Re: Comments on straw poll

Joe,

As the xml-plenary straw poll was done in the confidential
environment of the xml-plenary, unless I have missed the
plenary making those deliberations public, then alas we
are not in a position to discuss it here - we are forced to reiterate the
discussions in public.

I have in fact analysis the comments document at some length
and found that the actual beliefs of those participating were not
represented will in the (technically inconsistent IMHO) result.
In fact the result is that preferred by a minority. I investigated
why people voted as they did and found

- some thought you had to go online to absolutize a URI
- some had not realized that string literal comparisons were inconsistent
with relative URIs

At WWW9 I have found no one not prepared to consider absolutization yet
of those I have tracked down.

The advisory board has been asked to consider appropriate processes for this
but there
will be an Advisory Committee discussion I am sure, which will be very
influential.

I would like on this list to seek maximum clarity on the technical points
rather than get into
process issues.

Tim

-----Original Message-----
From: keshlam@us.ibm.com <keshlam@us.ibm.com>
To: xml-uri@w3.org <xml-uri@w3.org>
Date: Wednesday, May 17, 2000 2:43 PM
Subject: Re: Comments on straw poll


>>> I hate to ask, but: If there is really a strong agreement on this
>solution,
>>> why are we still debating?
>
>> Because the people who can't live with it form a substantial minority.
>
>I wish I was more convinced that further debate is going to change the
>percentages significantly. I think everyone on the plenary understood the
>issues and honestly disagreed anyway, and I was _very_ impressed with the
>amount of time and skill invested in considering the alternatives. It's
>possible that someone in the wider world will have a brilliant insight
>which reconciles everything... but I think that's the only thing likely to
>break the logjam.
>
>Which reminds me: Is there any process by which we'll decide that this list
>has reached closure, or failed to do so?
>
>
>So far we're still rehashing the ground that was covered, in great depth,
>by the Plenary discussion. It's important to provide background for new
>readers, but I'd really like to have some new facts to argue about.
>LURKERS: If anything isn't clear, ASK QUESTIONS. Helping us find a new
>angle from which to view the problem would probably be the single most
>useful contribution anyone could make at this point.
>
>
>"It is not enough to be impolite. One must also be wrong."
>     -- Hungarian proverb
>
>______________________________________
>Joe Kesselman  / IBM Research
>
>

Received on Thursday, 18 May 2000 18:36:39 UTC