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: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 10:57:05 +0100
Message-Id: <0521D562-7587-4981-A316-BA37EAFD3034@garlik.com>
To: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On 29 Apr 2009, at 19:14, Ivan Herman wrote:
> Steve Harris wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Just for my understanding: do you propose that some more items would  
> be
> candidate for notes (manpower permitting)? What would be the decision
> mechanism for that?

I'm not sure what the process for notes is, I don't think I've been  
involved in one. I imagined/hoped that if there was sufficient energy  
in WG members, then it would happen. I couldn't find anything in the  
process document, but probably I was looking in the wrong place.

I would like to see some of the features with less mass appeal taken  
on in notes though. For us, ExecCommentsAndWarnings is something we do  
now, and it would be nice if there was agreement around how to do it,  
but I doubt that the WG as a whole has the energy to get it through  
Rec. track. I think OpenLink (and maybe HP?) do something similar, and  
it has the potential to be fairly straightforward to make a suggestion  
for how to do it.

To be perfectly frank the "lets just do what Condocet says" thing was  
a strawman, to promote discussion. I don't actually believe that  
consensus is a mathematical function.

- Steve
Received on Thursday, 30 April 2009 09:57:42 GMT

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