- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 15 May 2008 12:18:15 -0500
- To: "Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol)" <skw@hp.com>
- Cc: Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, "Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM" <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>, "ht@inf.ed.ac.uk" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>, "Stuart Williams (skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com)" <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
On Mon, 2008-04-14 at 14:21 +0000, Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol) wrote: > Hello Paul, > > wrt our meeting of 21st Feb which you reference, we ran out of time > before getting to that agendum. > > However, we picked up the discussion at our Vancouver F2F [a]. > Roughly, the draft finding that Henry has been working[b] on of late > was 'teetering' on the brink of achieving concensus - when I took > re-expressed discomfort with the direction of th 'purpose' arrow in > the models shown in in the diagrams. It's not teetering on the brink; it's resolved: "PROPOSED: to address editorial comments, e.g. purpose label, skw's comments on rddl informal ontology capturing, and publish as a TAG finding RESOLVED to do as proposed." -- http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2008/02/27-minutes#item05 > > To explain: > A rough reading of the diagram is that a given 'namespace' has some > 'purpose relation' (could be validation or... some other purpose > oriented property) to some other resource. I suggested that it wasn't > really the namespace that has a purpose, rather a RDDL directory > entry (the first D in RDDL standing for Directory after-all) - and > went further to assert that a RDDL document was a document of such > entries Entry(<namespace>, <nature>, <purpose>, <relatedResource>). > ie that we were struggling to express single n-ary relation in binary > predicates. > > The discussion concluded with the assignment of two further action > items [c,d]. > > [d] in particular is intended to address my comments, though I have > also said that having put my comment on the record, I would not stand > in the way of the TAG accepting the document as is (though that went > unrecorded). > > I hope that helps, > > Stuart > -- > [a] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2008/02/27-minutes#item05 > [b] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/nsDocuments-2007-11-13/ > [c] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/114 > [d] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/115 > -- > Hewlett-Packard Limited registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks > RG12 1HN > Registered No: 690597 England > > > > ______________________________________________________________ > From: Paul Cotton [mailto:Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com] > Sent: 12 April 2008 21:37 > To: Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM; ht@inf.ed.ac.uk; Stuart Williams > (skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com) > Cc: www-tag@w3.org > Subject: RE: namespaceDocument-8: What should a "namespace > document" look like? > > > > What is the status of the TAG’s work on the > namespaceDocument-8 issue [1]? > > > > In particular what is the status of the draft finding entitled > “Associating Resources with Namespaces” found at [2] which is > dated Nov 2007. > > > > I looked through back agendas and minutes before sending this > message. My search found a reference to the issue in the > agenda for the TAG meeting on Feb 21, 2008 [3] but nothing > appears about the issue in that meeting’s minutes [4]. I > apologize in advance if I missed a more recent reference to > this issue. > > > > /paulc > > > > [1] > http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html?type=1#namespaceDocument-8 > > [2] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/nsDocuments/ > > [3] > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2008Feb/0079.html > > [4] http://www.w3.org/2008/02/21-tagmem-minutes.html > > > > Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada > > 17 Eleanor Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6A3 > > Tel: (425) 705-9596 Fax: (425) 936-7329 > > > > -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Thursday, 15 May 2008 17:18:16 UTC