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

Re: 'parallel properties' reference?

From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 09:39:33 -0500
Message-ID: <50ACE7A5.7080102@w3.org>
To: Jonathan A Rees <rees@mumble.net>
CC: Stéphane Corlosquet <scorlosquet@gmail.com>, Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>, www-tag@w3.org, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
On 11/21/2012 09:16 AM, Jonathan A Rees wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 12:17 AM, Stéphane Corlosquet 
> <scorlosquet@gmail.com <mailto:scorlosquet@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     Jonathan,
>
>     On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 7:45 PM, Jonathan Rees
>     <jar@creativecommons.org <mailto:jar@creativecommons.org>> wrote:
>
>         Cool!  Thanks to all of you (Stephane, David, Sandro) for all this
>         material. The approach was covered pretty poorly in my issue-57
>         writeup, will amend.
>
>         The idea has come up with some favorable reception in a couple
>         of TAG
>         discussions, so it's useful to have both the pro and con.
>
>
>     For the records, could you indicate where the materials above were
>     recorded and discussed by the TAG members? I'm curious to see what
>     progress was made on the 'parallel properties' in relation to the
>     other email I sent about mandating a particular type of URI
>     deployment without an official httpRange-14 resolution.
>
>
> We're pretty much reconstructing the "parallel properties" approach 
> without much specific reference to Sandro's earlier proposal or 
> others. We have just stolen the proposal name in the belief that what 
> we're suggesting now is in the same spirit as what has gone under that 
> banner earlier. I think I did record the references you gave but don't 
> remember where - will look.
>
> Here's a page with links to F2F discussions and current drafts:
> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/products/defininguris-2012-10-30.html
>
> In the end the TAG will need to make an official "resolution" to 
> publish some future version of Jeni's document. There is no place to 
> stand to "mandate" anything; as always all we can do is describe a new 
> profile of RDF (or JSON-LD) saying what is recommended for people who 
> want to avoid sowing confusion.

That sounds like a CG (and maybe eventually WG) activity, so it can 
focus on running code and a spec written by the people who need it and 
will implement it.  There are details to work out (eg the issues 
mentioned in my blog post); is a TAG resolution really the place to do that?

      -- Sandro


>
> Hope that helps.
> Jonathan
>
>
>     Steph.
>
>
>         Still not sure exactly what the Facebook connection is, but that
>         doesn't matter too much I guess.
>
>         Best
>         Jonathan
>
>
>
>
>     -- 
>     Steph.
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 21 November 2012 14:39:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 21 November 2012 14:39:43 GMT