Re: PLEASE VOTE on publishing BP

+0

No objection to it being published in its current form (modulo pubrules).

Not +1 because there remain some nits, because I don't have time to give 
it proper thought right now and because the phrasing of the resolution 
"expresses Best Practices for publishing Government Linked Data" is 
strong. It contains helpful advice and can inform and provide a 
foundation for Best Practices.

Nits based on brief look at diffs:
  o Minor. Abstract still says "The following recommendations are 
offered to creators, maintainers and operators of *Web sites*." 
Personally would simply delete that sentence but not a big deal.

  o New position of vocabulary 5* scheme is now confusing because it 
looks like one table with later entries repeating most of the 5* points 
but differently.

  o The new phrasing that introduces the 5* vocabulary scheme "that is 
intended for widespread re-use" is stronger than I'm prepared to 
endorse. [I'm not a fan of diluting the 5* meme with more variants, and 
not a fan of this particular variant.]

Dave

On 18/12/13 14:27, Sandro Hawke wrote:
> Summary: should we go ahead and publish bp as it stands today? vote asap.
>
> Following the emails of yesterday [1] [2], there's been some
> disagreement about whether it might still be possible to publish Best
> Practices.   The chairs have agreed to hold an email vote this week;
> deadline is the end of the usual meeting time (about 26 hours from when
> I'm sending this).     If you have a problem with this deadline, please
> say so, but we don't have a lot of options.   We wont physically be able
> to publish until January, so if you have a procedural complain in the
> next two weeks, there will be time to consider it.
>
> There will be an informal meeting, at the usual time tomorrow, during
> which people can discuss BP if they want, but the email votes will be
> what counts.
>
> The document under consideration is here (frozen):
>
>     https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/gld/raw-file/4dbafa673d70/bp/index.html
>
> and the diff from Friday's version is here:
>
>     https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/gld/raw-file/default/bp/diff-1213-1218.html
>
> Please respond via email with a vote (+1 if you support, 0 abstain, -1
> formal objection, in between to show nuance if you want) on the proposal
> below.   If you would vote higher with some small edit, please provide
> the edit and we'll try to see if there's email consensus for it.   Feel
> free to make other statements, but please keep it brief.   If anyone
> votes -1 or if only a few people vote +1, the document will be left
> unpublished (but still in its current location on the web).
>
>     *PROPOSED: Publish*
>     https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/gld/raw-file/4dbafa673d70/bp/index.html, with
>     minimal edits necessary to make it pubrules compliant and fix simple
>     typos.    We believe that the document in its current form expresses
>     Best Practices for publishing Government Linked Data. We understand
>     it might be updated by another group in the future or might remain
>     as-is.
>
> Thank you for your prompt response.
>
>         -- Sandro (in consultation with the chairs & Phil)
>
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-gld-wg/2013Dec/0069.html
> [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-gld-wg/2013Dec/0071.html etc

Received on Wednesday, 18 December 2013 17:14:51 UTC