Blues Brothers - Re: opening issue-74 - Re: (Dis)Proving that 303s have a performance impact.

This all reminds me of the Blues Brothers, a great film which I saw again 
just recently.

The problems start with the scene where Jake sees the light [1] after the great
sermon by James Brown, and from there on gets way too enthusisastic 
about this vision, ignoring the police reality around him. It ends 
with a mega car chase with all of the cops following our unlikely heroes who 
just want to save their local church [2]. 

  So let's remember: religion is important there is no point in life if one
cannot be enthusiastic about something, but please lets keep our feet
on the ground, make sure we avoid alerting the patrol cars ( specs) 
read carefully what we are saying before sending it  off, and consider 
the consequences of  what we are doing before rushing all too 
enthusiastically into it. Every step has consequences - indeed if it were
not so there would be no point in making any move at all.

  All the best,

      Henry

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCCd5Qh3OtQ
[2] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMagP52BWG8


On 18 Feb 2013, at 20:16, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com> wrote:

> On 2/18/13 1:34 PM, Andrei Sambra wrote:
>> 
>> On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 6:47 PM, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com> wrote:
>> On 2/18/13 12:17 PM, Henry Story wrote:
>> On 18 Feb 2013, at 17:54, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com> wrote:
>> 
>> On 2/18/13 11:38 AM, Mo McRoberts wrote:
>> In which case, I'd propose raising something which results in the following vote (or even straw poll?) in order to settle this:
>> 
>> “Is it likely to be helpful to some readers of the spec to include a short note to explain the                       purpose of hash URIs in the examples, or is it likely to be otherwise confusing?”
>> 
>> If the answer to that is 'the former', then we can look at tweaking the wording.
>> Note: others  have made the same vote request, earlier in this discussion [1]. I guess, those requests weren't clear enough.
>> It has been amply clear that you have made this proposal.
>> 
>> Others are also allowed to make proposals on this forum.
>> 
>> Henry
>> 
>> Henry,
>> 
>> Here is what a chair person would do, assuming they understood their role:
>> 
>> On receipt of my initial mail they would have simply acknowledged the position and then clearly indicated the cause of action to follow. Instead, in typical fashion, you opted to deflect and basically trigger this thread.
>> 
>> And by the way, you did ask for an issue to be opened, but not in an appropriate manner as it simply came across as trying awkward via process, when convenient to your cause of stifling disagreement.
>> 
>> What I still don't understand:
>> 
>> What gives you the distinguished position to unilaterally insert such a notice in the spec? What gives you the distinguished privilege to throw hurdles at those that oppose such unilateral actions by either the chair person or an editor?
>> 
>> The notice was never "inserted", especially not by "exploiting the editor privilege" as you have stated earlier. I find that accusation very offensive and I would like to ask you to refrain from doing it again. The note was there from the beginning, when we split the spec last year. Please look at the mercurial history if you want to confirm it. 
>> 
>>  
>> In a functional community, you (or Andrei) would actually have put forth your intentions for discussion before they ended up in the spec document. This didn't happen, it cost you 0.00 (whatever units of timeccosts you choose) to insert the notice while charging those that oppose it a procedural tax.
>> 
>> Henry actually suggested you open an issue, and here's a link to his email, which was sent 10 days ago: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webid/2013Feb/0059.html
>> 
>> Andrei
>>  
>> 
>> 
>> 
> ** slightly updated with some typo fixes etc..  **
> 
> Andrei, 
> 
> And guess what, I hereby apologize for making that accusation. 
> 
>> Please look at the mercurial history if you want to confirm it. 
> 
> Yes, I had a conversation with Melvin (offline) and he unveiled this most vital piece of information. Now, bearing in mind my apology, I am sure you realize that you could have pointed that out to me in your earlier reply to my mail [1]. 
> 
> Henry: 
> 
> We are no strangers (as per Melvin's comments) and you know I am quite fond of you, bearing in mind our travels. That said, I do get frustrated when as a chair you don't spot opportunities to dowse rather than fan flames [2]. Anyway, you are not uniquely responsible for this thread, so I also apologize for some of the more personal stuff. 
> 
> Contrary to popular misconception, I am extremely time challenged. I start with a URL and work from there. I was of the (now proven incorrect) opinion that Andrei unilaterally added the notice. I didn't realize it was an artifact of the past. You could have simply pointed that out to me (email or other methods, which you are well aware of) as Melvin did. 
> 
> When I go out of my way to share Linked Data examples using Links I am doing so to cut short the pathway to understanding my points. Linked Data is ultimately about the power of Links etc.. I did provide some examples using Links to specifically demonstrate the nuances of this realm in relation to HTTP URI styles etc..
> 
> 
> Mo: 
> 
> One day we'll meet in person, clearly email isn't working for us 
> 
> All: 
> 
> As eluded to by Elf and Melvin (most recently), this shouldn't be personal, so I apologize for my contribution to such deterioration in this passionate discussion. For what its worth, I've traveled far     in this realm with Henry (he even took one the photos used in some of my public profile documents). As for Andrei, I love what he's done with http://my-profile.eu, it goes a long way to showcasing what's possible with WebID, in a manner that works for end-users especially. 
> 
> All I want is for WebID to succeed. The problem it solves is crucial. I don't want it solved in 10 years time if we can kill these issues right now. I want us to learn from mistakes that have been made in the past e.g., how RDF/XML conflation nearly destroyed RDF and the Semantic Web vision as a whole as a result of not paying attention to undue conflation etc. 
> 
> Links: 
> 
> 1. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webid/2013Feb/0034.html -- initial response from Andrei 
> 2. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webid/2013Feb/0031.html -- an early response from Henry . 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Kingsley Idehen	      
> Founder & CEO 
> OpenLink Software     
> Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
> Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
> Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
> Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
> LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
> 
> 
> 
> 

Social Web Architect
http://bblfish.net/