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: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 09:43:23 +0200
Message-ID: <768DACDC356ED04EA1F1130F97D29852012E5CF5@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, Tom,

Ok. Seems I've caused some uproar ...

@Leo: No offence meant; I understand and do appreciate your
course of action. Keep on doing the good work!

@Tom: Thanks for gathering the comments on the Wiki.
As I feel somehow responsible for this situation, 
I'd volunteer to take care of the Wiki page :)

Cheers,
	Michael

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

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Leo Sauermann [mailto:leo.sauermann@dfki.de] 
>Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 6:14 PM
>To: Thomas Baker
>Cc: Hausenblas, Michael; 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 Michael, Thomas,
>
>It was Thomas Baker who said at the right time 27.09.2007 
>15:40 the following words: 
>
>	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.
>	  
>
>and based on the feedback I can only guess which e-mails and 
>comments are valid and which not.
>We would like to limit ourself to answer issues raised by SWD 
>members, the mailinglist is open to the public, so I cannot 
>judge (as outsider) what is now SWD concern and what not :-)
>
>
>
>	
>	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.)
>	  
>
>perfect, that is very good input.
>
>
>
>	
>	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:
>					
>					" 
><http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Sep/0020
.htmlThanksforreviewingthedocument,thefeedbackismuchneededanditsa>lsogoodthatyou(theSWD)isnowawareofthistextandyoucanthinkaboutre
usingitforyourownneeds.Inoticedseveralreviewsviae->mailontheSWDmailinglist,andmanygoodideashowtoimprove.Iwanttokee
>pthedocumentasminimalaspossible,itismeanttobeanintroductionforn
>ewbieshowtomintusefulURIsforuseinSemanticWebapplications,sowewi
>llintegratethereviewsthatmakethedocumentmorereadable,butwewilln
>otgiveasolutionforeveryproblem(thedocumentsumsupexistingbestpra
>cticeandTAGdecisions,itdoesnotdescribenewsolutions).Right-wewer
ewellawareofthispointinourdiscussion(i.e.scopingthediscussiontoex>istingpracticeandTAGdecisions).Ialsoappreciatethebiastowardskee
>pingthedocumentsimple.aswithgoodsoftware:Softwareisnotdonewheny
>oustopaddingfeatures,itsdonewhenallneededfeaturesarethere.+1Cou
ldtheSWDsendme,atsomepointintime,ane-mailsayingsomethinglike:> >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
>			
>____________________________________________________
>			
>			      
>
>	
>	  
>
>
>
>-- 
>____________________________________________________
>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 Friday, 28 September 2007 07:43:54 UTC

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