- From: Xiaoshu Wang <xiao@renci.org>
- Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 17:11:41 +0000
- To: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
- CC: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, David Booth <david@dbooth.org>, Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>, "www-tag@w3.org List" <www-tag@w3.org>
On 6/24/11 12:30 PM, "Jonathan Rees" <jar@creativecommons.org> wrote: >On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 11:54 AM, Xiaoshu Wang <xiao@renci.org> wrote: >> On 6/24/11 11:32 AM, "Jonathan Rees" <jar@creativecommons.org> wrote: >> >>>On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 11:36 PM, Xiaoshu Wang <xiao@renci.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> First, let me make this clear. I have never denied the problem you >>>> described here is not a problem. My argument has always been >>>>httpRange-14 >>>> is a wrong solution to the problem. >>> >>>What I have always heard you say is that httpRange-14 was not a >>>solution to any problem. That's a very different position. I'm glad >>>you've come around; getting you to agree that it *is* a solution, >>>however inadequate, was my only goal here. >> >> Let me be clear. My position has never be changed. I don't think >> word-playing here does any good. >> >> Any solution must be doing something because it will otherwise not be >> called a solution. But a solution can be evaluated to be good by the >> criteria of whether it can do something. If this is the point of >>argument, >> then let's not waste time debating any solution. >> >> My criteria of evaluating a solution is to see if it does more *harm* >>than >> *right*. And by that criteria, I think httpRange-14 is a *bad*, if not >> *wrong*, solution because the web with httpRange-14 is much more >> difficult, if not impossible, to work with. > >You are saying that the solution comes with a cost, and I agree. You >are also saying that the cost is unacceptable, and I am undecided on >that - it certainly looks to me like a judgment call - and from where >I stand the Web without httpRange-14 is much more difficult for *me* >to work with, so I make the call the other way. In any case what we >need to start with is a different way of solving the same problem - >the problem of expressing information (such as title, license terms, >etc.) about documents on the web. Otherwise you're comparing apples >(designs in which problem A is addressed but not problem B) with >oranges (vice versa). > >What is your solution to that problem? You've said you don't know what >metadata is, so let's just start with statements using Dublin Core >elements and the xhtml vocabulary (license and so on). I have stated my solutions many times. Here it is again: Don't ask people to make inference from *how* a message is received. Ask people to make assertions in the message *explicitly*, with more refined terms suited to their intended granularity. Xiaoshu
Received on Friday, 24 June 2011 17:12:25 UTC