Re: PLEASE VOTE on publishing BP

+1 to publishing BP as a WG note.

I hope we can continue this work under the new data activity. I am
especially interested in the modelling issue that is currently only
mentioned in the document and that Dave mentioned in this last review. By
the way, is there any meeting established for the new data activity?

Regards,
João Paulo

From:  Bernadette Hyland <bhyland@3roundstones.com>
Date:  Wednesday, December 18, 2013 at 5:43 PM
To:  Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Cc:  Public GLD WG <public-gld-wg@w3.org>
Subject:  Re: PLEASE VOTE on publishing BP
Resent-From:  <public-gld-wg@w3.org>
Resent-Date:  Wed, 18 Dec 2013 19:43:30 +0000

+1 to publish the Best Practices for Publishing Linked Data, aimed at
government content.

This document reflects considerable input & review over the last year by
editors from three different countries, members of the WG and the public.
Considerable effort went into review & revisions in the last 4 weeks.   The
reflects of real world practioners who wanted to help others climb the
learning curve a bit quicker.

Publishing Best Practices for LD as a WG Note allows for future editors to
pick it up in future working groups & extend it.  We hope that it will
become more complete, useful and international as other editors provide
needed guidance for the rapidly evolving information space that is the Web.

On behalf of all the editors, we trust that you'll see your contributions in
the current version.  Thanks.

NB:  It bear repeating ...
The editors wish to gratefully acknowledge the considerable contributions to
the Linked Data Best Practices document by the following people: Dave
Reynolds <http://www.epimorphics.com> , (Epimorphics,UK), Phil Archer
<http://www.w3.org/People/#phila> , (W3C / ERCIM, UK), Makx Deckers
<http://www.linkedin.com/in/makxdekkers> , (Independent Consultant, Spain),
John Erickson <http://logd.tw.rpi.edu/person/john_erickson>  (Rensselaer
Polytechnic Institute, USA), João Paulo Almeida
<http://nemo.inf.ufes.br/jpalmeida> , (Federal University of Espírito Santo,
Brazil), Tom Heath  <http://theodi.org/team/tom-heath> , (Open Data
Institute, UK), Thomas Baker  <http://lod-lam.net/summit/author/tombaker/> ,
(Dublin Core Metadata Initiative, US) Sarven Capadisli
<http://www.deri.ie/users/sarven-capadisli/> , (UK) Bernard Vatant
<http://data.semanticweb.org/person/bernard-vatant/>  (Mondeca, France),
Michael Pendleton (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, USA), Biplav
Srivastava 
<http://researcher.watson.ibm.com/researcher/view_person_subpage.php?id=3088
>  (IBM India), Daniel Vila  <http://www.oeg-upm.net>  (Ontology Engineering
Group, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, UPM, Spain), Martín Álvarez
Espinar (CTIC-Centro Tecnológico, Spain), David Wood
<http://www.about.me/david_wood/>  (3 Round Stones, USA), Michael Hausenblas
<http://mhausenblas.info/#i>  (MapR, USA), and our working group co-chair,
Hadley Beeman  <http://linkedgov.org>  (UK LinkedGov, UK).  Please accept
our apologies in advance if we've inadvertantly omitted your name as many
people provided valuable feedback and were  instrumental in the production
of this best practices publication.


Kind regards,
Editors: Bernadette Hyland <http://www.about.me/bernadettehyland/> , 3 Round
Stones, Inc. <http://3roundstones.com/> Ghislain Atemezing
<http://www.eurecom.fr/%7Eatemezin/> , EURECOM <http://www.eurecom.fr/en>
Boris Villazón-Terrazas <http://boris.villazon.terrazas.name> , iSOCO,
Intelligent Software Components S.A. <http://www.isoco.com>



On Dec 18, 2013, at 9:27 AM, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org> 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
>