Semantic Model Mail Archive: FW: PWG> RE: SM> Updated Pro

Semantic Model Mail Archive: FW: PWG> RE: SM> Updated Pro

FW: PWG> RE: SM> Updated Process [my comments]

From: Hastings, Tom N (hastings@cp10.es.xerox.com)
Date: Thu Jan 30 2003 - 13:06:49 EST

  • Next message: Zehler, Peter: "SM> Semantic Model teleconference & PWG Process discussion"

     
    -----Original Message-----
    From: Hastings, Tom N [mailto:hastings@cp10.es.xerox.com]
    Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 03:03
    To: pwg@pwg.org
    Subject: PWG> RE: SM> Updated Process [my comments]

    Harry,
     
    Here are my comments:
     
    1. Section 3.3 PWG Proposed Standard and elsewhere:
    I like your proposed change of terminology from "PWG Working Draft" to "PWG
    Working Material" for the successive versions of a specification that lead
    up to a Last Call and a PWG Proposed Standard.. The term "PWG Working
    Material" can't be confused with the second stage of a PWG standard: a "PWG
    Draft Standard". I assume that any PWG project that also produces other
    forms of output in addition to a specification, such as a schema is part of
    the PWG Proposed Standard, not a separate Standard, right? Also this means
    that any Schema has to have an accompanying specification. No schemas by
    themselves.
     
    1a. There are a number of places where the old term "Working Draft" still
    exists, including Process Summary and Figure in Section 9.
    All occurrences of "Working Draft" need to be changed to "Working Material".
     
     
    2. Section 3.5 PWG Staandard and elsewhere:
    Ira and I would like to propose putting some adjective in front of Standard
    for the final stage, such as "Final". So instead of having:
    PWG Proposed Standard
    PWG Draft Standard
    PWG Standard,
     
    we have:
    PWG Proposed Standard
    PWG Draft Standard
    PWG Final Standard
     
    Then the term Standard by itself can be used to discuss any of PWG Proposed
    Standard, PWG Draft Standard, or PWG Final Standard, rather than being
    ambiguous as to whether "Standard" means all three or just the last one.
     
     
    3. Sections 3.3 PWG Proposed Standard, 3.4 PWG Draft Standard, and 3.5
    [Final] Standard
    The comparison with the corresonding IETF standards is very similar as
    follows:
    3.3: PWG Working Material is equivalent to an IETF Internet Draft.
           A PWG Proposed Standard is equivalent to an IETF Proposed Standard.
    3.4: A PWG Draft Standard is equivalent to an IETF Draft Standard.
    3.5: A PWG [Final] Standard is equivalent to an IETF Standard.
     
    These statements should be made in parallel fashion in sections 3.3, 3.4,
    and 3.5, preferably in separate paragraphs, so that they aren't mixed in
    with our descriptions.
     
    Or put them together into a separate section, like the deleted section 3.6.
     
    Tom

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Harry Lewis [mailto:harryl@us.ibm.com]
    Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 21:09
    To: pwg@pwg.org
    Cc: sm@pwg.org
    Subject: SM> Updated Process

    In prep for a discussion during the SM call, tomorrow, I've updated the PWG
    process document.
     <ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/general/process/pwg-process-030128.doc>
    ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/general/process/pwg-process-030128.doc
    This is a one-time notification to both reflectors. Further on-line
    discussion of the PWG process with occur ONLY on pwg@pwg.org
    ----------------------------------------------
    Harry Lewis
    IBM Printing Systems
    ----------------------------------------------



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jan 30 2003 - 13:07:10 EST