[VM] Moving Cookbook to Working Draft

> RESOLVED to publish "Best Practice Recipes for Publishing
> RDF Vocabularies" as Working Draft: 
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/VM/http-examples/2006-01-18/

All,

After yesterday's BPD telecon, the Cookbook is moving forward
as a Working Draft.  I took an action:

> [NEW] ACTION: Tom find a place for the footnote on "simplest" recipe
> [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/20-swbp-minutes.html#action16]

to add a footnote (or sentence) on the option -- even simpler
than the "simplest" of the recipes, Recipe 2 -- of using a
303-redirect service (see [1], excerpted below).

At this point, so close before Tech Plenary, publication as
a Working Draft cannot (realistically) proceed until two
weeks from now.  I am happy to propose a text before then
and should think we would be able to approve that addition
over the list without waiting until our next VM telecon,
which is scheduled for Friday, 17 March.

If anyone thinks it is necessary, we could exercise the option
of holding a telecon this Friday at 1300 UTC [2].

Tom

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2006Feb/0109.html
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2006Feb/0120.html

David Booth writes [1]:

> 1. Recipe 2 says it is the "simplest possible configuration", but this
> is true only if the URIs have already been fixed.  (And if they have,
> then it is likely that the adminstrator has already configured their
> server appropriately, and thus is not in need of this cookbook.)
> However, if a 303-redirect service (such as thing-described-by.org or
> t-d-b.org) is used, the server configuration is clearly easier and less
> error-prone, because it only requires that the server send the correct
> MIME type, which the server may already do anyway.  The 303-redirect
> service does the rest.  In particular, the use of a 303-redirect
> service:
> 
> 	- Does not require the coordinated maintenance of two URIs
> 	(the original versus the forwarding location)
> 
> 	- Does not require URI rewriting (except to add .rdf extension
> 	if desired).
> 
> 	- Does not require that MultiViews be disabled.
> 
> 	- Does not require that a particular directory NOT exist.
> 
> The idea of using a 303-redirect service is quite new, and I would not
> want to imply that the practice is more accepted or widespread than it
> currently is -- indeed, thus far I only heard one person on a previous
> teleconference say that they are using it -- but I do think it is
> important to at least acknowledge it as an option, since it *is* a
> simpler approach.  Perhaps something like an editors' note would be
> appropriate.
> 

-- 
Dr. Thomas Baker                                 tbaker@tbaker.de
Director, Specifications and Documentation
Dublin Core Metadata Initiative

Received on Tuesday, 21 February 2006 09:45:23 UTC