Re: Publication schedule for first public working drafts

On 17 Oct 2007, at 20:17, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:

>
> Hmm. Although the W3C process documents (in particular,
> http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#DocumentStatus)  
> back
> up Bijan's stance on the status of WDs, I don't know if I would  
> approve
> of making the webont documents directly into WDs

We can't make them directly into WD. We at least have to edit the  
status section. And they don't meet the current pubrules:
	<http://tinyurl.com/3c4pz>

The pub rules do a pretty good job of making sure that there's no  
confusion about the status of a document.

> without some sort of
> disclaimer, as I believe that there is the general perception that the
> default view of a WD

Is this general perception held by people who hold the default view?

> is that it is some sort of record of what a WG has
> done.

We will have subsequent WDs not too far off. So, I don't feel that  
too much worrying about possible but subtle perceptual downsides  
carry too much weight. If people go nuts, we can *say*, "it's just a  
wd; we wanted a clear starting point and to draw attention to the  
drafts for general review; untwist your knickers :)". I don't think  
they will, fwiw.

>   (This is not to say that I would vote against anything in the
> webont documents.)
>
> So my suggestion would be to turn the two+ webont documents into WDs
> very quickly, essentially verbatim, but to put strong wording in the
> document status section that these documents are in essence the  
> *inputs*
> to the WG and that the WG has published them to transition them to W3C
> control and to get community input on them during the time that the WG
> is making decisions on how they might be changed.

If this raises people's comfort level, I'm fine with this. I don't  
personally feel the need for anything more than a normal WD status  
with some text indicating that the old webont drafts are superceded  
by these and subsequent documents.

> I'm willing to put together wording to go into the document status
> section in preparation for an up-or-down vote on this at the next
> teleconference (24 October).

I'm happy to contribute as well.

> peter
>
> PS:  Are we going to hit a publication blackout snag in this plan?

I'd prefer to get it in before the blackout, but shortly after is ok  
as well.

Cheers,
Bijan.