Re: Default Mapping and tomorrow's telcon

Richard, 

On Nov 3, 2010, at 8:34 PM, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de> wrote:

> Juan,
> 
> 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 version.

I was not implying that and apologies if that was the impression. The fact is that you have given comments to the /alt doc and we really appreciate it and we are including them. 

> 
> 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.

If we go back to the minutes to the first side telco (alex sent an email) it was stated clearly that we were going to start another doc and Marcelo and I were going to work on that one. Guess people did pay attention to that. 

> 
> Richard
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> 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 02:01:29 UTC