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

Task Force Descriptions $swbpd

From: Uschold, Michael F <michael.f.uschold@boeing.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 11:28:39 -0800
Message-ID: <823043AB1B52784D97754D186877B6CF05F5D0D4@xch-nw-12.nw.nos.boeing.com>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:09:41 UTC