Re: [dxwg] Definitions in Profiles Ontology (#755)

@aisaac First, I apologize but I pointed to the wrong Google Doc - that one was about definitions for PROF properties and is much more extensive than the one for roles, which is [here](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ddygq4EcKr1DzJykdhM_WxkkmTAoU1qQWsf8xuZxcKc/edit).

Both Google Docs stopped being used when the 2pwd was issued without the questions raised there were resolved, as you can see in the document itself, which shows no conclusions. The roles and definitions included in the document do not reflect the discussion in the Google Doc (since the discussion there had obviously not reached a level of agreement). This is why I have been insisting that the roles question is not resolved because I see this as not following the necessary consensus process - the editors made decisions without getting consensus from the discussants. In my mind that renders the editors' decision moot. So we still need consensus on 1) what roles will be included in the document as the "basic set" and 2) how they are defined. The fact that roles were included in the document does not mean that this issue is resolved.

If I voted to allow the 2pwd to be published, I now regret this, because this fact itself should have resulted in a "no" vote due to lack of resolution by consensus. This is one of the substantial areas that must be resolved before any further publication. I do not want others to assume that the roles as written are the result of consensus. 

-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by kcoyle
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/755#issuecomment-525394156 using your GitHub account

Received on Tuesday, 27 August 2019 17:05:54 UTC