W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-dwbp-wg@w3.org > January 2015

Re: A suggestion: Add status flags to BPs?

From: Carlos Iglesias <carlos.iglesias.moro@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 15:07:23 +0100
Message-ID: <CAAa1XzkaG42vdvdk6ZKLw+HPZhAXfX_s6EMQZJuDdQY0LAwdHw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bernadette Farias Lóscio <bfl@cin.ufpe.br>
Cc: Eric Stephan <ericphb@gmail.com>, Ghislain Atemezing <auguste.atemezing@eurecom.fr>, Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>, "public-dwbp-wg@w3.org" <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
I really think there are other examples (some gathered in my previous huge
email with the global doc review)
Also references to OWL; RDF; Linked Data; Ontologies; SKOS; RDF Schema,
Vocabularies; etc. etc. are present all around the document outside
techniques' sections,and I think that being basically SW/LD jargon not
frequently used/understood outside the LD world those shouldn't be there
and we should look for a more global discourse in general.

On 23 January 2015 at 14:38, Bernadette Farias Lóscio <bfl@cin.ufpe.br>
wrote:

> Hello Carlos,
>
> Antoine included a specific issue about the technological bias of
> BP15: Choose a right formalization level. Would you like to have a
> more general issue or this should be enough? I don't think that other
> vocabulary BP have a technological bias (outside implementation
> techniques).
>
> The introduction of the section was rewritten and IMO there is no
> technological bias (the introduction gives a general explanation about
> vocabularies).
>
> Thanks!
> Bernadette
>
> 2015-01-23 10:14 GMT-03:00 Carlos Iglesias <carlos.iglesias.moro@gmail.com
> >:
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > I also like Phil's idea of setting status-flags, but at the same time
> agree
> > with Bernadette in the fact that is very unlikely we will be able to
> make it
> > today (30+ BPs, that's about 1,5 min to vote and decide on each)
> >
> > As Eric I also think that's it is not so bad having something quite
> > incomplete to start gathering feedback. That may be useful to help
> clarify
> > some issues where we don't have clear internal consensus as well. The
> only
> > problem I see is that is usually made when one has clearly identified
> > conflicting areas. If we think about just publishing a draft with a
> global
> > note saying "this is still immature and everything may be changing in the
> > future" then IMO it is not the right moment to publish yet.
> >
> > I have also concerns with respect to publishing anything where group
> members
> > are clearly positioned against. I think that for that cases we should be
> > trying to solve those issues before, or at least clearly identify them as
> > open issues in the relevant parts of the document.
> >
> > In my specific case the two thing I don't think really confortable with
> > publishing right now are:
> >
> > - The technological bias in several parts of the document (outside
> > implementation techniques), and specially in the vocabularies section.
> > - Most of the techniques at the preservation section and the underlying
> > "data archiving" concept as well.
> >
> > My 2cents.
> > Best,
> >  CI
> >
> > On 23 January 2015 at 13:47, Bernadette Farias Lóscio <bfl@cin.ufpe.br>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Phil,
> >>
> >> I like the idea of rating BP, but I'm afraid that's gonna be hard to
> >> make such rating now (we can always try). I'm not sure if we can say
> >> to people that a BP may be tested if we didn't make any test
> >> ourselves.
> >>
> >> Maybe we can add a note on the introduction of the BP section to
> >> reinforce that this a draft and some BP are unstable and need to be
> >> tested, and people are welcome to give feedback about our proposals.
> >>
> >> +1 to Eric!
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Bernadette
> >>
> >>
> >> 2015-01-23 9:15 GMT-03:00 Eric Stephan <ericphb@gmail.com>:
> >> >>> I don’t see how we can use the “unstable” flag at the time we
> release
> >> >>> the
> >> >>> document as FPWD. It would be preferable to keep the “unstable” ones
> >> >>> in our
> >> >>> back-end/wiki/work-in-progress status .
> >> >
> >> > Ghislain,
> >> >
> >> > Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but this is a draft.   Even conveying an
> >> > unstable BP might still be useful.   In the case of the BP on privacy
> >> > I'd
> >> > rather rate that as unstable until we've had a chance to get feedback
> >> > from
> >> > W3C privacy activity and other groups.
> >> >
> >> > Eric S
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 4:00 AM, Ghislain Atemezing
> >> > <auguste.atemezing@eurecom.fr> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Hi Phil,
> >> >>
> >> >> Le 23 janv. 2015 à 12:32, Phil Archer <phila@w3.org> a écrit :
> >> >>
> >> >> *However* I have a suggestion that I hope might be useful. As well as
> >> >> the
> >> >> issues that are raised in the doc, I think we could add a flag to
> each
> >> >> BP
> >> >> that would follow the (well known among some) pattern of
> >> >>
> >> >> - Unstable (don't trust this one folks!)
> >> >> - Testing (what do you think? Any implementation feedback you can
> give
> >> >> us?)
> >> >> - Stable (we think we're done)
> >> >>
> >> >> (see http://www.w3.org/2003/06/sw-vocab-status/ns)
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> These are quite good options to look at during the next teleconf.
> >> >> However,
> >> >> looking at the process of standardization, I presume that releasing a
> >> >> FPWD
> >> >> means “hey folks there, we need your feedback”, that almost meaning
> all
> >> >> our
> >> >> BPs sections are in “testing” flag. And getting to “recommendation”
> >> >> will
> >> >> means we have all the BP “stable”. What I mean is that, I don’t see
> how
> >> >> we
> >> >> can use the “unstable” flag at the time we release the document as
> >> >> FPWD. It
> >> >> would be preferable to keep the “unstable” ones in our
> >> >> back-end/wiki/work-in-progress status .
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Cheers,
> >> >> Ghislain
> >> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Bernadette Farias Lóscio
> >> Centro de Informática
> >> Universidade Federal de Pernambuco - UFPE, Brazil
> >>
> >>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > ---
> >
> > Carlos Iglesias.
> > Internet & Web Consultant.
> > +34 687 917 759
> > contact@carlosiglesias.es
> > @carlosiglesias
> > http://es.linkedin.com/in/carlosiglesiasmoro/en
>
>
>
> --
> Bernadette Farias Lóscio
> Centro de Informática
> Universidade Federal de Pernambuco - UFPE, Brazil
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>



-- 
---

Carlos Iglesias.
Internet & Web Consultant.
+34 687 917 759
contact@carlosiglesias.es
@carlosiglesias
http://es.linkedin.com/in/carlosiglesiasmoro/en
Received on Friday, 23 January 2015 14:07:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:39:31 UTC