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

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

From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2004 17:06:00 +0100
Message-ID: <E864E95CB35C1C46B72FEA0626A2E80803615995@0-mail-br1.hpl.hp.com>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, Howard Katz <howardk@fatdog.com>
Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>

> 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.

For me, the 7th is OK but much later would mean I can't do justice to the
preparation.  I have already arranged my travel and don't have the days in
the week of the F2F to devote to preparation - I had planned on doing that
the week before.

	Andy

-------- Original Message --------
> From: Dan Connolly <>
> Date: 16 June 2004 22:37
> 
> 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.
> 
> But I'm interested to know how willing other WG members are to
> try something newer.
> 
> 
> > 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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
Received on Thursday, 17 June 2004 12:09:21 GMT

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