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

Re: agenda 11 Sep telecon / Remaining Work To Do

From: Guus Schreiber <guus.schreiber@vu.nl>
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 15:55:15 +0200
Message-ID: <52307643.3050603@vu.nl>
To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
CC: RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Added Sandro's message about remaining work to be done to today's agenda 
(20 min). To be scheduled at a time convenient for Sandro, as he's 
attending the RDF validation workshop.

Note: TriG LC decision to be taken next week.

Updated agenda: 
http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2013.09.11

Guus

On 10-09-13 21:44, Sandro Hawke wrote:
> 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 Wednesday, 11 September 2013 13:55:44 UTC

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