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

[PORT] Proposed management process for SKOS Core

From: Miles, AJ \(Alistair\) <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 16:39:58 +0100
Message-ID: <F5839D944C66C049BDB45F4C1E3DF89D18DC78@exchange31.fed.cclrc.ac.uk>
To: <public-esw-thes@w3.org>, <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>

Hi all,

Tom Baker has raised some concerns regarding how the current management process for SKOS Core aligns with the W3C process for publication of working draft documents.  Tom and I spoke last week in Berlin about this, and based on his recommendation I have an alternative to propose.

His major concern was that the SKOS Core Vocabulary could be modified in the period between publication of working drafts by the SWBPD-WG (hereafter 'the WG').  This would mean that a person/agent dereferencing the SKOS Core Vocabulary could get something different from the latest 'official' publication from the WG.  There would then arise confusion as to which resources provided 'the authoritative' description of the SKOS Core Vocabulary.

We both agreed that the W3C process for publishing documents (periodic publication of public working drafts) is not best suited to the development of RDF vocabularies.  However, given that there currently exists no 'W3C process for developing RDF vocabularies', we need a short-term solution for SKOS Core.

So I propose the following:

(1) The WG periodically reviews the 'SKOS Core Guide' and 'SKOS Core Vocabulary Specification', and publishes new public working drafts after each review.

(2) In the interim period between reviews, no changes may be made to the SKOS Core Vocabulary.

(3) In the interim period between reviews, the delegated SKOS Core editors (myself and Danbri) are to maintain a public list of proposed changes to the SKOS Core Vocabulary.

(4) Proposed changes to SKOS Core must be added to the public list at least 2 weeks before a scheduled WG review, to allow the wider community to comment and to raise objections.

(5) At all subsequent reviews, the reviewers delegated by the WG will review and evaluate the list of proposed changes only.

(6) Those changes approved by the reviewers, or approved after subsequent discussion and suitable modification, will be implemented by the editors.  New public working drafts of the SKOS Core Guide and SKOS Core Vocabulary Specification will then be published by the WG.

I also propose that the period between reviews be 3 months, starting from 1st may 2005.  This would mean two more reviews during the lifetime of the WG, the next review being 1st august 2005, the final review by the WG being 1st november 2005.  I suggest that the period after November 2005 be given to determining an appropriate process model for maintaining SKOS Core beyond the chartered lifetime of the WG (current charter expires 31 Jan 2006).

How does that sound?

Thanks,

Alistair.

---
Alistair Miles
Research Associate
CCLRC - Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
Building R1 Room 1.60
Fermi Avenue
Chilton
Didcot
Oxfordshire OX11 0QX
United Kingdom
Email:        a.j.miles@rl.ac.uk
Tel: +44 (0)1235 445440
Received on Thursday, 21 April 2005 15:40:03 GMT

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