Add list of contributors to the DCAT document

[agbeltran]

No description provided.

[davebrowning]

We should also add a "Participate" section as done for the other DXWG deliverables

[davebrowning]

In the interests of fairness, I think it would be good to have some rule of thumb for who we call out in the contributors section. I'm interested in feedback (or prior art/examples) for what this rule of thumb would be. I've looked at a few of the published specs but its hard to see a common pattern - indeed comparatively few use the "Contributors" field, and where it is used the list is usually quite short. [I may have just missed good examples....]

I think its important that where a non-WG participant has contributed or been heavily involved that they are included as contributors - indeed that is the case that motivated this issue. Is that the only category that we should include? Obviously some people in the WG have been more involved in particular deliverables than others, but that risks (a) quite a degree of subjectivity and, (b) quite a long list which doesn't seem to be common practice.

Views?

[riccardoAlbertoni]

In the interests of fairness, I think it would be good to have some rule of thumb for who we call out in the contributors section. I'm interested in feedback (or prior art/examples) for what this rule of thumb would be. I've looked at a few of the published specs but its hard to see a common pattern - indeed comparatively few use the "Contributors" field, and where it is used the list is usually quite short. [I may have just missed good examples....]

Let me mention some recent examples of spec having contributors
Prov-O, SDW Best Practices, DWBP- Best Practices, DWBP- Data Quality Vocabulary.

I think to decide a sharp contribution threshold is difficult, and anyway, it should be weighted on the total amount of efforts required to prepare each document. Documents collecting best practices have usually a longer contributor list than others, and that is quite comprehensible if we consider their intrinsic nature. I can list some examples of criteria for selecting contributors based on past experiences

• As far as I remember, in the DWBP- Best Practices, all the people who were members of the group and have drafted one or more best practices have been included.
• As editors of the DQV, Antoine and I included roughly all members who had helped in finding a solution for specific problems.
• Attendance to most of the DCAT-related call, and availability to make some of the "dirty-work" can be considered as a further element to consider.

I might be wrong, but I suspect that being or have been a group member is a prerequisite to being mentioned as a contributor, but this should be checked in the W3C rules.

Is that the only category that we should include?

No, less involved participants and commenters can be included in a section at the end of the document.
For example, see DQV acknowledgement, PROV-O acknowledgement

[davebrowning]

(Now commenting on the correct thread...doh)

Thanks @riccardoAlbertoni, that's very helpful. I'll ask the question about WG membership as a pre-req for being mentioned. [Though in my quick survey I did see some examples where the contributors were not on the membership list..... but best to be sure.]

[larsgsvensson]

In the SDW WG, the editors of SDW BP ran the policy that everyone who had made a PR against the document was listed as a contributor.

[agbeltran]

As discussed today, add @andrea-perego and @riccardoAlbertoni as editors.

[davebrowning]

See #741 - feedback (and review) required.

[davebrowning]

As notified/discussed: https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2019.04.02