W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-dxwg-wg@w3.org > May 2018

Re: Follow up on DCAT comms/comment strategy (was: dxwg-ACTION-108: Draft a short comms strategy to highlight priorities and mechanisms to drive engagement on FPWD...)

From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
Date: Mon, 14 May 2018 16:17:14 +0200
To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <1d45efc1-7b62-3662-a590-e299db46d22e@kcoyle.net>
Thanks, Dave.

We also need someone to write up a short "blurb" that we can include in
our emails when soliciting comments. I would think that the blurb should
emphasize what has changed (or at least the direction of change)
compared to the 2014 DCAT vocabulary. This may serve to interest folks.
What has been done that improves on DCAT, makes it more useful?


On 5/14/18 2:42 PM, david.browning@thomsonreuters.com wrote:
> In the DCAT sub-group meeting on Wednesday 2^nd May, there was a bit of
> a discussion around how we could stimulate more (and more broad)
> feedback on the DCAT FPWD. The consensus seemed to be that while the
> mechanism used for the UCR FPWD was useful, it didn’t manage to get an
> adequate response from the wider community both in the senses of across
> a wider range of industries/practice areas and across a broader
> geographical distribution.
> There were a number of suggestions that came up in the wider discussion
> (see minutes at https://www.w3.org/2018/05/02-dxwgdcat-minutes ) and I
> made a few additional notes.  This email tries to pull them into a more
> organised form as input to further discussion.  [At the time of writing,
> this is on the agenda  for the DCAT plenary on Tuesday 15^th May which I
> can’t attend – travelling back from the AC meeting – so I offer these
> notes as input to that agenda item.]
> 1.  The UCR comment process (using the spreadsheet of contacts to reach
> out to people and organisations  who should have an interest via a WG
> member who is a previous contact) did get some traction, but the
> opportunity to comment does risk only being acted on by the ‘usual
> suspects’.  If we are serious about producing a broadly-based, globally
> adopted standard then we need to do much more outreach to people who
> don’t yet know they should be interested.  [To be clear, the view in the
> meeting was that what was done was useful, just not enough]
> 2. In particular, the geographical coverage of interest/response is
> heavily balanced towards a small number of geographical areas
> (predominately EC/Europe) – we need to reach out to America, Asia,
> Africa.  We could also do with broadening the audience to other practice
> areas/industries.
> 3. The github feed is extremely active, so its unlikely to be a good
> vehicle to tempt people to get involved – that’s really what the FPWD is
> for.  Even there, it’s quite a large/detailed doc where readers may miss
> the message/point in the detail.  The suggestion was raised that we
> should aim for an  “active, personal engagement strategy to get
> feedback” with some light touch co-ordination where appropriate (e.g.
> brief engagement strategy with a timetable)
> 4. There has been success in prior standards efforts (SDW WG) by using
> other face-to-face or conferences to publicise the work – look for
> opportunities where DXWG members have other commitments to attend.  That
> could also be done when we are visiting partner organisations (obviously
> where this is appropriate).  An additional suggestion was to proactively
> reach out to other W3C WG editors/chairs.
> 5. Providing an easily consumed summary of the kind of changes we plan
> to the recommendation (and the reasoning behind them) as well as any
> topics where additional input would help us in the form of (e.g.) a blog
> post was seen to be a key resource – as would be using things like the
> W3C twitter feed.  [UCR didn’t get mentioned on that, we believe, but
> no-one on the call was sure on the protocol here]
> Those were the main ideas that came up (at least as I noted it down....)
> so perhaps this can help stir some creative ideas that are both
> practical and effective.
> · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
> · · ·
> *David Browning*
> Platform Technology Architect
> *Thomson Reuters*
> Phone: +41(058) 3065054
> Mobile: +41(079) 8126123
> david.browning@thomsonreuters.com <mailto:david.browning@thomsonreuters.com>
> thomsonreuters.com <http://thomsonreuters.com/>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This e-mail is for the sole use of the intended recipient and contains
> information that may be privileged and/or confidential. If you are not
> an intended recipient, please notify the sender by return e-mail and
> delete this e-mail and any attachments. Certain required legal entity
> disclosures can be accessed on our website.
> <http://site.thomsonreuters.com/site/disclosures/>

Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234 (Signal)
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
Received on Monday, 14 May 2018 14:17:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:42:03 UTC