See also:IRClog
<scribe> ScribeNick: Rhys
<DanC> (sigh... SFO logisticsalready... just as I was feeling caught up on travel admin.)
SW: Comments on minutes
DC: They are good
Resolution: Minutes approved (seehttp://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2007/04/23-minutes)
SW: Not plausible to have one nextweek because of the AC meeting. Stuart can't chair
RL: Regrets for the 14th May
HT: Offers to chair
SW: Need to change the scribe toDavid Orchard
DO: Yes that's fine
SW: F2F approaching quickly, so sometime on that today plus some other items. AOB?
Silence
SW: May 30-June 1 at Google 2.5Days
A number of people have bought tickets and will bethere!
SW: Versioning is a topic for the F2Fas is httpRange-14
... Namespace document, tag soup, abbreviated URIs, semweb and semwebarch too
... Also non-technical issues concerning visibility, accessibilityand outreach. Also longer term goals
NM: We left self-describing documentswith comments that need a rewrite. Want to use the F2F as a goad ifthere is interest.
... If I could have a draft by the 23rd, would that be sufficientlead time? 5-10 pages.
SW: Definitely interested and wouldreview
<DanC> (if my inbox weren'tdangerously overfull and hence closed, I'd express someinterest)
<scribe>ACTION:Noah to create a new draft on self-describing Web by 23rd forreview at F2F [recorded inhttp://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2007/04/30-minutes#action01]
HT: May try and prepare something todiscuss on URIs and registry 50
SW: Dan, what's your top priority forF2F
DC: HTML proposed design principlesbased on negating TAG principles !
... Trying to connect our discussion on versioning with the HTMLdiscussion on versioning. Could we invite members of the HTMLcommunity?
SW: Is that a question of politics oravailability? Could be an issue for those who are not local
... David?
DO: Versioning. I've done a bit moredigging on the HTML versioning work. I have a lot more questions.Traffic on the list is so high that its hard to know how toengage.
... I have thoughts on some of the stuff, such as thinking onversion numbers leads me to wonder about planning for HTML 6, 7etc. Seems to be useful to think about these.
SW: Norm?
NW: The versioning and tag soup, plussemantic web architecture, but have a set of committments that mayput that at risk
SW: Will you have new input fornamespacedoc 8
NW: I'll tell you in a week
RL: httpRange-14
TVR: Agree with Norm about tag soup.Would also like to discuss versioning, but I would like us to havea clear view of what our deliverables might be. This is HTMLversioning.
... I have read the 1500 messages on the HTML group list.
SW: Could you summarise what has beensaid?
TVR: Yes, but I can't promise to beunbiased. Need to have a clear idea of what our output shouldbe.
SW: Do you have a sense of what you'dlike to see as deliverables?
<DanC> (indeed, thecost-effectiveness of the design principles under discussion in theHTML WG is far from clear.)
TVR: Not sure that I have a clearidea. Not sure that the design principles will be valueable. Theissues are rather deep, and simply saying 'you are violating aprinciple' doesn't seem useful
... Would like to see us come up with use cases and principles thatdefine what must be achieved.
... For example, "if you write tag soup, you should have a cleanserialisation".
<Zakim> Noah, you wanted tosuggest we have two related issues, versioning in general and theHTMl stuff in particular
TVR: Need some basic litmus test tosee if something breaks the web. Unless we can have somethingconcrete we could waste the entire meeting if we're not careful
NM: I agree with Raman. We have thework on verisoning. Not there yet, but we are making progress bydefining things like accept and defined sets. Useful for people whowant to think about these things
... Two reasons for doing HTML work. One is to understand enough toinform our work on the abstract definitions. The other is becausewe are concerned about making sure that the community has enough tobe able to write good HTML.
... We need to decide which we want to do. Could be both, but thesecond sounds like a lot of work
DO: Agree with TVR and NM. I'd liketo review what we have in terms of what is going on in HTML.
