribe: Larry Masinter
<jar> scribenick: masinter
1. Convene
Next Meeting: Noah notes his tag work is backing up; he is tempted
to cancel next meeting, but will leave meeting scheduled and hoping
John can scribe.
2. Approval of minutes from 21 Jan
RESOLUTION: approval of ->
[16]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/01/21-minutes minutes of January
21
[16] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/01/21-minutes
3. Administrative items
Noah: prioritizing agenda: good news in that there is work
happening. difficulty getting balance.
... request: TAG members active in a discussion, please step up and
moderate discussion to reach conclusion, summarize different
positions, etc.
5. W3C TAG position on policy mechanisms for Web APIs and Services
<noah> Email from Frederick Hirsch:
[17]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Jan/0014.html
[17] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Jan/0014.html
<noah> The DAP WG is only beginning to consider the privacy topic
and would appreciate all help it can obtain from anyone that can
help us achieve a good practical result in a reasonable time. Our
initial starting point will be to examine the decision of the
Geolocation Working Group in more detail. [...describes a
proposal...] While we intend to look at each of the assertions made
in that resolution and see if and how they would apply to our own
set of APIs, we would very much welcome the TAGs perspective on that
resolution
<scribe> scribenick: noah
LM: There was significant unhappiness with geolocation resolution,
and I think we should say it's not a good precedent.
DKA: When I sat in on the first working group meeting as an
observer, not sure I can concur
LM: Don't concur there was unhappiness?
Noah thinks LM meant "the TAG was unhappy"
LM: There was a letter from IETF, and formal objections from Cisco
and Center for Privacy and Freedo
DKA: I spoke to the area director for IETF recently.
<DanC> "the TAG was unhappy" needs a pointer to records. I'm pretty
sure the TAG hasn't decided anything in this space
noah: Right, Dan. My recollection is that we had discussion of the
unhappiness of TAG members. I also think we did send an email, but
not sure "unhappiness" quite characterizes what that email said.
Can't find reference now. Can anyone?
<scribe> scribenick: masinter
dka: there was a meeting. The browser vendors, Google, and our
opinions were that it was inappropriate things to put privacy hooks
into the API
... the input from the EFP and GeoPriv working group was taken very
seriously by the group chairs, and there was a lot of text put into
the document. I wasn't a direct participant but I was mentoring
someone who was, and my understanding was there was a lot of
outreach. Still we got a formal objection.
<Zakim> DanC, you wanted to ask whether this decision predates those
objections
danc: Did the Geolocation decision (see the email we've been
reading) come before the IETF letter, or vice versa?
DC: Trying to figure out if the asserted "unhappiness" is cause or
effect
dka: i think it was last call, and it was not a single decision in
the GeoLocation working group resolution
(discussion about chronology)
<DanC> I concur with "don't generalize"
LM: What i am trying to say is that the GeoLocation decision was
reached after much discussion which seemed to be localized to a
single decision about a single API to access a single bit of
information: geographic location. Because this was so finely argued
and the compromise reached after much discussion and contextualized,
the Device API working group should not use this decision as a
precedent.
<noah> Larry mentioned this note from me:
[18]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Jan/0102.html ,
agreed with reasons why issues for Geolocation may not generalize,
even if we posit that the geolocation solution was OK for that.
[18] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Jan/0102.html
dka: there was some politics around the responses
<Zakim> noah, you wanted to get back to Frederick's request
danc: Frederick Hirsch seems to be happy with the email exchange,
are we done?
noah: gets back to question. His note says:
<noah> From Frederick's note: "Our initial starting point will be to
examine the decision of the Geolocation Working Group in more
detail. This decision was *not* to include privacy rules as part of
the API. That decision is documented with the following Geolocation
WG resolution:
noah: what he's saying that we're taking this as a possible starting
point. Some of us weighed in and the TAG discussed it.
... we could more formally say something as the TAG, given the
concerns, the TAG wishes to signal real reservations
LM: I met at the IETF in Stockholm with IETF area directors and WG
chairs. They were concerned. Part of that discussion was that
compromise might be reached in this case, but it should not be taken
as a good prededent.
<DanC> (Noah, is what you're saying in your msg?
