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: <>
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

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 UTC

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