- From: Boris Villazón-Terrazas <boris.villazon@terrazas.name>
- Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 01:25:05 +0100
- To: Dave Reynolds <dave.e.reynolds@gmail.com>
- Cc: public-gld-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CAJ9EsGKP1obx6t+AVYhYp7x4ZuEhrM91KKqts3cc_PXvO_S9-Q@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Dave
Thanks for your comments ...
I agree with you in most of your comments. However, I think the decision of
keeping/removing Procurement section is up to GLD chairs. I'm not sure if
you've discussed this in last week telecon.
Thoughts?
Boris
On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 10:37 AM, Dave Reynolds <dave.e.reynolds@gmail.com>wrote:
> -1
>
> I would like to register a formal objection to publishing BP with the
> procurement section included.
>
> I've raised this issue several times over the last year, including the
> last time BP was mentioned on a telecon [1].
>
> Since the section is still in there let me put my position on record more
> strongly.
>
> I do not feel that W3C is an appropriate organization to publish
> procurement advice and certainly not as a REC track document. Publishing
> advice on technical capabilities that a procurement could take into account
> might be reasonable but not advice on the procurement process.
>
> The procurement checklist part of [2] is largely reasonable. Good work was
> done there. However, the non-technical parts of it are superfluous and
> incomplete, the technical parts have omissions and questionable
> inclusions. That is not a criticism of the work, it is in the nature of the
> task that this will always be true. It is not an appropriate goal to create
> a one-size-fits-all check list for the entire space of public sector linked
> data procurements.
>
> On the non-technical parts then for every public sector linked data
> procurement I have been involved in the procurement body has had detailed
> guidelines and checks for things like selecting a suitable procurement
> vehicle, vendor checks and service checks. The BP check list is incomplete
> compared to any that I have been through (e.g. omits financial stability
> checks, insurance levels, environmental policy etc). I don't see how this
> list would add value to professional public sector procurement departments
> who have a broad range of legal constraints and policy guidelines already.
>
> On the technical parts that again it is largely reasonable, but omits
> features that we have found critical to most public sector deployments and
> includes items that are optional.
>
> In terms of omissions we have found it very important to also make data
> available through a developer-friendly API, to document that API and the
> data model in suitable terms, and to provide at least one user-accessible
> application will pulls on that API and provides an illustration of how that
> data can be used. A number of the tenders in the UK these days in fact
> specify that such APIs and API documentation are a mandatory part of the
> project. The BP checklist has no mention of APIs, its mention of
> documentation seems to be aimed at the software tooling whereas when
> purchasing a service it is the documentation of the data-specific service
> and the community support around that which is important.
>
> In terms of pieces that are not always appropriate the section assumes a
> triple store ("graph database") publication of data and a SPARQL endpoint.
> While this is true of every deployment my company has done, it is perfectly
> possible to publish data as a set of static RDF & HTML files which have
> been dynamically generated from a backend process. We know public sector
> bodies who use this approach. They have very good reasons for doing so and
> publish data which meets all the criteria for TBL's 5* rating.
>
> I could pick on other details but the details aren't the point.
>
> To be crystal clear I am *NOT* suggesting that this section should be
> rewritten to address these criticisms. I am suggesting it should be
> withdrawn as not a suitable topic for W3C to address in a REC track
> publication.
>
> Dave
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/**meeting/2013-02-14<http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/meeting/2013-02-14>
>
> [2] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/gld/**raw-file/default/bp/index.**
> html#procurement<https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/gld/raw-file/default/bp/index.html#procurement>
>
> On 07/03/13 01:27, Boris Villazón-Terrazas wrote:
>
>> Hi all
>>
>> I updated and made some cleaning to the BP document.
>> @Bernadette, I modified the list of editors and included the authors
>>
>> The current ED version is here [1].
>>
>> I know there are still some open points, but I think we can publish it
>> with some minor improvements as FPWD, what do you think?
>>
>> We have to:
>> - Check the list of authors and their affiliations
>> - Work on the current TO DOs
>> - Include the references
>> - Include the Acks section
>>
>> Sadly, I won't be able to join tomorrow's telecon.
>> Please let me know what is the decision about this.
>>
>> TIA
>>
>> Boris
>>
>>
>> [1] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/gld/**raw-file/default/bp/index.html<https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/gld/raw-file/default/bp/index.html>
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 10:31 AM, Biplav Srivastava <sbiplav@in.ibm.com
>> <mailto:sbiplav@in.ibm.com>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Yes from my side.
