- From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2015 19:11:53 +0000
- 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>
I meant to say... see the License BP at https://github.com/w3c/dwbp/commit/5b764095b4f39c24e8c91ece4e35bb72df04146a from around line 1386. That's one of the BPs I changed most. HTH Phil On 28/01/2015 19:08, Phil Archer wrote: > 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 19:11:35 UTC