... Would also like to see if there is anything in our work thatcould guide the HTML working group. Are the kinds of decisions theyneed to make able to be helped by what is in part 1
... Like to understand the process and decisions they are goingthrough. Could be that part 1 might be too simple for them. HTMLcould be the hardest example of versioning. But would like to seehow much further we could go with the concepts we have.
... In general I like to loop between the architecture and theconcrete. For example, version identification is a major topic forthe HTML folks.
... They've already figured out their versioning model, they arediscussing the identification of the versions.
... This could be an example of a feedback loop showingdeficiencies in part 1 of the versioning work.
... I'd like DC and TVR and anyone who is actively following theHTML discussion to review the doc from this standpoint.
<DanC> (dave, TVR has read allthe messages. I have not. And I seem to be getting *more behind*,not less, over time.0
<DanC> )
SW: I'll try and schedule timesensitively. Feel free to push back on the agenda if you think I'vegot it wrong
... I'd like to feel more confident about a particular directionfor the TAG. Sometimes I feel as though I'm scraping around forthings to add to an agenda
HT: My hot topics concern why HTML isexempted from the versioning story we're building, if indeed itis.
... That becomes a very important background to the finding bydefining the conditions under which the finding applies to aparticular context.
... I'd also like to spend time on functional XML, self describingweb, URIs and registries. Hope to have a new draft of at least oneof those
... Also my XTech submission concerning constructing a declarativeversion of tag soup
TVR: HT, you've been quiet aboutEnglish being sufficient on the HTML list
HT: Decided to keep my head downuntil I had a complete solution
... Would also like to spend some time on namespace doc 8
<DanC> (yes... "so much T'd upunder versioning". it's no coincidence that issue 41 is so close toissue 42.)
NM: I'd prefer the verisoningdiscussion to have a narrower scope, but anyway I'd like us to getto a stage where people are able to recognise that we've writtenthings that are useful. If that's not happening, we should becareful
HT: I'd also like to discusshttpRange-14, because there is still a bit left over, and becauseit should move us towards semweb architecture.
SW: Will contact TVR off-line to getlogistics
SW: There is an outstanding action onDC about how SPARQL describes qnames
DC: Should we update the issueslist?
SW: Yes. My weekly process is to tryand update the issues list before preparing the agenda
DC: Hmm, I've forgotten what thisis
... I suspect that the shorter path goes through you SW to Andy orJeremy to write something
SW: Ok, once I understand what it isI'm asking them to write
... Is it worth the TAG reviewing the CURIES document?
DC: Normally when we are asked, weask why?
SW: This is going the other way. Theyhaven't asked us
NM: I'm interested in this
HT: Checking to see if there is anewer version. No, 7 March 2007 is the one
SW: That's the one on the TRpage.
HT: Reminds himself of which versionis there. Actually, no this is not the latest one, so don't reviewit.
SW: Are the editor's drafts publiclyavailable?
HT: Well, it's not as if we don'thave enough on our plate. I agree with Noah, we should review whenthere is another public draft available
DC: I was supposed to give you someinformation on commercial motivation for XRI
SW: So we'll await a fresh revisionfrom Henry, based on information from DC.
<DanC>http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=xri
DC: Hmm, So lets try and follow ournoses to find the information
... indulges in some nose following ...
... They keep changing the name. XDI and Concordance ... thinkthese are the folks that sell this stuff
NM: Note that the term XRI lives onin XRI Data Interchange
HT: Expletive deleted
DC: XDI.org seems to be IANA forXRI
... Concern that got me into this was that there is this open IDstuff that is not in a traditional standards form
... If you put in a URI into the software, stuff happens, butpeople want something less ugly than a full URI
<Stuart>http://www.xdi.org/docref/legal/xdi-org-ipr-agreement-v2-2004-09-13.html
DC: Other people have said 'lets usee-mail addresses'. Problem seemed to be that people were startingto mandate XRIs and that the motivation was the ability to generaterevenue for the issuing authority.
