W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swbp-wg@w3.org > July 2005

[PORT] review process

From: Miles, AJ \(Alistair\) <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 14:23:56 +0100
Message-ID: <677CE4DD24B12C4B9FA138534E29FB1D0ACC87@exchange11.fed.cclrc.ac.uk>
To: <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>

Making public some discussion with Ralph on reviewer responsibility and review process for SKOS Core WDs ...

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Miles, AJ (Alistair) 
> Sent: 25 July 2005 13:07
> To: Mark van Assem (E-mail); Ralph Swick (E-mail)
> Cc: Dan Brickley (E-mail); Guus Schreiber (E-mail); 
> 'dwood@mindswap.org'
> Subject: SKOS Core second review
> 
> 
> Hi Ralph, Mark, (& cc Guus, David, Dan,)
> 
> Regarding this review, given that we have written down some 
> rules for change management [1], I would like to suggest some 
> guidelines for SKOS reviewers to follow.  Does the following 
> sound reasonable?
> 
>  1. Reviewers should evaluate those proposed changes 
> published at [2] that have not been modified for a period of 
> 2 weeks prior to the beginning of the review, and make 
> recommendations as to which proposed changes should be 
> implemented.  (Implementing a change means updating the SKOS 
> Core RDF/OWL description, generating a new editor's draft of 
> the SKOS Core Spec, and rewriting/adding relevant sections to 
> the SKOS Core Guide as appropriate.)
> 
>  2. Subsequently, reviewers should check that changes have 
> been implemented to their satisfaction, before approving 
> revised working drafts.
> 
>  3. Reviewers may make proposals for changes to SKOS Core, 
> which will be added to [2] and considered at the next review. 
>  However, reviewers may not insist on changes to SKOS Core 
> WDs (other than editorial) that have not been previously 
> published at [2] for the required period (2 weeks).
> 
> If this is OK (Guus, David, Dan?), then I suggest an official 
> start date for this review as asap.  This brings into play 
> all four proposals at [2].
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Al.
> 
> 
> [1] 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-swbp-skos-core-spec-20050510/#secChange
> [2] http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core/proposals


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ralph R. Swick [mailto:swick@w3.org]
> Sent: 25 July 2005 14:02
> To: Miles, AJ (Alistair)
> Cc: Mark van Assem (E-mail); Dan Brickley (E-mail); Guus Schreiber
> (E-mail); dwood@mindswap.org
> Subject: Re: SKOS Core second review
> 
> >... I would like to suggest some guidelines for SKOS 
> reviewers to follow.  Does the following sound reasonable?
> 
> not entirely, if I'm interpreting you as you intend.
> 
> The guidelines you propose sound to me like they're part of the
> process for the TF or WG to decide what changes to make.
> That's a design role, not the role of a document reviewer.
> 
> I thought I'd agreed to be available to consult on proposed
> changes before the selection was made.  "Make recommendations
> as to which proposed changes should be implemented" goes
> beyond my view of this consulting role.  But maybe this is
> interpretation.
> 
> I would encourage the TF to establish some regular mechanism
> by which it decides on behalf of the WG what changes should be
> made.  I guess that is what you are now doing, by defining more
> precisely what you meant by "reviewer to look at change proposals"
> in the 11 July WG telecon minutes.
> 
> > 1. Reviewers should evaluate those proposed changes 
> published at [2] that have not been modified for a period of 
> 2 weeks prior to the beginning of the review, and make 
> recommendations as to which proposed changes should be 
> implemented.  (Implementing a change means updating the SKOS 
> Core RDF/OWL description, generating a new editor's draft of 
> the SKOS Core Spec, and rewriting/adding relevant sections to 
> the SKOS Core Guide as appropriate.)
> 
> Does the decision to implement or not implement a proposed change
> rest primarily on the recommendations of these reviewers, or does
> the Task Force expect to combine the reviewer's feedback with all the
> rest of its knowledge and retain responsibility for the 
> selection itself?
> (I'm more comfortable with the latter.)
> 
> > 2. Subsequently, reviewers should check that changes have 
> been implemented to their satisfaction, before approving 
> revised working drafts.
> 
> yes, this bit makes sense.
> 
> > 3. Reviewers may make proposals for changes to SKOS Core, 
> which will be added to [2] and considered at the next review. 
>  However, reviewers may not insist on changes to SKOS Core 
> WDs (other than editorial) that have not been previously 
> published at [2] for the required period (2 weeks).
> 
> perfectly reasonable, but really this is just saying that the 
> reviewers
> have no special status to alter or fast-track the change proposal
> process.
> 
> >If this is OK (Guus, David, Dan?), then I suggest an 
> official start date for this review as asap.  This brings 
> into play all four proposals at [2].
> 
> Does that mean you will freeze [2] or that the reviewers are expected
> to select from [2] based on looking at the 'Date of last 
> modification'?
> 
> I think it would help to have some explicit way to denote the 
> proposals
> that are being considered for each review round.
> 
> >[1] 
http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-swbp-skos-core-spec-20050510/#secChange
>[2] http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core/proposals



---
Alistair Miles
Research Associate
CCLRC - Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
Building R1 Room 1.60
Fermi Avenue
Chilton
Didcot
Oxfordshire OX11 0QX
United Kingdom
Email:        a.j.miles@rl.ac.uk
Tel: +44 (0)1235 445440
Received on Monday, 25 July 2005 13:24:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:31:10 UTC