- From: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
- Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 18:30:28 -0400
- To: "Seaborne, Andy" <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
- Cc: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
On Thu, May 06, 2004 at 08:19:28PM +0100, Seaborne, Andy wrote: > > Kendall, > > I don't see this as needing to go in the candidate requirements. It doesn't > seem to be a top level requirement to me. Maybe I was just assuming it > would happen. I don't care about it going into the list of reqs as an end in itself. I only care because that seems the only way to ensure that it *gets done*. Which is to say that I was not assuming it would happen otherwise. Plus, if I don't offer requirements, it seems I put myself, my institution, and my AC in a worse position vis-a-vis formal objections than if I do. I'm finding that being editor *and* arguing for requirements is significantly burdensome. In fact, I was kinda hoping that since I help *everyone* polish their requirements, that I might get some reciprocation from other members of this WG. After all, I never consult my own position before helping people craft language, even for requirements I think mad. (But maybe this is editor special pleading and in bad taste, in which case: my apologies! :>) > I see the requirements list as the the most important ones. Was there a > reason behind wanting it in the list that means it is significant enough? Well, I think it's important; I think, per Charter 1.8, that it's in scope, and I think that if it's not on the list explicitly, it may not get done. Not sure what else there is to say, other than that you hit spot on the use cases I had in mind in yr reply to Steve. (Our photo annotation tool would benefit greatly; it asks its server for instances of foaf:Person and instances of the subclasses of foaf:Person. Doing that in a clean, concise and standardized way is a big win, IMO.) Best, Kendall
Received on Thursday, 6 May 2004 18:31:31 UTC