Subject: Work Queue Rotation #8, Part 1

From: Tim Bray <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2004 16:51:14 -0700

This rotation is being done in multiple parts.  This one covers the 
relatively easy ones.

Issues list at http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/AtomPubIssuesList

As always, pushback is fair game.

PaceDateUpdated - Already called "Accepted" by Paul (Hooray!  Atom will 
have at least one date!)

PacePersonConstructs - The discussion around this was laced with FOAF 
and Owl terminology that I didn't understand.  I note, though, that 
PacePersonLinks, which got at least one +1, proposes to replace one of 
the fields.  I don't think we can call this accepted, it goes back on 
the Revisit queue for another try later.

PacePersonLinks - one +1 from Ruby, no comment from anyone else.  I 
note that this Pace is substantially incomplete (as acknowledged in its 
"Impacts" section) as it doesn't discuss the allowed values for @rel.  
I think this may well get accepted, but for now gets returned to the 
Revisit queue pending resolution of the @rel issue.

PacePersonRef got one -1 from me, and nobody, including its author, 
objected.  Absent pushback, rejected.

PaceServiceElement got two +1's, no gripes, and also usefully 
simplifies the discussion we're going to have about <link> constructs.  
Absent pushback, accepted.

-Tim

---

From: Danny Ayers <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 4 Sep 2004 17:59:26 +0200

> As always, pushback is fair game.

No pushback, just post fact support and a couple of comments.
 
> PaceDateUpdated - Already called "Accepted" by Paul (Hooray!  Atom will

Hooray indeed. A convoluted path to get here, but it looks a good
place. I'd like it to say SHOULD use the full date/time/timezone
construct to make it easier on clients, but whatever, a belated +1.

> the Revisit queue for another try later.

Ok, revisit seems the best choice. Maybe Henry, myself or someone will
have time to put up a Pace relating to FOAF-compatibility.
 
> Revisit queue pending resolution of the @rel issue.

Yep, though I'd suggest that the starting point here should be the
model of PacePersonConstructs, and the syntax being whatever seems to
be the most consistent way of expressing that (which may well be using
<link>).

> objected.  Absent pushback, rejected.

I quite like the idea, but won't lose any sleep over its absence.

> Absent pushback, accepted.

Another belated +1.

Cheers,
Danny.

-- 

http://dannyayers.com

---

From: Antone Roundy <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 4 Sep 2004 10:14:17 -0600

> I quite like the idea, but won't lose any sleep over its absence.
I (the author) also like the idea, but not so much that I'm going to 
fight for it if it doesn't get support from others.

---

From: Asbjørn Ulsberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 04 Sep 2004 18:33:01 +0200

On Sat, 4 Sep 2004 17:59:26 +0200, Danny Ayers <[email-masked]>  
wrote:

>> PacePersonConstructs [...]
>

I would like that. Preferably with language that non-RDF and non-FOAF  
people can understand (like myself).

> I quite like the idea, but won't lose any sleep over its absence.

I like the idea, but not the incarnation of it in this pace. Maybe it can  
be reconciled with PacePersonConstructs or any FOAF-related proposal?

-- 
Asbjørn Ulsberg         -=|=-        [email-masked]
«He's a loathsome offensive brute, yet I can't look away»

---

From: Paul Hoffman / IMC <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 4 Sep 2004 13:14:44 -0700

On of the remaining items on the current work queue is creating the 
protocol design team, as described in 
<http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/PaceProtocolDesignTeam2>. I 
have now set up the mailing list and archive for the design team; see 
<http://www.imc.org/atom-protocol>. The mailing list is taking 
subscriptions now but posting won't be allowed for a few days, to let 
people get subscribed before the discussion starts for real. As noted 
in the Pace, the design team is open to anyone.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Internet Mail Consortium