Draft Minutes for the TAG teleconference of 22 December 2012

Draft minutes from yesterday's teleconference can now be found here:

http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/12/22-minutes.html

And reproduced below in convenient text format.

Thanks,
Dan


   [1]W3C

      [1] http://www.w3.org/

                               - DRAFT -

                          TAG Teleconference

22 Dec 2011

   See also: [2]IRC log
   [3]Agenda

      [2] http://www.w3.org/2011/12/22-tagmem-irc
      [3] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/12/22-agenda.html

Attendees

   Present
          Daniel Appelquist, Jonathan Rees, Ashok Malhotra, Mendelsohn,
          Larry Masinter, Henry Thompson

   Regrets
          Jeni Tennison, Yves Lafon, Peter Linss

   Chair
          Noah Mendelsohn

   Scribe
          Daniel Appelquist, Noah Mendelsohn

Contents

     * [4]Topics
         1. [5]Admin
         2. [6]ISSUE-50 (URNsAndRegistries-50): Persistent references
         3. [7]Persistent References
         4. [8]URI Definition Discovery and httpRange-14
         5. [9]Mime and the Web
     * [10]Summary of Action Items
     _________________________________________________________

Admin

   Noah: Approval of minutes from last week?

   <noah> [11]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/12/15-minutes

     [11] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/12/15-minutes

   [no objections heard]

   Minutes approved.

   Noah: f2f agenda proposal to be coming soon...

ISSUE-50 (URNsAndRegistries-50): Persistent references

   <noah> Looking for comments on proposed text to be sent announcing
   end of TAG "product" work on HTML5 last call review:
   [12]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2011Dec/0041.html

     [12] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2011Dec/0041.html

   <jar_> Noah's action is 599
   [13]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/599

     [13] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/599

   Henry: I want to know what the status of these documents is.
   ... Polyglot is in last call but there's also an editor's draft
   which has different wording.
   ... other question is what about the author document...

   Noah: It got republished.

   <Larry> I'm not sure what the purpose of this announcement is, could
   you explain?

   Henry: Reason I'm asking: regarding the announcement...

   <Larry> we have lots of other products and issues that have been
   open and are still open and we're not closing

   Henry: I'm happy for you to send that document; though I am facing
   some issues.

   <Larry> the announcement is likely to have lots read into it, and
   i'm confused about what we're trying to accomplish

   Noah: I will get this note out [unless there is objection].

   Larry: I am confused on the point.

   <Larry> that's not how the note reads to me

   Noah: I've told the community that when the TAG shifts its
   priorities I will announce that so people know what we're working
   on.
   ... that's the goal.

   Larry: I think we have failed on HTML5 review.

   Noah: This document doesn't say success or fail - it just states the
   facts [relating to the review].
   ... what do others feel?

   <Larry> i'll volunteer to redraft

   JAR: I think it's confusing as is.

   Henry: I think the goal is a good one.

   <jar_> I look at the note and am inclined to ask "why should I care
   (about what's being said)?"

   <DKA>Personally I don't find it too long - I think it's reasonable.

   <Henry> Ship it

   Noah: Can people type words into IRC on what we should do?

   Ship it.

   <Larry> I think what we're doing is refocusing our efforts to look
   at the effects and follow-on of resolving the effect of HTML5 on the
   rest of the W3C recommendations

   <jar_> Add one sentence saying that this is a review of TAG work,
   not new information

   <Larry> We're not "ending" our focus on the technology, but
   realizing that we don't intent to change HTML5, but rather move
   forward.

   Henry: I think Larry's last line in IRC could be useful.

   Noah: I don't want to say that.

   <noah> RESOLUTION: The TAG will close out

   <noah> the major TAG "Product" titled HTML5 Last

   <noah> Call Review, but will pursue ongoing related

   <noah> initiatives (e.g. microdata/RDFa), and

   <noah> will generally keep tracking HTML5 developments

   <Larry> As an internal administrative matter within the TAG....

