- From: Alejandra Gonzalez-Beltran <alejandra.gonzalezbeltran@oerc.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 14 May 2018 16:03:54 +0100
- To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
Thanks, Dave. Karen - do you think we need something more detailed than what is listed in the 'Change history' section of the document: https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/dcat/#changes ? Alejandra On 14/05/2018 15:17, Karen Coyle wrote: > 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? > > kc > > 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/>
Received on Monday, 14 May 2018 15:04:20 UTC