See also:IRClog
No regrets, Dave Orchard to scribe
HST: Read them, they were helpful tosomeone who missed the call
NM: They look OK
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2006Oct/att-0053/10-tagmem-minutes.htmlapproved
<DanC> (edits done.http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2006/10/04-tagmem-minutes2006/10/17 17:03:54 )
VQ: No plans to combine into a singledocument
The links from the agenda are asfollows:
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2006/10/04-agenda.html#minutes 1.29 2006/10/10 21:04:01
VQ: Anyone requesting changes unhappyabout the current state?
<DanC> minutes are ok by me
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2006/10/04-tagmem-minutes 2006/10/17 17:03:54
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2006/10/05-morning-minutes.html 2006/10/10 21:02:11
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2006/10/05-afternoon-minutes.html 2006/10/09 15:23:29
RESOLUTION: f2f minutesapproved
DO: Request move AC Meeting andBackplane Meeting to the end
VQ: Agreed
NM: I took Tim's start and reworkedit, athttp://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2006Oct/0061.html
DO: Haven't read this yet, sorry
<DanC> (no need to apologize; itwas only available very recently.)
<Zakim> timbl, you wanted to say:A third point I was thinking of was: "Some specific feature of theWS stack is required which is not available in the HTTPprotocol."
NM: To summarize: Starts with assumedmotivations (no TCP support; No access to HTTP but Web Serviceswanted; Web Services facilities such as security necessary)
... points to history and status
... points to team comment bringing the TAG into thediscussion
... Is this TimBL solo or TimBL on behalf of the TAG?
TBL: on behalf of
VQ: Yes
TBL: OK, I'm ready to send once DOhas agreed
NM: Yes, 'hereby' should come out
VQ: I'll update the issues list thisweek
DO: So suppose we send this note, andsome discussion happens -- then what?
... Any further activity the TAG would like to do?
DC: I expect we'll close issue 7again, with the addition of some comment about WS-Transfer
DO: We're moving into a reactivemode. . .
... less proactive than I would prefer
<Noah> Specifically, "hereby"should come out because issue 7 is in fact already open. Suggestthe sentence should read: The TAG has reopened issuewhenToUseGet-7, in part to facilitate discussion ofWS-Transfer.
<Noah> Also, we do have to editin reference [4], which is to the 10 Oct Telcon minutes justapproved, I.e.http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2006Oct/att-0053/10-tagmem-minutes.html
DC: Sympathetic, but no immediateinspiration
VQ: DO, once you've read the draft,you can suggest changes
DO: Well, there's the note, andthere's our future action
... Seems to me there's technology missing, which we should takethe lead on, if the TAG agrees after talking about it
TBL: The HTTP arch. and the WebServices arch are to some extent distinct == a fork
... There is a large community already using WS, hence a need forsomething such as WS-Transfer naturally arises
... The Web Services arch is too big to force change on, it's toolate to make it much more closely integrated with HTTP. . .
ER: DO, are you asking us to lead thediscussion about this?
DO: Well, maybe this _is_ thediscussion, i.e. "well, there's a fork, so it goes". . .
... That's not the conclusion I expected
NM: I'm comfortable for now to openthe discussion, w/o trying to steer it from the start
... We have made some progress, e.g. in getting RESTful bits intothe SOAP REC, even if there hasn't been much uptake
... This may be an opportunity to do something similar in this case-- that there's real value in aligning what WS is doing with whatHTTP already does
... For example, managing a printer with WS would be richer if ithad a URI as well as an EPR, so you can for instance use conneg
<Noah> I have prepared an editedcopy of the WS-Transfer note. I believe it captures all changessuggested on this call. Will send out as soon as we decide no morechanges for now.
VQ: Plan is to send a message onbehalf of the TAG. Once DO reviews, TimBL can send right away if DOis happy, otherwise we can return to this next week
... But NM is not going to be here. . .
NM: I don't need another review, youcan go ahead without me even if you change things
VQ: Only reason to wait is if DO isnot happy
<Noah> Edited version is at:http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2006Oct/0063.html
DC: Haven't read latest version yet.. .
VQ: All please read after the call,unless DO says 'no', TBL can send to public list
<timbl> 0063 is OK by me.
DO: I will read by end of the day
VQ: DO, before you leave, any ideasfor this?
DO: Versioning, perhaps?
VQ: Other suggestions?
