Re: Default Mapping and tomorrow's telcon

Marcelo and I are working on

[1] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/directGraph/alt

<http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/directGraph/alt>we are working on top of
the structure and content that Eric started in

[2] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/directGraph<http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/directGraph/alt>

we have gotten already comments on what we have done. So, in order to
present one document, I suggest that Eric goes through our proposal and
comment on [1] with the hopes of making [1] the final document that we will
present.

Does that work with you Eric?

Juan Sequeda
+1-575-SEQ-UEDA
www.juansequeda.com


On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 11:56 AM, Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org> wrote:

> >
> > 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
> > /
> >
>
>