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

Re: Publication schedule for first public working drafts

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 16:01:26 +0100
Message-ID: <47177546.7040709@hpl.hp.com>
To: public-owl-wg@w3.org

Peter wrote

 > 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.


In my view, it is certainly possible to have sufficiently strong wording 
in the status of this document (SOTD) to the effect that these are not 
(yet) consensus documents but simply up for public comment.
In this case my concerns even about a document that I may otherwise wish 
to vote against (perhaps RDF Mapping) would be assuaged.

I wonder though if it is not more useful to publish documents which, 
while being in a direction for which there is consensus, are not 
consensus documents in their entirety.

As well as including appropriate SOTD text at the top of the document, 
the specific disagreements could be made explicit by adding links from 
some of the more contentious parts to the issue list.

I more easily see value in asking for public comment on parts where we 
have either agreement, or at least articulated disagreement.

If there are documents on which we have serious disagreement within the 
group, I think my preference would be to leave these as editors' drafts 
(i.e. not calling for public comment) in the first instance. I suspect 
we have enough agreement that we have plenty to publish within the 
heartbeat.

I certainly much prefer publishing non-consensus docs over missing the 
heartbeat requirement

Jeremy
Received on Thursday, 18 October 2007 15:02:01 GMT

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