edit

Data on the Web Best Practices Working Group Teleconference

Minutes of 04 September 2015

Agenda
https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20150904#Main_agenda
Seen
Annette Greiner, Antoine Isaac, Carlos Laufer, Caroline Burle, Deirdre Lee, Eric Stephan, Nandana Mihindukulasooriya, Newton Calegari, Peter Winstanley, Riccardo Albertoni, Yaso Córdova
Chair
Deirdre Lee
Scribe
Peter Winstanley
IRC Log
Original
Resolutions
  1. Approve last week's minutes: http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/dwbp/2015-08-28 link
Topics
12:48:47 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/09/04-dwbp-irc

RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/09/04-dwbp-irc

12:48:49 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs 351

Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, make logs 351

12:48:51 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be DWBP

Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, this will be DWBP

12:48:51 <Zakim> I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot

Zakim IRC Bot: I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot

12:48:52 <trackbot> Meeting: Data on the Web Best Practices Working Group Teleconference
12:48:52 <trackbot> Date: 04 September 2015
12:52:25 <PeterWinstanley> present+ PeterWinstanley

Peter Winstanley: present+ PeterWinstanley

12:57:22 <deirdrelee> present+ deirdrelee

Deirdre Lee: present+ deirdrelee

13:01:22 <riccardoAlbertoni> hi all!

Riccardo Albertoni: hi all!

13:01:36 <deirdrelee> chair: deirdrelee
13:01:43 <deirdrelee> Agenda: https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20150904
13:02:07 <deirdrelee> scribe: PeterWinstanley

(Scribe set to Peter Winstanley)

13:02:17 <nandana> present+ nandana

Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: present+ nandana

13:02:24 <annette_g> present+ annette_g

Annette Greiner: present+ annette_g

13:02:51 <riccardoAlbertoni> present+ riccardoAlbertoni

Riccardo Albertoni: present+ riccardoAlbertoni

13:03:10 <newtoncalegari> present+ newtoncalegari

Newton Calegari: present+ newtoncalegari

13:03:48 <annette_g> *maybe switch call-in mode, D?*

Annette Greiner: *maybe switch call-in mode, D?*

13:04:27 <deirdrelee> PROPOSED: Approve last week's minutes: http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/dwbp/2015-08-28

PROPOSED: Approve last week's minutes: http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/dwbp/2015-08-28

13:04:47 <annette_g> +1

Annette Greiner: +1

13:04:49 <antoine> present+ antoine

Antoine Isaac: present+ antoine

13:04:54 <nandana> +1

Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: +1

13:04:54 <riccardoAlbertoni> +0 ( i was not present)

Riccardo Albertoni: +0 ( i was not present)

13:04:57 <antoine> +1

Antoine Isaac: +1

13:04:57 <newtoncalegari> +1

Newton Calegari: +1

13:05:04 <newtoncalegari> present+ Caroline_

Newton Calegari: present+ Caroline_

13:05:16 <deirdrelee> RESOLVED: Approve last week's minutes: http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/dwbp/2015-08-28

RESOLVED: Approve last week's minutes: http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/dwbp/2015-08-28

13:06:07 <riccardoAlbertoni> I am experiencing the same

Riccardo Albertoni: I am experiencing the same

13:06:13 <annette_g> *I can hear her, though it is noisy*

Annette Greiner: *I can hear her, though it is noisy*

13:06:15 <laufer> present+ laufer

Carlos Laufer: present+ laufer

13:06:49 <Caroline_> I can't hear anyone :/

Caroline Burle: I can't hear anyone :/

13:07:05 <Caroline_> Now I hear! :)

Caroline Burle: Now I hear! :)

13:07:19 <riccardoAlbertoni> yes, much better

Riccardo Albertoni: yes, much better

13:07:27 <ericstephan> Yes I can hear

Eric Stephan: Yes I can hear

13:07:34 <deirdrelee> Agenda: https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20150904#Main_agenda
13:08:09 <PeterWinstanley> 1st item carried over from last week:  should we leave/keep normative terms (keywords) from BP doc?

