New draft of section 5.5

As I mentioned, I've been focusing on section 5.5, and have attached a
draft.  My main goals are: (a) to explicitly state all relevant
assumptions; (b) to be very clear about what graphs are being considered
and where they came from; and (c) to point out the pros/cons of various
options.

Let me know what you think.

David




On Fri, 2011-04-01 at 17:08 -0400, Jonathan Rees wrote:
> As I expected I have to delay.
> 
> I think what I'd like to do is aim for some kind of AWWSW decision on
> endorsing this thing at our next telecon (April 12). If there is
> agreement (perhaps subject to conditions), I'll plan to ship it as an
> AWWSW document. Otherwise, I think I'll have it be a personal draft,
> since I know how hard it is to get even two people to agree on
> something.
> 
> I'm very bad at finishing documents, as some of you may remember with
> the HCLS URI note; I generally need help in the form of critical
> readers telling me the obvious problems I don't see. I can proceed
> without, but the process is slower and the product poorer.
> 
> Jonathan
> 
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 4:52 PM, Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org> wrote:
> > I think the document "How to refer to something using a URI" is close
> > to being ready to shove out the door (i.e. announce on www-tag) and
> > I'd like to set a somewhat arbitrary deadline of March 31 for doing
> > so... mainly because I'm getting tired of it.
> >
> > I have plenty of ideas for what happens at that point - ultimately we
> > need some kind of consensus document, which means getting people
> > involved - but this is the first step.
> >
> > Here are some things that need to be done
> > - Maybe choose a different title. David doesn't like the current one.
> > Maybe something along the lines of "conveying URI definitions".
> > - Maybe get rid of the 'phrase' stuff, or gloss it somehow.  Generally
> > diminish either the number of options or their prominence.
> > - Better example. Using a mynah is very silly and I'm not sure I even
> > still use its ability to talk. Maybe something geophysical, like a
> > mountain or a road - ideally something that has RDF "in the wild".
> > Suggestions welcome. I only need 2-3 triples describing the thing.
> > - Some of the very short sections (3.2, 3.4, all subsections of 4) can
> > be expanded.
> >
> > The /latest/ version fills out the summary table.
> >
> > I am going to try to get critical readings from a few people,
> > especially Alan Ruttenberg, and each such reading will result in
> > improvement and possibly overhaul. Of course it would be great to get
> > comments from TimBL, Harry, Pat, and the other lurkers on this list
> > before it goes out, but I'm not too hopeful.
> >
> > I've been staring at it for too long. so I can't tell what is going to
> > confuse a general RDF or webarch audience.
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
> 
> 
> 

-- 
David Booth, Ph.D.
http://dbooth.org/

Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily
reflect those of his employer.