- From: Erich Bremer <erich@ebremer.com>
- Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 15:38:04 -0500
- To: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- CC: public-webid@w3.org
- Message-ID: <5122912C.7030906@ebremer.com>
Now, if we can harness all of this passion into a spec document, WebID, I'm sure, will be a great hit. :-) -- Erich On 02/18/13 2:57 PM, Henry Story wrote: > This all reminds me of the Blues Brothers, a great film which I saw again > just recently. > > The problems start with the scene where Jake sees the light [1] after > the great > sermon by James Brown, and from there on gets way too enthusisastic > about this vision, ignoring the police reality around him. It ends > with a mega car chase with all of the cops following our > unlikely heroes who > just want to save their local church [2]. > > So let's remember: religion is important there is no point in life > if one > cannot be enthusiastic about something, but please lets keep our feet > on the ground, make sure we avoid alerting the patrol cars ( specs) > read carefully what we are saying before sending it off, and consider > the consequences of what we are doing before rushing all too > enthusiastically into it. Every step has consequences - indeed if it were > not so there would be no point in making any move at all. > > All the best, > > Henry > > [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCCd5Qh3OtQ > [2] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMagP52BWG8 > > > On 18 Feb 2013, at 20:16, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com > <mailto:kidehen@openlinksw.com>> wrote: > >> On 2/18/13 1:34 PM, Andrei Sambra wrote: >>> >>> On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 6:47 PM, Kingsley Idehen >>> <kidehen@openlinksw.com <mailto:kidehen@openlinksw.com>> wrote: >>> >>> On 2/18/13 12:17 PM, Henry Story wrote: >>> >>> On 18 Feb 2013, at 17:54, Kingsley Idehen >>> <kidehen@openlinksw.com <mailto:kidehen@openlinksw.com>> wrote: >>> >>> On 2/18/13 11:38 AM, Mo McRoberts wrote: >>> >>> In which case, I'd propose raising something which >>> results in the following vote (or even straw poll?) >>> in order to settle this: >>> >>> “Is it likely to be helpful to some readers of the >>> spec to include a short note to explain the purpose >>> of hash URIs in the examples, or is it likely to be >>> otherwise confusing?” >>> >>> If the answer to that is 'the former', then we can >>> look at tweaking the wording. >>> >>> Note: others have made the same vote request, earlier >>> in this discussion [1]. I guess, those requests weren't >>> clear enough. >>> >>> It has been amply clear that you have made this proposal. >>> >>> Others are also allowed to make proposals on this forum. >>> >>> Henry >>> >>> >>> Henry, >>> >>> Here is what a chair person would do, assuming they understood >>> their role: >>> >>> On receipt of my initial mail they would have simply >>> acknowledged the position and then clearly indicated the cause >>> of action to follow. Instead, in typical fashion, you opted to >>> deflect and basically trigger this thread. >>> >>> And by the way, you did ask for an issue to be opened, but not >>> in an appropriate manner as it simply came across as trying >>> awkward via process, when convenient to your cause of stifling >>> disagreement. >>> >>> What I still don't understand: >>> >>> What gives you the distinguished position to unilaterally insert >>> such a notice in the spec? What gives you the distinguished >>> privilege to throw hurdles at those that oppose such unilateral >>> actions by either the chair person or an editor? >>> >>> >>> The notice was never "inserted", especially not by "exploiting the >>> editor privilege" as you have stated earlier. I find that accusation >>> very offensive and I would like to ask you to refrain from doing it >>> again. The note was there from the beginning, when we split the spec >>> last year. Please look at the mercurial history if you want to >>> confirm it. >>> >>> In a functional community, you (or Andrei) would actually have >>> put forth your intentions for discussion before they ended up in >>> the spec document. This didn't happen, it cost you 0.00 >>> (whatever units of timeccosts you choose) to insert the notice >>> while charging those that oppose it a procedural tax. >>> >>> >>> Henry actually suggested you open an issue, and here's a link to his >>> email, which was sent 10 days ago: >>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webid/2013Feb/0059.html >>> >>> Andrei >>> >>> >>> >>> >> ** slightly updated with some typo fixes etc.. ** >> >> Andrei, >> >> And guess what, I hereby apologize for making that accusation. >> >>> Please look at the mercurial history if you want to confirm it. >> >> Yes, I had a conversation with Melvin (offline) and he unveiled this >> most vital piece of information. Now, bearing in mind my apology, I >> am sure you realize that you could have pointed that out to me in >> your earlier reply to my mail [1]. >> >> Henry: >> >> We are no strangers (as per Melvin's comments) and you know I am >> quite fond of you, bearing in mind our travels. That said, I do get >> frustrated when as a chair you don't spot opportunities to dowse >> rather than fan flames [2]. Anyway, you are not uniquely responsible >> for this thread, so I also apologize for some of the more personal >> stuff. >> >> Contrary to popular misconception, I am extremely time challenged. I >> start with a URL and work from there. I was of the (now proven >> incorrect) opinion that Andrei unilaterally added the notice. I >> didn't realize it was an artifact of the past. You could have simply >> pointed that out to me (email or other methods, which you are well >> aware of) as Melvin did. >> >> When I go out of my way to share Linked Data examples using Links I >> am doing so to cut short the pathway to understanding my points. >> Linked Data is ultimately about the power of Links etc.. I did >> provide some examples using Links to specifically demonstrate the >> nuances of this realm in relation to HTTP URI styles etc.. >> >> >> Mo: >> >> One day we'll meet in person, clearly email isn't working for us >> >> All: >> >> As eluded to by Elf and Melvin (most recently), this shouldn't be >> personal, so I apologize for my contribution to such deterioration in >> this passionate discussion. For what its worth, I've traveled far in >> this realm with Henry (he even took one the photos used in some of my >> public profile documents). As for Andrei, I love what he's done with >> http://my-profile.eu, it goes a long way to showcasing what's >> possible with WebID, in a manner that works for end-users especially. >> >> All I want is for WebID to succeed. The problem it solves is crucial. >> I don't want it solved in 10 years time if we can kill these issues >> right now. I want us to learn from mistakes that have been made in >> the past e.g., how RDF/XML conflation nearly destroyed RDF and the >> Semantic Web vision as a whole as a result of not paying attention to >> undue conflation etc. >> >> Links: >> >> 1. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webid/2013Feb/0034.html >> -- initial response from Andrei >> 2. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webid/2013Feb/0031.html >> -- an early response from Henry . >> >> >> -- >> >> Regards, >> >> Kingsley Idehen >> Founder & CEO >> OpenLink Software >> Company Web:http://www.openlinksw.com >> Personal Weblog:http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen >> Twitter/Identi.ca <http://Identi.ca> handle: @kidehen >> Google+ Profile:https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about >> LinkedIn Profile:http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen >> >> >> >> > > Social Web Architect > http://bblfish.net/ >
Received on Monday, 18 February 2013 20:38:45 UTC