Re: Publication schedule for first public working drafts

On 17 Oct 2007, at 20:17, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:

>
> Hmm. Although the W3C process documents (in particular,
> http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#DocumentStatus)  
> back
> up Bijan's stance on the status of WDs, I don't know if I would  
> approve
> of making the webont documents directly into WDs

We can't make them directly into WD. We at least have to edit the  
status section. And they don't meet the current pubrules:
	<http://tinyurl.com/3c4pz>

The pub rules do a pretty good job of making sure that there's no  
confusion about the status of a document.

> without some sort of
> disclaimer, as I believe that there is the general perception that the
> default view of a WD

Is this general perception held by people who hold the default view?

> is that it is some sort of record of what a WG has
> done.

We will have subsequent WDs not too far off. So, I don't feel that  
too much worrying about possible but subtle perceptual downsides  
carry too much weight. If people go nuts, we can *say*, "it's just a  
wd; we wanted a clear starting point and to draw attention to the  
drafts for general review; untwist your knickers :)". I don't think  
they will, fwiw.

>   (This is not to say that I would vote against anything in the
> webont documents.)
>
> So my suggestion would be to turn the two+ webont documents into WDs
> very quickly, essentially verbatim, but to put strong wording in the
> document status section that these documents are in essence the  
> *inputs*
> to the WG and that the WG has published them to transition them to W3C
> control and to get community input on them during the time that the WG
> is making decisions on how they might be changed.

If this raises people's comfort level, I'm fine with this. I don't  
personally feel the need for anything more than a normal WD status  
with some text indicating that the old webont drafts are superceded  
by these and subsequent documents.

> I'm willing to put together wording to go into the document status
> section in preparation for an up-or-down vote on this at the next
> teleconference (24 October).

I'm happy to contribute as well.

> peter
>
> PS:  Are we going to hit a publication blackout snag in this plan?

I'd prefer to get it in before the blackout, but shortly after is ok  
as well.

Cheers,
Bijan.

Received on Thursday, 18 October 2007 12:12:05 UTC