- From: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
- Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2011 08:23:46 -0500
- To: "Appelquist, Daniel, VF-Group" <Daniel.Appelquist@vodafone.com>
- Cc: tag <www-tag@w3.org>
I would add before the line "<noah> referent" an explanation that Noah had called a poll asking for everyone's preference of 'meaning' vs. 'referent'. I would tend to edit out lines like "<noah> RESOLUTIO: ..." where a correction immediately follows. A similar case is <noah> RESOLUTION: to change tile of issue-57 to Mechanisms for obtaining information about the intended <noah> meaning of a given URI <noah> meaning of a given URI and add para of description per jonathans email which is fixed right away... don't think this adds any value to the record, and detracts a bit. If someone really cares they can look at the IRC log. I'll make these changes if you like. Thanks -Jonathan On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 3:40 AM, Appelquist, Daniel, VF-Group <Daniel.Appelquist@vodafone.com> wrote: > Hi all please find draft minutes from 03-03 call here: > > http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/03/03-minutes.html > > Also, text version pasted below. Please let me know if there should be any > revisions. > > Dan > > --- > [1]W3C > > [1] http://www.w3.org/ > > - DRAFT - > > TAG telcon > > 03 Mar 2011 > > [2]Agenda > > [2] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/03/03-agenda.html > > See also: [3]IRC log > > [3] http://www.w3.org/2011/03/03-tagmem-irc > > Attendees > > Present > Larry Masinter, Jonathan Rees, Peter Linss, Noah Mendelsohn, > Henry S. Thompson, Yves Lafon, Daniel Appelquist, John Kemp > > Regrets > > Chair > Noah Mendelsohn > > Scribe > Henry S. Thompson > Daniel Appelquist > > Contents > > * [4]Topics > 1. [5]IAB Panel > 2. [6]interaction story for web applications > 3. [7]303 related issues. > * [8]Summary of Action Items > _________________________________________________________ > > <johnk> hmmm, I'm having trouble getting into the call... > > <ht> scribe: Henry S. Thompson > > Peter: Regrets for next week > > <johnk> johnk > > <Yves> I read the first two days, and thought they were OK. > > <jar_> have scanned the f2f minutes (for lines with my own initials > and a bit more) > > Noah: f2f minutes read by anyone? > > Jonathan: Scanned, but not read in detail > > <johnk> FWIW, I read the first day and thought it was OK > > Yves: Read first two days carefully, since I wasn't there, they were > fine > > <Larry> +1 approve minutes > > Noah: RESOLVED: Approve the 8--10 Feb f2f minutes > > <noah> PROPOSE: Approve minutes of 8-10 Feb 2011 > [9]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/08-agenda > > [9] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/08-agenda > > <noah> RESOLUTIO: Minutes of 8-10 Feb 2011 > [10]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/08-agenda are approved > > [10] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/08-agenda > > <noah> RESOLUTION: Minutes of 8-10 Feb 2011 > [11]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/08-agenda are approved > > [11] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/08-agenda > > Noah: Some concerns about the initial draft, please try harder > ... Minutes of 24 Feb? > > <noah> RESOLUTION: Minutes of 24 Feb 2011 > [12]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/24-minutes are approved > > [12] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/24-minutes > > Peter: I reviewed a bit > > Noah: John is coming back for this call for his work item. > ... Put one thing ahead - IAB panel. > ... Also - at f2f Dan suggested we talk about offline web > application packaging. > ... Also we should discuss 303 redirections. > > IAB Panel > > Noah: anything you'd like to spend time on, Henry? > > Henry: Not at this time. > > Noah: Anyone else? > > Larry: Relationship between scalability and registries - I had some > thoughts. > ... We had this issue and discussion on role of registries and IANA. > ... We had a discussion on MIME types. > ... Architectural issue is preference in webarch for using URIs > rather than registered values (DTD style). > > <noah> Good point, Larry > > <jar_> jar +1 larry saying: Scalability of URI access relates to the > registry question. > > <Larry> I was trying to talk about a somewhat vague thought > connecting work on registries to work on scalability > > <noah> What I heard was: if you're going to encourage people to use > URIs for things that otherwise would have been in registries, you > tempt them to make accesses to those URIs, and we've seen that as a > source of scalability problems. > > <Larry> if the web architecture prefers using URI-assignment rather > than registry allocation by IANA.... > > <jar_> E.g. putting the registries and schemas in URI space under > urn: instead of http: might somehow help with scalability question. > Yes? > > Larry: In so far as this talk at IETF is to start some discussions > on web architecture and internet architecture: we can have topics we > want to talk about even if we don't have answers. > > <Zakim> noah, you wanted to say it's only one bit of the scalability > problem. > > <jar_> maybe. > > <Larry> well, if the URI used was "data:", there wouldn't