There have been no SM3 or IPP mail list responses to my message on the "Need
for consensus on the Value of the Semantic Model Activity". SM3 conference
calls have continued to consider this question as well as availability of
volunteers to work on the projects listed in the current Semantic Model
charter. It seems that those with nominal interest do not have the time and
those which may have the time are not convinced of the need. We do not seem
to have a good handle on where to start.
My concern and my question is not new, not unique to this workgroup, nor
just mine. Michael Sweet created a series of "policy" documents over the
past year (see ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/general/process/) including
pwg-charter-policy. The charter policy document reflects a reaffirmation of
the process by which new standards projects are started as defined in the
PWG Definition of the Standards Development Process, with some added
specifics. We have tended to short-circuit this process in the past few
years by regarding new projects as just extensions of existing projects.
The pwg-charter-policy document makes clear that new standards efforts must
be properly defined and approved before they are added to a workgroup
charter.
In order to promote the successful development of new PWG standards, all new
standards development MUST begin with one or more editors producing a White
Paper using the PWG Working Draft template that outlines the requirements
and
possible technical solutions for the proposed standard(s) prior to adoption
by
a PWG Workgroup or modification of any PWG Workgroup Charter. The White
Paper
MUST NOT assign, reserve, or register new standards-track names or values.
Multiple drafts of the White Paper MAY be produced and reviewed as needed.
Once the White Paper is stable, a PWG Workgroup can adopt the White Paper
after
a modification to its charter, a new PWG Workgroup can be chartered to
advance
the White Paper, or the White Paper can be abandoned due to lack of
participation.
Addition of new work, whether to an existing PWG Workgroup or through the
creation of a new PWG Workgroup, requires Formal Approval.
Because several projects had been identified in the SM3 charter prior to
adoption of this policy document, we disregarded this process. I think that
was an error and suggest that, if there is anyone with an interest in the
projects identified in the current charter (or any other projects), they
initiate the process by creating a white paper that "that outlines the
requirements and possible technical solutions for the proposed standard".
Once this is refined by the SM3 workgroup, it can be put up for formal vote.
This process may be time-consuming and tedious, but certainly no more so
than the wheel-spinning we have done so far. The process may show that there
is insufficient support for a given project, in which case it should not be
started.
Thanks,
Bill Wagner