W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdb2rdf-wg@w3.org > November 2010

Re: Default Mapping and tomorrow's telcon

From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2010 01:34:52 +0000
Cc: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org>, "ashok.malhotra@oracle.com" <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>, EricPrud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>, Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>, Marcelo Arenas <marcelo.arenas1@gmail.com>, RDB2RDF WG <public-rdb2rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <65118917-83BB-4E0E-87EB-3475ECB98687@cyganiak.de>
To: Juan Sequeda <juanfederico@gmail.com>

On 3 Nov 2010, at 23:57, Juan Sequeda wrote:
> Besides, Richard has given us tons of comments which we are in the  
> process of incorporating. So my original proposal still stands.

Let me be extremely clear here: My comments on the /alt draft were not  
an endorsement of that version over Eric's; I have not read Eric's  

To be honest, as someone who isn't participating in the side  
teleconferences, I am quite lost about what's going on here. I was  
assuming that those participating in the side teleconferences had  
agreed that you and Marcelo were to make an editorial pass over Eric's  
work, in order to finally produce a unified document. Apparently that  
was not the case.


> Juan Sequeda
> www.juansequeda.com
> On Nov 3, 2010, at 6:48 PM, "Harry Halpin" <hhalpin@w3.org> wrote:
>>> 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?
>> Or the reverse proposal might be easier, i.e. Juan and Marcelo go  
>> through
>> Eric's proposal, at its original URI [1]. Regardless, you all need  
>> CVS
>> access to the *same* document and to be editing the *same* document.
>> There will likely be substantial disagreements, and this is OK as  
>> long as
>> they are marked as such. So, if for a given example there is a
>> disagreement over the text, just put them next to each other in  
>> say, two
>> different fonts/color. If another example is considered unnecessary  
>> by one
>> editor but not the other, use the font/color of the editor who  
>> considers
>> it unnecessary. Ditto formal notation. I would hope that at least  
>> on the
>> English text and struture of some of the examples there can be  
>> agreement,
>> and other questions can be punted to the WG and the wider community.
>> However it is is not good practice to have the WG try to track  
>> multiple
>> documents. We need a single document to review by Tuesday Nov 9th.
>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/directGrap
>>> 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
>>>>> /
Received on Thursday, 4 November 2010 01:35:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:00:22 UTC