... In Edinburgh we discussed Compact URIs (in June)
... In Cannes we reported on our activities in general, focussingon one or two issues
In Montreal, ditto, focussing onURNsAndRegistries-50
<Zakim> Noah, you wanted to saythat we need to start demonstrating value
VQ: Two concrete questions:
1) Should we open an issue on tag soup vs.XML?
2) Should we use our slot at the AC on thistopic?
TBL: We could try to get it scheduledat a time which would allow more worldwide participation by'phone
... 6am or 10pm, if you had to choose?
DC, NM: 10pm
NW: 6am
<EdR> 6am
<Noah> NM: Not much preference,especially insofar as I'll be in "listen-only" mode either way.
DC: We need to be sure not to overlaptoo much with other AC topics. . .
VQ: So, it's just one suggestion --any others?
TBL: Tag soup vs XML may come upwhether we talk about it or not
<dorchard> I just signed on, nophone yet, any interest in versioning at the AC meeting?
<DanC> (do we have an issue aboutnamespaces and media types? ah yes, indeed we do.http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html?type=1#nsMediaType-3)
<DanC> (hmm... Subsumed byissue(s) mixedNamespaceMeaning-13 on 22 Apr 2002)
VQ: Indeed we should try to focus ourcontribution on architecture issues
... Should we then take this as our primary topic for the ACmeeting?
<Noah> Probably a long shot inmotivating those concerned, but I think I'm right that it's goingto be easier to GRDDL XHTML than TAG soup. If semantic web takesoff, then documents in XHTML will, in at least that particularsense, be that much more valuable.
VQ: Volunteer to start a discussionon this topic, to get the ball rolling
... We also need someone to make the presentation at the ACmeeting
<DanC> hard to say, noah. addingtidy seems to be a small cost to add to GRDDL and other semanticweb doodads.
VQ: Attendees will be TimBL, HST andVQ
<Noah> Yes, I suppose you'reright. Especially insofar as tidy is viewed as reliable, and in myexperience it is indeed surprisingly good.
HST: I did it last time, TBL usuallydeclines on the grounds that he has his own slot, VQ as chairmantries to stay neutral. . .
VQ: I would prefer not to leadthis
VQ: So, back to the tag soup vs. XML-- do we need a new issue?
DC: TBL's perspective suggests issue51 already covers it
NM: So either we give it a new issue,or we explicitly put it under several issues
... self-description is in that category as well
... it all connects up, for example namespaces vs. microformats,where the heavier weight approach is more in line withself-describing
<DanC>standardizedFieldValues-51: Squatting on link relationship names,x-tokens, registries, and URI-based extensibilityhttp://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html#standardizedFieldValues-51
DC: Can we rename issue 51, that'sreally what I was concerned with there
NM: That's the fine-grained aspect ofthis, but the self-describing stance is much broader
... The overall value of follow-your-nose is much broader than thefield-value concerns of microformats
<DanC> (hmm... at some point Iasked somebody to write up introducing lanuguage N+1 givenlanguages 1...N are out there. Norm, does that rign a bell? Iwonder which action, if any, that was related to.)
NM: The motivation for microformatscomes from the relative weight of the thing you're trying to do(add a phone number) and the cost of doing it (a namespacedeclaration and use which is twice the size of the phonenumber)
... but to me that's a one end of a scale wrt which whole languagesare at the other end
DC: The key contrast is between doingthings guerilla-style, or using a URI you get via acommunity-approved process
TBL: And that leads on to thecontrast between grounded-in-public-definitions andmeaning-as-use
NM: There is a difference betweenavoiding collision and using a public process
[scribe missed discussion of microformat namescoping]
VQ: Issue 51 has not been muchdiscussed between January and the Vancouver f2f
... We can wait another week to decide about the AC meetingtopic
... Wrt tag soup vs. XML -- let's return to that next week as well,in terms of how we take it forward (new issue vs. ...)
TBL: I believe there's a strongdesire that we give a report on what we've done
DC: I object, that's a waste oftime
<ht> +0
VQ: The HCG asked if someone from theTAG will come to Ams -- what about you, HST?
HST: I will go if asked by theTAG
VQ: Is it appropriate for us to namesomeone
DC: Yes
<timbl>http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/2006/backplane/
[others]: yes
VQ: Anyone other than HST?
DC: Position statement required toget a slice of the programme
<timbl> "An XML data model can beseen as a mobile agent that carries with it selected business rules(e.g. bind statements in XForms) for interacting both with humanson the front-end and with a service-oriented architecture (SOA) onthe back-end"
HST: If I plan to do that, I willsend a draft to this group before doing so