- From: Bernadette Hyland <bhyland@3roundstones.com>
- Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2013 07:47:24 -0500
- To: Dave Reynolds <Dave.e.Reynolds@gmail.com>
- Cc: public-gld-wg@w3.org
Thanks Dave for both your detailed & helpful feedback, I think the doc is better for the guidance you and others provided. This document reflects questions & answers that need to be answered for people interested in increasing the reuse of data that is expensive to collect & maintain by government stakeholders. I sincerely hope we can get it published. Cheers, Bernadette On Dec 18, 2013, at 3:44 AM, Dave Reynolds <Dave.e.Reynolds@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Bernadette, > > Many thanks for addressing all my feedback. I did try to limit my comments to the changes since my last review a few weeks ago, apologies if I brought up things that had not changed. > > Thank you for all your hard work on this, especially for the marathon restructuring and editing blitz last week. I'm sorry we didn't manage to get as far as a formal publication of this document. Glad it is in so much better shape that it was a few months ago, I do feel there is useful content in here and since it is a public working draft it is still possible to refer people to it. Hopefully a future group will be able to build on it. > > Best wishes, > Dave > > On 17/12/13 23:10, Bernadette Hyland wrote: >> Hi Dave, >> On behalf of the editors, we appreciate the feedback. We understand the concern about the large volume of changes in the 11th hour however, the editors can only address the feedback as it came it which unfortunately was late in the WG's charter. This is not directed at you as you've given us feedback regularly, while a lot of restructuring has taken place in the last month, the majority of the content has been available for over a year. The doc languished because little feedback come in. >> >> In any event, I believe all of your feedback & suggestions have been addressed, thank you again. All the best practices are listed & linked. At the request of multiple people, we've removed the mention of PII altogether. The mention of HTTP URIs as a serialization was introduced in error & has been removed. >> >> Thanks, >> Bernadette >> >> On Dec 15, 2013, at 5:04 PM, Dave Reynolds <Dave.e.Reynolds@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> I don't have time to do another full review and am very uncomfortable with the volume of last minute changes. >>> >>> Is there a diff between the version we reviewed before and this version? >>> >>> Here are a few things that I noticed in doing a quick look, no claim that these are exhaustive. Some of these may have been present before. >>> >>> # Overall >>> >>> It reads like there are two documents clashing in here. A document outlining a standard template for a Linked Data publishing project with activities like "prepare" and "announce". Plus a document containing best practice advice for government linked data practitioners. >>> >>> I guess that was true before but the restructuring seems to have brought the mismatch to the fore. >>> >>> Don't have a specific suggestion for how to address that in the available time so presumably just have to live with it. >>> >>> # Abstract >>> >>> Not sure that the sentences on why web of data is wonderful are really an abstract of the document. >>> >>> Rephrase "The following recommendations are offered to creators, maintainers and operators of Web sites." This not aimed purely at such people, this is about data not "Web sites". >>> >>> # Audience and Scope >>> >>> These sections seem confused. Both of them are about audience and prerequisites - neither of them are about scope. The Audience section says you should know about HTML, URIs, HTTP. The scope says you should know about RDF. Put these two lists of prerequisites together. >>> >>> Why is there a list of Linked Data syntaxes in the scope section? >>> >>> HTTP URIs are *not* a syntax for Linked Data. [Repeated in section 8]. >>> >>> # 1 Summary of Best Practices >>> >>> "The following best practices are discussed in this document and listed here for convenience." >>> >>> Only a subset of the document is linked and listed here. What's the status of the other sections? >>> >>> # 4 Data Modelling >>> >>> Not sure what value this section adds, it says too little. Should either say more or say that modelling advice is out of scope. >>> >>> [I understand what you mean by "application independent modelling" but makes me nervous. There's no such thing as a completely neutral ontology, you always have to make choices about how and how deeply to model based on the envisioned range of use of the data, that's why competency questions are such an important part of the process. I guess it's a matter of degree, you try reduce application dependence while accepting that this is not an achievable