- From: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2010 08:23:14 -0000 (GMT)
- To: "Juan Sequeda" <juanfederico@gmail.com>
- Cc: "RDB2RDF WG" <public-rdb2rdf-wg@w3.org>
> > > 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.?.?.? Ashok? > > 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 To be precise, the W3C staff serves the needs of the group, and with the chair, attempts to keep the group on charter and schedule, not with what "I" want. The "please can't we edit one document" approach comes from the operational agreement between the chair and both staff contacts that it seems that having you, Eric, and Marcelo edit two documents is actually going to take longer rather than have a single document, and the group would like a FPWD sooner rather than later :) I apologize if that was not clearer from the outset to those in the "semantic side-meeting" (I thought it was re e-mail from Ashok), but I hope both you and Eric's efforts can be preserved. >> >> >>> >>> 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 08:23:16 UTC