have been > a scalability issue > > Noah: I see the scalability problem as a fundamental issue for the > web. This type of problem is one concern but not the only one that > might arise. > > <Larry> early discussions were about unexpected flash crowds, where > some TV commentator says "look up this cool picture at NASA" and > suddenly NASA's web space is cut down > > Noah: For example, the home page for nytimes and cnn - these people > aren't surprised about heavy access, but you could imaging lots of > different resources that might have the same scalability issues. > > <Larry> [13]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content-centric_networking > > [13] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content-centric_networking > > Noah: ... when you use URIs, there are scalability issues because > people do [dereference] them inappropriately. > > Larry: I am also worried about content-centric networking... would > like to understand this better. > > <Yves> scalability issue depends also on cache infrastructures in > the network > > MN: [it might be premature to discuss it at the IETF meeting] > > <Zakim> ht, you wanted to add that if I put in a slide on this, I > should add two lines about the registry<->URI connection in e.g. > XPointer scheme names > > Henry: I think it's important to realise that there are a number of > cases in which the boundaries between registries and URIs have been > blurred. > ... It's worth mentioning : we do have a very intentional hybrid > system - the xpointer registry - a database backed registry which > results in a URI being served for everything in the registry. > > Larry: Can you give an overview for the panel? > > Henry: Yes I think so. > > Noah: Moving on to John's topic. > > ACTION-355? > > <trackbot> ACTION-355 -- John Kemp to explore the degree to which > AWWW and associated findings tell the interaction story for Web > Applications -- due 2011-02-02 -- PENDINGREVIEW > > <trackbot> [14]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/355 > > [14] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/355 > > interaction story for web applications > > Noah: To frame: identification (URIs), interaction (protocols), ... > ... when we started to look at extending work on web arch to > application (as opposed to docuemnts) and we started to see > interactions which are not simple request-response, John undertook > this issue to frame the interaction issues for webapps. > > <noah> ACTION-355? > > <trackbot> ACTION-355 -- John Kemp to explore the degree to which > AWWW and associated findings tell the interaction story for Web > Applications -- due 2011-02-02 -- PENDINGREVIEW > > <trackbot> [15]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/355 > > [15] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/355 > > <johnk> > [16]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Jun/0034.html > > [16] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Jun/0034.html > > John: I did an investigation of awww. What I found I sent in an > email to the TAG list. > > <noah> Email: > [17]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2011Feb/0058.html > > [17] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2011Feb/0058.html > > John: the way the interaction model is currently described is over > http. > > <noah> Links to document: > [18]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/10/interaction-examples.html > > [18] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/10/interaction-examples.html > > John: some of the things I mentioned were client-side manipulation > and generation of URIs... > ... what is the relationship between a server-side application and > the client-side javascript that's running and what enables the > client-side script to know it can construct a URI reliably? > ... comet, websocket, ajax-based polling: information rendered to > the user is different than what was downloaded initially. > ... In the old model, you had to be running a server to expose a > resource on the web; now you have clients that are servers, also > exposing client resources (e.g. gps) exposed as web resources to > another entity. > ... multi-party security is an issue - multiple pieces of content > are mashed up to create a running application. > ... More recently I wrote some examples. > ... one is the use of websockets; another is the use of geo api to > expose the client's location to the document they've downloaded; > another is client-side URI generation. > > <noah> I think when we expose something like an accelerometer using > Javascript APIs as opposed to URIs, then it's best not to call that > a "Web resource". What we have are resources that are linkable > through the mechanisms of the Web, others (like the acceleromotere) > available only at the client, and others that are networked with > non-Web protocols. > > John: I think it would be useful to use these examples as a > framework to talk about [webapps architecture] > ... All of these things are dependent on an eventing based model > associated with javascript and a document object model that runs on > the client - different from http - so different from what is > document in awww. > > Noah: Open floor for discussion. > ... How deep and how broad is our