- From: Aaron Swartz <me@aaronsw.com>
- Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 10:54:18 -0500
- To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: rdf core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
On Thursday, June 21, 2001, at 09:14 AM, Brian McBride wrote: > Face to face time is rare and extremely valuable. We should > take care to > make the most of this opportunity. So as well as making sure > we have some > fun, I would like to suggest that we set ourselves some goals > for things > we'd like to accomplish by the end of the face to face. I definitely agree, but I'm having some trouble deciding what we should do with it. I'm not sure that the work we've been doing so far is enough to set up the meeting to be maximally productive. Things that I'd imagine to be most productive would be: - Build a foundation: Try to clarify terms, goals, hopes and dreams for the group so that we have a stronger foundation for the work we do after the F2F is over. - Have an issue bash: everyone brings an issue with them and a proposed solution and we go down the issues list trying to resolve as much as we can. - Have a spec-designing party: Once we've finished most of the issues, we can throw our heads together to organize something on paper. All of these things of course take preparation in advance, and so it's important to decide what we're doing now so that the F2F can be the most productive. > That by the end of the face to face we have: > > o agreed an abstract syntax with at least the expressive power of > n-triple and defined its semantics Whoa, whoa, whoa. Slow down. If we're going to agree on an abstract syntax, that implies resolving a lot of the abstract syntax issues. I don't see the point of doing work on something that is subject to change based on issue resolution. Second, why are we taking n-triple as a base? We agreed to it for use in our discussions, I don't remember agreeing that it represented a minimum-necessary set of abstract syntax. Finally, I'm still a bit fuzzy on how we "define its semantics". I'm (obviously) not a logician, so any help on clearing up the process and results here would be greatly appreciated. > o resolved all outstanding issues with RDF schema There are 14 open issues with Schema. This seems to imply that all those issues are placed on the table for proposing resolutions. I have no problem with this, I just want to make sure we're clear. I think it would work best if we all bring our proposed resolutions with us. Also, I'm not sure that we can do both this and the one above at the same meeting -- it seems like a bit more than we can chew in two days... but maybe I'm underestimating us. > o decided how we will define RDF/XML (BNF, XML Schema?, DTD?, other) > and its transformation (XSLT, other?) to n-triple Since these are reasonably arbitrary, political decisions, I think these are a great thing to resolve at a F2F! Good suggestion. Again, I'm not sure that all three of these will fit in a two-day schedule. > and within two weeks of the end of the face to face we have > documented the > first two of these decisions in WG drafts. That may be asking a lot, especially with schema. I also hope that the drafters take into careful consideration our partitioning of the problems space and the draft space (which would be a nice thing to agree on by the F2F's end). Also, are the drafters going to become the editors of the spec? If so, I think that we should probably choose them before the F2F is through. -- [ "Aaron Swartz" ; <mailto:me@aaronsw.com> ; <http://www.aaronsw.com/> ]
Received on Thursday, 21 June 2001 11:54:26 UTC