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: Alejandra Gonzalez-Beltran <alejandra.gonzalezbeltran@oerc.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 14 May 2018 16:03:54 +0100
To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <5d164a8e-19fb-4a88-3c54-1ac74b1b10f1@oerc.ox.ac.uk>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 30 October 2019 00:15:43 UTC