- From: Guus Schreiber <schreiber@swi.psy.uva.nl>
- Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 11:56:13 +0200
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- CC: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>, www-webont-wg@w3.org
Pat Hayes wrote: > >Pat - the Coordination Group has asked the committee in Guus's > >message (which includes people who are in BOTH WG's) to make a > >specific proposal. > > No, it didn't. It asked for 'clarification', which is what we have > been trying to provide. I understood this to be a request for an > explanation of WHY this needs doing at all, not a proposal for how to > do it. That task has already been handed to the RDF core WG, as I > understand it. Yes, the SWCG request was mainly a WHY request: why does Webont need dark triples? So, the target result is a problem statement with a convincing example demonstrating the problem, a description of how a dark-triple facility would solve the problem, and a indication of what we lose with a distinction between two types of triples (although this may be dependent on the way in which the dark-triple facility is realized by RDF Core). > >RDF Core chairs are on board for this -- we are asking you to do > >EXACTLY what you keep asking us to do - let you make a decision. > >The goal is to come up with a specific proposal we (WebOnt) want and > >that the folks also on RDF Core (you, Jeremy, Jos) think is > >consistent with their goals. My impression (Guus, correct me if I > >misunderstood) is that you will bring this proposal to RDF Core > >where the issue will be opened, discussed, and hopefully resolved. > > I don't see anything in Guus' message that could be interpreted this way. > > >But so far NO ONE HAS AGREED TO THIS ACTION, > > WHO or WHAT do you expect to 'agree to this action'? The 'task force' > has no internal structure, and has never even met as a body; it has > no leader, nobody has the authority to speak for it. > > Massimo complains about 39 emails. So far the only emails Ive seen > on the actual TOPIC (as opposed to emails like yours and Massimos, > which are all about internal W3C committee-politics) have been from > Peter, Jos, Jeremy and me, all members of this ad-hoc group, trying > to respond as well as we can to what seemed like Guus' request. > > > so if this group will accept it, please let us know. > > What is the approved W3C procedure for a group to accept anything? > Who speaks for the group? I ask because you seem to be the Roberts > Rules expert here. I don't see how I (or any other member of the > group) could accept a task on behalf of the rest of the group. > > >If you won't accept it - let us know what you propose instead -- > >otherwise we'll be forced to declare this issue closed and move on > >(which would obviously be silly given the effort that has been put > >into it) > Well, I was hoping to resolve this issue of accepting the action at the telecon today. It is one of these things for which email is not a good medium. From the reactions so far, I have the impression the "dark triple volunteers" are happy to work on this. It may be wise to nominate a coordinator/lead for the action,
Received on Thursday, 25 April 2002 10:02:57 UTC