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

Re: Uniform access to descriptions

From: Phil Archer <parcher@icra.org>
Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2008 20:35:55 +0100
Message-ID: <47FBC91B.7000503@icra.org>
To: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
CC: "www-tag@w3.org WG" <www-tag@w3.org>

Jonathan,

Clearly Xiaoshu is unhappy about this and that discussion will need to 
play out and, presumably, be taken into full account by the TAG. 
Meanwhile, I'm willing to help create the document - but my diary is 
pretty well full for this week and next.

Can I suggest:
1. You see whether it can be put on the agenda of a TAG meeting in a few 
weeks - a date will be a useful deadline to work to.

2. We and others (Harry? Mark N?) collaborate on the doc by either 
editing the wiki page you've been creating on or a new one?

Phil

(P.S. I don't have write access to the ESW Wiki but I dare say it can be 
arranged!)

Jonathan Rees wrote:
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Phil Archer
Chief Technical Officer,
Family Online Safety Institute
w. http://www.fosi.org/people/philarcher/
Received on Tuesday, 8 April 2008 19:48:56 GMT

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