W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-annotation@w3.org > November 2009

RE: UC&Req document way forward and comments from Raphael

From: Soohong Daniel Park <soohong.park@samsung.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 23:43:43 +0900
To: 'RaphaŽl Troncy' <Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl>
Cc: public-media-annotation@w3.org
Message-id: <047901ca6d14$857102f0$905308d0$%park@samsung.com>
> s/RFC/REQ ... W3C produces RECOMMENDATION and not RFC.

Hahaha, you are right, RFC is a IETF and I'm a IETF guy also.


Anyhow, thanks your feedback.


Daniel


------
Soohong Daniel Park
Samsung Electronics, DMC R&D
http://sites.google.com/site/natpt00 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: RaphaŽl Troncy [mailto:Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2009 11:39 PM
> To: Soohong Daniel Park
> Cc: public-media-annotation@w3.org
> Subject: Re: UC&Req document way forward and comments from Raphael
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> > After call, I had a small talk with Raphael in IRC.
> > I think it’s very reasonable way for the UC&Req document publication.
> 
> Some further explanations: the status section of this document reads:
> "The group does not expect this document to become a W3C
> Recommendation." ... so I assume it aims to be a W3C Note.
> 
> I have argued on IRC that you can safely continue to improve the
> document, and publish a new WD early December as the group seems to have
> planned, and then let sleep this document. There is no rush to have a
> Note now, since it has the risk that the final REC will not exactly
> match the UC & Req documents (some requirements might be missing, some
> others might be out of scope for this REC, etc.).
> I have seen various groups (SKOS, OWL) that have published the UC & Req
> doc as a note the same day or just before the final REQ, though the
> document wasn't changed for a long time ...
> 
> > UC&Req is a technical note. In this case, we can safely publish the
> > final version when the other documents will be RFC, so no rush for this
> > document. I suggest you publish a new WD. It’s useless for this document
> > to be a note now since there is a risk it is outdated when the RFC will
> > be published. Better, improve the document now, publish it and freeze it
> > until the others are REC, when others documents are REC, take this one,
> > and publish it as an note with small changes depending on the final REC.
> 
> s/RFC/REQ ... W3C produces RECOMMENDATION and not RFC.
> Cheers.
> 
>    RaphaŽl
> 
> --
> RaphaŽl Troncy
> EURECOM, Multimedia Communications Department
> 2229, route des CrÍtes, 06560 Sophia Antipolis, France.
> e-mail: raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr & raphael.troncy@gmail.com
> Tel: +33 (0)4 - 9300 8242
> Fax: +33 (0)4 - 9000 8200
> Web: http://www.eurecom.fr/~troncy/
Received on Tuesday, 24 November 2009 14:44:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 24 November 2009 14:44:58 GMT