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

2009/11/24 RaphaŽl Troncy <>

> 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 now since there is a risk it is outdated when the RFC will be published.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.

A big +1 to this strategy.



> s/RFC/REQ ... W3C produces RECOMMENDATION and not RFC.
> Cheers.
>  RaphaŽl
> --
> RaphaŽl Troncy
> EURECOM, Multimedia Communications Department
> 2229, route des CrÍtes, 06560 Sophia Antipolis, France.
> e-mail: &
> Tel: +33 (0)4 - 9300 8242
> Fax: +33 (0)4 - 9000 8200
> Web: <>

Received on Tuesday, 24 November 2009 14:51:43 UTC