RE: PLEASE VOTE on publishing BP

I am looking at
https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/gld/raw-file/4dbafa673d70/bp/index.html version
18 December.

 

I am afraid I have to vote NO to the proposal.

 

Summarising the main points of my earlier message to the list:

 

*         Section 3, under the heading Provide Basic Metadata, implies
that basic metadata must include MIME type, publishing organization
and/or agency, creation date, modification date, version, frequency of
updates, contact email for the data steward(s). First of all, this list
is only relevant for things like documents and data sets, not for things
like people and countries; secondly, even for documents and datasets not
all those properties may be relevant or known. Putting this list as such
in a BP document is confusing.

 

*         Section 8 does not mention direct URI resolution
(follow-your-nose). Not including this in the BP document is a
show-stopper for me.

 

In addition, the new section 3 Model the Data has a highlighted note
that says that "we highlight how Linked Data modeling differs from the
traditional relational data modeling approach", while the text under the
note does not do that - it just says which kinds of people are needed to
do the modelling.

 

One other issue that I just noted (and overlooked in the previous
version) is that the BP document refers to lexvo.org as a stable
collection of URIs for languages. However, a set of authoritative URIs
for languages are maintained by the official registration authority of
ISO639-2, the US Library of Congress. Use of those URIs is recommended
by DCAT, so it seems to me that the BP document should at least mention
that URI collection.

 

I still have quibbles with some of the wording, as noted in my previous
message, but those are really minor.

 

Makx.

 

From: Sandro Hawke [mailto:sandro@w3.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2013 3:28 PM
To: Public GLD WG
Subject: PLEASE VOTE on publishing BP

 

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