1st item carried over from last week: should we leave/keep normative terms (keywords) from BP doc?

13:08:27 <deirdrelee> topic: Whether to remove/keep rfc2119 terms in bp doc

1. Whether to remove/keep rfc2119 terms in bp doc

13:08:43 <deirdrelee> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt

Deirdre Lee: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt

13:09:44 <PeterWinstanley> haldey & phil (not on call) contributed at chairs' discussion

haldey & phil (not on call) contributed at chairs' discussion

13:10:03 <PeterWinstanley> ...it's standard W3C practice for recommendation notes

...it's standard W3C practice for recommendation notes

13:10:04 <annette_g> q+

Annette Greiner: q+

13:10:08 <yaso> present+ yaso

Yaso Córdova: present+ yaso

13:10:44 <deirdrelee> ack annette_g

Deirdre Lee: ack annette_g

13:10:45 <PeterWinstanley> ...so hadley & phil in favour of keeping terms, but if the group had an  alternative view then that's OK

...so hadley & phil in favour of keeping terms, but if the group had an alternative view then that's OK

13:11:33 <newtoncalegari> q+

Newton Calegari: q+

13:11:36 <annette_g> http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/

Annette Greiner: http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/

13:11:36 <PeterWinstanley> annette: good comparitor is WCAG 2.0: where they use levels

Annette Greiner: good comparitor is WCAG 2.0: where they use levels

13:11:53 <newtoncalegari> q-

Newton Calegari: q-

13:12:09 <PeterWinstanley> deirdrelee: danger is that issue has been around a long time, and it might take time to develop a levels structure

Deirdre Lee: danger is that issue has been around a long time, and it might take time to develop a levels structure

13:12:35 <PeterWinstanley> annette_g: if the group votes for the change then we just do it

Annette Greiner: if the group votes for the change then we just do it

13:13:02 <newtoncalegari> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/146

Newton Calegari: http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/146

13:13:56 <laufer> q+

Carlos Laufer: q+

13:14:04 <PeterWinstanley> newtoncalegari: the issue 146 is still open, but we could close it by having a maturity model.  what is the opinion of chairs?  agree with annette_g  as this is not a specification doc

Newton Calegari: the ISSUE-146 is still open, but we could close it by having a maturity model. what is the opinion of chairs? agree with annette_g as this is not a specification doc

13:15:10 <PeterWinstanley> laufer: i vote to remove terms; levels may be difficult but we need to do it as the terms such as 'MUST' are too broad, not fine-grained enough.

Carlos Laufer: i vote to remove terms; levels may be difficult but we need to do it as the terms such as 'MUST' are too broad, not fine-grained enough.

13:15:37 <PeterWinstanley> ... we have to provide both metadata for humans and machines

... we have to provide both metadata for humans and machines

13:15:40 <deirdrelee> q?

Deirdre Lee: q?

13:15:43 <deirdrelee> ack laufer

Deirdre Lee: ack laufer

13:15:47 <newtoncalegari> q+

Newton Calegari: q+

13:15:48 <antoine> q+

Antoine Isaac: q+

13:16:29 <deirdrelee> ack newtoncalegari

Deirdre Lee: ack newtoncalegari

13:16:53 <PeterWinstanley> newtoncalegari: I agree; remove rfc terms and create a maturity model; but this needs a number of people in the group to work on this, it's more than newtoncalegari and a few others can do along

Newton Calegari: I agree; remove rfc terms and create a maturity model; but this needs a number of people in the group to work on this, it's more than newtoncalegari and a few others can do along

13:17:10 <Caroline_> We made some suggestions for contributors on the timeline: https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/BP_Document_3rd_Draft

Caroline Burle: We made some suggestions for contributors on the timeline: https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/BP_Document_3rd_Draft

13:17:25 <deirdrelee> ack antoine

Deirdre Lee: ack antoine

13:17:26 <yaso> newtoncalegari, I suggest that you create a task force

Yaso Córdova: newtoncalegari, I suggest that you create a task force

13:18:24 <PeterWinstanley> antoine: initially I don't have an objection, but am concerned when I hear about degrees of 'MUST' as this was the issue that rfc was meant to avoid; so I would need to see the proposed replacement first

Antoine Isaac: initially I don't have an objection, but am concerned when I hear about degrees of 'MUST' as this was the issue that rfc was meant to avoid; so I would need to see the proposed replacement first

13:18:26 <newtoncalegari> yaso, roger that.