[19]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Jan/0046.html )
[19] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Jan/0046.html
<Zakim> noah, you wanted to discuss technical solution
noah: I have suggested several times: if you're not going to put it
in the API, show that your API has sufficient extensibility
mechanism, possibly those that allow you to decide whether
extensions are present.... and show how this can be used. (noah
explains details of how this can be written).
naoh: I'd be unhappy if the document did not at least talk about
that.
dka: on the issue of what we tell Frederick, it's appropriate to say
that you should not take this as a precedent. There are some
specific technical reservations that Google, Opera and Mozilla have
to the kind of approach that Noah is suggesting, that essentially
boil down to something that is non-enforcable
noah: worth noting, but shouldn't resolve this
<DanC> (stronger than "not enforceable"; as I recall, it was
"misleading")
noah: Want ask DanA with help from Larry to draft a short response
that you think the TAG should send.
<Zakim> DanC, you wanted to try "Don't take it as precedent" today
larry: agrees to review what DKA writes
<DanC> trackbot, status?
<scribe> ACTION: Daniel to draft response to Fredrick, short and to
the point. Larry to review. [recorded in
[20]http://www.w3.org/2010/01/28-tagmem-minutes.html#action01]
[20] http://www.w3.org/2010/01/28-tagmem-minutes.html#action01
<trackbot> Created ACTION-380 - Draft response to Fredrick, short
and to the point. Larry to review. [on Daniel Appelquist - due
2010-02-04].
note: Daniel in tracker is DKA
4. ACTION-351 Workshop on persistence
ht: We've been talking off and on since last summer's F2F about
persistent domain names as one component of the reservations people
have about using URIs for persistent identifiers
... 100 years for now if W3C doesn't exist and MIT screws up, W3C
documents won't be available at their well-known address. We've
discussed many solutions, including new IANA top level domain, or
creating some public body to insure the persistence of these domain
names. At our discussion in December consensus was we shouldn't take
this on, and that we should hold a workshop.
... have spoken to director of Digital Curation Centre
<DanC> [21]Digital Curation Centre at University of Edinburgh
[21] http://www.dcc.ac.uk/
ht: might be in June
... procedural questions:
... do we agree to sponsoring such a workshop
... and to colocate a TAG meeting in Edinburgh in June
<noah> What does sponsoring involve? Money? Our good name?
(discussion about scheduling and conflicts)
<DKA> I'm happy with Edinburgh in June.
<DKA> ...or I would be happy to host the TAG meeting in London
around this time as well...
<lmm> Note 1999 workshop:
[22]http://www.isr.uci.edu/events/twist/twist99/program.html
[22] http://www.isr.uci.edu/events/twist/twist99/program.html
<DanC> workshp should be at least 1.5 days
<scribe> (continued discussion of scheduling)
LM: I would argue against the workshop as a priority
noah: could be independent of having a TAG meeting at all
<jar> The TAG doesn't need to be involved, but it ought to be
noah: you asked that we 'sponsor' this?
ht: be one of the two organizations that is holding the meeting
larry: I wonder about XRI and persistence as another constituency
noah: change action back to open with new due dates
danc: wants this to be W3C workshop and not TAG
... stop discussion for now
ht: let's talk about this offline (to DanC)
larry: I'm not interested enough to do more as TAG
<ht> HST has updated
[23]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/351
[23] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/351
6. Authoritative metadata
(postponing because JK not here)
7. TAG Contributions to W3C Web Site
<noah> Ian sent a note asking if TAG want to contribute to new W3C
Web Site content: "Another of the 7 areas is "Web Architecture"
[$1\47]. We've not yet had the opportunity to flesh out the
introduction pages that are linked from there. Right now, the titles
of those intros (drawn from Webarch):
<noah> Architecture Principles
<noah> Identifiers
<noah> Protocols
<noah> Meta Formats
<noah> Protocol and Meta Format Considerations
<noah> Internationalization (already done by Richard Ishida)
noah: That structure reflects the WebArch document.
... We talked about this at an early meeeting but didn't find the
resoures to do it
<noah> I also said I thought not just any resource will do. We need
people who can write for some particular audience(s), write it well,
etc.
LM: Who does the work?
DC: We do.
<jar> [24]http://www.w3.org/standards/webarch/
[24] http://www.w3.org/standards/webarch/
noah: this is where people come to talk about the web. Would the TAG
like to help the W3C tells the story
... if we could allocate the person-months of writing skill etc.
