Re: Semantic web architectural requirement [was Re: Squaring the HTTP-range-14 circle]

Jonathan,

On Wed, 2011-06-22 at 11:57 +0000, Jonathan Rees wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 9:06 PM, David Booth <david@dbooth.org> wrote:
> > [Moving this comment to the AWWSW list, as I think it will be more
> > appropriate there.]
> 
> I'm not going to rule it out of order, 

I would hope not, since this topic clearly falls within the intended
scope of this group: "the intersection of Web architecture and the
Semantic Web".
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/awwsw/

> but I'm not keen on discussing
> this topic here for a couple of reasons. First, I don't see how it
> advances our goal of producing an ontology that bears on web
> architecture, and I would like to stay on task (see
> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/awwsw/). If anything *did* come of it, it
> would be prescriptive and therefore out of charter for this group.

I don't think that's true.  Even though this group does not have the
authority to issue W3C Recommendations, we certainly can usefully
elucidate the issues and make recommendations (with lower case "r") to
other groups that do have such authority.

> Second, you have brought it up many times before, there is no new
> information this time around, 

That is a very bizarre claim.  I have *never* before articulated this
architectural requirement.  Yesterday's statement of this requirement
was a first *anywhere*:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-awwsw/2011Jun/0006.html
[[
  The client must be able to use a simple, architecturally 
  authoritative algorithm to determine, with full fidelity, 
  the URI owner's formally expressed identity for the resource.  
]]

> and there never seems to be any progress
> on it - I don't see anyone learning anything from the discussions, 

I have definitely seen progress.  Some are learning and some are not.  I
don't know what I can do about that.  

> and
> people just get angry at each other. This is wasteful of personal
> energy and not good for morale, which is already too low.

If you (or anyone else) are getting angry then I think it is important
to step back and recognize that different people will come into these
discussions with different perspectives and that's okay.  We all need to
have patience and do our best to understand each other's technical
points.  

I have a long history of posting to W3C forums, and although nobody is
perfect, I dare say I doubt very much that *anyone* would accuse me of
falling below average in my commitment to being polite, respectful,
in-scope and constructive.

> 
> I plan to move the issue-57 work back to www-tag. I appreciate all the
> help I've received on it here but it's not the group's main purpose
> any more. For me the problem that created this list is now solved and
> we can move on and finish up. I suggest that any further discussion
> here should be focussed on ontology building, even if it's only to
> publish the single property that I think will be needed for issue-57.
> I hope we can be done by the end of the year.

Jonathan, somehow my way of thinking about these architectural issues
seems to rub you the wrong way -- perhaps we have different world views
or something.  I am sorry for that.  I have no idea why, nor do I know
what I can do about it.  I have tried in the past to figure it out, but
I am still baffled.  But regardless, this is a technical forum and we
both have a professional responsibility to put aside any personal
feelings we may have about each other's way of thinking -- or world view
or whatever it is -- and focus on the technical issues and discuss each
point on its own merits.  This includes (politely) pointing out any
important errors that we think others have made, acknowledging our own
errors when we make them, and doing our best to contribute
constructively to the community's overall understanding of the topic.  

Furthermore, if you are going to chair this group, you have a
responsibility to act in an unbiased manner toward all contributors, and
frankly, your message above does *not* reflect an unbiased view.


-- 
David Booth, Ph.D.
http://dbooth.org/

Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily
reflect those of his employer.

Received on Wednesday, 22 June 2011 18:42:43 UTC