W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > August 2002

Re: status of http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 07:36:13 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <20020829.073613.125099698.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org

From: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Subject: Re: status of http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 13:05:33 +0200

> 
> 
> Peter:
> > This would be OK by me, as long as rejected tests were removed upon their
> > rejection and as long as tests were only approved under the conditions
> > above.
> 
> A peculiarity of W3C's web site is that content is not removed, ever.
> This appears to be a non-negotaible site policy.

This is precisely WHY tests should be placed on the site without WG
approval.

[...]

> Possible machine generated clean test deliverables are:
> + a new directory with only approved tests in it

This would be acceptable, as long as it was in at least as prominent a
place as the current test directory AND the current test directory was
clearly marked as obsolete and never-approved.

> + a document including inline all the approved tests
> (this could be the bulk of an OWL Test Cases WD)

I don't think that this is necessary, but it would be nice.

> + index files for all the directories in the test case directory that only
> point to approved tests and hide rejected tests.

This would not be acceptable to me as it still would be possible to get at
the test cases directly.

> I think a process document might help, if I were to create one it would
> essentially be a second draft of:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Jul/0101.html

Yes, this would be useful.  For starters, pointing to the content of this
message from the WG web page would be very useful.

> however I have no desire to try and police Dan and Jos - a thankless task!

Well, the WG, and the test subgroup in particular, is supposed to be
working on a rational way of creating, approving, and maintaining tests.
This appears to be part of their task.

> Thus I tend to feel that the Test Cases WD with clear editorial
> responsibility is the best way to end up with a clean test deliverable.

Yes, but the test directory would also have to match the policies in the
WD.  

Right now we have the worst of all possible worlds - no policy and no
control at all.

> Jeremy

peter
Received on Thursday, 29 August 2002 07:36:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:51 GMT