Re: Follow up on charter proposal

Leslie Daigle (leslie@bunyip.com)
Fri, 7 Jul 1995 13:18:46 -0400


Message-Id: <199507071718.NAA08293@beethoven.bunyip.com>
From: leslie@bunyip.com (Leslie Daigle)
Date: Fri, 7 Jul 1995 13:18:46 -0400
In-Reply-To: Martin Hamilton's message as of Jul  7, 10:31
To: Martin Hamilton <martin@mrrl.lut.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Follow up on charter proposal
Cc: uri@bunyip.com

[Martin Hamilton writes:]

> 
> How are we doing on _implementations_ of the URI proposals ? :-)
> 

Well, now, that would depend which URI proposals you mean... URAs have
a prototype implementation that will be demo'ed at Stockholm.

Oh, or did you mean URNs?  Aye, now there's the difficulty.  We can't
have an implementation until we have an agreed-upon syntax...

But, this is part of what I've been getting at -- the progress on 
a particular proposal in the working group is inversely proportional
to the perceived importance.  This is normal, and good, if it implies
that the progress is related to the amount of care in doing things
appropriately in accordance with importance.  However, it seems
we are just bogged down with URNs.  And, it isn't clear to me that
we are correctly matching "perceived importance" with "actual importance"
of proposals as a group.

Cheers!
Leslie.

-- 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Two heads are better than one"                        Leslie Daigle
                                                       leslie@bunyip.com
           -- ThinkingCat                              Montreal, Canada
		July 8, 1995.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------