Re: New draft of section 5.5

Sorry, I'm not available at that time.
Jonathan

On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 9:40 AM, David Booth <david@dbooth.org> wrote:
> How about an extra call tomorrow (Tuesday) to work on the document?   I
> think it would be good for at least Jonathan and me to discuss how to
> best incorporate and contrast the different world views that we have.
>
> David
>
>
> On Fri, 2011-04-01 at 21:21 -0400, David Booth wrote:
>> 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.
>
>

Received on Monday, 4 April 2011 14:51:22 UTC