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

RE: [PORT] Proposed management process for SKOS Core

From: Miles, AJ \(Alistair\) <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 16:18:23 +0100
Message-ID: <F5839D944C66C049BDB45F4C1E3DF89D18DCC3@exchange31.fed.cclrc.ac.uk>
To: "Thomas Baker" <thomas.baker@bi.fhg.de>, "Ralph R. Swick" <swick@w3.org>
Cc: <public-esw-thes@w3.org>, <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>, <danbri@w3.org>

New editor's draft:


Does this look OK for first Public Working Draft?

(Sorry to keep producing new editor's drafts of this rather than just updating the last one, but each time I make a change I have to do it to the template then regenerate the document from a script, which builds a document dated to the day of generation.)

Specific actions:

> -- The statuses of Public Working Draft (and Editor's Working
>    Draft) are mentioned not linked to a W3C document describing
>    what these various types of specification are.  This is
>    particularly confusing in light of the statement that the
>    SWBPD WG "intends the SKOS Core Vocabulary Specification
>    to become a W3C Working Group Note" (e.g., one wonders
>    how a Working Group Note relates to a Public Working Draft).

Added links to 




> -- Another subtle but confusing point is that this document is
>    called Editor's Draft, and one could wonder if that is
>    the same as an Editor's Working Draft...

According to Ralph's instruction, am only using the phrase "Editor's Draft" throughout.

> -- The Introduction mentions "a formal representation of the
>    SKOS Core Vocabulary... in RDF/OWL".  However, the
>    relationship of this formal representation to the other
>    W3C specification forms (Editor's Working Draft and Public
>    Working Draft) is not specified.  My assumption (based in
>    part on conversations with Alistair) is that the formal
>    representation would be maintained in sync with the latest
>    Public Working Draft.  But if this is the case, I do not
>    see this point stated anywhere; in fact, this one mention
>    would seem to be the only reference to the formal schema in
>    the whole specification.  I think this could be fixed by
>    adding a sentence or two here or there -- e.g., by adding
>    a Point 9 under Changes, to the effect that "All approved
>    changes will be implemented at the same time in the formal
>    representation of the SKOS Core Vocabulary in RDF/OWL".

Expanded point 7 in the process.

> -- The statement "New classes or properties may be added to the
>    SKOS Core Vocabulary at any time" seems wrong.  Rather,
>    "new classes and properties may be added in accordance with
>    the process outlined above" -- or words to that effect...?

Changed accordingly.


Received on Wednesday, 4 May 2005 15:19:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 2 March 2016 13:32:05 UTC