W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org > March 2006

RE: [BioRDF] Telcon Minutes - [SPAM FILTER PROBLEMS]

From: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) <RogerCutler@chevron.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 12:49:37 -0600
Message-ID: <0C237C50B244FD44BE47B8DCE23A3052011C63D9@HOU150NTXC2MC.hou150.chevrontexaco.net>
To: "John Madden" <john.madden@duke.edu>, "Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)" <RogerCutler@chevron.com>
cc: "HCLS HCLS" <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>, "Eric Miller" <em@w3.org>

Maybe.  I've asked our email people to white-list w3.org. 

-----Original Message-----
From: public-semweb-lifesci-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-semweb-lifesci-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of John Madden
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 12:28 PM
To: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)
Cc: HCLS HCLS; Eric Miller
Subject: Re: [BioRDF] Telcon Minutes - [SPAM FILTER PROBLEMS]


Roger,

Maybe because I put had hyperlinks in my message way down at the bottom
of the thread.

John


On Mar 15, 2006, at 10:46 AM, Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) wrote:

> This thread is being intercepted by our company's spam filters for 
> some reason.  It's hitting the second tier which involves sending me 
> information that lets me find it, as opposed to the messages that they

> just trash without telling me, but still this is not good.  I will try

> to complain on this side, but in the past this has not done me any 
> good at all.  They just say, "The email is being identified as spam 
> for some reason."  Period.  I think it's being done by a vendor we 
> hire and we don't know how it works and have no way to complain about 
> false hits.
>
> Perhaps you can figure out from your end what might be happening?   
> Note
> that a previous Email from public-semweb-lifesci-request@w3.org for 
> John Madden was also filtered, so it's not just Eric.  Could w3.org be

> on some spam list somewhere???!!!
>
> You also might want to try to figure out what specific questions I 
> might ask people on my side that they might be able to answer.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eric Miller [mailto:em@w3.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 9:23 AM
> To: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)
> Cc: John Madden
> Subject: Re: [BioRDF] Telcon Minutes
>
>
> On Mar 15, 2006, at 9:58 AM, Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) wrote:
>
>> I was under the impression that creating sub groups, or task forces, 
>> is well within W3C process -- as long as these subgroups don't do 
>> anything secret and communicate with the rest of the WG.
>
> My concerns are *not* W3C process related. TF/SG's are approaches that

> many groups choose to take. Chairs, team-contacts, etc. need to make 
> sure these sub groups communicate effectively with the rest of the WG.
>
> There is a pattern I'm seeing here, however, that I'd like to avoid if

> possible as it does not lead as quickly to where I think we need to 
> go.
> Perhaps this is unavoidable... more on this later.
>
>> I was on a WG once
>> where a subgroup formed that was very secretive and did not tell 
>> anybody what they were doing for months on end, and I objected very 
>> vocally to
>
> Good for you! that behavior is not acceptable at all!
>
>> that, but I think that's a very different thing from what I see here.
>
> Agreed.
>
>> For one thing, I don't see any indication that subgroups are forming 
>> that might be trying to do something that would give members some 
>> sort
>
>> of proprietary advantage (unlike the case I objected to).  And with a

>> group this size and with this much diversity, it seems to me that 
>> subroups are a very good thing to do.
>
> I don't see thats what is happening either. My concern is more related

> to the
>
> 1) the initial focus to form "groups" which puts up barriers for 
> others to participate rather than identify "tasks"
>
> 2) the lack of group guidelines for how to effectively communicate 
> across them
>
> I think these issues are in part being addressed by these back- 
> channel kinds of conversations, which isn't the most ideal, but is 
> resulting in what I perceive to be an effective shift. I'm having more

> off-record email than on-record email, which concerns me however :(
>
> I think once one of the FT/SG's gets a couple of deliverables under 
> its belt, this will set a pattern for the rest of the HCLSIG to 
> follow.  I'm particularly interested in investing time in one of these

> (BioRDF seems like the best solution) to help establish such a 
> pattern.
>
> I'm also glad you and John are there to help focus work towards bite- 
> size accomplishable tasks. 6 months into the IG's existence, simply 
> establishing several SG/TF's I don't think will be a sign of success.
> Keep up the good work!
>
> Delivering small, incremental improvements that facilitate 
> interoperability in the HCLS community is a good thing! :)
>
> --
> eric miller                              http://www.w3.org/people/em/
> semantic web activity lead               http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/
> w3c world wide web consortium            http://www.w3.org/
>
>
>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Eric Miller [mailto:em@w3.org]
>> Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 8:42 AM
>> To: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)
>> Cc: John Madden
>> Subject: Re: [BioRDF] Telcon Minutes
>>
>>
>> On Mar 15, 2006, at 9:28 AM, Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) wrote:
>>
>>> Sorry -- my bad.  I was scribing and I just put in WG because it's 
>>> fast to type.  Probably IG is better, right?
>>
>>  From a process standpoint this is all part of the HCLS Interest 
>> Group.
>> There seems to be a trend / desire (which I'm concerned about but 
>> won't go into detail here) about creating "sub groups" within this IG

>> that focus on particular objectives.
>>
>> If we have to name these things, "task forces" (which focus on a 
>> logical collection of tasks) is I guess as good as name as any.
>>
>> --e
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> From: public-semweb-lifesci-request@w3.org [mailto:public-semweb- 
>>> lifesci-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of John Madden
>>> Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 8:44 PM
>>> To: Eric Miller
>>> Cc: 'public-semweb-lifesci'
>>> Subject: Re: [BioRDF] Telcon Minutes
>>>
>>> Hi Eric,
>>>>
>>>> I'd like to suggest this group not use the phrase 'working group'.
>>>> W3C has a formal process [1] around this name and its bound to get 
>>>> confusing.
>>>>
>>>> I propose something along the lines...
>>>>
>>>> HCLS Ontology Task Force
>>>
>>>
>>> Done. I've converted the page url's and I think I've cleaned up most

>>> of the text.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> To help with
>>>>> functionality and friendliness I'd like to incorporate some Macros

>>>>> from the moinmoin MacroMarket into our pages.
>>>>
>>>> Can you elaborate on the problem? I suspect others might be facing 
>>>> this as well which is why I ask.
>>>
>>>
>>> I think most of our folks just feel a little hesitant about clicking

>>> that "Edit (text)" link, for whatever reason. I can think of three:
>>>
>>> (1) in my limited experience, collaborative document development is 
>>> an
>>
>>> unpredictable process, and is quite unlike solitary composition or 
>>> successive drafts. People may be worried that their efforts will be 
>>> wasted or lost. (Not likely given the wiki's versioning facility.)
>>>
>>> (2) Conversely, people may be reluctant to revise (and possibly
>>> erase) other people's work. (Ditto parenthetical comment above.
>>> Furthermore, that's what collaborative editing is all about!)
>>>
>>> (3) Wiki syntax takes a little practice to get used to.  Most people

>>> (and I plead guilty) are habituated to using a word processor like 
>>> MSWord; it gets you used to being responsible for your own 
>>> formatting
>>> -- a bad thing.
>>>
>>> Proper wiki syntax is more like html or TeX, where markup is mainly 
>>> structural, and the system applies the formatting. That's a better 
>>> way, but it's not what most folks know best.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Which macro's are you thinking of specifically?
>>>
>>> I thought I might try using
>>>
>>>     * to put some little popup help tags around the page
>>>     * to make it less forbiddding to add comments -- (with this one 
>>> you use an "add comment" box instead of doing a text
>>> edit)
>>>
>>>
>>> John
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 15 March 2006 18:49:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:20:13 UTC