Re: Status of TAG work on Publishing and Linking on the Web

I did reach out to a few parties that I thought might be able to provide
good feedback from a legal perspective. Unfortunately I haven¹t received any
feedback ­ vacation schedules may be playing a role in this lack of
response.

Dan


On 27/08/2011 02:35, "Jeni Tennison" <jeni@jenitennison.com> wrote:

> Noah,
> 
> Our discussion of that draft at the F2F preceded our later discussion about
> priorities. Based on that later discussion, since the last F2F I have
> prioritised work on microdata/RDFa and fragment identifiers and mime types,
> and I'm afraid I haven't made progress on this work as a consequence.
> 
> From what I recall of the F2F discussion, Dan had some good ideas about who
> might be able to provide some legal review...
> 
> Jeni
> 
> On 27 Aug 2011, at 04:25, Noah Mendelsohn wrote:
> 
>> > Jeni and Dan,
>> >
>> > In preparation for the Sept. F2F, I've been looking at our work on
>> Publishing and Linking on the Web [1]. Please verify that this reconstruction
>> of the "state of play" is correct, and suggest next steps.
>> >
>> > The latest draft of a report [2] has a date of 8 June 2011, which was the
>> last day of our F2F meeting, and as best I can tell, it's not significantly
>> different than the 28 May Draft [3] that we reviewed at the F2F (log of
>> discussion at [4]).
>> >
>> > Crucially, at the end of the discussion it was noted:
>> >
>>> > > dka: we need a live legal review, don't think we can do it just by >
>>> sending the document out
>> >
>>> > > goal is to get legal feedback before next F2F
>> >
>> > The pertinent action appears to be ACTION-541, and I note that on 23 June
>> Jeni bumped the due date on that to 26 July.
>> >
>> > We did mention this briefly on 11 August [5], and Henry at that time said:
>> >
>>> > >HT: We need to do something that gets into the public media
>> >
>> > Probably I should have been tracking all this a bit more closely, but I
>> doubt we've moved on the legal review yet. Would it be possible to:
>> >
>> > 1) within the next few days, at least try to get some proposals together
>> for who would do the review, with respect to what specific questions &
>> concerns, and when the review might be done?
>> >
>> > 2) Consider whether it makes sense to further review [1] ahead of the F2F,
>> or whether we should put it off? It's such good substantial work that I hate
>> to lose a F2F review cycle on it, but worse would be spending time if there's
>> nothing new to do.
>> >
>> > Also: I'm concerned that with the microdata/RDFa work, Jeni is spread thin.
>> If we should be bringing someone else up to speed on this, let's think about
>> it ahead of the F2F if possible.
>> >
>> > Any suggestions on all of this would be much appreciated. Thank you.
>> >
>> > Noah
>> >
>> > [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/products/PublishingLinking.html
>> > [2] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/publishingAndLinkingOnTheWeb
>> > [3] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/publishingAndLinkingOnTheWeb-2011-05-28
>> > [4] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/06/08-minutes.html#item01
>> > [5] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/08/11-minutes#item04
>> >
>> >
>> > P.S. Tracker, this relates to ACTION-541.
>> >
>> >
> 
> --
> Jeni Tennison
> http://www.jenitennison.com
> 
>