W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > June 2003

Action: review Jeremy's review of QA last call

From: <ewallace@cme.nist.gov>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 17:16:35 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200306112116.RAA21287@clue.msid.cme.nist.gov>
To: www-webont-wg@w3.org


At last week's telecon, I took an action to review Jeremy's comments [1] 
on the QA Guidelines LC document [2] as potential WOWG comments.  This has
been done sufficiently to answer the question.  My comments follow.

*****

I would not recommend sending in Jeremy's exact comments on the QA
Guidelines as comments from WebOnt.  There are several issues:

- the message rolled together concerns of RDFcore and WebOnt;
- it addressed issues in an overly terse fashion (as advertised, 
it was a quick review);
- comments regarding conformance statements may not reflect WOWG
consensus (although I am probably an outlier on this issue);
- I didn't find that the evidence provided in the message 
strongly supported the thesis that the QA document is unhelpful.

Unfortunately, it also doesn't appear a quick job to transform Jeremy's
message into a form that could be used as WebOnt comments.  Even so, I
have been reading the QA Guidelines document in hopes of either
turning Jeremy's message into actionable comments to the QA group or
of convincing myself that the QA document is indeed, unhelpful.  So
far I believe the document has some problems, but it also provides
useful guidance, particularly in the area of specification subsetting.

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Apr/0158.html
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-qaframe-spec-20030210/

Evan K. Wallace
Manufacturing Systems Integration Division
NIST
ewallace@nist.gov
Received on Wednesday, 11 June 2003 17:16:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:01 GMT