- From: Bernadette Hyland <bhyland@3roundstones.com>
- Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 20:57:30 -0400
- To: Dave Reynolds <Dave.e.Reynolds@gmail.com>
- Cc: public-gld-wg@w3.org
- Message-Id: <65CE9F0E-7B97-4546-B379-AB2FE22CBB4C@3roundstones.com>
Hi,
Thanks Dave for taking the time to outline your thoughts vis a vis the procurement section. The section was added last year at the suggestion of one of the members who had recently gone through the process of educating their procurement officer and wanted to share some of this so others could learn from that experience.
That said, I agree that in every government agency will be different. Procurement is a specialty with specific legal and process requirements as you noted. I agree, the W3C is not the appropriate organization to publish procurement advice. If someone is passionate about the topic, a community group properly scoped might be a better forum.
So I'm in agreement that there are several sections of the BP that should be shortened to "checklists" for consideration. A checklist (to me) means, the following are issues may be unique to publishing & consuming LOD (i.e., it is open data vs. closed system, hosted on cloud vs. internal data center) and it would be helpful to cover this in your RFI / RFP process. Period.
In the version of the BP doc that we'll review at for this week's telecon, hopefully the doc't will reflect these changes to your satisfaction.
Cheers,
Bernadette
On Mar 7, 2013, at 4:37 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
>
> [2] 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
>>
>> 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>>
>> To: Biplav Srivastava/India/IBM@IBMIN
>> Cc: Bernadette Hyland <bhyland@3roundstones.com
>> <mailto: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
>> <mailto: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_
>> [2]
>> _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>>
>> To: Boris Villazón-Terrazas <_boris.villazon@terrazas.name_
>> <mailto: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>> 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>> 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/OAIS_
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Joăo Paulo
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *
>> From: *Boris Villazón-Terrazas <_boris.villazon@terrazas.name_
>> <mailto:boris.villazon@terrazas.name>>*
>> Date: *Sunday, January 27, 2013 5:50 PM*
>> To: *Bernadette Hyland <_bhyland@3roundstones.com_
>> <mailto: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>> 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>> 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_
>>
>> 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_>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 13 March 2013 00:57:58 UTC