Re: Sandro's Formal Objection

On Wed, 2012-05-16 at 15:08 +0200, Guus Schreiber wrote:
> On 16-05-2012 14:42, Dan Brickley wrote:
> > On 16 May 2012 13:30, Sandro Hawke<>  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:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 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...
> I don't think we need to have this discussion yet. Formal objecttions 
> are post factum. And I'm confident we will be able to resolve this 
> (don't quote me on this in the future).

Right.  I was just saying "yes, this is an issue about which I'm willing
to lie in the road".   That doesn't involve any W3C process until/unless
we are unable to come to any better resolution, and I end up getting run
over (so to speak).    Given my great faith in many of you, including
Richard (relevant to this case), I'm quite sure when we actually
understand each other on this, the disagreement will dissipate. 

   -- Sandro

> Guus
> Historical note: In the OWL-1 group this actually happened, when Dan 
> Connoly (team contact) and Jim (chair) objected to the decision on 
> owl:imports, for very good reasons btw. This happened to be one of the 
> points where both "camps" in the WG (DL and Full) united to support 
> this, so I had the unfortunate task of convinving the Director in the 
> LC-CR transition discussion that this was a reasonable decision. It 
> didn't block OWL in the end ....
> >
> > Reading
> >
> > "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
> >
> >
> > "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?
> > (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 13:20:08 UTC