- From: Guus Schreiber <schreiber@cs.vu.nl>
- Date: Wed, 04 May 2005 18:35:26 +0200
- To: "Miles, AJ \(Alistair\)" <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
- CC: public-esw-thes@w3.org, public-swbp-wg@w3.org, danbri@w3.org
ASlistair, Are you ready to make a proposal for publishing the three SKOS docs as First Public Working Draft? Guus Miles, AJ (Alistair) wrote: > New editor's draft: > > http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core/spec/2005-05-04 > > Does this look OK for first Public Working Draft? > > (Sorry to keep producing new editor's drafts of this rather than just updating the last one, but each time I make a change I have to do it to the template then regenerate the document from a script, which builds a document dated to the day of generation.) > > Specific actions: > > >>-- The statuses of Public Working Draft (and Editor's Working >> Draft) are mentioned not linked to a W3C document describing >> what these various types of specification are. This is >> particularly confusing in light of the statement that the >> SWBPD WG "intends the SKOS Core Vocabulary Specification >> to become a W3C Working Group Note" (e.g., one wonders >> how a Working Group Note relates to a Public Working Draft). > > > Added links to > > http://www.w3.org/2004/02/Process-20040205/tr.html#maturity-levels > > and > > http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/ > > >>-- Another subtle but confusing point is that this document is >> called Editor's Draft, and one could wonder if that is >> the same as an Editor's Working Draft... > > > According to Ralph's instruction, am only using the phrase "Editor's Draft" throughout. > > >>-- The Introduction mentions "a formal representation of the >> SKOS Core Vocabulary... in RDF/OWL". However, the >> relationship of this formal representation to the other >> W3C specification forms (Editor's Working Draft and Public >> Working Draft) is not specified. My assumption (based in >> part on conversations with Alistair) is that the formal >> representation would be maintained in sync with the latest >> Public Working Draft. But if this is the case, I do not >> see this point stated anywhere; in fact, this one mention >> would seem to be the only reference to the formal schema in >> the whole specification. I think this could be fixed by >> adding a sentence or two here or there -- e.g., by adding >> a Point 9 under Changes, to the effect that "All approved >> changes will be implemented at the same time in the formal >> representation of the SKOS Core Vocabulary in RDF/OWL". > > > Expanded point 7 in the process. > > >>-- The statement "New classes or properties may be added to the >> SKOS Core Vocabulary at any time" seems wrong. Rather, >> "new classes and properties may be added in accordance with >> the process outlined above" -- or words to that effect...? > > > Changed accordingly. > > Cheers, > > Al. > > > > > -- Free University Amsterdam, Computer Science De Boelelaan 1081a, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands Tel: +31 20 598 7739/7718; E-mail: schreiber@cs.vu.nl Home page: http://www.cs.vu.nl/~guus/
Received on Wednesday, 4 May 2005 16:35:43 UTC