Re: lack of consensus on httpRange-14

Simon St.Laurent wrote:

> 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?

Well, the key thing is that we couldn't find many  implications.  If we 
had then it'd probably be inappropriate to de-prioritize it.  So if 
someone comes forward with concrete examples of impact, we're probably 
gonna have to go back to work.  Anyhow, we didn't say consensus was 
impossible, we just said that

(a) we don't have consensus at the moment
(b) we aren't convincd that the issue is impactful enough to invest the work

By the way, TimBL may well be on your side on this one; he's got worries 
that this one will bite the Semantic Web work.

I would prefer to keep this issue alive because on the face of it's 
irritating that we don't have a clean clear answer for "what can a HTTP 
URI identify?" or more concretely "is it OK to use http://www.w3.org/ 
when I'm making RDF assertions about industry consortia?"  -Tim

Received on Thursday, 3 October 2002 13:39:19 UTC