W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swbp-wg@w3.org > June 2004

Re: [VM,ALL] Revised VM Task Force description

From: Thomas Baker <thomas.baker@bi.fhg.de>
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 19:53:05 +0200
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: Thomas Baker <thomas.baker@izb.fraunhofer.de>, SW Best Practices <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20040624175305.GA2020@Octavius>

On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 06:10:36PM +0100, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
> >Hmm, if you mean the notion of Namespace Owner, this is
> >something I find in the Proposed TAG Finding on Versioning
> >XML Languages [1], Section 7.2: "Only Namespace Owners Change
> >Namespace" (capitalized in the original).  I am new to W3C
> >process so would like to clarify the extent to which we need
> >to ensure that a SWBPD note is consistent with other W3C work
> >(such as TAG Findings).
> 
> I had missed that, there is also a mailing list public-sw-meaning@w3.org
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sw-meaning/2004Jun/
> which addresses some of these issues.

Thank you - noted.

> >In fact, if we could clarify that question, we could then 
> >tighten up the current section on "Dependencies" (below), which
> >is really a growing bibliography more than a Dependency section
> >in the stricter sense.
> 
> Calling it a 'bibliography' in the TF desc may be clearer.

Hmm, the TF description template calls for Dependencies -
maybe the current bibliography should be moved out of the
description and into a first draft...?

> >[1] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/versioning/
> 
> There is a bug with the ACLs you have to use:
> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/versioning

Well spotted; I overcorrected it.

> Hmmm, the status indicates that this is not yet a consensus document - 
> this issue is, in my experience, a minefield.
> 
> What we did in RDF Core with related issues on social meaning was put up 
> a document which had WG consensus [1], that got trashed in public review 
> [2], and we withdrew the section that did not have consensus.
> 
> [1]
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-rdf-concepts-20030123/#section-Meaning
> [2]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0366
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0486
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/meetings/tech-200303/social-meaning
> 
> Comment 0486 was accepted by the WG
> 
> I am a little concerned that some of the scope of this TF risks similar 
> trashing, and wonder whether the deliverables can be staggered with less 
> contentious ones first.

That's why I think it is necessary for the note to have both
a Section 3 ("good practice" - the stuff we agree on and
express as principles) and a Section 4 ("evolving practice").
If a given point is contentious, we should perhaps lower our
sights and aim simply at describing the issues in Section 4.

Tom

-- 
Dr. Thomas Baker                        Thomas.Baker@izb.fraunhofer.de
Institutszentrum Schloss Birlinghoven         mobile +49-160-9664-2129
Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft                          work +49-30-8109-9027
53754 Sankt Augustin, Germany                    fax +49-2241-144-2352
Personal email: thbaker79@alumni.amherst.edu
Received on Thursday, 24 June 2004 13:53:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:09:39 UTC