W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > April 2002

RE: [namespaceDocument-8]: format for machine readable content

From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2002 09:54:05 -0700
To: "'TAG'" <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000001c1df8a$fd855860$461ce8d8@beasys.com>
Stuart,

Perhaps what the TAG should do on issues that require new or changes to
existing specifications is to proceed to create proof-of-concepts, and then
hand the work over to another WG.  In this case, XML Core seems a likely
place to go.

A Process along the lines of:
1. Here's the principles of the web as we see them, including a particular
delta.
2. Here's a POC of a solution to the delta
3. Can you (XML Core) do the work of making this into a "real"
specification?
4. We (TAG) volunteer to have at least some of us work with you on this.

My biggest concern is that I don't think the TAG should be precluded from
writing syntax.  IMHO, that would be a terrible mistake.

But the process I suggested about would address the fact that some group is
going to have to do the real work and ongoing maintenance.

From a process perspective, I don't see the difference between an
Architecture Recommendation and a Recommendation.  It seems that the
difference is that an Architecture Recommendation has a broader scope.  So
Namespaces itself would be considered an Architecture Recommendation - we
seem to believe that Namespaces is a fundamental principle.

Cheers,
Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-tag-request@w3.org
> [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of
> Williams, Stuart
> Sent: Sunday, April 07, 2002 2:23 PM
> To: 'David Orchard'; 'TAG'
> Subject: RE: [namespaceDocument-8]: format for machine
> readable content
>
>
> Hi David,
>
> I was working on this late last week. Unfortunately didn't
> get it out before
> the weekend, but have just posted something on www-tag (it
> was mentioned in
> last weeks minutes and there seems to have been some interest
> in the topic).
>
> At most I think what I've being doing would be a
> proof-of-concept (wrt RDF
> rather than Xlink (or aswell as!) in RDDL).
>
> The RDDL venture started outside the TAG and the TAG charter
> places a strong
> emphasis on Architectural recommendations rather than the
> development of
> technolgy specifications.
>
> <charter>
> Architectural Recommendations
> The primary activity of the TAG is to develop Architectural
> Recommendations.
> An Architectural Recommendation is one whose primary purpose
> is to set forth
> fundamental principles that should be adhered to by all Web
> components.
> Other groups within W3C may include cross-technology building
> blocks as part
> of their deliverables, but the TAG's primary role is to document
> cross-technology principles.
> </charter>
>
> So... it's not clear to me that the TAG is the right place to 'bake' a
> specification for a namespace document.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> Stuart
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: David Orchard [mailto:dorchard@bea.com]
> > Sent: 06 April 2002 02:08
> > To: 'TAG'
> > Subject: [namespaceDocument-8]: format for machine readable content
> >
> >
> > As a result of last weeks telcon, Stuart took an action to
> write up some
> > more work on namespace document.  There was much discussion
> on how machine
> > readable information should be represented.  It's obvious
> that we should
> be
> > able to compare different styles of syntax before making any kind of
> > determination.  We already have RDDL in xlink syntax.  I
> think others(SW?)
> > are working on an RDF syntax for RDDL, and that would be
> great to see.
> >
> > We will have to think of some criteria for determination, like human
> > understandability, machine understandability, etc.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Dave
> >
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 9 April 2002 01:58:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:06 GMT