W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > December 2004

Re: Time-sensitive resources using RDF?

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 09:08:14 -0500
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>, Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>, Lisa Seeman <lisa@ubaccess.com>, Wei Xing <xing@ucy.ac.cy>, www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Message-ID: <20041223140814.GA14798@homer.w3.org>

* Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com> [2004-12-23 12:21+0000]
> 
> Are we trying to coordinate SWIG comments?
 
I usually try, in a noble and selfless (or possibly, lazy) way not to 
make myself into a bottleneck for such things. As I wrote my comments,
I will admit thinking to myself "hmm Jeremy would have more polished
thoughts on a few of these things" (eg. datatyping; my I18N concerns re 
having a property datamodel without language-neutral property
description language; corner cases such as rdf:_1 as property name,
etc).

> A possible approach might be for everyone to make individual comments, 
> and than Dan (as SWIG chair) to make a first pass and suggest both the 
> publishing WG, and the commentors, for some comments to be treated as 
> duplicates.

Seems OK but I prefer the method below.

> I guess we're talking three or four people who might get round to it.

Yup. I encourage any commentators to take a look at the public
www-multimodal archives to see what previous folks might have said
(these are linked from the Status section of the draft).

> Another approach might be for Dan in a last pass on the 10th (or 
> possibly just before) to propose such a merge as a formal SWIG comment, 
> subject to an e-mail vote!

I think 'vote' is too formal, but I think a summary of the comments that
have come in from SWIG folks would be useful. We don't have a very
formal notion of SWIG member beyond 'someone on this mailing list' so
voting seems to strong a notion. But I can try to summarise themes etc
and listen to concerns.

BTW if anyone on this list is looking for student projects for early
2005, I do reccomend considering this topic. In particular the event 
triggering business could be interesting to prototype on top of an
RDF-based storage backend (eg. Jena, Redland etc.).

> e.g.
> [[
> Some SWIG members have made individual comments. The SWIG would like the 
> following to be treated as IG comments:
> 
> - 'topic name'
>    See
>        comment URL 1, part c
>        comment URL 2, part 3
> 
> - 'topic name'
>    See
>       ....
> 
> ]]
> 
> This would help the WG see the wood for the trees, and give some sense 
> of the IG consensus, or not.

Yep. 

One pattern we might fall into is that the WG might say "OK you've
persuaded us that RDF is interesting and potentially usable here, but we
don't have any WG members who are very familiar with it.". This has
happened with other WGs. So if folks here do care about seeing the 
relationship between DPF and RDF elaborate on, consider making some time
to help work through the details.

cheers,

Dan

> 
> Jeremy
> 
> 
> Dan Brickley wrote:
> >* Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org> [2004-12-22 11:13-0500]
> >
> >>* Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com> [2004-12-22 15:01+0000]
> >>
> >>>
> >>>A quick glance at this thread indicates that you haven't yet mentioned:
> >>>
> >>>http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-DPF-20041122/
> >>>
> >>>Dynamic Properties Framework (DPF)
> >>>   22 November 2004, David Raggett, Rafah A. Hosn, Sailesh Sathish, 
> >>>Keith Waters
> >>>   Last Call Ends 10 January 2005
> >>>
> >>>While this is not in RDF it is about time-sensitive properties of 
> >>>resources - hmmm is that the same as time-sensitive resources??
> >>
> >>Oh wow, that's in Last Call already. Thanks for the reminder!
> >
> >
> >I sent some comments,
> >  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-multimodal/2004Dec/0004.html
> >  DPF comments: relation to RDF properties; cardinality; property 
> >  declarations
> >
> >  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-multimodal/2004Dec/0005.html
> >  Defining event types in terms of DPF-based expressions?
> >
> >cheers,
> >
> >Dan
> >
> >
> 
Received on Thursday, 23 December 2004 14:08:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:52:12 GMT