Re: Default Mapping and tomorrow's telcon

Juan Sequeda
www.juansequeda.com

On Nov 3, 2010, at 7:25 PM, "Harry Halpin" <hhalpin@w3.org> wrote:

>> 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.
> 

That's ok with me, if Eric is ok with it. 

> 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 don't think it would. Just read Eric's section 2 vs our section 2. 

But I'm ok with merging them now and follow your previous suggestion. 

> 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.

So it's either copy section 2 of ours to Eric's or vice-versa. 

Eric, what do you want to do. 

For the record, I think the way we have  been doing it with two doc is much better. But I guess we are under time pressure and can ask for another week.?.?.?

But if the W3C staff wants it done this way, I guess we have to follow. We all need to coordinate our time and don't have time to waste
> 
> 
>> 
>> 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 01:08:18 UTC