RE: checking "Cool URIs for the Semantic Web" comments... would like more time

Leo, Richard,

We really have to improve the bandwidth of this dialog - which is getting over loaded by context retoration at each message exchange.

Can either or both of you be available to attend a TAG teclon on 20th March say 1:15pm Boston time (bearing in mind that the US has sprung forward and not all of Europe has).

TimBL, DanC:
Can you both confirm your availability to discuss this on 20th March.

[Amy: if necessary can you confirm on behalf of Tim - thx]

Thanks,

Stuart
--
Hewlett-Packard Limited registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN
Registered No: 690597 England

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Leo Sauermann [mailto:leo.sauermann@dfki.de]
> Sent: 12 March 2008 09:45
> To: Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol)
> Cc: Richard Cyganiak; Susie M Stephens;
> public-sweo-ig@w3.org; Dan Connolly; Danny Ayers; Norman
> Walsh; tag@w3.org
> Subject: Re: checking "Cool URIs for the Semantic Web"
> comments... would like more time
>
> It was Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol) who said at the right time
> 15.02.2008 12:11 the following words:
> > Hello Leo, Richard,
> >
> > Following our telcon meeting yesterday TimBL and DanC did
> more work to
> > clarify their rendering of the diagram originally discussed
> around [1,2].
> >
> > They have produced the following which I hope will
> 'unblock' whatever
> > is causing us a problem wrt to item #2 in the threaded
> discussion below.
> >
> > _    http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/diagrams/tag/HTTP303.png_
> > <http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/diagrams/tag/HTTP303.png>
> >     _http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/diagrams/tag/HTTP303.graffle_
> >
> > Note: i don't thing this diagram visually distinguishes
> between URIs
> > and resources, a distinction which I think is useful and
> was apparent
> > in the whiteboard diagram/photo at [2].
> >
> > Would you find it useful to come to a TAG telcon to talk
> through a bit
> > how we (well... you)  finalise this document? I have regrets from
> > TimBL to TAG telcons through to and including 13th March, so we'd
> > either have to make progress in his absense or wait until he was
> > available. DanC is on the hook to scribe our meeting on
> 21st Feb... so
> > that would be a possibility - or we will all be meeting F2F in
> > Vancouver 26-28th Feb and we could try to have you join us
> by phone if
> > that would work.
> Richard and I have looked at the diagram and discussed about
> it, the approach as depicted on above image [3] is confusing
> us, is seems to be different from the photo at [2], and also
> to what is written in http-range-14.
>
> In the *worst* way, I could intentionally mis-interpret [3] as the
> following:
> == worst case===
> * URIthing identifying the thing
> * URIgen identifying a forwarder uri
> * URIrdf identifying a rdf document
> * URIhtml identifying a html document
>
> On a GET to URIthing
> it makes a  303 redirect to URIgen,
> which will do another 303 (based on conneg) to either, URIrdf
> or URIhtml.
> == /worst case ==
>
> 3 http roundtrips - this is not what you had in mind!?
>
> I would guess that other readers may also mis-interpret the
> provided graphic [3] and therefore would NOT use it as is in
> the document.
>
> My understanding of the decision was:
> == we assumed ==
> Assuming we start with graphic [4], the content-negotiation
> and 303 redirect is handled:
> On a GET to URIthing
> make a 303 redirect from URIthing to URIrdf or URIhtml based
> on conneg, defaulting to "URIhtml" for browsers that do not
> pass RDF as "accept"
> == /we assumed==
>
> YES?
>
> Out of sheer curiosity, I wonder if using a method indicated
> on [5] may also work for semantic-web redirects... but we
> will stick to 303 in the document, we only wanted to explain
> the http-range-14 decision.
>
> [3] http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/diagrams/tag/HTTP303.png
> [4] http://www.w3.org/TR/cooluris/img20071212/303.png
> [5] http://www.w3.org/TR/chips/#cp5.2
>
>
> best
> Leo
> >
> > In terms of closing our outstanding comments - seeing finalised
> > diagrams alongside the accompanying narrative is important
> to us. We
> > would like to review the document in as near final form as possible.
> > FWIW that also means resolving (or removing) the dangling todo's
> > particularly if they are going to add text to the document.
> >
> > Lastly, we ran out of time on our call before I could
> establish where
> > the rest of the TAG were satisfied by the changes that you
> had made on
> > section 3.1
> >
> > I hope that all makes sense. Basically,
> > - we'd be happy to invite you to a segment of one of our
> meetings in
> > order to get he interaction bandwidth up - please let me
> know if you
> > would like to do that;
> > - we'd like to review the document in as near final form (in
> > particular in thr form in which if we say 'good-to-go' from our POV
> > then it is published exactly as is at that point - modulo
