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

Re: AWWSW Telecon Tuesday 2011-10-25

From: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 11:20:46 -0400
Message-ID: <CACHXnarH8cXX09kB3NdQp+hw5nE7heBTeyH0LPOUAXcairk9Bg@mail.gmail.com>
To: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
Cc: nathan@webr3.org, AWWSW TF <public-awwsw@w3.org>
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 8:57 AM, David Booth <david@dbooth.org> wrote:
> Which documents do you mean?
>
> I'm also willing to put in more effort.
>
> It does seem to me that it would be good to put out a simple ontology
> and rules that describe what can be inferred from an HTTP interaction.
> That seemed to me to be one of the most agreed-upon goals of the group,
> but we have gotten tangled in so many offshoots, we haven't really
> addressed that yet.  Nothing clarifies like running code.

That would be nice, but we have shown very little progress toward
this, and we clearly don't have the energy to bring it to conclusion.
Or the time; I'd like to have a draft report to the TAG before the
January F2F.

And I'm not sure it's an agreed goal, or even possible. We have never
really had a good understanding, much less consensus, of what
analytical method to apply, or of the tradeoff between recording what
the participants in HTTP can be actually held accountable for, vs.
recording what we would *like* to hold them accountable for (or can be
held accountable for, subject to some additional commitment). This
difficulty is one thing I'd like to document.

I think we just have to say what we have done up to now. It may have
to just be a bunch of individual perspectives. We can talk tomorrow
about how to detect agreement and frame the disagreements.

If you'd like to volunteer to do something for tomorrow, it might be
useful to have an organized list of all of the documents, web pages,
etc., ideally with some of the email threads as well, so we know what
the inputs are. With metadata (date, author) preferably. I think most
are listed in the wiki although I know I've neglected to keep the wiki
up to date.

Jonathan

> David
>
>
>
> On Fri, 2011-10-21 at 23:25 +0100, Nathan wrote:
>> I trust your judgement and will +1 whatever you think is best.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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 15:21:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 24 October 2011 15:21:28 GMT