W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org > February 2008

Re: Requirements for RDFa Last Call Working Draft

From: Ralph R. Swick <swick@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 14:58:44 -0500
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20080213143158.03ca4b18@127.0.0.1>
To: <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>

Thanks for posting this, Manu.  I've been booked solid in meetings since
yesterday's WG call so I appreciate you getting to this quickly.

At 12:20 PM 2/12/2008 -0500, Manu Sporny wrote:

>The RDFa last call working draft vote didn't happen today because there
>were a couple of things that we didn't do:
>
>1. Every comment that Ed and Diego made needed to be addressed, point by
>   point, by updating the draft and replying to their e-mails with links
>   to the draft sections where the changes were made.

This shouldn't require duplicated effort; the goal is to let the
commentors and the rest of the WG go quickly through a checklist
of items and see the disposition of each one (done, needs
discussion, alternative language proposed, or whatever else
may be appropriate.)

If the disposition is 'done, by adding the following language ...'
then copy-and-paste from the new editors' draft is a quick way
to build the response.

When I've been a document editor, I've found it easiest to compose
the response to the simple editorial things while having the
document open for editing.   Anything that requires discussion in
the Task Force should be given a new message with a unique
subject line so we can thread the discussion on that specific item.

Those among us who aren't editors for the Syntax document can
help by working in parallel to find and cite the discussion record
of any points that we think warrant a 'no change; here's why it is
the way it is' response. I believe Manu is offering to do this :)

>2. We needed to get "explicit consent" from both Diego and Ed to state
>   that the changes made to the draft were okay, and they're fine with
>   the draft being submitted for last call. This can be done in an
>   e-mail to the SWD mailing list.

Clearly, the easier we make it for Diego, Ed, and the rest of the
WG to find the disposition for each comment the faster this will go.

>3. An "official" e-mail needed to come from either Ben or one of the
>   Editors asking the SWD group to publish the draft as a public
>   last call working draft.

This is the signal that the editors (and task force) believe they
have responded to all the outstanding WG comments.

>4. The draft needs to mention that it is a last call working draft AND
>   specify the deadline for comments. The normal period for feedback is
>   4-6 weeks and should specify the dates.

The WG specifically asks the Task Force to recommend a duration
for Last Call review comments.  The WG -- both of them -- have the
responsibility to decide this, but we're asked for our recommendation.

Looking at a calendar, if the resolution to go to Last Call can be
made on 19 Feb (the formal act should be a resolution to request
Last Call transition; see Transition Requirements [1], cited from
Art of Consensus [2]; select the 'Last Call Working Draft' view)
and the document is published later that week, then 6 weeks
puts us just 2 weeks before the WWW2008 conference and one
week before our April publishing moratorium [3].

The Working Group is expected to have negotiated the last call
review schedule with the Chairs of any other group that has
dependencies on this work.  I don't think any other W3C groups
are basing their schedule on RDFa last call but it would be in order
to send a message to the chairs list to confirm this.  Conversely,
RDFa is formally dependent only on the SWD and XHTML2 Working
Groups for review and we've been managing that coordination
all along through this task force.  The same message to the
chairs list can ask if any other group has explicit plans to
submit a review.

Ideally, one of the WG chairs (Guus, Tom, Roland, or Steven)
would post that message to the chairs list.  I'm willing to draft
it for them but we should talk at tomorrow's telecon about what
our schedule proposal should be.

   [1] http://www.w3.org/Guide/transitions 
   [2] http://www.w3.org/Guide/
   [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/chairs/2007OctDec/0102.html

>We need to do these things before the SWD call on next Tuesday -
>preferably, we need to do these things ASAP so Ed and Diego can accept
>the changes, as if they don't, it'll block the vote again.
>
>Ralph, is all of the above your reading on why RDFa didn't go to last
>call today?

The main delaying issue is that the Working Group could not
clearly verify which document changes are or are not being made.
Received on Wednesday, 13 February 2008 19:59:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 13 February 2008 19:59:19 GMT