Re: 10 May 2004 Editor's Draft of Architecture Document - reviewer responses requested

I would feel much happier with this draft if some of the fundamental
issues that Pat Hayes has pointed out had been addressed.  Without
resolution of these issues I don't see any point in the document.

As a particular illustrative example that leapt out at me while I was
reading the document, I quote, from Section 1

	Each resource is identified by a URI.

and from Section 2

	Resources exist before URIs; a resource may be identified by zero
	URIs. 

Peter F. Patel-Schneider



From: "Ian B. Jacobs" <ij@w3.org>
Subject: 10 May 2004 Editor's Draft of Architecture Document - reviewer responses requested
Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 21:31:51 -0400

> Hello,
> 
> In preparation for the TAG's face-to-face meeting this week, I've
> made available the 10 May 2004 Editor's Draft of the Architecture
> Document:
>    http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/webarch-20040510/
> 
> This draft supersedes the 7 May draft; I incorporated a few extra
> changes I had wanted to make based on TAG resolutions.
> 
> The remainder of this email includes information about:
> 
>  1) Diff resources
>  2) List of issues addressed
> 
> Below there is a list of names and issue URIs. If your name is
> on the list (and in the "To" line above), it means that this
> draft MAY address the issues that you raised that are listed
> below. Each issue URI points to details of the proposal to
> address your issue.
> 
> Although the TAG has not yet agreed to these proposals,
> I welcome your comments about proposals that concern your
> issues; please send those comments to public-webarch-comments@w3.org. In
> particular, please indicate whether the text as proposed satisfies you
> for that issue or
> how it might be edited to satisfy you.
> 
> Thank you,
> 
>  - Ian