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

On 27 August 2015 at 12:05, Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com> wrote:

> 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.
>

I am sorry for that Dan. I did reflect on this. As you know I have
communicated you previously on some of these matters and also indicated
some concerns in July. From my end the challenge has been to engage as
fully as I would like as volunteer with a lot of other commitments
especially when some of the more substantive changes were happening earlier
this year. Whilst I appreciated it was late, I felt it was ultimately
better to share my concerns now than simply say nothing.

I would also flag that this is one of the ironies of spec development: that
many of those most relevant are often those most occupied for other matters
- for example, the publishers and adopters in the tech community for whom
this is most relevant are hard to involve or consult (and we will only find
out what works when a substantial amount of tooling is done). I note that
the Data Package family spec have been under development and iteration for
nearly 3-5 years (and many RFCs develop over quite a period).


> 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 -
> http://www.w3.org/2014/Process-20140801/#candidate-rec
>
> 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,
> http://www.w3.org/2014/Process-20140801/#revised-cr
>
> 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
>

Good suggestion. I shall attempt to do so.


> 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?
>

Again. I will seek to do so.


> c) break out github sub issues for any editorial issues you consider a
> priority, and for any substantive issues  that you decide to pursue
> further
> 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'm not dismissing them but making suggestions. Whilst I acknowledge the
difficulty of attendance I have been fairly consistent in my position
especially regarding simplicity and parsimony from the start. (I note that
e.g. on virtual columns i have flagged concerns earlier though perhaps not
as forcefully as i might have).


> 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?
>

There are, and changes were made in the last year to seek greater
conformance and some others can be made - the challenge of really major
changes is that there is already a substantial set of tooling and live data
packages out there. (As you also know these specs did start out somewhat
closer than they are now).

Regards,

Rufus


>
> cheers,
>
> Dan
>
>
>
> 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
>



-- 

*Rufus PollockFounder and President | skype: rufuspollock | @rufuspollock
<https://twitter.com/rufuspollock>Open Knowledge <http://okfn.org/> - see
how data can change the world**http://okfn.org/ <http://okfn.org/> | @okfn
<http://twitter.com/OKFN> | Open Knowledge on Facebook
<https://www.facebook.com/OKFNetwork> |  Blog <http://blog.okfn.org/>*