Re: Implicit vs explicit object types

On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 8:48 AM, ☮ elf Pavlik ☮
<perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org> wrote:
> On 04/13/2015 05:09 PM, James M Snell wrote:
>> Amy: excellent analysis. Great to see.
>>
>> elf, Amy's post is quite good and I appreciate the enthusiasm but I'm
>> not sure there's really anything in Amy's post that needs to be
>> discussed on the call. We have lots of issues already that need to be
>> worked through. I would encourage everyone to read what Amy has put
>> together as well as take the time on their own to do similar analysis.
>> That would certainly help matters.
>
> IMO Amy's point identifies significant differences in how participants
> of this group may think about what and how we model. Unless Amy herself
> doesn't want to introduce it shortly to the group, I would really like
> that we can at least touch this issue even in form of 3-5 minutes
> introduction.
>

To what end? The existing model *already* takes Amy's analysis into
consideration and while it is certainly a valuable analysis that I
would recommend everyone to take the time to read, there's absolutely
nothing actionable. We have a list of issues already in the Issue
tracker and in the github that we've been struggling to get through
over the past couple of weeks. It would be great if we could take more
time to get through the concrete actionable issues on the calls and
leave the more academic modeling concerns to mailing list discussion.

> Agenda for tomorrow doesn't look to heavy, especially that no one else
> added any topics to it:
> https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?title=Socialwg/2015-04-14&action=history
>

Have already done so. We also have a range of open issues in the
tracker that still need to be discussed.

- James

> Maybe you could add topics you would like to discuss tomorrow to the
> agenda, and this way give everyone better chance to prepare? We have a
> lot of issues open in both w3c and github tracker, as well as numerous
> open threads on the mailing list. Since we don't use any defined
> milestones, not even set *pending review* status on issues and actions.
> I find it rather challenging to know what we will work on during next
> telecon :(
>

Received on Monday, 13 April 2015 16:25:53 UTC