W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-awwsw@w3.org > February 2011

Re: draft: Requirements for Any Theory of 'Information Resource'

From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 14:02:15 +0000
Message-ID: <4D5D2A67.2040101@webr3.org>
To: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
CC: AWWSW TF <public-awwsw@w3.org>
Hi Jonathan,

Don't worry, no harm done, I too believe we're close to pay dirt and 
happy to keep on going (we have too imo), lets just agree not to start 
throwing things at each other across the meeting hall :p

Before going any further, have you seen:

Quite possibly the best set of slides I've every seen (and reference 
frequently when reading other things from timbl), the devils in the 
detail with them, and 21-28 are pretty critical to what we're discussing.

inline from here..

Jonathan Rees wrote:
> I think I've already mentioned the application that breaks without
> httpRange-14; it's the CC license chooser. 

Shall we focus on the cc license chooser then? I feel it's a very 
important use case, it also covers the RDF in HTML side of things, and 
we should flesh out how and if each alternative approach breaks the 
application - I can see how it does with some, but not all.

> In my writeup I'm going to flag the 'doesn't have momentum' axiom as
> optional. It helps rule out nonsense, but isn't really needed for my
> use case, and it interferes with two of the solutions I've catalogued,
> the "chimera" interpretation (similar I think to your two-namespace
> idea) and the "we don't need inference" interpretation.

I need to give you some feedback on that page, v soon.

> I'll also add "change RDF semantics" to my list of options.
> Maybe a phone call would work better - we've each got arguments with
> ten or fifteen steps and these are hard to work through in email.

Yes, I'm happy to discuss on 'phone/skype/irc as much as you like.


Received on Thursday, 17 February 2011 14:04:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:21:09 UTC