W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-arch@w3.org > May 2002

Re: [USTF] minutes of USTF con call 23-May 2002

From: Dave Hollander <dmh@contivo.com>
Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 13:01:38 -0700
Message-ID: <BD52C6379806D51188DD00508BEEC96C9ACE8A@mail.contivo.com>
To: www-ws-arch@w3.org

Two minor clarifications:

1) any statement I made in DaveO's behalf was clearly and repeatedly 
   disclaimed as my understanding and should be treated with utmost caution.
   The scribe tried to capture this in the parenthetical but it may not
   be clear that the parenthetical was mine, not the scribes.
   > Dave H: Dave O's perspective is that we need to nail down how
   > things work.
   > (Dave O may not agree with this perspective)

   I always fear when speaking for anyone else, it far too easy 
   to misrepresent. But, the timing was unfortunate that the author,
   DaveO, was not able to attend the first meeting and I did not want 
   to waste time.

2) I believe speed is of the essence.

> DaveH: If we consider what has to be done first, and start with the 
> functional level group, then we could work on ratifying the lower
> level ones and use the two higher level ones as examples. This is our
> fastest way to get to publishable drafts.
Naming aside, I intended this to say, for speed and focus reasons, 
we should concentrate on the capabilities in 
DaveO's draft and use the work of Roger and Hugo to help understand 
its impact and completeness (scope of coverage).

We have two written application-level documents that are of interest
to many people, including many of those who were on the call. My primary
goals in the conversation were to find a way to combine efforts in
supportive and streamlined fashion and reach agreement on "the fastest
way to get publishable drafts".

3) As for the level of detail and template discussions, I also agree with
responses. We need "just enough fromality": the level of formality must 
not be so high as to prevent it use or waste time. The interesting thing 
that I observed is that the two application level documents we reviewed 
use the same template in similar ways. 

My questions and comments were trying to see if two
data points indicated a trend. The questions were also trying to 
understand if the authors found the template helped clarify their
thinking or just created roadblocks. My understanding of the 
answers was that they found the template useful and helped to
focus their efforts. If I understand correctly, then I would call
the template useful and effective.

Dave Hollander
dmh @ contivo.com
Received on Thursday, 30 May 2002 16:06:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:40:56 UTC