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: Ralph R. Swick <swick@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 16:22:47 -0500
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20050218160435.025e58a0@127.0.0.1>
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>, Alistair Miles <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
Cc: public-swbp-wg@w3.org

At 11:09 AM 2/18/2005 -0500, Dan Brickley wrote:
>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.

I suspect there may be interest in a vocabulary of the kind that
SKOS is with W3C Recommendation status.  One way to gather
such feedback is to publish the working drafts.  The more
traditional way is to write a WG charter and get the community
of W3C Advisory Representatives to consider that specific question
up-front.  The traditional way works well when the community of
users is well-represented (or at least well-respected) within the
community of W3C Advisory Representatives.

> 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.

SWBPD does have the authority within its charter to propose
Working Drafts intended to become Proposed Recommendations
(that is, to do Recommendation Track work).

I have it on authority [1] of Ian Jacobs, editor of the W3C Process Document,
that the Working Group is free to make a "first Public Working Draft" stating
the expectation for the WD to become a Working Group Note and
subsequently publish another "first Public Working Draft" with a
different expectation -- e.g., to become a Proposed Recommendation.

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/process-issues/2005Feb/0002.html
(a Member-only archive, sorry)

> 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).

Yes.  I suspect that the effort to produce a Proposed Recommendation
and carry through the review cycle will require more time than that which
remains in the current WG charter.  It might become more efficient to
propose to charter a SKOS Working Group at such time as a REC
appears to be justified.

>I'd like to better understand the TF's view...
...
>If the TF do agree with [6 points], I suggest we find a short form 
>of words to add to the document Status section.

Thank you for taking up this action.  I would much prefer that the
TF document its expectations and aspirations and get the WG
concurrent on record than my putting words into your collective
mouths as I started to do in [2] while preparing the SKOS Core
Guide for first public working draft.

[2] http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core/guide/2005-02-15#Status
Received on Friday, 18 February 2005 21:47:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:17:15 GMT