- From: Ben Adida <ben@mit.edu>
- Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2006 10:44:55 -0400
- To: Vincent.Quint@inrialpes.fr
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org, Daniel Weitzner <djweitzner@w3.org>, "Ralph R. Swick" <swick@w3.org>, Eric Miller <em@w3.org>, "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, Steve Bratt <steve@w3.org>, Guus Schreiber <schreiber@cs.vu.nl>, David Wood <dwood@tucanatech.com>, Steven Pemberton <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl>, Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@x-port.net>
Vincent, I fully encourage and support the TAG wanting to innovate and organize these discussions. Please don't consider my objection a condemnation of this idea in any way. The only worry here is about process and notification of the appropriate people, so that the issues can be framed appropriately and productively. I will quickly confer with Ralph and the rest of the task force and submit names of folks who would be useful additions to the debate. -Ben On Apr 21, 2006, at 5:55 AM, Vincent Quint wrote: > > Ben, > > I am sorry about the confusion. In scheduling this panel on CURIEs > for the AC meeting, the TAG is just trying to innovate and organize > a discussion on a new topic rather than giving the usual talk on > recent > achievements and future plans. Our decision was probably taken a > bit late and the announcement went to the first draft agenda of the > AC meeting before we could build the list of panelists; there is no > name > on the draft agenda. > > In the mean time we have made progress. My first concern was to > find a moderator for the panel, and this took time. We have one > since yesterday: Stuart Williams, former co-chair of the TAG. I am > working with him for establishing the list of panelists and obviously > we are considering people involved in RDF/A work. It is too early to > mention names in this public message, but as soon as we have a first > confirmed list of panelists, I'll ask the AC meeting agenda to be > updated. > > I am not sure that the details of the preparation of the AC meeting is > a topic of great interest for public mailing lists. I suggest we > continue > this discussion in the appropriate forum, but I want to make it clear > that the TF/WG will be represented on the panel, precisely to avoid > misrepresenting the issue. > > I hope this helps to clarify the situation. > > Sincerely, > > Vincent Quint > TAG co-chair > > On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 23:04:23 -0400 Ben Adida <ben@mit.edu> wrote: >> >> >> Members of the TAG, >> >> In my capacity as chair of the RDF-in-HTML Task Force, a joint task >> force of the SWBP and HTML WGs responsible for the CURIE work-in- >> progress, I write to object to the CURIE debate scheduling at the >> upcoming May 2006 AC Meeting. I am particularly concerned that, as a >> result of this problematic process, the debate will end up >> misrepresenting the issues and, thus, cause confusion rather than >> address interesting technical issues. >> >> I note the following points: >> >> 1) I became aware of this debate only after it was scheduled, by >> reading Steve Bratt's announcement to the AC reps. >> >> 2) To the best of my knowledge, no one on the WG or TF was notified >> of this debate prior to its announcement, let alone invited to >> participate. This morning, one week after the debate was scheduled, >> and only after I began to ask questions within the W3C, Ralph Swick, >> team member and TF/WG member, was invited to moderate. >> >> 3) To the best of my knowledge, the WG or TF has not been asked to >> submit information regarding CURIEs to help prime the debate. Note >> that CURIEs are still a work in progress, and debating them based on >> editors' drafts without the TF's input would be clearly suboptimal. >> >> CURIEs would make a good discussion topic, and I welcome the TAG's >> interest. However, to discuss the topic without input from the Task >> Force responsible for the proposal seems improper and counter- >> productive. >> >> As this debate has already been announced, as the issue merits >> discussion, and as I do not wish to be a stickler for process when >> such rigor might obstruct a useful technical discussion, I am *not* >> asking that this debate be cancelled. Instead, I am asking that you >> consider direct participation from members of the Task Force in >> presenting the driving motivation and issues to the AC reps. >> >> I also ask that, in the future, closely-involved TFs and WGs be >> notified before such public debates are scheduled. >> >> Sincerely, >> >> -Ben Adida >> ben@mit.edu >> Chair, RDF-in-HTML Task Force >> >> > > > -------------- > Vincent Quint INRIA Rhône-Alpes > INRIA ZIRST > e-mail: Vincent.Quint@inria.fr 655 avenue de l'Europe > Tel.: +33 4 76 61 53 62 Montbonnot > Fax: +33 4 76 61 52 07 38334 Saint Ismier Cedex > France >
Received on Friday, 21 April 2006 14:45:10 UTC