- From: Dave Reynolds <dave.e.reynolds@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 08:58:00 +0000
- To: public-gld-wg@w3.org
Hi Boris, I'm holding off doing a review until the editor's say it is stable and ready for that. However ... I see the Procurement section is still in there. To repeat my previous emails and telecon comments on this subject, -1 to inclusion of that in the Best Practice document. Dave On 21/11/13 04:51, Boris Marcelo Villazon Terrazas wrote: > Thanks Hadley > > Sadly I have to send regrets for tomorrow's telecon ... > We were working on the document taking into account your comments ... > the new version is available here [1]; we are still missing two > references .... > > Best > Boris > > [1] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/gld/raw-file/default/bp/index.html > > > On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 7:39 PM, Hadley Beeman <hadley@linkedgov.org > <mailto:hadley@linkedgov.org>> wrote: > > Thanks, Bernadette! I appreciate the update, and thanks to all > three of you (that's Ghislain and Boris too!) for all your hard work. > > You still have a section in tomorrow's agenda. [6] This email > covers your first bullet point, so It's your time; if there's > anything specific you'd rather the group discuss or help you on, > feel free to edit the agenda accordingly! > > Speak tomorrow, > > Hadley > > Hadley Beeman > Co-chair > W3C Government Linked Data Working Group > > [6] http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/wiki/Meetings:Telecon201311121 > > On 20 Nov 2013, at 16:52, Bernadette Hyland wrote: > >> Hi, >> Thanks Hadley, we've reviewed the minutes from the last meeting, >> including guidance to the editors.[1] I apologize that my work >> schedule hasn't permitted me to make the last couple meetings. >> >> Today, two of the Best Practices document editors met & divided >> the remaining issues and discussed the various options in light of >> the date & our charter extension deadline.[2], [3], [4], [5] >> We're actively working on the documents this week. >> >> Per your email, we opted for "Option B" (No public feedback) for >> the Working Group Note given the timeframe. We believe that allows >> us to complete the edits this week and have a reasonable draft. >> The Web Data & BP WG can take this up as a 'package' and have >> hopefully something reasonable to begin with in terms of a solid >> core BP doc. We hope that is a reasonable outcome given >> everyone's busy schedule, while not ideal, but the best we can do >> and will provide some useful guidance. >> >> >> Cheers, >> >> Bernadette Hyland >> >> >> [1] http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/gld/2013-11-14#Best_Practices >> >> [2] Assigned to Bern - Issue >> http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/track/issues/6 (still open) >> Guidance good URIs for properties with non-literal ranges. See >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-gld-wg/2013Nov/0005.html >> >> [3] Assigned to Bern - Sandro proposed to remove section #5 the >> name because seems confusing. Put the content in the next sections >> (6 and 7) >> >> [4] Assigned to Boris - Use the new respec with one global >> bibliography-->> see this mail from Sandro: >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-gld-wg/2013Nov/0005.html >> >> [5] Assigned to Ghis - Link LD Glossary throughout the BP doc. >> >> On Nov 13, 2013, at 12:28 PM, Hadley Beeman <hadley@linkedgov.org >> <mailto: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 >>> <http://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 <http://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 >> > >
Received on Thursday, 21 November 2013 08:58:37 UTC