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

Re: picking our features

From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 17:47:32 +0100
Message-Id: <BEFC8DE0-1DC2-4B42-8A6E-BB11CF03F7B5@garlik.com>
To: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
My suggestion is that we look at the output of the Condorcet Method as  
of end of play 2009-05-01, and just prioritise per the graph edges.

We could decide what the cutoff point is for features that we can  
definitely specify in the time allowed, label those as Required, and  
label a roughly equal amount as Time Permitting.

Having gone over the Condorcet Method Graph and the results in the WBS  
table, making notes, it seems like the Condorcet results are a  
reasonable representation of the amalgamated wishes of the working  
group, as expressed in WBS. It's not quite what I'd like the group to  
work on, and nor is it quite what anyone else would like the group to  
work on, but it's a reasonable summary. Everything in the top 10 (as  
of now) I can see a good argument for including.

There are a few things that I'm surprised aren't higher, eg SPARQL/ 
OWL, but currently I think those things are more candidates for a WG  
Note, than Rec. track. I also think that's representative of the way  
respondents have voted.

It's a bit of a cold, rational, hard-nosed approach, but I'm a cold,  
rational, hard-nosed kind of guy ;)

- Steve
Received on Wednesday, 29 April 2009 16:48:10 GMT

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