- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 09:39:33 -0500
- To: Jonathan A Rees <rees@mumble.net>
- CC: Stéphane Corlosquet <scorlosquet@gmail.com>, Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>, www-tag@w3.org, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Message-ID: <50ACE7A5.7080102@w3.org>
On 11/21/2012 09:16 AM, Jonathan A Rees wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 12:17 AM, Stéphane Corlosquet > <scorlosquet@gmail.com <mailto:scorlosquet@gmail.com>> wrote: > > Jonathan, > > On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 7:45 PM, Jonathan Rees > <jar@creativecommons.org <mailto:jar@creativecommons.org>> wrote: > > Cool! Thanks to all of you (Stephane, David, Sandro) for all this > material. The approach was covered pretty poorly in my issue-57 > writeup, will amend. > > The idea has come up with some favorable reception in a couple > of TAG > discussions, so it's useful to have both the pro and con. > > > For the records, could you indicate where the materials above were > recorded and discussed by the TAG members? I'm curious to see what > progress was made on the 'parallel properties' in relation to the > other email I sent about mandating a particular type of URI > deployment without an official httpRange-14 resolution. > > > We're pretty much reconstructing the "parallel properties" approach > without much specific reference to Sandro's earlier proposal or > others. We have just stolen the proposal name in the belief that what > we're suggesting now is in the same spirit as what has gone under that > banner earlier. I think I did record the references you gave but don't > remember where - will look. > > Here's a page with links to F2F discussions and current drafts: > http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/products/defininguris-2012-10-30.html > > In the end the TAG will need to make an official "resolution" to > publish some future version of Jeni's document. There is no place to > stand to "mandate" anything; as always all we can do is describe a new > profile of RDF (or JSON-LD) saying what is recommended for people who > want to avoid sowing confusion. That sounds like a CG (and maybe eventually WG) activity, so it can focus on running code and a spec written by the people who need it and will implement it. There are details to work out (eg the issues mentioned in my blog post); is a TAG resolution really the place to do that? -- Sandro > > Hope that helps. > Jonathan > > > Steph. > > > Still not sure exactly what the Facebook connection is, but that > doesn't matter too much I guess. > > Best > Jonathan > > > > > -- > Steph. > >
Received on Wednesday, 21 November 2012 14:39:42 UTC