Re: covering RDF applications in Primer

At 12:40 06/11/2002 -0500, Frank Manola wrote:
[...]

>I'm prepared to have yet another go at rewriting the first part of section 
>6.4 to be less "salesy" if you want;  however, I think desribing the 
>Reuters Health application (the last half) is pretty useful.

Frank, all these comments are sans chapeau.  My personal opinion.  Others 
may feel differently and you should certainly take those views into account.


>On a more general note, we've gotten a number of favorable comments about 
>the inclusion of actual detail about real RDF applications, and what the 
>RDF actually looks like.  When I talk to people about RDF, about the first 
>question that comes up is where is it actually used? And mostly it's not 
>convincing to respond with just a list of names. And most of them seem 
>surprised that these sorts of applications exist.  I understand this isn't 
>entirely consistent with some views of what a "Primer" is doing (as you've 
>suggested), but my impression is/was that some people on the WG certainly 
>wanted this sort of material (like those who volunteered some of it in the 
>first place).

Well sure, a chance to place your marketing blurb in a w3c spec is going to 
be interesting to a lot of folks.


>Also, I'm wondering why this is "critical".

I marked it as critical because it seem just so far over the top to me and 
I couldn't understand why it was there.  I've been feeling under a lot of 
time pressure, so I confess to not trying as hard to be tactful as I 
usually do.  If other folks think this section is ok, I'm not going to die 
in a ditch over it.  Maybe "serious" is a better characterization than 
"critical".  I just had a strong negative reaction to it.

>A fairly extensive application section was in the initial Primer WD 
>(April;  and most of the new material since then has been there since the 
>end of August, and the WG knew about it even if it wasn't published as a 
>WD).  I appreciate that new issues arise, but if there's this fundamental 
>question about the goal of an application section, it sure could have been 
>raised earlier.

You are absolute right.  Bringing this up this up this late is not fair on 
you and reflects that I have not given these docs as thorough a review as I 
would have liked earlier.  Under the circumstances you should feel free to 
challenge me to offer an alternative.

That sounds a bit confrontational, which I don't mean.  What I'm trying to 
say is, how can I help?

>At any rate, before I take a wholesale axe to the applications 
>(particularly if it's going to be mandatory), I want some detailed 
>comments on how and what to shorten/cut from several people.  I don't want 
>anyone saying "where did all the applications stuff go" later on.

Absolutely.

Brian

Received on Wednesday, 6 November 2002 12:40:40 UTC