W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-dxwg-wg@w3.org > May 2018

Re: Follow up on DCAT comms/comment strategy (was: dxwg-ACTION-108: Draft a short comms strategy to highlight priorities and mechanisms to drive engagement on FPWD...)

From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
Date: Tue, 15 May 2018 06:46:49 +0200
To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <3a10e554-b8ea-f41a-f568-122698d728d8@kcoyle.net>
We probably need less - something more of a discursive statement that
will interest the audience.

kc

On 5/14/18 5:03 PM, Alejandra Gonzalez-Beltran wrote:
> Thanks, Dave.
> 
> Karen - do you think we need something more detailed than what is listed
> in the 'Change history' section of the document:
> 
> https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/dcat/#changes
> 
> ?
> 
> Alejandra
> 
> 
> On 14/05/2018 15:17, Karen Coyle wrote:
>> Thanks, Dave.
>>
>> We also need someone to write up a short "blurb" that we can include in
>> our emails when soliciting comments. I would think that the blurb should
>> emphasize what has changed (or at least the direction of change)
>> compared to the 2014 DCAT vocabulary. This may serve to interest folks.
>> What has been done that improves on DCAT, makes it more useful?
>>
>> kc
>>
>> On 5/14/18 2:42 PM, david.browning@thomsonreuters.com wrote:
>>> In the DCAT sub-group meeting on Wednesday 2^nd May, there was a bit of
>>> a discussion around how we could stimulate more (and more broad)
>>> feedback on the DCAT FPWD. The consensus seemed to be that while the
>>> mechanism used for the UCR FPWD was useful, it didn’t manage to get an
>>> adequate response from the wider community both in the senses of across
>>> a wider range of industries/practice areas and across a broader
>>> geographical distribution.
>>>
>>>  
>>> There were a number of suggestions that came up in the wider discussion
>>> (see minutes at https://www.w3.org/2018/05/02-dxwgdcat-minutes ) and I
>>> made a few additional notes.  This email tries to pull them into a more
>>> organised form as input to further discussion.  [At the time of writing,
>>> this is on the agenda  for the DCAT plenary on Tuesday 15^th May which I
>>> can’t attend – travelling back from the AC meeting – so I offer these
>>> notes as input to that agenda item.]
>>>
>>>  
>>> 1.  The UCR comment process (using the spreadsheet of contacts to reach
>>> out to people and organisations  who should have an interest via a WG
>>> member who is a previous contact) did get some traction, but the
>>> opportunity to comment does risk only being acted on by the ‘usual
>>> suspects’.  If we are serious about producing a broadly-based, globally
>>> adopted standard then we need to do much more outreach to people who
>>> don’t yet know they should be interested.  [To be clear, the view in the
>>> meeting was that what was done was useful, just not enough]
>>>
>>>  
>>> 2. In particular, the geographical coverage of interest/response is
>>> heavily balanced towards a small number of geographical areas
>>> (predominately EC/Europe) – we need to reach out to America, Asia,
>>> Africa.  We could also do with broadening the audience to other practice
>>> areas/industries.
>>>
>>>  
>>> 3. The github feed is extremely active, so its unlikely to be a good
>>> vehicle to tempt people to get involved – that’s really what the FPWD is
>>> for.  Even there, it’s quite a large/detailed doc where readers may miss
>>> the message/point in the detail.  The suggestion was raised that we
>>> should aim for an  “active, personal engagement strategy to get
>>> feedback” with some light touch co-ordination where appropriate (e.g.
>>> brief engagement strategy with a timetable)
>>>
>>>  
>>> 4. There has been success in prior standards efforts (SDW WG) by using
>>> other face-to-face or conferences to publicise the work – look for
>>> opportunities where DXWG members have other commitments to attend.  That
>>> could also be done when we are visiting partner organisations (obviously
>>> where this is appropriate).  An additional suggestion was to proactively
>>> reach out to other W3C WG editors/chairs.
>>>
>>>  
>>> 5. Providing an easily consumed summary of the kind of changes we plan
>>> to the recommendation (and the reasoning behind them) as well as any
>>> topics where additional input would help us in the form of (e.g.) a blog
>>> post was seen to be a key resource – as would be using things like the
>>> W3C twitter feed.  [UCR didn’t get mentioned on that, we believe, but
>>> no-one on the call was sure on the protocol here]
>>>
>>>  
>>> Those were the main ideas that came up (at least as I noted it down....)
>>> so perhaps this can help stir some creative ideas that are both
>>> practical and effective.
>>>
>>>  
>>>  
>>> · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
>>> · · ·
>>> *David Browning*
>>> Platform Technology Architect
>>>
>>> *Thomson Reuters*
>>>
>>> Phone: +41(058) 3065054
>>> Mobile: +41(079) 8126123
>>>
>>> david.browning@thomsonreuters.com
>>> <mailto:david.browning@thomsonreuters.com>
>>> thomsonreuters.com <http://thomsonreuters.com/>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> This e-mail is for the sole use of the intended recipient and contains
>>> information that may be privileged and/or confidential. If you are not
>>> an intended recipient, please notify the sender by return e-mail and
>>> delete this e-mail and any attachments. Certain required legal entity
>>> disclosures can be accessed on our website.
>>> <http://site.thomsonreuters.com/site/disclosures/>
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234 (Signal)
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
Received on Tuesday, 15 May 2018 04:47:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 April 2019 13:44:59 UTC