W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-esw-thes@w3.org > April 2005

Re: [PORT] Proposed management process for SKOS Core

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 10:34:47 -0400
To: "Miles, AJ (Alistair)" <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
Cc: public-esw-thes@w3.org, public-swbp-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <20050426143447.GF6670@homer.w3.org>


This looks fine to me, thought it should be clearly scoped as the 
current operating procedure of the SWBPD WG, rather than as a timeless 
and eternal set of commitments. If SWBPD WG doesn't have its charter 
extended (possible; this is the W3C AC's decision), W3C might choose to 
delegate control of SKOS to other groups (eg. SWIG, SWCG, or something 
new, eg. a hypothetical WG on tagging and syndication) whose procedures, 
goals etc could quite reasonably differ. So we should avoid giving 
impression that things will always be done this way. In general, 
minimising commitments is healthy. It's better to make fewer promises
and be surer of keeping them, than to codify every good intention in 
the hope that writing it down will make it happen :) 

Dan

* Miles, AJ (Alistair) <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk> [2005-04-26 15:15+0100]
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> Does anyone have any objections to the process model outlined below?  Otherwise I propose to write this up in the SKOS Core Vocabulary Specification.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Al.
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: public-esw-thes-request@w3.org
> > [mailto:public-esw-thes-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Miles, AJ 
> > (Alistair)
> > Sent: 25 April 2005 14:49
> > To: public-esw-thes@w3.org; public-swbp-wg@w3.org; Dan 
> > Brickley (E-mail)
> > Subject: RE: [PORT] Proposed management process for SKOS Core
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > Tom has said to me that he is happy with the process model 
> > outlined in [1].
> > 
> > Mark Van Assem sent me some comments on [1], and raised the 
> > concern that the model proposed gives too much power to the 
> > reviewers - reviewers could possibly veto changes in 
> > opposition to strong consensus within the public-esw-thes community.
> > 
> > I agree with Mark's concern, but I don't know how else the 
> > SKOS Core documents can get W3C Public Working Draft status.  
> > The problem is how to fit SKOS Core into the W3C process, 
> > without sacrificing the principle that anyone may become 
> > actively involved in SKOS Core development at any time via 
> > the public-esw-thes mailing list, and that consensus on that 
> > mailing list is the primary driver for change.
> > 
> > Ralph has some specific concerns, which I'll try and address below.
> > 
> > I'd also like to wait until Danbri comments on this before 
> > proposing anything concrete, but in the meantime here is a 
> > revised proposal for a SKOS Core management process:
> > 
> > Proposal for SKOS Core Management Process (version 0.2):
> > ---
> > 
> > (1) The WG periodically reviews the 'SKOS Core Guide' and 
> > 'SKOS Core Vocabulary Specification' and publishes new Public 
> > Working Draft versions of these documents after each review.
> > 
> > (2) In the interim period between Public Working Draft 
> > versions, no changes may be made to the SKOS Core Vocabulary. 
> >  Hence the SKOS Core Vocabulary RDF/OWL description will not 
> > be changed during the interim period.
> > 
> > (3) In the interim period between Public Working Draft 
> > versions, the delegated SKOS Core editors (myself and Danbri) 
> > will maintain a public list of proposed changes to the SKOS 
> > Core Vocabulary.
> > 
> > (4) Proposed changes to SKOS Core must be added to the public 
> > list at least 2 weeks before a scheduled WG review, to allow 
> > the wider community to comment and to raise objections.  
> > 
> > (4a) Proposed changes to SKOS Core should not go to review 
> > without reasonable consensus from the members of the 
> > public-esw-thes@w3.org mailing list.
> > 
> > (5) At each subsequent review, the reviewers delegated by the 
> > WG may of course review the SKOS Core Guide and the SKOS Core 
> > Vocabulary Specification in their entirety.  However, the 
> > focus of each review will be to evaluate the list of proposed changes.
> > 
> > (6) Those changes approved by the reviewers, or approved in a 
> > modified form after negotiation with the reviewers, will be 
> > implemented by the editors.  New Public Working Draft 
> > versions of the SKOS Core Guide and SKOS Core Vocabulary 
> > Specification will then be published by the WG.
> > 
> > Also, what about a review every 2 months instead of 3?
> > 
> > That's all for now,
> > 
> > Al.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > [1] 
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-esw-thes/2005Apr/0016.html
