[ORG] CR preparation

As discussed on this week's telecon I have progressed the wiki document 
[1] which pulls together our case for transitioning ORG to CR.

The main thing to flag up is the proposal for exit criteria.

The proposed approach is a compromise between the approach discussed at 
the f2f and the lower bar described by Sandro in [2]. The approach is to:

(a) Group the vocabulary into a small number of features (7) to simplify 
reporting and tracking.

(b) Require two conforming data sources for each feature.

(c) Ask implementors to check conformance against a "minimal ORG 
consumer" defined in [3] and assert whether the results match their 
expectations. The queries simply list appropriate elements from the data 
and so require human interpretation by someone who understands the data.

(c) Ask for, but not require, validatable data samples (anything from 
emailing a file to providing a public endpoint) to allow the WG to check 
aspects not verifiable by such queries. But not commit to performing 
such checks and not provide an explicit checklist.

Are there any objections to this broad approach?

Are there any specific suggestions for improvement to the proposed 
phrasing of the criteria or the details of the verification suite?

Any problems with the rest of the material on [1]?

Question, probably for Sandro ... I've listed the changes since Last 
Call in the document and cut/pasted that list into [1]. Are we supposed 
to provide a diff? If so is there an easy tool for that?


[1] http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/wiki/ORG_CR_transition
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-gld-wg/2013Apr/0048.html
[3] http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/wiki/ORG_Validation_Suite

Received on Thursday, 2 May 2013 17:28:59 UTC