Newton Calegari: yaso, roger that.

13:18:33 <annette_g> q+

Annette Greiner: q+

13:18:59 <newtoncalegari> yaso, we put some suggestions on the BP schedule to work on this task, as Caroline_ just sent to the group

Newton Calegari: yaso, we put some suggestions on the BP schedule to work on this task, as Caroline_ just sent to the group

13:19:15 <annette_g> WCAG is a rec

Annette Greiner: WCAG is a rec

13:19:22 <PeterWinstanley> deirdrelee: in general W3C rec docs use rfc levels, even for BP docs.  [Mobile group don't use the rfc terms, but Spatial group do]

Deirdre Lee: in general W3C rec docs use rfc levels, even for BP docs. [Mobile group don't use the rfc terms, but Spatial group do]

13:19:56 <PeterWinstanley> ...for multi-lingual understanding, maturity models that are prose might be difficult to translate appropriately

...for multi-lingual understanding, maturity models that are prose might be difficult to translate appropriately

13:20:03 <deirdrelee> ack annette_g

Deirdre Lee: ack annette_g

13:21:17 <yaso> +1 to annette_g

Yaso Córdova: +1 to annette_g

13:21:18 <deirdrelee> q+

Deirdre Lee: q+

13:21:26 <PeterWinstanley> annette_g: e.g. of benefit of using levels; when talking about RESTful APIs there are degrees of complexity: 4 levels of doing REST that the rfc terms would not be appropriate as the level to be used depends on the problem being worked on

Annette Greiner: e.g. of benefit of using levels; when talking about RESTful APIs there are degrees of complexity: 4 levels of doing REST that the rfc terms would not be appropriate as the level to be used depends on the problem being worked on

13:22:02 <annette_g> q+

Annette Greiner: q+

13:22:40 <PeterWinstanley> deirdrelee: rfc terms include lots of terms MUST, SHOULD, RECOMMEND, MAY and we should use the options to nuance our recommendations; going too far the line of defining our own we might lose focus on the BPs

Deirdre Lee: rfc terms include lots of terms MUST, SHOULD, RECOMMEND, MAY and we should use the options to nuance our recommendations; going too far the line of defining our own we might lose focus on the BPs

13:22:57 <laufer> even if we have the implicit levels of the RFC terms, I think that explicit levels grouping the BPs will bem more clear to readers...

Carlos Laufer: even if we have the implicit levels of the RFC terms, I think that explicit levels grouping the BPs will bem more clear to readers...

13:23:18 <deirdrelee> ack deirdrelee

Deirdre Lee: ack deirdrelee

13:23:21 <deirdrelee> ack annette_g

Deirdre Lee: ack annette_g

13:23:23 <PeterWinstanley> ...we might use laufer MAY and RECOMMEND more than MUST. we can also expand on these terms

...we might use laufer MAY and RECOMMEND more than MUST. we can also expand on these terms

13:23:55 <PeterWinstanley> annette_g: the rfc is very clear - it is meant for specifications; not in situations where there is the force of a specification.

Annette Greiner: the rfc is very clear - it is meant for specifications; not in situations where there is the force of a specification.

