Re: ACTION-2129: Find publications that went straight to note without review opportunity (Accessible Platform Architectures Working Group)

Here is a list of specs published in the last year that went to Note 
without an opportunity to review a draft in advance:

  * SHACL Advanced Features <https://www.w3.org/TR/shacl-af/> -
    indicates may move to CG so is by closing group?
  * SHACL JavaScript Extensions <https://www.w3.org/TR/shacl-js/> - same
    as above
  * Verifiable Claims Use Cases
    <https://www.w3.org/TR/verifiable-claims-use-cases/>
  * Cloud Browser Architecture
    <https://www.w3.org/TR/cloud-browser-arch/> - has WD flavor
  * Motion Sensors Explainer <https://www.w3.org/TR/motion-sensors/> -
    states "work in progress" yet is Note
  * QB4ST: RDF Data Cube extensions for spatio-temporal components
    <https://www.w3.org/TR/qb4st/> - later republished, but no
    indication in initial version whether this was planned.
  * Selectors and States <https://www.w3.org/TR/selectors-states/> -
    apparently closing out work from a killed-off WG
  * Embedding Web Annotations in HTML
    <https://www.w3.org/TR/annotation-html/> - apparently closing out
    work from a killed-off WG
  * CSS Snapshot 2017 <https://www.w3.org/TR/css-2017/> - though this
    one just amalgamates other specs
  * TTML Media Type Definition and Profile Registry
    <https://www.w3.org/TR/ttml-profile-registry/> - republished as Note
    several times, but no indication that republication was planned
  * Publishing and Using Earth Observation Data with the RDF Data Cube
    and the Discrete Global Grid System <https://www.w3.org/TR/eo-qb/> -
    status indicates it's to solicit comment, but unclear why it's not
    then a WD
  * Spatial Data on the Web Use Cases & Requirements
    <https://www.w3.org/TR/sdw-ucr/> - status actually says it's a FPWD
    but is tagged as Note; republished a couple times but not clear
    intended path
  * Web Payments Overview 1.0
    <https://www.w3.org/TR/webpayments-overview/> - indicates future
    versions planned, unclear why not a WD
  * Media Source Extensions Byte Stream Format Registry
    <https://www.w3.org/TR/mse-byte-stream-format-registry/> - status
    suggests it's an unstable specification, yet it's published as Note,
    may have been published to clear decks of a dying group, but not
    specified, and group was alive for 6 months after
  * MPEG-2 TS Byte Stream Format
    <https://www.w3.org/TR/mse-byte-stream-format-mp2t/> - same as above
  * MPEG Audio Byte Stream Format
    <https://www.w3.org/TR/mse-byte-stream-format-mpeg-audio/> - same as
    above
  * ISO BMFF Byte Stream Format
    <https://www.w3.org/TR/mse-byte-stream-format-isobmff/> - same as above
  * WebM Byte Stream Format
    <https://www.w3.org/TR/mse-byte-stream-format-webm/> - same as above
  * Encrypted Media Extensions Initialization Data Format Registry
    <https://www.w3.org/TR/eme-initdata-registry/> - same as above
  * "keyids" Initialization Data Format
    <https://www.w3.org/TR/eme-initdata-keyids/> - status suggests it's
    an unstable specification,yet it's published as a Note, was
    republished several times as Note
  * "webm" Initialization Data Format
    <https://www.w3.org/TR/eme-initdata-webm/> - same as above
  * "cenc" Initialization Data Format
    <https://www.w3.org/TR/eme-initdata-cenc/> - same as above
  * Encrypted Media Extensions Stream Format Registry
    <https://www.w3.org/TR/eme-stream-registry/> - same as above
  * ISO Common Encryption ('cenc') Protection Scheme for ISO Base Media
    File Format Stream Format <https://www.w3.org/TR/eme-stream-mp4/> -
    same as above
  * WebM Stream Format <https://www.w3.org/TR/eme-stream-webm/> - same
    as above
  * Content Security Policy Pinning <https://www.w3.org/TR/csp-pinning/>
    - states it's a dead doc but not why; the WG isn't dead
  * Entry Point Regulation <https://www.w3.org/TR/epr/> - same as above
  * Content Security Policy: Cookie Controls
    <https://www.w3.org/TR/csp-cookies/> - same as above
  * Digital Publishing and Accessibility in W3C Documents
    <http://www.w3.org/TR/dpub-accessibility/>

Takeaways:

  * 29 / 51 (57%) of Notes published in last year fell in this category
  * Notes that don't introduce new content, fine to go straight to note
  * Notes published by dying groups should explain that reason
  * Notes published to archive abandoned work should explain that reason
  * Notes that explicitly plan to iterate on review should be WDs not notes
  * Notes that use spec language should be on Rec track

Background for this action:

The reason this action was undertaken is Note is one of two end-states 
for document development in W3C Process. W3C Process allows multiple 
republication of Notes with the formalities of Recommendation 
development, and therefore does not require Working Draft review prior 
to Note publication. Yet certain types of Notes, such as use cases, 
requirements, and explainers may have content that is critical to later 
Rec-track work, and therefore horizontal review is needed. When 
documents are published as a Note without a prior version, it is 
difficult for reviewers to determine if there is a point to submitting 
comments, and this creates risks for later work.

Groups increasingly exploit the Note process to publish Notes that are 
actually drafts, perhaps to leave the possibility but avoid the 
commitment of a later version, or simply because they do not see the 
point of WD review. But this practice leads to the risks above. As the 
takeaways above indicates, some documents may be appropriate to publish 
as Notes without a prior WD, but they fit into a few specific categories 
and should be very clear about the reason (killing a group, abandoning a 
line of work, provide information that won't directly influence later 
work).

Documents that explicitly expect to incorporate comments and republish 
should not be published initially as Notes, and the Note process 
(particularly without review opportunities) also should not be used to 
define spec-like features without the protections of the Recommendation 
track process. We should explore how to socialize this principle or 
address it in the W3C Process.

Michael


On 2017-05-03 12:20 PM, Accessible Platform Architectures Working Group 
Issue Tracker wrote:
> ACTION-2129: Find publications that went straight to note without review opportunity (Accessible Platform Architectures Working Group)
>
> http://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/track/actions/2129
>
> On: Michael Cooper
> Due: 2017-05-10
>
> If you do not want to be notified on new action items for this group, please update your settings at:
> http://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/track/users/34017#settings
>