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

Re: [SE] Comments on Draft Note

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2005 16:39:00 +0000
Message-ID: <4225EC24.3070004@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: Daniel Oberle <oberle@aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de>
Cc: michael.f.uschold@boeing.com, Phil Tetlow <philip.tetlow@uk.ibm.com>, public-swbp-wg@w3.org


I think Mike has made the main point I wanted to make, I will add a 
couple of less significant points:

1) The list of editors is too long.
In my view each editor should:
- actively control some section(s) of the document
- regularly review the whole document, and be happy to have their name 
on the whole document

I have serious doubts that either of these criteria is met for most of 
the people listed as editors of this document.
There is a mismatch between the length of the document and the first 
criterion; and between the quality of the document and the second.

If the desire is to acknowledge the contribution of the whole task 
force, then that should be in an acknowledgements section (typically 
near the end of the document).

A desire to indicate the quality of the document is best achieved by:
- writing a high quality document
- the W3C logo and the W3C review process
and not by manipulation of the list of editors.

2) The further reading section ...
These should be references; and it should be reasonably easy to tell 
which have been peer reviewed and which haven't; and those that haven't 
should have significant support for inclusion, i.e. the quality control 
that is achieved through peer review needs to be achieved in some other way.

I have great difficulty in seeing how to rescue this document, and I 
believe that Mike has been more constructive than I could be.

Jeremy


Daniel Oberle wrote:
> 
> Hi Phil and Mike,
> I'd like to second Mike's comments. Like I pointed out earlier,
> I think it's generally malpractice to start writing before the
> major points have not been clarified:
> 
> 1) goal/contribution of the document:
>    still a bit unclear to me
> 2) intended audience:
>    well, here I assumed the one mentioned on the task force's
>    homepage. However, reading Mike's comments, this is not so clear
>    either
> 3) structure of document:
>    once 1 + 2 have been clarified, start thinking about possible
>    subsections, agree, distribute responsibilities, start writing ...
> 
> Hopefully you will be able to clarify the points during the F2F.
> If so, please disseminate accordingly.
> 
> Btw, I realized in telcos and mails that there seems to be
> a lack of dissemination and confusion in general. The best demonstration
> for that is the issue whether there should be a relevance to OWL
> in the document.
> 
> Wishing you a good time in Boston,
>  Daniel
> 
> 
Received on Wednesday, 2 March 2005 16:39:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:31:07 UTC