W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swd-wg@w3.org > September 2007

RE: regarding the reviews of "cool uris for the semantic web"

From: Hausenblas, Michael <michael.hausenblas@joanneum.at>
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 13:26:07 +0200
Message-ID: <768DACDC356ED04EA1F1130F97D29852012E5C58@RZJC2EX.jr1.local>
To: "Leo Sauermann" <leo.sauermann@dfki.de>, "Thomas Baker" <baker@sub.uni-goettingen.de>
Cc: Max Völkel <voelkel@fzi.de>, "Richard Cyganiak" <richard@cyganiak.de>, "Susie Stephens" <susie.stephens@gmail.com>, "Ivan Herman" <ivan@w3.org>, "Guus Schreiber" <schreiber@cs.vu.nl>, "Ralph Swick" <swick@w3.org>, <public-swd-wg@w3.org>


Leo,

Thanks for your reply. However I have certain difficulties
understanding it :) 

Tom, I don't know how you see this issue, but IIRC we spent quite
a time at the telecon to go through the reviews; further, I think we 
(Ed, Vit, and myself) gave quite clear comments on the editorial level.
So, Leo, I don't really see what we can do more here, other than suggesting
what we have done, so far ...

The most important question to me still is (even though I understand
that you are not going to make the changes right now): Which issues exactly
do you plan to address? Ed and I very clearly suggested to look at 
XHTML + RDFa issues and it was Ralph in the telecon
who suggested to generalise this issue to 'GRDDLable documents',
which - btw - I very much support :)

Cheers,
	Michael
----------------------------------------------------------
 Michael Hausenblas, MSc.
 Institute of Information Systems & Information Management
 JOANNEUM RESEARCH Forschungsgesellschaft mbH
  
 http://www.joanneum.at/iis/
----------------------------------------------------------
 

>-----Original Message-----
>From: public-swd-wg-request@w3.org 
>[mailto:public-swd-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Leo Sauermann
>Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 12:35 PM
>To: Thomas Baker
>Cc: Max Völkel; Richard Cyganiak; 'Susie Stephens'; Ivan 
>Herman; Guus Schreiber; Ralph Swick; public-swd-wg@w3.org
>Subject: Re: regarding the reviews of "cool uris for the semantic web"
>
>Hi Thomas, SWD,
>
>This is a short answer to a longer mail (see below).
>
>Thanks again for taking your time reviewing the document.
>
>As suggested by Thomas, I would prefer letting you have the 
>time to briefly discuss this on the 8-9th October F2F in 
>Amsterdam (wishing you a productive meeting!), summing up the 
>SWD findings towards SWEO's "Cool Uris for the Semantic Web". 
>No hurry, things take time.
>
>We are already reading the reviews, but they are many and we 
>wait until all proposed changes are collected (TimBl and the 
>TAG have also given some feedback in other mails). 
>
>best
>Leo
>
>It was Thomas Baker who said at the right time 26.09.2007 
>20:50 the following words: 
>
>		Hi Tom,
>		(please forward to SWD
>		    
>
>	
>	Hi Leo,
>	
>	I'm Cc'ing to Guus and Ralph...  Our emails crossed, because we
>	were just preparing a "note from SWD to SWEO" with a digest
>	of reviews and links to discussion, but I see you have already
>	read the reviews, so perhaps we should just skip that step
>	and forge ahead...
>	
>	  
>
>		I am referring to "[ALL] Review requested for 
>"Cool URIs""
>		
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Sep/0020.html
>		
>		Thanks for reviewing the document, the feedback 
>is much needed and its 
>		also good that you (the SWD) is now aware of 
>this text and you can think 
>		about reusing it for your own needs.
>		
>		I noticed several reviews via e-mail on the SWD 
>mailing list, and many 
>		good ideas how to improve.
>		
>		I want to keep the document as minimal as 
>possible, it is meant to be an 
>		introduction for newbies how to mint useful 
>URIs for use in Semantic Web 
>		applications, so we will integrate the reviews 
>that make the document 
>		more readable, but we will not give a solution 
>for every problem (the 
>		document sums up existing best practice and TAG 
>decisions, it does not 
>		describe new solutions).
>		    
>
>	
>	Right - we were well aware of this point in our discussion
>	(i.e. scoping the discussion to existing practice and TAG
>	decisions).
>	
>	I also appreciate the bias towards keeping the document simple.
>	
>	  
>
>		as with good software: Software is not done 
>when you stop adding 
>		features, its done when all needed features are there.
>		    
>
>	
>	+1
>	
>	  
>
>		Could the SWD send me, at some point in time, 
>an e-mail saying something 
>		like:
>		
>		"the SWD reviewed the document and we think 
>these points need to be changed:
>		wrong information (errors, wrong interpretation 
>of W3C decisions):
>		A, B, C
>		these points may be done to make the document 
>more readable:
>		D, E, F"
>		
>		That would help us to know what we must do. If 
>not, we would at least 
>		need a list of e-mails with issues we definitly 
>need to include.
>		    
>
>	
>	We have a face-to-face meeting coming up on 8-9 October in
>	Amsterdam, and we have just one telecon between now and then,
>	so if SWD is to formulate a common position, then practically
>	speaking this would mean discussing it in Amsterdam.
>	
>	  
>
>		(please forward to SWD
>		    
>
>	
>	Actually, non-WG-members can post to the list simply by
>	sending mail to public-swd-wg@w3.org (they just cannot
>	subscribe to the list). I am told that, in a situation like
>	this, cross-posting is actually encouraged, so perhaps you
>	could simply post your reactions to the reviews directly and
>	we can take it from there.
>	
>	  
>
>		The topic is biased, subjective, and was the 
>topic of heated discussions 
>		on the typical mailinglists, so we already did 
>not integrate all 
>		feedback we had so far, we really want to focus 
>on the important things 
>		now (factual errors) and get the document out soon.
>		
>		When we have the feedback, Richard Cyganiak, 
>Max Völkel and I will 
>		change the document and SWEO will publish it.
>		Publishing is expected to be ~1.November.
>		    
>
>	
>	If we were to discuss this 8-9 October, you would have feedback
>	soon thereafter, which would fit with the proposed schedule.
>	
>	Tom
>	
>	  
>
>
>
>-- 
>____________________________________________________
>DI Leo Sauermann       http://www.dfki.de/~sauermann 
>
>Deutsches Forschungszentrum fuer 
>Kuenstliche Intelligenz DFKI GmbH
>Trippstadter Strasse 122
>P.O. Box 2080           Fon:   +49 631 20575-116
>D-67663 Kaiserslautern  Fax:   +49 631 20575-102
>Germany                 Mail:  leo.sauermann@dfki.de
>
>Geschaeftsfuehrung:
>Prof.Dr.Dr.h.c.mult. Wolfgang Wahlster (Vorsitzender)
>Dr. Walter Olthoff
>Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats:
>Prof. Dr. h.c. Hans A. Aukes
>Amtsgericht Kaiserslautern, HRB 2313
>____________________________________________________
>
Received on Thursday, 27 September 2007 11:26:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:31:45 UTC