16:05:31 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #dwbp
16:05:31 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2014/10/31-dwbp-irc
16:05:33 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs 351
16:05:33 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #dwbp
16:05:35 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be DWBP
16:05:35 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see DATA_DWBP()11:30AM scheduled to start 35 minutes ago
16:05:36 <trackbot> Meeting: Data on the Web Best Practices Working Group Teleconference
16:05:36 <trackbot> Date: 31 October 2014
16:05:44 <CarlosIglesias> CarlosIglesias has joined #dwbp
16:05:45 <phila> phila has joined #dwbp
16:06:04 <JeniT> scribenick: JeniT
16:06:20 <phila> RRSAgent, This meeting spans midnight
16:07:03 <Ig_Bittencourt> Ig_Bittencourt has joined #dwbp
16:07:39 <EricKauz> EricKauz has joined #DWBP
16:07:58 <nathalia> nathalia has joined #dwbp
16:08:47 <phila> zakim, this is dwbp
16:08:47 <Zakim> phila, I see DATA_DWBP()11:30AM in the schedule but not yet started.  Perhaps you mean "this will be dwbp".
16:08:57 <phila> zakim, this will be dwbp
16:08:57 <Zakim> ok, phila; I see DATA_DWBP()11:30AM scheduled to start 38 minutes ago
16:09:11 <Zakim> DATA_DWBP()11:30AM has now started
16:09:17 <Zakim> +Caroline_
16:09:25 <Reinaldo> Reinaldo has joined #dwbp
16:09:39 <laufer> laufer has joined #dwbp
16:09:56 <Caroline> Caroline has joined #DWBP
16:10:04 <Caroline> Hello!
16:10:21 <Caroline> Nathalia and I have called, but we are the only ones on the phone!
16:10:45 <nathalia> Zakim, Caroline has nathalia
16:10:46 <Zakim> +nathalia; got it
16:10:50 <BernadetteLoscio> BernadetteLoscio has joined #dwbp
16:11:30 <jtandy_> jtandy_ has joined #dwbp
16:11:40 <phila> zakim, call salona
16:11:40 <Zakim> ok, phila; the call is being made
16:11:43 <Zakim> +Salona
16:12:15 <sandro> sandro has joined #dwbp
16:12:34 <Adriano> Adriano has joined #dwbp
16:12:37 <Vagner_Br> Vagner_Br has joined #dwbp
16:12:49 <ericstephan> ericstephan has joined #dwbp
16:13:14 <flavio> flavio has joined #dwbp
16:13:31 <phila> present+ Hadley, PhilA, EricKauz, Flavio, Newton, Sandro, Jeni, Frederick, Taisuke, Laufer, Ig, Vagner_Br, ericstephan, BernadetteLoscio, jtandy_ , Adriano
16:13:34 <JeniT> Present: Hadley, Phil, Eric_Kauz, Flavio, Newton, Sandro, Jeni, Frederick, Taisuke, Laufer, Ig, Vagner, Eric_Stephan, Bernadette, Jeremy, Adriano, Alexandre
16:13:43 <taisuke_> http://fukuno.jig.jp/2014/sparqlknocker
16:14:10 <phila> scribe: phila
16:14:12 <JeniT> hadleybeeman: we’ll sort out agenda & scribes now
16:14:17 <hadleybeeman> https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/TPAC_2014
16:14:19 <phila> scribe: JeniT
16:14:39 <phila> Meeting: DWBP f2f meeting, day 2 at TPAC
16:14:44 <JeniT> hadleybeeman: our goal for TPAC is to have a rough draft of each of our deliverables before we leave
16:14:45 <phila> chair: hadleybeeman
16:14:52 <chunming> chunming has joined #dwbp
16:15:05 <phila> regrets+ Steve_Adler, Mark Harrison
16:15:14 <JeniT> … we assumed that it would be useful to review issues on tracker
16:15:27 <ericstephan> q+
16:15:28 <JeniT> … do that this morning, and work on documents this afternoon
16:15:55 <phila> q+ to talk about remaining (new) requirements
16:15:59 <JeniT> BernadetteLoscio: re best practices, all the issues that were raised yesterday concern the best practices document
16:16:34 <JeniT> … we can discuss the issues, but for TPAC we had in mind to discuss the ToC and to have an agreement about the themes/subjects/sections for the ToC
16:16:39 <jtandy_> q+ to ask whether we would like to develop some "in scope / out of scope" tests
16:16:54 <JeniT> … this can come from the discussion about the issues, because that helps clarify the scope & get agreement about what we’re discussing
16:17:09 <JeniT> … we need to discuss the issues and from that I hope we can get agreement about the scope for each section
16:17:18 <JeniT> hadleybeeman: is that best done talking through the issues rather than the ToC?
16:17:31 <JeniT> BernadetteLoscio: I’d like to show our proposal; we can discuss that and then the issues
16:17:45 <JeniT> … I’d like to have a description of each section by the end of the day
16:18:05 <JeniT> … then it will be easier to describe the best practices for each requirement
16:18:08 <newton> -> https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Proposed_structure#Table_of_Contents_DWBP Proposed Structure
16:18:13 <JeniT> … I’d like to show our proposal and discuss the issues
16:18:17 <flavio> flavio has joined #dwbp
16:18:26 <JeniT> … I’m not sure if that’s best done all together or to break up based on section
16:18:35 <JeniT> … I’m not sure what’s more productive
16:19:06 <JeniT> hadleybeeman: I propose we start that together, then we can ask the question again
16:19:19 <JeniT> … 15-30 minutes of you introducing the work, then we can decide whether to split or not
16:19:29 <JeniT> … then spend the afternoon drafting
16:19:41 <JeniT> q?
16:19:43 <JeniT> ack ericstephan
16:19:58 <JeniT> ericstephan: I like the idea of starting the discussion on the ToC as a group
16:20:05 <JeniT> … maybe some of the issues will be out of scope and get resolved
16:20:15 <JeniT> … I’d hope we have a really strong sense of identity by the end
16:20:24 <JeniT> … so that we know what we’re working on, and we feel like we have consensus
16:20:38 <JeniT> … I’d rather stay as a larger group today instead of splitting off, because I’m not sure what the split is
16:20:48 <hadleybeeman> q?
16:20:51 <Vagner_Br> q+
16:20:52 <JeniT> ack phila
16:20:52 <Zakim> phila, you wanted to talk about remaining (new) requirements
16:21:04 <JeniT> phila: yesterday we went through the requirements in the use case document
16:21:22 <JeniT> … while that was being prepared, and since then, Ricardo from Italy, Lewis from NASA, have both put in new use cases
16:21:29 <JeniT> … Eric has put in another one and I’ve put in two more
16:21:40 <JeniT> … yesterday’s discussion helps me see that some of the requirements should be ditched
16:22:01 <JeniT> … but where those new use cases present possible new requirements, if we had a timeboxed discussion, it might be worth looking at those quickly
16:22:10 <JeniT> … I think that would take 30 minutes
16:22:22 <phila> -> https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Second-Round_Use_Cases Second round use cases
16:22:28 <hadleybeeman> ack jt
16:22:28 <Zakim> jtandy_, you wanted to ask whether we would like to develop some "in scope / out of scope" tests
16:22:29 <JeniT> ack jtandy_
16:22:46 <JeniT> jtandy_: I thought it would be useful to agree between us a couple of simple statements about what’s in and out of scope
16:22:54 <JeniT> … if we all walked away with the same small number of tests
16:23:01 <JeniT> … eg is it testable, is it about publishing data on the web
16:23:09 <ericstephan> +1 Jtandy Amen Amen!
16:23:12 <JeniT> … I think that would help when we split apart, not to get sidetracked
16:23:13 <Ig_Bittencourt> +1 to jtandy_  about agreement of scope
16:23:31 <JeniT> … could we spend a small amount of time in plenary to discuss what those tests should be
16:23:33 <hadleybeeman> ack vagner
16:23:34 <JeniT> ack Vagner_Br
16:23:48 <JeniT> Vagner_Br: I’m afraid if we review the issues we’ll go back to the same discussion as yesterday
16:24:15 <JeniT> … I’d like to avoid going back to those discussions, just resolve the issues
16:24:27 <JeniT> … focus on the issue and how to progress it, not just go back on discussion
16:24:38 <JeniT> … we tend to repeat the discussion that led to the issue
16:24:49 <JeniT> hadleybeeman: I’d also like to distribute the chairing responsibilities
16:24:57 <JeniT> … we have lots of capable people in this room
16:25:08 <ericstephan> q+
16:25:16 <hadleybeeman> ack eric
16:25:17 <JeniT> … I’d like to split that up by hour or something, so other people can be chair for a bit
16:25:46 <JeniT> ericstephan: with fjh in the room, there’s a great opportunity here for us to be thinking about how we can use other capabilities in the W3C
16:25:57 <JeniT> … hearing comments from fjh’s perspective would be very important
16:26:53 <JeniT> hadleybeeman: ok, 5-10 mins on scope questions; then review new use cases until 10am, then 30 mins for BernadetteLoscio to introduce best practices ToC & structure
16:27:21 <JeniT> … then 10:30-12:30 to find issues in best practices & do work on best practices
16:27:35 <JeniT> s/12:30/12:00/
16:27:43 <JeniT> … 12:00-13:00 lunch
16:27:52 <JeniT> … 13:00-17:00 working on drafts
16:27:59 <JeniT> … 17:00-17:30 summary & next steps
16:28:38 <JeniT> [some discussion about some people leaving early]
16:29:26 <hadleybeeman> https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/TPAC_2014#Agenda
16:31:07 <fjh> q+
16:31:12 <RiccardoAlbertoni> I like the schedule, please consider I am available via IRC for the next one Hour, and if you need further explanation about the LuSTRE USE case I can try to Jump in the discussion via Skype...
