W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-esw-thes@w3.org > April 2005

[PORT] Tom's comments on the spec (was RE: [PORT] moving SKOS Core fwd)

From: Miles, AJ \(Alistair\) <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 19:21:20 +0100
Message-ID: <F5839D944C66C049BDB45F4C1E3DF89D18DC57@exchange31.fed.cclrc.ac.uk>
To: "Thomas Baker" <thomas.baker@bi.fhg.de>, "Ralph Swick \(E-mail\)" <swick@w3.org>
Cc: <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>, <public-esw-thes@w3.org>

Hi Tom,

How about if I do the following for now:

[Abstract]

This edition of the SKOS Core Vocabulary Specification [http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core/spec/2005-03-31] s/is the authoritative/gives a human-readable account of the SKOS Core Vocabulary at the time of publication.

[Introduction]

This edition of the SKOS Core Vocabulary Specification [http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core/spec/2005-03-31] s/is the authoritative/gives a human-readable account of the SKOS Core Vocabulary at the time of publication. 

N.B. the [@@TODO]s are intended to be replaced with the URLs of the latest public working draft editions, which we don't have yet.

Ralph, what should I cite to point the reader to the difference between an editor's WD, a public WD, a working group note, a rec?  Should we put a short description in the doc?

Will leave the rest for another day.

Cheers,

Al.



