Re: Planning the tam-tam for a CSVW document review

On 14 April 2015 at 10:14, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:
> Jeni, Dan,
>
> once the documents are published on Thursday, we should make some tam-tam to ensure that we get the widest possible review before we go to a final, LCCR phase. After all, we consider this as a pseudo-last call, although the new process does not make this so formal.

(is 'tam tam' a Dutch idiom? but I get that it means bang-the-drum...:)

> First of all, we have to have the 'horizontal' reviews. I guess what this means is to send a mail to each of the relevant groups with a request to review the document, I would say before June. (This is what we planned for LCCR, right?) We should probably ask them to send, if possible, the issues to github, but if they do not like that we will have to forward their review results ourselves. I tried to collect the targets, here they are:
>
>   * *Security:* review request to public-web-security@w3.org; Web Security Interest Group, staff contact Wendy Seltzer (wseltzer@w3.org), chairs Adam Barth (w3c@adambarth.com), Virginie Galindo (virginie.galindo@gemalto.com)
>
>   * *Internationalization:* review request to addison@lab126.com; Internationalization Working Group, staff contact Richard Ishida (ishida@w3.org), chair Addison Phillips (addison@lab126.com)
>
>   * *Privacy:* review request to public-privacy@w3.org; Privacy Interest Group, staff contact Nick Doty (npdoty@w3.org), chairs Christine Runnegar (runnegar@isoc.org), Tara Whalen (tjwhalen@google.com)
>
>   * *Accessibility:*  review requests to public-pfwg@w3.org, Protocols and Formats Working Group, staff contact Michael Cooper (cooper@w3.org), chair Janina Sajka (janina@rednote.net)
>
> I guess the first two are really important for us; I do not really see privacy or accessibility issues with these documents, but better ask.

Our charter mentions Privacy, "Ensure that the privacy concerns are
properly included in the CSV metadata either via reference or via
direct vocabulary elements".

Accessibility imho is important as CSV could prove to be an
interesting approach to structured data authoring. See
http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/atag.php and nearby. If a suitable
collection of csv2rdf (or json) mappings are available, actual
authoring of data can happen in various tools that allow tables to be
edited.

> Furthermore, we would probably want to ask for an explicit review from the Data on the Web Best practices group:
>
>   * public-dwbp-wg@w3.org, chairs Deirdre Lee (Deirdre.Lee@deri.org), Hadley Beeman (hadley@linkedgov.org), Yaso Cordova (yaso@nic.br), and Steve Adler (adler1@us.ibm.com); staff contact Phil Archer (phila@w3.org)
>
> Otherwise a separate mail to the Data Coordination Group (member-dacg@w3.org), the SWIG (semantic-web@w3.org) and the LOD mailing list (public-lod@w3.org)

(definitely those 2, yes)
as well as, maybe, an announcement to chairs@w3.org
(yes to that too)
 would be fine. Finally, we would need a Home Page News announcement
as well as a Blog on the Data Activity blog.
>
> Any groups outside the core W3C circles? Dan, do you think it is worth using the schema.org list (I do not think so, but you tell me).

I was thinking that it is well worth posting something in
blog.schema.org (or at least the new CG for sure). In that context I
would be tempted to frame it alongside recent explorations of using
Web Components (custom elements etc.) as "exploring new ways of
publishing schema.org".

We should also make sure to bounce it around various open data / civic
hackery / govt transparency lists. Jeni and Rufus probably have their
fingers on the right pulses there. DWBP are also a good route to those
audiences.

Given our charter http://www.w3.org/2013/05/lcsv-charter.html says
"The output of the mapping mechanism for RDF MUST be consistent with
either the RDF Direct Mapping or R2RML" we really owe implementors of
those specs at least a high level explanation of why we've taken a
relatively different approach. On that front we could re-iterate the
idea of opening a dedicated Community Group on advanced mappings, now
that the csv2rdf basic design looks stable. We could explore the idea
that our JSON format is an authoring-friendly shorthand (pure subset?)
of R2RML (or RML)?.

The charter also mentions Forms ("Coordinate on the possible usage of
CSV XPath expressions" - did anything happen there?) and XML. We
didn't go the XML route and this is a fair point at which to explain
why (and redirect followups to w3.org/community/ ?).

We also need to communicate carefully and appropriately to the IETF,
given that they specify the underlying CSV format we began with. We
shouldn't assume an IETF audience is necessarily up to date with any
recent changes in W3C process, or has followed our group in detail.

BTW how are we looking on the Working Drafts for today? If I recall
right they should be with W3C webmaster by tonight?

>From an airport -  back online later,

Dan

Received on Tuesday, 14 April 2015 12:15:55 UTC