[VM] Telecon report - 2005-01-10

SWBPD VM TF

10 Jan 2006

Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2006Jan/0029.html
See also: http://www.w3.org/2006/01/10-vmtf-irc - IRC log

Present: Ralph, Tom_Baker (chair), Alistair, DanBri (scribe)

Next meetings:
2005-01-17 Tue 1400 UTC
2005-01-24 Tue 1500 UTC - and 1500 UTC thereafter...
2005-01-31 Tue 1500 UTC

Whether and how to cite design rationale

Ralph pictured a mechanism that would not obligate us to
exhaustively cite rationales; rather, we would cite relevant
mail messages as needed.  Tom likes short documents with
lengthy appendices.

Process between now and end of month: discuss reviewer comments
and suggestions one by one on the telecons, formulate responses
to reviewers on the list.  BPDWG will probably be extended
by three months, so there will be an opportunity to update.

Alistair asks why the question is "hash-vs-slash" -- why slash,
as opposed to "hash-vs-anything-else"?  Two answers offered:
because slashes function as significant separators; the slash
holds an identified role in URI space -- notion of hierarchies
in URI spec -- hierarchies in collections (Ralph). And: because
those are the only two that have been used in practice (Tom).

In BPD, the idea arose to write a TAG-like "finding" to
explain the impact of the httpRange-14 decision.  David Booth
and David Wood wrote drafts independently.  But probably not
enough time to start a new document, so why not incorporate
them into cookbook?  David Booth agreed to go to propose a
short section for us to consider.  General agreement that we
should avoid getting too historical -- just cover practical
results.  Some of what David Booth has written could plausibly
be recast as introductory material on how to choose reasonable
namespace names.

DBooth's review
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Dec/0124.html:

    ACTION: Ralph reply to DBooth/G1 review with a summary
    of the new text he added to the working draft.  This new
    text addressed "trade-offs between hash and slash".

DBooth/G2; 302 on purl.org

    The question is: How should the HTTP Cookbook handle purl.org
    URIs given that the purl.org servers, by design, return a
    302 response code instead of the 303 code required by the TAG
    decision on httpRange-14?  David Booth suggests we avoid giving
    advice that does not conform; Andreas Harth suggests putting the
    issue into an appendix.

    The TF feels it is important to address this issue somewhere
    in the Cookbook, especially as purl.orgs are used by important
    vocabularies such as Dublin Core and RSS.  We think the problem
    should be described in the body of the paper, though we may
    push some of the detail into an appendix.

    ACTION: Tom report TF decision on G2/purl.org to the list and dbooth


-- 
Dr. Thomas Baker                      baker@sub.uni-goettingen.de
SUB - Goettingen State                            +49-551-39-3883
and University Library                           +49-30-8109-9027
Papendiek 14, 37073 Göttingen

Received on Tuesday, 10 January 2006 16:54:49 UTC