13:24:21 <PeterWinstanley> ...i think it would elimnate confusion if we avoided being unnecessarily mandatory

...i think it would elimnate confusion if we avoided being unnecessarily mandatory

13:25:04 <PeterWinstanley> ...RECOMMEND is one that we could use, but MAY and SHOULD are probably not appropriate for the doc we are working witih

...RECOMMEND is one that we could use, but MAY and SHOULD are probably not appropriate for the doc we are working witih

13:25:31 <deirdrelee> PROPOSED: Remove the RFC2119 normative terms from the BP Document and instead will create our own levels/maturity-model

PROPOSED: Remove the RFC2119 normative terms from the BP Document and instead will create our own levels/maturity-model

13:25:51 <laufer> together

Carlos Laufer: together

13:25:59 <PeterWinstanley> +1

+1

13:26:02 <ericstephan> together +1

Eric Stephan: together +1

13:26:10 <deirdrelee> PROPOSED: Remove the RFC2119 normative terms from the BP Document and instead will create our own levels/maturity-model

PROPOSED: Remove the RFC2119 normative terms from the BP Document and instead will create our own levels/maturity-model

13:26:17 <newtoncalegari> q+

Newton Calegari: q+

13:26:18 <PeterWinstanley> +1

+1

13:26:24 <annette_g> +1

Annette Greiner: +1

13:26:28 <deirdrelee> 0

Deirdre Lee: 0

13:26:32 <antoine> 0

Antoine Isaac: 0

13:26:41 <ericstephan> 0

Eric Stephan: 0

13:26:50 <yaso> 0

Yaso Córdova: 0

13:26:53 <laufer> +1

Carlos Laufer: +1

13:27:08 <PeterWinstanley> newtoncalegari: my concern is that our vote might go against what the chairs think

Newton Calegari: my concern is that our vote might go against what the chairs think

13:27:08 <nandana> 0

Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: 0

13:27:12 <riccardoAlbertoni> 0

Riccardo Albertoni: 0

13:27:17 <newtoncalegari> +1

Newton Calegari: +1

13:27:24 <yaso> q+

Yaso Córdova: q+

13:27:24 <ericstephan> q+

Eric Stephan: q+

13:27:26 <laufer> how many zeros are equivalent to -1

Carlos Laufer: how many zeros are equivalent to -1

13:27:28 <annette_g> "Imperatives of the type defined in this memo must be used with care

Annette Greiner: "Imperatives of the type defined in this memo must be used with care

13:27:28 <annette_g>    and sparingly.  In particular, they MUST only be used where it is

Annette Greiner: and sparingly. In particular, they MUST only be used where it is

13:27:28 <annette_g>    actually required for interoperation or to limit behavior which has

Annette Greiner: actually required for interoperation or to limit behavior which has

13:27:28 <annette_g>    potential for causing harm (e.g., limiting retransmisssions)  For

Annette Greiner: potential for causing harm (e.g., limiting retransmisssions) For

13:27:30 <annette_g>    example, they must not be used to try to impose a particular method

Annette Greiner: example, they must not be used to try to impose a particular method

13:27:30 <annette_g>    on implementors where the method is not required for interoperability"

Annette Greiner: on implementors where the method is not required for interoperability"

13:27:35 <PeterWinstanley> deirdrelee: that's ok, but I am concerned about zeroes.  what do they mean?

Deirdre Lee: that's ok, but I am concerned about zeroes. what do they mean?

13:27:38 <deirdrelee> ack newtoncalegari

Deirdre Lee: ack newtoncalegari

13:27:41 <deirdrelee> ack yaso

Deirdre Lee: ack yaso

13:27:49 <yaso> unmute me]

Yaso Córdova: unmute me]

13:28:10 <PeterWinstanley> yaso: suggestion: better to vote seperately

Yaso Córdova: suggestion: better to vote seperately

13:28:23 <deirdrelee> ack ericstephan

Deirdre Lee: ack ericstephan

13:29:40 <newtoncalegari> we need to plan how we're going to create the maturity model: build a team to work on this, set a deadline, etc...

Newton Calegari: we need to plan how we're going to create the maturity model: build a team to work on this, set a deadline, etc...

