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

Re: [PORT] Proposed management process for SKOS Core

From: Thomas Baker <thomas.baker@bi.fhg.de>
Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 19:02:47 +0200
To: "Miles, AJ (Alistair)" <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
Cc: "Ralph R. Swick" <swick@w3.org>, public-esw-thes@w3.org, public-swbp-wg@w3.org, danbri@w3.org
Message-ID: <20050504170247.GA972@Octavius>

Alistair,

These small changes do the trick - it looks good!  There is still
a reference to "editor's working draft" in there, but I see it is
marked for deletion...

Tom

On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 04:18:23PM +0100, Alistair Miles 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 

-- 
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 Wednesday, 4 May 2005 16:58:36 GMT

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