W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > April 2002

Re: ACTION: task force unasserted triples

From: Guus Schreiber <schreiber@swi.psy.uva.nl>
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 11:56:13 +0200
Message-ID: <3CC7D2BD.6DB5A9CE@swi.psy.uva.nl>
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
CC: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>, www-webont-wg@w3.org
Pat Hayes wrote:
> >Pat - the Coordination Group has asked the committee in Guus's
> >message (which includes people who are in BOTH WG's) to make a
> >specific proposal.
> 
> No, it didn't. It asked for 'clarification', which is what we have
> been trying to provide. I understood this to be a request for an
> explanation of WHY this needs doing at all, not a proposal for how to
> do it. That task has already been handed to the RDF core WG, as I
> understand it.

Yes, the SWCG request was mainly a WHY request: why does Webont need
dark triples? So, the target result is a problem statement with a
convincing example demonstrating the problem, a description of how a
dark-triple facility would solve the problem, and a indication of what
we lose with a distinction between two types of triples (although this
may be dependent on the way in which the dark-triple facility is
realized by RDF Core). 

 
> >RDF Core chairs are on board for this -- we are asking you to do
> >EXACTLY what you keep asking us to do - let you make a decision.
> >The goal is to come up with a specific proposal we (WebOnt) want and
> >that the folks also on RDF Core (you, Jeremy, Jos) think is
> >consistent with their goals.  My impression (Guus, correct me if I
> >misunderstood) is that you will bring this proposal to RDF Core
> >where the issue will be opened, discussed, and hopefully resolved.
> 
> I don't see anything in Guus' message that could be interpreted this way.
> 
> >But so far NO ONE HAS AGREED TO THIS ACTION,
> 
> WHO or WHAT do you expect to 'agree to this action'? The 'task force'
> has no internal structure, and has never even met as a body; it has
> no leader, nobody has the authority to speak for it.
> 
> Massimo complains about 39 emails.  So far the only emails Ive seen
> on the actual TOPIC (as opposed to emails like yours and Massimos,
> which are all about internal W3C committee-politics) have been from
> Peter, Jos, Jeremy and me, all members of this ad-hoc group, trying
> to respond as well as we can to what seemed like Guus' request.
> 
> >  so if this group will accept it, please let us know.
> 
> What is the approved W3C procedure for a group to accept anything?
> Who speaks for the group? I ask because you seem to be the Roberts
> Rules expert here. I don't see how I (or any other member of the
> group) could accept a task on behalf of the rest of the group.
> 
> >If you won't accept it - let us know what you propose instead  --
> >otherwise we'll be forced to declare this issue closed and move on
> >(which would obviously be silly given the effort that has been put
> >into it)
> 

Well, I was hoping to resolve this issue of accepting the action at the
telecon today. It is one of these things for which email is not a good
medium. From the reactions so far, I have the impression the "dark
triple volunteers" are happy to work on this. 
It may be wise to nominate a coordinator/lead for the action,
Received on Thursday, 25 April 2002 10:02:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:49 GMT