W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sweo-ig@w3.org > March 2008

Re: checking "Cool URIs for the Semantic Web" comments... would like more time

From: Leo Sauermann <leo.sauermann@dfki.de>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 10:44:44 +0100
Message-ID: <47D7A60C.5030006@dfki.de>
To: "Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol)" <skw@hp.com>
CC: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, Susie M Stephens <STEPHENS_SUSIE_M@LILLY.COM>, "public-sweo-ig@w3.org" <public-sweo-ig@w3.org>, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>, Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>, "tag@w3.org" <tag@w3.org>

It was Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol) who said at the right time 
15.02.2008 12:11 the following words:
> Hello Leo, Richard,
>  
> Following our telcon meeting yesterday TimBL and DanC did more work to 
> clarify their rendering of the diagram originally discussed around [1,2].
>  
> They have produced the following which I hope will 'unblock' whatever 
> is causing us a problem wrt to item #2 in the threaded discussion below.
>  
> _    http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/diagrams/tag/HTTP303.png_ 
> <http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/diagrams/tag/HTTP303.png>
>     _http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/diagrams/tag/HTTP303.graffle_
>  
> Note: i don't thing this diagram visually distinguishes between URIs 
> and resources, a distinction which I think is useful and was apparent 
> in the whiteboard diagram/photo at [2].
>  
> Would you find it useful to come to a TAG telcon to talk through a bit 
> how we (well... you)  finalise this document? I have regrets from 
> TimBL to TAG telcons through to and including 13th March, so we'd 
> either have to make progress in his absense or wait until he was 
> available. DanC is on the hook to scribe our meeting on 21st Feb... so 
> that would be a possibility - or we will all be meeting F2F in 
> Vancouver 26-28th Feb and we could try to have you join us by phone if 
> that would work.
Richard and I have looked at the diagram and discussed about it,
the approach as depicted on above image [3] is confusing us,
is seems to be different from the photo at [2],
and also to what is written in http-range-14.

In the *worst* way, I could intentionally mis-interpret [3] as the 
following:
== worst case===
* URIthing identifying the thing
* URIgen identifying a forwarder uri
* URIrdf identifying a rdf document
* URIhtml identifying a html document

On a GET to URIthing
it makes a  303 redirect to URIgen,
which will do another 303 (based on conneg) to either,
URIrdf or URIhtml.
== /worst case ==

3 http roundtrips - this is not what you had in mind!?

I would guess that other readers may also mis-interpret the provided 
graphic [3] and therefore would NOT use it as is in the document.

My understanding of the decision was:
== we assumed ==
Assuming we start with graphic [4], the content-negotiation and 303 
redirect is handled:
On a GET to URIthing
make a 303 redirect from URIthing to URIrdf or URIhtml based on conneg, 
defaulting to "URIhtml" for browsers that do not pass RDF as "accept"
== /we assumed==

YES?

Out of sheer curiosity, I wonder if using a method indicated on [5] may 
also work for semantic-web redirects... but we will stick to 303 in the 
document, we only wanted to explain the http-range-14 decision.

[3] http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/diagrams/tag/HTTP303.png
[4] http://www.w3.org/TR/cooluris/img20071212/303.png
[5] http://www.w3.org/TR/chips/#cp5.2