> > 
> > ---
> > Alistair Miles
> > Research Associate
> > CCLRC - Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
> > Building R1 Room 1.60
> > Fermi Avenue
> > Chilton
> > Didcot
> > Oxfordshire OX11 0QX
> > United Kingdom
> > Email:        a.j.miles@rl.ac.uk
> > Tel: +44 (0)1235 445440
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org
> > > [mailto:public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Ralph R. Swick
> > > Sent: 21 April 2005 17:57
> > > To: Miles, AJ (Alistair)
> > > Cc: public-esw-thes@w3.org; public-swbp-wg@w3.org
> > > Subject: Re: [PORT] Proposed management process for SKOS Core
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > At 04:39 PM 4/21/2005 +0100, Miles, AJ (Alistair) wrote:
> > > >[Tom Baker's] concern was that the SKOS Core Vocabulary 
> > > could be modified in the period between publication of 
> > > working drafts by the SWBPD-WG (hereafter 'the WG').  This 
> > > would mean that a person/agent dereferencing the SKOS Core 
> > > Vocabulary could get something different from the latest 
> > > 'official' publication from the WG.  There would then arise 
> > > confusion as to which resources provided 'the authoritative' 
> > > description of the SKOS Core Vocabulary.
> > > 
> > > You are referring here to modifications of the namespace document,
> > > I believe.  Am I correct?
> > > 
> > > >We both agreed that the W3C process for publishing documents 
> > > (periodic publication of public working drafts) is not best 
> > > suited to the development of RDF vocabularies.
> > > 
> > > In what way?  A Working Draft is exactly that -- a document 
> > > that informs the
> > > community of work in progress.  The Working Draft may state that the
> > > content of the namespace document is subject to change between
> > > versions of the Working Draft and can advise readers as to which
> > > should be considered authoritative and for what purposes.
> > > 
> > > >So I propose the following:
> > > >
> > > >(1) The WG periodically reviews the 'SKOS Core Guide' and 
> > > 'SKOS Core Vocabulary Specification', and publishes new 
> > > public working drafts after each review.
> > > >
> > > >(2) In the interim period between reviews, no changes may be 
> > > made to the SKOS Core Vocabulary.
> > > 
> > > s/between reviews/between Working Draft versions/
> > > 
> > > >(3) In the interim period between reviews, the delegated 
> > > SKOS Core editors (myself and Danbri) are to maintain a 
> > > public list of proposed changes to the SKOS Core Vocabulary.
> > > 
> > > s/between reviews/between Working Draft versions/
> > > 
> > > >(4) Proposed changes to SKOS Core must be added to the 
> > > public list at least 2 weeks before a scheduled WG review, to 
> > > allow the wider community to comment and to raise objections.
> > > 
> > > Very generous; a kind of public pre-publication review.
> > > 
> > > >(5) At all subsequent reviews, the reviewers delegated by 
> > > the WG will review and evaluate the list of proposed changes only.
> > > 
> > > Are you proposing that the WG may not review any other parts
> > > of the new editor's draft?  I would find that unacceptable.  If you
> > > are proposing that an editor's draft be stable for at least 
> > two weeks
> > > before a new Working Draft is published, I'm fine with that.
> > > 
> > > >(6) Those changes approved by the reviewers, or approved 
> > > after subsequent discussion and suitable modification, will 
> > > be implemented by the editors.  New public working drafts of 
> > > the SKOS Core Guide and SKOS Core Vocabulary Specification 
> > > will then be published by the WG.
> > > 
> > > sounds like normal process here.
> > > 
> > > >I also propose that the period between reviews be 3 months,
> > > 
> > > That is the maximum that the WG is officially allowed between
> > > public updates of status.
> > > 
> > > -Ralph
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > 
Received on Tuesday, 26 April 2005 14:35:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:14:52 UTC
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-esw-thes/2005Apr/0020.html
lists.w3.org
crawl=CC-MAIN-2015-32
21725
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:CG672QK3GJL5J2E4NC7MNI7DOFRS7RIN
<urn:uuid:f681afa6-ce52-45f9-8079-d3d0432e1c1f>
2015-08-02T00:20:42Z
128.30.52.56
sha1:6A5ETYXND7LJMSHKV3ABG5FFGGICOTRJ
<urn:uuid:d0459fc8-104b-4d96-8c24-0b3dadfb8ffb>
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-esw-thes/2005Apr/0020.html
response
<urn:uuid:bfe50341-56cb-49c2-936d-b63ac38dcdb0>
robots: classic
hostname: ip-10-236-191-2.ec2.internal
software: Nutch 1.6 (CC)/CC WarcExport 1.0
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2015-32
operator: CommonCrawl Admin
description: Wide crawl of the web for August 2015
publisher: CommonCrawl
format: WARC File Format 1.0
conformsTo: http://bibnum.bnf.fr/WARC/WARC_ISO_28500_version1_latestdraft.pdf