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

Re: Organizing GitHub issues, projects and milestones for work on Profiles

From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
Date: Wed, 16 May 2018 15:49:19 +0200
To: "Svensson, Lars" <L.Svensson@dnb.de>, "public-dxwg-wg@w3.org" <public-dxwg-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <4f99ece5-b61d-e4ca-80d3-0b8a568af93f@kcoyle.net>
Lars, I see no reason why you should not create an upper-level folder
for the profile negotiation deliverable - it's called Content
Negotiation by Application Profile in the charter, so shorten that
however it makes sense to you.

kc

On 5/15/18 8:55 AM, Svensson, Lars wrote:
> On Friday, May 11, 2018 9:26 AM, Karen Coyle [mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net] wrote:
> 
>> Antoine, we already have profile negotiation as a deliverable, and the
>> advice from Lars is that the deliverable would depend on a very limited
>> requirement that the profile have a IRI. I suspect that we need,
>> however, to look at that again in light of profileDesc - in the sense of
>> it isn't clear to me if the IRI in question is for the profile or the
>> profileDesc. So there is going to be a teasing out of relationships
>> between profile negotiation and profileDesc.
> 
> In my world it's the IRI of the profile, not of the profileDesc (just as we usually refer to entities and not just to their descriptions).
> 
>> Note that the current editors draft for the Guidance document has the
>> editors listing that should be on the Negotiation document. It would be
>> good to set up the separate projects, and we need a new draft document
>> for negotiation. Where we slot in profileDesc - whether in Guidance or a
>> separate document - seems to still be an open question.
>>
>> Are you familiar enough with Respec to at least get the document folders
>> set up and the negotiation editors moved to the correct document? Or is
>> there someone reading this who will volunteer for that? (Since you are
>> on vacation.)
> 
> If we can agree on a name for the folder of the negotiation document ('profile-negotiation'?) I can take care of moving the current negotiation-centric files to that document. If I need W3C guidance I can probably refer to Iván Hermann whom I'm likely to meet tomorrow.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Lars
>  
>> On 5/9/18 3:15 PM, Antoine Isaac wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Following today's discussion on the profile work [6] and my action on
>>> labels [7] I would like to come back to Simon's suggestions from the
>>> thread below, so that we can set up our space for working on all
>>> profiles deliverables.
>>>
>>> Simon has suggested to create Github projects [4] for each deliverable
>>> and I agree with him. What I can do is create one project for each of
>>> the deliverables we envision in relation with profiles:
>>> - profile negotiation
>>> - profile guidance
>>> - profile description vocabulary
>>>
>>> The next step would be to check the content of a current project
>>> "Guidance for Application Profiles for Dataset Exchange" [8] and see how
>>> to distribute its content onto the three new projects. It seems that
>>> this project gathers issues that are related to all three deliverables.
>>>
>>> @Simon, would it sound ok? Is it something we could try to do together?
>>>
>>> The next step would be to see whether we need to organize further our
>>> work with Github milestones [2]. I have created 3 of them for the FPWDs
>>> of the profile deliverables [9]. These are currently empty, and I
>>> hesitate to fill them until the group agrees we need them.
>>> As a matter of fact Simon has already created milestones at [2] and I
>>> don't know what they correspond to. They don't have due dates, and look
>>> rather like aspects of deliverables. Simon himself said they hadn't
>>> helped much. Should we delete them, in the light of coming Github
>>> projects and possibly new milestones with due dates [9]?
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Antoine
>>>
>>> [6] https://www.w3.org/2018/05/09-dxwg-minutes#item01,
>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/15OfNXU9AJ-cZysc7uYP-
>> Gks5dDa8n2B5IN6rWa3kRpo/
>>>
>>> [7] https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/track/actions/109
>>> [8] https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/projects/2
>>> [9] https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/milestone/9,
>>> https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/milestone/10,
>>> https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/milestone/11
>>>
>>>
