W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swbp-wg@w3.org > March 2005

RE: SWBPD WG Resolution Regarding httpRange-14

From: McBride, Brian <brian.mcbride@hp.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 08:45:57 +0100
Message-ID: <D46BE408DE18F841B90DEFA8CAA2CDB2A6C7FE@sdcexcea01.emea.cpqcorp.net>
To: "David Wood" <dwood@mindswap.org>
Cc: <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>

 :removed tag list

[...]

> 
> 1. Briefly, The SWBP WG is not the design authority for HTTP 
> URIs, so it not in a position to say MAY about them. It is in 
> a position to take part in the debate.

I wasn't present for all the discussions, but from a process point of
view, that looks like a good point.  It would be a bad idea if all and
sundry felt they could pass MUST, SHOULD and MAY resolutions about other
folks specs.  Not sure I'd be happy with the URI's folks passing such
resolutions about RDF for example.

OK, its arguable that we are passing a resolution about the RDF specs,
but such a resolution should be compatible with the URI specs and their
interpretation.  It would be polite/politic/sensible to get the URI
folks to agree that it was.  I also feel that Roy Fielding did a great
job of wording the latest URI specs so that they were compatible with
the the interpretation RDF gave them.  I suggest we don't want to
antagonise those folks.

David's explanation to the TAG list seems fine.  However, I suggest the
chairs may wish to revisit the formal wording of the resolution and
indicate early to the TAG list their intention to do so.

I regret I didn't spot this earlier.

Brian




> 
> 2. Technically, his is a very far-reaching decision rather 
> than a comment on best practices.
> 
> 3. As it stands, the SWBPWG resolution does not resolve the TAG issue.
> The resolution of the issue requires the answering of the 

> questions around it in the context of a consistent 
> architecture for the Web.
> 
> Clearly the SWBPWG has an architecture in mind.
> Could the SWBPWG, in proposing an architecture, like to 
> propose an ontology of Web architecture?
> 
> Could they for example please explain, in their ontology, 
> semantics of an HTTP 200 response?
> 
> Could the SWBPWG please answer also answer the following:
> 
> 1. Who was the creator <http://www.w3.org/2005/moby/dick> ?
> 
> 2. What is the year of creation of 
> <http://www.w3.org/2005/moby/dick> ?
> 
> 3. Who was the creator <http://www.w3.org/2005/moby/xyz> ?
> 
> 4. What is the year of creation of <http://www.w3.org/2005/moby/xyz> ?
> 
> This is not to say that the is issue is simple, or that the 
> present practice does not include that the SWBP describes. It 
> asks for a consistent and worked out alternative.
> 
> I had the hope, after the face-face meeting at the TP, that 
> the task the group was taking on was to lay out that architecture.
> 
> Tim BL
> 
> Unofficially. Not as Director.
> 
> On Mar 26, 2005, at 16:20, David Wood wrote:
> 
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Whereas the TAG have not yet resolved httpRange-14 [1], the 
> Semantic 
> > Web Best Practices and Deployment WG have resolved unanimously that:
> >
> >   - an http URI without a hash MAY be used to identify an 
> RDF property.
> >
> > where MAY is understood in terms of RFC 2119 and identify is 
> > understood in terms of RFC 3986
> >
> > Our primary concerns are:
> >    - Deployed semantic web applications such as Dublin Core [2],
> >      Friend-of-a-friend [3], Creative Commons [4], Adobe XMP [5]
> >      and RSS 1.0 [6] that use such URIs.
> >    - The practical difficulty of using '#' namespace URIs for large
> >      vocabularies such as wordnet;
> >    - Server side processing of fragment identifier components
> >      (i.e. the impossibility of doing server side redirects on
> >      '#' URIs).
> >
> > The lack of resolution of the httpRange-14 issue is 
> impacting the work 
> > of the following SWBPD WG Task Forces:
> >    - Vocabulary Management
> >    - Porting Thesauri
> >    - WordNet
> >    - RDF/Topic Maps Interoperability
> > (see the SWBPD WG homepage for TF list and more information [7])
> >
> > The SWBPD WG hopes that the TAG will be able to soon reach 
> closure on 
> > the httpRange-14 issue, noting the current SW practice 
> embodied in our 
> > resolution.  We offer to work with you as appropriate.
> >
> > [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html#httpRange-14
> > [2] http://dublincore.org/
> > [3] http://www.foaf-project.org/
> > [4] http://creativecommons.org/
> > [5] http://www.adobe.com/products/xmp/main.html
> > [6] http://purl.org/rss/1.0/
> > [7] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/#Tasks
> >
> > Regards,
> > Dave Wood
> > Co-chair, Semantic Web Best Practices & Deployment Working Group
> >
> 
> 
> 
Received on Monday, 28 March 2005 07:46:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:31:07 UTC