- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 16:36:59 -0500
- To: Howard Katz <howardk@fatdog.com>
- Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
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. Yes. > 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] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2004AprJun/0479.html -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Wednesday, 16 June 2004 17:36:10 UTC