RE: toward an intial design... any more evaluations?

On Wed, 2004-06-16 at 16:22, Howard Katz wrote:
> > So... I owe the WG a ftf agenda 2 weeks before our 14-15 Jul
> > meeting, i.e. around 1 July. I'd like to have all the initial
> > design candidates in that agenda. So if there's a design
> > that you'd like the WG to consider that hasn't been evaluated,
> > get it evalutated! (recall that we're looking for evaluations
> > by someone _other_ than the designer).
> Dan,
> Whoa, you've really caught me off guard here. My understanding (from my own
> minutes of May 25 :  "AGENDUM: Refine requirements by evaluating designs"
> [1]) was that the purpose of our doing evaluations was to get real-world
> feedback to better inform our requirements work.


>  It now sounds like you're
> saying that the evaluations are also going to be part of a gating process to
> determine which designs get considered at the f2f. Is that correct?

That's what I'd like to do, yes.

>  If
> that's the case and you announced that earlier, I missed it.

No, I only came up with the idea a few days ago and just recently
got around to sending it.

> This is germane to me because I've been quietly working away on an
> implementation of my XQuery ideas under the assumption, in lieu of other
> information, that I'd be able to present a working prototype to the group
> and have it evaluated right at the f2f. I think it's unlikely I'll have
> enough functionality in place to warrant an evaluation much before then (tho
> it's not impossible), since I'm still madly designing as I go.

Well, I had in mind that the WG would start with one of the more mature
designs. I wonder about our schedule otherwise.

But I'm interested to know how willing other WG members are to
try something newer.

> I'd hate to miss this opportunity to demonstrate live what I think a
> transmogrified XQuery can do for RDF (particularly since I made such a
> balls-up of it the last time!). I probably should have spoken up earlier but
> had assumed that the proper way of announcing my intentions was to request
> that this be placed on the agenda once that's posted.

Now seems like a pretty reasonable time to speak up.

Actually, I think it's perhaps not too much to ask that you play by
the existing rules: all you need to do is to get _one_ WG member
to find your design interesting enough to evaluate it. If you want
to do a quality presentation at the ftf, you're going to want
to rehearse it with somebody anyway... you might as well find a
friendly WG member or two to be your test audience.

If you want an extension from 1 July to, say, 7 July, I'm open
to that, provided other WG members don't mind having less time
to read it in preparation for the ftf.

I have an issue meeting a 1 July deadline too, since I'm travelling
from 20 Jun to about 1 July.

> I'm praying to Dawg that the fat lady's got a bad case of strep throat and
> won't be warbling for a while ...
> Howard
> [1]

Dan Connolly, W3C

Received on Wednesday, 16 June 2004 17:36:10 UTC