>>
>> Regards,
>> --Biplav
>>
>> **
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Boris Villazón-Terrazas <boris.villazon@terrazas.name
>> <mailto:boris.villazon@**terrazas.name <boris.villazon@terrazas.name>
>> >>
>> To: Biplav Srivastava/India/IBM@IBMIN
>> Cc: Bernadette Hyland <bhyland@3roundstones.com
>> <mailto:bhyland@3roundstones.**com <bhyland@3roundstones.com>>>,
>> Joăo Paulo Almeida
>> <jpalmeida@inf.ufes.br <mailto:jpalmeida@inf.ufes.br>**>, Benedikt
>> Kaempgen <kaempgen@fzi.de <mailto:kaempgen@fzi.de>>,
>> "public-gld-wg@w3.org <mailto:public-gld-wg@w3.org>"
>> <public-gld-wg@w3.org <mailto:public-gld-wg@w3.org>>
>> Date: 02/21/2013 02:57 PM
>> Subject:
>> Re: Minutes for W3C GLD WG telecon 24-Jan-2013
>> Sent by: boris.villazon.terrazas@gmail.**com<boris.villazon.terrazas@gmail.com>
>> <mailto:boris.villazon.**terrazas@gmail.com<boris.villazon.terrazas@gmail.com>
>> >
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------**------------------------------**
>> ------------
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Biplav
>>
>> Thanks!
>> So, I can update section Source data [1] from here [2], right?
>>
>> Best
>>
>> Boris
>>
>> [1]
>> _https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/gld/**raw-file/default/bp/index.**
>> html#source-data_<https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/gld/raw-file/default/bp/index.html#source-data_>
>> [2]
>> _http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/**wiki/Best_Practices_**
>> Discussion_Summary#Source_**Data_<http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/wiki/Best_Practices_Discussion_Summary#Source_Data_>
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 9:22 AM, Biplav Srivastava
>> <_sbiplav@in.ibm.com_ <mailto:sbiplav@in.ibm.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi
>>
>> I have made changes to the "Source Data" section. The aim of the
>> section is to list issues someone publishing data may face and
>> provide practical guidelines. It turns out that listing issues is
>> simple (and quite general) but resolving them is very context and
>> government dependent. So a point-by-point response to issues is not
>> practical.
>>
>> With the current content, I have improved the text listing issues. I
>> have also modified/ added to the general guidelines Ghislain had
>> kindly added (thanks!). Especially on being privacy aware (#8).
>>
>> Please review.
>>
>> Regards,
>> --Biplav
>>
>> **
>>
>>
>> From: Bernadette Hyland <_bhyland@3roundstones.com_
>> <mailto:bhyland@3roundstones.**com <bhyland@3roundstones.com>>>
>> To: Boris Villazón-Terrazas <_boris.villazon@terrazas.**name_
>> <mailto:boris.villazon@**terrazas.name <boris.villazon@terrazas.name>
>> >>
>> Cc: Joăo Paulo Almeida <_jpalmeida@inf.ufes.br_
>> <mailto:jpalmeida@inf.ufes.br>**>, Benedikt Kaempgen
>> <_kaempgen@fzi.de_ <mailto:kaempgen@fzi.de>>,
>> "_public-gld-wg@w3.org_ <mailto:public-gld-wg@w3.org>"
>> <_public-gld-wg@w3.org_ <mailto:public-gld-wg@w3.org>>
>> Date: 02/21/2013 01:33 AM
>> Subject: Re: Minutes for W3C GLD WG telecon 24-Jan-2013
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------**------------------------------**
>> ------------
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Boris,
>> I don't think you should remove the sections. I think we should
>> still put a small section in to specify why these sections are
>> relevant and need to be considered [by someone publishing and/or
>> consuming LOD]. We just don't have a lot of detailed guidance to
>> offer at this time. This is just my opinion.
>>
>> Others?
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Bernadette Hyland, co-chair
>> W3C Government Linked Data Working Group
>> Charter: _http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/_
>>
>> On Feb 20, 2013, at 6:36 AM, Boris Villazón-Terrazas
>> <_boris.villazon@terrazas.**name_
>> <mailto:boris.villazon@**terrazas.name <boris.villazon@terrazas.name>>>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Bernadette
>>
>> So, for FPWD purposes I'm going to remove those sections, ok?
>> I'll do it tonight.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Boris
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 6:37 PM, Bernadette Hyland
>> <_bhyland@3roundstones.com_ <mailto:bhyland@3roundstones.**com<bhyland@3roundstones.com>>>
>> wrote:
>> +1
>>
>> We've briefly discussed in the WG the that there are a couple parts
>> of the BP document should be omitted, Stability & Versioning being
>> two. We can & should include language describing the issue for
>> consideration however, not propose practices to address it IMO.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Bernadette
>>
>>
>> On Feb 14, 2013, at 11:15 AM, Joăo Paulo Almeida
>> <_jpalmeida@inf.ufes.br_ <mailto:jpalmeida@inf.ufes.br>**> wrote:
>>
>> Dear Bernadette and others,
>>
>> I have reviewed the section on Stability of the BP document, and I
>> believe it is not ready for prime time.
