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: Boris Marcelo Villazon Terrazas <boris.villazon.terrazas@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 05:51:53 +0100
Message-ID: <CAJ9EsGLRNW8kRTx2ZWRmZrCYNy5UDYTxy2cYk5CXF13bAsh55A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Hadley Beeman <hadley@linkedgov.org>
Cc: Bernadette Hyland <bhyland@3roundstones.com>, Ghislain Auguste Atemezing <Auguste.Atemezing@eurecom.fr>, Public GLD WG <public-gld-wg@w3.org>, GLD Chairs <team-gld-chairs@w3.org>
Thanks Hadley

Sadly I have to send regrets for tomorrow's telecon ...
We were working on the document taking into account your comments ...
the new version is available here [1]; we are still missing two references
....

Best
Boris

[1] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/gld/raw-file/default/bp/index.html


On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 7:39 PM, Hadley Beeman <hadley@linkedgov.org> wrote:

> Thanks, Bernadette!  I appreciate the update, and thanks to all three of
> you (that's Ghislain and Boris too!) for all your hard work.
>
> You still have a section in tomorrow's agenda.  [6]  This email covers
> your first bullet point, so…  It's your time;  if there's anything specific
> you'd rather the group discuss or help you on, feel free to edit the agenda
> accordingly!
>
> Speak tomorrow,
>
>    Hadley
>
> Hadley Beeman
> Co-chair
> W3C Government Linked Data Working Group
>
> [6]  http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/wiki/Meetings:Telecon201311121
>
> On 20 Nov 2013, at 16:52, Bernadette Hyland wrote:
>
> 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 Thursday, 21 November 2013 04:52:22 UTC

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