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

RE: toward an intial design... any more evaluations?

From: Howard Katz <howardk@fatdog.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 14:22:37 -0700
To: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>, "RDF Data Access Working Group" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <IKEOLCDFPBBPPAHGNKKOIEHKEMAA.howardk@fatdog.com>

> 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,

Whoa, you've really caught me off guard here. My understanding (from my own
minutes of May 25 :  "AGENDUM: Refine requirements by evaluating designs"
[1]) was that the purpose of our doing evaluations was to get real-world
feedback to better inform our requirements work. It now sounds like you're
saying that the evaluations are also going to be part of a gating process to
determine which designs get considered at the f2f. Is that correct? If
that's the case and you announced that earlier, I missed it.

This is germane to me because I've been quietly working away on an
implementation of my XQuery ideas under the assumption, in lieu of other
information, that I'd be able to present a working prototype to the group
and have it evaluated right at the f2f. I think it's unlikely I'll have
enough functionality in place to warrant an evaluation much before then (tho
it's not impossible), since I'm still madly designing as I go.

I'd hate to miss this opportunity to demonstrate live what I think a
transmogrified XQuery can do for RDF (particularly since I made such a
balls-up of it the last time!). I probably should have spoken up earlier but
had assumed that the proper way of announcing my intentions was to request
that this be placed on the agenda once that's posted.

I'm praying to Dawg that the fat lady's got a bad case of strep throat and
won't be warbling for a while ...

Howard

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2004AprJun/0479.html

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-rdf-dawg-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-rdf-dawg-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Dan Connolly
> Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2004 7:30 AM
> To: RDF Data Access Working Group
> Subject: toward an intial design... any more evaluations?
>
>
>
> 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 Wednesday, 16 June 2004 17:21:58 GMT

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