>>
>> Honestly, I would recommend dropping this section or replacing it by
>> a fairly generic piece of text that only raises stability as a
>> concern (one or two paragraphs), and points to useful references
>> (further reading). I'm not an expert on the topic, but I am willing
>> to volunteer to produce this, if the group agrees this is the way to
>> go.
>>
>> There is a lot of work on long-term data preservation and the
>> "properties" described in the text (section 6.3 are quite confusing
>> and do not seem focused). This is not a simple issue, see, e.g. (a
>> lot of initiatives are listed including standards on long-term data
>> preservation):
>> _
>> __http://en.wikipedia.org/**wiki/Digital_preservation__<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_preservation__>
>> __http://en.wikipedia.org/**wiki/OAIS_<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OAIS_>
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Joăo Paulo
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *
>> From: *Boris Villazón-Terrazas <_boris.villazon@terrazas.**name_
>> <mailto:boris.villazon@**terrazas.name <boris.villazon@terrazas.name>
>> >>*
>> Date: *Sunday, January 27, 2013 5:50 PM*
>> To: *Bernadette Hyland <_bhyland@3roundstones.com_
>> <mailto:bhyland@3roundstones.**com <bhyland@3roundstones.com>>>*
>> Cc: *Benedikt Kaempgen <_kaempgen@fzi.de_ <mailto:kaempgen@fzi.de>>,
>> "_public-gld-wg@w3.org_ <mailto:public-gld-wg@w3.org>"
>> <_public-gld-wg@w3.org_ <mailto:public-gld-wg@w3.org>>***
>> Subject: *Re: Minutes for W3C GLD WG telecon 24-Jan-2013*
>> Resent-From: *<_public-gld-wg@w3.org_ <mailto:public-gld-wg@w3.org>>*
>> **
>> Resent-Date: *Sun, 27 Jan 2013 19:50:54 +0000
>>
>> Thanks Michael, Bernadette
>>
>> Since Anne and Ron are not available, any volunteer to take care of
>> section 13. Stability? Biplav? Joao Paulo?
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Boris
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 5:52 PM, Bernadette Hyland
>> <_bhyland@3roundstones.com_ <mailto:bhyland@3roundstones.**com<bhyland@3roundstones.com>>>
>> wrote:
>> Hi Boris,
>> Thanks for circulating. A couple WG members in yesterday's telecon
>> agreed to do a thorough review and comment. This included Biplav
>> and Joao Paulo.
>>
>> Note: We should update assignments to Anne and Ron who are no longer
>> involved in the WG AFAIK.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Bernadette
>>
>>
>> On Jan 25, 2013, at 4:08 AM, Boris Villazón-Terrazas
>> <_boris.villazon@terrazas.**name_
>> <mailto:boris.villazon@**terrazas.name <boris.villazon@terrazas.name>>>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Dear all
>>
>> Apologies for missing yesterday telecon's ... and for not sending my
>> regrets in advance.
>>
>> Regarding the BP document, I was working with the BP document
>> including some comments from outside, e.g, Olaf, but I think it's
>> time to try to finalize this first version. We can make the rest of
>> improvements later on
>>
>> The current version is here [1].
>>
>> Currently, there are some sections to review, so I would suggest the
>> following section and reviewers:
>> - Background - Bernadette
>> - Linked Open Data Lifecycle - Boris & Solve the current issue
>> (ISSUE-15)
>> - Vocabulary Selection - Boris/Ghis
>> - URI Construction - John ERickson/Boris
>> - 6. URI Policy for Persistence - Bernadette/John Erickson
>> - 8. Specifying an appropiate License - Bernadette
>> - 9. Security and hosting - Michael Pendleton
>> - 10. Publishers "Social Contract" - Bernadette
>> - 11. Pragmatic Provenance - John Erickson
>> - 12. Versioning - John Erickson
>> - 13. Stability - Anne Washington (GMU), Ron Reck
>> - 14. Source Data - Biplav
>>
>> Reviewers would have one week to review their section, then we'll
>> have another week to fix the document. I'll be the one to be doing
>> the whole edition, and Bernadette can help me identifying possible
>> minor issues. More help is appreciated.
>> In summary after two weeks we should have a preliminary stable
>> version of the document, so we can publish as a FPWD ....
>> Then, we can continue with the weekly updates and improvements.
>>
>> What do you think?
>>
>> Best
>>
>> Boris
>>
>> [1] _https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/gld/**raw-file/default/bp/index.**html_<https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/gld/raw-file/default/bp/index.html_>
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 5:04 PM, Benedikt Kaempgen
>> <_kaempgen@fzi.de_ <mailto:kaempgen@fzi.de>> wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> See [1] for today's minutes.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Benedikt
>>
>> [1] <_http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/**meeting/2013-01-24_<http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/meeting/2013-01-24_>
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 13 March 2013 00:25:35 UTC