Re: update on Exit Criteria, was Re: ORG futures

Thanks Sandro, very helpful.

I won't be able to think about the implications for ORG properly until 
next week at the earliest.

On 16/04/13 21:36, Sandro Hawke wrote:
> On 04/13/2013 03:52 AM, Dave Reynolds wrote:

>> So some clarifying questions:
>>
>> (a) What's the constraints on marking things "At Risk" at CR stage.
>> Can we mark things "At Risk" which weren't marked that way at Last Call?
>>
>
> A very fine point, on which I also asked for clarification.   In fact,
> yes, you technically can add "At Risk" flags when going to CR.  The
> assumption is that folks who reviewed it during LC will at least notice
> those "At Risk" flags in the CR document, and can send in their comments
> and object then, if necessary.

Good to have the option.

> (but hopefully we wont need to do this)

>> (b) Would it be OK to have specific bundles of features in the CR
>> criteria?  We defined a notion of profiles at Last Call but obviously
>> didn't list any profile sub-sets of ORG itself.
>>
>
> I don't really understand this question.    Hopefully it's obsolete.

Maybe.

In trying to figure how to approach CR I've been thinking of ORG as a 
simple core (the notion of an organization, minimal properties for 
describing and classifying one, simple membership properties) plus a set 
of "features". These are:
   1. sites and addresses
   2. organizational substructure
   3. posts
   4. roles and the org:Membership n-ary relation
   5. historical information
   6. collaborations

Each "feature" is a bundle of classes, properties and the occasional axiom.

The early ones are used a lot. It's less clear how much the later ones 
have been used to date.

The thing I'm mulling over is that if no one during CR touches a feature 
at all, say historical information, then we might worry it has not had 
sufficient work out to be sure it is fit for purpose. Whereas if they 
touch a feature but don't use every corner if it then that's fine.

>> (c) How problematic would it be if we moved ORG to a Note?
>>
>
> My impression is that there is a community of potential adopters that
> would appreciate having some vocabularies (like org) having this kind of
> stamp of approval.  I have no first-hand data on this, though.   We
> could pointedly ask everyone in the WG if they have any evidence of a
> need for these vocabs to be RECs.

I was thinking of the comments during the Best Practices discussion 
about whether many people not directly involved in W3C really understand 
the significance of REC track.

> Another issue here: as Phil mentioned, we're working hard to come up
> with an alternative to the REC-track for vocabularies -- a more
> scalable, fast, and cheap way produce vocabularies which are high
> quality and stable.    I'm fairly confident we'll succeed, so then it
> wont matter much whether org is a REC or a NOTE.   But still this effort
> might fail, and then we might wish we'd gotten a REC while we had the
> chance.

That's very useful. It was partly the thought that we would do this work 
and then a new simpler solution will come along to make it all pointless 
that was prompting all this. It's a good point that we can't rely on that.

Dave

Received on Tuesday, 16 April 2013 21:49:06 UTC