lack of consensus on httpRange-14

In reading the minutes for the September 24th & 25th meeting, I found
this morsel:
------------------------------
    TB: I propose that httpRange-14 be
    de-prioritized. Two reasons (1) no consensus
    (2) I don't think it affects the arch doc. I
    would be amenable to close this issue with no
    action.
    DC: I agree with TB that httpRange-14 can be
    closed with no impact on the arch doc.
    RF: When you access a resource for today's
    weather in Vancouver, and you get back info
    that says "it's sunny", how do you know that
    it doesn't mean "it's sunny everyday in
    Vancouver." When you access a resource, you
    need to be able to make assertions about the
    resource and also representations of the
    resource.
    Resolved: "Defer" httpRange-14 with no action.
    Objection: TBL.
--------------------------------

I'm not sure that "lack of consensus" is an appropriate reason to
de-prioritize an issue which (at least from my perspective) lies at the
heart of an enormous number of conflicts regarding the proper use of
URIs.  While it may be possible to keep those conflicts from spilling
directly into a vaguely-worded architecture document, they aren't going
to go away easily.

Might I suggest instead that the TAG close this issue, noting that
consensus is not possible, and acknowledge the implications of that lack
of consensus in other work?

That may seem to weaken the general usefulness of URIs, but the weakness
is already present - this would be acknowledging the problem rather than
deferring it to future visions of solution.


-------------
Simon St.Laurent - SSL is my TLA
http://simonstl.com may be my URI
http://monasticxml.org may be my ascetic URI
urn:oid:1.3.6.1.4.1.6320 is another possibility altogether

Received on Thursday, 3 October 2002 11:52:45 UTC