- From: Chris Beer <chris@codex.net.au>
- Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2013 10:11:06 +1100
- To: public-gld-wg@w3.org, Dave Reynolds <dave.e.reynolds@gmail.com>
+1 on publishing - the cost of not publishing outweighs any delay which could be addressed down the track via minor point versions. > Nits based on brief look at diffs: > o Minor. Abstract still says "The following recommendations are > offered to creators, maintainers and operators of *Web sites*." > Personally would simply delete that sentence but not a big deal. "of online services and channels"? > o New position of vocabulary 5* scheme is now confusing because it > looks like one table with later entries repeating most of the 5* points > but differently. +1. Can we consider this presentational and address in final REC publishing? > o The new phrasing that introduces the 5* vocabulary scheme "that is > intended for widespread re-use" is stronger than I'm prepared to > endorse. [I'm not a fan of diluting the 5* meme with more variants, and > not a fan of this particular variant.] +1 - but for a different reason - I feel the phrase "intended for widespread re-use" (or variations on that theme) when used with regard to Ont/Vocab/Schemas is redundant as what W3 REC or part thereof ISN'T intended for widespread re-use. Standards body and all that. Just sayin... ;) Cheers Chris Beer W3 GLD WG (Invited Expert) Sent from my Sony Xperia™ smartphone ---- Dave Reynolds wrote ---- >+0 > >No objection to it being published in its current form (modulo pubrules). > >Not +1 because there remain some nits, because I don't have time to give >it proper thought right now and because the phrasing of the resolution >"expresses Best Practices for publishing Government Linked Data" is >strong. It contains helpful advice and can inform and provide a >foundation for Best Practices. > >Nits based on brief look at diffs: > o Minor. Abstract still says "The following recommendations are >offered to creators, maintainers and operators of *Web sites*." >Personally would simply delete that sentence but not a big deal. > > o New position of vocabulary 5* scheme is now confusing because it >looks like one table with later entries repeating most of the 5* points >but differently. > > o The new phrasing that introduces the 5* vocabulary scheme "that is >intended for widespread re-use" is stronger than I'm prepared to >endorse. [I'm not a fan of diluting the 5* meme with more variants, and >not a fan of this particular variant.] > >Dave > >On 18/12/13 14:27, Sandro Hawke wrote: >> Summary: should we go ahead and publish bp as it stands today? vote asap. >> >> Following the emails of yesterday [1] [2], there's been some >> disagreement about whether it might still be possible to publish Best >> Practices. The chairs have agreed to hold an email vote this week; >> deadline is the end of the usual meeting time (about 26 hours from when >> I'm sending this). If you have a problem with this deadline, please >> say so, but we don't have a lot of options. We wont physically be able >> to publish until January, so if you have a procedural complain in the >> next two weeks, there will be time to consider it. >> >> There will be an informal meeting, at the usual time tomorrow, during >> which people can discuss BP if they want, but the email votes will be >> what counts. >> >> The document under consideration is here (frozen): >> >> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/gld/raw-file/4dbafa673d70/bp/index.html >> >> and the diff from Friday's version is here: >> >> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/gld/raw-file/default/bp/diff-1213-1218.html >> >> Please respond via email with a vote (+1 if you support, 0 abstain, -1 >> formal objection, in between to show nuance if you want) on the proposal >> below. If you would vote higher with some small edit, please provide >> the edit and we'll try to see if there's email consensus for it. Feel >> free to make other statements, but please keep it brief. If anyone >> votes -1 or if only a few people vote +1, the document will be left >> unpublished (but still in its current location on the web). >> >> *PROPOSED: Publish* >> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/gld/raw-file/4dbafa673d70/bp/index.html, with >> minimal edits necessary to make it pubrules compliant and fix simple >> typos. We believe that the document in its current form expresses >> Best Practices for publishing Government Linked Data. We understand >> it might be updated by another group in the future or might remain >> as-is. >> >> Thank you for your prompt response. >> >> -- Sandro (in consultation with the chairs & Phil) >> >> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-gld-wg/2013Dec/0069.html >> [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-gld-wg/2013Dec/0071.html etc > >
Received on Wednesday, 18 December 2013 23:11:48 UTC