... seeing these things done well is person-weeks or person-months
<jar> masinter: another approach is to start with what they have and
improve it
<DanC> "This intro text is boilerplate for the beta release of
w3.org." -- [25]http://www.w3.org/standards/webarch/protocols
[25] http://www.w3.org/standards/webarch/protocols
larry: I'm willing to help, but more on the order of hours rather
than weeks
noah: whatever they do, we'll review it?
danc: let individuals volunteer
<jar> ACTION jar to spend 2 hours helping Ian with
[26]http://www.w3.org/standards/webarch/
[26] http://www.w3.org/standards/webarch/
<trackbot> Created ACTION-381 - Spend 2 hours helping Ian with
[27]http://www.w3.org/standards/webarch/ on Jonathan Rees - due
2010-02-04].
[27] http://www.w3.org/standards/webarch/
raman: this should allow comments; saying we will do it ... (makes
it one-way communication)
<jar> action-381 due 2010-02-11
<trackbot> ACTION-381 Spend 2 hours helping Ian with
[28]http://www.w3.org/standards/webarch/ due date now 2010-02-11
[28] http://www.w3.org/standards/webarch/
<noah> ACTION-381?
<trackbot> ACTION-381 -- Jonathan Rees to spend 2 hours helping Ian
with [29]http://www.w3.org/standards/webarch/ -- due 2010-02-11 --
OPEN
[29] http://www.w3.org/standards/webarch/
<trackbot> [30]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/381
[30] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/381
<noah> Looks good to me.
<DanC> (I concur, larry, that findings don't communicate stuff
well... though I have advocated using the blog genre; I'm not
opposed to using the buckets as well or instead.)
larry: i'm wondering whether we should focus on the web site vs.
working on findings and web arch and findings.
noah: the charter says how we are supposed to publish results
LM: Even if this means updating TAG charter
<scribe> ACTION: larry to review Web Arch web material and make
proposals for changes or TAG action [recorded in
[31]http://www.w3.org/2010/01/28-tagmem-minutes.html#action02]
[31] http://www.w3.org/2010/01/28-tagmem-minutes.html#action02
<trackbot> Created ACTION-382 - Review Web Arch web material and
make proposals for changes or TAG action [on Larry Masinter - due
2010-02-04].
(new) Resource vs. Representation
<noah> Discussion from last week:
[32]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/01/21-minutes#item04
[32] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/01/21-minutes#item04
<DanC> action-378?
<trackbot> ACTION-378 -- Dan Connolly to draft suggested text re
resource/representation in HTML 5 for discussion with LMM and JAR --
due 2010-02-03 -- OPEN
<trackbot> [33]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/378
[33] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/378
LM: htmlwg was going to close the issue, but i asked that it stay
open to allow the TAG to volunteer to produce a change proposal
... they don't need us to produce the proposal by tomorrow, just for
someone to commit to producing one that meets the criteria for
change proposals.
DC: I made some progress. Between me and Noah we didn't get it on
the agenda for today. I could work on it, but promising dates is
hard.
NM: Implicitly, not for tomorrow?
LM: By tomorrow, we just need a committed date.
DC: Maybe we can pick a date.
LM: How about March 31, after our next F2F?
DC: Wonder if they'll accept that.
LM: Well, the concern expressed was that Roy couldn't even start for
4 months.
(discussion of
[34]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Jan/0811.htm
l)
[34]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Jan/0811.html)
noah: proposed action, the TAG will by march 31, deliver definitions
plus sample text showing use of those terms in a couple of example
sections
<DanC> -1 definitions
danc: this is an editorial exercise, and my opinion, now, is that
using definitions and samples isn't a good way to go
I suggest we make a commitment to produce, by March 31, a change
proposal that meets the stated HTML-WG requirements for change
proposals, to address the resource vs. representation issue
<DanC> I can go with that proposal, as it's silent on definitions
<noah> RESOLUTION: the TAG will commit to produce, by March 31, a
change proposal that meets the stated HTML-WG requirements for
change proposals, to address the resource vs. representation issue
<DKA> +1
<DanC> action-378?
<trackbot> ACTION-378 -- Dan Connolly to draft suggested text re
resource/representation in HTML 5 for discussion with LMM and JAR --
due 2010-02-03 -- OPEN
<trackbot> [35]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/378
[35] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/378
action-372?
