Re: Uniform access to descriptions

Jonathan Rees wrote:
> 
> 
> On Apr 8, 2008, at 3:35 PM, Phil Archer wrote:
>> Jonathan,
>>
>> Clearly Xiaoshu is unhappy about this and that discussion will need to 
>> play out and, presumably, be taken into full account by the TAG. 
>> Meanwhile, I'm willing to help create the document - but my diary is 
>> pretty well full for this week and next.
> 
> Don't single out Xiaoshu as there are other dissenters as well... The 
> first step is an issue summary document (focusing not on solutions but 
> on use cases), and preparing that can go on in parallel with discussion 
> of the merits of various solutions.

+1 about singling out, but not about "dissenters"

This is not about us v them, but us communicating to the broader 
public.

This is not a new concern and it will not go away.  If there is 
an interest, I have been following these discussions for quite 
some months and have a lengthy set of references and individuals 
who have expressed concerns about these matters.

For the record, I am one of those concerned individuals.

If anyone thinks it is of use, I offer to try to summarize links 
and mail posts from the past 6 months or so.  I actually think 
Xiaoshu's technical post in November and then Ian's response and 
many others thereafter could be relevant.  (Though, as we know, 
the stuff goes back way further.)

The TAG and everyone else on this list, I would think, must 
surely appreciate that issues of terminology, httpRange-14, and 
even the most recent Cool URIs update (nice, no mention anymore 
of "non-information resources") are becoming critical.

These are not matters of ego or individuals.  They are matters of 
how we communicate our enterprise to the broader public that is 
now getting focused on what we are doing.

My opinion is:  We're not doing a terribly good job at it.

Mike

> 
> I will add to the solutions list Xiaoshu's suggestion to use CN to 
> choose metadata instead of webarch-representation, with a brief 
> statement of what the TAG's position has been on this idea, which 
> surfaces from time to time.
> 
>> Can I suggest:
>> 1. You see whether it can be put on the agenda of a TAG meeting in a 
>> few weeks - a date will be a useful deadline to work to.
>>
>> 2. We and others (Harry? Mark N?) collaborate on the doc by either 
>> editing the wiki page you've been creating on or a new one?
> 
> This sounds like a fine plan. If you're uncomfortable with the wiki we 
> can use some other medium; I'm not too particular.
> 
> It would be helpful to know any deadlines you, Mark, and others are 
> working under, beyond POWDER last call at the end of the month, which 
> you already mentioned.
> 
>> Phil
>>
>> (P.S. I don't have write access to the ESW Wiki but I dare say it can 
>> be arranged!)
> 
> I think you just create an account for yourself, and logged in users can 
> write.
> 
> 
> 

-- 
__________________________________________

Michael K. Bergman
CEO  Zitgist LLC
319.621.5225
skype:michaelkbergman
http://zitgist.com  http://mkbergman.com
__________________________________________

Received on Wednesday, 9 April 2008 03:35:44 UTC