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

while we are at it... a short reminder : 

"where would be at, without the correct procedures" :)

from brazil (terry gilliam)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQ5QPIfvRsIhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=PQ5QPIfvRsI#t=500s

wkr j

On Mon, 2013-02-18 at 20:57 +0100, Henry Story wrote:
> 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/
> 
> 

-- 
| Jürgen Jakobitsch, 
| Software Developer
| Semantic Web Company GmbH
| Mariahilfer Straße 70 / Neubaugasse 1, Top 8
| A - 1070 Wien, Austria
| Mob +43 676 62 12 710 | Fax +43.1.402 12 35 - 22

COMPANY INFORMATION
| web       : http://www.semantic-web.at/
| foaf      : http://company.semantic-web.at/person/juergen_jakobitsch
PERSONAL INFORMATION
| web       : http://www.turnguard.com
| foaf      : http://www.turnguard.com/turnguard
| g+        : https://plus.google.com/111233759991616358206/posts
| skype     : jakobitsch-punkt
| xmlns:tg  = "http://www.turnguard.com/turnguard#"

Received on Tuesday, 19 February 2013 08:25:33 UTC