W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-grddl-wg@w3.org > February 2007

Re: Sending Docs to Rec?

From: Chimezie Ogbuji <ogbujic@bio.ri.ccf.org>
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 11:06:02 -0500 (EST)
To: Murray Maloney <murray@muzmo.com>
cc: public-grddl-wg <public-grddl-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.60.0702241022420.3676@joplin.bio.ri.ccf.org>

On Wed, 21 Feb 2007, Murray Maloney wrote:

> Harry,
>
> I have to disagree with some of your premises and your conclusion.
>
> First, the unspoken and unwritten premise seems to be that a WD or NOTE
> is virtually invisible and unusable by the constituency who need the 
> information.
> I disagree strongly. The microformats community has demonstrated aptly and 
> amply
> that they do not need the comfort of a W3C REC to get their jobs done.
>
> An argument was uttered today suggesting that people would not be able
> to locate the Primer or Use Cases document by following links from the
> Introduction to the GRDDL Specification -- poppycock!

Well, (for me) it is more an issue of the collective quality of the 
combination of the documents than visibility.  It is my understanding that 
a document that goes down the path towards a REC will be exposed to more 
editorial review than a NOTE.  So, though we might have a link, do we want 
a link to a document that doesn't benefit from the same thorough review 
process - especially when you consider *most* people *will* be clicking 
the link to go to the primer before they delve into the specification?

> Secondly, Harry refers to an email in which the author suggests that the 
> writing
> in the Primer needs work:
>        If this: [excerpt from Primer Introduction]
>        is the introduction to the primer, then I think some work on 
> re-writing
>        in plain language is called for.
>
> I would have thought that this was an argument in favor of re-working the 
> Primer.
> I note especially that the Introduction in particular is called into 
> question,
> and observe that this is the same introduction that I previously suggested
> needed rewording. I withdrew my request for a cross-set introduction
> so that we could move forward and Harry would have less issues to track.
> I don't think that moving to REC will solve those problems. And more to the
> point, the email in question does not impugn the GRDDL Specification at all.

This is not a question of impugning the GRDDL specification but of whether 
we really can afford to be selective about which documents have the 
benefit of a more thorough review when you consider the audience.

> Finally, I do not feel that we as a WG, or I as a member of the WG, have 
> exercised
> an adequate level of scrutiny, due consideration or input to either document.
>
> My attempts to make useful comments on these documents were abandoned
> because I ran into stone walls. My efforts on the GRDDL Spec were well 
> received
> and my comments were often incorporated. I cannot say the same of the other 
> documents.
> No offence intended to the authors of those documents. I just couldn't get 
> the kind
> of traction with you as I did with Dan. So, I re-focused my efforts on the 
> GRDDL WD.

I don't see the value in such a statement, the editors of the 
other documents have the same editorial discretion as Dan in determinig 
what commentary they incorporated into their respective documents.  I 
personally didn't see the benefit in normalizing the introduction(s) and abstracts across 
all three documents as they speak to very different audiences.  It seems 
very unfair to use the response (or lack of response) to your suggestions 
as grounds for concluding that the WG has not exercised an adequate level of 
scrutiny with the other documents.

> I do think that it is more important to have a solid specification, and tests 
> by
> which to verify conformity to that specification, than it is to take the 
> current Primer
> or Use Cases WDs to REC status. I do not feel compelled by Harry's argument 
> to
> the contrary.

If our hands have been forced by (unfortunate) time constraints then, I 
agree this is a more important, immediate milestone, but we can't pretend 
as though the specification by itself will address conformity, functional 
requirements, *and* accessibility to introductory and intermediate-level 
audiences.  So we should be honest with ourselves about what we are 
sacrificing by reordering our editorial priorities.

> Bottom line, Harry: I don't share your urgency in this matter and am not 
> motivated
> by your assertions. It seems apparent that there are other factors involved 
> which
> may be driving you toward pushing these documents to REC status. Your stated
> reasoning does not satisfy me, and I am afraid that we would all regret a 
> reckless
> decision to push these documents toward REC in spite of strong resistance.
>
> I would be happy to be part of a process that led these documents to REC in 
> time,
> especially if the test cases were to take priority within the WG.

I'm inclined to ask at this point if we *do* have an option for more time. 
It seems the time considerations are forcing our hand to essentially 
sacrifice a coherent set of documents (which reach a broad range of 
audiences) for clear functional requirements.  When you consider the 
various domains GRDDL cuts across: web architecture, RDF processing, XML 
processing, semantic web best practices, A handful of open TAG issues, 
document authorship, etc.. it makes the stakes that much higher for 
whether or not we can address audiences that will have varying levels of 
comfort in these respective domains.

Chimezie Ogbuji
Lead Systems Analyst
Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery
Cleveland Clinic Foundation
9500 Euclid Avenue/ W26
Cleveland, Ohio 44195
Office: (216)444-8593
ogbujic@ccf.org
Received on Saturday, 24 February 2007 16:06:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:11:47 GMT