W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > May 2006

RE: Topics for discussion at the June f2f

From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 10:53:19 -0700
Message-ID: <E16EB59B8AEDF445B644617E3C1B3C9C01892076@repbex01.amer.bea.com>
To: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>, <Vincent.Quint@inrialpes.fr>
Cc: <www-tag@w3.org>


I'm with Dan on the bandwidth issue.  Out of the 3 listed, I've
effectively worked on the first 2 (state and URNs, Namespaces and
Registries) and made only partial progress on the 3rd.  Not the order
that I had wanted but that's the way things go.


>  * state and security
>  * semantic web architecture
>    the "Abstract Component References" and
>    "Associating Resources with Namespaces" findings
>    seem to be part of this theme perhaps
>    "URNs, Namespaces and Registries" too.
>  * versioning and extensibility
> I suspect that we have bandwidth for only 1 out
> of the three on any given telcon and 2 out of
> the three for any sustained effort.
> I'd like to find a somewhat more narrow scope for the
> "The use of Metadata in URIs" and "URI Schemes and Web Protocols"
> findings. For the latter, perhaps "when to make a new URI scheme"
> and/or "some good and bad experiences with new URI schemes"
> discussing DAV:, tel:, mms:, jabber: ... hmm... and very
> nearby is "URNs, Namespaces and Registries". Maybe the
> doing story-telling around semantic-web architecture would clarify.
> Perhaps being customer/audience driven would help...
> audiences/customers that come to mind include:
>   - the javascript/XML access control task force
>   - mobile best practices WG
> Hmm... this is sort of a ramble that hasn't really come to
> any conclusion. I think I'll send it anyway...
> --
> Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
> D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Wednesday, 10 May 2006 17:53:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:12 UTC