# Re: Comparison of URI charter proposals

Roy Fielding (fielding@beach.w3.org)
Fri, 14 Jul 1995 18:53:42 -0400

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Larry Masinter: "Internet draft names"
- Previous message: Daniel LaLiberte: "Re: URN Resolution Paths Considered Harmful"
- In reply to: Leslie Daigle: "Comparison of URI charter proposals"

    Message-Id: <199507142253.SAA14344@beach.w3.org>

    To: Leslie Daigle <leslie@bunyip.com>

    Subject: Re: Comparison of URI charter proposals

    In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 14 Jul 1995 00:42:04 EDT."

                 <199507140442.AAA10550@beethoven.bunyip.com>

    Date: Fri, 14 Jul 1995 18:53:42 -0400

    From: Roy Fielding <fielding@beach.w3.org>

>I would like to point out that the URI-WG charter proposed by Roy Fielding
>represents a major departure from what the WG was originally chartered to
>do. Ron and I exchanged e-mail about the preservation of some of the
>concepts when he and I were discussing edits on the proposal he sent
>around -- the notion of developing the necessary infrastructure to support
>resource discovery tools and the needed mechanisms to allow more than
>"point-and-shoot" access to material on the net. (Read carefully: the
>infrastructure, not the tools, is to be discussed). Roy's proposal focusses
>uniquely on identification, and tosses out access and description mechanisms.

That is ludicrous. What I am proposing is an explicit return to
what the WG was originally chartered to do, as is quite evident from
our current charter:

<http://www.ietf.cnri.reston.va.us/html.charters/uri-charter.html>

The fact that we have failed to stay within the bounds of our original
charter is one of the primary reasons why this WG has been so unproductive.

You wish to expand the charter to include the topics that are clearly
important to your work and that of Bunyip, and are surely of importance
to the Internet as well. Fine, but don't try to mask it as something
the WG was intended to do originally. If the WG wishes to expand its
charter, and that charter can be successfully negotiated with our ADs,
then I will certainly go along with that decision. However, I do not
believe it would be in the best interests of the ITEF and the Internet
for us to expand the scope of URI-WG when it has so far failed to
deliver on what it was tasked to do 3 years ago.

....Roy T. Fielding Department of ICS, University of California, Irvine USA
Visiting Scholar, MIT/LCS + World-Wide Web Consortium
(fielding@w3.org) (fielding@ics.uci.edu)

- Next message: Larry Masinter: "Internet draft names"
- Previous message: Daniel LaLiberte: "Re: URN Resolution Paths Considered Harmful"
- In reply to: Leslie Daigle: "Comparison of URI charter proposals"