- From: Dave Reynolds <dave.e.reynolds@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 08:58:21 +0000
- To: Bernadette Hyland <bhyland@3roundstones.com>
- CC: public-gld-wg@w3.org
On 13/03/13 00:57, Bernadette Hyland wrote:
> 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.
Such shared learning is great and an excellent topic for community
forums such as the eGov interest group.
> 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.
Glad we agree on this :)
> 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.
Looking at [1] there still seems to be a checklist.
I see it has been tweaked slightly (e.g. to mention APIs as well as
SPARQL) but retains many of the problematic features that led to my -1
vote. In particular, it seems to fail your test above in that it is
mostly not LOD-specific.
[Minor: There seems to be a dangling bit of the Overview section that
doesn't make sense on it is own.]
Cheers,
Dave
[1] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/gld/raw-file/default/bp/index.html#procurement
> Cheers,
> Bernadette
>
>
> On Mar 7, 2013, at 4:37 AM, Dave Reynolds <Dave.e.Reynolds@gmail.com
> <mailto: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>
>>> <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>
>>> <mailto:boris.villazon@terrazas.name>>
>>> To: Biplav Srivastava/India/IBM@IBMIN
>>> Cc: Bernadette Hyland <bhyland@3roundstones.com
>>> <mailto:bhyland@3roundstones.com>
>>> <mailto:bhyland@3roundstones.com>>, Joăo Paulo Almeida
>>> <jpalmeida@inf.ufes.br <mailto:jpalmeida@inf.ufes.br>
>>> <mailto:jpalmeida@inf.ufes.br>>, Benedikt
>>> Kaempgen <kaempgen@fzi.de <mailto:kaempgen@fzi.de>
>>> <mailto:kaempgen@fzi.de>>,
>>> "public-gld-wg@w3.org <mailto:public-gld-wg@w3.org>
>>> <mailto:public-gld-wg@w3.org>"
>>> <public-gld-wg@w3.org <mailto: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>
>>> <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 Monday, 18 March 2013 08:58:57 UTC