- From: tombaker via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2019 09:50:47 +0000
- To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
@rob-metalinkage The [UCR Note](https://www.w3.org/TR/dcat-ucr/) is indeed a fine and valuable piece of work. However, the "profile" tag used to tag requirements there refers not to PROF, but to the Guidance deliverable. Indeed, most of the requirements so tagged are quite orthogonal to the content of metadata about profiles. Please consider that all readers coming to PROF since the publication of the First Public Working Draft just eight months ago are "coming in late" to a process. W3C process, whereby issues are addressed formally, with resolution texts that explain WG decisions, actually provides an opportunity for a WG to explain its choices and articulate underlying assumptions. When formal responses to issues link to supporting documentation (meeting minutes, requirements in UCR, and the like), they build up an intellectual audit trail that others can follow to understand the rationale for a specification's design. For specifications on Rec track, W3C process sets a high bar for working groups to respond to issues and document WG consensus. WGs are supposed to seek out such comment, which also has the effect of demonstrating interest in a deliverable. It should by default be assumed that commenters are commenting in good faith. The burden is on creators of a Rec-track spec to ensure consensus. The burden does not lie with readers and commenters to "figure out how to meet the requirements any other way", as you suggest above. @kcoyle has recently reminded us of the [agreed process for closing issues](https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dxwg-wg/2019Aug/0276.html) in the WG. If you do not agree with this process, PROF could more easily and quickly be published as a WG Note. Whether the specification were a Recommendation or WG Note would have no impact on its usability. -- GitHub Notification of comment by tombaker Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/749#issuecomment-524797994 using your GitHub account
Received on Monday, 26 August 2019 09:50:49 UTC