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

Re: toward Apr AMS meeting agenda

From: Alberto Reggiori <alberto@asemantics.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 09:48:00 +0200
Message-Id: <E4A39AA1-8867-11D8-BE4E-0003939CA324@asemantics.com>
Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
To: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo@agfa.com>

On Apr 7, 2004, at 1:14 AM, Jos De_Roo wrote:

> 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
> http://www.w3.org/2003/08/owl-systems/test-results-out
> from day 1 instead of manual polling... :)

I also feel this as relevant, also because most people in this WG  
already got some RDF query language implemented in a way or the other,  
and it would be useful to compare them; as well as check strengths and  
weakness. This would rather be a bottom-up approach to our  
specification, which could be usefully combined with the top-down  
approach of use-cases+requirements collections we are already doing.


it might be a useful reference for a bottom-up approach to help out in  
the design of our work

Concerning a Web form for listing use-cases, requirements and related  
implementations I could offer a modified/extended version of old work  
done from me and Andy


where we would need to define a more precise vocabulary to describe our  
use-cases and link them to implementations and move it somewhere close  
to W3C pages perhaps - which can then be linked later to real test data  
as Jos reported.


>                       "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
>                       @w3.org
>                       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 Wednesday, 7 April 2004 03:54:26 UTC

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