Re: A suggestion: Add status flags to BPs?

Hello Carlos,

Antoine included a specific issue about the technological bias of
BP15: Choose a right formalization level. Would you like to have a
more general issue or this should be enough? I don't think that other
vocabulary BP have a technological bias (outside implementation
techniques).

The introduction of the section was rewritten and IMO there is no
technological bias (the introduction gives a general explanation about
vocabularies).

Thanks!
Bernadette

2015-01-23 10:14 GMT-03:00 Carlos Iglesias <carlos.iglesias.moro@gmail.com>:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I also like Phil's idea of setting status-flags, but at the same time agree
> with Bernadette in the fact that is very unlikely we will be able to make it
> today (30+ BPs, that's about 1,5 min to vote and decide on each)
>
> As Eric I also think that's it is not so bad having something quite
> incomplete to start gathering feedback. That may be useful to help clarify
> some issues where we don't have clear internal consensus as well. The only
> problem I see is that is usually made when one has clearly identified
> conflicting areas. If we think about just publishing a draft with a global
> note saying "this is still immature and everything may be changing in the
> future" then IMO it is not the right moment to publish yet.
>
> I have also concerns with respect to publishing anything where group members
> are clearly positioned against. I think that for that cases we should be
> trying to solve those issues before, or at least clearly identify them as
> open issues in the relevant parts of the document.
>
> In my specific case the two thing I don't think really confortable with
> publishing right now are:
>
> - The technological bias in several parts of the document (outside
> implementation techniques), and specially in the vocabularies section.
> - Most of the techniques at the preservation section and the underlying
> "data archiving" concept as well.
>
> My 2cents.
> Best,
>  CI
>
> On 23 January 2015 at 13:47, Bernadette Farias Lóscio <bfl@cin.ufpe.br>
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Phil,
>>
>> I like the idea of rating BP, but I'm afraid that's gonna be hard to
>> make such rating now (we can always try). I'm not sure if we can say
>> to people that a BP may be tested if we didn't make any test
>> ourselves.
>>
>> Maybe we can add a note on the introduction of the BP section to
>> reinforce that this a draft and some BP are unstable and need to be
>> tested, and people are welcome to give feedback about our proposals.
>>
>> +1 to Eric!
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Bernadette
>>
>>
>> 2015-01-23 9:15 GMT-03:00 Eric Stephan <ericphb@gmail.com>:
>> >>> I don’t see how we can use the “unstable” flag at the time we release
>> >>> the
>> >>> document as FPWD. It would be preferable to keep the “unstable” ones
>> >>> in our
>> >>> back-end/wiki/work-in-progress status .
>> >
>> > Ghislain,
>> >
>> > Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but this is a draft.   Even conveying an
>> > unstable BP might still be useful.   In the case of the BP on privacy
>> > I'd
>> > rather rate that as unstable until we've had a chance to get feedback
>> > from
>> > W3C privacy activity and other groups.
>> >
>> > Eric S
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 4:00 AM, Ghislain Atemezing
>> > <auguste.atemezing@eurecom.fr> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Hi Phil,
>> >>
>> >> Le 23 janv. 2015 à 12:32, Phil Archer <phila@w3.org> a écrit :
>> >>
>> >> *However* I have a suggestion that I hope might be useful. As well as
>> >> the
>> >> issues that are raised in the doc, I think we could add a flag to each
>> >> BP
>> >> that would follow the (well known among some) pattern of
>> >>
>> >> - Unstable (don't trust this one folks!)
>> >> - Testing (what do you think? Any implementation feedback you can give
>> >> us?)
>> >> - Stable (we think we're done)
>> >>
>> >> (see http://www.w3.org/2003/06/sw-vocab-status/ns)
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> These are quite good options to look at during the next teleconf.
>> >> However,
>> >> looking at the process of standardization, I presume that releasing a
>> >> FPWD
>> >> means “hey folks there, we need your feedback”, that almost meaning all
>> >> our
>> >> BPs sections are in “testing” flag. And getting to “recommendation”
>> >> will
>> >> means we have all the BP “stable”. What I mean is that, I don’t see how
>> >> we
>> >> can use the “unstable” flag at the time we release the document as
>> >> FPWD. It
>> >> would be preferable to keep the “unstable” ones in our
>> >> back-end/wiki/work-in-progress status .
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Cheers,
>> >> Ghislain
>> >>
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Bernadette Farias Lóscio
>> Centro de Informática
>> Universidade Federal de Pernambuco - UFPE, Brazil
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>
>
>
> --
> ---
>
> Carlos Iglesias.
> Internet & Web Consultant.
> +34 687 917 759
> contact@carlosiglesias.es
> @carlosiglesias
> http://es.linkedin.com/in/carlosiglesiasmoro/en



-- 
Bernadette Farias Lóscio
Centro de Informática
Universidade Federal de Pernambuco - UFPE, Brazil
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Received on Friday, 23 January 2015 13:38:53 UTC