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

Re: AWWSW Telecon Tuesday 2011-10-25

From: Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 13:48:17 +0100
Cc: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>, nathan@webr3.org, AWWSW TF <public-awwsw@w3.org>
Message-Id: <AFC5AF57-DEF0-41EC-B2FA-B672621D4301@deri.org>
To: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>

> What input do you suggest giving to the TAG?


I'd say a collection of links to the relevant documents produced by  
the TF?

Cheers,
	Michael
--
Dr. Michael Hausenblas, Research Fellow
LiDRC - Linked Data Research Centre
DERI - Digital Enterprise Research Institute
NUIG - National University of Ireland, Galway
Ireland, Europe
Tel. +353 91 495730
http://linkeddata.deri.ie/
http://sw-app.org/about.html

On 24 Oct 2011, at 13:45, David Booth wrote:

> What input do you suggest giving to the TAG?
>
> David
>
> On Mon, 2011-10-24 at 09:31 +0100, Michael Hausenblas wrote:
>> Jonathan,
>>
>> Thanks for all the hard work you put in here ... +1 to close and
>> hopefully get some input to TAG.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> 	Michael
>> --
>> Dr. Michael Hausenblas, Research Fellow
>> LiDRC - Linked Data Research Centre
>> DERI - Digital Enterprise Research Institute
>> NUIG - National University of Ireland, Galway
>> Ireland, Europe
>> Tel. +353 91 495730
>> http://linkeddata.deri.ie/
>> http://sw-app.org/about.html
>>
>> On 22 Oct 2011, at 02:15, Jonathan Rees wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 6:25 PM, Nathan <nathan@webr3.org> wrote:
>>>> I trust your judgement and will +1 whatever you think is best.
>>>
>>> Often I don't discover what I think until it comes out of my mouth.
>>> That's why I find telcons and meetings helpful.
>>>
>>>> The documents produced are very good and in my mind, nice and
>>>> clear. My only
>>>> concern is with being GET 200 specific, so I'd be happy to have a
>>>> final
>>>> drive through to the end of the year to try to make it method, and
>>>> potentially protocol, agnostic advise. If anybody else is up for  
>>>> it.
>>>
>>> Well I don't consider "retrieval" to be tied to GET 200 or even to
>>> HTTP, and I have recently been always generalizing from GET/200 to
>>> retrieval (a word used in RFC 3986).
>>>
>>> But your point is well taken and I haven't thought about it enough.
>>> E.g. we have the analogous situation with using mailto: URIs to
>>> 'identify' people, which you're not supposed to do but which someone
>>> might be inclined to do. And I have been steadily worried about POST
>>> in relation to HR14a.
>>>
>>> Best
>>> Jonathan
>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>>
>>>> Nathan
>>>>
>>>> Jonathan Rees wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Quorum is 3.
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>>> From: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
>>>>> Date: Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 2:34 PM
>>>>> Subject: AWWSW Telecon Tuesday 2011-09-27
>>>>> To: AWWSW TF <public-awwsw@w3.org>
>>>>>
>>>>> Agenda:
>>>>> We need to just declare victory and shut the group down.
>>>>> It's clear that given the low level of interest we're not going to
>>>>> solve any more problems so let's just figure out what to report to
>>>>> the
>>>>> TAG.
>>>>>
>>>>> Jonathan
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> -- 
> David Booth, Ph.D.
> http://dbooth.org/
>
> Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not  
> necessarily
> reflect those of his employer.
>
Received on Monday, 24 October 2011 12:48:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 24 October 2011 12:48:57 GMT