- From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
- Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2018 08:39:04 -0700
- To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
Antoine, Most definitely, if anyone has thoughts already on profile requirements they can toss them into github - and we can pull them in during the f2f discussion. That way those ideas don't get lost. I would especially recommend that anyone who is not going to be physically present at the f2f take some time to record their comments. (I'll probably add some myself because I tend to be forgetful ;-)). My gut feeling is that our final "guidelines" will have few "MUST"s and many more "it's a good idea to ...". I suppose that a best case scenario would be to be able to define a few clear best practices, but we'll have to see if we can arrive at consensus on those. Another possibility is that we use a section of the guidelines document to record information on current practices, perhaps showing that a variety of approaches are workable. I think all of this is on the table and we should brainstorm freely before making decisions. kc On 4/25/18 3:04 AM, Antoine Isaac wrote: > Hi Karen, > > Impressive work. > Would it help if we start discussing these requirements before > discussing the definition again? > > We've got various definition pieces floating around. There might be > discrepancies, but they're probably not that big - we had a resolution > on Rob's definition after all. And if there are discrepencies, maybe it > would be easier to iron them out in the light of the requirements, > rather than in theory? > Who knows, maybe there some parts of a general profile definition that > can be left vague, because there's just no requirement to make them more > precise - and no case where an extensive theoretical clarification on > these parts would bring a concrete benefit. > > Cheers, > > Antoine > > On 24/04/18 19:16, Karen Coyle wrote: >> I added to github what I think is the full set of profile requirements >> that need to be discussed at f2f3. You can find them with the label >> "f2f3". PLEASE COMMENT IF YOU HAVE IDEAS ABOUT THESE. >> >> Background: >> >> At f2f2 we stumbled as we tried to go over the requirements for profile >> definitions and we deferred making decisions on the profiles listed >> under section 6.8.1 of the UCR.[1] The reason for deferring these was >> that we were unclear on the scope of the deliverable listed as "Guidance >> for Application Profiles". [2] The 6.8.1 requirements are listed in the >> spreadsheet under 6.1. [3] >> >> The upcoming f2f is to help us clarify what we mean by "profile" and >> what we will take on as "profile guidance" as a deliverable. (The >> charter's definition is quite brief [4].) The suggestion of the >> co-chairs is that we use the first part of the meeting to achieve >> consensus on our thoughts about profiles and what that means in terms of >> the deliverable, after which we can review the profile requirements that >> have not yet been approved and make decisions on those. >> >> Looking at these requirements today you can see that there were a >> variety of definitions in play, and they are not necessarily compatible. >> This discussion may result in a modification of use cases as well as our >> list of requirements. Ideally we will come out of the meeting with an >> understanding of the Guidance deliverable that we can complete within >> the working group's time frame, and at least the beginnings of a >> subgroup of editors who can work on the deliverable. >> >> The co-chairs >> >> [1] https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/ucr/#RPFDF >> [2] https://www.w3.org/2017/11/10-dxwg-minutes#meeting, look at the >> section after "RESOLVED: accept 6.37..." >> [3] >> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16JmtNCz_aCWtTCSntriDWLvyPY2x-Y9dZFhAHFl55r0/edit#gid=0 >> >> [4] https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/charter#deliverables >> > > -- Karen Coyle kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net m: 1-510-435-8234 (Signal) skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
Received on Wednesday, 25 April 2018 15:39:33 UTC