W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > January 2011

Re: Preliminary version of the Agenda for the TAG F2F Meeting of 8-10 February 2011

From: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 18:23:16 -0500
Message-ID: <AANLkTimEV05sK4=zwmzqLs7fOZ+FHb6Dzy=HOEsaakRZ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>
Cc: "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
Noah, the IRC log says "noah: Noting request to put AWWSW and TDB near
one another in schedule" so I stand corrected as there seems to be no
request to talk about about duri: (although the possibility of
actionable DURIs will come up naturally in the persistence
discussion).

tdb: isn't really part of AWWSW business either. I don't think 45
minutes is enough time to dive deep on tdb: AND hear about AWWSW
status. So maybe leave it as is but make clear that it's a distinct
item of business, so that we don't get confused. The way you had
written it, it appears that it has something to do with ISSUE-50.

>From my experience with all three of these topics these sessions are
going to be a very tight squeeze. If 1:45 is all we can spare on both
combined we might want to sacrifice one so we have more time on
another.

Jonathan

On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 11:34 AM, Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org> wrote:
> I think you meant "duri URI scheme", not "tdb URI scheme".  "tdb"
> might be better placed under 'HTTP semantics'...
>
> Focussing on domain name persistence is, I think, the wrong way to
> look at it. The question is not "how shall we try to address domain
> name persistence" but "how should we write persistent references and
> how would we make any chosen solution stick".  Domain name persistence
> is just one answer.
>
> In any case I thought the session was to be about ACTION-478, which
> asks the latter question. As resolvable duri:s are part of the
> ACTION-478 decision tree I suggest we bill the session as "Persistent
> reference (domain name persistence, resolvable duri:, etc.)" with
> reference to ACTION-478.
>
> Discussing Larry's draft is really a separate topic so I recommend we
> discuss it at some other time. Can't do both in an hour.
>
> Jonathan
>
Received on Monday, 31 January 2011 23:23:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:48:30 GMT