W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > October 2007

Re: Google-code issue raising

From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 13:55:16 -0400
To: Ian Horrocks <Ian.Horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Cc: Rinke Hoekstra <hoekstra@uva.nl>, Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>, Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, public-owl-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <24478.1192211716@ubuhebe>


Ian Horrocks <Ian.Horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk> writes:
> I like the proposed way of working -- mailing lists are OK, and I am  
> happy for issue list entries and discussion to be automatically CCed  
> to public-owl-wg, but they are not very convenient for keeping track  
> of a bunch of separate discussions centred around various issues,  
> even with the benefit of threads. In the case of WebOnt, for example,  
> we sometimes had to re-visit issues and proposed solutions, and it  
> was often time consuming and sometimes even borderline impossible to  
> fully reconstruct the earlier decision making process.
> 
> One additional thing that will be very useful is if the "owners" of  
> each issue make sure that teleconf discussions of the issue are  
> copied from the minutes into the issue tracker -- failure to do so  
> might lead to similar difficulties w.r.t. reconstruction.

Tracker reads public-owl-wg and links to each message in the archives
which mentions the issue by name (eg ISSUE-1).  As long as the issue is
mentioned by name (in that form) in each message about it and the
minutes of each meeting where it is discussed, we shouldn't have to do
any work here.

> Regarding the Wiki, in the first place I expect this to provide a  
> mechanism for authoring/editing the various documents that will make  
> up our deliverables; the resolution of issues will, of course, be  
> reflected here, but they are pretty much independent of the resolving  
> process. In the second place, it may make sense to use the Wiki if  
> the resolution process involves collaborative technical work, or if  
> someone wants to set out a position/proposal in more detail than can  
> be conveniently contained in an email.

I'm torn about whether issues should live in the wiki or in tracker.
Ideally, the two could be integrated.  (They are both MySQL+PHP apps,
and MediaWiki has a nice plugin architecture.)  For now, I can see just
using tracker or just using the Wiki.  (I could probably also be
convinced that should just use google code's issue tracker; I'm flexible
here.)

If I had to decide today, I'd say let's just use tracker for now.  We
can migrate to the Wiki, or to something integrated, later, if it seems
worthwhile.  We should have a tracker installation available for us to
use in a couple of days.  (Sorry, I should have requested it earlier.)

    -- Sandro
Received on Friday, 12 October 2007 17:56:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:13:26 GMT