RE: [dxwg] Formally align PROF to DCAT (#808)

HI Nick
Yes, I agree, but at the same time I recognise that if there is *any* discussion on a matter, as there was with this one, that we get it through to recognised consensus as soon as possible for the reasons mentioned previously
Cheers
Peter

From: Nicholas Car <nicholas.car@surroundaustralia.com>
Sent: 23 August 2019 02:01
To: pedro winstley <pedro.win.stan@googlemail.com>
Cc: Karen Coyle via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>; Dataset Exchange Working Group <public-dxwg-wg@w3.org>
Subject: Re: [dxwg] Formally align PROF to DCAT (#808)

Hi Peter,

If you want to add this particular Issue - DCAT alignment in PROF - to next plenary sure. But, as I suggested below, it would be unfeasible for every Issue we have to consider to be raised in plenary.

Cheers,

Nick


From: pedro winstley <pedro.win.stan@googlemail.com<mailto:pedro.win.stan@googlemail.com>>
Date: Friday, 23 August 2019 at 8:00 am
To: Nicholas Car <nicholas.car@surroundaustralia.com<mailto:nicholas.car@surroundaustralia.com>>
Cc: Karen Coyle via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org<mailto:sysbot+gh@w3.org>>, Dataset Exchange Working Group <public-dxwg-wg@w3.org<mailto:public-dxwg-wg@w3.org>>
Subject: Re: [dxwg] Formally align PROF to DCAT (#808)

Hi Nick
Everything eventually comes to the working group for the say-so to go to publication, so it's best to think with the end in mind and ensure that the group as a whole knows about design decisions such as alignment etc and is prepared (with an understanding of the design rationale etc) and feels that it has been given enough opportunity to discuss with the editorial team.
In previous votes for the move to publication with other deliverables we have had the experience of issues coming to the fore late in the day and then needing discussion to clarify and agree before we could move forward.
Given the extremely tight schedule for the profiles vocabulary I think we need to go for solving issues and gaining consensus at the earliest opportunity.
Shall I add this to the plenary meeting agenda for next week?
Cheers
Peter

On Thu, 22 Aug 2019 at 22:47, Nicholas Car <nicholas.car@surroundaustralia.com<mailto:nicholas.car@surroundaustralia.com>> wrote:
Hi Karen,

We being the editors of PROF.

I don't believe we need to bring this to the full group for consensus. Neither DCAT nor Conneg has raised every decision they have made with the full group.

The idea came from me: see that I created it and the initial comment for the Issue is my work with no references to feedback or quotes from elsewhere.

Nick

-
Nicholas Car
Data Systems Architect
SURROUND Australia
0477 560 177
nicholas.car@surroundaustralia.com<mailto:nicholas.car@surroundaustralia.com>

> On 23 Aug 2019, at 2:05 am, Karen Coyle via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org<mailto:sysbot%2Bgh@w3.org>> wrote:
>
> @nicholascar Who is we? Could you bring this to the full group for consensus, please. Given how thin we are on the ground, it being August, we can add this to the plenary agenda (cc: @pwin ) but may need to conclude it via email or poll.
>
> I'm not sure where the original idea/issue came from. Could you include that information for the discussion? thanks.
>
> --
> GitHub Notification of comment by kcoyle
> Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/808#issuecomment-523970456 using your GitHub account
>

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
______________________________________________________________________

*********************************************************************************************
This email has been received from an external party and has been swept for the presence of computer viruses.
********************************************************************************************