W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > June 2001

Re: Face to Face Objectives

From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@Baltimore.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 12:11:57 +0100
Message-Id: <>
To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: rdf core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>

I have two things to suggest, (one of which overlaps what you have already 

1.  Spend a *little* time discussing some 'meta' issues.  Firm up what we 
want to be our deliverables as a group.  Agree and clarify how the group 
will work to resolve the outstanding issues in the form of those deliverables.

(Background:  since the group started, I feel as if there has been a whirl 
of processes which sometimes seem to be only vaguely related to what I 
would expect to be the outcome of this group.  I'm sure these processes 
have been introduced through appropriate group consensus, but I am finding 
that it is often not clear to me what is actually happening.  (The volume 
of the mailing list doesn't help here.)  So part of what I am calling for 
is a clarification of the steps we expect to go through to reach our 

There is one way in which I might be able to help:  at the last CC/PP F2F 
meeting I used a "mind map" tool to capture and organize information about 
our work going forward.  I thought this turned out to be particularly 
useful in guiding the group's subsequent progress.  The process would most 
usefully be interactive, using a large monitor or projector so everyone can 
see the structure as it develops.

2. I have recently managed to pull together my thoughts about reification 
and semantics, and the process has helped me to clarify some issues in my 
head.  If my offering is felt to be useful (in terms of not being utterly 
clueless, and being constructive towards our goals) then maybe we can 
refine it and nail it down as a key element of the RDF core definition.


And in another message, Aaron said:
>I'm not sure what you mean by "moving forward". I'm all happy to move 
>forward, and as quickly as possible, but I do not thing it is a good idea 
>to begin writing/designing these parts without resolving the extremely 
>important issues that will have major effects on them. I don't want to get 
>into a situation where we've built an abstract syntax with literals and 
>then we decide that they're really "data:" URIs.

This suggests to me that there might be some value in reviewing the 
outstanding issues and noting where there might be dependencies, and noting 
where things can proceed in parallel.


In summary:  I'd like to come away from this meeting with a clear view of 
the group's strategy for achieving its deliverables.


At 03:14 PM 6/21/01 +0100, Brian McBride wrote:
>We have our first face to face meeting coming up in just a few weeks.
>Personally, I am looking forward to the chance to meet everyone and
>exchange a few beers.  (I have a  penchant for Sierra Nevada and
>Anchor Steam.)
>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.
>To initiate the discussion of what those goals might be, I'd like to
>suggesting the following:
>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
>   o resolved all outstanding issues with RDF schema
>   o decided how we will define RDF/XML (BNF, XML Schema?, DTD?, other)
>     and its transformation (XSLT, other?) to n-triple
>and within two weeks of the end of the face to face we have documented the
>first two of these decisions in WG drafts.

Graham Klyne                    Baltimore Technologies
Strategic Research              Content Security Group
<Graham.Klyne@Baltimore.com>    <http://www.mimesweeper.com>
Received on Friday, 22 June 2001 08:35:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:01 UTC