13:29:42 <nandana> +q

Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: +q

13:29:43 <PeterWinstanley> ericstephan: I understand desire to use normative terms, I also understand desire for maturity model,. I think the proof is in the pudding - is there evidence (perhaps for F2F) that the maturity model, even roughly, exists. is there a real alternative to the normative text

Eric Stephan: I understand desire to use normative terms, I also understand desire for maturity model,. I think the proof is in the pudding - is there evidence (perhaps for F2F) that the maturity model, even roughly, exists. is there a real alternative to the normative text

13:29:57 <deirdrelee> ack nandana

Deirdre Lee: ack nandana

13:29:59 <antoine> proof is in the pudding ++

Antoine Isaac: proof is in the pudding ++

13:30:26 <PeterWinstanley> nandana: same opinion; am convinced about removal of rfc terms, but developing/agreeing a maturity model would be challenging/time comsuming

Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: same opinion; am convinced about removal of rfc terms, but developing/agreeing a maturity model would be challenging/time comsuming

13:30:50 <PeterWinstanley> deirdrelee: would editors be willing to create a first draft for next week?

Deirdre Lee: would editors be willing to create a first draft for next week?

13:31:11 <yaso> +1 to deirdrelee

Yaso Córdova: +1 to deirdrelee

13:31:14 <PeterWinstanley> ... my concern is that this might divert attention from BPs

... my concern is that this might divert attention from BPs

13:31:16 <annette_g> q+

Annette Greiner: q+

13:31:29 <ericstephan> +1 to deirdrelee concerns about taking up to much time

Eric Stephan: +1 to deirdrelee concerns about taking up to much time

13:31:30 <Caroline_> +q

Caroline Burle: +q

13:31:33 <deirdrelee> ack annette_g

Deirdre Lee: ack annette_g

13:31:50 <deirdrelee> ack Caroline_

Deirdre Lee: ack Caroline_

13:31:51 <PeterWinstanley> annette_g: there mihgt be things that don't work well with the maturity model and we use it selectively

Annette Greiner: there mihgt be things that don't work well with the maturity model and we use it selectively

13:31:56 <ericstephan> that is interesting annette_g

Eric Stephan: that is interesting annette_g

13:32:26 <newtoncalegari> Who could work on this? I can, but would be nice if someone else could join in this journey...

Newton Calegari: Who could work on this? I can, but would be nice if someone else could join in this journey...

13:32:31 <PeterWinstanley> Caroline_: can we first create a task force - editors are not capable of doing this maturity model work themselves.

Caroline Burle: can we first create a task force - editors are not capable of doing this maturity model work themselves.

13:32:58 <laufer> q+

Carlos Laufer: q+

13:33:10 <Caroline_> https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/BP_Document_3rd_Draft

Caroline Burle: https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/BP_Document_3rd_Draft

13:33:24 <PeterWinstanley> ...BP doc is important - must be released mid october - see suggestions in BP timeline

...BP doc is important - must be released mid october - see suggestions in BP timeline

13:33:33 <deirdrelee> ack laufer

Deirdre Lee: ack laufer

13:34:48 <PeterWinstanley> laufer: it's difficult to build the levels framework, but we only have 2 words of the rfc and this is not a good enough guide to implementation as having 2 levels is not a clear enought guide

Carlos Laufer: it's difficult to build the levels framework, but we only have 2 words of the rfc and this is not a good enough guide to implementation as having 2 levels is not a clear enought guide

13:35:10 <PeterWinstanley> deirdrelee: there are more terms in the rfc and we could use these as well

Deirdre Lee: there are more terms in the rfc and we could use these as well

13:35:34 <PeterWinstanley> ...going back to the Caroline_ proposal, are there people willing to work on this this week?

...going back to the Caroline_ proposal, are there people willing to work on this this week?