16:31:28 <JeniT> [scribing assignments]
16:31:51 <fjh> q-
16:32:47 <JeniT> Topic: Scoping Questions
16:32:56 <BernadetteLoscio> q+
16:33:05 <JeniT> hadleybeeman: are the questions on the board the right questions?
16:33:20 <JeniT> phila: “Is it unique to publishing on the web?”
16:33:28 <hadleybeeman> ack bern
16:33:32 <jtandy_> q+
16:33:39 <JeniT> … “is addressing it encouraging people to publish or use data on the web”
16:33:41 <ericstephan> q+
16:33:43 <JeniT> … “is it testable?”
16:33:56 <JeniT> BernadetteLoscio: I’m concerned about the third one
16:34:25 <JeniT> … for the best practices document, what I’m afraid is that the things we need to explain will be in a non-normative section or a note
16:34:25 <JeniT> … but they still have to be explained
16:34:35 <JeniT> … I think we should try not to just remove things because they’re out of scope because they’re not testable
16:34:38 <hadleybeeman> q+
16:34:40 <JeniT> … they might still be things people have to know
16:34:48 <JeniT> … for example the data selection thing we discussed yesterday
16:34:56 <JeniT> … this might be out of scope because it’s not possible to test
16:35:16 <laufer> q?
16:35:19 <JeniT> … but it’s something we should discuss with people, or say something about in a note
16:35:19 <JeniT> … we can’t test it but we have to say something about it
16:35:20 <laufer> q+
16:35:31 <JeniT> … because when we have the issues we’re trying to say let’s not include this because it’s out of scope
16:35:49 <hadleybeeman> ack j
16:35:51 <JeniT> … can some things be removed because it’s out of scope, but other things because we can’t test we can’t have a best practice about that
16:36:10 <phila> q+
16:36:11 <JeniT> jtandy_: I think scoping questions should have three possible answers: rec track, note, or bin it
16:36:24 <Ig_Bittencourt> q+
16:36:24 <phila> q+ to talk about normative/non-normative
16:36:26 <JeniT> … looking at the first one (is it unique to publishing on the web)
16:36:41 <JeniT> … I’d like to see a differentiation about best practices about publishing data vs those that are specific to on the web
16:36:54 <JeniT> … to keep the scope of the work manageable, not just generally publishing data
16:37:04 <JeniT> … that might be hard because we want to provide as much information to people as possible
16:37:19 <JeniT> … but there’s a lot to do if we take a broad approach, so I’m advocating a narrow approach
16:37:24 <JeniT> BernadetteLoscio: publishing *data*
16:37:25 <hadleybeeman> ack eric
16:37:34 <JeniT> ericstephan: BernadetteLoscio, in relation to testability
16:37:49 <JeniT> … I’d say if they’re related by context to being testable, I’d consider that in scope
16:38:13 <JeniT> … the other thing to think about for testing is we really have to have implementations that can show that not only we’re publishing data on the web, but some evidence that people found that useful
16:38:23 <JeniT> … a use case that I introduced today, I’m planning an implementation for it
16:38:29 <yaso> yaso has joined #dwbp
16:38:35 <JeniT> … not only publishing data on the web but were we successful in people using & reusing that data
16:38:37 <hadleybeeman> q-
16:38:40 <hadleybeeman> q+
16:38:46 <anapaula> anapaula has joined #DWBP
16:38:51 <JeniT> laufer: about the second test (encouraging people to publish)
16:39:04 <JeniT> … the first is about encouraging people to really use the data
16:39:13 <JeniT> … some are about encouraging people to *publish*
16:39:25 <JeniT> … people are worried about publishing data eg metadata, sometimes it’s difficult
16:39:32 <JeniT> … but it will help people to *use* the data
16:39:35 <phila> q+ later
16:39:43 <phila> q-
16:39:45 <JeniT> … the scope of this group is to help people to *use* the data
16:40:09 <JeniT> … the second thought is that the same thing can encourage reuse as encouraging [scribe missed]
16:40:36 <hadleybeeman> ack lauf
16:40:37 <JeniT> … the requirement will encourage people to use data, I don’t know if we can encourage them to publish it
16:40:48 <hadleybeeman> ack ig
16:40:50 <JeniT> … it’s not easy for them to publish, but we’ll help people reuse it
16:41:00 <JeniT> Ig_Bittencourt: I think both publishing and consuming are in scope for the group
16:41:19 <JeniT> … but from a publishing perspective I’d say that what should be in scope is not only publishing data on the web but in a good way
16:41:38 <JeniT> … and if we’re doing recommendations & creating best practices, the scope should be about publishing data on the web in a good way
16:41:46 <JeniT> laufer: the good way for *whom*?
16:41:47 <hadleybeeman> q-
16:42:04 <JeniT> Ig_Bittencourt: we can make recommendations of good practices about how to publish, eg 5 star scheme
16:42:21 <JeniT> … eg about vocabularies, we can make recommendations about the reuse of vocabularies when publishign data
16:42:27 <JeniT> laufer: because it makes it easy to use
16:42:38 <JeniT> Ig_Bittencourt: if you want to enable people to use data, you have to publish it well
16:42:41 <hadleybeeman> ack phil
16:43:01 <JeniT> phila: BernadetteLoscio talked about contextualising some of the best practices
16:43:08 <JeniT> … we’ve had discussion about a separate note
16:43:22 <JeniT> … a note is simply a document that we produce that isn’t tested, not part of rec track, not normative
16:43:28 <flavio> flavio has joined #dwbp
16:43:36 <JeniT> … an alternative would be to include that within the recommendation, but mark sections as non-normative
16:43:43 <JeniT> … to provide background/context, which isn’t tested
16:44:07 <hadleybeeman> q+
16:44:08 <JeniT> … I think it will emerge about whether it’s easier to have everything in one document or to have separate documents
16:44:11 <JeniT> … ie just because it’s in a rec document doesn’t mean it has to be tested
16:44:32 <JeniT> … to pick up on ericstephan’s point, we have to show evidence that two organisations have implemented each recommendation
16:44:37 <yaso_> yaso_ has joined #dwbp
16:44:43 <JeniT> … when it’s technical that’s clear how to do; with a best practice it’s harder to prove that it’s been used
16:45:23 <JeniT> … my expectation is that the evidence the group collects will be looking at what people have done, but the evidence for it being used outside the people in this room is it being used in other people’s guidelines
16:45:43 <JeniT> … eg in SharePSI, 40 EU partners, including governments, academics, enterprise, SMEs etc
16:46:17 <JeniT> … their contractual obligation to you is that before June 2016 they’ll update their guidelines to refer what we’re writing here
16:46:45 <JeniT> … we have people from Spanish government, people from Albania, through to PwC, ODI, Open Knowledge, OGC, it’s a big group
16:46:56 <JeniT> … I’m hoping that will be useful as evidence
16:47:11 <JeniT> … if there are recommendations that no one can actually use, you shouldn’t include it
16:47:20 <JeniT> … getting to a W3C Recommendation is hard
16:47:27 <EricKauz> Q+
16:47:35 <JeniT> hadleybeeman: they’re actually obliged to use what we’ve written?
16:47:45 <JeniT> phila: they have to read & review & consider using it
16:47:51 <JeniT> … they don’t have to use it
16:47:55 <fjh> q+
16:47:58 <JeniT> … it has to be relevant for them
16:48:10 <JeniT> … and they’re contributing use cases
16:48:21 <JeniT> ack hadleybeeman
16:48:26 <fjh> q-
16:48:49 <JeniT> hadleybeeman: I’m interested in the distinction between description & context ie telling the story about what’s going on vs advice that can be tested
16:49:05 <JeniT> … I worry about suggesting updates to data at a particular frequency, or creating feedback mechanisms, where we can’t test it
16:49:22 <JeniT> … to me that’s different to general description and context
16:49:22 <JeniT> … that’s a distinction that I keep coming back to
16:49:23 <flavio_> flavio_ has joined #dwbp
16:49:41 <JeniT> … I feel like there are lots of other organisations that are spending time on the behavioural/economic/democratic implications stuff
16:49:42 <phila> phila has joined #dwbp
16:50:03 <hadleybeeman> ack eric
16:50:06 <JeniT> … but I don’t think most of those discussions will help us make data on the web more reusable in a technical way
16:50:09 <JeniT> EricKauz: At GS1 we’re putting together guidelines about publishing product data on the web
16:50:19 <ericstephan> q+
16:50:19 <JeniT> … so we’ll also incorporate the guidelines from here
16:50:29 <JeniT> ack ericstephan
16:50:41 <JeniT> ericstephan: is this related to data.gov work in the US?
