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

Hi Hadley

Thanks for your support!
We plan to have telecon tomorrow between us ... to reach an agreement ....
we'll let you know ...

Boris



On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 9:49 PM, Hadley Beeman <hadley@linkedgov.org> wrote:

> Hi Best Practices editors
>
> Just checking in here… How are you getting on?
>
> I'm starting to think about this week's agenda for our Thursday call…
>  Will you be okay to discuss your plans?  We're ready to support you!  Let
> me know if there's anything I (or we) can do to help.
>
> Cheers,
>
>    Hadley
>
> Hadley Beeman
> Co-chair
> W3C Government Linked Data Working Group
>
> On 14 Nov 2013, at 16:10, Hadley Beeman wrote:
>
> Hi Best Practices editors,
>
> I'm sorry that none of you were able to join us on the call today.  We did
> talk about the email below and brainstormed about the options we have
> within the W3C framework for producing something useful but deliverable in
> the time we have left.
>
> The group came up with some good possibilities;  I'd encourage you to read
> through the minutes.
> http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/gld/2013-11-14#Best_Practices
>
> It would be great if you could let us know (here, on the mailing list) in
> the next few days how you want to proceed through the weeks we have left —
> and what we can do to support you.
>
> Your work, as John Erickson said on the call, was one of our first
> artifacts as a group and reflects some of the most useful things we have to
> offer!  Feel important. :)
>
> Cheers,
>
>    Hadley
>
> Hadley Beeman
> Co-chair
> W3C Government Linked Data Working Group
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 10:47 AM, Boris Villazón-Terrazas <
> boris.villazon@terrazas.name> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>
>