- From: Miles, AJ \(Alistair\) <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 14:23:56 +0100
- 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