RE: [namespaceDocument-8]: format for machine readable content

David and Stuart 

I am beginning to believe that the TAG is doing too much "detailed
design work" and not enough "architecture work".  In fact the deeper we
discuss an Issue like "namespaceDocument-8: What should a "namespace
document" look like?" the deeper and deeper we slip into having detailed
technical design discussion.

So I think I agree with Stuart and maybe David.  

In fact the Charter states:

"Elaborating the intended direction of the Web architecture will help
resolve issues when setting future directions, help establish criteria
for starting new work at W3C, and help W3C coordinate its work with that
of other organizations."

"Like other groups within W3C, the TAG will follow the W3C
Recommendation track process for its Recommendations (including public
draft requirements, Proposed Recommendations to the Advisory Committee,
etc.); refer to the Process Document [PROCESS], section 5.2."

So I would like us to solve an issue like 
"namespaceDocument-8: What should a "namespace document" look like?" 
by agreeing on the architectural principals and requirements that we
want and then by publishing our finding.  The detailed work on meeting
these principals and requirements could then be assigned to a specific
WG so that we could go on to other important issues.

/paulc 

Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada 
17 Eleanor Drive, Nepean, Ontario K2E 6A3 
Tel: (613) 225-5445 Fax: (425) 936-7329 
<mailto:pcotton@microsoft.com> 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Orchard [mailto:dorchard@bea.com]
> Sent: Monday, April 08, 2002 12:54 PM
> To: 'TAG'
> Subject: RE: [namespaceDocument-8]: format for machine readable
content
> 
> Stuart,
> 
> Perhaps what the TAG should do on issues that require new or changes
to
> existing specifications is to proceed to create proof-of-concepts, and
> then
> hand the work over to another WG.  In this case, XML Core seems a
likely
> place to go.
> 
> A Process along the lines of:
> 1. Here's the principles of the web as we see them, including a
particular
> delta.
> 2. Here's a POC of a solution to the delta
> 3. Can you (XML Core) do the work of making this into a "real"
> specification?
> 4. We (TAG) volunteer to have at least some of us work with you on
this.
> 
> My biggest concern is that I don't think the TAG should be precluded
from
> writing syntax.  IMHO, that would be a terrible mistake.
> 
> But the process I suggested about would address the fact that some
group
> is
> going to have to do the real work and ongoing maintenance.
> 
> From a process perspective, I don't see the difference between an
> Architecture Recommendation and a Recommendation.  It seems that the
> difference is that an Architecture Recommendation has a broader scope.
So
> Namespaces itself would be considered an Architecture Recommendation -
we
> seem to believe that Namespaces is a fundamental principle.
> 
> Cheers,
> Dave
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: www-tag-request@w3.org
> > [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of
> > Williams, Stuart
> > Sent: Sunday, April 07, 2002 2:23 PM
> > To: 'David Orchard'; 'TAG'
> > Subject: RE: [namespaceDocument-8]: format for machine
> > readable content
> >
> >
> > Hi David,
> >
> > I was working on this late last week. Unfortunately didn't
> > get it out before
> > the weekend, but have just posted something on www-tag (it
> > was mentioned in
> > last weeks minutes and there seems to have been some interest
> > in the topic).
> >
> > At most I think what I've being doing would be a
> > proof-of-concept (wrt RDF
> > rather than Xlink (or aswell as!) in RDDL).
> >
> > The RDDL venture started outside the TAG and the TAG charter
> > places a strong
> > emphasis on Architectural recommendations rather than the
> > development of
> > technolgy specifications.
> >
> > <charter>
> > Architectural Recommendations
> > The primary activity of the TAG is to develop Architectural
> > Recommendations.
> > An Architectural Recommendation is one whose primary purpose
> > is to set forth
> > fundamental principles that should be adhered to by all Web
> > components.
> > Other groups within W3C may include cross-technology building
> > blocks as part
> > of their deliverables, but the TAG's primary role is to document
> > cross-technology principles.
> > </charter>
> >
> > So... it's not clear to me that the TAG is the right place to 'bake'
a
> > specification for a namespace document.
> >
> > Any thoughts?
> >
> > Stuart
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: David Orchard [mailto:dorchard@bea.com]
> > > Sent: 06 April 2002 02:08
> > > To: 'TAG'
> > > Subject: [namespaceDocument-8]: format for machine readable
content
> > >
> > >
> > > As a result of last weeks telcon, Stuart took an action to
> > write up some
> > > more work on namespace document.  There was much discussion
> > on how machine
> > > readable information should be represented.  It's obvious
> > that we should
> > be
> > > able to compare different styles of syntax before making any kind
of
> > > determination.  We already have RDDL in xlink syntax.  I
> > think others(SW?)
> > > are working on an RDF syntax for RDDL, and that would be
> > great to see.
> > >
> > > We will have to think of some criteria for determination, like
human
> > > understandability, machine understandability, etc.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Dave
> > >
> >
> >

Received on Tuesday, 9 April 2002 20:12:36 UTC