<ht>http://www.xdi.org/modules/news/article.php?storyid=13
<dorchard> Also:http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html?id=38c14866-2d8c-40bd-b070-7d563691fd5c&k=66574
<dorchard> whoops.
More nose following
<dorchard> Try:http://www.cordance.net/
HT: Spots a statement about INamesbeing registerable in the same way as domain names are
<DanC> (I suggest that thediscussion we just had discharges my action)
<Stuart> noted
<ht> The iname registry is run byCordance:http://www.cordance.net/cordance-team.html
DO: I'd like to follow up on this tothink about how this might be written up. Motivation for XRI seemsto be 'for profit'. I'd like to produce a mini-report.
<DanC> (not that DNS doesn'tinvolve for-profit concerns.)
<ht> Why not, DanC -- Registrarsmake money by managing the rental of domain names, right?
NM: Playing devil's advocate. Aren'twe just saying something that they are saying themselves?
<DanC> indeed, ht; I used adouble-negative.
DO: I don't think that people knowthat
<ht> DanC, so you did, mymistake
NM: Maybe we can do somethingdescribing the pros and cons of profit and non-profitapproaches
DC: The issue is that they are beingallocated above the level of e-mail addresses
NM: We should try and be factual
DC: When there are claims aboutimproved persistence over http, for example, we should point outthe benefits of http
SW: I heard DO offering to do somework and wanted to ask HT about how this fits with the narrative heis writing
HT: Good fit, but good to havesomeone else write it
<DanC> DC: when there are claimsthat XRIs address persistence better than HTTP/DNS, people shouldbear in mind that these claims are made by those who benefit,commercially, from the sale of each XRI.
DO: Maybe a separate document,referenced from HT's finding?
SW: How about publishing it? Is ablog appropriate, or mail...
HT: I'd like to see it first
DO: Ok, I'll write it to the tagmember list
<scribe>ACTION:DO to explore the space of external registries and to post to thetag member list [recorded inhttp://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2007/04/30-minutes#action02]
SW: HT you had some input fromme?
HT: Yes, I'm just getting to itnow
SW: NM, you forwarded a note fromxmldev, 'new implementation of URN', what was the significance?
NM: It was just that I knew we weredoing work on this and that it might be of interest
HT: I've not followed the pointer, socan't answer whether it's interesting or not yet
DC: Basically they are using URNs totalk about things in 3D virtual worlds. I hope our position is thatURIs could fulfil this role.
<DanC> (I recently saw anopencroquet demo. it's very p2p, which suggests they might have agood reason to not use http, or a better reason than many cases.I'd like to think thru the 2nd-life slurls too.)
<ht> These guys, on the otheryhand, _are_ doing the right thing
<ht>http://www.opencroquet.org/index.php/Main_Page
HT: the opencroquet guys are doing itthe right way. Build rooms, connected with doors which areURI-based
... I don't know about what happens within the room
NM: Feels a bit funny, because I'dlike to see URIs for things that are in the rooms. Also, would liketo see URIs where the URI for the item is not sensitive to it'sposition in 3 space
<DanC> (yes, this is bothabstractComponentRefs and schemeProtocols. hmm.)
HT: Not arguing that that wouldn't bea good idea, but this seems to a good first step
NM: Lots of work in 3 space doesn'treally 'get' the web
DC: Are we at the point where wethink that the kinds of URI usage in 3 space used in GoogleMaps isthe kind of thing we mean?
<DanC> (ht, does OpenCroquetreally use URIs for rooms? I saw little XML "postcard"deelies.)
NM: Don't want to have to refer toDO's office as a point in 3space directly. Should have a URI forthe office, then other URIs for its physical location
<Noah> Second life url's looklike:http://slurl.com/secondlife/<region>/<x-coordinate>/<y-coordinate>/<z-coordinate>/
DC: One reaon that opencroquetdoesn't use URIs is that they don't use global naming
HT: I though they did use URIs
DC: I think they don't
SW: Lots of interesting stuff to huntdown. We have 20 mins left. Should we continue on versioning orfinish early?
