W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-dxwg-wg@w3.org > July 2019

Aw: DXWG priorities

From: <lars.svensson@web.de>
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2019 14:24:15 +0200
Message-ID: <trinity-fb2257e1-7d73-4222-a282-eb22019ee5ed-1562761455344@3c-app-webde-bs15>
To: "Thomas Baker" <tom@tombaker.org>
Cc: public-dxwg-wg <public-dxwg-wg@w3.org>
Tom,

On Mittwoch, 10. Juli 2019 um 12:07 Uhr, Tom Baker scripsit:

[...
]> However, I am worried about CONNEG.
>
> I posted a number of substantive comments about CONNEG to
> the public-dxwg-comments list eight weeks ago [1], and I
> still see no public response or even acknowledgement that
> the comments are being addressed.

Yes, we've been slow on replying to your comments. It's on me and I apologise.
We have discussed them in several meetings [1] and there is an open action [2] to address this (and they are on the agenda for tomorrow's meeting, too).

And yes (again), we're behind on editing the documents. This is very much due to the fact that two out of the three editors (I'm one of those) are currently transiting to new positions and at least for me that means that W3C activities don't have the top priority at the moment.

[1] https://www.w3.org/2019/06/20-dxwgcneg-minutes#x09
[2] https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/track/actions/341

Best,

Lars

> The Github log for CONNEG shows that there have been no
> changes to CONNEG since April 23 [2].  "Dublin Core
> Terms" has not even been corrected to read "DCMI Metadata
> Terms" -- a simple erratum that is so easily fixed.
>
> About 40% of the vertical space in the CONNEG draft is
> still taken up with 34 red boxes linking to open issues
> and 11 light blue boxes with issue discussion.
>
> Then there is the unresolved issue of defining "profile".
>
> The definition of "profile" in CONNEG [3] (and in parts
> of DCAT) still reads: "A named set of constraints..." --
> a definition that I still find deeply flawed (e.g.,
> [4,5]).
>
> DCAT and CONNEG must be about profiles as they currently
> exist; if they were not, they would not meet the criteria
> for W3C Recommendations.  Indeed, we resolved on
> Tuesday's call to focus on definitions of profile "as
> they _are now_ for CONNEG and DCAT.
>
> Discussion of what profiles could, should, or might be in
> the future (e.g., the Profiles Vocabulary) should not
> distract this group from adopting a readable definition
> of "profile" and keeping its focus on publishing DCAT and
> CONNEG.
>
> I have proposed a definition that, in my opinion, fits
> the concept of real profiles as they exist today [6,8].
> The definition appears to have the support of a majority
> of active WG participants.  I have updated the proposal
> at [8].  I invite members of this group to informally
> indicate their support with upvotes.
>
> Tom
>
> [1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dxwg-comments/2019May/0001.html
> [2] https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/commits/gh-pages/conneg-by-ap/index.html
> [3] https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/conneg-by-ap/#definitions
> [4] https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/963#issuecomment-507188969
> [5] https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/963#issuecomment-507848654
> [6] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dxwg-wg/2019Jul/0201.html
> [7] https://www.w3.org/2019/05/21-dxwg-minutes#x13
> [8] https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/963#issuecomment-509994999
>
> --
> Tom Baker <tom@tombaker.org>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 10 July 2019 12:24:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 30 October 2019 00:15:54 UTC