- From: Uschold, Michael F <michael.f.uschold@boeing.com>
- Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 11:28:39 -0800
- To: <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>
I started browsing the different task forces to review their objectives and get updated on the progress, and get the abbreviation used in the email headers (e.g. XSCH, WNET). I found that things are not all up to date and consistent - thus making it difficult to dive in and get the information I wanted. This would be worse for an outsider coming in. Would it be a good idea to tighten things up a bit? More significantly, there is a lot of variety in the style, completeness and uptodate-ness of the descriptions for the TFs. Not everyone needs to look exactly the same, but it would be helpful if they were structured in a broadly similar way. For example: * Members * Overview and Objectives * Current activities, status, updates. * Strategy, Approach, Scope * Notes and Drafts: current, planned, possible topics etc. * Links to relevant material. * Dependencies * Target Audience and Use Cases Most have some of the above. Several seem to be based off the same template, others are done differently. Here were a few quick observations: OEP: no overview and objectives. WNET: nothing on Notes and Drafts XSCH: the description link points to the email list, not a description. HTML: there is no description link at all An extremely minor point, the wordnet abbreviation WNET is not there. The entry could be changed to: WNET - WordNET description <http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/WNET/tf> | search archive <http://www.w3.org/Search/Mail/Public/search?hdr-1-name=subject&hdr-1-qu ery=%5BWNET%5D&index-grp=Public__FULL&index-type=t&type-index=public-swb p-wg> MIke
Received on Thursday, 27 January 2005 19:29:15 UTC