W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swd-wg@w3.org > February 2007

Re: tracker 'states' proposal

From: Jon Phipps <jphipps@madcreek.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 08:33:23 -0500
Message-ID: <34b5049c0702270533g64dd781bs71a031752e88784f@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Ralph R. Swick" <swick@w3.org>
Cc: "SWD Working Group" <public-swd-wg@w3.org>

Ralph,

re: "> I might also expect that
> son-of-tracker might permit some individual customization
> by each WG but the intent would be to have a base vocabulary
> that is common to all WGs."

I obviously hesitated quite a bit before saying this, but...

This looks to me like an excellent use case for a machine-readable thesaurus.

In my experience this type of requirement pops up fairly frequently in
software design. Even if we don't formalize this as a SKOS use case
(too late isn't it?), it might be interesting to both the designers of
son-of-tracker and this WG to think about how SKOS might serve the
interests of both individual flexibility in WG workflow terminology
and the coherent cross-WG reporting that meets The Director's needs.

--Jon

On 2/20/07, Ralph R. Swick <swick@w3.org> wrote:
> At 01:04 PM 2/20/2007 -0500, Jon Phipps wrote:
> >>From the Tracker Feature Page:
> ><http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/features#request>http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/features#request
> >
> >"Planned
>
> Take all that with a large grain of salt.
>
> Responsiblity for the tracker project is moving from Dean Jackson,
> tracker's author, to the W3C Systems Team.  The expectation is
> that tracker or its successor will become one of the formally
> supported W3C tools after that transition.
>
> >I'd like to suggest that it might be most useful to allow each working group to define their own 'states' vocabulary, for both actions and issues, for tracking their products.
>
> I would expect that the vocabulary will undergo review during
> or shortly after this transition.  I might also expect that
> son-of-tracker might permit some individual customization
> by each WG but the intent would be to have a base vocabulary
> that is common to all WGs.  Part of the function at which
> son-of-tracker is targeted is reducing the effort required in
> Director's meetings when a WG requests a transition to
> a new maturity level.  The Systems Team is tasked to develop
> tools that help meet the Director's expectations with respect
> to documentation of issues status at those transition meetings.
>
> >And as long as we're on the subject, although much lower priority, it would also be useful to have:
> >* An 'Owner' field exactly like the 'Raised By' field in the Issues Detail
> >* A 'Related Issue' field in the Actions Detail
> >
> >And then of course it would be nice to be able to see:
> >* A hyperlinked list of related actions in the Issue Detail
> >* A linkable Person detail that would show all of my Issues raised and owned, and actions assigned
>
> These are all useful additions to the tracker wish list, thanks.
> I will try to make sure they're not forgotten as the transition
> proceeds.
>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 27 February 2007 13:33:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:17:28 GMT