Re: SPARQL WG Survey plan - input desired

Minor comments:

- I am not sure when you intend to open the survey. The constraint is
that WWW starts next Monday, and some of us may be there for the week.
Ie, it becomes a bit more complicated to (a) coordinate with possible
other members of one's organization in the WG (like me with Eric) and
(b) finalize the response. Bottomline: depending on when you open it the
one week deadline might be a little bit tight.

- I would very much prefer you prune the initial list as you propose in
*1, it makes our choice easier if we can take out the clear 'loosers'

- I also wonder whether some features should not be renamed or their
descriptions updated on the wiki. Eg, the discussion on parametrized
inference last week (both on the telco and on the mailing list) helped
in slightly reformulating the goals (see Axel's mail[1]). There might be
other such cases.

Ivan

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2009AprJun/0041.html

Lee Feigenbaum wrote:
> Hi everyone,
> 
> Here's the rough plan as it currently stands going forward the next few
> weeks. I'm looking for input on what parts of it are good and especially
> what parts could be improved.
> 
> Specific questions are footnoted.
> 
> 
> 1. Do the rest of the features from this week's agenda on next week's call.
> 
> 2. Open a WBS (Web survey). Each organization & invited expert in the
> Working Group is asked to please answer once. The survey will:
>   A. List all proposed feature [1]
>   B. Ask respondents to give a priority ranking of 8-10 features that
> they believe the Working Group should work on standardizing [2][3]
> 
> 3. The survey will be open for longer than one week, but people are
> encouraged to submit initial responses ASAP. The idea here is that we'll
> have one teleconference (a week from Tuesday) on which we can look
> collectively at where we stand and give people an opportunity to "make
> their case", after which respondents will still have a chance to adjust
> their preferences.
> 
> 4. After the survey closes, the chairs, the team, and anyone on the WG
> will all be invited to look at the results and make concrete proposals
> based on them. That is, the survey is not binding, and I expect people
> to use the survey as (strong) input into cohesive proposals. This/these
> proposal(s) will be the basis around which we will attempt to form
> consensus.
> 
> 5. I'm guessing that consensus may be incremental, but I'm expecting
> that some work items will be clear - while I'm willing to devote *some*
> time during our F2F for continuing to reach consensus on our
> deliverables, I expect to spend *most* time beginning to work on the
> items around which we have already reached consensus.
> 
> 
> [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.
> 
> [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?
> 
> [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.
> 
> 
> thanks for reading - please send feedback so that we're operating under
> a procedure that the WG is (relatively? :-) ) happy with.
> 
> Lee
> 

-- 

Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf