[log in to unmask] is indeed still alive as "a mailing list for technical
discussion of URIs" (DanC - we could do with linking the subscription
information from the above URL). Historical archives (including the old
Bunyip archives back to Dec '94) are also available at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/uri/
Browsing back through the archives you'll some familiar names and
themes on the metadata-meets-Web-identification front, eg:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/uri/1994Dec/0006.html
From: [log in to unmask]
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 1994 07:50:24
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Library Standards and URIs
Existing Library Standards and the Evolution of
Uniform Resource Characteristics
...for example is interesting, discussing URCs and something that sounds
a lot like Dublin Core.
This also raises an interesting point: it is pretty hard to scope
discussion of URIs, since the topic of Resource Identification blurs
into that of Resouce Description. Specifically, the W3C RDF Interest
Group [1] discussions very frequently touch on URIs as a crucial
issue. This is in part because RDF depends pretty heavily on URIs for
unique identification of everything (including RDF vocabulary
constructs). But also because the conceptual problems of
modeling for eg. Web versioning, objects at multiple locations,
work/manifestations/expression/copy distinctions etc span both worlds.
I for one would like to get a sense of whether the Dublin Core community
would prefer to see these discussions continue with the current scoping, or
whether it would make sense for the W3C's RDF Interest Group to more
explicitly look at the metadata-related aspects of URIs. Currently the
RDF Interest Group mailing list gets about 10 times more traffic than the
URI list, and I know many of those list members have a strong concern
for seeing some progress or clarification on URIs. We need to do a
better job dealing with all that www-rdf-interest traffic (issue lists
etc) so I'm wary of raising even more traffic there, but at same time
RDF (and I think Web metadata generally) has a strong dependency on
URIs and a number of people have asked whether the RDF IG is a good
forum to discuss "URIs meet metadata". I guess it is, and discussion of
URIs are more than welcome on [1], but would like some sense of what
DC-general thinks about the feasibility/advisability of separating URI
and metadata discussions...
Dan
--
W3C RDF Interest Group chair
mailto:[log in to unmask]
[1] http://www.w3.org/RDF/Interest/ (archives, subscription info etc)
On Thu, 27 Apr 2000, Leslie Daigle wrote:
> Howdy,
>
> Well, up until a year ago, the IETF's URI working group mailing
> list was still kept alive for such general discussions. When its
> original host could no longer maintain it, the W3C offered to take
> it over -- I believe on the same terms of "general discussion of
> things URI". I don't find it on their list of current mailing
> lists, and it's not an active work group, but the list is:
>
> [log in to unmask]
>
> and the subscription info I have in my archive suggests
>
> [log in to unmask] with "subscribe" in the SUBJECT field
>
> will get you on it.
>
>
> Leslie.
>
> Peter Graham wrote:
> > My question to her is: what
> > list *should* be the right forum for this discussion, and how does one subscribe to
> > it? I find it extremely interesting (and have been hoping for an outcome for
> > years--should I not be?). --pg
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|