W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-dwbp-wg@w3.org > January 2015

Re: Working on FPWD, more to do

From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2015 19:08:52 +0000
Message-ID: <54C933C4.6050909@w3.org>
To: Eric Stephan <ericphb@gmail.com>
CC: Bernadette Farias Lóscio <bfl@cin.ufpe.br>, Newton Calegari <newton@nic.br>, Caroline Burle <cburle@nic.br>, Public DWBP WG <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
Thanks Eric,

The BP template [1] is the basic guide. Key things I'd say:

In the Why section, remember the first two axiomatic questions:

Why this is unique to publishing or re-using data on the Web?
How does this encourages publication or re-use of data on the Web?

These can be answered in prose rather than bullet points but they get to 
heart of the problem the BP solves.

Then the Intended Outcome. This is the normative bit, i.e. what we can 
judge an implementation to have done or not. MUST is very strong, SHOULD 
essentially means "comply or explain" (and your explanation for not 
doing so better be good). There is also MUST NOT, SHOULD NOT etc. available.

And we should avoiding telling humans what they SHOULD do. We can, 
however, tell publishers what they SHOULD do in order to meet the needs 
of humans.

Possible approach to implementation is where we offer help but it needs 
to be quite generic, perhaps pointing to other resources, multiple ways 
of achieving the intended outcome etc. There certainly shouldn't be any 
SHOULDs or MUSTs here.

How to test - ideally the outcome is binary, pass/fail. Some BPs have 
included things like "download the dataset, write a script..." I don't 
agree with that approach. You're testing against the intended outcome. 
Ideally the test can be machine-tested but even for humans, the test 
must be deterministic.

I'll try and spend more time on it tomorrow, Thursday.

Thanks Eric as always

Phil.


[1] http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#bp-template
[2] 
https://github.com/w3c/dwbp/commit/5b764095b4f39c24e8c91ece4e35bb72df04146a

On 28/01/2015 16:39, Eric Stephan wrote:
> 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
>>
>>
>

-- 


Phil Archer
W3C Data Activity Lead
http://www.w3.org/2013/data/

http://philarcher.org
+44 (0)7887 767755
@philarcher1
Received on Wednesday, 28 January 2015 19:08:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:39:31 UTC