W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-csv-wg@w3.org > August 2015

Re: Improvements to the Metadata Vocabulary spec including improved alignment with Tabular Data Package

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 13:05:36 +0200
Message-ID: <CAK-qy=7WVa46ecVMYBhE1YCN=OpFCjQ_Jkq4wW2ZRqzxjhmpUw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Rufus Pollock <rufus.pollock@okfn.org>
Cc: "public-csv-wg@w3.org" <public-csv-wg@w3.org>
Hi Rufus,

It's great that you found time to review the specifications,
particularly as you are named as an author.

However, the timing is particularly unfortunate. I don't know if you
follow W3C's processes closely enough to appreciate quite how out of
place such comments are at this time. I have to assume you do not, or
you wouldn't have made them.

For a random member of the public to request such radical (and
casually motivated e.g. "I think this is of minor importance") changes
at this time, it would be quite proper and typical for the WG to say
"thanks, but x months or a year ago was the right time to say this".
Such interactions happen all the time - this is why W3C has a
documented process, otherwise nothing would ever get finalized. It is
impossible to satisfy everyone. For a Working Group member to request
such radical changes at such a late stage is unusual. For a WG member
who is also a named author to make such last minute proposals to their
own WG is deeply troubling, and puts the WG, team contact, W3C team,
chairs and editors in an extremely awkward position. It also makes W3C
look bad; also unfortunate for us all.

6 weeks ago in http://www.w3.org/blog/news/archives/4830 we announced
(after unanimous WG agreement) "Candidate Recommendation means that
the Working Group considers the technical design to be complete, and
is seeking implementation feedbacks on the documents."

Candidate Recommendation is defined here -

As various of your comments appear to constitute substantive changes
per http://www.w3.org/2014/Process-20140801/#substantive-change this
would throw the entire package of specs back into another round of
Candidate Recommendation,

I have not had time yet to confer with the other WG members, but my
advice would be that you -

a) partition your suggestions into substantive vs editorial changes
per http://www.w3.org/2014/Process-20140801/#substantive-change and
rank the editorial suggestions in some way
b) for your substantive changes, decide how much you care - e.g. are
these potential formal objections, resigning-as-coauthor matters, or
just advice and suggestions?  can you prioritise / rank them?
c) break out github sub issues for any editorial issues you consider a
priority, and for any substantive issues  that you decide to pursue
d) start attending WG calls (we planned to resume telecons in
September) and read up on prior discussions (e.g. virtual columns)
before dismissing the WG's designs

I appreciate you are also in an awkward position here. Perhaps there
are opportunities also for revising your Tabular Data spec, since you
mentioned plans to have it published at the IETF?



On 27 August 2015 at 11:32, Rufus Pollock <rufus.pollock@okfn.org> wrote:
> Hi All,
> I've posted a fairly lengthy issue detailing suggestions for improvements to
> the spec which would also support improved alignment with Tabular Data
> Package:
> https://github.com/w3c/csvw/issues/702
> I've been meaning to write these up for several months but work and other
> commitments have conspired against me until now - so I apologize in advance
> for their tardiness.
> Regards,
> Rufus
> --
> Rufus Pollock
> Founder and President | skype: rufuspollock | @rufuspollock
> Open Knowledge - see how data can change the world
> http://okfn.org/ | @okfn | Open Knowledge on Facebook |  Blog
Received on Thursday, 27 August 2015 11:06:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:27:48 UTC