Re: Default Mapping and tomorrow's telcon

> Marcelo and I are working on
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/directGraph/alt
>
> <http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/directGraph/alt>we are working on top
> of
> the structure and content that Eric started in
>
> [2]
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/directGraph<http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/directGraph/alt>
>
> we have gotten already comments on what we have done. So, in order to
> present one document, I suggest that Eric goes through our proposal and
> comment on [1] with the hopes of making [1] the final document that we
> will
> present.
>
> Does that work with you Eric?

Or the reverse proposal might be easier, i.e. Juan and Marcelo go through
Eric's proposal, at its original URI [1]. Regardless, you all need CVS
access to the *same* document and to be editing the *same* document.

There will likely be substantial disagreements, and this is OK as long as
they are marked as such. So, if for a given example there is a
disagreement over the text, just put them next to each other in say, two
different fonts/color. If another example is considered unnecessary by one
editor but not the other, use the font/color of the editor who considers
it unnecessary. Ditto formal notation. I would hope that at least on the
English text and struture of some of the examples there can be agreement,
and other questions can be punted to the WG and the wider community.

However it is is not good practice to have the WG try to track multiple
documents. We need a single document to review by Tuesday Nov 9th.

[1] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/directGrap

>
> Juan Sequeda
> +1-575-SEQ-UEDA
> www.juansequeda.com
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 11:56 AM, Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org> wrote:
>
>> >
>> > On 11/2/2010 5:43 AM, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:
>> >> I think we're making progress on that. Juan, Marcelo and I are
>> working
>> >> out our editorial predilections on a pair of documents with identical
>> >> structure. On the 9th, the WG can look at the two and cherry pick the
>> >> pieces they like.
>> >
>> > /I am concerned with the *pair of documents" bit.  Could you guys
>> create
>> a
>> > single document?
>> > I am not keen to make the WG pick between documents.
>>
>> Strong second. We need *ONE* document with the common agreed upon clear
>> English text, and then the two (or three) semantic notations lined up.
>>
>>  To produce *two* documents makes review harder both by the WG and wider
>> communities, and I don't see any reason to do so. If anything, one of
>> the
>> reasons why the direct mapping/semantics debate has taken so long is the
>> vast number of wiki-pages and HTML pages produced :)
>>
>> So, by the Nov 9th meeting, can we agree to have *one* document with the
>> semantic notations lined up that we can then send to first the WG and
>> then
>> the wider community to review?
>>
>> > Ashok
>> > /
>> >
>>
>>
>

Received on Wednesday, 3 November 2010 23:48:34 UTC