replacing current names in Sec 3.1.10 with generic names [Re: Second Round of RDB2RDF UC doc review]

Just to clarify my position (and provide lists of generic names [1]):

Based on past experience with some other W3C PRs, I do not feel comfortable about reading or saying aloud (when explaining examples from such docs to someone or a group of colleagues) the names of some specific individuals (who exist(ed)). Doing this again and again seems pretty odd. I think it gives a (probably unintended) name recognition benefit to the cited individuals and that is unfair to the other people who worked on those documents.

So, to be fair to people whose names are not included in the examples embedded in a W3C standards document, I would urge the group to avoid including names of (just a subset of) WG members in the group. EITHER (and preferably) do not include any of the WG members' names by using generic names instead OR include all members' names. My vote would be for the first option, because the second option may be unfair to new members joining the group after the relevant portions of the document get finalized.

I have added a few lists of generic names [1] that would usually be very difficult to associate with specific WG members. If the group decides to go with my suggestion, these lists may be used as the source for generic names.

Thanks,
- Souri.

[1] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/wiki/Lists_of_generic_names_for_use_in_examples


----- Original Message -----
From: SOURIPRIYA.DAS@oracle.com
To: michael.hausenblas@deri.org
Cc: public-rdb2rdf-wg@w3.org
Sent: Monday, May 31, 2010 8:29:12 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: Second Round of RDB2RDF UC doc review

Michael,

I do feel strongly about this. So, please go ahead and put it on the agenda.

Thanks,
- Souri.

----- Original Message -----
From: michael.hausenblas@deri.org
To: SOURIPRIYA.DAS@oracle.com
Cc: public-rdb2rdf-wg@w3.org
Sent: Monday, May 31, 2010 7:02:29 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: Second Round of RDB2RDF UC doc review


Souri,

> One of my comments [1] for "then" Section 3 examples and "then" Section 4.1.8
> (MANYTOMANY) was to replace the names of persons with more generic names. In
> the new revised version, Section 3 has been removed and Section 4.1.8 has
> become Section 3.1.10 (MANYTOMANY).

Indeed. Sorry that we didn't have time to go through this last meeting but
can do tomorrow if you wish. The reason why I didn't implement it is rather
simple: this is a quite common practice (using WG member's names in example)
and unless the affected people don't cry out and have objections seeing
their names there, I'd rather keep it like it is.

So, if I understand you correctly, formally, your proposal is:

PROPOSAL: Replace all WG names in examples with generic names, esp. in
section 3.1.10

If you want to have this proposal discussed tomorrow, please ack this mail
now and I put it on the agenda (will do this after review Ahmed's comments).

Cheers,
      Michael

-- 
Dr. Michael Hausenblas
LiDRC - Linked Data Research Centre
DERI - Digital Enterprise Research Institute
NUIG - National University of Ireland, Galway
Ireland, Europe
Tel. +353 91 495730
http://linkeddata.deri.ie/
http://sw-app.org/about.html



