- From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
- Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 10:53:19 -0700
- To: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>, <Vincent.Quint@inrialpes.fr>
- Cc: <www-tag@w3.org>
<snip/> 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. Cheers, Dave > > * 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