> > boilerplate/status changes). If that is the state that you believe
> > that you are already in, please let us know.
> >
> > BR
> >
> > Stuart
> > --
> > [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2007Sep/0109.html
> > [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2007Sep/0061
> >
> >
> >
> > Hewlett-Packard Limited registered Office: Cain Road,
> Bracknell, Berks
> > RG12 1HN
> > Registered No: 690597 England
> >
> >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> >     *From:* Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol)
> >     *Sent:* 14 February 2008 12:25
> >     *To:* 'Leo Sauermann'
> >     *Cc:* Susie M Stephens; public-sweo-ig@w3.org; Dan Connolly;
> >     Richard Cyganiak; Danny Ayers; Norman Walsh
> >     *Subject:* RE: checking "Cool URIs for the Semantic Web"
> >     comments... would like more time
> >
> >     Hello Leo,
> >
> >     Sorry, I/we misunderstood the intent of the @@'s as signalling
> >     places in the document that you intended to do more work on (a
> >     common use for @@'s) rather than as marking places where you
> >     needed to confirm resolutions.
> >
> >     We'll take a look and try to get back to you ASAP
> (within a couple
> >     of days I hope).
> >
> >     In respect of the 3 points below:
> >
> >     On 1: Yes I think we've agreed to respect the decision
> you've made.
> >
> >     On 2: This relates to a diagram. I believe that TAG
> members *will*
> >     regard it as crucial that you present for review the
> diagram that
> >     you intend to publish. The diagram was a source of *significant*
> >     discussion in the TAG F2F meeting that gave rise to our
> feedback -
> >     so I don't think that TAG would sign-off on the
> revisions without
> >     sight of the replacement diagram
> >
> >     On 3: I have read the paragraphs in section 3.1 and
> they look fine
> >     to me (personnally)... however, I (or another TAG member) will
> >     report on whether the TAG concur.
> >
> >     Wrt the TODOs at the end of the document - I believe
> that there is
> >     TAG interested in the disposition of those items (particularly
> >     2nd-4th items), and currently no indication of how they will be
> >     resolved in the document.
> >
> >     We will be discusssing this on 14th Feb.
> >
> >     Best regards,
> >
> >     Stuart
> >     --
> >     Hewlett-Packard Limited registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell,
> >     Berks RG12 1HN
> >     Registered No: 690597 England
> >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> >         *From:* Leo Sauermann [mailto:leo.sauermann@dfki.de]
> >         *Sent:* 13 February 2008 15:35
> >         *To:* Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol)
> >         *Cc:* Susie M Stephens; public-sweo-ig@w3.org; Dan Connolly;
> >         Richard Cyganiak; Danny Ayers
> >         *Subject:* Re: checking "Cool URIs for the Semantic Web"
> >         comments... would like more time
> >
> >         Hi Stuart,
> >
> >         we reviewed the document and left in many @@ to show that we
> >         have worked on these sections, also including
> comments such as
> >         "@@ The next paragraphs address a recommendation by TAG to
> >         weaken our "err on the side of caution" recommendation by
> >         explaning the problem better. TAG members may
> verify if their
> >         recommendation was met by our explanation."
> >
> >         So, looking at  [2] I would say
> >         (1) we both agreed that this was not crucial and we decided
> >         not to do it becuase of readability
> >         (2) this is still outstanding but not crucial
> >         (3) has been addressed, we would like to hear your opinion
> >         about the changed text
> >
> >         for (3) ("err on the side of caution") we added a
> reference to
> >         the AWWW.
> >
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-cooluris-20071217/#distinguishing
> >
> >         I would humbly ask, to speed up the process we have (facing
> >         the end of SWEO) to skim through the document and
> read the @@
> >         comments to check if you agree wiht the decisions we made
> >         regarding your prior comments.
> >
> >         Once you agree to the @@, we can safely remove them, some of
> >         them are intentionally left in to allow you to read our
> >         discussion and answers to suggested changes.
> >
> >         best
> >         Leo
> >
> >         It was Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol) who said at the
> >         right time 25.01.2008 17:00 the following words:
> >>         Susie, Leo,
> >>
> >>         Norm Walsh has taken a review pass over the recent
> changes to the "Cool URIs..." document checking the changes
> against comments which he raised in [1]. He's posted his
> comments on www-tag@w3.org at [2].
> >>
> >>         Norm notes 3 comments that do not appear to have
> been accepted or adopted. He indicates:
> >>         - satisfaction that the group has considered the first;
> >>         - a lack of clarity about the disposition of the second;
> >>         - and no apparent change on the third.
