Re: Freezing the Best Practices text this week

Thanks, Bernadette!  You have indeed been busy.

Please close the issues you think are finished, and add any new/remaining
ones that still need to be tracked.  (Just so the tracker is authoritative
and up-to-date).

For the BP that Ig has worked on, I don't think you need feedback from the
group right now.  You are the editors, so feel free to make a decision —
and the group will tell you what they think over the next week as they
review the doc. :)

On Erik, you might want to send him one more nudge for a reply — but if he
doesn't, we will just have to move on with your best judgment.

Thanks again!  Speak to you all tomorrow.

Cheers,

   Hadley


On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 6:48 PM, Bernadette Farias Lóscio <bfl@cin.ufpe.br>
wrote:

> Hi Hadley,
>
> Thanks for your message!
>
> We were checking the issues and we think that the following ones can be
> closed:
>
> 1. https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/160: the BP was included in
> the doc.
>
> 2. https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/208: We discussed this issue
> about subsetting data with the SDW group. Annette’s proposal for the
> subsetting BP was rewritten based on our discussions.
>
> 3. https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/241: We discussed these
> aspects and they are mentioned in the Subsetting BP.
>
> 4. https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/248: We agreed to leave a
> note on the doc asking feedback about the name of the section.
>
> 5. https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/250: The section was
> included in the doc.
>
>
> The following issue should be open because we are still asking feedback
> about this:
>
> 1. https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/251
>
>
> We still have some open issues that are not on the tracker:
>
> 1. Best Practice 15: Use standardized terms x Best Practice 16: Reuse
> vocabularies
>
> Annette sent some messages [1][2] pointing out that these BP are
> confusing.  We suggest to include a note in the document asking feedback
> about this. In this case, should we raise an issue on the tracker?
>
> 2. We are still trying to solve some issues with Annette [2][3][4]. But we
> think this won’t be a problem for the voting on next Friday.
>
> 3. Update Intended Outcomes and How to Test sections according to the
> feedback of the group. Ig evaluated the BP and proposed some changes on the
> tests and intended outcomes. We still don’t have a feedback from the group
> about this.
>
> In the comments tracker, we have one open comment (LC-3047) [5]. The
> comments from Erik Wilde were addressed and messages were sent to him.
> However, he didn’t answer back.
>
> We are still working on the document to make more improvements before the
> next publication and we believe that's gonna be possible to freeze the
> document this Friday.
>
> Cheers,
> Berna, Carol and Newton
> BP Editors
>
>
> [1]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-wg/2016Mar/0014.html
> [2]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-wg/2016Apr/0007.html
> [3]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-wg/2016Apr/0006.html
> [4]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-wg/2016Apr/0022.html
> [5]
> https://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/68239/WD-dwbp-20150224/3047
>
>
>
>
> 2016-04-06 10:03 GMT-03:00 Hadley Beeman <hadley@linkedgov.org>:
>
>> Hello all!  (Especially Best Practices editors and contributors)
>>
>> I hope you're having a good week!
>>
>> We chairs have just met (as we do, on Wednesdays) and looked at the
>> calendar...  For the BP doc to be resolved in time, we need to freeze the
>> text [1] on Friday for working group review.
>>
>> (I feel like that needs big dramatic music and some capital letters...
>> FREEZE THE TEXT ON FRIDAY!! It's a big thing.)
>>
>> To make this happen, we need to resolve ALL issues [2] (apart from the
>> ones that we agreed in last week's meeting would ask the community for
>> input)[3].  So it would be great if we could make that happen over the next
>> 48 hours.
>>
>> I'll send out an agenda tomorrow, but this week's working group call will
>> mostly be checking in on the vocals and clearing away actions, so we need
>> to get as much done as we can on the mailing list.
>>
>> Things to remember, editors:
>> 1.  We do have to get the working group to vote to publish the doc (next
>> Friday, after spending this week reviewing it).  So resolving outstanding
>> issues with members of the group should be helpful for that.
>> 2.  You are holding the pen.  If there's something you're not sure about,
>> and the group hasn't discussed it — go ahead and decide!  If it causes any
>> trouble, it will come up in our review.
>>
>> I know it's a lot to cover in a short period of time, but we're so
>> close!  The chairs are here; do let us know if we can help.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>>    Hadley
>>
>> [1] http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html
>> [2] https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/?sort=product
>>
>> [3] We're having a little issue with last Friday's minutes.  Because
>> they're not posted yet, I'll paste  the relevant sections here:
>>
>> RESOLVED: we keep the section in, keep the 3 BPs in, make the title "Data
>> Reuse/Data usage", create a specific issue and ask for feedback on it.
>>
>> deirdrelee: Final issue on the Preservation section — we didn't have a
>> vote, but I hope everyone is okay with adding an issue on that and asking
>> for external comments.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Bernadette Farias Lóscio
> Centro de Informática
> Universidade Federal de Pernambuco - UFPE, Brazil
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>