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

Here's an example of the discussion about definitions ([G-Doc](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1q8OTx2FxIapCCuNPIDnGYl_kzvJBLT2eAn4Zp6JHrUI/edit#heading=h.31ewniln6zbi)):

>hasToken:
Definition
Current: A property for identifying this Profile for use in APIs

>Karen (Issue 755): An identifying short name for the profile
Andrea (Issue 453 (comment)): The preferred token for identifying a Profile, alternatively to its URI
Makx An alternative identifier for the Profile
Heidi (Issue 723): requesting removal of circularity

>Proposed:
A preferred alternative identifier for the Profile 

> (plus assorted G-Doc comments)

It is not clear in the Google doc who wrote the "proposed" so I can't see how that got there, but that is what was entered into the PWD. I'd have to dig through the G-Doc history but I'm pretty sure that there was no notice to commenters between the writing of the "proposed" versions and the update to the WD, and my recollection is that the time between them was a matter of days.  It's pretty clear that this wasn't the wording that anyone in the discussion actually proposed. I discovered the changes somewhat by accident because I returned to the G-Doc to see how things were going - and found that decisions had been made.

Throughout the G-Doc there are comments and questions and generally few closed agreements. There are no +1's on the "proposed" texts. So it is very hard to consider them legitimate. And this is a simple example - the others are often more complex with lots of side comments. (Getting it all into github issues would be a lot of work, so I'm hoping we can figure out a less heavy way to work on this.)

Obviously, having clear definitions is a #1 task for any standards document, so this isn't a trivial issue.

-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by kcoyle
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/755#issuecomment-525453712 using your GitHub account

Received on Tuesday, 27 August 2019 19:44:14 UTC