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

RE: [PORT] Proposed management process for SKOS Core

From: Miles, AJ \(Alistair\) <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 15:15:13 +0100
Message-ID: <F5839D944C66C049BDB45F4C1E3DF89D18DC93@exchange31.fed.cclrc.ac.uk>
To: <public-esw-thes@w3.org>, <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>

Hi all,

Does anyone have any objections to the process model outlined below?  Otherwise I propose to write this up in the SKOS Core Vocabulary Specification.

Cheers,

Al.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-esw-thes-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-esw-thes-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Miles, AJ 
> (Alistair)
> Sent: 25 April 2005 14:49
> To: public-esw-thes@w3.org; public-swbp-wg@w3.org; Dan 
> Brickley (E-mail)
> Subject: RE: [PORT] Proposed management process for SKOS Core
> 
> 
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> Tom has said to me that he is happy with the process model 
> outlined in [1].
> 
> Mark Van Assem sent me some comments on [1], and raised the 
> concern that the model proposed gives too much power to the 
> reviewers - reviewers could possibly veto changes in 
> opposition to strong consensus within the public-esw-thes community.
> 
> I agree with Mark's concern, but I don't know how else the 
> SKOS Core documents can get W3C Public Working Draft status.  
> The problem is how to fit SKOS Core into the W3C process, 
> without sacrificing the principle that anyone may become 
> actively involved in SKOS Core development at any time via 
> the public-esw-thes mailing list, and that consensus on that 
> mailing list is the primary driver for change.
> 
> Ralph has some specific concerns, which I'll try and address below.
> 
> I'd also like to wait until Danbri comments on this before 
> proposing anything concrete, but in the meantime here is a 
> revised proposal for a SKOS Core management process:
> 
> Proposal for SKOS Core Management Process (version 0.2):
> ---
> 
> (1) The WG periodically reviews the 'SKOS Core Guide' and 
> 'SKOS Core Vocabulary Specification' and publishes new Public 
> Working Draft versions of these documents after each review.
> 
> (2) In the interim period between Public Working Draft 
> versions, no changes may be made to the SKOS Core Vocabulary. 
>  Hence the SKOS Core Vocabulary RDF/OWL description will not 
> be changed during the interim period.
> 
> (3) In the interim period between Public Working Draft 
> versions, the delegated SKOS Core editors (myself and Danbri) 
> will 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.  
> 
> (4a) Proposed changes to SKOS Core should not go to review 
> without reasonable consensus from the members of the 
> public-esw-thes@w3.org mailing list.
> 
> (5) At each subsequent review, the reviewers delegated by the 
> WG may of course review the SKOS Core Guide and the SKOS Core 
> Vocabulary Specification in their entirety.  However, the 
> focus of each review will be to evaluate the list of proposed changes.
> 
> (6) Those changes approved by the reviewers, or approved in a 
> modified form after negotiation with the reviewers, will be 
> implemented by the editors.  New Public Working Draft 
> versions of the SKOS Core Guide and SKOS Core Vocabulary 
> Specification will then be published by the WG.
> 
> Also, what about a review every 2 months instead of 3?
> 
> That's all for now,
> 
> Al.
> 
>  
> 
> [1] 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-esw-thes/2005Apr/0016.html
> 
> ---
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org
> > [mailto:public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Ralph R. Swick
> > Sent: 21 April 2005 17:57
> > To: Miles, AJ (Alistair)
> > Cc: public-esw-thes@w3.org; public-swbp-wg@w3.org
> > Subject: Re: [PORT] Proposed management process for SKOS Core
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > At 04:39 PM 4/21/2005 +0100, Miles, AJ (Alistair) wrote:
> > >[Tom Baker's] 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.
> > 
> > You are referring here to modifications of the namespace document,
> > I believe.  Am I correct?
> > 
> > >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.
> > 
> > In what way?  A Working Draft is exactly that -- a document 
> > that informs the
> > community of work in progress.  The Working Draft may state that the
> > content of the namespace document is subject to change between
> > versions of the Working Draft and can advise readers as to which
> > should be considered authoritative and for what purposes.
> > 
> > >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.
> > 
> > s/between reviews/between Working Draft versions/
> > 
> > >(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.
> > 
> > s/between reviews/between Working Draft versions/
> > 
> > >(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.
> > 
> > Very generous; a kind of public pre-publication review.
> > 
> > >(5) At all subsequent reviews, the reviewers delegated by 
> > the WG will review and evaluate the list of proposed changes only.
> > 
> > Are you proposing that the WG may not review any other parts
> > of the new editor's draft?  I would find that unacceptable.  If you
> > are proposing that an editor's draft be stable for at least 
> two weeks
> > before a new Working Draft is published, I'm fine with that.
> > 
> > >(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.
> > 
> > sounds like normal process here.
> > 
> > >I also propose that the period between reviews be 3 months,
> > 
> > That is the maximum that the WG is officially allowed between
> > public updates of status.
> > 
> > -Ralph
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
Received on Tuesday, 26 April 2005 14:15:33 GMT

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