W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-grddl-wg@w3.org > August 2007

RE: GRDDL schedule, in retrospect; life-after-REC thoughts

From: Booth, David (HP Software - Boston) <dbooth@hp.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 15:35:23 -0400
Message-ID: <EBBD956B8A9002479B0C9CE9FE14A6C202FAE451@tayexc19.americas.cpqcorp.net>
To: "public-grddl-wg" <public-grddl-wg@w3.org>
Cc: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>

FYI, prompted by DanC's excellent retrospective commments, I sent the
following to the SW Coordination Group.


David Booth, Ph.D.
HP Software
+1 617 629 8881 office  |  dbooth@hp.com
http://www.hp.com/go/software

Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not represent
the official views of HP unless explicitly stated otherwise.
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Booth, David (HP Software - Boston) 
> Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2007 3:33 PM
> To: W3C SW Coordination Group
> Cc: 'Dan Connolly'
> Subject: RE: GRDDL schedule, in retrospect; life-after-REC thoughts
> 
> My thoughts on the GRDDL WG in retrospect:
> 
>  - We got the best result we could under the circumstances, 
> but I think the GRDDL spec could have been significantly 
> better if I had raised the ambiguity issue and provided a use 
> case illustrating the need for complete GRDDL results much 
> earlier.  I didn't, due to two failings on my part:
> 
>  - Use case document.  Although I read it early on, I did not 
> give sufficient importance to the absence of a use case that 
> explicitly demonstrated the need for unambiguous (or 
> complete) GRDDL results.   This could be viewed as 
> illustrating either the irrelevance or the importance of the 
> use case document.  On one hand, the problem slipped by in 
> spite of its existence.  On the other hand, one could 
> conclude that the use case document would have caused the 
> ambiguity issue to arise sooner if I had given it more 
> importance.  I tend to think the latter is more correct: the 
> use case document *was* important, and I should have made 
> better use of it.
> 
>  - Email list subscription policy.  I somehow missed the 
> GRDDL Last Call announcement. :(  I think one significant 
> factor in why I missed it was that I was not subscribed to 
> the public-grddl-wg list, so I was not following the weekly 
> progress of the group as I intended.  (This was before I 
> became a member of the WG.) I had tried to subscribe, but was 
> informed that the policy was that only WG members could 
> subscribe, and would I be able to get by reading the 
> archives?  I thought I could, but evidently I failed.  In 
> light of this experience, I think it would be worth 
> reconsidering the pros and cons of such a policy.
> 
> 
> David Booth, Ph.D.
> HP Software
> +1 617 629 8881 office  |  dbooth@hp.com
> http://www.hp.com/go/software
> 
> Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not 
> represent the official views of HP unless explicitly stated otherwise.
Received on Wednesday, 1 August 2007 19:35:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:11:50 GMT