Re: peace, and next steps / agenda

On Tue, 2011-12-20 at 19:10 -0500, David Wood wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> I separately asked Pat to stay.  I ask everyone to consider both the perspectives and feelings of other people.
> 
> I concur with Sandro's suggestion that tomorrow's meeting focus solely on our path forward.  Many working groups have a difficult time at some stage, and this is ours.  Much like other political arenas, we are likely to work through these issues and come to some form of consensus.  Stay with us.  The alternative is remove your perspective from the group, which is likely to hurt our efforts more than help them.

Some uses cases I've heard surface repeatedly in recent months (for
things not already addressed by SPARQL and needing more standards):

1: Richard has talked about people passing around big documents with
multiple separated graphs in them.    Maybe there's a specific situation
he can delve into.

2: Lee has talked about how Cambridge Semantics uses TriG as a config
file format, and would be happy to have that usage standardized.

I'm sure there are others.   I think we should start a new page
documenting these, numbered in the order we talk about them.  So if you
go first, you get "use case 1".  :-)

In general, I think we need to understand the problem, and respectfully
explore the various ways one might address the problem, with and without
RDF and multigraph technology.

   -- Sandro




> Regards,
> Dave
> 
> 
> On Dec 20, 2011, at 6:45 PM, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org> wrote:
> 
> > 
> >> I will resign from the WG as of today.
> > 
> > Please stay, Pat.
> > 
> > Everyone:
> > 
> > I know this group can be very frustrating.  We've been going around in
> > circles on this topic for a long time, with no sense of progress and no
> > clear end in sight.  
> > 
> > Sometimes it feels very personal.   We get grumpy, and sometimes it
> > affects our word choice.  It can come from very real slights -- someone
> > else not doing their homework, someone else not studying one's work like
> > they probably should have -- or from entirely accidental ones.  And, of
> > course, veiled hostility tends to amplify and become unveiled, as it
> > goes back and forth.   I find usually when I'm furious in a WG, if I
> > take a break for a few hours or days, when I come back, one of us has
> > come to their senses.   Usually, my faith in the others in the group is
> > rewarded.   
> > 
> > W3C wisdom for when a group is lost is to return to the use cases.  I
> > usually like to jump ahead, at least to test cases, but I see that's not
> > working here.  So, I think we'd best go through the use cases [1] one at
> > a time.   Talk it out until we understand it, come up with one or more
> > designs that work well for that particular use case.   After a few use
> > cases, maybe we'll be able to start generalizing.   But, at first, let's
> > make sure we write down some designs that we believe will work for that
> > use case, and figure out what standards would be needed.  So, at very
> > least, we'll be making some kind of measurable progress through the use
> > cases.
> > 
> > Chairs, please consider this an agenda request for tomorrow's meeting.
> > 
> > I think in order to talk about a particular use case, we need at least
> > one person willing to present it and answer questions about it, on the
> > call. I'm happy to volunteer for some of them in January, but I'd
> > rather not present at tomorrow's meeting, since I'll unfortunately need
> > to be doing some multitasking.
> > 
> > One alternative is to do breakout sessions for this -- have 2-4 people
> > per use case come to consensus about designs for it.  With 12 people on
> > the call, most wont be able to be engaged.
> > 
> >    -- Sandro
> > 
> > [1] http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/TF-Graphs-UC
> > 
> > 
>

Received on Wednesday, 21 December 2011 12:43:50 UTC