Re: Shall People die? (was: Re: Deliverables of this WG)

All,

I will like to comment from the perspective of what may benefit a user/ 
consumer.

When someone will look at GLD deliverables as a consumer, they will expect 
guidance on use-cases and what to use in each use-case. Further, although 
not wanting to learn new things for the heck of it, they will not care too 
much about legacy if the guidance is well reasoned. (Who cares if FOAF or 
vCard came first in the last decade? The important thing is what will be 
the best representation for the future century). Finally, everyone likes 
reuse of existing work.

So, I support "people" in present form including use-cases.  We can 
improve by taking a proposed stand for each use-case, and additionally, 
how someone may use an existing schema - FOAF, vCard as appropriate. We 
can then contact existing schema contacts on whether they want to extend 
theirs to be consistent with our use-cases.
People must live.
Regards,
--Biplav
 
 



From:
Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>
To:
Public GLD WG <public-gld-wg@w3.org>
Date:
09/27/2012 02:44 AM
Subject:
Shall People die? (was: Re: Deliverables of this WG)



All,

> RE: People Vocab - while admittedly very important, there is precedent 
for handling people (via foaf and vCard).  Perhaps they are quite 
unsatisfactory from an international perspective, I don't have necessary 
expertise to comment.   There are several other vocabs actively addressing 
this: ISA Core Person, Schema.org, others. 
> 
> Does it make sense to leave it to others??  Did I just commit a cardinal 
sin saying that out loud?? 

There is no such thing like saying something true aloud. It's all about 
'Doing The Right Thing' © ...

So, very well, concerning the People vocabulary, here is a concrete 
proposal:

[[

PROPOSAL: The GLD WG considers http://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-people/ in its 
current shape, that is, the FPWD from 05 April 2012 not fit for purpose 
(modulo the UCR section). Rather than continuing the current route, the WG 
adopts the relevant terms to describe people from Schema.org and to 
address the UCR, where terms are missing in Schema.org, an extension MAY 
be proposed to the Schema.org consortium. For other, relevant 
vocabularies, such as FOAF, vCard, ISA Core, the People vocabulary MUST 
define canonical, normative mappings.

]]

Cheers,
                    Michael

--
Dr. Michael Hausenblas, Research Fellow
DERI - Digital Enterprise Research Institute
NUIG - National University of Ireland, Galway
Ireland, Europe
Tel.: +353 91 495730
http://mhausenblas.info/

On 21 Sep 2012, at 16:49, Bernadette Hyland wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> On Sep 20, 2012, at 12:14 PM, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
> 
>> All,
>> 
>> After today's call, I took the liberty to create a table of all this 
WG's chartered or planned deliverables, in order to get an overview and 
see where we are. I hope I haven't missed anything:
>> 
>> http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/wiki/Deliverables
> 
> 
> Thanks Richard, I appreciate your putting together this table.  I offer 
some thoughts inline in an effort to get the discussion going. 
> 
> WRT the GLD WG, I want to ensure we deliver a few things *well* rather 
than more deliverables at a lower level of quality.  Caveat: Vocab design 
is not something I do for a living, I just use them. 
> 
> My approach is to deliver clear, consistent guidance to new (and 
returning) LOD developers, as well as, to internal champions promoting it 
within their organization.
> 
>> 
>> There are 13 deliverables, 8 of them on REC track, and only 4 have so 
far published First Public Working Drafts (FPWD). The charter [1] says 
that all FPWDs were due in December last year, and all REC-track documents 
should have Last Call (LC) working drafts published by October this year.
> 
> I agree with your assessment in terms of 8 REC track items, only 4 are 
in FPWD and have been hanging in that state since April 2012.  The other 
deliverables are either Notes or wiki pages (GLD Cookbook). 
> 
> RE: Community Directory is running code that I believe is adequately 
bounded in terms of requirements.  It needs UX/UI attention.  Sandro has 
given to greatest level of feedback [2]  which is now being formally 
tracked & addressed.  It will not take many cycles from the GLD WG beyond 
usability feedback to get the site to a useful state that is inline with 
our Charter, I sincerely hope.  Thus, there is little point in ditching 
that deliverable since it is *not* taking working group time & attention 
(besides me at this point).
> 
>> 
>> A few comments on the current state:
>> 
>> 1. If the WG can drop any deliverables, then it probably should do so.
> 
> I agree and with the hope that by saying something we begin a 
constructive conversation.
> 
> There are some vocabs that were put up as candidates early in the WG's 
history that have remained dormant since then.  While they are a good 
idea, we have to balance good ideas with the reality that the WG doesn't 
enjoy the luxury of chief scientists whose job it is to represent their 
org in a W3C WG.  The reality is, we're passionate advocates & this a form 
of open data community service for many of us.
> 
> RE: People Vocab - while admittedly very important, there is precedent 
for handling people (via foaf and vCard).  Perhaps they are quite 
unsatisfactory from an international perspective, I don't have necessary 
expertise to comment.   There are several other vocabs actively addressing 
this: ISA Core Person, Schema.org, others. 
> 
> Does it make sense to leave it to others??  Did I just commit a cardinal 
sin saying that out loud?? 
> 
> RE: Geography & Spatial which is listed in our Charter as optional.  The 
representatives who suggested it no longer attend the WG.  I suggest that 
while a very important vocabulary, we remove it from our Deliverables 
list. 
> 
>> 
>> 2. The editors of any deliverables that doesn't have a FPWD out yet 
should probably take urgent steps towards getting their document in shape 
for FPWD.
> 
> ++1.  I commit for the one REC track item I'm editor on to fold in 
existing content & do my bit to help get Best Practices to FPWD before 
TPAC.
> 
>> 
>> 3. The observation above is particularly true for any deliverables on 
REC track.
>> 
>> 4. There are several people (Bernadette, Phil, Fadi and myself) who are 
responsible for three or more deliverables. This is probably bad.
> 
> Yes, I agree, that is why I disappointed with the UN's 2001 ruling 
against cloning of humans ...
> 
>> 
>> 5. Can we get at least *one* of the documents that are already 
published as FPWD to LC until October? My guess is that this would 
probably look good for charter extension discussions.
> 
> ++1.  Based on level of feedback / interest, I suspect the likely 
candidates are: RDF Data Cube, DCAT or Organization.  So that puts the 
burden on you, Dave R,  Fadi/John/Phil  as to committing to dates in 2012. 
 
> 
> I agree that without a single FPWD getting to LC and Best Practices not 
even being in FPWD doesn't support an extension.  I'm the boat with the 
rest of you in terms of needing to carve out time to get some things to 
the next milestone with some important REC track items.  No one is alone 
in this.
> 
> Thanks for everyone's consideration & advice on how to move our efforts 
forward.  Our window to get high quality LOD and best practices in front 
of people who are assessing open data generally has *never* been better 
than it is today.  Let's work together to cease this window of opportunity 
please.
> 
> Cheers,
> Bernadette
> 
> PS.  Happy International Peace Week everyone!
> 
>> 
>> Any thoughts?
>> 
>> Best,
>> Richard
>> 
>> 
>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/charter
> 
> [2] http://code.google.com/p/dir-w3-org/issues/list
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Bernadette Hyland, co-chair 
> W3C Government Linked Data Working Group
> Charter: http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/