Re: Default Mapping and tomorrow's telcon

> I don't think that would be possible at this point. Marcelo and I have
> done substantial structural changes to Eric's document in our doc. Going
> back would be a waste of time. Besides, Richard has given us tons of
> comments which we are in the process of incorporating. So my original
> proposal still stands.

Sorry, it needs to be possible by the next meeting. The WG needs you,
Eric, and Marcelo to work on a single document together, i.e. done with a
single URI and CVS. How you three decide that is to be done has to be
done.

Why not just mark "structural" difficulty in such a combined document?  It
seems this is what you are all doing with Section 2, i.e. you do in a
step-wise manner what Eric does with a few cases. Let's be clear that's
it's Section 2 of the document that is under contention, not the entire
document.

It will be *very* hard for the WG to correlate unless we know that both of
you cover the same example and what are the alternate versions of text and
example layout for the same material.

I'd suggest either you or Eric volunteer your document to be the baseline
and let some merging commence. Yes, such a document will be unwieldy and
reconciling structure will be difficult, but if it's all in the same doc
the WG and wider community will have little trouble with review and
chosing the option.


>
> Juan Sequeda
> www.juansequeda.com
>
> On Nov 3, 2010, at 6:48 PM, "Harry Halpin" <hhalpin@w3.org> wrote:
>
>>> 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 Thursday, 4 November 2010 00:25:57 UTC