W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > April 2008

Re: Uniform access to descriptions

From: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2008 09:31:45 -0400
Message-Id: <7414496D-BF39-49C0-AA9E-9882669E8E86@creativecommons.org>
Cc: "www-tag@w3.org WG" <www-tag@w3.org>
To: Phil Archer <parcher@icra.org>


On Apr 8, 2008, at 6:45 AM, Phil Archer wrote:

> Can I ask whether those interested in this issue feel that there is  
> an emerging consensus? If so, would anyone care to take a stab at a  
> timeline for an eventual resolution? If not, might it be worth  
> setting up an ad hoc telecon some time so we can discuss it?
>
> I ask because POWDER is now working towards making a Last Call  
> announcement at the end of the month with a view to reaching CR  
> before we all disappear on summer holiday. It would clearly be  
> advantageous if we can have a clear idea of where the HTTP Link (or  
> alternative solution) is likely to be by then.
>
> Thanks
>
> Phil.

Yes, I see the need for action.

There appears to be consensus on Mark's RFC draft among a certain  
contingent, in which I would include roughly POWDER, Atom, Tabulator,  
and RDF (here I refer to the various mentions of Link: in various RDF  
specs over the past ten years). We have some thoughtful naysayers,  
some of whom prefer different solutions (but have not contributed use  
cases), while others are simply critical.

The point of my exercise was to get TAG review, to increase the  
chances that the result was something that the TAG could be happy  
with (coordinates with web architecture and other specs, etc.). We  
are missing the document that I think the rest of the TAG would like  
to have, which presents use cases in a clear, organized manner. (Use  
cases are central because they give an objective way to evaluate  
alternatives.) I could try to go to the TAG meeting this week with  
what I have (assuming there's space on the agenda), or I could push  
myself to be better prepared this week (difficult given other  
commitments), or I could wait a week, which would not be great either.

I know you did your part in providing use cases, but is there any  
chance you would you like to help assemble a review document that  
includes the other use cases? It doesn't have to be pretty.

Best
Jonathan
Received on Tuesday, 8 April 2008 13:57:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:55 GMT