Re: Getting started ...

Brian McBride wrote:
[...]
> I propose that by end of May we aim to:
> 
>   o classify the issues
>   o update the issue list with clear descriptions and analysis of
>     the issues
>   o update the errata pages

I'd much prefer that the chairs pick a few issues to work
on each week, including this week; and that we resolve
one or two of them at each teleconference, including the
first one, 27Apr.

Let's not spend group time classifying the issues.
I'm happy to delegate that to the chairs
(or folks they want to delegate the task to).

> By the end of the June face to face we:
> 
>   o have have key issues resolved

I don't see any mention of test cases in your list.
I hope resolution of each issue takes the form of
a test case.

I hope/expect that test cases will be the core
of our work; for each telcon, I'd like to see
two or three test cases on the agenda; the group
should discuss the test cases and decide their
disposition.

>   o document structure agreed
>   o editors appointed
> 
> By end of August we:
> 
>   o have first public drafts of documents
> 
> We need to get started writing up the issues and proposing resolutions.

Absolutely!

> In deciding how to order things we should bear in mind:
> 
>   o some quick wins would be good

Yes!

>   o take the ones on which others depend early
>   o take the unknowns that could have a big impact early
>   o take the ones that facilitate the process early
>   o cluster related issues together


That's all good stuff I'm happy for the chairs to do;
you just tell us which issues are open for discussion,
and we (individually) develop test cases that make
them black-and-white; then when an issue has
been captured in a test case, the chairs should put
the question to the group about which test cases
are deemed to succeed and which ones fail.

> So here is a possible clustering:
> 
>   Editorial - quick fix in the errata
>   Out of scope - not our job
>   WG Global - terminology, document structure etc
>   Core model - resources, uri's, anon resources, reification, ...
>   XML Syntax - all pure syntax related issues
>   Schema - all schema related issues
>   Vocabulary - issues relating to things which can be built on the core
>                model, e.g. containers
>   Relationships - relationships with other specifications
>   Misc - other
> 
> My list of things I'd like to see volunteers to begin work on includes:
> 
>   o proposing updates to the errata documents
>   o proposing a glossary
>   o taking a first look at integrating schema data types
>   o taking a first look at issues raised by the DAML group
>   o proposing a working model for resources, uri's, entities,
>     fragment id's etc

Again, I don't see test cases.

I propose that one of the first issues we tackle is
  http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdf-ns-prefix-confusion
because it impacts lots of running code that I've run
into, and because there's a test case in the www-rdf-comments
archive.

Perhaps it's worth extracting that test case so that
folks can GET it individually with their tools; and perhaps
we need a few more test cases to fully capture the issue.
But I hope that in the 27Apr telcon, we can decide the
disposition of the tests around that issue or some
issue similarly ripe.


-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/

Received on Friday, 20 April 2001 09:16:57 UTC