DC: I took an action on substitutiongroups and the example in the xml part of the versioningfinding
DC: So, sent off a request to ask ifthis was what was meant. Haven't really had a response.
<Noah> Not thought through, but Iwonder whether we want something like:
<Noah> Substitution group head is<name>
<Noah> Member is<FrenchName>
HT: The most extreme version of usingthe name example to discuss the pattern I had in mind, the schemafor V1 would say that a name consisted of name part * and that inV1 the substitution group consisted of first and last name
<Noah> Member is<SpanishName>
<dorchard> Here's what I said:http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2007Apr/0080.html
HT: Notes that Noah is going in adifferent direction from Henry
<DanC> (indeed, see XML postcardin croquet screenshot.http://www.opencroquet.org/index.php/Active_Projects)
NM: Do you have a sense of which isinteresting?
HT: What you wrote is closer to whatDave has, and what is missing is what I wrote.
SW: Could people claim the actionitems agains this issue that are done?
<ht> (DanC, I see you areright)
<DanC> (stuart, sometimes theconclusion of an action merits discussion, so take care with that"claim completion by email" exercise.)
DO: The example I posted tried to beabstract at the personName level. Then there is a concrete name inthe substitution group. Later there is another with a middlename
... HT I think you are saying that we should push this lower andthat that is where the substitution takes place?
HT: There is only one mechanism, andits a question of expected use. "Design pattern".
... The crucial difference is saying that one perspective saysthere is a complex artifact, and it has moderately sophisticatedstructure but there will be variants, so we'll declare a head andparts that are in the substitution group for the head
<Noah> Am I right that the bottomup approach emphasizes the regularity of the piece parts, but isless likely to lock down their positioning?
<ht> Noah, yes, I think so
HT: The other perspective says thatthere is a common container that contains an arbitrary number ofabstract elements, and the way you get into the container is byadding elements
<Noah> Don't you tend to wind upwith (AbstractNamePart*) as your content model?
<Noah> Not necessarily bad, justdifferent.
<Noah> Might be worthexplaining.
<ht> Noah, yes -- that's what Isaid 10 minutes ago, and Rhys scribed -- see "name part*" above
DO: What are the characteristics ofthe top and bottom typing styles that would make you choose oneover the other? Could we discuss that?
... You need to choose what you are going to do in version 1.
HT: I thought I said in the e-mailthread, that if there is anything common in the part you canenforce that by giving the abstract element a type that requiresthat.
... Reprise. If you use the wild card, all you control is thenamespace. If you use an abstract head with typing, then you cancontrol the content
... I could say name consist of (namePart *) and that there is anxml:lang attribute. This is then mandatory.
DO: I'd like to write that up
NM: I think HT skipped a piece.Suppose I want to make NoahsNamePart. I'd have to have xml:lang,but I'd also have to declare that I'm in that substitutiongroup.
<Stuart> Is this a differencebetween and open and closed model of what can be grafted at anextensibility point?
<ht> Stuart, yes, I think so
NM: It's very tightly controlled, bythe membership of the substitution group. But not everything ofthat type is part of the group
... Reprise Not only do the types have to match, but haveexplicitly to be declared as being part of the substitutiongroup
DC: Is that not the same asextensions?
HT: You can't use xsi:Type=bananaunless its derived appropriately
DO: There has to be an explicitrelationship between the types
NM: But if we both claim to beintegers, there could be lots of integers around that are not partof the substitution
DO: There are limitations on multipleinheritance. Is this a potential change for 1.1?
HT: That is a proposed change forschema 1.1
NM: It was interesting to TBL in aprevious discussion.
SW: We're running up agains the endof the call
DO: I want to write this up deal withthe characteristics of each style
NM: Like the approach.
HT: +1