- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 17:48:42 -0400
- To: public-sw-meaning@w3.org
To try to get us more in sync, let me suggest the following as a statement of what we're trying to do here, as a group: To write a document which is accepted as the TAG finding on rdfURIMeaning-39 by March 1, 2004. TAG findings are listed on http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/findings and seem to run about 1000-2000 words, although the draft on addressability is currently over 4000. Some of the ideas behind this mission statement: -- it doesn't really matter if we have consensus on an issue, except that if we do, we're more likely to convince the TAG; what matters is that they (and ultimately the W3C Members) find it acceptable -- we have a lot of overlap in membership with the TAG (three of the nine TAG members have sent introductions so far; I'm expecting at least one more), so communication between the groups should not be hard -- whatever we can't distill into ~10 pages wont get very wide readership anyway -- the deadline is arbitrary, but it's important to have a deadline to help us understand our pacing -- the exact statement of rdfURIMeaning-39 does not constrain us (Bijan today pointed out problems with the e-mail which officially raised the issue), but we should stick to that scope (as best we understand it) for now. If some of us want to handle some other bit of work, that's fine to do separately, perhaps in a second stage. This is a good time for replies which just quote a line or two (like the goal-statement text) and say "+1", "+0", "-0", or "-1". For people who don't know this protocol, it's kind of the replacement for looking around the room and seeing if people look happy or unhappy about an idea. The +/- indicates positive or negative feelings towards the proposal, and the 0/1 indicates the strength of those feelings. Alternative proposals are, of course, also welcome. -- sandro
Received on Friday, 19 September 2003 17:48:43 UTC