Re: lack of consensus on httpRange-14

On Thu, 2002-10-03 at 10:52, Simon St.Laurent wrote:
> 
> 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.

Such as ...?

>  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?

Such as?

I think the reason the TAG found it acceptable to defer this issue is
that in fact it *doesn't* have much impact in other work. We
spent a lot of time searching for *exactly* what specs/code
depend on this issue, but we didn't find anything compelling.
(Some code TimBL has written conflicts with the
way the dublin core names its properties; that was the biggest
thing I remember.)

Yes, naming is hard work, but such is life. There's nothing
special about URIs that makes them magically good nor
fatally bad names.

> 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.

which problem?

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/

Received on Thursday, 3 October 2002 13:02:40 UTC