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

Re: [PORT] Proposed management process for SKOS Core

From: Guus Schreiber <schreiber@cs.vu.nl>
Date: Wed, 04 May 2005 18:35:26 +0200
Message-ID: <4278F9CE.1060900@cs.vu.nl>
To: "Miles, AJ \(Alistair\)" <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
CC: public-esw-thes@w3.org, public-swbp-wg@w3.org, danbri@w3.org

ASlistair,

Are you ready to make a proposal for publishing the three SKOS docs as 
First Public Working Draft?

Guus


Miles, AJ (Alistair) wrote:

> New editor's draft:
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core/spec/2005-05-04
> 
> 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 
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2004/02/Process-20040205/tr.html#maturity-levels
> 
> and
> 
> http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/
> 
> 
>>-- 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.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Al.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Free University Amsterdam, Computer Science
De Boelelaan 1081a, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Tel: +31 20 598 7739/7718; E-mail: schreiber@cs.vu.nl
Home page: http://www.cs.vu.nl/~guus/
Received on Wednesday, 4 May 2005 16:35:43 GMT

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