Re: QA Framework: Specification Guidelines: Umbrella specification

Le 26 janv. 2005, à 09:36, Gary Feldman a écrit :
> Is the entire discussion of umbrella specifications really necessary?  
> The word "umbrella" isn't used anywhere else in the document, and I'm 
> not sure that the concept is mentioned elsewhere.  I think it's enough 
> to have just the first two sentences "Specifications can be defined in 
> one or several ....in a well defined manner," but delete the clause 
> "denoted below as umbrella specifications" along with the figure and 
> the paragraph explaining the figure.

We defined it because there's a tendency to publish a technology as a 
set of specifications, which is not a problem.

	For example, RDF and OWL WGs have done that by pushing the set of 
document altogether along the REC track, synchronizing the publication 
of the whole set at each steps.

	Though some WGs have adopted another way of pushing their technologies 
and push documents one by one without having a full consistent set and 
then giving inconsistencies, in terms of glossary, lack of conformance 
section, maturity along the Rec Track, etc.


> The idea of a composite document isn't rocket science, and doesn't 
> deserve this much space - at least not unless it played a more 
> prominent role later in the document.

	The concept of Umbrella specification has been created to stress the 
obvious (not rocket science) as you said, but which seems not necessary 
understood by some WGs.

Then I would prefer to keep it inside the document for at least to be 
sure that people understand the concept, which is far to be  the case 
sometimes :)))



-- 
Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/
W3C Conformance Manager
*** Be Strict To Be Cool ***