Re: PLEASE VOTE on publishing BP

Makx, is it possible for you to join the call in 30 minutes to talk 
about this?

        -- Sandro

On 12/19/2013 06:56 AM, Makx Dekkers wrote:
>
> 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
>