W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > April 2006

Re: Objection to Debate Scheduling

From: Ben Adida <ben@mit.edu>
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2006 10:44:55 -0400
Message-Id: <A43DE987-BD6B-45EA-8B1B-EC909F642E21@mit.edu>
Cc: www-tag@w3.org, Daniel Weitzner <djweitzner@w3.org>, "Ralph R. Swick" <swick@w3.org>, Eric Miller <em@w3.org>, "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, Steve Bratt <steve@w3.org>, Guus Schreiber <schreiber@cs.vu.nl>, David Wood <dwood@tucanatech.com>, Steven Pemberton <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl>, Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@x-port.net>
To: Vincent.Quint@inrialpes.fr


I fully encourage and support the TAG wanting to innovate and  
organize these discussions. Please don't consider my objection a  
condemnation of this idea in any way. The only worry here is about  
process and notification of the appropriate people, so that the  
issues can be framed appropriately and productively.

I will quickly confer with Ralph and the rest of the task force and  
submit names of folks who would be useful additions to the debate.


On Apr 21, 2006, at 5:55 AM, Vincent Quint wrote:

> Ben,
> I am sorry about the confusion. In scheduling this panel on CURIEs
> for the AC meeting, the TAG is just trying to innovate and organize
> a discussion on a new topic rather than giving the usual talk on  
> recent
> achievements and future plans. Our decision was probably taken a
> bit late and the announcement went to the first draft agenda of the
> AC meeting before we could build the list of panelists; there is no  
> name
> on the draft agenda.
> In the mean time we have made progress.  My first concern was to
> find a moderator for the panel, and this took time. We have one
> since yesterday: Stuart Williams, former co-chair of the TAG. I am
> working with him for establishing the list of panelists and obviously
> we are considering people involved in RDF/A work. It is too early to
> mention names in this public message, but as soon as we have a first
> confirmed list of panelists, I'll ask the AC meeting agenda to be  
> updated.
> I am not sure that the details of the preparation of the AC meeting is
> a topic of great interest for public mailing lists. I suggest we  
> continue
> this discussion in the appropriate forum, but I want to make it clear
> that the TF/WG will be represented on the panel, precisely to avoid
> misrepresenting the issue.
> I hope this helps to clarify the situation.
> Sincerely,
> Vincent Quint
> TAG co-chair
> On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 23:04:23 -0400 Ben Adida <ben@mit.edu> wrote:
>> Members of the TAG,
>> In my capacity as chair of the RDF-in-HTML Task Force, a joint task
>> force of the SWBP and HTML WGs responsible for the CURIE work-in-
>> progress, I write to object to the CURIE debate scheduling at the
>> upcoming May 2006 AC Meeting. I am particularly concerned that, as a
>> result of this problematic process, the debate will end up
>> misrepresenting the issues and, thus, cause confusion rather than
>> address interesting technical issues.
>> I note the following points:
>> 1) I became aware of this debate only after it was scheduled, by
>> reading Steve Bratt's announcement to the AC reps.
>> 2) To the best of my knowledge, no one on the WG or TF was notified
>> of this debate prior to its announcement, let alone invited to
>> participate. This morning, one week after the debate was scheduled,
>> and only after I began to ask questions within the W3C, Ralph Swick,
>> team member and TF/WG member, was invited to moderate.
>> 3) To the best of my knowledge, the WG or TF has not been asked to
>> submit information regarding CURIEs to help prime the debate. Note
>> that CURIEs are still a work in progress, and debating them based on
>> editors' drafts without the TF's input would be clearly suboptimal.
>> CURIEs would make a good discussion topic, and I welcome the TAG's
>> interest. However, to discuss the topic without input from the Task
>> Force responsible for the proposal seems improper and counter-
>> productive.
>> As this debate has already been announced, as the issue merits
>> discussion, and as I do not wish to be a stickler for process when
>> such rigor might obstruct a useful technical discussion, I am *not*
>> asking that this debate be cancelled. Instead, I am asking that you
>> consider direct participation from members of the Task Force in
>> presenting the driving motivation and issues to the AC reps.
>> I also ask that, in the future, closely-involved TFs and WGs be
>> notified before such public debates are scheduled.
>> Sincerely,
>> -Ben Adida
>> ben@mit.edu
>> Chair, RDF-in-HTML Task Force
> --------------
> Vincent Quint                       INRIA Rhône-Alpes
> INRIA                               ZIRST
> e-mail: Vincent.Quint@inria.fr      655 avenue de l'Europe
> Tel.: +33 4 76 61 53 62             Montbonnot
> Fax:  +33 4 76 61 52 07             38334 Saint Ismier Cedex
>                                     France
Received on Friday, 21 April 2006 14:45:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:32:48 UTC