W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > April to June 2004

toward an intial design... any more evaluations?

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 09:30:22 -0500
To: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1087309821.21030.1921.camel@dirk>

You may recall from our 1 Jun telcon...

"DanC suggests F2F meeting goal to be to select a design(s) (e.g.,
SeRQL,
RDQL,
Joseki, etc.) that meets the DAWG requirements"
  -- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2004AprJun/0503.html

Actually, we may select a design that does not, yet, meet
all our requirements; our issues list will have an issue
for each discrepancy between requirements and design.
The straightforward way to resolve such an issue is to
expand the design, but our design work may very well
bring up new information that merits reopening
requirements decisions. So another way to resolve
such an issue is to refine or demote the relevant requirement.

Everything is negotiable until the fat lady sings,
though reopening old decisions requires new information.

Picking an initial design will give us something to raise
issues against. We'll go thru whatever documentation we
have for our initial design, section by section, and
collect issues.

A while back, Yoshio asked, "don't we have to go through the
document, I mean, check if the issues in the document should be in the
requirements or design objects?"
 -- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2004AprJun/0452.html

I think the survey work by EricP and others will become particularly
relevant as we evaluate our initial design.

(oops; telcon in 2 minutes; gotta wrap this up...)

Then we'll move from raising issues to closing them, publishing
working drafts occasionally as we go, culminating in last call
when we've closed all our issues.

So... I owe the WG a ftf agenda 2 weeks before our 14-15 Jul
meeting, i.e. around 1 July. I'd like to have all the initial
design candidates in that agenda. So if there's a design
that you'd like the WG to consider that hasn't been evaluated,
get it evalutated! (recall that we're looking for evaluations
by someone _other_ than the designer).



-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Tuesday, 15 June 2004 10:29:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:19 GMT