W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > April 2005

Re: SWBPD WG Resolution Regarding httpRange-14

From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 11:10:14 +0300
Message-Id: <db80cf72f4bece0685303af8f99c55b9@nokia.com>
Cc: David Wood <dwood@mindswap.org>, www-tag@w3.org, public-swbp-wg@w3.org
To: "ext Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>


On Apr 1, 2005, at 00:30, ext Dan Connolly wrote:

> TimBL's remark in IRC seems relevant...
>
> <timbl_> Therom 1. A group with n people takes O (n^2) to come to a
> conclusion.
>
> <timbl_> Therom 1a. A group with n people takes O m* (n^2) to come to a
> conclusion. with n-m people at each meeting
>

Not wanting to add complexity per Therom 1a above... but ;-)

Theorem 1b. A group with n people having f points of focus takes
O f* (n^2) to come to a conclusion.

Building on the excellent comments provided by Jeremy regarding
RFC 2119, the TAG would IMO likely reach closure on this issue
more easily and quickly if discussion was focused on the question
posed by Jeremy (which I paraphrase):

    Does the position of the SWBPDWG that "an http URI without a
    hash MAY be used to identify an RDF property" introduce sufficient
    potential for causing harm such that the TAG should object to
    that position and to the WG stating that position in official
    WG deliverables.

I.e. the SWBPDWG has (unanimously, I believe) arrived at a strong
and well researched position on this issue, based on real-world
practical implications of choosing one option over the other(s).

If the TAG is to "overrule" the expert conclusion reached by that
WG, it should be based on real-world, practical justification.

It would be expected that any arguments that the SWBPDWG position
does potentially cause harm would be supported by solid, hard
evidence grounded in real application and implementation experience.

And any such arguments against the SWBPDWG position should provide
for the reasonable determination of measurable harm to implementations,
solutions, or processes -- and not merely identify points of dispute or
discomfort relating to philosophy or personal preference.

I.e. "if the SWBPDWG position is adopted, X breaks in the following
manner, causing the following problems A, B, C..." etc. rather than
"the SWBPDWG position does not fit the way I view the world" or "this
other option is how I have traditionally done things" etc.

If the TAG were to maintain such a focus when working towards closure
of this issue, I expect it would make much more effective and timely
progress.

I also reiterate a comment I offered recently at the TP regarding
the process of reaching closure on this issue:

    The TAG *can* reach closure on issue httpRange-14, even if it
    cannot reach concensus.

It may well be that concensus will never be reached on this issue,
yet the web community nevertheless (deparately) needs closure, therefore
closure may have to be reached by the TAG with recorded dissent. While
consensus would certainly be prefered, I ask the TAG not to overlook and
reject the option of reaching closure without full consensus, based on
a majority vote taken after a minimal but reasonable period of 
discussion,
for the sake of the broader majority of the web community.

Most sincerely and respectfully,

Patrick


--

Patrick Stickler
Senior Architect
Forum Nokia Online
Tampere, Finland
patrick.stickler@nokia.com
Received on Friday, 1 April 2005 08:11:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:34 GMT