   <Henry> Fair enough, I suspect I will want us to try to get
   something changed wrt prefixes

   <jar_> Before para "HTML5 Last Call Review" add "The following
   summarizes TAG work on this 'product'." or something like that

   Noah: Larry do you want to add or delete a sentence?

   Larry: I'm willing to draft something.
   ... I think it's likely to be confusing.

   <Larry> an update on TAG priorities would be better than an
   announcement of removing an item without anything about what we're
   going to do instead, then.

   <Larry> your announcemenet doesn't even have a link to the product
   pages

   <Larry> so this is an announcement that the product page that wasn't
   there isn't there?

   <noah> The goal is to tell them about our products

   <noah> [14]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/products/index-2011-09-13.html

     [14] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/products/index-2011-09-13.html

   <Larry> can we get a hit count on that page from the system team?

   <jar_> link to *that* page then

   <Larry> how many people other than TAG members have looked at it
   that we need to announce that a page that wasn't there isn't going
   to be there?

   <jar_> since that is the product page

   <scribe> ACTION: Larry to redraft something on this html5 review in
   3 weeks. recorded in [15]http://www.w3.org/2011/12/22-tagmem-irc]

     [15] http://www.w3.org/2011/12/22-tagmem-irc

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-643 - Redraft something on this html5
   review in 3 weeks. [on Larry Masinter - due 2011-12-29].

   <Larry> i'd rather have an announcement about our priorities going
   forward, in which we note that we've done with this one

   <noah> ACTION: Larry to draft proposed alternative text to e-mail
   announcing end of "product" work on HTML 5 last call (
   [16]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2011Dec/0041.html ) Due
   2012-01-10 recorded in [17]http://www.w3.org/2011/12/22-tagmem-irc]

     [16] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2011Dec/0041.html
     [17] http://www.w3.org/2011/12/22-tagmem-irc

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-644 - Draft proposed alternative text to
   e-mail announcing end of "product" work on HTML 5 last call (
   [18]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2011Dec/0041.html ) Due
   2012-01-10 [on Larry Masinter - due 2011-12-29].

     [18] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2011Dec/0041.html

   <Larry> as the way we acknowledge dropping something, is to say what
   else we're doing

   <noah> ACTION-644 Due 2012-01-10

   <trackbot> ACTION-644 Draft proposed alternative text to e-mail
   announcing end of "product" work on HTML 5 last call (
   [19]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2011Dec/0041.html ) Due
   2012-01-10 due date now 2012-01-10

     [19] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2011Dec/0041.html

   <jar_> public messaging is important, so worth spending a bit of
   time to improve this

Persistent References

   Noah: We need a product page and a report on the workshop.

   <noah> Draft product page:
   [20]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2011Dec/0041.html

     [20] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2011Dec/0041.html

   <noah> Workshop home page:
   [21]http://www.dcc.ac.uk/events/idcc11/workshops

     [21] http://www.dcc.ac.uk/events/idcc11/workshops

   <noah> Draft product page:
   [22]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/products/persistence.html

     [22] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/products/persistence.html

   Henry: URIs and registries and XRI and "http is good enough" etc...
   ... we may have lost a few battles but we seem to be winning the
   war. The crucial change observed over last 18 months or so is that
   the owners and operators / major users of the big non-http URI
   schemes (in particular handle and DOI) are creating URI versions and
   telling people to cite them via URIs.

   <Larry> I wonder, if the issue is "URNs and Registries", why the
   product page doesn't mention URNs ...

   Henry: none-the-less some unfinished business. There's a document we
   need to finish. The other thing- precisely as DOIs begin to use URIs
   via doi.org, the importance of the persistence of their ownership of
   that domain becomes even more important.

   <noah> Hmm, it's not clear to me that this product is supposed to be
   all of URNRegistries-50

   Larry: the product page doesn't mention URNs

   Henry: good point.

