W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > April to June 2005

RE: note dissent on requirements/objectives?

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 11:18:16 -0500
To: "Thompson, Bryan B." <BRYAN.B.THOMPSON@saic.com>
Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1113322696.4891.152.camel@localhost>

On Tue, 2005-04-12 at 11:00 -0400, Thompson, Bryan B. wrote:
> Dan,
> If this will make life easier, I am willing to relinquish my objection as it
> was mainly procedural.

Yes, I think it will make life a bit easier, thanks.

>   However, I would like to note that what I believe was at issue
> was the scope
> of the query language specification.  I believe that we started voting on
> the inclusion of
> specific features (as requirements) before there was a consensus on the
> scope of the spec.,
> and I believe that this is an issue that still plagues Sparql.  I can see my
> way to a much
> simpler spec that goes out much sooner, or to a spec. that has more coverage
> and that will
> still take a while to bring to rec.

Do tell. Lacking a time machine, perhaps we can't get that smaller
spec that goes out sooner, but maybe I/we can learn a lesson for
next time.

I remember being in your position... being quite uncomfortable
making decisions in the small without a good picture of what the
whole would look like. But I haven't really found good techniques
for getting groups to get consensus on the scope of the spec
otherwise. If you can see a way to do it, I'm very interested.

>   With the former we can still do the
> latter, but right
> now we are still in feature rich territory.  Extensible value testing was
> the first of many
> such features that have made for a more complex specification.
> My appologies for being unable to make today's telcon.

Perfectly understandable.

>   I have a conflict in
> a few minutes
> and I did not think that it was worth while to be there for 30 minutes.
> -bryan

Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Tuesday, 12 April 2005 16:18:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:00:47 UTC