Re: rel=type or rel=profile, issue 92

On 17 Jan 2014, at 22:44, Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com> wrote:

> John already reported that he checked with Erik Wilde on the proposed use of rel=profile for the purpose at hand and that Erik said it was fine. Why can't we accept the opinion of the very author of the relevant RFC rather than try to second guess what the text was meant to allow or not? 

You're joking right?

The text of an RFC is primary over the opinion of its author. It is the text that will be
used and referred to by developers in the future. We are discussing what type of relation
we want in the LDP spec, and for this we need to look at the text published here:

    http://tools.ietf.org/search/rfc6906

If the author could not get his thoughts through in this text, then there is no second 
guessing.

> Sorry but we just don't have time for this type of debate anymore. THAT is not constructive.

This is crazy! Allowing this type of reasoning would be to akin to 
writing blank checks in standards body.

Henry


> --
> Arnaud  Le Hors - Software Standards Architect - IBM Software Group
> 
> 
> Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net> wrote on 01/17/2014 01:21:00 PM:
> 
> > From: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net> 
> > To: Arnaud Le Hors/Cupertino/IBM@IBMUS, 
> > Cc: "public-ldp-wg@w3.org Working Group" <public-ldp-wg@w3.org> 
> > Date: 01/17/2014 01:21 PM 
> > Subject: Re: rel=type or rel=profile, issue 92 
> > 
> > 
> > On 17 Jan 2014, at 20:24, Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > "Eric Prud'hommeaux" <ericw3c@gmail.com> wrote on 01/17/2014 10:45:25 AM:
> > > 
> > > > Apart from how we would best model types vs. interaction models, we
> > > > are good netizens who use HTTP headers as the are intended, and
> > > > rel=profile is intended to communicate the interaction model.
> > > 
> > > The fundamental question is (again) whether we agree that the 
> > interaction model isn't tied to the RDF data type and whether 
> > Alexandre's use case - allowing one to have a container that doesn't
> > behave like an LDPC but a mere LDPR - is legit and should be supported. 
> > > 
> > > If we don't agree with that - and Henry apparently doesn't - 
> > discussing how it should be supported is rather moot. 
> > > 
> > > Given the amount of discussion that has already taken place over 
> > this question - this is just a new occurence, it's not really 
> > different from the discussion around mediatypes we had earlier on - 
> > I see little hope to get consensus on this unfortunately. It's like 
> > discussing politics or religion - people don't typically change their mind.
> > 
> > Frankly dismissing arguments as religious is not very constructive. 
> > Precise arguments
> > were made that are eminently falsifiable. 
> > 
> > I have made a few:
> > 
> >   a) that rel="profile" as specified in rfc6906 makes no mention of 
> > interaction models.
> >    => This can be falsified by pointing to relevant sections of the wiki
> > 
> >   b) that the archiving problem could be applied just as well to any
> > relation to interaction 
> >      models,  so that the argument about moving to a relation won't 
> > solve the problem
> >     => This can be falsified by explaining how this is mistaken
> > 
> > 
> > > Given how late we are already with regard to our schedule we can't
> > afford to spend more airtime discussing this. 
> > > 
> > > This leaves us with two options: 1) give up on supporting 
> > Alexandre's use case, 2) overrule Henry's objection and proceed, 
> > leaving it to him to decide whether he wants to file a formal objection. 
> > > 
> > > Please, be prepared to vote on those options. 
> > > 
> > > Regards. 
> > > --
> > > Arnaud  Le Hors - Software Standards Architect - IBM Software Group
> > > 
> > 
> > Social Web Architect
> > http://bblfish.net/
> > 

Social Web Architect
http://bblfish.net/

Received on Friday, 17 January 2014 22:18:51 UTC