Re: container types

> I'm having a little bit of trouble getting your concrete message

Roger, let me try this then

1: *If* the example was Gastronomy/likes_food/people, I would agree that 
(to me) those are "clearly" non-information resources.  Since it's not, 
limited LDP-practical usefulness.

2: If you're trying to really toe that line in the Primer, you might 
consider renaming "the bug tracker" example(s) to "the bug Report 
tracker", independent of anything else.

3: NetWorth, unlike gastronomy, is not "clearly" a non-information 
resource to me.  I'm not a fanatic about those things typically.  I try to 
be fanatical about refusing to be fanatical ;-)


> I still think that we are doing something 'wrong' in the DC examples
Suggest a concrete change.  Even if the end result is different or you're 
not sure yet what end result you do want (you put up a strawman, and the 
discussion changes your mind and/or others), a strawman often draws out 
differences that improve mutual understanding.  Think about Sandro's 
statement last week (I forget the specifics, but it was on paging or patch 
I think, and it netted out to: it wasn't what I started with, but I'm Very 
Happy with the conclusion we reached).  That's like The Poster Child for 
W3C wg process.
E.g. if you're very very gently suggesting we rename "o:NetWorth" to 
"o:NetWorthReport" or something like that, "ok" is my reaction.  Since I'm 
unable to understand clearly what you think we might be doing wrong now, 
that's my best strawman (and to be clear: I'm not proposing that change 
myself, even though I would be fine making it ... if it solves your angst, 
then propose it as a change; if not, find another that would solve your 
angst).

That help?

Best Regards, John

Voice US 845-435-9470  BluePages
Tivoli OSLC Lead - Show me the Scenario