Re: Agenda of 10 January 2006 TAG teleconference

  Dan Connolly wrote:
...

>
>
> DC
>       * accepted on 22 Sep 2005
>
>
>         ask for "default nature" to be changed to "implicit nature" in
>         RDDL spec
>
>  I haven't made any progress; hmm... maybe I will by tomorrow...
>

I've gone ahead and made this change.

Note that the URIs selected for use in http://www.rddl.org/natures/  
and http://www.rddl.org/purposes/ were not selected with a great deal  
of discussion.

For example, the URI for the nature of an "ISO specification" was  
selected to be
http://www.iso.ch/ but I fully realize that this might be problematic  
and and ambiguous ... I accept all blame for selecting this URI. I am  
not AT ALL attached to this selection. This was the first time since  
2001 that I have been made aware of an issue this this selection and  
I am perfectly happy to change the URI to something more  
appropriate ... suggestions?

Regarding the URI for the nature of an RFC ... ditto. Of note, I  
though it was slightly clever to use the URI pointing to a document  
which describes the RFC process ... along the self documenting web  
idea. If this URI is not appropriate for the "nature of an RFC" I am  
willing to change it ... again... suggestions?

To summarize ... http://www.rddl.org/natures/ and http://www.rddl.org/ 
purposes/ was NOT intended as an end all nor be all compendium of  
natures and purposes rather as a self documenting bootstrap. It is  
not intended that rddl:nature nor rddl:purpose be limited to URIs  
referenced in these documents.

The core idea behind the RDDL spec is to be self describing so I was  
trying to use URIs that would dereference to documents describing the  
appropriate "nature".

Finally, I have not received any feedback on the proposed revision of  
RDDL to incorporate the "rddl:nature" and "rddl:purpose" attributes.  
i.e.

http://www.rddl.org/20050704/

(this document needs more work but gives you the idea of what is  
being proposed ... namely allowing <a rddl:nature="..."  
rddl:purpose="..."> in addition to what is already in RDDL 1.0)

is this something anyone has a strong feeling about (Tim and I are in  
favor if that counts).

Jonathan

Received on Monday, 9 January 2006 18:26:33 UTC