investigation of webapps going to > be? > ... is this close to a TAG finding? > ... doesn't really draw conclusions yet. > ... do we want to carry forward with work based on this? > ... to elaborate some principles / best practices - terminology for > the abstractions and good practices. > > DKA+1 to us building on John's work. > > Larry: WebApps are [where it's at] > > <jar_> mnot: "Open Source is taking the place of Open Standards" > > Noah: Do we have one or two individuals who can work aggressively on > this - 5 to 10 hours a week to write and gain consensus - on this > topic? > > Larry: We have a motivation to work on this in terms of starting > some conversations ... at the IETF panel ... IETF has raised some > issues on webapps ... > > <jar_> noah would prefer to talk about who is doing the work, rather > than the work. > > Noah: We set ourselves a goal of writing a new section of webarch - > new story about interaction. If we're going to write something we > need to write it. > > Dan: I think we need to engage with a webapps community of practice > to work on this - worried about being able to do this. > > Noah: we should be challenging that community by asking some > questions [ / making some assertions]. > ... Webarch has good stuff like cool URIs don't change, etc.. > provides real advice. > ... we should get to that point. Where we can say : here's good > practice and here's bad - and here's useful terminology... > ... We should say something specific. > > Larry: In the general problem - where we have something to say > that's important but we don't have the resources - could we e.g. ask > the webapps working group what should happen to awww to make it more > relevant to them? > > Noah: Goal here is to update the TAG document. > ... I'm frustrated we can't find the time to do this. > > Larry: What if we publish this as a blog post, ask for suggestions > from the community? > > <johnk> I would not want to publish what I've already done as a blog > post > > Noah: Chapters suggest terminology, they have principles, good > practices notes... > > <jar_> What problem does web architecture solve? ... the answer > would tell us what to do in the apps space. > > <Larry> maybe we will get some feedback from IETF meeting on what we > need to do? > > Dan: I am happy to reach out the webapps chairs... am worried about > the impactfulness of this proposed document to the community we are > trying to influence. > > Noah: We committed to do some work in this space... > ... I think you [Dan] are saying the deliverable might be premature. > ... then I think we should stop telling the community we're going to > do comprehensive work on webapps. > > <jar_> Every journey begins with a single step. > > Noah: I am willing to back off on the notion that one of our big > deliverables is a comprehensive webapps architecture. > > Jonathan: I think the goal has been a good one -- in that we have > looked at topics [in this space]. > > Noah: if what we're doing is chaining from "major document" to > "umbrella theme which is influencing a number of point pieces of > work" then we should [be clear on that > ... ] > > <jar_> Has to do with the TAG status report, setting W3C mgmt > expectations. > > Jonathan: There's no crisis here - > ... the people who did AWWW felt like there was a real reason to do > it. > ... one thing we need here - we should try to figure out what are > the dangers - what are the bad things that might go wrong if we > don't publish this. > > Noah: My perception on webarch - the TAG has principles in its > charter; one of these is to document principles of web architecture. > Web apps architecture f[follows on from this]. When you read webarch > and then look at [web apps] [they don't fit together.] > ... We should document the web architecture as used today. > > Jonathan: I think it's not just a matter of responsibility and > charter - bad things can actually happen and we care about them. > > Henry: I don't want to lose this task. If I have time between now > and the end of my time on the TAG this will be the next thing up > because I think it's hugely important. > > [discussion on priorities] > > Noah: Propose we close ACTION-355 with thanks to John - then see > what else we can propose in the short term. > > <ht> ACTION: Noah to work with HST to identify a way forward wrt > interaction [recorded in > [19]http://www.w3.org/2011/03/03-tagmem-minutes.html#action01] > > [19] http://www.w3.org/2011/03/03-tagmem-minutes.html#action01 > > <trackbot> Created ACTION-536 - Work with HST to identify a way > forward wrt interaction [on Noah Mendelsohn - due 2011-03-10]. > > <noah> ACTION-355? > > <trackbot> ACTION-355 -- John Kemp to explore the degree to which > AWWW and associated findings tell the interaction story for Web > Applications -- due 2011-02-02 -- PENDINGREVIEW > > <trackbot> [20]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/355 > > [20] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/355 > > close ACTION-355 > > <trackbot> ACTION-355 Explore the degree to which AWWW and > associated findings tell the interaction story for Web Applications > closed > > <ht> action-536 due 2011-08-01 > > <trackbot> ACTION-536 Work with HST to identify a way forward wrt > interaction due date now 