13:36:14 <newtoncalegari> q+

Newton Calegari: q+

13:36:21 <ericstephan> q+

Eric Stephan: q+

13:36:33 <PeterWinstanley> ...back to the editors, if people cannot contribute on this, can Caroline_ and newtoncalegari  prepare a first draft (you are both very familiar with the doc and the nuance that you are wanting in the use of levels

...back to the editors, if people cannot contribute on this, can Caroline_ and newtoncalegari prepare a first draft (you are both very familiar with the doc and the nuance that you are wanting in the use of levels

13:36:38 <deirdrelee> ack newtoncalegari

Deirdre Lee: ack newtoncalegari

13:37:52 <deirdrelee> ack ericstephan

Deirdre Lee: ack ericstephan

13:37:53 <PeterWinstanley> newtoncalegari: as we don't have concensus, I will create an action to analyse the other rfc terms and see if they can be used.  if they cannot then the maturity model approach must be done.  however, this needs more than just the editors contribution to be authoritative

Newton Calegari: as we don't have concensus, I will create an action to analyse the other rfc terms and see if they can be used. if they cannot then the maturity model approach must be done. however, this needs more than just the editors contribution to be authoritative

13:38:01 <annette_g> wait, didn't we just vote against the RFC terms?

Annette Greiner: wait, didn't we just vote against the RFC terms?

13:38:18 <deirdrelee> there was no resolution annette_g

Deirdre Lee: there was no resolution annette_g

13:39:07 <PeterWinstanley> ericstephan: perhaps we can change the language to provide clarity

Eric Stephan: perhaps we can change the language to provide clarity

13:39:25 <annette_g> it sounded like everyone opposed was opposed to the MM, not removing the RFC

Annette Greiner: it sounded like everyone opposed was opposed to the MM, not removing the RFC

13:39:53 <PeterWinstanley> deirdrelee: we haven't had complete resolution; generally a positive reaction, but most people would like to know what it might look like before deciding

Deirdre Lee: we haven't had complete resolution; generally a positive reaction, but most people would like to know what it might look like before deciding

13:40:00 <newtoncalegari> annette_g, our concern, as editors, we don't have the needed force to create a maturity model, and if the maturity levels are not made, the doc would be without the RFC and MM...

Newton Calegari: annette_g, our concern, as editors, we don't have the needed force to create a maturity model, and if the maturity levels are not made, the doc would be without the RFC and MM...

13:40:19 <annette_g> I see, thanks

Annette Greiner: I see, thanks

13:40:27 <PeterWinstanley> ...editors will prepare a draft, but if this is not acceptible we will retain the rfc terms

...editors will prepare a draft, but if this is not acceptible we will retain the rfc terms

13:41:01 <newtoncalegari> action newton analyze the RFC2119 and see if other terms could be used in the document or should we create a maturity model

Newton Calegari: action newton analyze the RFC2119 and see if other terms could be used in the document or should we create a maturity model

13:41:04 <trackbot> Created ACTION-197 - Analyze the rfc2119 and see if other terms could be used in the document or should we create a maturity model [on Newton Calegari - due 2015-09-11].

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-197 - Analyze the rfc2119 and see if other terms could be used in the document or should we create a maturity model [on Newton Calegari - due 2015-09-11].

13:41:40 <riccardoAlbertoni> q+

Riccardo Albertoni: q+

13:42:15 <ericstephan> I did some sorting antoine ... https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Issues_Tagged_Incorrectly

Eric Stephan: I did some sorting antoine ... https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Issues_Tagged_Incorrectly

13:42:30 <PeterWinstanley> antoine: I suggest sorting issues:  DUV has a huge number of issues, but most of them are for the BP doc

Antoine Isaac: I suggest sorting issues: DUV has a huge number of issues, but most of them are for the BP doc

13:42:31 <ericstephan> q+

Eric Stephan: q+

13:42:46 <newtoncalegari> I don't know for what reasons a lot of issues are assigned to the DUV doc..

Newton Calegari: I don't know for what reasons a lot of issues are assigned to the DUV doc..

