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

Connection to ebXML registry work [was: mailing list welcome and introduction]

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 04 May 2004 11:22:59 -0500
To: Farrukh Najmi <Farrukh.Najmi@Sun.COM>
Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1083687778.464.836.camel@dirk>

On Tue, 2004-05-04 at 09:22, Farrukh Najmi wrote:
> Hello all,
> I have recently joined the RDF DAWG and would like to introduce myself.
> My brief bio may be found at:
>     http://www.xmleurope.com/2004/bios_in.asp#najmi
> Additionally, I am currently co-chair of the Semantic Content Management 
> SC (SCM SC) [2] of the OASIS ebXML
> Registry TC [1]. In that group we are working to define how our existing 
> query mechanisms may be extended
> to support inference based upon metadata based on OWL ontologies. It is 
> my goal to keep the SCM SC work
> aligned with the work of the DAWG as the two proceed in parallel.

Ah... very timely that you joined the WG at this point, while we're
working on requirements: I like to
use requirements documents as a mechanism for negotiations between
groups for a couple reasons:
  (a) our use cases and requirements should be readily readable
  by groups other than ourselves, where our design document might
  require substantially more investment to understand.

  (b) other groups, being part of the Web community as a whole,
  are in nearly as good a position as we are to know what the
  requirements are, while we'd prefer that folks who think
  they know how to design it join the WG rather than commenting from

As we come out with designs, if another group finds a problem
with our design, they should be able to relate it to a requirement
of theirs that we haven't met. We have some obligation to come
to consensus with them about requirements, but we reserve some
right to make design choices as we see fit, provided they
meet those requirements.

An important synchronization point in the W3C process between
our group and others is last call; at that point, we'd like
to get explicit confirmation from peer groups that we've
addressed their comments to their satisfaction. Obviously
that's easier if they read and comment on earlier drafts
as they come out.

Our charter calls for a last call WD by Jan 2005
(though I have ambitions of getting a 1st version to
last call before then). Do you know if that schedule
is consistent with the expectations of the ebXML
registry TC? I looked at their schedule
and I don't see any milestones there.

> I look forward to catching up on the WG works-in-progress and begin 
> contributing. Thank you.
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
see you at the WWW2004 in NY 17-22 May?
Received on Tuesday, 4 May 2004 12:24:03 UTC

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