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: Hadley Beeman <hadley@linkedgov.org>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 14:04:15 +0000
Cc: Ghislain Atemezing <auguste.atemezing@eurecom.fr>, public-gld-wg@w3.org, Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
Message-Id: <F01BF0DE-ED72-4E63-8FA9-AEB167567078@linkedgov.org>
To: Chris Beer <chris@codex.net.au>
This clearly needs some discussion;  I'm adding it to today's agenda. [1]

Also, a quick reminder that we did discuss this — at length — at our face-to-face in Dublin in April.  [2]  I'd encourage you to review that discussion before today's meeting.

We heard a lot of the same concerns then, and largely resolved that we would "only briefly discuss" the topic of procurement.  (I understood the implication to be that we would focus more time/attention on URI construction and Vocabulary selection.)

Obviously, we can reassess that now, if we need to.  Also, Richard Cyganiac wanted the working group to "vote based on the content."  In other words, now may be the perfect time for this discussion.

Speak to you all later,


[1]  http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20131121
[2]  www.w3.org/2011/gld/meeting/2013-04-11

Hadley Beeman
W3C Government Linked Data Working Group

On 21 Nov 2013, at 13:06, Chris Beer wrote:

> +1 both Dave and Phil. Speaking as a government ICT type, procurement has no place there.
> In addition to the others comments, it also as (was) written suggest that one can't or shouldn't pursure bespoke or in-sourced options. When approaching market, any such checklist is pretty well irrelevant anyway in any gov environment where the core decision factors are Value for Money, Total Cost of Ownership and Return on Investment, followed by existing system interoperability, restrictive licesing or vendor lock-in risk, and if it is a COTS (Commercial of the Shelf) product - that is - does it work as advertised and meet basic business requirements with little or no bespoke customisation, and are enterpise support or managed service options available, or is it already ubiqitous in industry and government with a relatively cost effective ready skill pool to draw on.
> The ideals discussed in that section are nice to haves, but not realistic in regulated and transparent government environments with top level mandated ICT procurement processes.
> Cheers
> Chris Beer
> Australian Government Linked Data Working Group
> Sent from my Sony Xperia™ smartphone
> ---- Phil Archer wrote ----
>> As things stand I'm with Dave on wanting this section removed and 
>> therefore, whatever the past discussion, I would like us to discuss the 
>> issue. Personally I am very uncomfortable with the text as it is at the 
>> moment on the grounds that:
>> 1. it is clearly written for one specific country (USA);
>> 2. it assumes all sorts of norms that may not apply elsewhere;
>> 3. it does not, IMO, make recommendations specific to Linked Data.
>> Governments have detailed procurement guidelines that may or may not 
>> match this list. If we're to include the section at all, my suggestion 
>> would be something like:
>> This procurement checklist and [the] Linked Data Glossary are intended 
>> to assist contract officers understand the [specific] requirements 
>> associated with publishing open government content as Linked Data that 
>> apply in addition to the regular procurement guidelines under which they 
>> operate.
>> + Does the potential vendor explicitly support open standards for Linked 
>> Data, notably those produced by W3C? (watch out for 'vendor-specific 
>> features' that will lead to vendor lock-in).
>> + Is the potential service transferable to another vendor (this is a key 
>> feature of the open standards approach).
>> Others may be able to think of one or two more but those are the two I 
>> think are the key ones. And as it's such a short list, I do wonder what 
>> the value of the procurement section is.
>> Phil.
>> On 21/11/2013 09:04, Ghislain Atemezing wrote:
>>> Hi Dave, all
>>>> I see the Procurement section is still in there.
>>>> To repeat my previous emails and telecon comments on this subject, -1 to
>>>> inclusion of that in the Best Practice document.
>>> Have we (as a Group) reach a "consensus" on this ? Do we need to raise
>>> an issue here and vote today, or this was already done? Any pointer?
>>> Chairs?
>>> Cheers,
>>> Ghislain
>> -- 
>> Phil Archer
>> W3C eGovernment
>> http://philarcher.org
>> +44 (0)7887 767755
>> @philarcher1
Received on Thursday, 21 November 2013 13:49:40 UTC

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