Status BP Friday 30 Jan

Dear all,

Last week the WG resolved to publish the BP doc as a first public 
working draft. Since then, you'll have seen a lot of e-mails about it 
talking about changes that have been made. Formally we could say that 
the WG's resolution was not carried out - something I hope we can 
discuss on the call in just over an hour's time.

In bullets:

- preparing the doc for FPWD highlighted many inconsistencies between 
different sections;

- I made a series of amendments that were primarily editorial and 
stylistic but the end result was a lot of change [1];

- the editors continued the work and left a couple of outstanding issues 
[2].

The first of these concerned BP Provide locale parameters [3], the 
problem being that it said what consumers SHOULD do rather than what 
publishers SHOULD do to empower consumers. I hope my rewording is 
satisfactory to the author of this BP.

The second concerned one of the data preservation BPs. I found the 
wording a little difficult to understand but made a number of changes 
that, for me, improved it. I then looked at the remainder of the 
section. I found more of the text to be confusing and I felt that the 
boundary between data on the Web and preservation techniques was more 
blurred than I felt comfortable with. Noting that we have an unresolved 
issue as to whether the data preservation topic is or is not in scope, I 
took the rather drastic step of cutting the whole section. Irony aside, 
it's preserved on GitHub [4]. There's a lot of good info there but I 
think it needs more WG input and consensus before being included in a 
published doc.

As we know, there are a lot of open issues around the doc and Annette 
raised one last might that I think needs agreement soon: which bit of a 
BP is normative? is it the Intended Outcome (which is what we've been 
working with) or the subtitle? (which also includes the keywords).

I've added Issue-146 to the tracker and pointed to it from the doc.

What's Next?
============

The recent discussions have been the best we've had as a group. We're 
talking about the kind of detail that we need to. IMO, as well as 
closing off the overall issues, we need to use Friday call time to go 
through each BP, one by one, and reach consensus on it.

The doc now is, I think, a good basis for that discussion. How much of 
it we should have before going to FPWD is up the WG, with answers from 
"none - go for it next Tuesday please" to "let's get more done first..."

Phil.


[1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-wg/2015Jan/0299.html
[2] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-wg/2015Jan/0305.html
[3] http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#LocaleParametersMetadata
[4] https://github.com/w3c/dwbp/blob/gh-pages/PreservationFragment.txt


-- 


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

http://philarcher.org
+44 (0)7887 767755
@philarcher1

Received on Friday, 30 January 2015 13:05:20 UTC