- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
- Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 14:49:34 -0500
- To: Christopher Welty <welty@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: public-rif-wg-request@w3.org, public-rif-wg@w3.org
On Dec 20, 2005, at 1:21 PM, Christopher Welty wrote: > Bijan, > > FWIW, the wiki is not replacing the current practice for publishing > notes > - this will still be done in the same manner as other WGs. [snip] Great. > The wiki is merely a place to coalesce the initial contributions, I would still prefer that documents and proposals (or at least pointers to them) were posted to the mailing list, and that discussion took place there. I mean, if it's clearly marginal or very specific or going around in circles, then fine. Take it offline (or too the wiki) but then report back. > and > especially to facilitate communication and "getting to know" each > other. > The glossary, e.g., will (I hope) be a tremendous resource for us. For glossaries it may work well. Hm. I don't see the huge advantage over having a curator and proposed terms and definitions sent to the list, with commentary in threads. So, I remain unconvinced by even that. If it were clear that the wiki would streamline the process and help us meet our deadlines, then it might be worth it. All I see is that it makes us *ALL* newbies and is going to require a bunch of time to get up to speed. I'm willing to take it offline now. :) I don't want to get into too much crazy metadebate on procedure. The biggest point in my book is being accessible to people in other working groups and outside the W3C. I think it's more work to make the wiki work as well as traditional practice. Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Tuesday, 20 December 2005 19:50:43 UTC