- From: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
- Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 16:47:53 +0100
- To: tom.heath@talis.com
- Cc: public-lod community <public-lod@w3.org>
Tom, On 26 Mar 2012, at 16:05, Tom Heath wrote: > On 23 March 2012 15:35, Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com> wrote: >> I'm sure many people are just deeply bored of this discussion. > > No offense intended to Jeni and others who are working hard on this, > but *amen*, with bells on! > > One of the things that bothers me most about the many years worth of > httpRange-14 discussions (and the implications that HR14 is > partly/heavily/solely to blame for slowing adoption of Linked Data) is > the almost complete lack of hard data being used to inform the > discussions. For a community populated heavily with scientists I find > that pretty tragic. What hard data do you think would resolve (or if not resolve, at least move forward) the argument? Some people are contributing their own experience from building systems, but perhaps that's too anecdotal? Would a structured survey be helpful? Or do you think we might be able to pick up trends from the webdatacommons.org (or similar) data? The larger question is how do we get to a state where we *don't* have this permathread running, year in year out. Jonathan and the TAG's aim with the call for change proposals is to get us to that state. The idea is that by getting people who think that the specs should say something different to "put their money where their mouth is" and express what that should be, we have something more solid to work from than reams and reams of opinionated emails. But we do all need to work at it if we're going to come to a consensus. I know everyone's tired of this discussion, but I don't think the TAG is going to do this exercise again, so this really is the time to contribute, and preferably in a constructive manner, recognising the larger aim. Cheers, Jeni -- Jeni Tennison http://www.jenitennison.com
Received on Monday, 26 March 2012 15:49:53 UTC