Re: Default Mapping and tomorrow's telcon


On 3 Nov 2010, at 23:57, Juan Sequeda wrote:
> Besides, Richard has given us tons of comments which we are in the  
> process of incorporating. So my original proposal still stands.

Let me be extremely clear here: My comments on the /alt draft were not  
an endorsement of that version over Eric's; I have not read Eric's  

To be honest, as someone who isn't participating in the side  
teleconferences, I am quite lost about what's going on here. I was  
assuming that those participating in the side teleconferences had  
agreed that you and Marcelo were to make an editorial pass over Eric's  
work, in order to finally produce a unified document. Apparently that  
was not the case.


> Juan Sequeda
> On Nov 3, 2010, at 6:48 PM, "Harry Halpin" <> wrote:
>>> Marcelo and I are working on
>>> [1]
>>> <>we are working  
>>> on top
>>> of
>>> the structure and content that Eric started in
>>> [2]
>>> >
>>> 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]
>>> Juan Sequeda
>>> +1-575-SEQ-UEDA
>>> On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 11:56 AM, Harry Halpin <>  
>>> 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 01:35:29 UTC