W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-dxwg-wg@w3.org > June 2018

Re: [dxwg] Profile Composition and Languages

From: Simon Cox via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2018 07:50:51 +0000
To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-399737153-1529826650-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
@kcoyle wrote:
> Also, all work must follow the W3C process, which moves from use cases to requirements to problem statements and then solutions, all done through open meetings of group members, agendas, minutes, assigned actions and consensus on solutions. 

Certainly this is a common and good practice, but I disagree that strictly "We cannot work backward from solutions that have been developed outside of this process." Sometimes prototype solutions are the most efficient way to document requirements. 

Looking at the W3C process document [1] I see no strict rule about how a WG operates. For example, there is no mention of use-cases. (Perhaps there is another document you are leaning on?) I certainly respect a process that starts with use cases and derives requirements before engineering a solution, but the waterfall method is not the only way to get results, and has its own well known risks.  

My understanding of the W3C process is that it is more permissive and flexible than this. Yes, all significant decisions should be documented. And Use Cases and derived Requirements can be important reference points, and are a common artefact in W3C work. But I don't even think that a formal UCR is strictly mandatory? As I understand it, each working-group is at liberty to decide on its own internal mode of operation. Other groups that I was involved in used the UCR to trigger the work, and to provide a check list for the outputs, but the outputs also included material that couldn't be strictly traced back to a specific use case, and during the process were also willing to consider ready-made solutions outside the UCR process. 

Perhaps you are suggesting that the DXWG has agreed to follow a strict process? Can you point to where this is recorded? Otherwise, I would suggest that there is no impediment to at least considering proposals that arise during the development of our work, even if they came from some parallel or external stream. 

[1] https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/ 

-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by dr-shorthair
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/162#issuecomment-399737153 using your GitHub account
Received on Sunday, 24 June 2018 07:51:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 30 October 2019 00:15:44 UTC