- 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