16:50:49 <JeniT> phila: not directly, but there’s crossover
16:51:20 <JeniT> … we have good connections into data.gov
16:51:39 <JeniT> hadleybeeman: should we try to get wording like these questions that we can all agree to?
16:51:50 <ericstephan> @phila who was the point of contact you had at data.gov?
16:51:53 <JeniT> … it would be great to have some set of rules, whatever they are, because these questions do keep coming up
16:52:01 <JeniT> … is that possible?
16:52:18 <Caroline> q+
16:52:24 <JeniT> phila: I suggest we use these questions unless we decide to change it
16:52:49 <JeniT> BernadetteLoscio: if the requirement are in scope & are testable then they will be normative, otherwise they’ll be non-normative
16:52:54 <taisuke_> q+
16:53:03 <JeniT> ericstephan: these should get us started
16:53:13 <laufer> q+
16:53:17 <JeniT> hadleybeeman: let’s put them in a wiki page
16:53:22 <Caroline> https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Proposed_structure#Feedback.28.3F.29
16:53:24 <JeniT> phila: yes, but we should also put them in a resolution
16:53:46 <Caroline> this link I just put is Bernadette's suggestion to be discussed
16:54:13 <hadleybeeman> ack caro
16:54:14 <JeniT> ack Caroline
16:54:36 <JeniT> Caroline: I think BernadetteLoscio’s said, it would be nice if we could include in a document how we have these done already
16:54:41 <JeniT> … so we don’t start from zero again
16:54:52 <hadleybeeman> q+
16:54:59 <JeniT> … what I did is add in the link the questions that BernadetteLoscio was talking about
16:55:13 <phila_> phila_ has joined #dwbp
16:55:17 <JeniT> … we have something else that’s more specific about each of the things
16:55:21 <hadleybeeman> ack tai
16:55:44 <JeniT> taisuke_: I proposed to my town to open data
16:56:03 <JeniT> … they are doing 3 star, we want to say that 5 star open data is the best way to publish open data
16:56:14 <JeniT> … I want to take this best practice to Japan
16:56:19 <hadleybeeman> ack lauf
16:56:45 <Ig_Bittencourt> taisuke_: Is your comment related to this doc http://www.w3.org/TR/ld-bp/  ?
16:56:49 <Caroline> https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Proposed_structure
16:57:05 <JeniT> laufer: I agree with the third scope question, the word ‘testable’ is very different, the thing we have to see to confirm that the thing we’re doing is working
16:57:16 <JeniT> … when we have a standard, I can point at an application and prove that it’s working
16:57:19 <phila_> q+ to question whether 5 star is *always* correct (heretic!)
16:57:21 <JeniT> … testable here is a very different thing
16:57:22 <phila_> q-
16:57:36 <phila_> q?
16:57:58 <JeniT> … we have to show it’s a good thing for W3C or people
16:58:17 <JeniT> … we have to confirm that people are using it; phila_ suggested that it’s to include it in their guidelines
16:58:29 <JeniT> … I don’t know if it’s a thing that W3C will see as the same thing as testing
16:58:32 <hadleybeeman> q?
16:58:34 <newton> laufer: how about 'assess' ou evaluate?
16:58:39 <JeniT> … phila can answer that
16:58:45 <JeniT> … a kind of assessment, not of testing
16:59:11 <JeniT> phila: to a certain extent it’s up to you how you make that choice; it’s up to the Director whether he accepts that
16:59:32 <JeniT> … if it’s a guideline that is a nice idea, you have to prove that people agree and that it’s implementable
16:59:41 <JeniT> … you’re looking for evidence that the community finds it useful and has acted on it
16:59:58 <JeniT> … if you said ‘all datasets must be published in 3 formats with content negotiation’, you could test it but it isn’t going to happen
17:00:24 <JeniT> … saying something less concrete; you could offer evidence that people have included it in their guidelines, like GS1 or the geospatial community
17:00:28 <JeniT> … but it has to be rigorous
17:00:32 <JeniT> … so testable is important
17:00:46 <JeniT> laufer: my worry is that they will have to put it in the guidelines before it gets approved
17:01:01 <Vagner_Br> q?
17:01:04 <JeniT> hadleybeeman: it is a bit of a negotiation process because in Last Call we put out the document for comments & we get feedback
17:01:10 <JeniT> … then we go to CR and show implementations
17:01:13 <taisuke_> Ig_Bittencourt: I mean I want to encouraging local government people to publish open data as 5 star, because It's the best
17:01:33 <JeniT> … but it might be that CR shows we don’t have implementations, which means we have to go back
17:01:42 <JeniT> phila: Last Call & CR have been merged
17:01:46 <JeniT> … that’s agile W3C!
17:02:02 <hadleybeeman> ack me
17:02:05 <fjh> q+
17:02:22 <JeniT> hadleybeeman: I think this needs to go into best practices, but it’s important to have somewhere else too
17:02:30 <JeniT> … we need to demonstrate to the rest of the world what we’re doing
17:02:38 <JeniT> … we could have put this (these questions) in the charter
17:02:44 <JeniT> … because it’s about who we are and what we’re doing
17:03:01 <JeniT> … these ideas & our commitment to them needs to be above our documents, it needs to feed into everything we do
17:03:18 <JeniT> fjh: my familiarity is that Rec track you have do testing of things in code & implementations
17:03:23 <BernadetteLoscio> q+
17:03:23 <jtandy_> q+ to ask if we should review these scoping points against the charter ... is there anything we won't now deliver?
17:03:27 <JeniT> … I don’t know if there’s experience with Rec track best practices
17:03:37 <JeniT> phila: what I mentioned will work so long as we’re rigorous
17:03:48 <JeniT> … the first WG I was involved with was mobile web best practices
17:03:55 <JeniT> … some of it was testable, some was wooly
17:04:07 <JeniT> … the things that were machine testable, we built a validator
17:04:15 <JeniT> … there was a validator suite that was built
17:04:17 <flavio> flavio has joined #dwbp
17:04:21 <JeniT> … and another bunch that was human testable
17:04:28 <JeniT> … more than half weren’t machine testable
17:04:38 <JeniT> fjh: it might be useful to mention testability ahead of time
17:04:42 <JeniT> phila: I think it’s in the charter
17:05:13 <phila> From the charter - To advance to Proposed Recommendation, evidence will be adduced that each of the best practices have been recommended in at least two environments, such as data portals and formal policies.
17:05:13 <phila> The vocabularies that will eventually be developed by the working group will be published via the W3C Vocabulary Management Process that offers stability of terms but the flexibility for future evolution in response to community demand.
17:05:23 <hadleybeeman> http://www.w3.org/2013/05/odbp-charter.html
17:06:01 <JeniT> phila: in the charter the vocabularies are notes
17:06:07 <JeniT> … take that as a minimum
17:06:22 <hadleybeeman> q?
17:06:26 <hadleybeeman> ack f
17:06:35 <phila> ack BernadetteLoscio
17:06:47 <JeniT> BernadetteLoscio: phila just said that there might be machine testable best practices
17:06:55 <JeniT> … it would be nice to have examples of how to test best practice
17:07:17 <JeniT> phila: sounds like an action item
17:07:43 <JeniT> BernadetteLoscio: just to look at how best practices were tested in other W3C specs
17:08:02 <JeniT> … because everybody will produce some best practices so everyone needs to know how we’re going to test them
17:08:08 <JeniT> hadleybeeman: who’d like to volunteer?
17:08:29 <JeniT> BernadetteLoscio: newton?
17:08:37 <JeniT> newton: ok
17:09:02 <hadleybeeman> action: newton to research and report ways that technical best practices have been tested
17:09:02 <trackbot> Created ACTION-112 - Research and report ways that technical best practices have been tested [on Newton Calegari - due 2014-11-07].
17:09:07 <phila> The Mobile Web BP doc is at http://www.w3.org/TR/mobile-bp/ and it links to the implementation reports (see status section) - NB newton
17:09:41 <JeniT> phila: you should find every BP in mobile has at least 2 green bars in the table
17:09:43 <JeniT> … it’s hard to do
17:09:52 <hadleybeeman> https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Scope
17:09:58 <JeniT> hadleybeeman: I’ve put this discussion into a wiki page ^^
17:10:07 <newton> thanks phila
17:10:17 <ericstephan> nice example @phila
17:10:20 <JeniT> PROPOSAL: we agree these questions for the moment, as of today
17:10:26 <CarlosIglesias> newton, also WCAG could be a good reference http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/
17:10:29 <ericstephan> +1
17:10:31 <jtandy_> +1 (observer)
17:10:49 <JeniT> phila: can we resolve one by one?