   <noah> I think the converse is true, this product is >part of<
   URNSRegistries-50

   <noah> Specifically, this is the persistence bit, right?

   Larry: I would like to be able to explain clearly what we think the
   persistence characteristics are including addressing how URNs fit
   into that.

   Henry: Yes.

   <noah> [23]https://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/50

     [23] https://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/50

   <noah> Issue Scope:

   <noah> This issue covers a) URIs for namespace names b) URNs and
   other proposed systems for "location independent" names c) XML and
   other registries, and perhaps centralized vs. decentralized
   vocabulary tracking.

   Noah: I'm happy with this but things need straightening out. We have
   an issue-50.
   ... My impression is that along the way we noticed that persistence
   was important to focus on and we have done this under issue-50 but
   [issue-50 is bigger than this topic].

   <Larry> There's URNbis

   <noah> NM: My main point is that scope of ISSUE-50 is broader than
   the product. That's working as designed.

   <noah> NM: I am fine with the proposed change from Larry and HT,
   because as HT says, persistence was one of the reasons brought up
   for people wanting URNs

   Henry: we had the meeting in london when we had the British Library
   and UCL people to talk with us about domain name persistence. I
   pushed towards having a workshop to engage the community. Now that
   has happened (with help from JAR and Digital Curation Centre).
   ... We had lots of people there - good group of people - we did miss
   some reps from linked data community.

   <Larry> "Uncool URIs MUST change!"

   <noah> Hmm...when workshop report is done, we should probably decide
   whether to close ACTION-528

   Henry: IRC Log from workshop is available.

   <noah> ACTION-528?

   <trackbot> ACTION-528 -- Henry Thompson to create and get consensus
   on a product page and tracker product page for persistence of names
   -- due 2011-11-29 -- PENDINGREVIEW

   <trackbot> [24]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/528

     [24] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/528

   <jar_> Workshop log:
   [25]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/12/dnap-workshop/notes.html

     [25] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/12/dnap-workshop/notes.html

   <noah> ACTION-477?

   <trackbot> ACTION-477 -- Henry Thompson to organize meeting on
   persistence of domains -- due 2011-10-04 -- CLOSED

   <trackbot> [26]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/477

     [26] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/477

   Henry: there are notes - lots of interesting reading linked from
   that page.

   <noah> ACTION-620?

   Henry: there are 2 headlines.

   <trackbot> ACTION-620 -- Henry Thompson to with help from Jonathan,
   to report on persistent domain workshop -- due 2012-01-15 -- OPEN

   <trackbot> [27]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/620

     [27] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/620

   Henry: a full report will follow.

   <noah> NM: Should we keep ACTION-620 open until the written report
   is done?

   <noah> HT: Yes, please.

   <noah> HT: Consensus was that a new top level domain is not the
   right way to go about this.

   <Larry> I'd like to bring up SOPA and recent court cases which force
   ISPs to redirect domain names

   <noah> Could you clarify reference to 8 January?

   <dka> New ICANN process? Please clarify.

   <Henry> Yes, ICANN.

   <jar_> New gTLD process - applications accepted starting Jan 8 - for
   three months

   <Henry> New top level domain, put up $150,000 bond. It'phoneor
   things like .newyork and .ibm

   <Henry> Very big deal.

   <Larry> as a point an intrinsic conflict between
   DNS-as-permanent-naming vs. DNS-as-operational-system subject to
   tweaking

   Henry: the 2 headlines are: consensus was that new ICANN top level
   domain process was not the right way to go about this. This is the
   new "put up $150k bond" thing.

