- From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 13:10:18 +0300
- To: <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
> -----Original Message----- > From: ext Jeremy Carroll [mailto:jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com] > Sent: 09 May, 2003 12:51 > To: Stickler Patrick (NMP/Tampere); jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com; > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > Subject: typed literals and language tags - suggested sub-agenda > > > > [[ > A: Option 2 > straw poll: > "We prefer Option 2 to no change." No. > If Yes then Don't you mean, if No, then > straw poll - we prefer option 1 to option 2 > straw poll - we prefer option 3 to option 2 > straw poll - we prefer option 4 to option 2 > > each with fors, against and strongly against (i.e. would vote > against in formal vote). > > Chair to put question (option 1,2,3 or 4) based on results of > staw polls. > > If no to A, then no question is put. Why? That seems to be somewhat manipulative. One can prefer no change over option 2 yet still strongly prefer option 1, 3, or 4 over both option 2 and over no change. I would rather put the question as follows: "We prefer one of the options 1-4 over no change" If Yes, then Prefered options: any of 1 - 4, in order of preference Can live with: any of 1 - 4 Can't live with: any of 1 - 4 -- My vote would then be: "We prefer one of the options 1-4 over no change" - Yes If Yes, then Prefered options: 4, 1 Can live with: 2 Can't live with: 3 (reason: making the wrapper real) Patrick
Received on Friday, 9 May 2003 06:10:47 UTC