Re: Comments on URIs for W3C Namespaces

Hi Bjoern,

The TAG made some changes today to:
 http://www.w3.org/2005/07/13-nsuri

I attended a few minutes of their call and brought your comments
to their attention. The changes may satisfy your concerns; please
let me know (or better yet: let them know on www-tag and cc me).

I also notified the Chairs of the changes.

Best,

 - Ian

On Wed, 2006-03-15 at 11:14 -0600, Ian B. Jacobs wrote:
> Bjoern,
> 
> I requested that Tim review your comments. I have not heard back from
> him for several weeks and therefore plan to leave the current policy as
> is at this time because Tim reviewed the current policy. Perhaps further
> discussion in the TAG would draw Tim's attention to your concerns.
> 
>  _ Ian
> 
> On Tue, 2006-01-31 at 21:01 -0600, Ian B. Jacobs wrote:
> > On Wed, 2006-02-01 at 02:35 +0100, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > >   Regarding http://www.w3.org/2005/07/13-nsuri it's sad to see the
> > > document has not been checked for broken links before publication,
> > > there are broken fragments that should be fixed.
> > 
> > I found one and fixed it. Thanks for the report.
> > 
> > > The entire section 4 does not make sense to me, I don't understand
> > > what it could mean for a namespace to "change"; this was discussed
> > > to quite some extend on the www-tag mailing list, it's odd to see
> > > this still in the document. I also do not understand the relation-
> > > ship between namespace names and validity of content or processing
> > > semantics as implied by some examples.
> > 
> > This text is based on discussion with TimBL and was shared with the TAG
> > as well [1] (although I don't recall receiving feedback from them).
> > 
> > [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2005Sep/0001
> > 
> > > I suggest the section is replaced with something like
> > > 
> > >   It is important that specifications clearly state expectations
> > >   about how the technology will evolve and how changes will affect
> > >   the relevant namespace names, implementations and content.
> > >   Specifications must include such information as applicable and
> > >   namespace documents should link to the relevant section of the
> > >   Technical Report.
> > > 
> > > The current examples aren't suitable in my opinion, the document
> > > should rather link to existing Technical Reports or namespace
> > > documents that get this right if examples are really needed. As
> > > such specifications would discuss this in a better context than
> > > the policy could, this will help Working Groups to better under-
> > > stand the requirements. I'd suggest some, but I'm afraid I don't
> > > know of any...
> > > 
> > > I also note that it's a bad idea to refer to "URIs" here, it should
> > > refer to namespace names or if discussion of resource identifiers
> > > is really needed, it should refer to IRIs.
> > 
> > We'll keep track of your comments and let you know if we make any
> > changes as a result. Thanks Björn,
> > 
> >  _ Ian
> > 
-- 
Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                     +1 718 260-9447