Re: UC&Req document way forward and comments from Raphael

Dear all,

> After call, I had a small talk with Raphael in IRC.
> I think it’s very reasonable way for the UC&Req document publication.

Some further explanations: the status section of this document reads: 
"The group does not expect this document to become a W3C 
Recommendation." ... so I assume it aims to be a W3C Note.

I have argued on IRC that you can safely continue to improve the 
document, and publish a new WD early December as the group seems to have 
planned, and then let sleep this document. There is no rush to have a 
Note now, since it has the risk that the final REC will not exactly 
match the UC & Req documents (some requirements might be missing, some 
others might be out of scope for this REC, etc.).
I have seen various groups (SKOS, OWL) that have published the UC & Req 
doc as a note the same day or just before the final REQ, though the 
document wasn't changed for a long time ...

> UC&Req is a technical note. In this case, we can safely publish the 
> final version when the other documents will be RFC, so no rush for this 
> document. I suggest you publish a new WD. It’s useless for this document 
> to be a note now since there is a risk it is outdated when the RFC will 
> be published. Better, improve the document now, publish it and freeze it 
> until the others are REC, when others documents are REC, take this one, 
> and publish it as an note with small changes depending on the final REC.

s/RFC/REQ ... W3C produces RECOMMENDATION and not RFC.
Cheers.

   Raphaël

-- 
Raphaël Troncy
EURECOM, Multimedia Communications Department
2229, route des Crêtes, 06560 Sophia Antipolis, France.
e-mail: raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr & raphael.troncy@gmail.com
Tel: +33 (0)4 - 9300 8242
Fax: +33 (0)4 - 9000 8200
Web: http://www.eurecom.fr/~troncy/

Received on Tuesday, 24 November 2009 14:39:55 UTC