goal. ] >>> >>> # 5 Basic metadata >>> >>> The second sentence starting "In the following section ..." is now incorrect. >>> >>> # 6 PII >>> >>> Doesn't quite seem to match our discussion on Thursday. I thought we proposed saying WTTEO "Don't accidentally publish PII." Sometimes the purpose of the publication may include PII e.g. for officials. The current second sentence talks about "required by law" which is too strong. For example, when the UK published names and salaries of senior government staff it was a policy decision but while it was *permitted* by law I don't think it was *required* by law. >>> >>> #7 Specify an appropriate license >>> >>> The Note is highly US specific. It was probably there before and I didn't pick it out then so I guess it stays but seems odd. >>> >>> #8 Convert to Linked Data >>> >>> Not sure what "consensus that the object and relationships correctly reflect the dataset(s)" means. >>> >>> "The next step involves mapping the source data into a set of RDF statements via a script" - there are lots of ways to convert data and scripts are only one - there's declarative mapping languages, languages that do query translation rather then data translation (e.g. R2RML), non-script programs etc. >>> >>> Again "HTTP URIs" are not an RDF serialization. >>> >>> #8 & 9 >>> >>> Why are these two different sections? >>> >>> # 12. Internationalized Resource Identifiers >>> >>> Not sure how to read the last sentence: >>> "There is now a growing need to enable use of characters from any language in URIs." >>> Reads as if you are saying that other than IRIs is needed which I assume is not the case. >>> >>> # 13 Standard vocabularies >>> >>> The sentence starting "CSARVENón-Capadisli propose in [CSARVEN] the RDF Data Cube Vocabulary ..." is broken. >>> >>> # 18 Publishing Data for Access and Reuse >>> >>> The 5 star scale in this section is phrased for vocabularies but the rest of the text is talking about general data. >>> >>> # 21. Announce to the public >>> >>> The check list in the note repeats material from elsewhere in the document in a different form. It is not clear why this particular subset of best practice is listed again in this section. >>> >>> >>> I guess of these only the two mentions of HTTP URIs as being an RDF serialization and the yet-another-5-star scale in #18 are show shoppers. >>> >>> Dave >>> >>> >>> On 13/12/13 20:02, Bernadette Hyland wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> The Best Practices document has feedback incorporated & is available for >>>> review.[1] Please send comments to the mailing list and the editors >>>> will continue responding.[2] >>>> >>>> Thank you. >>>> >>>> On behalf of the GLD best practice editors, >>>> >>>> Bernadette, Boris & Ghislain >>>> W3C Government Linked Data Working Group >>>> >>>> [1] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/gld/raw-file/default/bp/index.html >>>> [2] public-gld-comments@w3.org <mailto:public-gld-comments@w3.org> >>>> >>>> On Dec 12, 2013, at 12:27 PM, Hadley Beeman <hadley@linkedgov.org >>>> <mailto:hadley@linkedgov.org>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>>> As we agreed in today's call: [1] >>>>> >>>>> 1. The Best Practices editors will incorporate the existing feedback >>>>> and send out their finalized document to the working group tomorrow >>>>> (Friday) by 12:00 EST / 18:00 CET. >>>>> 2. The working group will then review it, send comments to the >>>>> mailing list, and the editors will continue responding. >>>>> 3. The editors, chairs and any interested working group participants >>>>> will hold an informal call on >>>>> >>>>> Telecon: Tuesday 10:00 am EST / 15:00 GMT / 16:00 CET >>>>> >>>>> to discuss issues, resolve any conflicts and work out what changes >>>>> need to be made in the document. >>>>> 4. The editors will then make final changes, implement PubRules and >>>>> return the document to the working group for final review/approval on >>>>> Wednesday by 12:00 EST / 18:00 CET. >>>>> 5. The working group will have 24 hours for a final read to make sure >>>>> they're ready to vote. >>>>> 6. We will meet again >>>>> >>>>> Telecon: Thursday 10:00 am EST / 15:00 GMT / 16:00 CET (our >>>>> normal time) >>>>> >>>>> to vote on publishing the document as a working group note. >>>>> >>>>> Lots to power through here, in a short amount of time… Mark your >>>>> calendars accordingly! >>>>> >>>>> Thanks again to everyone for their input and to the editors for >>>>> continuing to persevere. Speak to you all on Tuesday! (And Thursday.) >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> >>>>> Hadley >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Hadley Beeman >>>>> Co-chair >>>>> W3C Government Linked Data Working Group >>>>> >>>>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/gld/2013-12-12 >>>> >>> >>> >> > >
Received on Wednesday, 18 December 2013 12:47:48 UTC