W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > December 2011

Re: evolution, mime, registration document posted

From: Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 22:20:37 -0500
Message-ID: <4EF15085.4030808@arcanedomain.com>
To: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
CC: Jonathan A Rees <rees@mumble.net>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>

Thank you for the hard work on this. My impression is that there's enough 
here that we shouldn't expect TAG members to have read it in the few days 
since you've posted it, so my inclination is not to schedule formal review 
on this week's teleconference.  Also, the fact that ACTION-531 is not 
marked PENDING REVIEW, and that you've indicated that edits are happening 
daily, suggests that there is not a stable base for discussion just yet 
anyway. If we have some time at the end of tomorrow's agenda, we can always 
discuss this informally.

Suggestion: please set a target date of around the end of this week for 
freezing a version that we can discuss during the F2F. Especially with the 
holidays coming, I feel we need to give people more than a few days for 
reviewing something of this length and scope.

The other concern, which I've note elsewhere, is that I'm somewhat 
reluctant to have detailed discussion of this draft until we've done a bit 
to refocus the product page [1]. The product page should outline the scope 
of our work on MIME, and set out success criteria for the draft; we should 
review the draft in that context, I think.

Thank you again for hard work this represents, and also for checking it in 
with CVS (which is at best an acquired taste).


[1] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/products/mimeweb.html

On 12/19/2011 7:16 PM, Larry Masinter wrote:
> I put the document I've been working on (evolution, registries and MIME), into TAG space.
>             http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/12/evolution/evolution-mime-registries.html
> the document isn't stable (I'm editing it every day).
> Looking at
> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/12/uddp/
> I would align the two documents with this formulation (which won't make sense if you haven't read 'evolution'):
> RDF is an extensible (abstract) language for making assertions, and for which there are several concrete languages which encode and use the abstract framework.
>   RDF chose "use URI" as the extensibility method for identifiers in RDF's subject, predicate, and object protocol elements (when those are not blank or literals.)
> The protocol element is called 'uriRef' in RDF, and I'll refer to it as the "RDF#uriRef" protocol element.
> UDDP supplies  methods  for supplying additional information can be associated with (some) RDF#uriRefs, and for accessing that information, in the form of a document.
> (The methods in the document posted are available for RDF#uriRefs which use a scheme that is based on HTTP and thus has status codes, or those that have a fragment identifier and a stem which can be used to retrieve a representation for which the fragment identifier is meaningful.)
> Other languages and protocols (besides the RDF based ones above) may choose to use the RDF#uriRef protocol element in a compatible way.
> RDF#uriRef as a protocol element shares many of the concerns discussed within the section labeled "Web Evolution: References between Specifications".
> Since the reference associated with a uriRef may change over time, and as to the decision as to the applicability of the document obtained using UDDP at a later date is left to the implementation.
> Larry
Received on Wednesday, 21 December 2011 03:21:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:33:12 UTC