RE: I18N Objections concerning: RE: Transition Request: CR for Data on the Web Best Practices

Thanks to everyone for their patience with us ☺.

Richard has just sent the I18N comments to the public-dwbp-comments@ list, as requested by Phil. If there is a need to discuss the comments, please let me know how we can arrange time. I’m happy to reserve time in our weekly teleconference (Thursdays at 1500 UTC [1]) or to participate in another call or forum as appropriate.

As a summary, the I18N WG had 10 total comments, of which three were purely editorial. A few of our comments may be difficult to implement other than as notes or asides: we have identified that in the linked data space certain I18N best practices are not well supported.

Thanks (for I18N),

Addison

Addison Phillips
Principal SDE, I18N Architect (Amazon)
Chair (W3C I18N WG)

Internationalization is not a feature.
It is an architecture.



[1] http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?iso=20160721T1500



From: linkedgov@gmail.com [mailto:linkedgov@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Hadley Beeman
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2016 4:38 AM
To: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
Cc: Ralph Swick <swick@w3.org>; Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>; yaso@nic.br; deirdre@derilinx.com; adler1@us.ibm.com; Phillips, Addison <addison@lab126.com>
Subject: Re: I18N Objections concerning: RE: Transition Request: CR for Data on the Web Best Practices

That sounds fine with me. I'd like to also reiterate our apologies to Addison and I18N — given that more than half the active members of our group aren't native English speakers, your area is particularly important to us. I'm sorry we didn't engage in as timely a way as we might've. We will be interested to hear what comes from their review.

One more thing on the process, to Ralph's question. Our charter finishes at the end of July, and this new timetable would put us squarely in "needing an extension" territory. I hope that doesn't cause too much trouble on the W3C/W3M side of things?

Thanks all — grateful for your help in unraveling this. And Addison, I'm grateful for your help in improving our spec!

Cheers,

  Hadley

Le vendredi 15 juillet 2016, Phil Archer <phila@w3.org<mailto:phila@w3.org>> a écrit :


On 15/07/2016 02:53, Ralph Swick wrote:
Phil, Yaso, Deirdre, Hadley, Steve

I suggest that it's appropriate to delay the Director's meeting by two
weeks to allow the I18N group to provide their comments (week 1) and the
DWBP WG to consider them (week 2).

If we did that, what would be the impacts?

I understand the concerns and Addison is right in saying that we have not engaged with I18N as much as we should have done and at the relevant time. And I am well aware that our message was one of the triggers for his "be reasonable" e-mail.

The impact is that we then hit (northern hemisphere) summer holidays. I will be offline for 3 weeks from a week today (a week earlier than I originally planned due to changing family circumstances).

If we put the CR call back a week, to Monday 25, I could take part but not any day in the following 3 weeks (back on Monday 15 August). So *if* I'm needed on the call, then a 2 week delay translates into a 4 week delay.

If I am not needed then what follows should be ignored.

Can I propose:
- we hope for the I18N review in time to know what it says before a CR call on Monday 25th.
- If changes are uncontentious, the CR call proceeds on the assumption that those comments will be accepted and implemented in the doc.
- Then we publish the CR on Tuesday 16th or Thursday 18th August (which gives me time to run pubrules and install the doc when I get back - which will be a challenge as that means using the new system with which, as yet, I have no familiarity.
- If the I18N comments need substantive discussion then we delay the CR call further.

HTH

Phil.


-Ralph

On 7/14/2016 4:33 PM, Phillips, Addison wrote:
Hi Ralph,

Given that our teleconferences are Thursday mornings (Pacific time),
it will be at least a week before we would submit comments to DWBP-WG.
Say the 22nd for us to file issues?

Addison
-----Original Message-----
From: Ralph Swick [mailto:swick@w3.org]
Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2016 12:42 PM
To: Phillips, Addison <addison@lab126.com<mailto:addison@lab126.com>>; Phil Archer <phila@w3.org<mailto:phila@w3.org>>;
Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org<mailto:plh@w3.org>>; hadley@linkedgov.org<mailto:hadley@linkedgov.org>; yaso@nic.br<mailto:yaso@nic.br>;
deirdre@derilinx.com<mailto:deirdre@derilinx.com>
Cc: public-i18n-core@w3.org<mailto:public-i18n-core@w3.org>; adler1@us.ibm.com<mailto:adler1@us.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: I18N Objections concerning: RE: Transition Request: CR
for Data
on the Web Best Practices

Addison, thank you for the offer of quick turnaround.  What timeframe do
you propose?

-Ralph

On 7/14/2016 3:06 PM, Phillips, Addison wrote:
Hello Phil, Ralph, and Philippe (with copies to DWBP chairs),

I've been actioned by the I18N WG with responding to the below TransReq
for the DWBP spec.

At a high level, our Working Group feels that this particular spec
is a case
study in process failure.

The I18N WG was aware of this specification, since Phil sent us a
review
request on 24 May [1]. The request had a deadline of 12 June--this is
one of
the specs that prompted my previous email to chairs@ about not having
sufficient review time in review requests. This request occurred
while we
were already dealing with urgent review requests that had just come
in for
other specs, including Web Annotation, HTML5.1, and four Social Media
specs (which we are still working on), and given the short date, we were
unable to provide a review to meet the deadline.

One of our WG members (Felix Sasaki) had filed an issue in our github
issues previously. We failed to forward Felix's comment to the WG,
which is a
failure on our part that we are addressing. Felix also participated
in some
discussions with DWBP members at non-WG events [3] and it is not
clear if
his concerns raised there were addressed or not (it appears to me as
if they
might not have been). However, I would not characterize that as "[t]he
Internationalization Activity were also invited to the second F2F
meeting".
Please note that this is not to say that we are blaming DWBP-WG for our
failure to provide a review. However, we don't believe that involving
I18N
WG was considered sufficiently or at the right time in their process
and the
limited interactions we did have were not addressed.

A cursory review of the item highlighted in the TransReq below suggests
that section has I18N problems that should be addressed before the
document progresses. In addition, scanning the document I see thing
such as
"Example 15" [2], which makes citations that our WG would not agree with
and are not in accord with our Specdev "checklist" document (for
self-checks)
[4]. There are likely other examples. Thus, the I18N WG feels that a
full
review is needed.

Therefore, we would like to request that the CR for DWBP be delayed
until
I18N can provide a review: we can provide a quick turn around and
would be
glad to work with the DWBP WG to resolve/address issues. Otherwise we
feel that this document won't really represent the "best practices"
for data
on the web :-).

Best regards (for I18N),

Addison

[1]
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-international/2016AprJun/0210

.html [2] https://www.w3.org/TR/dwbp/#ReuseVocabularies

[3]
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-i18n-

core/2016Jul/0010.htm
l [4] https://www.w3.org/TR/international-specs/

I18N-ACTION-539

Addison Phillips
Principal SDE, I18N Architect (Amazon) Chair (W3C I18N WG)

Internationalization is not a feature.
It is an architecture.





--


Phil Archer
W3C Data Activity Lead
http://www.w3.org/2013/data/


http://philarcher.org

+44 (0)7887 767755
@philarcher1