W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-awwsw@w3.org > September 2012

Re: AWWSW final report...

From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 23:37:20 -0400
To: Jonathan A Rees <rees@mumble.net>
Cc: AWWSW TF <public-awwsw@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1347939440.2149.24573.camel@dbooth-laptop>
Hi Jonathan,

Having spent the last two hours reading through your draft report 
and attempting to write suggestions, I think it may be too much work to
go through the cycles needed to articulate and incorporate my
suggestions.  The problem is that your draft report very strongly
reflects your particular interpretation of the problem space -- which is
certainly as valid as anyone else's -- but the problem is that this
makes it very difficult to articulate our agreements and disagreements,
because doing so would require either: (a) casting them in terms of your
interpretation; or (b) substantially editing your interpretation to more
closely match other articulations of the problem.  In order to indicate
agreement or disagreement, the points need to be far finer grained.

Alas, if only we had maintained a simple issues list, we could point to
it and say: "We agreed on issues #2, 3 and 4, and disagreed on 1, 5 and
6.  The various views on the unresolved issues were: . . . ".  But we
didn't.  Shame on us!

AFAICT, the closest thing we had was this list of AWWSW Questions / Use
Cases, created early in the group's life:
And these don't seem to be mentioned at all in your draft report.

I suggest presenting to the TAG both the report that you drafted and the
earlier AWWSW Final Report that we drafted on the wiki at
I have already linked your draft report from that wiki page; it would be
good if you would similarly link that page from your draft report.


On Mon, 2012-09-17 at 14:38 -0400, Jonathan A Rees wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 4:41 PM, David Booth <david@dbooth.org> wrote:
> > Hi Jonathan,
> >
> > I'm interested, and the write-up looks like a pretty good starting
> > point.  I don't see it as being particularly better than the starting
> > point that I had previously drafted, but if you do then it's fine with
> > me to use it.
> >
> > My initial thoughts on what it needs:
> >
> >  - I think it would be most useful to state not only what points were
> > agreed by the group, but also what was *not* agreed and why, i.e., what
> > the differing views were.
> OK. The 1-2-3 list gives the differing views in one case. What other
> topics need a list like this?
> >  - It's a little vague in some places.   I think we can correct this
> > pretty easily.
> OK, how?
> >  - I think it needs more context and problem statement.  Someone reading
> > it may wonder what the fuss was all about and why there was any
> > contention at all.  Clearly stating what was *not* agreed will probably
> > help address this, i.e., what issues were not resolved, and what were
> > the various positions that people had on these issues?
> The first section gives the problem statement as best I could
> reconstruct it from the HCLS/TAG meeting, which IMO is the only
> relevant context for the purposes of this report. I don't think the
> TAG will be interested in anything we did not related to that.
> > How are you thinking to proceed?
> >
> > I suggest drafting this on a wiki page, as it can be painfully
> > cumbersome to have a single gatekeeper for all edits.
> As I will be the one held accountable, i.e. presenting and answering
> questions, I would prefer to be gatekeeper. I am happy to do all the
> edits.
> Jonathan
> > Thanks,
> > David
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 2012-09-11 at 14:30 -0400, Jonathan A Rees wrote:
> >> While David's work on the final report (
> >> http://www.w3.org/wiki/AwwswFinalReport ) was good as an overall
> >> neutral summary of what we did, I felt it wasn't going to serve the
> >> TAG's needs as well as it could, those needs being
> >> - to evaluate what the group did relative to its original goals
> >> - to become aware of areas of agreement and sources of discord
> >> - to decide whether to accept the final report as a record of the
> >> group's work, and
> >> - to think about next steps.
> >> So I wrote a new one...
> >>   http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/09/awwsw-report-to-tag.html
> >>
> >> This draft is probably full of my opinions, but it's hard for me to
> >> know how much is shared unless I ask you. We may have to gut it to
> >> make something we can agree on; that's OK. But first I want to ask who
> >> wants to be in on the agreeing group, and just how much of it that
> >> group can agree on.
> >>
> >> I had forgotten all that stuff about LSIDs from the 207 meeting. I
> >> found it useful because the point of comparison helps anchor the
> >> discussion. I know we haven't discussed LSIDs much but am hoping it's
> >> noncontroversial.
> >>
> >> Could the non-lurkers on public-awwsw go through this document, and either
> >> (a) identify yourself as wanting to be a signer, and then identify
> >> parts that you'd want deleted or modified before signing, or
> >> (b) bow out of the group of signers. (If you're on this list but don't
> >> respond pretty quickly I'll assume you don't want to be a signer.)
> >>
> >> Then I will iterate. Maybe some back-and-forth but I will prefer
> >> deletion to re-raising things we've already discussed unprofitably.
> >>
> >> A rapid response would be much appreciated, as I'd like to be able to
> >> tell the TAG this Thursday whether the report is likely to be ready in
> >> time for TAG members to read before the next TAG F2F, which is October
> >> 5-7.
> >>
> >> My objective is a TAG resolution to accept a report as final and get
> >> us off the hook. We might want to think about the current TAG
> >> membership in anticipating reasons why they might not want to do this.
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >> Jonathan
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > --
> > David Booth, Ph.D.
> > http://dbooth.org/
> >
> > Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily
> > reflect those of his employer.
> >
> >

David Booth, Ph.D.

Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily
reflect those of his employer.
Received on Tuesday, 18 September 2012 03:37:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:21:10 UTC