- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: 04 Mar 2002 18:08:16 -0600
- To: "Smith, Michael K" <michael.smith@eds.com>
- Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
On Mon, 2002-03-04 at 17:20, Smith, Michael K wrote: > Looking for feedback. Great start... > I have erred on the side of over-inclusion in order > to avoid dropping issues through the cracks. > > 1. Have I got the W3C boilerplate right for this doc? There aren't any rules for what issues lists look like. Whatever serves our purposes is the Right Thing. For my purposes, making each of the "origin" thingies an actual link to the origin of the issue is *very* valuable. Critical, I think. Also, note that the whole world can read this thing, so we need to be clear about whether stuff in it is -- agreed by the whole WG? -- proposed by one member of the WG? -- something in between? It's reasonably clear in its present state, but you could add that (a) the list was produced by just one person, not reviewed yet, and (b) the text of the summaries is just yours, not agreed by the group. Also... there are rules that say we have to close all our issues before we're done: "5.2.2 Last Call Working Draft Entrance criteria. Before advancing a technical report to Last Call Working Draft, the Working Group must: [...] 2. formally address all issues raised by Working Group participants, other Working Groups, the Membership, and the public about the Working Draft." -- http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process-20010719/tr.html#last-call So we should excercise some discipline in putting stuff on the issues list, since we'll need to resolve it before we can claim victory. Hmm... another point: is the numbering you're using stable? i.e. do you promise that 2.1 will always refer to "URI naming of instances"? or is there a chance that you'll add a section betwewen 1 and 2? We need issue names/numbers that we can use for the next year or so. I like the combination of a short name and a number, like we're using in the TAG: whenToUseGet-7 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#whenToUseGet-7 The serial number serves all the purposes that serial numbers are good for; but serial numbers alone create the sort of obscurity PeterPS has warned about recently; it's intimidating to join a group, look at the archives, and see long threads under the sujbect Re: Issue 208. "I think that we should not be in the business of making our messages unnecessarily cryptic." -- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Mar/0011.html > 2. For the sections on implicit and unmentioned requirements, we need some > more text before these are worth discussing. What's there suffices, for my purposes (once you add the hypertext links). > 3. What have I missed? Hmm... is now the time to collect issues about DAML+OIL, while we're at it? e.g. the joint-committee didn't reach consensus about splitting the domain of discourse among datatype values and objects; we planned to revisit it. This seems like the time/place. I guess I'll send mail separately about that... -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Monday, 4 March 2002 22:44:07 UTC