17:11:16 <JeniT> PROPOSAL: Do you agree that one of the scoping criteria is “Is it unique to publishing data on the web?”?
17:11:20 <newton> thank @CarlosIglesias, I'm going to read it as well
17:11:20 <hadleybeeman> +1
17:11:25 <phila> +1
17:11:27 <JeniT> +1
17:11:27 <jtandy_> +1 (observer)
17:11:29 <Ig_Bittencourt> +1
17:11:32 <ericstephan> +1
17:11:32 <yaso> =1
17:11:34 <yaso> OPS
17:11:34 <laufer> +1
17:11:35 <yaso> +1
17:11:35 <Adriano> +1
17:11:37 <nathalia> +1
17:11:40 <BartvanLeeuwen> +1
17:11:42 <BernadetteLoscio> +1
17:11:42 <newton> +1
17:11:43 <CarlosIglesias> Is it unique to publishing on the web?
17:11:44 <Vagner_Br> +1
17:11:45 <taisuke_> +1
17:11:48 <CarlosIglesias> why?
17:11:49 <flavio> flavio has joined #dwbp
17:11:51 <Caroline> +1
17:12:03 <CarlosIglesias> the *unique* I mean
17:12:28 <JeniT> hadleybeeman: phila, can you respond to CarlosIglesias?
17:12:38 <CarlosIglesias> Is it for publishing on the Web?
17:12:46 <phila> Welcome to W3C ;-)
17:12:53 <CarlosIglesias> but not necessarily *unique*
17:12:57 <phila> Our remit stops at the end of the Web
17:13:18 <phila> if it's not unique to the Web then others are as able to make recommendations as we are
17:13:25 <phila> we need to limit our scope to our area of expertise
17:13:43 <phila> But... it's a wiki, it cna be changed over time if the Wg so decides of course
17:14:30 <CarlosIglesias> yep but you can recommend BPs that are useful for the web but also for other means as well, not necessarily unique for the Web, no?
17:14:33 <jtandy_> s/cna/can/
17:15:03 <JeniT> phila: it could end up that under each best practice we have a line that says ‘how this encourages reuse’
17:15:12 <JeniT> BernadetteLoscio: we have a scope section
17:15:31 <JeniT> … but yes, for each best practice
17:16:00 <JeniT> laufer: also the first question, we have to justify against these criteria
17:16:09 <hadleybeeman> @CarlosIglesias: We are trying to agree our scope, so that when someone suggests "We should include [a new topic]!", we can say "yes, it's in scope" or "no, it's not"
17:16:17 <JeniT> phila: one of the questions about the first one is whether the key word is ‘data’ or ‘web’
17:16:25 <ericstephan> We are talking about the second question about reuse of data on the web @Caroline
17:16:48 <JeniT> … ie is it about uniqueness wrt publishing data rather than documents, or wrt to publishing on the web rather than through other means
17:16:51 <JeniT> JeniT: both
17:16:57 <BernadetteLoscio> q+
17:17:01 <flavio> flavio has joined #dwbp
17:17:08 <JeniT> phila: as well as resolving these, track an issue of them
17:17:19 <JeniT> BernadetteLoscio: I think we shouldn’t talk too much longer on this
17:17:23 <JeniT> ack jtandy_
17:17:23 <Zakim> jtandy_, you wanted to ask if we should review these scoping points against the charter ... is there anything we won't now deliver?
17:17:25 <hadleybeeman> ack jt
17:17:48 <JeniT> jtandy_: once we’ve agreed these, maybe go through the charter and see if there’s anything that won’t then be delivered
17:18:02 <hadleybeeman> action: Hadley to check the scoping criteria against the deliverables/commitments in our charter
17:18:02 <trackbot> Created ACTION-113 - Check the scoping criteria against the deliverables/commitments in our charter [on Hadley Beeman - due 2014-11-07].
17:18:07 <nathalia> It's confused for remote participants
17:18:24 <JeniT> BernadetteLoscio: publishing data documents that I create & give to someone vs just publishing data
17:18:24 <hadleybeeman> ack b
17:18:38 <JeniT> … just publishing on the web might be documents. They have to be together: “data on the web”
17:18:49 <deirdrelee> deirdrelee has joined #dwbp
17:19:17 <JeniT> PROPOSAL: Do you agree that one of the scoping criteria is “Is it unique to publishing data on the web?”?
17:19:19 <ericstephan> +1
17:19:21 <hadleybeeman> +1
17:19:22 <jtandy_> +1 (observer)
17:19:28 <newton> +1
17:19:29 <Ig_Bittencourt> +1
17:19:31 <RiccardoAlbertoni> +1
17:19:33 <nathalia> +1
17:19:37 <laufer> +1
17:19:38 <phila> We've been discussing your point, Carlos. Consensus is that both data and Web are keywords in that statement
17:19:39 <Caroline> +1
17:19:41 <JeniT> +1 (observer)
17:19:42 <phila> +1
17:19:47 <Vagner_Br> +1
17:19:54 <BernadetteLoscio> isso servira +1
17:20:05 <yaso> +1
17:20:06 <taisuke_> +1
17:20:23 <JeniT> RESOLVED: Do you agree that one of the scoping criteria is “Is it unique to publishing data on the web?”?
17:20:29 <CarlosIglesias> completely agree, my concern is with unique, not any other keyword
17:20:39 <JeniT> PROPOSAL: Do you agree that one of the scoping criteria is “Does it encourage reuse of data on the Web?”?
17:20:43 <yaso> +1
17:20:49 <ericstephan> +1
17:20:52 <hadleybeeman> +1
17:20:56 <JeniT> +1 (observer)
17:20:56 <Ig_Bittencourt> +1
17:20:57 <phila> +1
17:20:58 <laufer> +1
17:20:59 <RiccardoAlbertoni> +1
17:21:00 <nathalia> +1
17:21:01 <Vagner_Br> +1
17:21:02 <jtandy_> +1
17:21:02 <BernadetteLoscio> +1
17:21:07 <jtandy_> (observer)
17:21:10 <taisuke_> +1
17:21:25 <Caroline> +1
17:21:32 <flavio> +1
17:21:42 <JeniT> BernadetteLoscio: it should be both publishing and reuse
17:21:55 <JeniT> hadleybeeman: laufer suggested focusing on reuse
17:22:01 <JeniT> phila: publishing is in the first one
17:22:18 <JeniT> BernadetteLoscio: the first one is focusing on data on the web, not other contexts
17:22:25 <JeniT> … that was the main reason rather than publishing
17:22:40 <JeniT> … we are proposing for data on the web, but people can use in other contexts
17:23:17 <JeniT> … CarlosIglesias was concerned about the ‘unique’: it doesn’t mean it can’t be used in other contexts
17:23:35 <EricKauz> +1
17:23:51 <JeniT> BernadetteLoscio: the second one, it should be together ‘publish’ and ‘reuse’
17:23:58 <CarlosIglesias> then it is perfectly ok for me, but don't understand why the unique is there
17:24:03 <jtandy_> q+
17:24:04 <JeniT> ericstephan: “encouraging people to publish and reuse”?
17:24:13 <JeniT> BernadetteLoscio: yes, because we’re trying to help people to do both
17:24:28 <JeniT> laufer: I think we argue, we’ll talk about this for hours, so I accept
17:24:40 <JeniT> … the same thing can encourage use and discourage publication
17:24:46 <JeniT> … because it’s difficult to publish
17:25:18 <JeniT> … to me you have to split into two: encourage publish yes, encourage reuse too
17:25:20 <erikmannens> erikmannens has joined #DWBP
17:25:59 <hadleybeeman> ack j
17:26:04 <JeniT> hadleybeeman: “does it encourage reuse or publication…”
17:26:15 <JeniT> jtandy_: yesterday we talked about eg common vocabularies
17:26:22 <JeniT> … doesn’t encourage reuse, but helps publishers
17:26:26 <JeniT> … I think they are separate
17:26:35 <JeniT> ericstephan: so ‘or’ works
17:26:54 <flavio_> flavio_ has joined #dwbp
17:27:04 <ericstephan> Yes GO!
17:27:10 <yaso> y
17:27:11 <JeniT> PROPOSAL: Do you agree that one of the scoping criteria is “Does it encourage reuse or publication of data on the Web?”?
