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

RE: UPDATED: Precis of Design Evaluations

From: Howard Katz <howardk@fatdog.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 21:04:44 -0700
To: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: "Kendall Clark" <kendall@monkeyfist.com>, <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <IKEOLCDFPBBPPAHGNKKOGEAEENAA.howardk@fatdog.com>

S'OK. A third choice arose. Andy's agreed to pick up the evaluation chore
(for which I pledge undying fealty and at least one free beer in San Diego
:-), and I've passed my cheat sheet on to him. Since people are into the
voting stage and I'm not sure when Andy's going to finish up his eval, I'm
posting the address to my cheat sheet here
(http://www.fatdog.com/xsrql_conformance.html) as a general navigational aid
into my document. It contains a few pointers as to what requirements are
satisfied where, so that people don't have to feel like they're wading
through 1500 pages of Marcel Proust to figure out what's what's germane and
what's not. ( (Proust: never read the guy; heard he was fab tho.)

Anyway, have a nice week. I'm off for a glorious week of ocean kayaking on
Canada's wild West Coast. If I come back to find I've gotten more than 5% of
the vote, I'll know there were a few visionaries in the crowd. Either that,
or crazy obsessives like myself. :-)

Most likely regrets for the next telecon. I'm not sure if I'll be back
Monday or Tuesday.

Ta,
Howard

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-rdf-dawg-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-rdf-dawg-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Dan Connolly
> Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 7:01 AM
> To: Howard Katz
> Cc: Kendall Clark; public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
> Subject: RE: UPDATED: Precis of Design Evaluations
>
>
>
> On Mon, 2004-06-28 at 18:32, Howard Katz wrote:
> [...]
> > I've done up my own very quick checklist against the UC&R doc with some
> > pointers into relevant sections of my proposal. I'm thinking it
> would feel
> > just a bit weird to post that myself tho, and I can't find any
> online Emily
> > Post pointers as to how language-proposer-nubies are supposed
> to behave in
> > situations like this. Anybody got a clue?
>
> I see 2 choices:
>
> (1) send your eval to one or two or a few WG members, and ask them
> if one or more of them will look it over, salt to taste, and send
> it (acknowledging your input; no reason to outright lie here).
>
> (2) send it yourself; like candidate requirements and such,
> the chair isn't likely to pay it much
> attention unless/until somebody else in the WG pays attention
> to it, but I won't count it against you in any way.
>
>
>
> --
> Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
>
Received on Wednesday, 30 June 2004 00:03:50 GMT

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