13:42:55 <PeterWinstanley> deirdrelee: I could do this offline

Deirdre Lee: I could do this offline

13:43:23 <newtoncalegari> Some issues that were wrong, I assigend to the BP doc

Newton Calegari: Some issues that were wrong, I assigend to the BP doc

13:43:24 <laufer> \me please, could someone list the links for DUV and DQV

Carlos Laufer: \me please, could someone list the links for DUV and DQV

13:43:54 <deirdrelee> action for deirdrelee to reassign products on open issue list https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/open

Deirdre Lee: action for deirdrelee to reassign products on open issue list https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/open

13:43:54 <trackbot> Error finding 'for'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/users>.

Trackbot IRC Bot: Error finding 'for'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/users>.

13:44:06 <deirdrelee> action: deirdrelee to reassign products on open issue list https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/open

ACTION: deirdrelee to reassign products on open issue list https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/open

13:44:06 <trackbot> Error finding 'deirdrelee'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/users>.

Trackbot IRC Bot: Error finding 'deirdrelee'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/users>.

13:44:08 <PeterWinstanley> riccardoAlbertoni: Are we in the position to close ISSUE 182 ? discussion on the mailing list

Riccardo Albertoni: Are we in the position to close ISSUE-182 ? discussion on the mailing list

13:44:19 <deirdrelee> create action deirdrelee to reassign products on open issue list https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/open

Deirdre Lee: create action deirdrelee to reassign products on open issue list https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/open

13:44:25 <ericstephan> q-

Eric Stephan: q-

13:44:29 <deirdrelee> ack riccardoAlbertoni

Deirdre Lee: ack riccardoAlbertoni

13:44:34 <deirdrelee> issue-182?

Deirdre Lee: ISSUE-182?

13:44:34 <trackbot> issue-182 -- The label of daq:QualityGraph does not fit well with the current model -- open

Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-182 -- The label of daq:QualityGraph does not fit well with the current model -- open

13:44:34 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/182

Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/182

13:44:40 <PeterWinstanley> antoine: I cannot decide at the moment

Antoine Isaac: I cannot decide at the moment

13:45:20 <newtoncalegari> action Deirdre Lee to reassign products on open issue list https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/open

Newton Calegari: action Deirdre Lee to reassign products on open issue list https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/open

13:45:20 <trackbot> Created ACTION-198 - Lee to reassign products on open issue list https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/open [on Deirdre Lee - due 2015-09-11].

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-198 - Lee to reassign products on open issue list https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/open [on Deirdre Lee - due 2015-09-11].

13:45:33 <PeterWinstanley> ...another question : is the group interested in the 2 issues: cube datasets vs graph

...another question : is the group interested in the 2 issues: cube datasets vs graph

13:45:45 <annette_g> q+

Annette Greiner: q+

13:45:51 <PeterWinstanley> riccardoAlbertoni: we can close by email

Riccardo Albertoni: we can close by email

13:45:54 <deirdrelee> ack annette_g

Deirdre Lee: ack annette_g

13:46:52 <PeterWinstanley> annette_g: my concern isn't the technical issue, just that we recommend something that is easy for people to understand - and jargon-free (the word 'graph' can cause confusion)

Annette Greiner: my concern isn't the technical issue, just that we recommend something that is easy for people to understand - and jargon-free (the word 'graph' can cause confusion)

13:48:01 <PeterWinstanley> antoine: I can see a general agreement on the structure of the metadata, but there still needs to be discussion on the naming of these terms

Antoine Isaac: I can see a general agreement on the structure of the metadata, but there still needs to be discussion on the naming of these terms

13:49:12 <PeterWinstanley> deirdrelee: from the DQV most issues are technical

Deirdre Lee: from the DQV most issues are technical

13:49:33 <ericstephan> I have a timeline to share

Eric Stephan: I have a timeline to share

13:49:57 <PeterWinstanley> antoine: we can continue the discussion by email

Antoine Isaac: we can continue the discussion by email

13:50:17 <PeterWinstanley> deirdrelee: move to DUV - new timeline

Deirdre Lee: move to DUV - new timeline

13:50:17 <ericstephan> https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Data_usage_vocab_timetable

