Re: PLEASE VOTE on publishing BP

Hi Makx,

On Dec 19, 2013, at 6:56 AM, "Makx Dekkers" <mail@makxdekkers.com> 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.

Thank you for the pointing out the issues posed by the language in section 3 & offering proposed wording.  I submit also that "must" should change to a "should" and append, "wherever possible."

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

You are quite right to point out (again) re: section 8 issue in relation to follow your nose.  We should have caught that one & it was my error -- an oversight in the last editing round.  


>  
> 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.

Same is true for #3 - Model the Data.  I'd hoped to extend this section but felt constrained to not introduce significant new content due to the pending deadline.  Modeling is an important step but we the editors didn't elaborate sufficiently.

>  
> One other issue that I just noted (and overlooked in the previous version) is that the BP document refers tolexvo.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.

Thanks for catching the authoritative URIs for languages and yes, if the editors are permitted to fix it, we will.

I defer to our W3 staff contact as to whether we can make this change pending the outcome of the vote and potential publication in January 2014 (we've definitely missed the cut off date for publication in 2013 (that was Tuesday 17-Dec).

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

Thank you again,
Bernadette Hyland

>  
> 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