best
Leo
>  
> In terms of closing our outstanding comments - seeing finalised 
> diagrams alongside the accompanying narrative is important to us. We 
> would like to review the document in as near final form as possible. 
> FWIW that also means resolving (or removing) the dangling todo's 
> particularly if they are going to add text to the document.
>  
> Lastly, we ran out of time on our call before I could establish where 
> the rest of the TAG were satisfied by the changes that you had made on 
> section 3.1
>  
> I hope that all makes sense. Basically,
> - we'd be happy to invite you to a segment of one of our meetings in 
> order to get he interaction bandwidth up - please let me know if you 
> would like to do that;
> - we'd like to review the document in as near final form (in 
> particular in thr form in which if we say 'good-to-go' from our POV 
> then it is published exactly as is at that point - modulo 
> boilerplate/status changes). If that is the state that you believe 
> that you are already in, please let us know.
>  
> BR
>  
> Stuart
> --
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2007Sep/0109.html
> [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2007Sep/0061
>  
>  
>
> Hewlett-Packard Limited registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks 
> RG12 1HN
> Registered No: 690597 England
>
>
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     *From:* Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol)
>     *Sent:* 14 February 2008 12:25
>     *To:* 'Leo Sauermann'
>     *Cc:* Susie M Stephens; public-sweo-ig@w3.org; Dan Connolly;
>     Richard Cyganiak; Danny Ayers; Norman Walsh
>     *Subject:* RE: checking "Cool URIs for the Semantic Web"
>     comments... would like more time
>
>     Hello Leo,
>      
>     Sorry, I/we misunderstood the intent of the @@'s as signalling
>     places in the document that you intended to do more work on (a
>     common use for @@'s) rather than as marking places where you
>     needed to confirm resolutions.
>      
>     We'll take a look and try to get back to you ASAP (within a couple
>     of days I hope).
>      
>     In respect of the 3 points below:
>      
>     On 1: Yes I think we've agreed to respect the decision you've made.
>      
>     On 2: This relates to a diagram. I believe that TAG members *will*
>     regard it as crucial that you present for review the diagram that
>     you intend to publish. The diagram was a source of *significant*
>     discussion in the TAG F2F meeting that gave rise to our feedback -
>     so I don't think that TAG would sign-off on the revisions without
>     sight of the replacement diagram
>      
>     On 3: I have read the paragraphs in section 3.1 and they look fine
>     to me (personnally)... however, I (or another TAG member) will
>     report on whether the TAG concur.
>      
>     Wrt the TODOs at the end of the document - I believe that there is
>     TAG interested in the disposition of those items (particularly
>     2nd-4th items), and currently no indication of how they will be
>     resolved in the document.
>      
>     We will be discusssing this on 14th Feb.
>      
>     Best regards,
>      
>     Stuart
>     --
>     Hewlett-Packard Limited registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell,
>     Berks RG12 1HN
>     Registered No: 690597 England
>
>         ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>         *From:* Leo Sauermann [mailto:leo.sauermann@dfki.de]
>         *Sent:* 13 February 2008 15:35
>         *To:* Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol)
>         *Cc:* Susie M Stephens; public-sweo-ig@w3.org; Dan Connolly;
>         Richard Cyganiak; Danny Ayers
>         *Subject:* Re: checking "Cool URIs for the Semantic Web"
>         comments... would like more time
>
>         Hi Stuart,
>
>         we reviewed the document and left in many @@ to show that we
>         have worked on these sections, also including comments such as
>         "@@ The next paragraphs address a recommendation by TAG to
>         weaken our "err on the side of caution" recommendation by
>         explaning the problem better. TAG members may verify if their
>         recommendation was met by our explanation."
>
>         So, looking at  [2] I would say
>         (1) we both agreed that this was not crucial and we decided
>         not to do it becuase of readability
>         (2) this is still outstanding but not crucial
>         (3) has been addressed, we would like to hear your opinion
>         about the changed text
>
>         for (3) ("err on the side of caution") we added a reference to
>         the AWWW.
>         http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-cooluris-20071217/#distinguishing
>
>         I would humbly ask, to speed up the process we have (facing
>         the end of SWEO) to skim through the document and read the @@
>         comments to check if you agree wiht the decisions we made
>         regarding your prior comments.
>
>         Once you agree to the @@, we can safely remove them, some of
>         them are intentionally left in to allow you to read our
>         discussion and answers to suggested changes.
>
>         best
>         Leo
>
>         It was Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol) who said at the
>         right time 25.01.2008 17:00 the following words:
>>         Susie, Leo,
>>
