W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-gld-wg@w3.org > March 2013

Re: Best Practices: was Re: Minutes for W3C GLD WG telecon 24-Jan-2013

From: Boris Villazón-Terrazas <boris.villazon@terrazas.name>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 01:25:05 +0100
Message-ID: <CAJ9EsGKP1obx6t+AVYhYp7x4ZuEhrM91KKqts3cc_PXvO_S9-Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dave Reynolds <dave.e.reynolds@gmail.com>
Cc: public-gld-wg@w3.org
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:32:38 UTC