- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Fri, 7 May 2004 12:39:39 -0500
- To: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
- Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <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.) Well, that's easy: two queries: ??x rdf:type foaf:Person . || ??x rdf:type ?y . ?y rdfs:subClassOf foaf:Person . Or did you want subclass closure to be invoked automatically in the second case? Pat > >Best, >Kendall -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32501 (850)291 0667 cell phayes@ihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Friday, 7 May 2004 13:39:41 UTC