W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-esw-thes@w3.org > April 2005

Re: [PORT] Proposed management process for SKOS Core

From: Ralph R. Swick <swick@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 12:57:09 -0400
Message-Id: <>
To: "Miles, AJ (Alistair)" <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
Cc: <public-esw-thes@w3.org>, <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>

At 04:39 PM 4/21/2005 +0100, Miles, AJ (Alistair) wrote:
>[Tom Baker's] concern was that the SKOS Core Vocabulary could be modified in the period between publication of working drafts by the SWBPD-WG (hereafter 'the WG').  This would mean that a person/agent dereferencing the SKOS Core Vocabulary could get something different from the latest 'official' publication from the WG.  There would then arise confusion as to which resources provided 'the authoritative' description of the SKOS Core Vocabulary.

You are referring here to modifications of the namespace document,
I believe.  Am I correct?

>We both agreed that the W3C process for publishing documents (periodic publication of public working drafts) is not best suited to the development of RDF vocabularies.

In what way?  A Working Draft is exactly that -- a document that informs the
community of work in progress.  The Working Draft may state that the
content of the namespace document is subject to change between
versions of the Working Draft and can advise readers as to which
should be considered authoritative and for what purposes.

>So I propose the following:
>(1) The WG periodically reviews the 'SKOS Core Guide' and 'SKOS Core Vocabulary Specification', and publishes new public working drafts after each review.
>(2) In the interim period between reviews, no changes may be made to the SKOS Core Vocabulary.

s/between reviews/between Working Draft versions/

>(3) In the interim period between reviews, the delegated SKOS Core editors (myself and Danbri) are to maintain a public list of proposed changes to the SKOS Core Vocabulary.

s/between reviews/between Working Draft versions/

>(4) Proposed changes to SKOS Core must be added to the public list at least 2 weeks before a scheduled WG review, to allow the wider community to comment and to raise objections.

Very generous; a kind of public pre-publication review.

>(5) At all subsequent reviews, the reviewers delegated by the WG will review and evaluate the list of proposed changes only.

Are you proposing that the WG may not review any other parts
of the new editor's draft?  I would find that unacceptable.  If you
are proposing that an editor's draft be stable for at least two weeks
before a new Working Draft is published, I'm fine with that.

>(6) Those changes approved by the reviewers, or approved after subsequent discussion and suitable modification, will be implemented by the editors.  New public working drafts of the SKOS Core Guide and SKOS Core Vocabulary Specification will then be published by the WG.

sounds like normal process here.

>I also propose that the period between reviews be 3 months,

That is the maximum that the WG is officially allowed between
public updates of status.

Received on Thursday, 21 April 2005 16:57:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:45:17 UTC