[xtm-wg] Deadlines, and my current vote [was: feedback 1]

[Sam Hunting <sam_hunting@yahoo.com>]

Steve, I am posting this note to the list because it contains some
information that the AG as a whole may not be aware of, on your views
of what the real deadlines in this process are.

(Steve Pepper writes)
> I am attaching the latest version, since you have shown such
> alacrity. Please realise that we have very limited time for any
> further improvements. Ideally we would like the W3C Note to
> have the same text as the final spec, so we will only change
> really substantive errors. Bear this in mind as you do your
> final review.

Steve, here are the two resolutions that were passed in Paris that
describe the AG's grant of editorial authority:

<quote>
In a previous resolution, several documents were identified as the
table of contents for a Feb 3rd, 2001 deliverable.  The editor will
produce a draft specification based on those documents and publish it
on or before Feb 3rd, 2001.

The motion was seconded and passed unanimously.

Bryan Thompson moves:

The editor is instructed to produce an AG review XTM 1.0 specification
based on the Feb 3rd 2001 draft specification.  The deadline for this
document is Feb 10th.  Ratification by the participating members will
close on Feb 17th.  Acceptable votes are "Yes" or "No" with "reasons". 
This will be an email vote.  The editor will directly email the
participating members with the specification to be ratified and inform
them of their obligation to vote.
</quote>

In neither case is it contemplated, as you seem to believe, that
(a)only "substantive errors" will be changed, or (b) that there is an
"ideal case" to be taken into account where the W3C text and the text
approved by the AG should be the same. That is why the February 3
deliverable is explicitly labelled a draft, and the February 10
deliverable is labelled for "AG review"! Indeed, there is not even
"limited time" for a "final review", given how fast we can work, since
the drop-dead deadline is February 17.

The actual process outlined by the AG is also why it is incorrect, or
at least only partially true, to say (in "DTD modifications") that "you
can reject the whole thing next week if you don't like it!" In fact,
the deadline is February 17, not "next week", and the only option is
not a straight up or down vote -- revisions could be requested.

However, on the off chance that February 3 turns out to be, against my
reading of the resolutions passed in Paris, the "final review", I had
better exercise my franchise now. Since you write further --

(steve pepper writes)
> The problem with posting works-in-progress this close
> to a deadline is that things change continuously. We now have
> a further revision, especially of Chapter 3, Syntax, which makes
> it very difficult to check your comments.

-- you will find it easy to check my comments, and I won't have to
start from scratch, if I summarize some of the reasons I would vote NO,
at least on the version I have had a chance to read. (All these were
marked with "**" in the feedback I sent you.)

1) Many informal, untestable, and out of scope references to "semantic
interchange," "standardized ontologies", "mediating ontologies", etc.
No ground has been prepared for these in the spec itself or in AG
discussion. The place for such material is in a thoroughly worked out
Technical Report, not a specification. All such references should be
deleted.

2) In the TOC and in their titles, the Annexes should be retitled to
reflect the consensus on normative/informative achieved in Paris. It
was:

  ANNEXES
  
  DTD (Normative)				 DRAFTED (Core)
  Published Subject Indicators (Normative)	 DRAFTED (Core)
  Conceptual Model (Informative)		 DRAFTED
  Mapping from CM to Syntax (Informative)INITIAL DRAFT
  Processing Model (Informative)		 INITIAL DRAFT
  Glossary (Informative)			 DRAFTED
  Acknowledgements (Informative)		 DRAFTED
  
Certainly, for example, there can be no consensus
that the Annex titled "Mapping from CM to Syntax"
is normative -- no one in the AG had a chance to
examine it before February 1 and it was in "Initial Draft State"
in Paris.

2) The statement that "<resourceData> provides (among other things) a
useful way of assigning metadata to topics," a view for which there is
certainly no consensus in the AG.

3) References to interchange syntax in some other form than XML syntax,
for which there is no consensus in the AG.

4) The statement that "The <roleSpec> element is a syntactic shortcut
for an association of a special type defined by the PSI
class-instance", a view for which there is no consensus in the AG.

5) <association> without <member>. The views of the AG having been
"urgently solicited", it seems inconsistent to ignore lack of consensus
based on a faulty internet connection.

6) Basic concept of "subject identity point" used throughout but never
defined.

Of course, I haven't had time to review any of the Annexes.

To reiterate, it reads really really well, and that's absolutely
crucial to success, and you're doing a great job. But I see no reason
for being stampeded into a "final review" when the AG's remit to the
editors requires no such thing.

S.




=====
<!-- "To imagine a language is to imagine a form of life."
     - Ludwig Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations -->

__________________________________________________
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 
a year!  http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-~>
eGroups is now Yahoo! Groups
Click here for more details
http://click.egroups.com/1/11231/0/_/337252/_/981167782/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

To Post a message, send it to:   xtm-wg@eGroups.com

To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: xtm-wg-unsubscribe@eGroups.com