W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > January to March 2004

Re: on code names, group ownership, and boundaries

From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 10:00:36 +0200
Message-Id: <8166307B-797B-11D8-A9CA-000A95EAFCEA@nokia.com>
Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
To: "ext Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>

1. I'm taking this as a request for those of us who have submitted
    use cases to propose new, mnemmonic names for them. Yes?

2. At what point will we begin to gather these use cases in a
    public document, similar to the RDF Core issues list? So that
    refs and concensus can be thus focused.


On Mar 18, 2004, at 19:54, ext Dan Connolly wrote:

> I'm mostly happy to let the structure of use cases emerge
> as discussion progresses, but I'd like to nip this
> naming convention involving people's initials in the bud.
> Please pick names/identifiers that are real-life words
> that would be reasonably meaningful to somebody who's
> new to the WG. Yes, it's harder, but coming to agreement
> on terms is the game we're here to play.
> Use of opaque codewords like XY-23 can lead to inter-group
> efficiencies, but it creates a barrier around the group;
> it makes it expensive for new people to figure out
> what we're all talking about.
> Also, naming use cases (and issues and so on) after people
> is counter the goal of group consensus/endorsement/ownership.
> Each of us should feel free to criticize a use case without
> giving any signal of attacking a person whatsoever.
> -- 
> Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
> see you at the WWW2004 in NY 17-22 May?


Patrick Stickler
Nokia, Finland
Received on Friday, 19 March 2004 03:00:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:00:24 UTC