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

Re: Topics for discussion at the June f2f

From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Date: Sun, 21 May 2006 16:03:00 -0400
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: Vincent.Quint@inrialpes.fr, www-tag@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFFD55E31B.E92CF468-ON85257175.00507177-85257175.006E2422@lotus.com>

Dan Connolly wrote:

> I'd like to find a somewhat more narrow scope for the
> "The use of Metadata in URIs" and "URI Schemes and Web Protocols"
> findings. 

I hope we agree that your comment on the metadata finding is overtaken by 
the publication of the latest draft, which came after the note in which 
you wrote the above.  Stated more simply:  I think the last telcon 
established that the draft is good enough to serve as the basis for 
discussion.  I think we've assigned two people (Tim and somebody else -- 
minutes of 16 May aren't out yet, so I can't doublecheck.)

I'm assume that F2F time on metdataInURI will be spent going over comments 
from those reviewers and other TAG members.


> For the latter, perhaps "when to make a new URI scheme" and/or "some
> good and bad experiences with new URI schemes" discussing DAV:, 
> tel:, mms:, jabber: ... hmm... and very nearby is "URNs, Namespaces 
> and Registries". Maybe the doing story-telling around semantic-web 
> architecture would clarify.

I agree that some rescoping is needed here, when and if we pick it up 
again.  As I mentioned on the 16 May call (or was it 9 May?), I've put 
schemeProtocols on hold at least until metaDataInURI is out, and then I 
have some long delayed followup on things like Rule of Least Power to do, 
as I've been remiss in responding to concerns raised by Larry Masinter and 
others.  After that, maybe I'll take a deep breath and go back to 
schemeProtocols.

Altogether, I remain convinced that I'm not the only one in the Web 
community who has trouble grok'ing the real true rules for schemes and 
protocols on the Web, and I think we will ultimately do a service if we 
can pull together a finding that generates consensus.  It also became 
clear to me after my 2nd major attempt at it that I'd picked for my first 
attempt at a TAG finding a particularly tough issue, and one where it's 
not entirely clear to me that those who are most expert in the Web and its 
history entirely agree on what the story should be.   I came in assuming 
that the rules were in fact clear to the experts, and that my job would be 
just to learn them and tell the story (there's no shortage of people who 
clearly know the rules, of course, I just haven't convinced myself that 
they agree with each other on what they are.)

I've certainly learned a lot from my two attempts at it, and I do hope to 
come back to it sometime, but I've been doing essentially nothing with it 
for several months, and I was assuming we'd probably not spend time on it 
at the F2F.  If you do want to discuss it, that's fine with me.  I do 
agree that the net result of such discussions would be to somewhat narrow 
the scope, though I'm not yet sure quite what I'd keep and what I'd drop.  
Thanks!

--------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn 
IBM Corporation
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
1-617-693-4036
--------------------------------------
Received on Sunday, 21 May 2006 20:03:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:40 GMT