W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swbp-wg@w3.org > February 2005

Re: [PORT] SKOS Core Guide to 1st WD - target is a WG Note

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 11:09:18 -0500
To: "Ralph R. Swick" <swick@w3.org>
Cc: "Miles, AJ (Alistair)" <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>, public-swbp-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <20050218160916.GV11010@homer.w3.org>

* Ralph R. Swick <swick@w3.org> [2005-02-14 15:48-0500]
> At 06:13 PM 2/8/2005 +0000, Miles, AJ (Alistair) wrote:
> >I propose to move the SKOS Core Guide [1] to first working draft status.
> ...
> >[1] http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core/guide/
> I omitted the second point I had intended to make.
> It is important that the Working Group state -- in the Status of this Document
> section -- what it intends to be the end result of this Working Draft.  For
> example, the OEP Working Drafts say
>   "This document is intended to be a part of a future W3C Working
>   Group Note that will provide an introduction and overview of all
>   ontology design patterns..."
> The key words there are "future W3C Working Group Note".
> No one remembered to raise this question at the last WG telecon,
> and as the Task Force did not specifically suggest that it wants
> SKOS to be considered for proposal as a W3C Recommendation,
> I am guessing that most folk assumed that the SKOS documents
> were also headed to become WG Notes.
> Please add another sentence to the second paragraph of the Status
> section indicating (for example) that this document is intended to be
> part of a set of W3C Working Group Notes describing a simple
> vocabulary for expressing controlled vocabularies.

While I can happily live with Note, and it may prove to be the best thing, I 
have a hunch (which won't go away) that what we have here may be worthy
of the REC track. If it is possible (@@ref to a ralph msg i can't find) to re-track
SKOS at a later date by publishing a new "REC-track" 1st WD (and triggering 
Patent Policy stuff at that point), I would like us to bear that in mind
as we consider user and especially W3C Member feedback on the SKOS
documents. If the Task Force, and the WG, believe in the light of the 
feedback on our first WDs that this could be REC-track material; and 
believes it has the resources/energy to achieve it, let's reconsider the 
matter then (and raise w/ SW Coordination Group etc as appropriate).

I'd like to better understand the TF's view...

Do the SKOS TF agree with me that:

(treating the 3 SKOS WDs uniformly, to simply the question...)

 * our working assumption is that SKOS is headed for Note
 * we believe SKOS may have REC-track potential
 * don't currently have evidence that REC track is appropriate
   or feasible
 * would be happy to achieve Note; but would like to monitor 
   possibility for subsequent re-publication as a REC-track WD 
   (w/ attendant Process obligations, and w/ SWCG guidance)
 * we should study SKOS's reception in user communities (eg.
   digital library) and amongst W3C Membership re value of 
   a W3C REC in this area
 * we should revisit this question after Note-track WDs are 
   published; the default path being continuation to Note.

If the TF do agree with this, I suggest we find a short form 
of words to add to the document Status section. Perhaps:

As stated above, the Working Group intends this document
to result in a [Working Group Note]. The group have discussed
the potential for SKOS to evolve into possible future 
[Recommendation-track] work items, and would value 
feedback on the level of formal standardization that is 
appropriate for SKOS-like technology. While the Working Group 
expectation is that SKOS will become a Working Group 
Note, previous W3C Groups have reorganised their deliverables
based on deployment experience and feedback from the W3C Membership.

I hope this captures a sense that a REC-track SKOS would be a 
new ('SKOS-like', etc) evolution of this work. Didn't get
into Process detail there, but I think it avoids promising too 
much, or soliciting an avalanche of SKOS-to-REC advocacy...


Received on Friday, 18 February 2005 16:09:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:09:42 UTC