Re: Loose ends re: DCAT UCR, ORG last call, ADMS, People and Community Directory

On 8 Mar 2013, at 12:34, Phil Archer <phila@w3.org> wrote:

> 
> 
> On 08/03/2013 12:07, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
>> On 7 Mar 2013, at 20:04, Hadley Beeman wrote:
>>> 1.  DCAT UCR is a working group note. [1]
> 
> UCRs should be Notes, yes, not Rec Track.
> 
>> 
>> Yes, although at this point I would be open to just forgetting about this document (which is only an Editor's Draft anyway). It has served its purpose, and I'd prefer to spend time on the more critical documents.
> 
> I agree that it's more important to work on the critical components but any Rec Track doc needs evidence to back it up. If we have the person power available I'd like to see this knocked into a Note. That may mean that not all the To Dos get done, OK, but something is better than nothing (and an Ed draft is equivalent to nothing). Fadi - would you have time during DCAT's LC review period to do this do you think?
> 

I can't dedicate much time in the upcoming period to it but if it is a matter of editing, then yes I can work on the use cases document. 

> 
>> 
>>> 5.  People will be published as a working group note, since the group's work on it has ended. [5]
>> 
>> The currently published Working Draft is in a *very* rough shape, with lots and lots of issue boxes and TODOs. If no further work is done on the content, then I would prefer that we simply issue an updated Working Draft with a big warning that explains that work on this document has stopped.
> 
> 
> +1. It's a long way from being stable enough even for a Note. We can change the status section and just say that work on it has stopped.
> 
> Phil
> 
>> 
>>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/wiki/DCAT_UCR_Timetable
>>> [5] http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/wiki/People_Timetable
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> Phil Archer
> W3C eGovernment
> 
> http://philarcher.org
> +44 (0)7887 767755
> @philarcher1
>

Received on Friday, 8 March 2013 13:09:29 UTC