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

On Thu, Sep 27, 2007 at 01:26:07PM +0200, Hausenblas, Michael wrote:
> 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 ...

What we do not currently have is a consolidated document that
has been discussed and approved as a working group.

We agreed on alot of the issues in the telecon, but I don't
think we formulated a clear position on what the authors
should do about some of the recommendations -- e.g., to what
extent the document must or should describe or acknowledge
the role of other types of "GRDDLable" documents.

One way to do this would be to approve something like [1] --
either on the next call or in Amsterdam.  (I quickly cobbled
this together from the reviews and would appreciate if someone
would volunteer to take it from here.)

Tom

[1] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/ReviewCoolURIs

> 
> 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
> >____________________________________________________
> >

-- 
Tom Baker - tbaker@tbaker.de - baker@sub.uni-goettingen.de

Received on Thursday, 27 September 2007 13:36:03 UTC