- From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 11:52:45 -0400
- To: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk (Henry S. Thompson)
- Cc: "T. V. Raman" <raman@google.com>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, www-tag@w3.org
Henry, notwithstanding an unusually long list of suggestions below, these are uncommonly good minutes. Thanks! Henry Thompson wrote in the draft minutes: > VQ: Add an agenda item on that if time allows > > NM: [scribe missed] I don't remember and I'm confident that whatever it was isn't important. The two things I mentioned in that part of the discussion were about metadataInURI-31 and the F2F planning, and both are correctly recorded a few lines above. I'd just delete the [scribe missed] line. Thanks for checking. I do note that later you correctly record: > HST: NM, is that message a draft of a message to the AB; or for the > AB to resend as if it were theirs; or as a TAG statement to the public but you record no reply from me. I think I answered something along the lines of: "Great question! Today's discussion makes me realize that I wasn't sufficiently conscious of the target audience for the note. It probably should have been the AB, but I wound up writing as if it was aimed directly to www-tag and hence directly to the Web community. I think the response we actually craft should be formally addressed to the AB and should be written accordingly (or words to that effect.)" Of course, I think the response should be public, but procedurally it should be input to the AB, who will in turn determine the process implications. Later I see: > HST, DO: DC, could you help us understand the ways in which the > finding didn't stand up as an argument? > NM: Well, it reads as an argument which works for someone who's > already convinced, but won't work for a skeptic. . To my eye, it's just a bit ambigous that "the finding" refers to "the draft finding on URNs and registries". Maybe worth clarifying? > NM: We were nearly ready to go, then we got feedback from Stuart > Williams and Bjoern Hoerrman, which put the brakes on > ... I'm going to try to pull together a response, maybe some changes > ... But we could just say "ship it as it is". > ... The comments are all in the thread from the announcement of the > draft on www-tag I think what I said should be clarified. Suggest: NM: We were nearly ready to go, then in parallel with our decision to finalize we got more feedback from Stuart Williams and Bjoern Hoerrman. ...Formally, I've still been instructed to publish. The TAG therefore needs to decide which if any of new input received merits redrafting. ...Suggestion: I will shortly post two related things. (1) a new draft which reflects changes already requested by TAG but not comments from Stuart or Bjoern -- i.e. the draft I would have finalized if we didn't get the late comments and (2) an analysis of their comments, suggesting which if any I recommend reflecting in yet another draft. ...With that in hand, the TAG can either signal that I should stick with the draft from (1) or do more work. Thanks! Noah -------------------------------------- Noah Mendelsohn IBM Corporation One Rogers Street Cambridge, MA 02142 1-617-693-4036 --------------------------------------
Received on Thursday, 27 July 2006 15:52:58 UTC