> From: Souripriya Das <SOURIPRIYA.DAS@oracle.com>
> Date: Sun, 30 May 2010 12:21:47 -0700 (PDT)
> To: Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>
> Cc: RDB2RDF WG <public-rdb2rdf-wg@w3.org>
> Subject: Re: Second Round of RDB2RDF UC doc review
> 
> One of my comments [1] for "then" Section 3 examples and "then" Section 4.1.8
> (MANYTOMANY) was to replace the names of persons with more generic names. In
> the new revised version, Section 3 has been removed and Section 4.1.8 has
> become Section 3.1.10 (MANYTOMANY).
> 
> I'd suggest replacing the names with something from the following list, if it
> is okay with other members:
> 
>    1. Sneezy
>    2. Sleepy
>    3. Dopey
>    4. Doc
>    5. Happy
>    6. Bashful
>    7. Grumpy
> 
> "Doc" may be left out if we need only 6 names.
> 
> Thanks,
> - Souri.
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/wiki/Souri%27s_UCR_Review
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: michael.hausenblas@deri.org
> To: public-rdb2rdf-wg@w3.org
> Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2010 6:29:34 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
> Subject: Re: Second Round of RDB2RDF UC doc review
> 
> 
> All,
> 
> Thanks everyone for the productive meeting yesterday - we're almost there
> with the UC document.
> 
> I have now worked in all of yesterday's resolutions (and my respective
> actions) resulting in $Id: Overview.xml,v 1.55 2010/05/26 10:20:44 mhausenb
> Exp $ [1]. Note that ANY further comments should be against this version
> (1.55) and must be clear and unambiguous (REMOVE this, ADD this, whatever).
> 
> The changes I made (compared to v1.48 of [1] we discussed yesterday) are:
> 
> ===
> 
> 1.49: minor fixes (UC1 and 4.1.2 title) as spotted by Juan
> 
> 1.50:
> addressed: "RESOLUTION: Keep glossary, move to end." [1]
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2010/05/25-rdb2rdf-minutes.html#item03
> 
> 1.51:
> addressed: "Update UC2 reqs re ETL." [1] and also added new requirement
> (4.1.5 ETL - Extract-Transform-Load) as well as some re-ordering of the reqs
> to have a better flow
> 
> 
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/track/actions/57
> 
> 1.52:
> addressed: "RESOLUTION: Use reqs from Section 4 to update UC4" with my
> ACTION-58 [1]
> 
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/track/actions/58
> 
> 1.53:
> addressed: "RESOLUTION: To put a link to the full excerpt in the OBO
> example, not an excerpt" [1] --- need Juan's pointer to the ontology to
> complete this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2010/05/25-rdb2rdf-minutes.html#item03
> 
> 1.54:
> addressed: "RESOLUTION: Section 3 should be moved to Appendix" [1]
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2010/05/25-rdb2rdf-minutes.html#item03
> 
> 1.55:
> removed requirement "Database connection" as requested by Ashok and Ahmed
> (checked back with Soeren and is ok for him)
> 
> ===
> 
> Cheers,
>       Michael
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/use-cases/
> 
> -- 
> Dr. Michael Hausenblas
> LiDRC - Linked Data Research Centre
> DERI - Digital Enterprise Research Institute
> NUIG - National University of Ireland, Galway
> Ireland, Europe
> Tel. +353 91 495730
> http://linkeddata.deri.ie/
> http://sw-app.org/about.html
> 
> 
> 
>> From: Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>
>> Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 14:04:38 +0100
>> To: RDB2RDF WG <public-rdb2rdf-wg@w3.org>
>> Subject: Second Round of RDB2RDF UC doc review
>> Resent-From: RDB2RDF WG <public-rdb2rdf-wg@w3.org>
>> Resent-Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 13:05:16 +0000
>> 
>> 
>> All,
>> 
>> The latest version of the "Use Cases and Requirements for Mapping Relational
>> Databases to RDF" document with $Id: Overview.xml,v 1.47 2010/05/25 12:24:01
>> mhausenb Exp $ is now available [1].
>>             
>> I've incorporated all editorial/grammatical/typo-level issues. The remaining
>> issues to be discussed today are listed at [2].
>> 
>> Harry, can you please provide the logs to be filled into the Wiki page [3]?
>> 
>> Cheers,
>>       Michael
>> 
>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/use-cases/
>> [2] 
>> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/wiki/Use_Cases_and_Requirements/Reviews#Op
>> en_Issues
>> [3] 
>> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/wiki/Use_Cases_and_Requirements/Reviews#Ch
>> ange_Logs
>> 
>> -- 
>> Dr. Michael Hausenblas
>> LiDRC - Linked Data Research Centre
>> DERI - Digital Enterprise Research Institute
>> NUIG - National University of Ireland, Galway
>> Ireland, Europe
>> Tel. +353 91 495730
>> http://linkeddata.deri.ie/
>> http://sw-app.org/about.html
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
>

Received on Monday, 31 May 2010 14:43:51 UTC