- From: Thomas Baker <thomas.baker@bi.fhg.de>
- Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 19:02:47 +0200
- To: "Miles, AJ (Alistair)" <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
- Cc: "Ralph R. Swick" <swick@w3.org>, public-esw-thes@w3.org, public-swbp-wg@w3.org, danbri@w3.org
Alistair, These small changes do the trick - it looks good! There is still a reference to "editor's working draft" in there, but I see it is marked for deletion... Tom On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 04:18:23PM +0100, Alistair Miles 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. > > > > -- Dr. Thomas Baker Thomas.Baker@izb.fraunhofer.de Institutszentrum Schloss Birlinghoven mobile +49-160-9664-2129 Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft work +49-30-8109-9027 53754 Sankt Augustin, Germany fax +49-2241-144-2352 Personal email: thbaker79@alumni.amherst.edu
Received on Wednesday, 4 May 2005 16:58:36 UTC