- From: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
- Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2009 07:28:17 -0700
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- CC: "'Richard Cyganiak'" <richard@cyganiak.de>, "'Roy T. Fielding'" <fielding@gbiv.com>, "'Jonathan Rees'" <jar@creativecommons.org>, Xiaoshu Wang <wangxiao@musc.edu>, "julian.reschke@gmx.de" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, "noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com" <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
I'd like to ask that we start a separate task force and
mailing list on the topic of resolving any remaining issues
around the use of the word "resource" and the semantics
associated with it, with the task force chartered to come up with
satisfactory wording to propose as amendments, errata,
or updates to relevant documents. The initial
documents to be considered are:
(a) the URI specification RFC 3986
(b) the HTTP specification being developed in HTTPbis
and (1) its definitions of "resource"
(2) its definition of HTTP URI scheme
(c) the W3C TAG document AWWW
(d) the W3C TAG httpRange-14 finding
(e) the W3C RDF recommendation
Other documents and uses of the word "resource" may
be added to the scope once the task force has agreement
on this issues.
If we can get the participants in this discussion to focus
on specific proposals for updates to the documents in
question, I think it will help converge the discussion.
I observe that usage between W3C and IETF, TAG and HTTPwg
have been somewhat at odds, but the continued debate
cc'd between http-wg and W3C TAG mailing lists doesn't
seem to be converging.
I'd suggest that the task force, once established,
also have regular phone conferences.
I have bcc-d the HTTP-WG and TAG mailing lists,
because if we can get first get agreement among the major
participants of this discussion to work together to
produce a document representing an agreed perspective,
I'm sure the others on the mailing list will go along.
Regards,
Larry
--
http://larry.masinter.net
Received on Sunday, 19 July 2009 14:29:10 UTC