17:27:26 <nathalia> +1
17:27:26 <flavio_> +1
17:27:27 <RiccardoAlbertoni> +1
17:27:28 <yaso> +1
17:27:38 <ericstephan> +1 to 00 01 10 11
17:27:59 <laufer> +1
17:28:00 <hadleybeeman> +1
17:28:04 <Caroline> +1
17:28:04 <Vagner_Br> +1
17:28:07 <phila> +1
17:28:08 <BernadetteLoscio> +1
17:28:08 <Ig_Bittencourt> +1
17:28:13 <JeniT> +1 (to 01 10 11, as observer)
17:28:17 <jtandy_> +1 (observer)
17:28:24 <newton> +01
17:28:39 <JeniT> RESOLVED: Do you agree that one of the scoping criteria is “Does it encourage reuse or publication of data on the Web?”?
17:29:02 <nathalia> I like too
17:29:04 <JeniT> PROPOSAL: Do you agree that one of the scoping criteria is “Is it testable?”?
17:29:09 <ericstephan> +1
17:29:14 <hadleybeeman> +1
17:29:15 <Ig_Bittencourt> +1
17:29:17 <EricKauz> +1
17:29:18 <flavio_> +1
17:29:19 <yaso> +1
17:29:22 <JeniT> phila: testable but not necessarily machine testable
17:29:30 <newton> +1
17:29:31 <taisuke_> +1
17:29:33 <Caroline> +1
17:29:35 <BernadetteLoscio> +1
17:29:35 <phila> +1
17:29:39 <nathalia> +1
17:29:40 <JeniT> +1 (observer)
17:29:41 <Adriano> +1
17:29:50 <laufer> +1
17:29:54 <jtandy_> 0 ... testable to be included in the REC
17:29:59 <JeniT> RESOLVED: Do you agree that one of the scoping criteria is “Is it testable?”?
17:30:05 <Vagner_Br> +1
17:30:10 <hadleybeeman> rrsagent, pointer
17:30:10 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2014/10/31-dwbp-irc#T17-30-10
17:30:37 <JeniT> ScribeNick: fjh
17:32:04 <nathalia> what is happening now?
17:32:13 <yaso> we’re taking a break
17:32:14 <Ig_Bittencourt> nathalia: break
17:32:14 <nathalia> ok
17:32:27 <yaso> 10 minutes for coffee, Nathalia o/
17:32:41 <nathalia> ok
17:33:00 <Tomoki> Tomoki has joined #dwbp
17:33:17 <Zakim> -Caroline_
17:39:14 <ericstephan> ericstephan has joined #dwbp
17:47:45 <deirdrelee> deirdrelee has joined #dwbp
17:47:46 <jtandy> jtandy has joined #dwbp
17:48:00 <Zakim> +Caroline_
17:48:11 <newton> newton has joined #dwbp
17:48:11 <jtandy> q?
17:49:44 <fjh> Topic: Best Practices Table of Contents
17:49:50 <fjh> ScribeNick: fjh
17:49:55 <fjh> Present+ Frederick_Hirsch
17:50:05 <fjh> jeremy is chairing
17:50:27 <jtandy> https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Proposed_structure#Table_of_Contents_DWBP
17:50:37 <newton> @fjh this is the link: https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Proposed_structure
17:50:49 <newton> @jtandy was faster than me
17:51:13 <nathalia> nathalia has joined #dwbp
17:51:18 <Caroline> Zakim, has nathalia
17:51:18 <Zakim> I don't understand 'has nathalia', Caroline
17:51:31 <Caroline> Zakim, Carloine has nathalia
17:51:31 <Zakim> sorry, Caroline, I do not recognize a party named 'Carloine'
17:51:40 <Caroline> Zakim, Caroline has nathalia
17:51:40 <Zakim> +nathalia; got it
17:51:47 <jtandy_> jtandy_ has joined #dwbp
17:51:49 <BernadetteLoscio> BernadetteLoscio has joined #dwbp
17:52:19 <nathalia> hello again.
17:52:25 <BernadetteLoscio> https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Proposed_structure
17:53:33 <yaso> yaso has joined #dwbp
17:53:42 <fjh> BernadetteLoscio: will proposal for table of oontents for best practices doc, audience,  acope, backghround
17:53:48 <fjh> … scope section important
17:53:52 <fjh> … need to work on audience
17:53:59 <fjh> … and context
17:54:13 <fjh> … these are non-normative sections
17:54:33 <Caroline> the link for the Proposed Structure with the Table of Contents is https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Proposed_structure#Mapping_of_Themes.5B1.5D
17:54:40 <fjh> … lifecycle discussed in last F2F
17:54:55 <nsaito> nsaito has joined #DWBP
17:55:15 <fjh> … can change all of this
17:55:42 <fjh> … themes section, to organize best practices themselves
17:55:49 <fjh> 1.5.1 Data Selection
17:55:49 <fjh> 1.5.2 Data Organization
17:55:51 <fjh> 1.5.3 Data Publication
17:55:52 <fjh> 1.5.4 Data usage
17:55:52 <fjh> 1.5.5 Feedback(?)
17:56:04 <fjh> … each section will have challenges based on use case documents
17:56:09 <fjh> s/ments/ment/
17:56:36 <jtandy_> http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/usecasesv1.html#requirements-by-challenge
17:57:06 <fjh> … challenges need to be grouped into appropriate sections
17:57:40 <Vagner_Br> Vagner_Br has joined #dwbp
17:57:44 <fjh> … e.g. types of metadata
17:58:13 <fjh> … note that we have many requirements of form, ABC is available, meaning that the metadata is available
17:58:25 <fjh> … propose to have metadata section for this
17:58:46 <jtandy_> q?
17:58:49 <fjh> .q?
17:58:52 <fjh> q?
17:58:53 <ericstephan> q+
17:59:01 <phila> q+
17:59:03 <fjh> q+
18:00:03 <jtandy_> frederik (fjh)
18:00:04 <fjh> fjh: i see, metadata section is in Data organization section
18:00:12 <Ig_Bittencourt> Caroline: That was fjh
18:00:13 <jtandy_> ack ericstephan
18:00:50 <jtandy_> q?
18:00:56 <fjh> q-
18:02:05 <phila> issue: Do we include versioning in the BP doc? Currently there are no use cases for it
18:02:05 <trackbot> Created ISSUE-69 - Do we include versioning in the bp doc? currently there are no use cases for it.  Please complete additional details at <http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/69/edit>.
18:02:11 <fjh> BernadetteLoscio: data enrichment is a challenge, how consumer can encrich data before using it
18:02:21 <fjh> … how to add value to data before using it
18:02:25 <phila> issue: Should we include data enrichment in the BP doc? Currently there are no use cases for it
18:02:25 <trackbot> Created ISSUE-70 - Should we include data enrichment in the bp doc? currently there are no use cases for it.  Please complete additional details at <http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/70/edit>.
18:02:29 <fjh> sounds like annotations might be relevant here
18:02:32 <phila> RRSAgent, pointer?
18:02:32 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2014/10/31-dwbp-irc#T18-02-32
18:02:42 <laufer> q?
18:02:42 <phila> RRSAgent, draft minutes
18:02:42 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/10/31-dwbp-minutes.html phila
18:02:54 <phila> q-
18:03:12 <laufer> q+
18:03:24 <fjh> discussion about issue numbers
18:03:38 <jtandy_> q+
18:03:40 <phila> http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/usecasesv1.html#UC-FeedbackLoopforCorrections
18:03:41 <jtandy_> q-
18:04:22 <fjh> BernadetteLoscio: dont have use case for feedback
18:04:29 <fjh> phila: yes we have one or two
18:04:46 <yaso> q?
18:05:10 <fjh> BernadetteLoscio: proposal to organize lifecycle
18:05:17 <phila> issue: We have use cases for feedback but is it in scope given the 3 aximoatic criteria resolved at TPAC
18:05:18 <trackbot> Created ISSUE-71 - We have use cases for feedback but is it in scope given the 3 aximoatic criteria resolved at tpac.  Please complete additional details at <http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/71/edit>.
18:05:26 <phila> RRSAgent, pointer?
18:05:26 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2014/10/31-dwbp-irc#T18-05-26
18:05:57 <phila> The feedback section in the structure is at https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Proposed_structure#Feedback.28.3F.29
18:06:27 <Caroline> q+
18:06:45 <Caroline> Feedback(?)      Data usage feedback     Data to be published     Lifecycle
18:06:55 <phila> RRSAgent, make logs public
18:07:00 <phila> RRSAgent, draft minutes
18:07:00 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/10/31-dwbp-minutes.html phila
18:07:41 <phila> phila has joined #dwbp
18:08:02 <fjh> laufer: useful to have use case about data enrichment
18:08:43 <jtandy_> q?
18:08:52 <jtandy_> ack laufer
18:09:19 <jtandy_> @Caroline ... coming to you next on the queue\
18:09:19 <phila> issue: Is data enrichment in scope for DWBP?
18:09:20 <trackbot> Created ISSUE-72 - Is data enrichment in scope for dwbp?.  Please complete additional details at <http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/72/edit>.
18:09:24 <phila> RRSAgent, pointer?
18:09:25 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2014/10/31-dwbp-irc#T18-09-24
18:10:04 <jtandy_> q?
