How to proceed wrt publishing solutions?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi,

| Finally, EVERYONE: *please* post your individual solutions with
| *re-usuable code/ontologies*.  Please. This is terribly important.

Charles has been repeatedly trying to make people document and share
their solutions. Generally with moderate success so far.

In my opinion however, one of the main goals of the Challenge is to
improve the mutual understandings of each others technologies. For this
task sharing solutions and providing technical documentation of
solutions is absolutely crucial.

Furthermore - as Tiziana has correctly pointed out - an evaluation made
by group consensus is not fully objective.
Currently, however, we have no better evaluation means than the group
consensus at the workshops. This group consensus would become much more
transparent and reliable, if solutions were documented in a way that
independent people can later see and understand why the group came to a
certain consensus. Without documented solutions (also at a technical
level) this is impossible. If the certified solutions are not shared,
the evaluation is not only subjective, but even worse intransparent and
unreproducable.

I therefore do believe, that we need to explicit our requirements with
regard to sharing and documenting solutions and propose the following:

A) Making people upload solutions
For upcoming workshops we should put the certification results on the
web only conditionally and remove them, if participants fail
to document their solution and share the declarative parts of the
solution by a certain deadline (e.g. one month after a workshop). For
people who cannot share their solution due to IP rights, we could mark
the certification results as only partially reproducable due to the
unability to share the solution code.
In this aspect it might be interesting to read the experimental
repeatability requirements of SIGMOD at
http://www.sigmod08.org/sigmod_research.shtml

B) Unifying how solutions are documented
If I look at the DERI solution page and compare it with mine, the way
how solutions have been described is very different.
While DERI documented their overall work on a more abstract level, I
tried to document on a more technical level. Both has clearly its value
and its advantages and disadvantages. I think however, that solution
documentations are more useful, if they conform to certain guidelines
about what needs to be provided and where certain informations can be
found.
Two examples: The DERI page does not provide pointers to the developed
service or goal descriptions. The Jena page does not provide an overview
of the general setting of the work and general information about the
employed technology.

Both deficiencies would have been avoided if requirements on solution
documentation would have been specified.

I would like to hear your opinions on both aspect (A and B) and put that
on the standardization agenda.

Finally it was brought to my attentions that the charter of the group
states: "This group primarily conducts its work on the public mailing
list public-xg-swsc@w3.org (archive)".
Clearly this is not what we have been doing so far. I therefore propose
a vote about moving the discussion to the public mailing list from now
on. I'm +1.

Best regards,

Uli
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (MingW32)
Comment: GnuPT 2.9.2

iD8DBQFHmMax8VxeCU3I0jARAlkIAJ955rIxyA731XVjSjdulLmErZDsEgCgg36D
Rya9OOO0K5bbZ0KFKj2IzaM=
=3Pmi
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Received on Thursday, 24 January 2008 17:11:33 UTC