>>         Norm Walsh has taken a review pass over the recent changes to the "Cool URIs..." document checking the changes against comments which he raised in [1]. He's posted his comments on www-tag@w3.org at [2].
>>
>>         Norm notes 3 comments that do not appear to have been accepted or adopted. He indicates:
>>         - satisfaction that the group has considered the first;
>>         - a lack of clarity about the disposition of the second;
>>         - and no apparent change on the third.
>>
>>         Norm also notes a number of @@ and editorial comments that have yet to be resolved and are indicative of at least one more editorial cycle.
>>
>>         Accordingly, we would be happy to review the entire document again once the editors have resolved the remaining issues that they indicate as outstanding.
>>
>>         Best regards
>>
>>         Stuart Williams
>>         for W3C TAG
>>         --
>>         [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2007Sep/0090
>>         [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2008Jan/0067
>>
>>         Hewlett-Packard Limited registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN
>>         Registered No: 690597 England
>>
>>
>>           
>>>         -----Original Message-----
>>>         From: Susie M Stephens [mailto:STEPHENS_SUSIE_M@LILLY.COM]
>>>         Sent: 18 January 2008 16:13
>>>         To: Dan Connolly
>>>         Cc: public-sweo-ig@w3.org; public-sweo-ig-request@w3.org;
>>>         Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol)
>>>         Subject: Re: checking "Cool URIs for the Semantic Web"
>>>         comments... would like more time
>>>
>>>         Hi Dan,
>>>
>>>         It would clearly be good if you could get all comments to us
>>>         by Jan 21.
>>>         However, we very much value input from the TAG, so we can be
>>>         somewhat flexible.
>>>
>>>         SWEO is currently chartered to finish at the end of January,
>>>         but if absolutely necessary we could explore extending the
>>>         group by a month.
>>>
>>>         Cheers,
>>>
>>>         Susie
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>                      Dan Connolly
>>>                      <connolly@w3.org>
>>>                      Sent by:
>>>                   To
>>>                      public-sweo-ig-re         public-sweo-ig@w3.org
>>>                      quest@w3.org
>>>                   cc
>>>                                                "Williams, Stuart (HP Labs,
>>>                                                Bristol)" <skw@hp.com>
>>>                      01/17/2008 03:58
>>>              Subject
>>>                      PM                        checking "Cool URIs for the
>>>                                                Semantic Web" comments... would
>>>                                                like  more time
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>         In today's TAG teleconference, we took note of the recent draft
>>>           http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-cooluris-20071217/
>>>
>>>         As our comments on earlier drafts go back as far Sep 2007
>>>           http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2007Sep/0091
>>>         it's taking us some time to swap them back in to check they
>>>         way they were addressed in your 17 Dec draft.
>>>
>>>         Regarding...
>>>         "comments should possibly be sent until 21 January 2008."
>>>         ... we're not likely to meet that deadline. We expect to get
>>>         some of our double-check done by 24 Jan, but some of it may
>>>         take a little longer. I hope you can stand by.
>>>
>>>         --
>>>         Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
>>>         gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>             
>>
>>
>>           
>
>
>         -- 
>         ____________________________________________________
>         DI Leo Sauermann       http://www.dfki.de/~sauermann 
>
>         Deutsches Forschungszentrum fuer 
>         Kuenstliche Intelligenz DFKI GmbH
>         Trippstadter Strasse 122
>         P.O. Box 2080           Fon:   +49 631 20575-116
>         D-67663 Kaiserslautern  Fax:   +49 631 20575-102
>         Germany                 Mail:  leo.sauermann@dfki.de
>
>         Geschaeftsfuehrung:
>         Prof.Dr.Dr.h.c.mult. Wolfgang Wahlster (Vorsitzender)
>         Dr. Walter Olthoff
>         Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats:
>         Prof. Dr. h.c. Hans A. Aukes
>         Amtsgericht Kaiserslautern, HRB 2313
>         ____________________________________________________
>               
>


-- 
____________________________________________________
DI Leo Sauermann       http://www.dfki.de/~sauermann 

Deutsches Forschungszentrum fuer 
Kuenstliche Intelligenz DFKI GmbH
Trippstadter Strasse 122
P.O. Box 2080           Fon:   +49 631 20575-116
D-67663 Kaiserslautern  Fax:   +49 631 20575-102
Germany                 Mail:  leo.sauermann@dfki.de

Geschaeftsfuehrung:
Prof.Dr.Dr.h.c.mult. Wolfgang Wahlster (Vorsitzender)
Dr. Walter Olthoff
Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats:
Prof. Dr. h.c. Hans A. Aukes
Amtsgericht Kaiserslautern, HRB 2313
____________________________________________________
Received on Wednesday, 12 March 2008 09:46:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 12 March 2008 09:46:19 GMT