Re: Interaction model vs data model

I concluded once I began to get the gist of the existing two major 
proposals (mostly Henry's at this point, since Roger's pages were still 
changing) that we were arguing over the shape of bark cells of different 
species of tree.  (Apologies to any /. fans, no car analogy just trees.)
To clarify my own thinking, and if there are bugs in my logic to help 
expose them, I created a third Issue-34 proposal that is "pretty explicit" 
(in a good way I hope).  This required enough time that frankly I've 
barely looked at the list since Monday, so maybe everything is worked out 
now and all it did was that.  I think it does overlap with Issue-37, but 
in effect I think that linkage ends up being impossible to avoid, and the 
email subject gives away the punch line.  We've been talking lots about 
models, but in many cases I think we've been talking past one another 
because for some the crux is the *interaction* model and for others it 
appears to be the *data* model.
At any rate, SteveS is done finding my stupid typos so I proffer it to the 
group http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Issue-34:_Back_to_Basics while I go 
home to catch up on shuteye.

Best Regards, John

Voice US 845-435-9470  BluePages
Tivoli OSLC Lead - Show me the Scenario