Eric Stephan: https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Data_usage_vocab_timetable

13:51:14 <PeterWinstanley> ericstephan: 2 things: I responded to message about tags that antoine  mentioned; I set up a wiki page; tags that shouldnot be part of DUV

Eric Stephan: 2 things: I responded to message about tags that antoine mentioned; I set up a wiki page; tags that shouldnot be part of DUV

13:52:00 <PeterWinstanley> ...the model has been improved following discussion over the summer

...the model has been improved following discussion over the summer

13:52:48 <PeterWinstanley> ...suggestion for targeting communities for getting feedback for the second publication;  by Nov-Dec we can collect external user feedback

...suggestion for targeting communities for getting feedback for the second publication; by Nov-Dec we can collect external user feedback

13:52:59 <PeterWinstanley> a published working draft by Feb 2016

a published working draft by Feb 2016

13:53:11 <PeterWinstanley> a WG note sometime in May 2016

a WG note sometime in May 2016

13:53:16 <deirdrelee> q?

Deirdre Lee: q?

13:53:20 <annette_g> Can we get links to editor's drafts for all docs updated on the main page?

Annette Greiner: Can we get links to editor's drafts for all docs updated on the main page?

13:54:01 <annette_g> np, it's new!

Annette Greiner: np, it's new!

13:54:21 <PeterWinstanley> deirdrelee: between now and F2F ....any specific preparation work?

Deirdre Lee: between now and F2F ....any specific preparation work?

13:55:32 <PeterWinstanley> ericstephan: hope to get draft out next week ...

Eric Stephan: hope to get draft out next week ...

13:56:17 <PeterWinstanley> deirdrelee: helpful to give people enough time to prepare for the F2F

Deirdre Lee: helpful to give people enough time to prepare for the F2F

13:58:24 <newtoncalegari> q+

Newton Calegari: q+

13:59:35 <newtoncalegari> https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/BP_Document_3rd_Draft

Newton Calegari: https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/BP_Document_3rd_Draft

14:00:17 <PeterWinstanley> newtoncalegari: BP document schedule: please take a look and see if the timetable is one you agree with

Newton Calegari: BP document schedule: please take a look and see if the timetable is one you agree with

14:00:53 <PeterWinstanley> deirdrelee: can you make a long term timetable upto June/July 2016 [end of WG]?

Deirdre Lee: can you make a long term timetable upto June/July 2016 [end of WG]?

14:00:57 <deirdrelee> ack newtoncalegari

Deirdre Lee: ack newtoncalegari

14:01:24 <PeterWinstanley> newtoncalegari: I'll take to Caroline_ and bernadette and make a rough plan

Newton Calegari: I'll talk to Caroline_ and bernadette and make a rough plan

14:01:42 <Caroline_> s/take/talk
14:02:23 <annette_g> can someone paste link to working bp draft?

Annette Greiner: can someone paste link to working bp draft?

14:02:33 <riccardoAlbertoni> thanks, have a good week end..

Riccardo Albertoni: thanks, have a good week end..

14:02:39 <Caroline_> thank you!!

Caroline Burle: thank you!!

14:02:39 <ericstephan> have a great weekend thank you!

Eric Stephan: have a great weekend thank you!

14:02:40 <newtoncalegari> This link, annette_g? http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html

Newton Calegari: This link, annette_g? http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html

14:02:40 <PeterWinstanley> bye

bye

14:02:42 <laufer> bye all

Carlos Laufer: bye all

14:02:46 <nandana> bye !!

Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: bye !!

14:03:21 <annette_g> thanks, Newton

Annette Greiner: thanks, Newton

14:03:27 <newtoncalegari> you're welcome!

Newton Calegari: you're welcome!

14:03:31 <newtoncalegari> bye, have a nice weekend

Newton Calegari: bye, have a nice weekend

14:03:33 <deirdrelee> oh, and thanks peter for scribing!

Deirdre Lee: oh, and thanks peter for scribing!



Formatted by CommonScribe