W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > April to June 2009

SPARQL WG Survey plan - input desired

From: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 11:53:40 -0400
Message-ID: <49E75484.4090103@thefigtrees.net>
To: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Hi everyone,

Here's the rough plan as it currently stands going forward the next few 
weeks. I'm looking for input on what parts of it are good and especially 
what parts could be improved.

Specific questions are footnoted.


1. Do the rest of the features from this week's agenda on next week's call.

2. Open a WBS (Web survey). Each organization & invited expert in the 
Working Group is asked to please answer once. The survey will:
   A. List all proposed feature [1]
   B. Ask respondents to give a priority ranking of 8-10 features that 
they believe the Working Group should work on standardizing [2][3]

3. The survey will be open for longer than one week, but people are 
encouraged to submit initial responses ASAP. The idea here is that we'll 
have one teleconference (a week from Tuesday) on which we can look 
collectively at where we stand and give people an opportunity to "make 
their case", after which respondents will still have a chance to adjust 
their preferences.

4. After the survey closes, the chairs, the team, and anyone on the WG 
will all be invited to look at the results and make concrete proposals 
based on them. That is, the survey is not binding, and I expect people 
to use the survey as (strong) input into cohesive proposals. This/these 
proposal(s) will be the basis around which we will attempt to form 
consensus.

5. I'm guessing that consensus may be incremental, but I'm expecting 
that some work items will be clear - while I'm willing to devote *some* 
time during our F2F for continuing to reach consensus on our 
deliverables, I expect to spend *most* time beginning to work on the 
items around which we have already reached consensus.


[1] I'm tempted to use the chairs discretion to not list features that 
clearly did not receive a critical mass of support in our current 
discussions. If we do that, we'll still include features that weren't 
discussed at all.

[2] What's a good number here, if the goal is to end up with a small set 
of required deliverables and an approximately equal sized list of 
time-permitting deliverables?

[3] Would it be better to solicit one ranked list from each respondent 
with the goal being that those features receiving the "2nd tier" of 
support will be time-permitting features, or would it be better to have 
two separate questions (1. required features, 2. time-permitting 
features) on the survey? I lean towards the former.


thanks for reading - please send feedback so that we're operating under 
a procedure that the WG is (relatively? :-) ) happy with.

Lee
Received on Thursday, 16 April 2009 15:54:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:38 GMT