Data on the Web Best Practices Working Group Teleconference

<trackbot> Date: 23 May 2014

<HadleyBeeman> https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20140523

<JoaoPauloAlmeida> I get a bad gateway message

<Sumit> "i get a 502 Bad Gateway"

HadleyBeeman: Can't approve minutes from last week as there is a 502 error, will postpone until next week

Ivan: will manually fix minutes for today

use-cases

<ivan> scribenick: HadleyBeeman

deirdrelee: We've been cleaning things up. We now have a complete list of use cases and requirements and have been making sure they map.

<deirdrelee> htmlpreview.github.io/?https://github.com/w3c/dwbp/blob/master/usecasesv1.html

… Link ^

… First complete draft is there. Left: review, check, fill little missing gaps. Have asked Steve and Nathalia to add requirements from their use cases, and Mark to review his.

… If everyone who added use cases could have a look.

<markharrison-noaudio> I will do.

<markharrison-noaudio> Thanks for updating it.

… We can put it out next week as a FPWD.

Hadleybeeman: We still need an abstract, and to look at it for pubrules.

DeirdreLee: Okay.

Ivan: Phil told me he's okay for next Thursday, if this group wants that.

<nathalia> I will do what Deidre asks

… Phil has to ask formally for the shortname for the draft, and install the document in TR space on our site. Because it's a first public draft, it will need a new home page, etc.

deirdrelee: what does that mean for us as editors?

ivan: I'll put some links in IRC. It would help to have the document checked by the W3C pubrules checkers.

… I'll put in the reference to the pubrules checker (script), and I have made an overview of how best to generate a draft on GitHub. I did it for CSVW; it may be useful for you.

<adler1> right

<adler1> +1

<ivan> CSVW publishing procedures

hadleybeeman: I don't think the working group has reviewed it yet. Yes?

deirdrelee: Yes. Task for the working group this week.

… It's important that we internally, as a group, review the document. Especially each person review their own use cases.

<adler1> I'm on vacation next week...

Ivan: Good you said that. For a FPWD, you will need a formal resolution requesting to publish. If you cannot do that today, then it seems that publication this week may be a problem. Probably looking now to the Tuesday or Thursday after.

<adler1> +1

DeirdreLee: So: we'll spend the week reviewing and refining; transition next week.

Laufer: I've written a use case that isn't in this document.

Deirdrelee: We can double check that everything that is in the wiki is in the document.

Laufer: I think there may be another of those 26 use cases in the wiki missing as well.

Deirdrelee: it wasn't intentional! We will look into it.

data quality vocabularies

<trackbot> action-34 -- Bart van Leeuwen to Coordinate with antoine about the data quality effort -- due 2014-05-16 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/34

antoine: we are claiming victory on action-34, Bart and Antoine will meet next Sunday

<antoine> https://github.com/w3c/dwbp

antoine: Bart has created first draft of quality vocabulary on github
... not much content yet, but it's kick-started!

HadleyBeeman: what's plan for week ahead?

antoine: They will meet and discuss how to proceed. Discussions will take place on separate list

usage vocabulary

ericstephan: bernadette and ericstephan will talk regularly to progress work on usage vocabulary
... are currently using google doc to share notes. is this a problem? should they use the wiki?

HadleyBeeman: could be a problem because the wiki is archived and transparent. google docs could be okay for short-term notes, but longer-term wiki is better, as it's open to rest of web

ericstephan: discussions are preliminary so can't share much, but they are looking at W3C prov vocabulary, as there seems to be big overlap, potential for reuse
... some of the properties are restricted to past tense, where data usage could be present tense
... they also discussed data structure, and leveraging design patterns into vocabulary

HadleyBeeman: there was proposal to have separate call for both vocabularies. will this happen?

ericstephan: this could be very useful

<HadleyBeeman> https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20140523

<HadleyBeeman> http://doodle.com/tpp2p8fvpmchx4s4

HadleyBeeman: phil has put together a doodle poll to see availability for vocab call
... one call should be sufficient for both vocabs?

ericstephan: one call should be fine from my perspective

HadleyBeeman: could all members complete their availability in the doodle poll

URI design work

newton: they have not worked on the document this week
... wants to merge uri document with that one created by Tomas

vocabularies

<laufer> https://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/dwbp/2014-05-16

laufer: have worked with Bart on wiki page
... needs input/participaton on this work

<HadleyBeeman> action-39?

