Re: [Fwd: Re: OWL WG comments on QA Documents]


The QAWG has now acted on our comments and publish a new document
(QA Handbook) [1] which replaces the QA Operational Guidelines (which we 
commented on).

I have read this, and reviewed our comments [2]
- of which only two seem to still be pertinent in part:

QA moderator -  This seems to be a pseudonym for a TM development
lead.  If that is what is meant, then why obfuscate by using the
broader term?
Their resolution [3] indicates they will review this later.

Bootstrapping - These guidelines require that considerable planning and
assignment of resources take place prior to chartering a WG.  There
are several dangers with such an approach: 1) the weight of work and
high commitment requirements prior to chartering could doom the
chartering process to failure, 2) planning of work and assignment of
resources prior to WG formation could result in poor choices since the
membership of the group was not yet even determined much less reached
any common set of thinking, and 3) those members of the WG who had not
been involved in its chartering would feel no ownership or
commitment to plans made prior to their involvement.
While the new handbook removes the *requirement*, points 2) and 3) of 
our comment could be made more explicitly in their text.

Overall, I think it would be churlish of us to mention these quibbles as 
a group. I suggest that our response should follow the positive tone set 
by Evan, combined with congratulations on their new document.

I am in the process of reviewing QAH and have other editorial comments 
to make (my rough notes [4]), and will include the above observations 
(as personal comments).



Jim Hendler wrote:

> At 14:55 -0400 5/7/04, wrote:
>> In message
>> Jeremy Carroll noted that the QA WG had taken our comments on their
>> specifications very seriously and that WebOnt should accept their
>> response.  I second this suggestion.  They seem to have embraced our
>> comments and are making major changes in response.  I hope that webont
>> can respond formally with our thanks for and gratitude for taking such
>> positive actions on our comments.
>> -Evan
> OK, this has been moved by Jeremy and seconded by Evan, and I've not yet 
> seen any objections.  I propose we do this as an email consensus call:
> RESOLVED: The Web Ontology Working Group accepts the response of the QA 
> WG to our comments.
> ACTION: JimH to delegate to someone (likely Evan or Jeremy) to convey 
> our response to the QA WG including the thanks that Evan mentions above.
> PROCESS:  If I hear no objections by midnight (EST) of May 13th (2 weeks 
> from Jeremy's original post) then we will accept this as consensus.  If 
> anyone who is a member in good standing of the Working Group raises an 
> objection, then we will schedule a telecon to discuss it and/or go to a 
> WBS vote prior to the end of the Working Group's charter.

Received on Wednesday, 12 May 2004 14:36:43 UTC