Re: regrets for anticipated teleconf 11-Dec-2014 (tomorrow)

Ivan, Jeni - I happily agree with you both regarding timescales. My intent is to complete the updates to both JSON and RDF mapping documents asap (which I anticipate will be early next week). Once done, I will update the github w3c/csvw:gh-pages repo and notify the WG. The current Editor’s Draft version of the JSON doc is partially updated; the RDF one not updated at all. 

Jeremy

> On 10 Dec 2014, at 15:37, Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com> wrote:
> 
> Jeremy,
> 
> Following up on this: I agree that we shouldn’t kill ourselves trying to get this out before Xmas, but we should aim to publish very early in January.
> 
> Is the document at http://w3c.github.io/csvw/csv2json/ <http://w3c.github.io/csvw/csv2json/> the one that you want published? If so, we will take a vote on it next week. If not, please could you update to the latest version.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Jeni
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org <mailto:ivan@w3.org>>
> Reply: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org <mailto:ivan@w3.org>>>
> Date: 10 December 2014 at 08:11:23
> To: Jeremy Tandy <jeremy.tandy@gmail.com <mailto:jeremy.tandy@gmail.com>>>
> Cc: W3C CSV on the Web Working Group <public-csv-wg@w3.org <mailto:public-csv-wg@w3.org>>>
> Subject:  Re: regrets for anticipated teleconf 11-Dec-2014 (tomorrow)
> 
>> Jeremy et al,
>> 
>> I try to put my staff-contact hat on...
>> 
>> To get these documents published as FPWD, we need:
>> 
>> 1. a formal vote of the WG to move ahead
>> 2. a request from Ralph Swick to approve the publication, more exactly to approve the  
>> 'short name' (that is necessary for a FPWD only, subsequent publications may skip this)  
>> 3. get the document through the hurdles of the pubrules' checker, including installing  
>> the document on the W3C site, get it through respec, etc.
>> 4. get it on the calendar of the webmaster who would publish the document. This should  
>> be done 1-2 days minimum before the targeted publication date
>> 
>> Publications occur on Tuesdays and Thursdays, and the last available date before XMas  
>> is the 18th, ie, next week Thursday.
>> 
>> I wonder whether it is worth the trouble to push this through in high speed, and whether  
>> it is realistic. Even if we do #1 through email, that takes 1-2 days, we cannot expect people  
>> to be on line all the time. Although part of #2-#4 can be done in parallel, those also take  
>> time.
>> 
>> So... I wonder whether it is not more realistic to aim at, say, #1 and #3 be done before Xmas,  
>> maybe issue the request to Ralph (#2), but aim at a very early January publication. Actually,  
>> the best would be if we could do that together with a republication of the metadata and  
>> syntax documents, too (those two do not need #2, and even #1 is much looser).
>> 
>> Ivan
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On 09 Dec 2014, at 17:17 , Jeremy Tandy wrote:
>>> 
>>> All - although I haven’t seen an agenda for a meeting tomorrow (11-Dec) I anticipate  
>> that there will be one.
>>> 
>>> Unfortunately I will not be able to participate due to other commitments.
>>> 
>>> As of right now, I have done a significant edit on the JSON mapping document; I am working  
>> in my local repo and will do a pull request soon (hopefully today) to get my changes in to  
>> w3c/csvw:gh-pages. It may not be finished, but we’re getting there. I expect the RDF  
>> mapping doc to be broadly similar. I have worked through all the issues, meeting minutes  
>> and draft documents and have drafted what needs to go into both documents … it just needs  
>> to be HTML-ified (and converted into ‘proper’ English with a logical structure!).
>>> 
>>> I know that we’re still aiming for FPWD on these two docs _before Christmas_. The last  
>> date is 19-Dec, so I would hope to have a vote next week (or by email correspondence) to  
>> publish FPWD.
>>> 
>>> There are a bunch of issues in the [GitHub repo][1] to discuss. But here’s a short list  
>> of the ones that I’d really like some feedback on if you have time to discuss:
>>> 
>>> - Are the abstract tabular data and the CSV that encodes it the same thing? [#93]
>>> - Making `schema` property mandatory for table description objects & explicit identification  
>> of schemas [#94]
>>> 
>>> Many thanks, Jeremy
>>> 
>>> [1]:https://github.com/w3c/csvw/issues/
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ----
>> Ivan Herman, W3C
>> Digital Publishing Activity Lead
>> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
>> mobile: +31-641044153
>> ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> --  
> Jeni Tennison
> http://www.jenitennison.com/ <http://www.jenitennison.com/>