- From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
- Date: Tue, 15 May 2018 06:46:49 +0200
- To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
We probably need less - something more of a discursive statement that will interest the audience. kc On 5/14/18 5:03 PM, Alejandra Gonzalez-Beltran wrote: > 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/> > > > -- Karen Coyle kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net m: 1-510-435-8234 (Signal) skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
Received on Tuesday, 15 May 2018 04:47:22 UTC