W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > September 2013

Remaining Work To Do

From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 15:44:14 -0400
Message-ID: <522F768E.5040602@w3.org>
To: RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
It looks like we have about 14 or 15 more weeks of this WG.    I'm 
looking over what's left, trying to see what we need to do right away 
and/or get people particularly motivated to work on.

In general, I'm seeing the remaining work falling into a few categories:

1.   CR stuff: defining what is tested, defining tests, approving tests, 
creating implementations, receiving test results, generating an 
implementation report from the test results.

A few thoughts:

- RDF Concepts says it's not testable; RDF Semantics looks like it 
should be testable the same way it was in RDF 1.0, with positive and 
negative entailment and consistency tests, but ... we neglected to say 
this in RDF Semantics, so where can we say this?   I guess we can say it 
non-normatively in the test suite.    That's a bit weak.   Anyway, we at 
least need someone to take the 2004 test suite and get it into a form 
people can use now, and add/modify all the tests to show all the changes 
in semantics since 2004.   Pat and Peter, are you up for writing those 
new/modified tests?

- Gregg, you've been doing the implementation reports for the syntaxes 
-- are you up for doing it for Semantics, and anything else that comes 
along?    How hard would it be for someone else to adapt/run your code, 
if they don't know ruby?

2.  Handling User Comments.   Obviously this is work, and not (usually) 
a lot of fun.   It's one of the things that's holding Turtle back at the 
moment.    I'm not confident everything sent to public-rdf-concepts has 
been tracked on the page for the right deliverable.    Is there anyone 
who is currently taking responsibility for that?

3.  Hard decisions about issues users raise.  This is the big unknown.   
We should make sure any non-editorial comments get RAISED as issues 
immediately, so the chairs can try to fit any necessary discussions into 
the remaining meetings.  For example, I see Jan's W's Turtle comment 
about how to name the two versions of Turtle, but it's not an ISSUE.   
We've got 5-10 hours of telecon time to close all these issues, 
including ones that haven't been reported yet.

4.  The unpublished documents.   RDF Schema, RDF Primer, RDF/XML Syntax, 
and the Dataset WG Notes promised by me and Antoine.   I think we also 
need something, maybe just a web page, saying what RDF 1.1 is, as 
compared to RDF 2004.  All the WG's I've been involved with *since* RDF 
2004 have made an Overview document.   We may want to set deadlines for 
each of these, by which if the group doesn't have a draft to review for 
publication, we say we wont publish them.   We may want to come up with 
contingency plans -- is it okay to not touch the RDF/XML spec?  (I can 
add an alert box pointing folks at some other spec without republishing 
it.   But we'd need something to point to, like that "what's new in rdf 
1.1", which links to turtle, trig, json-ld, and maybe lets folks know 
rdfa exists.)    I believe Dan is on the hook for Schema, Guus for 
Primer, and Antoine and I for our notes.    Anyone for RDF/XML and 
Overview?    Which of those are Rec Track?   If Schema, Primer, RDF/XML 
Syntax, and Overview want to be/remain on the Rec Track, we need drafts 
*very* soon.

5.  Publication mechanics.    We're looking at 12-14 documents, most of 
which need to be published 2-3 times in the next three months. They need 
to all point to the correct version of each other, with every 
publication, and keep passing pubrules.   That's a lot of 
publications.   We either need editors all standing by, making sure they 
can do the right things at the right time, or we need to make sure 
everyone's using identically configured respec, so someone [me] can do 
the publications without knowing about idiosyncrasies. Probably we 
should do both.

Am I missing anything big here?

        - Sandro
Received on Tuesday, 10 September 2013 19:44:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:02:16 UTC