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

Re: Agenda ProfGui October 17

From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2018 08:36:25 +0200
To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <d5564f60-6b18-bbb2-e918-f1139988f267@kcoyle.net>
After taking a quick look at the draft, I think that we should remove
the content of the initial note [1] as 1) we have decided on a general
outline and 2) the links exist in the profile roundup if we need them in
the future and 3) the second part of that note relates to the profiles
ontology, not the guidance document.[2]

I suggest that we remove references to issue #417 [3] as that change has
been made in the text. (It could be moved to the bottom of the document
with other references to issues so as not to lose it, but we also have
the github labels if we need to see a grouping. We do need a way to keep
track of issues that have been addressed v those that have not.)

Issue 435 should be AFTER the header "What is a profile?" not before.
Also, the header does not appear in the table of contents and is not
numbered, so there is a formatting issue. Perhaps it means that we have
not decided that this is an actual section?

For the remainder, perhaps we can begin to work through the requirements
in the profile roundup document.[5] While these are not yet in a
finished state in the UCR document, they are up to date with the Google
Doc that is being used to feed into the UCR document. While some wording
may change, the sense of the requirements should be there.


[1] https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/242
[2] https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/323
[3] https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/417
[4] https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/435
[5] https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/ProfileRoundup

On 10/16/18 9:34 PM, Antoine Isaac wrote:
> Hi Nick, all
> First I certainly won't be able to attend the call as I'm traveling,
> sorry for that...
> So I'm going to write a couple of quick reaction on the agenda items
> (using the updated agenda now on the wiki, not the one in the original
> mail):
>>  Propose submission of guidance doc to Plenary for FPWD approval
> -1 . I've already said that I'm reluctant to moving anything to FPWD
> until we've cleaned our act on the requirements. I don't want us/you to
> spend time to answer comments about 'potential misalignments' which we
> know are being working on.
> I also feel that we've got not enough matter and it is still too much in
> flux to present for a public review. We're on a good track, but I sense
> that with the current rhythm is going to radically alter the draft.
> Especially with the F2F coming where I expect we'll add/fix a lot of
> things.
> FPWD are open for comments for quite a long time (a couple of months
> maybe?), it won't be good if we receive many comments on a version that
> will be soon outdated. And I don't see the point in having the group
> spend a lot of efforts for triggering comments on an outdated document.
>>             Review Guidance doc content generation in other places
>>                     Google Doc
>>                     GitHub Issues
> Very good move!
> In fact I believe that a FPWD shouldn't happen before at least two weeks
> after the completion of such an agenda item. It is typically going to
> create more work to add to a draft...
>>             Review GitHub issues presentation in Doc
>>                     Currently issues with long Descriptions hog space.
>> Can we replace such issues with ones with shorter descriptions?
> In the medium term why not. But for the moment I feel that we should
> rather spend on time trying to solve some of them - and actually having
> a good description of them in the draft helps, as many of them are very
> fresh and still of a manageable size.
> Cheers,
> Antoine
> Antoine
> On 16/10/2018 09:27, Car, Nicholas (L&W, Dutton Park) wrote:
>> https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/Meetings:ProfGui-Telecon2018.10.17
>> Main items:
>> - Propose submission of guidance doc to Plenary for FPWD approval
>> - Review Guidance doc content generation in other places
>> - Review GitHub issues presentation in Doc
>> Nick

Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234 (Signal)
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
Received on Wednesday, 17 October 2018 06:36:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:28:25 UTC