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

RE: The smaller bites (was Re: Lee's feature proposal)

From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 18:39:14 +0000
To: Kjetil Kjernsmo <Kjetil.Kjernsmo@computas.com>, "public-rdf-dawg@w3.org" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <B6CF1054FDC8B845BF93A6645D19BEA362D1567167@GVW1118EXC.americas.hpqcorp.net>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-rdf-dawg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-rdf-dawg-request@w3.org]
> On Behalf Of Kjetil Kjernsmo
> Sent: 04 May 2009 11:33
> To: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
> Subject: The smaller bites (was Re: Lee's feature proposal)
> 
> On Sunday 03 May 2009 05:20:01 Lee Feigenbaum wrote:
> > track 3
> > -------
> > function library
> > surface syntax
> [...]
> > The third track affects the core query language, but feels to be like
> > smaller 'bites' that can be handled maybe in parallel with other efforts.
> 
> Indeed, and I feel that this is also a case where a certain do-o-cracy is in
> order, as opposed to most features, where a concerted effort from the group
> as a whole is required. This means if some group members decide to
> completely
> specify a feature, it has a decent chance of getting in, after a review to
> ensure that it does not come into conflict with backwards compatibility, or
> cut off opportunities for further development, etc.
> 
> 
> (Hidden agenda disclosure: I'd like to sneak in LimitPerResource this
> way :-) )

A do-ocracy is attractive for it's emphasis on valuing the part of design and definition.  There is also WG time to be spent on understanding (well, it was last time) - understanding the problem space (e.g. scope and tradeoffs) at the beginning to create common cause, and understanding the implications through review at the end (especially for implementers).

And a special implementers comment - "they" get to add /all/ the features (or decide on what mix to add - but that's not going to help interoperability service descriptions notwithstanding).  Parallel contributions of designs is the only bottleneck to be through about.  The process requires multiple implementations to show a feature is ready for REC. I read the WBS results as indicative of the desire for where the group time goes.

So my question - for every feature to add to the WG schedule, what would you remove or deprioritize?  


	Andy

> 
> Kind regards
> 
> Kjetil Kjernsmo
> --
> Senior Knowledge Engineer
> Mobile: +47 986 48 234
> Email: kjetil.kjernsmo@computas.com
> Web: http://www.computas.com/

> 
> |  SHARE YOUR KNOWLEDGE  |
> 
> Computas AS  PO Box 482, N-1327 Lysaker | Phone:+47 6783 1000 | Fax:+47 6783
> 1001
> 

Received on Monday, 4 May 2009 18:40:08 GMT

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