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

Re: SPARQL WG Survey plan - input desired

From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 16:09:41 +0100
Cc: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
Message-Id: <5A4DB229-9DCD-4A0D-839E-7B73890CFB04@garlik.com>
To: Kjetil Kjernsmo <Kjetil.Kjernsmo@computas.com>
On 17 Apr 2009, at 15:57, Kjetil Kjernsmo wrote:

> On Thursday 16 April 2009 23:08:03 Steve Harris wrote:
>> Ah, sorry, I misunderstood. Well, it depends whether the ranking
>> method, doesn't it? If we use something like Condorcet then there's  
>> no
>> problem with people voting for as many as they care to, if I remember
>> correctly.
>
> Yeah, that's my understanding too. Condorcet looks nice to me, as it  
> produces
> a ranked list, but then I came across something the other day that  
> said the
> method was created for single-winner ballots, so perhaps there is an  
> even
> better suited method somewhere that has been explicitly created for  
> ranked
> list ballots? If we can't find something quickly, Condorcet sounds  
> good to
> me.

According to Wikipedia[1] there are minor variants of Condorcet that  
produced ranked lists.

Approval voting would be more like the straw polls we've been doing,  
and I find it an easier decision making process. But, I understand  
there are situations where the outcome is not representative of the  
wishes of the voters. I don't know how common that situation is though.

- Steve

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_method#Condorcet_Ranking_Methods

-- 
Steve Harris
Garlik Limited, 2 Sheen Road, Richmond, TW9 1AE, UK
+44(0)20 8973 2465  http://www.garlik.com/
Registered in England and Wales 535 7233 VAT # 849 0517 11
Registered office: Thames House, Portsmouth Road, Esher, Surrey, KT10  
9AD
Received on Friday, 17 April 2009 15:10:18 GMT

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