18:10:26 <RiccardoAlbertoni> Sorry I have to leave, enjoy the rest of discussion, Bye!
18:10:31 <fjh> ???: data ingegration, segmentation , categorization all matter
18:10:37 <yaso> Bye Riccardo!
18:10:39 <Caroline> q-
18:10:39 <fjh> s/ingegration/integration/
18:10:47 <yaso> Thanks for participating
18:10:49 <jtandy_> fjh .... this is Adriano
18:11:02 <fjh> s/???/Adriano/
18:11:07 <fjh> rrsagent, generate minutes
18:11:07 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/10/31-dwbp-minutes.html fjh
18:11:18 <BernadetteLoscio> Adriano is speaking
18:11:38 <phila_> phila_ has joined #dwbp
18:11:46 <fjh> Adriano: can encrich data like use case ??
18:11:52 <phila_> -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dengue_fever Dengue Fever reference
18:12:13 <fjh> … data consumption side can use encriched data after aggregating with meta data
18:12:29 <laufer> q+
18:12:36 <fjh> … working to formalize, looking for ideas from group
18:12:44 <fjh> q?
18:12:51 <jtandy_> ack Caroline
18:13:18 <jtandy_> ack laufer
18:13:23 <BernadetteLoscio> q+
18:13:38 <jtandy_> q+
18:13:45 <fjh> laufer: concerned if encrichment is embedded in app, don’t have linked data yet
18:13:58 <fjh> … need to consider layering
18:13:59 <phila_> q+ to talk about data enrichment at chairs' discretion. (I have raised the issue in tracker already)
18:14:19 <Adriano> q+
18:14:29 <jtandy_> ack BernadetteLoscio
18:14:47 <fjh> BernadetteLoscio: propose use case then requirements, then decide on scope
18:15:02 <fjh> … hard to talk about this stuff
18:15:07 <phila_> issue-72?
18:15:07 <trackbot> issue-72 -- Is data enrichment in scope for dwbp? -- raised
18:15:07 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/72
18:15:18 <fjh> … we need concrete proposals
18:15:29 <phila_> q-
18:15:29 <jtandy_> q?
18:15:33 <fjh> jtandy_: lets give an action to adriano
18:16:00 <phila_> action: Adriano to complete use case and requirements for data enrichment. Related to issue-72
18:16:00 <trackbot> 'Adriano' is an ambiguous username. Please try a different identifier, such as family name or username (e.g., adrianoc, adrianov).
18:16:02 <fjh> jtandy_: process of encrichment is out of our scope
18:16:10 <jtandy_> ack me
18:16:13 <fjh> ISSUE-72?
18:16:13 <trackbot> ISSUE-72 -- Is data enrichment in scope for dwbp? -- raised
18:16:13 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/72
18:16:29 <phila_> action: Adrianoc to complete use case and requirements for data enrichment. Related to issue-72
18:16:29 <trackbot> Created ACTION-114 - Complete use case and requirements for data enrichment. related to issue-72 [on Adriano Pereira - due 2014-11-07].
18:16:40 <fjh> q?
18:16:59 <jtandy_> ack Adriano
18:17:12 <fjh> Adriano: disagree with laufer
18:17:44 <fjh> Adriano: data on web has many aspects
18:17:44 <phila_> q+ to make quick argument for enrichment
18:17:57 <fjh> … can address data enrichment later, lets defer
18:18:20 <phila_> q-
18:18:35 <fjh> jtandy_: outlines process to review use cases, requirements then make decision
18:18:42 <fjh> … we have way forward, so can move on
18:19:33 <fjh> … goals, common understanding of each section and secondly people should review sections and be prepared to contribute
18:20:07 <Caroline> https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Proposed_structure#Mapping_of_Themes.5B1.5D
18:20:15 <fjh> BernadetteLoscio: on deliverable sections
18:20:29 <fjh> … people have offered to contribute and are noted
18:20:40 <phila_> q+
18:20:41 <fjh> jtandy_: not all clear
18:20:50 <fjh> BernadetteLoscio: some from charter
18:20:54 <Caroline> +1 to understand what the sections are about!
18:21:11 <ericstephan> https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Main_Page#Best_Practices (this is what we are looking at...
18:21:14 <fjh> BernadetteLoscio: no related between thsi and the challenge and the use case document
18:21:47 <Caroline> I suggest to also look at https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Proposed_structure#Mapping_of_Themes.5B1.5D
18:21:48 <fjh> jtandy_: proposing to organize around challenges rather than chartered deliverables
18:21:55 <phila_> Bernadette refers to the charter  technology-agnostic approach to cover aspects such as:
18:22:34 <fjh> fjh: to rephrase - no clear linkage between charter and challenge/use case documents
18:22:51 <fjh> phila: this is ok, charter leaves room to the WG
18:23:06 <fjh> jtandy_: can we agree to organize doc around challenges
18:23:16 <jtandy_> q?
18:23:30 <fjh> hadleybeeman: we need more infomration to comment
18:23:30 <jtandy_> ack phila_
18:23:51 <fjh> phila: this is very helpful progress, especially since we are reflecting use cases
18:24:01 <fjh> … afraid…
18:24:15 <fjh> … we updated use cases, so you are going to have to update this table of contents
18:24:20 <fjh> s/afraid…//
18:24:31 <fjh> BernadetteLoscio: we can adjuct
18:24:35 <fjh> s/juct/just/
18:24:56 <fjh> pjhila: discvoery metadata vs content metatdata is one example to think about
18:25:05 <fjh> s/pjhila/phila/
18:25:12 <fjh> s/metat/meta/
18:25:22 <jtandy_> q+
18:25:47 <fjh> jtandy_: what is useful of this structure is that it is tied to data lifecyle
18:25:57 <phila> q+
18:25:58 <fjh> … despite use case changes the lifecycle will be stable so this is good
18:26:01 <fjh> ack jtandy_
18:26:03 <jtandy_> ack me
18:26:15 <fjh> BernadetteLoscio: one use case could span entire lifecycle
18:26:57 <fjh> phila: +1 to using lifecycle
18:27:03 <jtandy_> @Caroline ... just giving hadley some time off!
18:27:43 <fjh> … editorial framework is helpful
18:28:07 <fjh> … are we sure we want to lose some requirements, Shakespeare wrote something that says we need a plan
18:28:33 <fjh> … need backing from higher level management
18:28:53 <fjh> s/Shakespeare….//
18:29:09 <jtandy_> q?
18:29:14 <jtandy_> ack phila
18:29:26 <hadleybeeman> q+ to question the wisdom of keeping the policy stuff
18:29:58 <BernadetteLoscio> q+
18:30:03 <ericstephan> q+
18:30:15 <fjh> phila: we should still have a top level non-normative policy section both to give advice and to enable buy in
18:30:30 <jtandy_> q?
18:30:35 <jtandy_> ack hadleybeeman
18:30:35 <Zakim> hadleybeeman, you wanted to question the wisdom of keeping the policy stuff
18:30:45 <nathalia> I'm not understanding the disccusion. Is it about?
18:30:49 <fjh> hadleybeeman: disagree, thinking about other web standards like HTML, CSS etc
18:31:07 <fjh> … did not have to explain how to maintain web pages
18:31:33 <jtandy_> q?
18:31:41 <fjh> … important aspects may not need to be W3C items
18:31:43 <jtandy_> ack BernadetteLoscio
18:31:51 <fjh> BernadetteLoscio: need to define audience of this document
18:31:57 <Caroline> +1 to define the audience!
18:32:05 <fjh> hadleybeeman: agree
18:32:20 <nathalia> +1 to Bernadette
18:32:29 <jtandy_> q?
18:32:41 <yaso> yaso
18:32:45 <yaso> ops
18:32:46 <fjh> BernadetteLoscio: need to be clear on what to focus on , technical, non technical etc
18:32:47 <yaso> q+
18:32:48 <jtandy_> ack ericstephan
18:33:07 <phila> issue: What exactly is the audience for the BP doc?
18:33:07 <trackbot> Created ISSUE-73 - What exactly is the audience for the bp doc?.  Please complete additional details at <http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/73/edit>.
18:33:08 <fjh> yaso: we are at a very high level, could add lots of non-normative text
18:33:10 <phila> RRSAgent, pointer?
18:33:10 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2014/10/31-dwbp-irc#T18-33-10
18:33:19 <fjh> … everything we do could have a motivation, or poicy behind it
18:33:24 <fjh> … agree with Phil
18:33:25 <jtandy_> q?
18:33:31 <fjh> ack yaso
18:33:46 <fjh> … climate data has birth of the data stream
18:33:53 <Caroline> s/yaso/ericstephan/
18:34:07 <newton> s/yaso: we are/ericstephan: we are/
18:34:10 <fjh> … community defines  policy
18:35:01 <fjh> yaso: are two audiences, technical and policy
18:35:18 <phila> issue: Is it in scope to include mention of policy framework etc. as part of the non-normative discussion/editorialisation of the BP doc
18:35:18 <trackbot> Created ISSUE-74 - Is it in scope to include mention of policy framework etc. as part of the non-normative discussion/editorialisation of the bp doc.  Please complete additional details at <http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/74/edit>.