2011-08-01 > > Noah: Now - proposals on short-term work? > > John: Larry mentioned mark N's comments - related to this issue. > ... we could link these together.... > > <noah> ACTION Dan to reach out to Web apps chair to solicit help on > framing architecture (incluing terminology, good practice) relating > to interaction > > <trackbot> Created ACTION-537 - Reach out to Web apps chair to > solicit help on framing architecture (incluing terminology, good > practice) relating to interaction [on Daniel Appelquist - due > 2011-03-10]. > > <Larry> hmmm, s/web apps chair/web apps working group/ > > <jar_> larry email was sent feb 18... > > Noah: Anything else under this interaction topic? If not, let's move > on... > > <Yves> > [21]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2011Feb/0128.html > > [21] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2011Feb/0128.html > > Noah: Please put links to this in ACTION-355 and ACTION-356. > > <johnk> > [22]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2011Feb/0128.html > > [22] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2011Feb/0128.html > > <ht> +1 to JR's proposal to regroup under a renamed ISSUE-57 > > 303 related issues. > > <jar_> I proposed > [23]http://www.w3.org/mid/AANLkTik5oUpZLs6MVQ5QZEtjqVjLUDWWAo0yLFiXR > 9e0%2540mail.gmail.com > > [23] > http://www.w3.org/mid/AANLkTik5oUpZLs6MVQ5QZEtjqVjLUDWWAo0yLFiXR9e0%2540mail > .gmail.com > > <ht> +1 to JR's proposed new name for ISSUE-57 -- close enough for > government work > > Jonathan: I did a survey of URI meaning issues... Rather than > opening a new issue it might be better to use ISSUE-57. > ... if we just fix the title and amend it then it will serve > perfectly well. > ... I found one caution from Tim. > > <jar_> @f2f timbl: Let's not re-define issues under the same number, > that's fraud :-) > > Jonathan: but this isn't a redefinition - just a re-titling. > > Noah: Do you want to make a case for the scope / new title. > > Jonathan: The issue was opened up because of an email to the TAG > regarding 303's - that they weren't working and urging the TAG to > look at other ways to do the same thing. > > <noah> [24]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2007/07/16-minutes#item06 > > [24] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2007/07/16-minutes#item06 > > <noah> [25]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues#httpRange-14 > > [25] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues#httpRange-14 > > <noah> [26]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Mar/0273 > > [26] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Mar/0273 > > <noah> [27]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Mar/0092 > > [27] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Mar/0092 > > [some discussion on history of the issue] > > <noah> At their meeting in 16th July 2007 [$1\47] the TAG resolved > to create a new issue, HttpRedirections-57 as a response to a > community request > > <noah> [$1\47] > [28]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2007/07/16-minutes#item06 > > [28] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2007/07/16-minutes#item06 > > <noah> [29]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/57 > > [29] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/57 > > <jar_> [30]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2007Jul/0034 > > [30] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2007Jul/0034 > > <jar_> that's giovanni's email which i consider the heart of > issue-57 > > <Larry> I don't understand what we're talking about and why we're > taking meeting time to talk about it > > <Larry> maybe JAR and Noah can take this offline and come back with > one or two proposals for what to do? > > Jonathan: the way I think of this - issue-14 was closed with a > decision about how 200s are used - our alternative for those > troubled by this is 303. > ... years passed by ... > ... then people started saying the solution (using 303) doesn't > work. > ... that's a problem that never got fixed - that I'm trying to fix > this year. > ... hence issue-57. > > <noah> From issue-57 description: > > <noah> At the TAG F2F of 4 March 2009 > ([31]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/03/04-minutes#item03), the TAG > agreed to "split Issue-57 into two issues as edited by NM, with one > abstention DanC". Issue 62 was opened immediately. Later issue 63 > was opened. > > [31] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/03/04-minutes#item03) > > <Larry> If people who are trying to deploy something don't like the > implementation consequences of a TAG finding.... it just shows to me > the risk of the TAG coming out with "findings" that propose > technology solutions, without the 'direct' participation of the > implementation community > > [discussion on whether or not issue-57 was superseded] > > <Larry> and this should be a topic of a working group, not the TAG > > <Larry> I have no problem with JAR changing issues to match his > understanding of the issue > > <jar_> larry: The TAG made a recommendation (little R) for 303, and > it didn't get review. > > <noah> I disagree...it didn't get formal AC review, but it got a ton > of community review (if not complete consensus) > > <jar_> larry: