Re: Working on FPWD, more to do

Hi all,

We have made some changes [1] related RFC 2119 in some Best Practices
specifically in the Intended Outcome section. However, there are two
BPs, BP#6 [2] and BP#32 [3] that we couldn’t change and we kindly ask
for the contributors to review them considering Phil’s explanation.

Thanks!
Bernadette, Caroline and Newton

[1] https://github.com/w3c/dwbp/commit/532f4ce7dbdf63ebf70fe90a776364d607b2bc19
[2] http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#LocaleParametersMetadata
[3] http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#resourcestatus

2015-01-28 16:11 GMT-03:00 Phil Archer <phila@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



-- 
Bernadette Farias Lóscio
Centro de Informática
Universidade Federal de Pernambuco - UFPE, Brazil
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Received on Wednesday, 28 January 2015 22:36:10 UTC