W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > April to June 2004

RE: toward Apr AMS meeting agenda

From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 01:14:10 +0200
To: Rob.Shearer@networkinference.com
Cc: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>, "RDF Data Access Working Group" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>, public-rdf-dawg-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF14E07C58.22EEC7A3-ONC1256E6E.007CEBB1-C1256E6E.007F7358@agfa.com>

That's indeed a lot of work, but that's also why we're here
(in a working group :)) The use cases entail test cases
which are making the requirements and designissues tangible.
They are however separated powers, just like the judicial,
legislative and executive powers. I think it makes sense
to have something like an initial version of
from day 1 instead of manual polling... :)

Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/

                      "Rob Shearer"                                                                                                          
                      <Rob.Shearer@networkinf        To:       "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>, "RDF Data Access Working Group"             
                      erence.com>                     <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>                                                               
                      Sent by:                       cc:                                                                                     
                      public-rdf-dawg-request        Subject:  RE: toward Apr AMS meeting agenda                                             
                      07/04/2004 00:36                                                                                                       

It would be good to put together a complete list of requirements as well
as current status (proposed, proposed and seconded) in the agenda. I
have a hard time remembering things unless they're in written lists.

At some point, the same might be good for use cases, although I
recognize that's a lot more work. A web form listing all the use cases
and polling for who supports carrying which cases forward might be a
simple way of seeing in which direction the group is leaning without
cluttering the mailing list with postings.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dan Connolly [mailto:connolly@w3.org]
> Sent: 06 April 2004 15:06
> To: RDF Data Access Working Group
> Subject: Re: toward Apr AMS meeting agenda
> On Fri, 2004-03-26 at 12:06, Dan Connolly wrote:
> [...]
> > Keep in mind that W3C process calls for the
> > agenda to be done two weeks in advance, i.e.
> > 8 April. By that time I intend to have a meeting
> > page in place, ala
> >
> >   Fifth Meeting of the W3C Web Ontology Working Group
> >   9-10 January 2003
> >   Manchester, UK
> >   http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/ftf5.html
> I've got a draft in place:
>   RDF Data Access Working Group Meeting, April 2004
>   hosted in Amsterdam by @semantics
>   DRAFT by Dan Connolly, chair
>   $Revision: 1.13 $ of $Date: 2004/04/06 22:01:56 $
>   http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/ftf1
> I owe you a finished agenda by Thursday, so please
> give me your input as soon as you can. I'll make
> some time to discuss it in the telcon on Thursday.
> --
> Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
> see you at the WWW2004 in NY 17-22 May?
Received on Tuesday, 6 April 2004 19:24:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:00:26 UTC