- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: 01 Apr 2003 16:04:10 -0600
- To: Joseph Reagle <reagle@w3.org>
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org, "Ralph R. Swick" <swick@w3.org>, Eric Miller <em@w3.org>, Steven Pemberton <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl>, Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>, "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>, "Sean B. Palmer" <sean@mysterylights.com>
On Tue, 2003-04-01 at 14:58, Joseph Reagle wrote: > On March 12 2003 Dan Connolly wrote: > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Mar/0019.html > >I'm not holding my breath, but I sorta expect that > >in the next few weeks to months, something will come of > >the momentum built at last week's meeting; I'm > >sorta hoping to see something from Pemberton, > >Miller, Beckett, et. al. > > Dan, > > At one of those meetings (February 13th [1]) Tim stated that he felt that > the problem was that in part there was no coordinated plan. I agreed to > draw up a plan which I've (roughly) drafted at [2], Sorry I only just got around to looking at that. I'd prefer that it started from more concrete use cases (e.g. EU/Australian govt. folks with a mandate to use metadata all over their web sites) and derived requirements and/or evaluated solutions in that context. > but a plan won't > succeed, "without a forum and heart-beat. Fortunately, this is the TAG's > RDFinXHTML-35 assigned to Dan Connolly." This issue competes with lots of others for bandwidth in the TAG. It's not at all like we look at it every week. > (Otherwise, I'm just blowing smoke > circles for myself <smile/>.) In your text above you seem content to let > the issue lay until enough consensus builds around a proposal. Yes. > This seems > counter to the belief that there will be no progress without advocacy with > commitment and milestones. I'm happy to hand this issue over to anybody (in the TAG) who'se willing to do advocacy etc. > I continue to be willing to help on this topic (getting feedback on the > rough requirements and deliverables, and obtaining and following up with > commitments) in the context of the TAG issue if you think it worthwhile. > Otherwise, should I consider my action discharged? Your action is something you owe to the participants of the 13 March meeting; it's not for me to say whether it's discharged. > [1] http://www.w3.org/2003/03/13-w3c-irc > [2] http://www.w3.org/2003/03/rdf-in-xml.html -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Tuesday, 1 April 2003 17:04:28 UTC