- From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
- Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2015 09:10:46 +1000
- To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
On 3/20/2015 22:01, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 03/20/2015 04:05 AM, Richard Cyganiak wrote: >> Arnaud, >> >>> On 20 Mar 2015, at 00:05, Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com> wrote: >>> >>> the possible problem you're pointing out has to do with having >>> different people work independently rather than having multiple >>> documents. The same would be true if we had one document with various >>> sections independently edited by different people. >> You’re hitting the nail on the head. >> >> The problem is that this WG has different people working independently. > I don't see this as the current problem in the working group. > > What I see as the current problem is that there is no agreement on how to > evaluate the work being done. If deterministic evaluation criteria would be applied, then what about checking which proposal has best coverage of the requirements (and thus User Stories)? Holger > Some working group members believe that it is > better to build a core language with little or no work being done to > determine whether the core can be expanded to cover the rest of the working > group's requirements. Other working group members believe that it is better > to build a full language and only later determine what should be in the > core. Each of these sides does not view the issues put forward by the other > side as being important.
Received on Sunday, 22 March 2015 23:11:57 UTC