RE: Considering a Community Group "Report"

Sandro, while I don't like reading typical reports -- in narrative style -- either, particularly if they cram TMI into the reader's first view.  However, neither do I like to participate in groups who don't know what they're trying to accomplish and/or fail to apprise their stakeholders of progress (or lack thereof) on objectives of interest to them.

>From your draft, it is apparent that a lot of thought has already gone into this effort.  As the report shapes up and as time permits, I will consider rendering it in StratML Part 2, Performance Plan/Report, format using this XForm:  http://stratml.us/forms/Part2Form.xml 

In the meantime, the CG's about statement is available in StratML format at http://stratml.us/drybridge/index.htm#CWCG 

The case for machine-readable documents is available at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine-Readable_Documents  For those who know better, it will be difficult to deem credible any information that ignores those requirements.

Owen

-----Original Message-----
From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org> 
Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2018 1:11 PM
To: Credible Web CG <public-credibility@w3.org>
Subject: Considering a Community Group "Report"

When we started regular meetings in April, I was thinking we'd be able to operate this group like a Working Group, quickly getting into the details of producing specifications for necessary vocabulary terms.  It has turned out there was a lot of other groundwork we needed to cover first, more like a typical Community Group. So be it.

So how to capture the work we have been doing?  The usual answer is a Community Group Report.

I'm not a big fan of reports.  I don't usually like writing them and I don't like reading them.

But, maybe this is an exception.   I took at stab at writing something. I'll be very interested to hear what people think of it.  (Some parts are more polished than others.) Ideally, we can get it into a version we feel comfortable "publishing" as a draft-for-public-review in September, before JTI and TPAC.  It doesn't have to be complete or final at that point - it can have places that are still marked TBD.

I wrote it as a Google doc, which is a bit easier for me, and has pretty nice comment handling.  I also wrote a little program to convert that to a normal W3C-style document, for people who don't want to deal with a Google doc.  They are both linked from: https://credweb.org/report/

       -- Sandro

Received on Monday, 27 August 2018 01:36:58 UTC