   <noah> So...they're deciding that $150,000 does not in all cases
   lead to persistence? :-)

   <jar_>
   [28]http://valideus.com/news-from-icann-new-gtld-launch-confirmed-in
   -january-2012/

     [28] http://valideus.com/news-from-icann-new-gtld-launch-confirmed-in-january-2012/

   <jar_> seems to be Jan 12, not Jan 8

   Henry: 2nd headline - as a result of the conversation, someone named
   Gavin Brown from a UK registry came up with a new idea - to use
   .arpa. Because .arpa is a bit like example.com - it is operated by
   IETF on behalf of icann. In order to get a subdomain you have to get
   an RFC approved.

   <noah> HT: Proposal from Gavin Brown(?) to use .arpa, which has
   surprisingly special status. In particular, you need to go through
   getting an RFC approved.

   Henry: there are 2 different potential approaches to this idea.

   <jar_> [29]http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3172

     [29] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3172

   Henry: more details will be in the report.

   <noah> Why .arpa rather than .per (for persistent or some such), but
   with rules designed to match those now in effect for .arpa?

   Henry: Crucial aspect of any mechanism designed to manage allocation
   of robust domains has to have a substantial community review
   component. WHat people liked about the .arpa story is that it
   already has that in place.

   HT: Anything to add?

   JAR: No, thank you.

   <Zakim> Larry, you wanted to discuss SOPA, legal cases

   <DKA> Henry: we didn't have discussions on takedowns / forced loss
   of domain names / the political side of this.

   LM: I'm nervous that there are starting to be legal cases in which
   courts order modifications to DNS. DNS is not promoted as
   persistent. [Scribe is not sure he got the nuances.]

   <Larry> "takedown" as part of the way in which the world treats
   DNS... and what that has to do with this?

   HT: We didn't discuss takedown in detail, but it's an important
   consideration.

   <jar_> Larry: takedown threat - how related to http: persistence ?

   <jar_> jar: or to urn: persistence for that matter

   <DKA> ... persistent naming schemes depend on two intertwined
   phemenon.

   HT: Persistent naming depends on (1) binding and (2) resolution.

   <Larry> i'm not nervous, and i think this has been happening for a
   while, i just saw these things in the last few weeks and wondered

   HT: DNS lookup is a good example of resolution.

   <Larry> they've been redirecting, not just taking down

   <jar_> example of binding: A credible spec that says a particular
   URI has a particular meaning

   HT: It's important to talk about what happens when binding gets out
   of sync with resolution. One reason might be court-ordered takedown.

   JAR: In any persistent system, there must be some act you do to
   cause a name to become bound, and that's irrevocable.
   ... Binding and ownership are different. Ownership is in principle
   the right to change binding, but in a persistent system, you won't
   be changing bindings.

   ACTION-528?

   <trackbot> ACTION-528 -- Henry Thompson to create and get consensus
   on a product page and tracker product page for persistence of names
   -- due 2011-11-29 -- PENDINGREVIEW

   <trackbot> [30]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/528

     [30] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/528

   HT: Need to keep that open as I have revisions to make and to
   propose next steps.

   <Larry> reopen 528

   ACTION-528?

   <trackbot> ACTION-528 -- Henry Thompson to create and get consensus
   on a product page and tracker product page for persistence of names
   -- due 2012-01-02 -- OPEN

   <trackbot> [31]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/528

     [31] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/528

   ACTION-477?

   <trackbot> ACTION-477 -- Henry Thompson to organize meeting on
   persistence of domains -- due 2011-10-04 -- CLOSED

   <trackbot> [32]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/477

     [32] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/477

   <Henry> Two topics for the Persistence f2f slot: 1) JAR to reprise
   his presentation to the workshop; 2) HST and JAR to introduce the
   .arpa approach in more detail

URI Definition Discovery and httpRange-14

   ACTION-624?

   <trackbot> ACTION-624 -- Jonathan Rees to draft for TAG
   consideration a call for httpRange-14 change proposals -- due
   2011-12-31 -- PENDINGREVIEW

   <trackbot> [33]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/624

     [33] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/624

   ACTION-625?

