W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-oilgaschem@w3.org > December 2011

Draft Charter "Completed"

From: Roger Cutler <rogercutler@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 10:05:06 -0600
Message-ID: <CAMU31A7+66UQiXL9rBt7v6Z_CvR6wE_VbbNHAd7vtbs5J_w9eg@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-oilgaschem@w3.org
Cc: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
I have roughed out a more-or-less complete draft
the Oil, Gas and Chemicals Business Group.  Comments and suggestions
are most welcome, and in fact you can get into the Wiki page and edit it
yourself.  As previously stated, however, if you do edit the charter it
would be friendly to send me (and this discussion group) an email
indicating in a general way "what" was done and if relevant "why".  There
is no intention at this time to limit your editing -- I just want to be
able to keep track of what's going on without digging through the change
logs.  I say "at this time" because I think that the group could decide to
define an "editor" function that has more control over certain documents,
and in fact if we start developing deliverable documents I personally think
that this might turn out to be desirable simply from a logistic point of
view.  That's pretty much consistent with the way I think most WG's and
IG's do things in the W3C, and probably with processes in most other
collaboration environments.  [Ian:  Should this discussion go into the

Note that the list of potential topics in the Scope section is pretty
rough.  Help is particularly requested in this area, which one might
actually consider the "meatiest" section of the charter.

The most significant lack is probably in the "Dependencies and Liaisons"
section.  It seems to me that it might be a good idea to make a separate
page in the Wiki for this, particularly to document the various industry
consortia and what kind of connection they have with Semantic Web
technology.  At the moment, however, I'm tired of typing.

Note that there is a separate Why Work in This
page which is linked from the mission section of the charter.

Ian:  You probably should read this draft fairly carefully.  I have
included some statements that I *think* are consistent with W3C process,
but I'm not positive.  Note particularly the discussion of "Contributions"
in the Communications section.  I think that this is consistent with the
spirit of the definition of BG's and CG's, but I was unable to find any
statements on this that were completely clear to me.  If this section is *
not* OK I think we need to work this issue.  I hope it's clear to you what
my concerns here are.  Note also that I am using the words "contributions"
and "submissions" pretty much interchangeably, and I'm not sure whether
that's OK either.
Received on Wednesday, 7 December 2011 16:05:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:39:45 UTC