Transition Request: CR for Data on the Web Best Practices

The Data on the Web Best Practices Working Group would like to publish 
its Data on the Web Best Practices as a Candidate Recommendation.

    http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/publishing-snapshots/CR-dwbp-20160706/

Resolution to Publish

The primary vote was conducted by e-mail with a resolution on 8 July 
recognising the positive result.

    https://www.w3.org/2016/07/08-dwbp-minutes#resolution03

Proposed date of Publication

    21 July

Evidence that the document meets Working Group requirements

    The document includes a matrix [3] matching Requirements in the
    group's UCR document [4], with the relevant Best Practices.

       [3] 
http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/publishing-snapshots/CR-dwbp-20160706/#requirements
       [4] https://www.w3.org/TR/dwbp-ucr/

Evidence that dependencies with other groups met (or not)

    The WG's charter [5] identifies 4 groups with which it should
    liaise.

   https://www.w3.org/2013/05/odbp-charter

      * CSV on the Web Working Group. No longer in existence,
        however, the WG did seek direct advice from some of its
        former members. For example this exchange [7] with Gregg
        Kellogg. Another member of that WG, Jeremy Tandy, is an
        editor of the Spatial Data on the Web Best Practices that
        builds on DWBP. Both he and (CSVW co-chair) Jeni Tennison
        attended the second F2F meeting of DWBP (TPAC 2014) [8] and
        gave influential advice.
       [7] 
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-dwbp-wg/2016Jul/0000.html
       [8] https://www.w3.org/2014/10/31-dwbp-minutes

      * The Internationalization Activity were also invited to the
        second F2F meeting and have been asked to review the
        document but this was too late to be included in this
        version of the document. However, we do not believe that
        the DWBP has major relevance to i18n except in one Best
        Practice [9].
 
http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/publishing-snapshots/CR-dwbp-20160706/#LocaleParametersMetadata

      * The charter cites the Privacy Interest Group as being
        relevant to another one of the DWBP WG's output, what is
        now known as the Data Quality Vocabulary. With
        hindsight, it is the Best Practices document that needs to
        take acocount of privacy concerns. WG Member Eric Stephan
        (PNNL) attended the PING's telco on 26 May [11] and
        dsicussed the DWBP work. There were no direct actions
        arising from that discussion but Eric addressed privacy
        directly in the introduction by adding:

      [10] https://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-dqv/
      [11] https://www.w3.org/2016/05/26-privacy-minutes.html#item02

      Not all data and metadata should be shared openly, however.
      Security, commercial sensitivity and, above all,
      individuals' privacy need to be taken into account. It is
      for data publishers to determine policy on which data should
      be shared and under what circumstances. Data sharing
      policies are likely to assess the exposure risk and
      determine the appropriate security measures to be taken to
      protect sensitive data, such as secure authentication and
      authorization.
      * The Data Activity Coordination Group no longer exists.

Evidence that the document has received wide review

    Disposition of comments following 19 May 'LC' publication

 
https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Status_of_comments_about_the_last_call_working_draft

    Comments before LC

      [13] 
https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Comments_to_be_considered_in_the_last_call_working_draft

    Also, note the views of of the Spatial Data on the Web WG
    whose own BP doc is being restructured (and reduced) to build
    more directly on DWBP.

      https://www.w3.org/2016/07/06-sdw-minutes#dwbp

    Earlier comments

    https://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/68239/WD-dwbp-20150224/

Evidence that issues have been formally addressed

    See the WG's issue tracker. All issues for the DWBP Doc are
    closed.

    https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/

Exit criteria & Implementation evidence gathering

    Feedback form set up on W3C Brasil to collect
    implementation evidence. This is linked in the SotD section of the doc.

    http://w3c.br/form-dwbp/

    Intention is to receive at least two independent reports that
    the test(s) for each BP have been passed.

    Note also the Share-PSI project that has its own small set of
    complementary BPs. These are centred around implementation of
    the European Commission's (Revised) PSI Directive. The project
    is creating or updating localised guides for implementing the
    PSI Directive that will record when they offer consistent
    advice and/or cite the BPs. It is anticipated that many of
    those guides will also refer to DWBP's work as they are
    presented as two parts of a whole.

    https://www.w3.org/2013/share-psi/bp/

Patent Disclosures

    None

    https://www.w3.org/2004/01/pp-impl/68239/exclude

Charter Implications

    The WG will need a short extension to complete the evidence
    gathering required to exit CR. The group anticipates transition
    to PR during October 2016.



-- 


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

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

Received on Friday, 8 July 2016 16:02:49 UTC