Re: Best Practices editors: to-do list & timelines - For tomorrow's meeting

Hi Hadley, all

Thanks for this!
Ghislain and I were working on the document, but the Editors, Berna, Ghis
and I were not able to chat about the options you are suggesting ...
I won't be able to attend today's telecon ... I'll try to catch Ghis/Berna
by email before the telecon, so we can give you a consensual decision ...

thanks
boris



On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 6:28 PM, Hadley Beeman <hadley@linkedgov.org> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> The clock is ticking down on our time together, sadly, and I know we're
> all keen to get a Best Practices working group note out the to the world
> where it can be useful. This email is to help us work out how we can make
> that happen.
>
> Quick stroll down memory lane:
>
> At our Face-to-Face in Dublin in April, we resolved: [1]
>
>      •  The WG aims to publish Best Practices as a W3C Note.
>      •  Best Practices will (at most) only very briefly discuss "1.
> Procurement", "4. Versioning", "5.Stability", and "6. Legacy Data."  We
> don't have the time/expertise to do more.
>
> If you'll remember back to our charter [2], that means we're committed to
> deliver, at minimum, a working group note on:
>
>     1.  Vocabulary Selection. The group will provide advice on how
> governments should select RDF vocabulary terms (URIs), including advice as
> to when they should mint their own. This advice will take into account
> issues of stability, security, and long-term maintenance commitment, as
> well as other factors that may arise during the group's work.
>
>     2.  URI Construction. The group will specify how to create good URIs
> for use in government linked data. Inputs include Cool URIs for the
> Semantic Web, Designing URI Sets for the UK Public Sector (PDF), and
> Creating URIs (data.gov.uk). Guidance will be produced not only for
> minting URIs for governmental  entities, such as schools or agencies, but
> also for vocabularies, concepts, and datasets.
> (We're also committed to delivering the Cookbook, but we can discuss that
> separately.)
>
>
> I'm afraid we may have to reassess our planning a bit, given the late date
> and how busy everyone seems to be.  It looks like you have a good amount of
> content in the Editor's Draft [3], but there are a number of expansion
> notes and formatting tasks to get through.
>
> More importantly though, after last week's meeting (in which the working
> group wanted to reassess the use of five stars to evaluate vocabularies
> [4]), I'm concerned that the group may need some considerable time to
> review and discuss this work (and you, to revise in collaboration with
> them) before we can come to a consensus on publishing it.
>
> So I'm looking at the timelines (as is my wont… it's a sad life, I know!)
> and here are the options I think we have for this deliverable:
>
>
> — Option A: (the "We're all in!" option) —
>
> 1.  Full, pubrules-ready FPWD to the working group THIS TUESDAY. (19
> November)
> I suspect we'll have to approve it for publication by email, if we can, or
> find some other way to make that work.
> [This is for publication 21 November]
> 2.  Two weeks for public and working group comments (21 November - 5
> December)*
> 3.  One week for the editors to revise the document, respond to feedback,
> and return new draft to the working group for final review (5-12 December)
> 4.  The working group resolves to publish: 12 December
>
> * This is shorter than the usual W3C review period, but it seems to be
> what we have.
>
>
> — Option B: (the "No public feedback" option) —
>
> 1.  Editors revise and draft until 21 November.  (This gives you a little
> over a week.)
> 2.  One week for working group comments and discussion (28 November - 5
> December)**
> 3.  One week for the editors to revise the document, respond to feedback,
> and return new draft to the working group for final review (5-12 December)
> 4.  The working group resolves to publish: 12 December
>
> ** We would probably arrange an extra call for these discussions during
> that week of feedback.
>
>
> — Option C (the "Last possible minute" option) — ***
> 1.  Editors continue to revise and work on it until 5 December [to
> distribute to the working group, who must read it before they can vote]
> 2.  The working group may resolve to publish: 12 December
>
> *** Option C has a sizable risk:  that members of the working group may
> have objections or want clarifications, and this option doesn't allow any
> time to resolve them. The risk means that the working group may not approve
> the document.
>
>
> Ultimately, editors:  I think this both your decision and the working
> group's, but it should be guided by what you, in your expertise, think is
> best.  Feel free to discuss this here on the mailing list, or among
> yourselves.
>
> It would be great if your thoughts could guide our discussion in
> tomorrow's meeting.
>
> Cheers,
>
>    Hadley
>
> Hadley Beeman
> Co-chair
> W3C Government Linked Data Working Group
>
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/meeting/2013-04-11
> [2] www.w3.org/2011/gld/charter
> [3] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/gld/raw-file/default/bp/index.html
> [4] http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/gld/2013-11-07
>