<trackbot> ACTION-372 -- Larry Masinter to tell the HTML WG the TAG
encourages the direction Roy's headed on resource/representation and
endorse his request for more time. -- due 2010-01-20 -- CLOSED
<trackbot> [36]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/372
[36] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/372
NM: Does ACTION-378 cover it for now?
DC: Yes
RESOLUTION: the TAG will commit to produce, by March 31, a change
proposal that meets the stated HTML-WG requirements for change
proposals, to address the resource vs. representation issue
8. "Speaks for" formalism
DC: Did the examples I sent work for you, Larry?
<DanC> "Larry and everybody, Do the examples in this make sense? "
-- [37]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Dec/0105.html
[37] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Dec/0105.html
See: [38]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/dj9/story.html
[38] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/dj9/story.html
DC: Don't know is OK.
LM: I'll take an action for next week to review.
<scribe> ACTION: larry to review DanC's email [recorded in
[39]http://www.w3.org/2010/01/28-tagmem-minutes.html#action03]
[39] http://www.w3.org/2010/01/28-tagmem-minutes.html#action03
<trackbot> Created ACTION-383 - Review DanC's email [on Larry
Masinter - due 2010-02-04].
<noah> DC: Hmm, action is pending review.
<DanC> action-368?
<trackbot> ACTION-368 -- Dan Connolly to write up version change
ontology as blog item
[40]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Sep/0136
-- due 2010-03-01 -- OPEN
[40] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Sep/0136
<trackbot> [41]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/368
[41] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/368
<DanC> ^ an action related to language versioning terminology
12. Pending Review Items
<DanC> close ACTION-371 (edit)
<DanC> close ACTION-375
<trackbot> ACTION-375 Schedule discussion of TAG contributions to
W3C Web Site (self-assigned, TRIVIAL) closed
<DanC> close ACTION-371
<trackbot> ACTION-371 Schedule TAG discussion of DAP WG query on
policy (self-assigned) closed
<DanC> ACTION-163 due 1 Mar
<trackbot> ACTION-163 Coordinate with Ted to build a sample catalog
due date now 1 Mar
<DanC> . close ACTION-231
<DanC> ACTION-232?
<trackbot> ACTION-232 -- Henry S. Thompson to follow-up to
Hausenblas once there's a draft of HTTPbis which has advice on
conneg -- due 2010-02-03 -- OPEN
<trackbot> [42]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/232
[42] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/232
<DanC> close ACTION-231
<trackbot> ACTION-231 Draft replacement for \"how to use conneg\"
stuff in HTTP spec closed
<DanC> action-232 due 29 Jan
<trackbot> ACTION-232 Follow-up to Hausenblas once there's a draft
of HTTPbis which has advice on conneg due date now 29 Jan
<DanC> action-232?
<trackbot> ACTION-232 -- Larry Masinter to follow-up to Hausenblas
once there's a draft of HTTPbis which has advice on conneg -- due
2010-01-29 -- OPEN
<trackbot> [43]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/232
[43] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/232
<trackbot> ACTION-308 -- John Kemp to propose updates to
Authoritative Metadata and Self-Describing Web to acknowledge the
reality of sniffing -- due 2010-01-14 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> [44]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/308
[44] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/308
LMM: adam barth updated mime sniff last week
... i haven't reviewed
<trackbot> ACTION-326 -- Henry S. Thompson to track HTML WG progress
on their bug 8154 on polyglot documents -- due 2010-01-21 --
PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> [45]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/326
[45] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/326
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: Daniel to draft response to Fredrick, short and to the
point. Larry to review. [recorded in
[46]http://www.w3.org/2010/01/28-tagmem-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: larry to review DanC's email [recorded in
[47]http://www.w3.org/2010/01/28-tagmem-minutes.html#action03]
[NEW] ACTION: larry to review Web Arch web material and make
proposals for changes or TAG action [recorded in
[48]http://www.w3.org/2010/01/28-tagmem-minutes.html#action02]
[46] http://www.w3.org/2010/01/28-tagmem-minutes.html#action01
[47] http://www.w3.org/2010/01/28-tagmem-minutes.html#action03
[48] http://www.w3.org/2010/01/28-tagmem-minutes.html#action02
[End of minutes]
_________________________________________________________
Minutes formatted by David Booth's [49]scribe.perl version 1.135
([50]CVS log)
$Date: 2010/02/23 16:05:58 $
[49] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[50] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Tuesday, 23 February 2010 16:10:45 UTC