- From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2004 17:06:00 +0100
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, Howard Katz <howardk@fatdog.com>
- Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
> 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. For me, the 7th is OK but much later would mean I can't do justice to the preparation. I have already arranged my travel and don't have the days in the week of the F2F to devote to preparation - I had planned on doing that the week before. Andy -------- Original Message -------- > From: Dan Connolly <> > Date: 16 June 2004 22:37 > > 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
Received on Thursday, 17 June 2004 12:09:21 UTC