Re: Issue? Supporting documentation for Issue resolution

----- Original Message -----
From: "David Orchard" <david.orchard@bea.com>
To: <www-tag@w3.org>
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 12:35 PM
Subject: Issue? Supporting documentation for Issue resolution


> We skipped over an issue today that pertains to how the TAG communicates
> findings.  I think that TimBL was suggesting that we provide a context
> document to provide a coherent mechanism for relating issues (resolved and
> unresolved).  I agree with TimBL on this.  Indeed, this issue was the
first
> issue that I raised [1].  Further, TimBL suggested a rational approach for
> proceeding, that is a table of contents that categorizes issues.  As
issues
> are resolved, the text is then expanded upon.

I should put in context the issues we have beel dealing with on a short-term
basis.  As I had maybe not explained sufficiently, we have  a dual task of
responding to specific issues and also creating a set of documents for the
record.

My plan is that we should draw up a frame work table of contents
to divide the subject matter in as much as that is possible.
That can then be, with time, filled out with documents describing the
essential architectural points in each area, and perhaps with some
formal models where practical.  These would be W3C Working Drafts.

At the same time, we can use the framework to hang issues on,
as a means of grouping them.



> I see this as being a reasonable process for creating an architecture
> document.  We do not have the time nor mandate to create an arch document
> top-down, so this bottom's up approach is reasonable.
>
> I'd like to raise this is an issue, ie Issue[archdoc-6]: Clarify the
process
> for producing documentation, and what forms of documentation are produced.

Let's discuss this on the call.  I don't feel that meta issues can be
treated
just the same way as technical issues.

> I also suggest that this architecture document would be the item that is
> passed into the Recommendation Track, assuming that each individual issue
> resolution isn't passed into the Rec track.  I think we should try for a
> version of the arch document every 6 months at the least.

I think we can go for one draft - but not expect it to cover everything.

> This would show
> progress and allow for timely reviews.
>
> Cheers,
> Dave
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2001Dec/0022.html
>

Received on Wednesday, 30 January 2002 12:18:53 UTC