- From: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2010 16:56:55 -0000 (GMT)
- To: ashok.malhotra@oracle.com
- Cc: "Eric Prud'hommeaux" <eric@w3.org>, "Harry Halpin" <hhalpin@w3.org>, "Juan Sequeda" <juanfederico@gmail.com>, "Michael Hausenblas" <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>, "Marcelo Arenas" <marcelo.arenas1@gmail.com>, "RDB2RDF WG" <public-rdb2rdf-wg@w3.org>
> > On 11/2/2010 5:43 AM, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote: >> I think we're making progress on that. Juan, Marcelo and I are working >> out our editorial predilections on a pair of documents with identical >> structure. On the 9th, the WG can look at the two and cherry pick the >> pieces they like. > > /I am concerned with the *pair of documents" bit. Could you guys create a > single document? > I am not keen to make the WG pick between documents. Strong second. We need *ONE* document with the common agreed upon clear English text, and then the two (or three) semantic notations lined up. To produce *two* documents makes review harder both by the WG and wider communities, and I don't see any reason to do so. If anything, one of the reasons why the direct mapping/semantics debate has taken so long is the vast number of wiki-pages and HTML pages produced :) So, by the Nov 9th meeting, can we agree to have *one* document with the semantic notations lined up that we can then send to first the WG and then the wider community to review? > Ashok > / >
Received on Wednesday, 3 November 2010 16:57:01 UTC