UFDTFMinutes7Nov07

From OWL
Revision as of 10:20, 8 November 2007 by JeremyCarroll (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

UFDTF Minutes 07th November 2007

IRC Log

Agenda

Agenda Amendment

Alan said this, and goals/styles/audiences was added, to end of agenda. To make time, the discussion of specific documents was limited to just Use Case and Requirements.

Rollcall
Conrad, Alan, jjc, bijan, MartinD, EvanWallace, pfps, ElisaKendall

Time of Next Meeting

   Thursday 15th
   Rome 18:30
   London 17:30
   New York 12:30
   Silicon Valley 09:30
   Korea (fri) 02:30

Alan would prefer a bit later, but Jeremy has engagement from 18:15 - 20:00 (London).

which docs could we/should we start now?

Overview not discussed.

Jeremy + Vipul are happy to start work on Use case and requirements with traceability matrix, prior to any answers about whether the TF or WG would want to publish such a document, or the means of publication.

There were no objections to them starting

goals/styles/audiences

Free ranging discussion, some key points, (mis)reconstructed by scribe.

Alan
What do people agree about concerning the aims of the documentation?
e.g. is there agreement that documentation that is likely to go stale quickly is bad
Evan
disagree. Some documents may have useful, but short, lives.
Bijan
I care most about formal deliverables.
Evan
Material can move between documents later (e.g. from a formal WG document to a Wiki)
Alan
The WG could produce some documents that people might read to learn about the technology produced by the W3C.
Bijan
I dislike the W3C producing tutorial style material.
It detracts from the key mission of the WG, which is to produce the technology, and its formal description.
In my company, I produce tutorial style material, and the W3C material competes unfairly.
Alan
I've seen tutorials scattered over the Web.
I would like to see better materials at W3C, because that's where people go first.
Bijan
I am unhappy helping produce or review inferior material that will compete unfairly with my company's tutorials.
Jeremy
I think it is good for all WG participants to be able to participate in the WG.
Some WG participants are best at producing informative documents.
This helps them contribute to the primary task of the WG, by reviewing the techincal documents, and design, in order to write the informative documents.
Third party informative documents are better, but these are often based on W3C informative material.
Bijan
Scribe missed
Evan
I am flabbergasted by Bijan's position.