Re: Working on FPWD, more to do

Phil and editors,

I'm slammed today (Wednesday morning here) with a project, if all goes well
I can help tomorrow.

To save some time, what might be helpful if an editor could help give some
specific guidance make an association that BP # (from the set of 22-33)....
should read like BP #(from the set of 1-21).  It was helpful for instance
referencing the Metadata best practice when I wrote the Provenance best
practice.

Thanks,

Eric S.

On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 12:52 PM, Phil Archer <phila@w3.org> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I've been preparing the BP doc for its FPWD publication - a task that I
> have not yet completed as, I'm sorry to say, there is still quite a lot
> more to do and what I have done has taken a lot longer than I anticipated.
>
> I've been focused on a couple of issues.
>
> First, several BPs included RFC 2119 keywords in the possible
> implementation section and/or the why section. The BP template states that
> the Intended Outcome is normative - that's where MUST, SHOULD, SHOULD NOT
> etc. belong. They are repeated in the short description underneath the
> title but not elsewhere.
>
> In other words, some writers have evidently been a little confused about
> the structure. In trying to create a more regular structure I have had to
> reorder the text a little but, as far as possible, have kept my own views
> out of it (I haven't always succeeded).
>
> Taking out the RFC 2119 bits of the implementation sections has meant more
> than just removing emphasis, it's meant quite significant rewrites - more
> than I fee comfortable doing without WG review.
>
> I keep in mind Antoine's point about writing BPs that say what humans MUST
> do - so I've made a few edits to say what publishers MUST do for the
> benefit of human users.
>
> Some BPs needed more rewriting than others of course.
>
> In doing this I have long missed the deadline for getting the document
> published today, and, as I say, I've made such changes that I feel I have
> gone beyond editorial changes and really feel we need another WG review
> before publishing.
>
> So, at the risk of upsetting lots of people, I suggest:
>
> - I will do my best to make more changes tomorrow (caveat, I have a
> meeting in London tomorrow so I'll mostly be doing this on train and may
> not finish).
>
> - I encourage writers of BPs 1 - 21 to take a look at what I've changed
> and put back/ make any more changes you feel necessary.
>
> - If you wrote any of BPs 22 - 33, please take a careful look at the
> structure of the earlier ones and see if you want to make any changes to
> your text.
>
> - Editors - I've gone well beyond what I ought to do to your document
> here. I hope you don't mind.
>
> - Chairs - sorry, I really think the WG needs to look again and vote again
> on Friday.
>
> Again, I hope I haven't upset anyone here, but reading through the doc
> line by line I have felt significant changes were necessary.
>
> Phil.
>
> --
>
>
> Phil Archer
> W3C Data Activity Lead
> http://www.w3.org/2013/data/
>
> http://philarcher.org
> +44 (0)7887 767755
> @philarcher1
>
>