People said, we tried it and it didn't work for us... > therefore need a WG > > Larry: What should happen now is to tell people who are trying to > engineer solutions : you should form a working group. Because we > suggested a direction, but if it's not working then I don't think > the response should be we should go back and review them. The > response should be : Ok - the thing we recommended has performance > requirements, go and form a working group to come up with something > different. > > Noah: It could also be one of the existing semantic web working > groups... > ... the community has chosen not to invest before... > > Jonathan: Tim has said this is a TAG issue, not specific to RDF. > > Noah: Jonathan has made a concrete proposal - an update for issue-57 > and an agreement to use that issue to track our upcoming work on > this (which may not be very much). > ... going back to Jonathan's specific proposal, I am willing to say > "OK." > > <DKA>+1 sounds OK to me. > > <Larry> whether it's forming another working group or assigning it > to an existing one? > > <jar_> . change per proposal given here > [32]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2011Mar/0000.html > > [32] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2011Mar/0000.html > > <Larry> note that "Community Groups" in W3C are intended to lower > the overhead of forming a working group > > <jar_> thanks larry. > > <noah> PROPOSAL: > > <noah> 1) Chamge issue-57 title to: At the TAG F2F of 4 March 2009 > ([33]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/03/04-minutes#item03), the TAG > agreed to "split Issue-57 into two issues as edited by NM, with one > abstention DanC". Issue 62 was opened immediately. Later issue 63 > was opened. > > [33] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/03/04-minutes#item03) > > <noah> 2) Add a paragraph to the description per Jonathan's email: > > <noah> "On its 2011-dd-dd telcon [$1\47] the TAG noted that members > of > > <noah> the community (e.g. in [$1\47]) report that the performance > > <noah> characteristics and deployment complexity of using 303 > > <noah> redirects leave them feeling that they have little option but > > <noah> to use 200 responses for this purpose, at variance with the > > <noah> TAG's httpRange-14 resolution [$1\47]." > > <noah> PROPOSAL: > > <noah> 1) Chamge issue-57 title to: "Mechanisms for obtaining > information about the intended > > <noah> meaning of a given URI" > > <noah> Noodling on this: > > Noah: any others worried about use of word "meaning"? > > <noah> 1) Chamge issue-57 title to: "Mechanisms for obtaining > information about the referent of a URI" > > Larry: You can't ever determine the intended meaning - my worry is > the word "intended." > ... A design goal of URIs is to have uniformity of meaning. > > <Yves> I am for 'intended meaning', to avoid 'intended semantic' > > [debate on the meaning of meaning] > > <Larry> i don't like "intended" is that it begs the question of who > intends it > > <Larry> depends on what the meaning of 'is' is > > <Yves> who intends it... whoever minted the URI > > <Larry> issue-57? > > <trackbot> ISSUE-57 -- The use of HTTP Redirection -- open > > <trackbot> [34]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/57 > > [34] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/57 > > <Larry> > duri:2006:[35]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/57 > > [35] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/57 > > Noah: who prefers meaning and who prefers referent > > <noah> referent > > <Larry> meaning > > <Yves> meaning > > <DKA> meaning > > <jar_> +1 meaning but not important enought to quibble about > > <Larry> actually, > tdb:2006:[36]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/57 > > [36] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/57 > > <jar_> 'individual' > > <noah> RESOLUTION: to change tile of issue-57 to Mechanisms for > obtaining information about the intended > > <noah> meaning of a given URI > > <noah> meaning of a given URI and add para of description per > jonathans email > > <noah> RESOLUTION: Change title of ISSUE-57 to "Mechanisms for > obtaining information about the meaning of a given URI" and add > paragrph of description per Jonathan's email > > Noah: OK - thanks for your patience with this. Our next call next > week. Let's adjourn for now. > > <noah> Jonathan: please leave some tracks in the issue description > to point out when/why it was changed. > > Summary of Action Items > > [NEW] ACTION 356: [37]Noah to work with HST to identify a way > forward wrt interaction > > [37] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/536 > > [NEW] ACTION 357: [38]Dan to reach out to Web apps chair to solicit > help on framing architecture (incluing terminology, good practice) > relating to interaction > [End of minutes] > _________________________________________________________ > > [38] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/537 > > > Minutes formatted by David Booth's [39]scribe.perl version 1.135 > ([40]CVS log) > $Date: 2011/03/03 23:23:31 $ > > [39] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm > [40] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/ > >
Received on Friday, 4 March 2011 13:24:20 UTC