>>> On 27/04/18 02:25, Rob Atkinson wrote:
>>>> Hi - have been using Git projects in the OGC work I'm doing to help
>>>> organise and visualise at lerast some minimal sense of priortisation.
>>>> Kanban doesnt really help you much with dependencies - unless you
>>>> create a column explicitly for "waiting on other issues to unblock"
>>>>
>>>> You can have issues appearing in multiple projects - so that seems
>>>> OK.  Its not a high overhead and does give a visual feel, so it at
>>>> least will help the coordinators with prioritisation I feel.
>>>>
>>>> Rob
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 27 April 2018 at 08:52, <Simon.Cox@csiro.au
>>>> <mailto:Simon.Cox@csiro.au>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>     I fear the labels' horse has bolted.
>>>>     Earlier this week I deleted all the unused labels (about 10) but
>>>> there are still a lot. Labels, like tags, are primarily for recall.
>>>>
>>>>     Perhaps use of milestones for precise grouping? I made up a few,
>>>> but so far they mostly reflect my biases, plus observations of some
>>>> hot topics.
>>>>
>>>>     -----Original Message-----
>>>>     From: Karen Coyle [mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net
>>>> <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net>]
>>>>     Sent: Thursday, 26 April, 2018 01:55
>>>>     To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org <mailto:public-dxwg-wg@w3.org>
>>>>     Subject: Re: Organizing the issues - GitHub Projects?
>>>>
>>>>     Regardless of whether we opt to use projects, would there be an
>>>> advantage to making stricter use of the labels? Or creating labels
>>>> that are only used to identify deliverables? It seems to me that the
>>>> labels we have are being used pretty loosely, which is good for recall
>>>> but less so for precision. A few precise labels might help with the
>>>> organizing?
>>>>
>>>>     kc
>>>>
>>>>     On 4/24/18 7:43 PM, Simon.Cox@csiro.au wrote:
>>>>      > The list of issues on our GitHub is getting quite overwhelming
>>>> [1].
>>>>      >
>>>>      > A few weeks ago I proposed that we make some groupings using
>>>> GitHub's
>>>>      > Milestones and set up a few [2] but this doesn't appear to have
>>>> helped
>>>>      > much.
>>>>      >
>>>>      > Effectively the Milestones are just a kind of glorified tag
>>>> (label).
>>>>      >
>>>>      > And we definitely have too many tags (labels) [3].
>>>>      >
>>>>      >
>>>>      >
>>>>      > So, here's another suggestion: create a GitHub Project for each
>>>>      > deliverable [4].
>>>>      >
>>>>      > GitHub "Projects" provides a rudimentary Kanban board for each
>>>>      > project, allowing issues to be sorted in status ("todo", "in
>>>> progress", "done") [5].
>>>>      >
>>>>      > It seems to correspond pretty well with deliverables, and at least
>>>>      > will allow us to look at the issues associated with the separate
>>>>      > deliverables more cleanly.
>>>>      >
>>>>      >
>>>>      >
>>>>      > Any comments?
>>>>      >
>>>>      >
>>>>      >
>>>>      > [1] https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues
>>>> <https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues>
>>>>      >
>>>>      > [2] https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/milestones
>>>> <https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/milestones>
>>>>      >
>>>>      > [3] https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/labels
>>>> <https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/labels>
>>>>      >
>>>>      > [4] https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/projects
>>>> <https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/projects>
>>>>      >
>>>>      > [5] https://help.github.com/articles/about-project-boards/
>>>> <https://help.github.com/articles/about-project-boards/>
>>>>      >
>>>>      >
>>>>      >
>>>>      > *Simon J D Cox *
>>>>      >
>>>>      > Research Scientist - Environmental Informatics
>>>>      >
>>>>      > Team Leader - Environmental Information Infrastructure
>>>>      >
>>>>      > CSIRO Land and Water <http://www.csiro.au/Research/LWF
>>>> <http://www.csiro.au/Research/LWF>>
>>>>      >
>>>>      >
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Karen Coyle
>> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
>> m: 1-510-435-8234 (Signal)
>> skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
> 

-- 
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234 (Signal)
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
Received on Wednesday, 16 May 2018 13:49:55 UTC

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