- From: Dave Reynolds <dave.e.reynolds@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 02 May 2013 18:28:30 +0100
- To: Government Linked Data Working Group <public-gld-wg@w3.org>
As discussed on this week's telecon I have progressed the wiki document [1] which pulls together our case for transitioning ORG to CR. The main thing to flag up is the proposal for exit criteria. The proposed approach is a compromise between the approach discussed at the f2f and the lower bar described by Sandro in [2]. The approach is to: (a) Group the vocabulary into a small number of features (7) to simplify reporting and tracking. (b) Require two conforming data sources for each feature. (c) Ask implementors to check conformance against a "minimal ORG consumer" defined in [3] and assert whether the results match their expectations. The queries simply list appropriate elements from the data and so require human interpretation by someone who understands the data. (c) Ask for, but not require, validatable data samples (anything from emailing a file to providing a public endpoint) to allow the WG to check aspects not verifiable by such queries. But not commit to performing such checks and not provide an explicit checklist. Are there any objections to this broad approach? Are there any specific suggestions for improvement to the proposed phrasing of the criteria or the details of the verification suite? Any problems with the rest of the material on [1]? Question, probably for Sandro ... I've listed the changes since Last Call in the document and cut/pasted that list into [1]. Are we supposed to provide a diff? If so is there an easy tool for that? Dave [1] http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/wiki/ORG_CR_transition [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-gld-wg/2013Apr/0048.html [3] http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/wiki/ORG_Validation_Suite
Received on Thursday, 2 May 2013 17:28:59 UTC