   <trackbot> ACTION-625 -- Noah Mendelsohn to schedule followup
   discussion of [34]http://www.w3.org/wiki/HttpRange14Options (per
   agreement in Santa Clara) -- due 2011-12-21 -- PENDINGREVIEW

     [34] http://www.w3.org/wiki/HttpRange14Options

   <trackbot> [35]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/625

     [35] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/625

   ACTION-589?

   <trackbot> ACTION-589 -- Noah Mendelsohn to work with Jonathan to
   update URI definition discovery product page Due: 2011-08-18 -- due
   2011-12-23 -- OPEN

   <trackbot> [36]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/589

     [36] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/589

   close ACTION-625

   <trackbot> ACTION-625 Schedule followup discussion of
   [37]http://www.w3.org/wiki/HttpRange14Options (per agreement in
   Santa Clara) closed

     [37] http://www.w3.org/wiki/HttpRange14Options

   Proposed product page:
   [38]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/products/defininguris.html

     [38] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/products/defininguris.html

   JAR: I did some work on the product page on Dec. 5
   ... I think we agreed the attempt made to deal with this in 2005
   didn't actually work out. We talked in June about possibly needing
   to take something to Rec track.
   ... I made the suggestion to do this in the form of a call for
   change proposals.
   ... It's been a problem that some of the proposals aren't complete
   enough...trying to get an organized proposal around this.
   ... To have change proposals, you need a baseline, so I hatched one:
   [39]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/12/uddp/
   ... We're wrestling with RDF (scribe wonders if he meant URIs?) for
   linking vs. metadata
   ... To date, it's mainly been an RDF issue.
   ... The only test of whether we've succeeded is to see what kind of
   RDF people write
   ... Because of the emphasis on RDF, Larry has suggested taking this
   out of the TAG, Tim has said he wants it in the TAG. For now it's
   here.

     [39] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/12/uddp/

   LM: Don't think we can just lob it over to RDF; we do need to at
   least give some direction

   JAR: When this product page was first created we talked about
   getting to PR or equivalent by July. I wrote a schedule that's
   looking extremely aggressive.

   NM: Are these dates still realistic, if aggresive? If so, I'm OK
   with that. I don't like carrying dates that we know in advance are
   likely to be unrealistic.

   JAR: We can change dates if you want?

   NM: Not if you feel it's still a realistic motivator.

   JAR: Well, let's see if change proposals come in. If they don't,
   then dates definitely aren't realistic. If they do, we might be ok.

   <Larry> i think it's fine

   <Larry> the product page is fine

   NM: Any objections to removing the draft notification from the
   product page?

   No objections.

   <jar_> if no CPs come in then the dates are realistic

   <scribe> ACTION: Noah to take off draft indication and put dates on
   URI Definition and Discovery Product page [recorded in
   [40]http://www.w3.org/2011/12/22-tagmem-irc]

     [40] http://www.w3.org/2011/12/22-tagmem-irc

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-645 - Take off draft indication and put
   dates on URI Definition and Discovery Product page [on Noah
   Mendelsohn - due 2011-12-29].

   ACTION-589?

   <trackbot> ACTION-589 -- Noah Mendelsohn to work with Jonathan to
   update URI definition discovery product page Due: 2011-08-18 -- due
   2011-12-23 -- OPEN

   <trackbot> [41]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/589

     [41] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/589

   close ACTION-589

   <trackbot> ACTION-589 Work with Jonathan to update URI definition
   discovery product page Due: 2011-08-18 closed

   <Larry> i've looked at them

   LM: I think the idea of a baseline is good, and the call for change
   proposals look OK.

   HT: I have not looked at it since JAR and I worked on it 10 days
   ago. Will try for tomorrow.

   JAR: I need good review, because this stuff is controversial, and I
   want to get it right.

   ACTION-624?

   <trackbot> ACTION-624 -- Jonathan Rees to draft for TAG
   consideration a call for httpRange-14 change proposals -- due
   2011-12-31 -- PENDINGREVIEW

   <trackbot> [42]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/624

     [42] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/624

   NM: We can give you blessing to send when you see fit, or wait for
   F2F

   JAR: I'd wait anyway.

