Re: Possible route for Profiles Ontology

This makes perfect sense and is in line with what i have been advocating
all along. Doc looks the same either way and this keeps options open.

Doc is prepared and ready to put into final steps as a FPWD... its probably
the most complete of all the docs as the ontology itself is very simple.

Good to agree in advance on any differences in wording for references
depending on final state though.

Rob

On Wed, 24 Oct 2018, 02:52 Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote:

> Peter and I had an intense chat with W3C representatives and Dave
> Raggett about our deliverables, and in particular about any dependencies
> between the 3 main deliverables and the various "other bits" that we are
> creating (appendices, vocabulary cross-walks, etc.), and how we should
> publish everything in a standard and stable way. We got good advice that
> we will now need to turn into practice. More on this during the F2F.
>
> Philippe Le Hégaret (W3C staff in charge of working groups) is one of
> the people who reviews drafts and final copies as they are published. In
> relation to Profiles Ontology, he suggested that we publish it as a FPWD
> (first step on recommendation track) as a way to test both W3C
> requirements and to solicit community feedback. If the document meets
> various requirements (which are hard to define, but which are judged by
> the Advisory Committee) then it would continue along recommendation
> track. If not, then it will continue as a note.
>
> This is important because of the potential dependencies between other
> deliverables and the ontology. The outcome of the FPWD would then give
> us the information we need so that we know how to word those documents
> and their relation to the ontology. In this case, timing is important
> because it affects the content of those documents.
>
> We will bring this up at the beginning of Thursday's meeting. If the
> group working on the ontology feels that it is ready as a FPWD then we
> can begin this process in the near future. This will mean that we will
> need to solicit review both from members of our group but more
> importantly from a wide range of potential users.
>
> We do need to take into account the potential impact on our other work,
> which mainly means managing our time such that we can finish all of our
> deliverables. The chairs will be keeping a close eye on this part of the
> process.
>
> Peter and KC
> --
> Karen Coyle
> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
> m: 1-510-435-8234 (Signal)
> skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
>
>