> >>
> >>         Norm also notes a number of @@ and editorial
> comments that have yet to be resolved and are indicative of
> at least one more editorial cycle.
> >>
> >>         Accordingly, we would be happy to review the
> entire document again once the editors have resolved the
> remaining issues that they indicate as outstanding.
> >>
> >>         Best regards
> >>
> >>         Stuart Williams
> >>         for W3C TAG
> >>         --
> >>         [1]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2007Sep/0090
> >>         [2]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2008Jan/0067
> >>
> >>         Hewlett-Packard Limited registered Office: Cain
> Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN
> >>         Registered No: 690597 England
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>         -----Original Message-----
> >>>         From: Susie M Stephens [mailto:STEPHENS_SUSIE_M@LILLY.COM]
> >>>         Sent: 18 January 2008 16:13
> >>>         To: Dan Connolly
> >>>         Cc: public-sweo-ig@w3.org; public-sweo-ig-request@w3.org;
> >>>         Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol)
> >>>         Subject: Re: checking "Cool URIs for the Semantic Web"
> >>>         comments... would like more time
> >>>
> >>>         Hi Dan,
> >>>
> >>>         It would clearly be good if you could get all
> comments to us
> >>>         by Jan 21.
> >>>         However, we very much value input from the TAG,
> so we can be
> >>>         somewhat flexible.
> >>>
> >>>         SWEO is currently chartered to finish at the end
> of January,
> >>>         but if absolutely necessary we could explore extending the
> >>>         group by a month.
> >>>
> >>>         Cheers,
> >>>
> >>>         Susie
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>                      Dan Connolly
> >>>                      <connolly@w3.org>
> >>>                      Sent by:
> >>>                   To
> >>>                      public-sweo-ig-re
> public-sweo-ig@w3.org
> >>>                      quest@w3.org
> >>>                   cc
> >>>                                                "Williams,
> Stuart (HP Labs,
> >>>                                                Bristol)"
> <skw@hp.com>
> >>>                      01/17/2008 03:58
> >>>              Subject
> >>>                      PM                        checking
> "Cool URIs for the
> >>>                                                Semantic
> Web" comments... would
> >>>                                                like  more time
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>         In today's TAG teleconference, we took note of
> the recent draft
> >>>           http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-cooluris-20071217/
> >>>
> >>>         As our comments on earlier drafts go back as far Sep 2007
> >>>           http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2007Sep/0091
> >>>         it's taking us some time to swap them back in to
> check they
> >>>         way they were addressed in your 17 Dec draft.
> >>>
> >>>         Regarding...
> >>>         "comments should possibly be sent until 21 January 2008."
> >>>         ... we're not likely to meet that deadline. We
> expect to get
> >>>         some of our double-check done by 24 Jan, but some
> of it may
> >>>         take a little longer. I hope you can stand by.
> >>>
> >>>         --
> >>>         Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
> >>>         gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >         --
> >         ____________________________________________________
> >         DI Leo Sauermann       http://www.dfki.de/~sauermann
> >
> >         Deutsches Forschungszentrum fuer
> >         Kuenstliche Intelligenz DFKI GmbH
> >         Trippstadter Strasse 122
> >         P.O. Box 2080           Fon:   +49 631 20575-116
> >         D-67663 Kaiserslautern  Fax:   +49 631 20575-102
> >         Germany                 Mail:  leo.sauermann@dfki.de
> >
> >         Geschaeftsfuehrung:
> >         Prof.Dr.Dr.h.c.mult. Wolfgang Wahlster (Vorsitzender)
> >         Dr. Walter Olthoff
> >         Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats:
> >         Prof. Dr. h.c. Hans A. Aukes
> >         Amtsgericht Kaiserslautern, HRB 2313
> >         ____________________________________________________
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> ____________________________________________________
> DI Leo Sauermann       http://www.dfki.de/~sauermann
>
> Deutsches Forschungszentrum fuer
> Kuenstliche Intelligenz DFKI GmbH
> Trippstadter Strasse 122
> P.O. Box 2080           Fon:   +49 631 20575-116
> D-67663 Kaiserslautern  Fax:   +49 631 20575-102
> Germany                 Mail:  leo.sauermann@dfki.de
>
> Geschaeftsfuehrung:
> Prof.Dr.Dr.h.c.mult. Wolfgang Wahlster (Vorsitzender) Dr.
> Walter Olthoff Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats:
> Prof. Dr. h.c. Hans A. Aukes
> Amtsgericht Kaiserslautern, HRB 2313
> ____________________________________________________
>
>

Received on Wednesday, 12 March 2008 17:09:41 UTC