W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > March 2008

Re: Uniform access to descriptions

From: Sean B. Palmer <sean@miscoranda.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 21:18:09 +0000
Message-ID: <b6bb4d890803181418w28481fc1vb812d13a8749e8f1@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Jonathan Rees" <jar@creativecommons.org>
Cc: www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>
On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 12:34 PM, Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org> wrote:

> I'm happy to do what I can to coordinate the effort and drive it
> to a speedy conclusion.

If you want to raise it under the aegis of the TAG, perhaps attaching
it to a specific issue or creating a new issue for it would be the
best approach? (You probably know better than I do on that front,
though.)

I'm not sure that Resource-Description and so on are a good idea if
they subvert the 200 OK httpRange-14 semantics, but bringing back Link
seems okay. Mark Nottingham is working on that—I suggest bugging him
until he tells you how his internet drafts on the subject are coming
along!

This issue only affects people who use RDF, and since I'm not a user
of RDF at the moment I don't really have any personal motivation for
solving the situation, which is why I didn't weigh in to the thread
until your ping today.

I see from http://esw.w3.org/topic/FindingResourceDescriptions that
you've taken up an informal action to collect use cases for this. I
think that would be a very good idea before going forward, even before
"rousing the rabble". You can make your workflow a lot more efficient
if you collect and then, especially, prioritise Semantic Web use
cases. This particular issue might turn out to be very low on the
list.

Thanks,

-- 
Sean B. Palmer, http://inamidst.com/sbp/
Received on Tuesday, 18 March 2008 21:18:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 November 2012 14:18:13 GMT