> 
> In
> 
>     SKOS Core Vocabulary Specification
>     W3C Editor's Working Draft 2005-03-31
>     http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core/spec/2005-03-31
> 
> I generally approve of the changes.  However, who assigns
> status and how is still not quite clear.
> 
> To judge from the text, status of the SKOS Core Vocabulary
> with respect to the Working Group would seem to be reflected
> in the status of the documents in which it is published --
> whether it is an Editor's Working Draft, a Public Working
> Draft, or a Working Group Note.  What these categories mean,
> however, is not described.
> 
> One remaining ambiguity is that the Public Working Draft
> (and, one presumes, the Working Group Note) are the object of
> more extensive "formal review".  However, the latest Editor's
> Working Draft -- and the RDF/OWL representation maintained in
> sync with the Editor's Working Draft -- are to be considered
> the "authoritative" account of the SKOS Core Vocabulary at
> any point in time.  It is not clear, then, what this implies
> for the status of Public Working Draft or Working Group Note.
> As described, it would seem that the Public Working Draft --
> although it involves formal review -- is less authoritative
> than that of authoritative Editor's Working Draft; in fact, it
> might typically be out of sync with the authoritative version.
> 
> (As an aside: If the emerging model is one of periodic review
> of the entire spec by the entire Working Group, then this seems
> a bit problematic.  DCMI handles this question by delegating
> authority over changes in the vocabularies to a Usage Board
> -- subject to rubber-stamping or veto by the Directorate.
> Whenever any change is made in any part of the vocabulary --
> a term is added, the status of a term changes, or a comment
> is reworded or updated -- a new, versioned description of
> that term is created, with a status assigned by the Usage
> Board, and a new human-readable document of the entire set of
> vocabularies is generated.  That versioned document has the
> status of a DCMI Recommendation.  We arrived at that model
> after finding it cumbersome and impractical to maintain the
> vocabulary as if it were a specification like any other.
> I'm sure there's no one best way to do this, but if BPD
> WG and, by extension, W3C are considering the longer-term
> maintenance of vocabularies, I'm wondering whether some of the
> conclusions we reached in DCMI might apply here.  However,
> these are big questions with big implications for process,
> and therefore a bit out of scope for the task at hand.)
> 
> For now, it would suffice to clarify the following: If the
> Editor's Working Draft and corresponding RDF/OWL expression
> are authoritative, what is the role or function of a Public
> Working Draft or, beyond that, of a Working Group Note?
> And where does an Editor's Working Draft get its status --
> from the Working Group, or the Editor?
> 
> Detailed comments below....
> 
> Tom
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >     Status of this Document
> > 
> > This section describes the status of this document at the 
> time of its
> > publication. Other documents may supersede this document. 
> For the latest
> > Editor's Working Draft edition of the SKOS Core Vocabulary 
> Specification
> > see [http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core/spec/]. For the 
> latest Public
> > Working Draft edition of the SKOS Core Vocabulary Specification see
> > [@@TODO].
> 
> Maybe this is what the @@TODO refers to, but from the text it
> is not quite clear what distinguishes an Editor's Working Draft
> from a Public Working Draft.  Since this section describes
> the status of the document, an extra sentence about this in the 
> first paragraph would be helpful.
> 
> > The Working Group intends the SKOS Core Vocabulary Specification to
> > become a W3C Working Group Note. 
> 
> ..a third type of document.  The reader wonders how W3C
> Working Group Note relates to Public Working Draft and Editor's
> Working Draft.  Maybe this typology is described in a document
> that could be cited?
> 
> > This edition of the SKOS Core Vocabulary Specification
> > [http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core/spec/2005-03-31] is the
> > authoritative human-readable account of the SKOS Core 
> Vocabulary at the
> > time of publication. For the latest Editor's Working Draft 
> edition of
> > the SKOS Core Vocabulary Specification see
> > [http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core/spec/]. For the latest Public
> > Working Draft edition of the SKOS Core Vocabulary Specification see
> > [@@TODO].
> 
> Again, not quite clear...  It does seem to say that Editor's
> Working Drafts are "authoritative" -- an important point that
> would ideally be made in the Status section above.
> 
> > A formal representation of the SKOS Core Vocabulary is maintained in
> > RDF/OWL [latest: http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core]. Historical
> > snapshots of the RDF/OWL description of the SKOS Core 
> Vocabulary can be
> > obtained from [http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core/history/].
> 
> Okay.  Good.
> 
> > The SKOS Core Vocabulary is subject to change (see Change Policy
> > <#secChange> below). Whenever a change is made to the SKOS Core
> > Vocabulary, the RDF/OWL description of the SKOS Core Vocabulary is
> > updated, and a new Editor's Working Draft of the SKOS Core 
> Vocabulary
> > Specification is generated and published. (The content of the term
> > summary tables in this document is generated via a program 
> script from
> > the RDF/OWL description of the SKOS Core Vocabulary at the time
> > publication). Therefore the resources
> > [http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core/spec/] and
> > [http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core] should be consistent with each
> > other at any given time, although there still may on 
> occasion be short
> > periods (eg. during Web site publication) during which 
> there are minor
> > inconsistencies.
> 
> Okay.
> 
> > A Public Working Draft edition of the SKOS Core Vocabulary 
> Specification
> > may only be published after a formal review process by the Working
> > Group. Therefore Public Working Draft editions are published less
> > frequently, and there may be inconsistencies between the 
> latest Public
> > Working Draft edition [@@TODO] and the latest RDF/OWL 
> description of the
> > SKOS Core Vocabulary [http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core].
> 
> This refers to a "formal review process" but does not really
> clarify the difference in status between the Public WD and
> the Editor's WD.  What it does clarify is that the "formally
> reviewed" draft may often -- even typically -- be out of
> sync with the "authoritative" version (i.e., the Editor's
> Working Draft).
> 
> >     Policy Statements
> > 
> > *N.B. The Policy Statements described in this specification are a
> > best-effort representation of the Working Group's initial 
> thinking and
> > intent, and are subject to the caveats described in the 
> Status of this
> > Document section. It is intended that this warning be removed after
> > further discussion in subsequent iterations of this working 
> draft. Also
> > note that W3C gives control over the SKOS Core Vocabulary to working
> > groups within the overall framework of the W3C process. 
> Currently that
> > control resides with the Semantic Web Best Practices and Deployment
> > Working Group. When this working group's charter expires, 
> control will
> > revert to W3C as an organization.*
> 
> The points starting with "Also note..." seem like things that
> should ideally be said in the opening Status section.
> 
> >       Maintenance
> > 
> > The SKOS Core Vocabulary is hosted and maintained by W3C. 
> At the time of
> > writing, W3C has delegated management of the SKOS Core 
> Vocabulary to the
> > Semantic Web Best Practices WG, whose chairs have in turn 
> have delegated
> > these responsibilities to the editors of this specification 
> (Alistair
> > Miles and Dan Brickley). The Working Group is committed to 
> establishing
> > clear expectations around the management of RDF 
> vocabularies, through
> > documentation of process and maintenance policies. This is itself an
> > evolving process. Specifically, this document is itself 
> situated within
> > the W3C Process, and may change and evolve in the light of 
> feedback on
> > SKOS Core and on the SKOS Core policy statements. It should be noted
> > that claims made by the Working Group using the (experimental)
> > persistence and change terminology employed here have as 
> their scope the
> > currently chartered Working Group. They have only draft 
> status within
> > the wider W3C Process. W3C has not delegated to the WG any 
> authority to
> > make binding commitments on behalf of W3C beyond those 
> implicit in the
> > formal W3C Process.
> 
> Okay, good.
> 
> > The Working Group is committed to a public, consensus-driven design
> > environment for SKOS Core, and to this end conducts SKOS-related
> > discussion in public, in particular drawing on feedback from the
> > Semantic Web Interest Group mailing list public-esw-thes@w3.org.
> 
> Again, since the points in the two paragraphs above
> relate to status, it might be helpful to fold those points
> into a consolidated Status section.  Or does the Status /
> Maintenance distinction follow a fixed template for working
> drafts? Would it be permissible to merge the two into a Status
> and Maintenance section?
> 
> 
> -- 
> Dr. Thomas Baker                        Thomas.Baker@izb.fraunhofer.de
> Institutszentrum Schloss Birlinghoven         mobile +49-160-9664-2129
> Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft                          work +49-30-8109-9027
> 53754 Sankt Augustin, Germany                    fax +49-2241-144-2352
> Personal email: thbaker79@alumni.amherst.edu
> 
> 
Received on Friday, 1 April 2005 18:21:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:38:53 GMT