W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > December 2012

Publishing and Linking

From: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 08:21:48 +0100
To: www-tag@w3.org
Message-ID: <3477746.W10cx141oH@hegel.sophia.w3.org>
Resending to the public TAG list at Noah's request.

==
Ashok, Larry, Jeni, Dan, 

the Draft "Publishing and Linking" has improved since I last looked over 
it. But I join Thomas in his concerns about scope creep. Essentially, 
linking is already such a rich subject matter that all the issues coming 
in from "publishing" make the matrix indigestible. While the document 
contains too much about publishing, it contains to little about linking. 

==

Things I liked in the document, but I think they need further work:

1/  Terminology and Actors in section 3 is helping people to finally 
talk about the same thing. But it needs to cut down on things that are 
important for linking. 

2/ I like the graphical representations made as they make things  
comprehensible. But I do not like that they are rather oriented towards 
the explanation of copyright violations than oriented towards explaining 
the function of a URI to non-informatics people like me. 

3/ I like the "section A linking Methods". But this section lacks much 
of the explanation that is too extended in the publishing section.

Thinks I do not like: 

1/ The entire prose on licensing. One can see that the document is an 
attempt to understand the licensing incidents mentioned in the "Why we 
wrote this Document. IMHO, the TAG has not reached a TAG-level of 
abstraction on those questions and tried to directly respond to that 
incident. IMHO, the TAG  can not take the role of a judge, so the 
concrete answers are barely understandable. IMHO the questions raised  
can't be made understandable because they are raised from a judgment 
perspective and answered from an attorney's perspective while the reader 
is looking for a perspective from the  TAG.

2/ The Introduction also lacks TAG-level abstraction IMHO. The Tussle is 
perhaps the right level of abstraction, but the conflicting interests in 
linking aren't made understandable. In "publishing" the attempt to make 
the conflicting goals understandable must fail as there are too many in 
"publishing". 

==

The TAG should work out where linking is a form of speech and where 
linking is more of a technical relation that allows the web to function. 
I think the document does not sufficiently encourage social scientists 
(and lawyers as a part thereof) to have a look beyond the simple: "Y 
sets a link in document A that points to document B". The document 
doesn't talk about the relations between documents created by the link. 
It doesn't talk about the fact that thinking the importance of the link 
ahead to its logical potential leads automatically to the web of data 
and that those lines between the documents are as important as the 
documents themselves. 

 -- Rigo



 
Received on Wednesday, 19 December 2012 07:22:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 19 December 2012 07:22:12 GMT