   NM: I'll leave ACTION-624 pending

   JAR: OK

   <Larry> based on 12/8 resolution

Mime and the Web

   NM: Larry has asked for a few minutes to review some work he's done.

   LM: I decided I liked the word "evolution" better than extensibilty.

   <Larry> [43]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/12/evolution/

     [43] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/12/evolution/

   <Larry> RESOLUTION: The TAG, with Larry in the lead, will prepare a
   document (based on
   [44]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2011Dec/att-0037/dra
   ft-registries.txt), likely a finding, discussing architecture for
   extensibility points in specifications, including but not
   necessarily limited to registries. This will augment the soon-to-be
   published (short) work on MIME architecture.RESOLUTION: The TAG,
   with Larry in the lead, will prepare a

     [44] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2011Dec/att-0037/draft-registries.txt)

   <Larry> document (based on
   [45]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2011Dec/att-0037/dra
   ft-registries.txt), likely a finding, discussing architecture for
   extensibility points in specifications, including but not
   necessarily limited to registries. This will augment the soon-to-be
   published (short) work on MIME architecture.

     [45] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2011Dec/att-0037/draft-registries.txt)

   LM: There was a resolution suggesting that I do work in this
   direction.

   <jar_> Larry's email on this:
   [46]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2011Dec/0085.html

     [46] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2011Dec/0085.html

   <jar_> oops. not quite.

   LM: Seems to me there are a lot of interrelated: hard to talk about
   mime without registries, or registries without identifiers.

   <Larry>
   [47]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/12/evolution/Concepts.html

     [47] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/12/evolution/Concepts.html

   LM: So, I split things out. The top level document originally had
   everything; now it links to separate documents.

   <Larry> three things: languages as they are used, the
   implementations that use them, and the specifications that describe
   them

   LM: The only one I think is relatively stable is the "concepts and
   terminology". It's been very helpful for me to talk separately
   about: 1) the languages as they are used and 2) the specifications
   that describe them
   ... When we talk about registries, versions, etc., it becomes
   important to talk about which of these we're dealing with. When we
   do, things get clearer.
   ... So, look at the concepts first.

   NM: We'll have a F2F session. Are you planning to do more work
   before then?

   <Larry> i'm really looking for feedback on structure & scope

   LM: Yes

   <Larry> and not a careful review of editorial content

   LM: Concepts is the one that's worth reading now.
   ... Want to talk about structure and scope informally.

   NM: What do you want the focus of the agenda item to be.
   ... We'll discuss at least structure and scope, and look in detail
   at concepts which will be required reading. Maybe or maybe not other
   work will make it in time for the required list.
   ... We should also discuss the new product page.

   LM: Make the product page required reading, and finalize at the F2F

Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: Larry to draft proposed alternative text to e-mail
   announcing end of "product" work on HTML 5 last call (
   https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2011Dec/0041.html ) Due
   2012-01-10 recorded in [48]http://www.w3.org/2011/12/22-tagmem-irc]
   [NEW] ACTION: Larry to redraft something on this html5 review in 3
   weeks. recorded in [49]http://www.w3.org/2011/12/22-tagmem-irc]
   [NEW] ACTION: Noah to take off draft indication and put dates on URI
   Definition and Discovery Product page [recorded in
   [50]http://www.w3.org/2011/12/22-tagmem-irc]

     [48] http://www.w3.org/2011/12/22-tagmem-irc
     [49] http://www.w3.org/2011/12/22-tagmem-irc
     [50] http://www.w3.org/2011/12/22-tagmem-irc

   [End of minutes]
     _________________________________________________________


    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [51]scribe.perl version 1.135
    ([52]CVS log)
    $Date: 2011/12/23 15:44:49 $

     [51] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
     [52] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/