Re: SPARQL WG Survey plan - input desired

On 16 Apr 2009, at 16:53, Lee Feigenbaum wrote:
> [1] I'm tempted to use the chairs discretion to not list features  
> that clearly did not receive a critical mass of support in our  
> current discussions. If we do that, we'll still include features  
> that weren't discussed at all.

That seems reasonable to me.

> [2] What's a good number here, if the goal is to end up with a small  
> set of required deliverables and an approximately equal sized list  
> of time-permitting deliverables?

I would guess that 3 or 4 significant, but not very novel ones is  
about the upper limit, based on experience from DAWG. The situation  
here is a bit different, it feels more like uncharted territory as  
many of the suggested features don't have a sufficient number of  
implementations. On the other hand we have to fit in with existing  
SPARQL syntax and semantics, which should make things quicker.

To complicate it further, some features work as natural and simple  
extensions to other ones, eg. if we choose to tackle subqueries for  
example, then negation (UNSAID etc.) is an obvious and straightforward  
addition, but taken in isolation, it's probably a pretty big task to  
specify either.

> [3] Would it be better to solicit one ranked list from each  
> respondent with the goal being that those features receiving the  
> "2nd tier" of support will be time-permitting features, or would it  
> be better to have two separate questions (1. required features, 2.  
> time-permitting features) on the survey? I lean towards the former.

I would prefer to rank them, but I anticipate it being difficult to  
interpret the results meaningfully, unless there's more consensus that  
we saw in the straw polls.

- Steve

Steve Harris
Garlik Limited, 2 Sheen Road, Richmond, TW9 1AE, UK
+44(0)20 8973 2465
Registered in England and Wales 535 7233 VAT # 849 0517 11
Registered office: Thames House, Portsmouth Road, Esher, Surrey, KT10  

Received on Thursday, 16 April 2009 16:47:19 UTC