Re: picking our features

Steve Harris wrote:
> My suggestion is that we look at the output of the Condorcet Method as
> of end of play 2009-05-01, and just prioritise per the graph edges.
> We could decide what the cutoff point is for features that we can
> definitely specify in the time allowed, label those as Required, and
> label a roughly equal amount as Time Permitting.
> Having gone over the Condorcet Method Graph and the results in the WBS
> table, making notes, it seems like the Condorcet results are a
> reasonable representation of the amalgamated wishes of the working
> group, as expressed in WBS. It's not quite what I'd like the group to
> work on, and nor is it quite what anyone else would like the group to
> work on, but it's a reasonable summary. Everything in the top 10 (as of
> now) I can see a good argument for including.
> There are a few things that I'm surprised aren't higher, eg SPARQL/OWL,
> but currently I think those things are more candidates for a WG Note,
> than Rec. track. I also think that's representative of the way
> respondents have voted.

Just for my understanding: do you propose that some more items would be
candidate for notes (manpower permitting)? What would be the decision
mechanism for that?

> It's a bit of a cold, rational, hard-nosed approach, but I'm a cold,
> rational, hard-nosed kind of guy ;)

Yes you are! :-)


> - Steve


Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
mobile: +31-641044153
PGP Key:

Received on Wednesday, 29 April 2009 18:15:01 UTC