<trackbot> action-39 -- Carlos Laufer to Summarize the ideas (create categories) from the mailing list on the wiki page for guidance on metadata -- due 2014-05-23 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/39

<laufer> https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Guidance_on_the_Provision_of_Metadata

<newton> action newton improve BP - URI document with new references

<trackbot> Created ACTION-42 - Improve bp - uri document with new references [on Newton Calegari - due 2014-05-30].

HadleyBeeman: what is it you would like people to do?

laufer: would like people to read document, comment and criticise

versioning

<nathalia> flavio is not here

newton: still working on versioning document, will look into action again this week

controlled vocabularies

antoine: they have some initial material, but didn't get a chance to discuss this week

<markharrison-noaudio> been re-reading SKOS primer and making notes - will enter into wiki soon

tech factors for publication

nathalia: am working on it but haven't added anything to wiki, will add this week

tech factors for innovation

vagner: unsure about scope/focus of topic. would like to discuss with hadley next week about their concerns/ideas
... early next week
... will then initiate document on the wiki

data preservation

cgueret: haven't started writing the doc yet, needs to coordinate with Phil. but has had interesting conversation with Tomas about what is in the scope of the group. This can form base of document

HadleyBeeman: do you need anything from group for week ahead?

<cgueret> "[BP - PRE] Data preservation already taken care of ?"

cgueret: would welcome comments on the email thread on the list about data preservation

<MTCarrasco> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-wg/2014May/0080.html

HadleyBeeman: going to be a busy week ahead, not only on everyone's own deliverables, but also on helping with review of others

ivan: you can configure client so that url appears in header :)

<HadleyBeeman> https://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/dwbp/2014-05-16

<adler1> +1

HadleyBeeman: let's go back to approving meeting minutes as we couldn't do it earlier

<JoaoPauloAlmeida> +1

<cgueret> +1

<laufer> +1

<newton> +1

<antoine> +1

<adler1> +1

<vagner> +1

<CarlosIglesias> +1

<cgueret> :)

<jerdeb> +1

proposed: approve meeting minutes from last week https://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/dwbp/2014-05-16

<HadleyBeeman> +1

<cgueret> +1

<antoine> It was visible last week :-)

<ericstephan> +1 future tense

<MTCarrasco> +1

<JoaoPauloAlmeida> +1 again

<vagner> +1

<nathalia> +1

<newton> +1

<laufer> +1

<CarlosIglesias> +1

<ivan> all +1's above were an advance vote for the proposal

resolved: approve meeting minutes from last week https://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/dwbp/2014-05-16

<markharrison-noaudio> +1

<HadleyBeeman> https://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/dwbp/2014-05-09

<JoaoPauloAlmeida> we already did that last week

proposed: approve meeting minutes from previous week https://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/dwbp/2014-05-09

<ericstephan> +1

<HadleyBeeman> +1

<jerdeb> +1

<JoaoPauloAlmeida> :-)

<markharrison-noaudio> +1

HadleyBeeman: the meeting minute's were already resolved?

<nathalia> +1

HadleyBeeman: we have some time now, has anyone anything they want to discuss?

<MTCarrasco> +

laufer: we should discuss terminology, e.g. 'must' 'should', etc.

<adler1> good point laufer

laufer: and words like 'resource' 'dataset', it's different if it's ckan or other tool
... another thing is data quality, but do we also talk about metadata quality?

<JoaoPauloAlmeida> oh my we're going metameta

<HadleyBeeman> :)

MTCarrasco: should there be one common understanding of terminology? should international definitions be used?

<HadleyBeeman> deirdrelee: re quality of metadata, and guidance on provision of metadata — all things link back to the use case document.

<ericstephan> +q

<HadleyBeeman> … The requirements we have put together are comprehensive, but clear and simple. There are some on metadata, quality, etc.

<HadleyBeeman> … It does link to the other deliverables. Should map back

<MTCarrasco> Create a terminology section - 1: use exisisting terminology and point to the source - 2: new terminology

ivan: terminology: some of the terms are common in w3c docs. these will be included in all W3c rec docs
... but the other terms, like resource, etc. should also be properly specified. these could be added to this section of the doc that's standard to all docs

<ivan> "The key words MUST, MUST NOT, REQUIRED, SHOULD, SHOULD NOT, RECOMMENDED, MAY, and OPTIONAL in this specification are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]." is a standard part of all W3C Recommendations

ericstephan: on use-case topic, this should be discussed in vocab call to ensure we're all on the same page, commonality across all the work

<antoine> +1

<scribe> ACTION: ericstephan to add data usage notes to wiki [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/05/23-dwbp-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-43 - Add data usage notes to wiki [on Eric Stephan - due 2014-05-30].

<markharrison-noaudio> bye!

<HadleyBeeman> rssagent, make logs public