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 16:34:38 -0700
To: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: "RDF Data Access Working Group" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <IKEOLCDFPBBPPAHGNKKOEEHOEMAA.howardk@fatdog.com>


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dan Connolly [mailto:connolly@w3.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2004 2:37 PM
> To: Howard Katz
> Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group
> Subject: RE: toward an intial design... any more evaluations?
>
>
> On Wed, 2004-06-16 at 16:22, Howard Katz wrote:
> > > 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.
>
> Yes.
>
> >  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?
>
> That's what I'd like to do, yes.
>
> >  If
> > that's the case and you announced that earlier, I missed it.
>
> No, I only came up with the idea a few days ago and just recently
> got around to sending 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.
>
> Well, I had in mind that the WG would start with one of the more mature
> designs. I wonder about our schedule otherwise.

That's a valid concern. I would think it would depend heavily on the
maturity of my design at the point where an irrevocable decision had to be
made and how many big questions remained unanwered.

>
> But I'm interested to know how willing other WG members are to
> try something newer.

Me too. :-)

>
> > 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.
>
> Now seems like a pretty reasonable time to speak up.

Good. Consider it spoken.
>
> Actually, I think it's perhaps not too much to ask that you play by
> the existing rules: all you need to do is to get _one_ WG member
> to find your design interesting enough to evaluate it. If you want
> to do a quality presentation at the ftf, you're going to want
> to rehearse it with somebody anyway... you might as well find a
> friendly WG member or two to be your test audience.

OK, it means I'll have less implemented than I had hoped, but I'm willing to
play along. If I can't get a single member to even consider looking at what
I've got in place by July 1, I might as well go back to modelling for art
students (which goes back *many* years. Not unpleasant work, I must say.
:-).

My prototype is in Java, and I'm assuming that if somebody takes this on,
they'll be able to evaluate both running Java code, as well as an
accompanying manual/design document. I'm not sure yet if the engine will be
able to handle arbitrary RDF/XML or if I'll have to provide canned data.
I'll try for the former but no promises ...

> If you want an extension from 1 July to, say, 7 July, I'm open
> to that, provided other WG members don't mind having less time
> to read it in preparation for the ftf.

Not needed. Much as I'd love the extra time, in fact I'm going shorten my
own deadline to June 28, since I'm committed to a week of ocean kayaking
with my wife and friends on that date. I would love to get rich and famous,
but quality time away from the computer is important too. :-)

> I have an issue meeting a 1 July deadline too, since I'm travelling
> from 20 Jun to about 1 July.
>
> > 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
>
> --
> Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 16 June 2004 19:33:58 GMT

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