Sandro's Formal Objection

On 16 May 2012 13:30, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-05-16 at 13:20 +0200, Guus Schreiber wrote:
>> On 14-05-2012 08:03, Pat Hayes wrote:
>> > On May 13, 2012, at 3:54 PM, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
>> >> Hi Ivan,
>> >> On 13 May 2012, at 16:15, Ivan Herman wrote:
>> >>> it looks to me that Sandro's draft document:
>> >>> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/d96c16480e42/rdf-spaces/index.html
>> >>> would be a good way to 'settle' things (see [1]), too.
>> >>
>> >> Sandro's draft takes explicit position on a *all* issues, many of which are highly controversial. By bundling non-controversial and controversial issues all into one big package, this blocks progress on the sub-issues where we actually seem to all agree. So I repeat:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> PROPOSAL: The abstract syntax for working with multiple graphs in RDF consists of a default graph and zero or more pairs of IRI and graph. This resolves ISSUE-5 (“no”), ISSUE-22 (“yes”), ISSUE-28 (“no”), ISSUE-29 (“yes”), ISSUE-30 (“they are isomorphic”), ISSUE-33 (“no”).
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> So far I have heard no objections to this.
>> >
>> > +1 to all of this. FWIW, I have been operating under these assumptions for at least the last two months.
>>
>> I've added the proposal from Richard to the agenda.  As a minimum we
>> should have straw polls on all the them, as proposed by Sandro early on
>> in this thread. Resolving them appears more controversial, although this
>> last remark from Pat is an important "data point" for me.
>
> And, for the few lazy people who haven't read every message in this
> thread  :-)   I'm formally objecting to that proposal as written.

I'm new to the idea of a W3C Team Contact raising a Formal Objection,
but it seems fair enough to record one, especially when taken as the
view of Sandro-as-Sandro rather than Sandro-as-conduit-to-The-Team...

Reading http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies#FormalObjection

"In the W3C process, an individual may register a Formal Objection to
a decision. A Formal Objection to a group decision is one that the
reviewer requests that the Director consider as part of evaluating the
related decision (e.g., in response to a request to advance a
technical report). Note: In this document, the term "Formal Objection"
is used to emphasize this process implication: Formal Objections
receive Director consideration."

Also http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/groups.html#TeamContact
http://www.w3.org/2011/01/rdf-wg-charter

"Each group must have a Team Contact, who acts as the interface
between the Chair, group participants, and the rest of the Team. The
role of the Team Contact is described in the Member guide."

>From this it seems Sandro and Ivan share the duty of communicating
Sandro's Formal Objection to the W3C Director (whose teamly-views that
area already supposed to be reflecting, per our somewhat idealised
process). Sandro, is the formal objection your individual position, or
a reflection of a consensus Team opinion? Does the Team have a
consensus view on this point?  https://www.w3.org/Guide/staff-contact
(Member-link, but I think reasonable to quote), "The Team Contact is
also charged with representing the views of the Team to the Working
group. Just as all Members do not have the same views, neither does
all the Team. The Team Contact collects the various viewpoints and
summarises them so that the Working Group benefits from the widest
range of inputs. Where the Team does not have a single position, it is
inappropriate to merely abstain. Instead, the various points of view
should be summarised. For a good example of Team input where the Team
did not have consensus, see Team response on the 'canvas' element.".

Also from the process doc, "A record of each Formal Objection must be
publicly available."

Where should we record these? Is the Wiki reasonable? Do we only have
a real Formal Objection if-and-when the group moves ahead and makes a
decision with such dissent? Does the objection exist already, or only
in potential w.r.t. an group decision?

cheers,

Dan

> I read it as saying that quadstores and quad syntaxes would not be capable
> of storing this abstract syntax.  But I think quads are a very useful
> and widely used model, and it would be a serious mistake to exclude
> them.  Richard doesn't seem to think he is excluding them, so there may
> be a solution that just involves wording tweaks, but I can't see it
> right now, and Richard sent his regrets for today.

Received on Wednesday, 16 May 2012 12:43:33 UTC