Re: The Intuitive/ Requirement

On 4 Mar 2013, at 09:24, Henry Story wrote:

> 
> On 1 Mar 2013, at 19:40, Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
>> > From: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net> 
>> > To: Raúl García Castro <rgarcia@fi.upm.es>, 
>> > Cc: public-ldp-wg@w3.org 
>> > Date: 03/01/2013 05:41 AM 
>> > Subject: Re: The Intuitive/ Requirement 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > On 27 Feb 2013, at 17:22, Raúl García Castro <rgarcia@fi.upm.es> wrote:
>> > 
>> > ...
>> > >> yes, but I think this could just as well lead one to the opposite
>> > >> conclusion, namely that the aggregation model presented recently is
>> > >> not intuitive.
>> > > 
>> > > Well, but aggregation is what we already have in the current 
>> > version of the specification (Editor's Draft 27 February 2013).
>> > 
>> > Oh, I am surprised that was put in, with so little support. I'll need to 
>> > look at that closer. But I am not sure it is incompatible with the 
>> > prosposition
>> > put forward here as argued below...
>> > 
>> > ...
>> 
>> Hi Henry, 
>> Aggregation was added to the spec as a follow up to the decision to close Issue 34 on February 11. I see no evidence of having "little support". What are you referring to? 
>> 
>> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/meeting/2013-02-11#resolution_3
> 
> I some how had a feeling that what was being voted for at that point was 
> for it be adopted as a point of discussion to focus on. I did not think that it was 
> going into the spec as is.   

My understanding:  going forward with John's proposal was a way of breaking the issue-34 deadlock. It's not like we really agreed to it - It was just a new way of talking about it. As I see it, now that the text is written up in the draft, it is time to do as Arnaud said and review the text and raise new issues, etc. 

Roger

> 
> Anyway, I don't think this is incompatible with the point I am putting forward here. 
> 
>> --
>> Arnaud  Le Hors - Software Standards Architect - IBM Software Group
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> Social Web Architect
> http://bblfish.net/
>