- From: Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>
- Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 13:48:17 +0100
- To: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- Cc: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>, nathan@webr3.org, AWWSW TF <public-awwsw@w3.org>
> What input do you suggest giving to the TAG? I'd say a collection of links to the relevant documents produced by the TF? Cheers, Michael -- Dr. Michael Hausenblas, Research Fellow LiDRC - Linked Data Research Centre DERI - Digital Enterprise Research Institute NUIG - National University of Ireland, Galway Ireland, Europe Tel. +353 91 495730 http://linkeddata.deri.ie/ http://sw-app.org/about.html On 24 Oct 2011, at 13:45, David Booth wrote: > What input do you suggest giving to the TAG? > > David > > On Mon, 2011-10-24 at 09:31 +0100, Michael Hausenblas wrote: >> Jonathan, >> >> Thanks for all the hard work you put in here ... +1 to close and >> hopefully get some input to TAG. >> >> Cheers, >> Michael >> -- >> Dr. Michael Hausenblas, Research Fellow >> LiDRC - Linked Data Research Centre >> DERI - Digital Enterprise Research Institute >> NUIG - National University of Ireland, Galway >> Ireland, Europe >> Tel. +353 91 495730 >> http://linkeddata.deri.ie/ >> http://sw-app.org/about.html >> >> On 22 Oct 2011, at 02:15, Jonathan Rees wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 6:25 PM, Nathan <nathan@webr3.org> wrote: >>>> I trust your judgement and will +1 whatever you think is best. >>> >>> Often I don't discover what I think until it comes out of my mouth. >>> That's why I find telcons and meetings helpful. >>> >>>> The documents produced are very good and in my mind, nice and >>>> clear. My only >>>> concern is with being GET 200 specific, so I'd be happy to have a >>>> final >>>> drive through to the end of the year to try to make it method, and >>>> potentially protocol, agnostic advise. If anybody else is up for >>>> it. >>> >>> Well I don't consider "retrieval" to be tied to GET 200 or even to >>> HTTP, and I have recently been always generalizing from GET/200 to >>> retrieval (a word used in RFC 3986). >>> >>> But your point is well taken and I haven't thought about it enough. >>> E.g. we have the analogous situation with using mailto: URIs to >>> 'identify' people, which you're not supposed to do but which someone >>> might be inclined to do. And I have been steadily worried about POST >>> in relation to HR14a. >>> >>> Best >>> Jonathan >>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Nathan >>>> >>>> Jonathan Rees wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Quorum is 3. >>>>> >>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>>> From: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org> >>>>> Date: Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 2:34 PM >>>>> Subject: AWWSW Telecon Tuesday 2011-09-27 >>>>> To: AWWSW TF <public-awwsw@w3.org> >>>>> >>>>> Agenda: >>>>> We need to just declare victory and shut the group down. >>>>> It's clear that given the low level of interest we're not going to >>>>> solve any more problems so let's just figure out what to report to >>>>> the >>>>> TAG. >>>>> >>>>> Jonathan >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> >> > > -- > 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 Monday, 24 October 2011 12:48:56 UTC