18:35:34 <jtandy_> q?
18:35:43 <fjh> yaso: should focus on technical audience
18:36:07 <fjh> jtandy_: do we want proposal to focus on technical audience
18:36:25 <phila> RRSAgent, pointer?
18:36:25 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2014/10/31-dwbp-irc#T18-36-25
18:36:26 <jtandy_> proposal: the best practices document should focus on the technical audiaence
18:36:28 <fjh> s/we want/we want to make/
18:36:44 <yaso> Caroline, I said that I don’t see 2 diff audiences
18:36:46 <laufer> q+
18:36:59 <yaso> for me, it’s always “technical” audience
18:37:07 <hadleybeeman> q?
18:37:09 <nathalia> +1 to Yaso
18:37:11 <jtandy_> q?
18:37:22 <phila> ack laufer
18:37:24 <BernadetteLoscio> q+
18:37:43 <fjh> laufer: roles define the audience
18:37:59 <fjh> … name of group has ‘best practices’ but for what
18:38:11 <hadleybeeman> I'm wondering if we all have different ideas of what "best practices" mean
18:38:11 <nathalia> now the sound is better
18:38:12 <Vagner_Br> q+
18:38:18 <fjh> … can be about communiucation between publishers and consumers
18:38:49 <nathalia> s/communiucatio/communication
18:39:03 <fjh> … not sure about CSV files
18:39:10 <nathalia> s/communiucation/communication/
18:39:15 <fjh> fjh: isn’t there a CSV on the web WG for that?
18:39:39 <phila> q+ to talk about 'difference' between BPs for publishing CSV and RDF
18:39:47 <yaso> they are best practices for **publishing, using, reusing** data on the Web, aren’t they?
18:39:50 <fjh> q+
18:39:54 <fjh> q-
18:39:56 <jtandy_> ack BernadetteLoscio
18:39:58 <fjh> q+ to ask about usability
18:40:22 <nathalia> fjh You're welcome!
18:40:43 <fjh> BernadetteLoscio: not just for developers, but also for non-technical people that are interested
18:40:50 <fjh> s/that/who
18:40:58 <fjh> rrsagent, generate minutes
18:40:58 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/10/31-dwbp-minutes.html fjh
18:41:47 <Ig_Bittencourt> According to the charter:
18:41:54 <jtandy_> ack Vagner_Br
18:41:57 <Ig_Bittencourt> The mission of the Data on the Web Best Practices Working Group, part of the Data Activity, is:
18:41:59 <fjh> … this is not just a technical work, for non-technical as well
18:42:27 <fjh> Vagner_Br: just because W3C doc does not mean obliged to be technial, see this
18:42:34 <fjh> … W3C Note for policy making people: http://www.w3.org/TR/egov-improving/
18:43:01 <Ig_Bittencourt> q+
18:43:04 <hadleybeeman> q+
18:43:22 <CarlosIglesias> remember the wcag? one of the most famous and widespread w3c documents
18:43:23 <fjh> … we are only addressing technical people, given how we are writing this document
18:43:29 <CarlosIglesias> a guidelines one, not technical at all
18:43:36 <jtandy_> ack phila
18:43:36 <Zakim> phila, you wanted to talk about 'difference' between BPs for publishing CSV and RDF
18:43:38 <yaso> +1 to Vagner
18:44:24 <fjh> phila: should stay abstract and not go into detail on CSV, say that it should be discoverable and reusable through metadata. Reference CSV WG for details
18:44:37 <fjh> … on policy am persuaded by Hadley
18:44:48 <fjh> … our audience is technical, that is what W3C is for
18:45:09 <fjh> … “these are meant to be technical guidelines for those implementing a policy”\
18:45:11 <nathalia> +1 to phila
18:45:11 <ericstephan> +1 phila
18:45:13 <fjh> … leave the rest to them
18:45:27 <fjh> s/policy”\/policy"/
18:45:36 <jtandy_> ack fjh
18:45:37 <Zakim> fjh, you wanted to ask about usability
18:46:14 <jtandy_> ack Ig_Bittencourt
18:46:19 <fjh> fjh: we might want to consider usability somewhere
18:46:33 <jtandy_> ack hadleybeeman
18:46:45 <phila> present+ Nobuo Saito
18:46:57 <phila> present+ Karen Myers
18:47:08 <fjh> hadleybeeman: worried that policy will distract group and also consume time etc etc
18:47:15 <jtandy_> q?
18:47:21 <Ig_Bittencourt> I sad I agree with Vagner_Br about technical audience and it is clear in the charter (mission).
18:47:43 <fjh> … legal risks, ethical aspects, especially when international, this would be a huge job
18:47:46 <phila> Big +1 to Hadley on not trying to define global policy
18:47:54 <ericstephan> +1 hadleybeeman - just a mention that publication is motivated and dictated by policy is okay with me
18:48:08 <Caroline> +1 to Vagner_Br Ig_Bittencourt and hadleybeeman
18:48:08 <fjh> i’m an observer, but Hadley is making a good point
18:48:11 <ericstephan> no additional details are needed
18:48:22 <EricKauz> q+
18:48:44 <fjh> hadleybeeman: most policy wonks don’t understand technology, but we could make our documents useful and reassuring
18:48:52 <jtandy_> ack EricKauz
18:48:53 <fjh> phila: +1
18:49:09 <fjh> EricKauz:  other groups are working in this space
18:49:11 <nathalia> is it necessary to vote the audience point?
18:49:24 <taisuke_> +1
18:49:25 <fjh> jtandy_: i hear strong support for technical focus
18:49:30 <fjh> … need a resolution
18:49:42 <fjh> q?
18:49:44 <nathalia> +1 to need a resolution
18:49:53 <nathalia> and go on for next topic
18:50:10 <fjh> proposed RESOLUTION: focus of the DWBP document will be technical
18:50:18 <Caroline> q+
18:50:31 <phila> Working on this... The primary audience for our work is technical. That technical work should be in context
18:50:51 <jtandy_> q?
18:51:04 <jtandy_> ack Caroline
18:51:28 <fjh> Caroline: need to understand audience
18:52:05 <phila> PROPOSED: That the focus of our work is technical
18:52:09 <hadleybeeman> +1
18:52:11 <laufer> +1
18:52:11 <flavio_> +1
18:52:12 <ericstephan> +1
18:52:12 <Vagner_Br> +1
18:52:13 <EricKauz> +1
18:52:14 <Ig_Bittencourt> +1
18:52:15 <Caroline> +1
18:52:16 <yaso> +1
18:52:16 <newton> +1
18:52:19 <nathalia> +1
18:52:19 <phila> +1 (Welcome to W3C)
18:52:26 <BernadetteLoscio> +1
18:52:27 <taisuke_> +1
18:52:38 <phila> RESOLVED: That the focus of our work is technical
18:52:38 <Adriano> +1
18:53:01 <Caroline> I am wondering if is it worth to discuss the audience and if it would be publishers and users
18:53:05 <fjh> jtandy_: will the draft document structure work for technical audience
18:53:07 <fjh> BernadetteLoscio: yes
18:53:21 <jtandy_> @Caroline ... will come back to you question about publishers & users in a moment
18:53:24 <fjh> … will need to add some contact and descriptive non-normative material
18:53:37 <Caroline> jtandy_: thank you
18:53:58 <fjh> Present- Karen Myers
18:54:04 <fjh> Present+ Karen_Myers
18:54:05 <phila> It is an issue in te tracker, Caroline, see http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/73
18:54:10 <nathalia> I think both publishers and users are technical audience
18:54:17 <fjh> Present- Nobuo Saito
18:54:25 <fjh> Present+ Nobuo_Saito
18:54:38 <fjh> jtandy_: caroline asked what is specific to publishers vs users
18:54:47 <fjh> BernadetteLoscio:  tried this before, didn’t work
18:54:51 <Ig_Bittencourt> +1 to hadleybeeman
18:55:00 <fjh> … our focus is consumer
18:55:04 <laufer> q+
18:55:08 <Caroline> q+
18:55:16 <hadleybeeman> ack caro
18:55:16 <jtandy_> ack Caroline
18:55:45 <fjh> Caroline: need better explanation on feedback, not sure there was an agreement
18:56:03 <fjh> s/feedback/feedback related to consumers and publishers/
18:56:04 <jtandy_> ack laufer
18:56:06 <phila> issue-71?
18:56:06 <trackbot> issue-71 -- We have use cases for feedback but is it in scope given the 3 aximoatic criteria resolved at tpac -- raised
18:56:06 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/71
18:56:26 <fjh> laufer: should refer to consumers not users
18:56:51 <jtandy_> q+
18:56:59 <fjh> … defining interface between publishers and users and how to communicate the data that is shared
18:57:11 <nathalia> +1 to laufer
18:57:31 <Caroline> what is the difference between consumers and users?
