W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > February 2002

Re: Datatypes: unhappy of Bristol

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 12:10:14 +0000
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020224105824.02ce9230@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>
To: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
At 11:47 23/02/2002 +0000, Jeremy Carroll wrote:

> From a process point I prefer us considering coherent proposals as whole
>items, rather than having a shopping list of features so that the final
>requirements may or may not be satisfiable.


Jeremy,

I strongly endorse your desire for a consistent solution.

A failing I often exhibit, is to have a plan, but keep it secret from the
folks who need to know it.  Here is a brief view of what has been happening,
where we are at, and what comes next.

We have a single proposal for datatyping created jointly by Jeremy, Pat,
Patrick, Sergey and others, which was brought to the WG for comment.

Individuals were responding individually, as they are wont to do, and
Pat was trying to incorporate those comments into the proposal 'on the
fly'.  This had undesirable consequences:

   o folks coming to review the proposal didn't know which version to
     consider

   o at least one of those who worked out the first proposal was in
     strong disagreement with the modified version - we were at risk
     of losing the consensus that we had achieved

   o Pat was trying to incorporate a mutually incompatible set of
     imprecisely stated change requests, an impossible task leading
     to Pat, as I recall, asking us to keep the target still so he
     can get a reasonable shot at it (and I suspect tearing his beard
    out)

This is the process I have in mind:

     1.  Get a common proposal for datatyping
     2.  Review with WG as a whole
     3.  if WG accepts proposal STOP
     4.  WG agrees a set of changes they would like
         making choices

We got this far on Friday.  I hope that defines the target.  I suspect
Pat will, say "can't hit that one", but there are some nearby I
could hit.  So how do we finish the job?  How about:

     5.  Pat reviews change requests
     6.  If can't hit specified target, WG selects one
         of nearby targets
     7.  Produce new proposal which hits target
     8.  WG accepts proposal
     9.  STOP

Brian
Received on Sunday, 24 February 2002 07:28:37 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:45:19 EDT