- From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
- Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 18:39:14 +0000
- To: Kjetil Kjernsmo <Kjetil.Kjernsmo@computas.com>, "public-rdf-dawg@w3.org" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
> -----Original Message----- > From: public-rdf-dawg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-rdf-dawg-request@w3.org] > On Behalf Of Kjetil Kjernsmo > Sent: 04 May 2009 11:33 > To: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > Subject: The smaller bites (was Re: Lee's feature proposal) > > On Sunday 03 May 2009 05:20:01 Lee Feigenbaum wrote: > > track 3 > > ------- > > function library > > surface syntax > [...] > > The third track affects the core query language, but feels to be like > > smaller 'bites' that can be handled maybe in parallel with other efforts. > > Indeed, and I feel that this is also a case where a certain do-o-cracy is in > order, as opposed to most features, where a concerted effort from the group > as a whole is required. This means if some group members decide to > completely > specify a feature, it has a decent chance of getting in, after a review to > ensure that it does not come into conflict with backwards compatibility, or > cut off opportunities for further development, etc. > > > (Hidden agenda disclosure: I'd like to sneak in LimitPerResource this > way :-) ) A do-ocracy is attractive for it's emphasis on valuing the part of design and definition. There is also WG time to be spent on understanding (well, it was last time) - understanding the problem space (e.g. scope and tradeoffs) at the beginning to create common cause, and understanding the implications through review at the end (especially for implementers). And a special implementers comment - "they" get to add /all/ the features (or decide on what mix to add - but that's not going to help interoperability service descriptions notwithstanding). Parallel contributions of designs is the only bottleneck to be through about. The process requires multiple implementations to show a feature is ready for REC. I read the WBS results as indicative of the desire for where the group time goes. So my question - for every feature to add to the WG schedule, what would you remove or deprioritize? Andy > > Kind regards > > Kjetil Kjernsmo > -- > Senior Knowledge Engineer > Mobile: +47 986 48 234 > Email: kjetil.kjernsmo@computas.com > Web: http://www.computas.com/ > > | SHARE YOUR KNOWLEDGE | > > Computas AS PO Box 482, N-1327 Lysaker | Phone:+47 6783 1000 | Fax:+47 6783 > 1001 >
Received on Monday, 4 May 2009 18:40:08 UTC