W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-gld-wg@w3.org > November 2013

Re: Best Practices editors: to-do list & timelines - For tomorrow's meeting

From: Bernadette Hyland <bhyland@3roundstones.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 11:52:25 -0500
Cc: Ghislain Auguste Atemezing <Auguste.Atemezing@eurecom.fr>, Boris Marcelo Villazon Terrazas <boris.villazon.terrazas@gmail.com>, Public GLD WG <public-gld-wg@w3.org>, GLD Chairs <team-gld-chairs@w3.org>
Message-Id: <8D7F5063-E0B4-4AC1-B156-3F8329D5F66B@3roundstones.com>
To: Hadley Beeman <hadley@linkedgov.org>
Hi,
Thanks Hadley, we've reviewed the minutes from the last meeting, including guidance to the editors.[1]  I apologize that my work schedule hasn't permitted me to make the last couple meetings.

Today, two of the Best Practices document editors met & divided the remaining issues and discussed the various options in light of the date & our charter extension deadline.[2], [3], [4], [5]  We're actively working on the documents this week.

Per your email, we opted for "Option B" (No public feedback)  for the Working Group Note given the timeframe. We believe that allows us to complete the edits this week and have a reasonable draft.  The Web Data & BP WG can take this up as a 'package' and have hopefully something reasonable to begin with in terms of a solid core BP doc.  We hope that is a reasonable outcome given everyone's busy schedule, while not ideal, but the best we can do and will provide some useful guidance.


Cheers,

Bernadette Hyland


[1]  http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/gld/2013-11-14#Best_Practices

[2] Assigned to Bern - Issue http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/track/issues/6 (still open)
Guidance good URIs for properties with non-literal ranges. See  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-gld-wg/2013Nov/0005.html

[3] Assigned to Bern - Sandro proposed to remove  section #5 the name because seems confusing. Put the content in the next sections (6 and 7)

[4] Assigned to Boris - Use the new respec with one global bibliography-->> see this mail from Sandro: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-gld-wg/2013Nov/0005.html

[5] Assigned to Ghis - Link LD Glossary throughout the BP doc.

On Nov 13, 2013, at 12:28 PM, Hadley Beeman <hadley@linkedgov.org> wrote:

> Hi all,
> 
> The clock is ticking down on our time together, sadly, and I know we're all keen to get a Best Practices working group note out the to the world where it can be useful. This email is to help us work out how we can make that happen.
> 
> Quick stroll down memory lane:
> 
> At our Face-to-Face in Dublin in April, we resolved: [1]
> 
>      •  The WG aims to publish Best Practices as a W3C Note. 
>      •  Best Practices will (at most) only very briefly discuss "1. Procurement", "4. Versioning", "5.Stability", and "6. Legacy Data."  We don't have the time/expertise to do more. 
> 
> If you'll remember back to our charter [2], that means we're committed to deliver, at minimum, a working group note on:
> 
>     1.  Vocabulary Selection. The group will provide advice on how governments should select RDF vocabulary terms (URIs), including advice as to when they should mint their own. This advice will take into account issues of stability, security, and long-term maintenance commitment, as well as other factors that may arise during the group's work.
> 
>     2.  URI Construction. The group will specify how to create good URIs for use in government linked data. Inputs include Cool URIs for the Semantic Web, Designing URI Sets for the UK Public Sector (PDF), and Creating URIs (data.gov.uk). Guidance will be produced not only for minting URIs for governmental  entities, such as schools or agencies, but also for vocabularies, concepts, and datasets.
> (We're also committed to delivering the Cookbook, but we can discuss that separately.)
> 
> 
> I'm afraid we may have to reassess our planning a bit, given the late date and how busy everyone seems to be.  It looks like you have a good amount of content in the Editor's Draft [3], but there are a number of expansion notes and formatting tasks to get through.  
> 
> More importantly though, after last week's meeting (in which the working group wanted to reassess the use of five stars to evaluate vocabularies [4]), I'm concerned that the group may need some considerable time to review and discuss this work (and you, to revise in collaboration with them) before we can come to a consensus on publishing it.
> 
> So I'm looking at the timelines (as is my wont… it's a sad life, I know!) and here are the options I think we have for this deliverable:
> 
> 
> — Option A: (the "We're all in!" option) —
> 
> 1.  Full, pubrules-ready FPWD to the working group THIS TUESDAY. (19 November)  
> I suspect we'll have to approve it for publication by email, if we can, or find some other way to make that work.  
> [This is for publication 21 November]
> 2.  Two weeks for public and working group comments (21 November - 5 December)*
> 3.  One week for the editors to revise the document, respond to feedback, and return new draft to the working group for final review (5-12 December)
> 4.  The working group resolves to publish: 12 December 
> 
> * This is shorter than the usual W3C review period, but it seems to be what we have.
> 
> 
> — Option B: (the "No public feedback" option) —
> 
> 1.  Editors revise and draft until 21 November.  (This gives you a little over a week.)
> 2.  One week for working group comments and discussion (28 November - 5 December)**
> 3.  One week for the editors to revise the document, respond to feedback, and return new draft to the working group for final review (5-12 December)
> 4.  The working group resolves to publish: 12 December 
> 
> ** We would probably arrange an extra call for these discussions during that week of feedback.
> 
> 
> — Option C (the "Last possible minute" option) — ***
> 1.  Editors continue to revise and work on it until 5 December [to distribute to the working group, who must read it before they can vote]
> 2.  The working group may resolve to publish: 12 December
> 
> *** Option C has a sizable risk:  that members of the working group may have objections or want clarifications, and this option doesn't allow any time to resolve them. The risk means that the working group may not approve the document.
> 
> 
> Ultimately, editors:  I think this both your decision and the working group's, but it should be guided by what you, in your expertise, think is best.  Feel free to discuss this here on the mailing list, or among yourselves. 
> 
> It would be great if your thoughts could guide our discussion in tomorrow's meeting.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
>    Hadley
> 
> Hadley Beeman
> Co-chair
> W3C Government Linked Data Working Group
> 
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/meeting/2013-04-11
> [2] www.w3.org/2011/gld/charter
> [3] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/gld/raw-file/default/bp/index.html
> [4] http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/gld/2013-11-07
Received on Wednesday, 20 November 2013 16:52:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:32:40 UTC