18:57:34 <phila> ack jtandy_
18:57:43 <fjh> … the best practice is for communicating information about the data
18:57:43 <fjh> jtandy_: this will not change the style of how we write the document
18:57:43 <fjh> … so can defer
18:57:44 <jtandy_> q?
18:57:46 <Ig_Bittencourt> +1 to jtandy_
18:57:52 <fjh> laufer: publishers are also users
18:57:57 <Caroline> understood. Thank you!
18:57:59 <ericstephan_> ericstephan_ has joined #dwbp
18:58:11 <BernadetteLoscio> ;)
18:58:37 <fjh> jtandy_: BernadetteLoscio can you please summarize next steps for today so we can move this forward, today
18:59:06 <ericstephan__> ericstephan__ has joined #dwbp
18:59:30 <jtandy_> q?
19:00:14 <ericstephan___> ericstephan___ has joined #dwbp
19:00:23 <fjh> BernadetteLoscio: 1. agreement from group that we can organize document around challenges from the use cases
19:00:36 <Caroline> +1 to BernadetteLoscio quesiton
19:00:58 <fjh> … 2. need people to write material, need to assign action items
19:01:04 <Caroline> s/quesiton\/question/
19:01:07 <phila> q+
19:01:24 <Caroline> each theme or subject
19:01:54 <fjh> BernadetteLoscio notes that doc has people noted
19:02:34 <Caroline> BernadetteLoscio is talking about the Maping of Themes: https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Proposed_structure#Mapping_of_Themes.5B1.5D
19:02:35 <fjh> … data formats section is new, so need people for this
19:02:45 <jtandy_> q?
19:03:18 <fjh> BernadetteLoscio: ?? missing use case
19:03:34 <ericstephan> ericstephan has joined #dwbp
19:03:35 <fjh> s/??/some TBD notes indicate/
19:03:53 <fjh> s/case/cases/
19:03:58 <fjh> q?
19:04:00 <Caroline> Would be great to have more people contributing where there are TBD
19:04:01 <fjh> q+
19:04:04 <fjh> q-
19:04:12 <fjh> q+ to ask about #3 of what to do today
19:04:44 <jtandy_> ack phila
19:04:46 <fjh> BernadetteLoscio: if add challenges, need to add in more than one place
19:05:07 <fjh> phila: need to add an example of best practice
19:05:18 <fjh> … may be we can do this during f2f
19:05:20 <BernadetteLoscio> q+
19:05:35 <jtandy_> q+
19:05:40 <fjh> … we can pick one that is easy
19:05:56 <fjh> … makes it easier for people to contribute
19:06:11 <fjh> BernadetteLoscio: we need short descriptions for everyhing
19:06:37 <nathalia> a example will be good
19:06:46 <Caroline> +1 to have a short description of each theme for the contributor
19:06:46 <flavio> flavio has joined #dwbp
19:06:47 <ericstephan> q+
19:06:51 <fjh> fjh: I note that ReSpec has some support for this, see http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/NOTE-xmldsig-bestpractices-20130411/
19:07:13 <nathalia> it will be clear to contribute
19:07:33 <jtandy_> ack fjh
19:07:33 <Zakim> fjh, you wanted to ask about #3 of what to do today
19:08:24 <Ig_Bittencourt> The scructure of the XML Signature Best Practices is very interesting and split the best practices according to the user.
19:08:58 <jtandy_> ack BernadetteLoscio
19:08:59 <fjh> q?
19:09:21 <fjh> jtandy_: need volunteers to write tests for each best practices
19:09:27 <fjh> s/practices/practice/
19:09:46 <fjh> rrsagent, generate minutes
19:09:46 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/10/31-dwbp-minutes.html fjh
19:10:12 <jtandy_> q?
19:10:15 <jtandy_> ack me
19:10:21 <jtandy_> ack ericstephan
19:10:33 <fjh> jtandy_: request that all think during lunch about volunteering and also specifically about what they need to understand
19:10:52 <Caroline> +1 to jtandy_ request
19:11:06 <fjh> ericstephan:  need to link table to use case rquirements
19:11:17 <fjh> s/rquirements/requirements/
19:11:38 <hadleybeeman> BREAK FOR LUNCH: back in 1 hour
19:11:45 <fjh> jtandy_: breaking for lunch, resuming 10 past 1pm PT
19:11:55 <nathalia> ok, thank you
19:12:02 <fjh> rrrsagent, generate minutes
19:12:04 <flavio_> flavio_ has joined #dwbp
19:12:15 <fjh> s/rrrs.*//
19:12:18 <fjh> rrsagent, generate minutes
19:12:18 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/10/31-dwbp-minutes.html fjh
19:13:15 <Zakim> -Caroline_
19:13:30 <yaso> yaso has joined #dwbp
19:18:35 <phila_> phila_ has joined #dwbp
19:23:30 <phila_> RRSAgent, draft minutes
19:23:30 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/10/31-dwbp-minutes.html phila_
20:06:44 <Caroline> Caroline has joined #DWBP
20:10:43 <BartvanLeeuwen> BartvanLeeuwen has joined #dwbp
20:12:36 <flavio> flavio has joined #dwbp
20:20:03 <Caroline> Hello! Should we call already?
20:21:27 <hadleybeeman> hi! We're gathering people in the room.  Will be there soon
20:21:31 <hadleybeeman> ^ Caroline
20:22:49 <Caroline> thank you, hadleybeeman!
20:23:29 <ErikM> ErikM has joined #DWBP
20:23:54 <Zakim> +Caroline_
20:23:59 <fjh> fjh has joined #dwbp
20:24:04 <newton> newton has joined #dwbp
20:24:20 <yaso> yaso has joined #dwbp
20:24:20 <hadleybeeman>  zakim, call salonA
20:24:20 <Zakim> ok, hadleybeeman; the call is being made
20:24:21 <Zakim> +SalonA
20:24:24 <Zakim> -SalonA
20:24:36 <hadleybeeman>  zakim, call salonA
20:24:36 <Zakim> ok, hadleybeeman; the call is being made
20:24:38 <nathalia> nathalia has joined #dwbp
20:24:38 <Zakim> +SalonA
20:24:40 <Zakim> -SalonA
20:25:23 <Caroline> Zakim, Caroline_ has nathalia
20:25:23 <Zakim> +nathalia; got it
20:25:49 <flavio> flavio has joined #dwbp
20:26:54 <ErikM> ErikM has joined #DWBP
20:28:09 <phila> phila has joined #dwbp
20:28:37 <yaso> yaso has joined #dwbp
20:29:29 <fjh> fjh has joined #dwbp
20:29:55 <AdrianoC> AdrianoC has joined #dwbp
20:31:30 <nathalia> kkkkkkk
20:31:46 <nathalia> it's really you
20:32:59 <newton> scribe: newton
20:33:01 <BernadetteLoscio> BernadetteLoscio has joined #dwbp
20:33:18 <phila_> phila_ has joined #dwbp
20:33:54 <phila_> scribe: Newton
20:33:57 <phila_> chair: yaso
20:33:59 <taisuke> taisuke has joined #dwbp
20:34:07 <yaso_> yaso_ has joined #dwbp
20:34:10 <yaso_> https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Proposed_structure#Feedback.28.3F.29
20:34:14 <Vagner_br> Vagner_br has joined #dwbp
20:34:16 <EricKauz> EricKauz has joined #DWBP
20:34:30 <newton> yaso: we accepeted the proposed structure
20:34:33 <nsaito> nsaito has joined #DWBP
20:34:35 <jtandy> jtandy has joined #dwbp
20:34:36 <phila_> q+
20:34:37 <yaso_> https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Proposed_structure#Feedback.28.3F.29
20:34:40 <yaso_> ack phil
20:35:17 <ericstephan_> ericstephan_ has joined #dwbp
20:35:30 <newton> phila_: it helps to clarify things about bps doc
20:35:55 <newton> ... showing a propose page for describe each BP
20:36:22 <yaso> q?
20:36:25 <fjh> fjh has joined #dwbp
20:36:32 <newton> ... with the following structure: BP Title, What, How, Why, How to Test and Evidence
20:36:55 <jtandy> q?
20:36:58 <jtandy> q+
20:37:11 <ericstephan_> +1 phil a can we propose to use this template approach?
20:37:16 <ericstephan_> q+
20:37:41 <Ig_Bittencourt> +1 to phila_
20:37:42 <yaso> q?
20:37:44 <newton> +1 for that
20:37:55 <yaso> ack jtandy
20:39:23 <ErikM> ErikM has joined #DWBP
20:40:20 <newton> jtandy: the  WCAG has a kind of guide to test BPs using timestamps
20:40:32 <newton> ... (?)
20:40:41 <jtandy> q?
20:40:47 <Caroline> we cannot here anything
20:40:51 <Caroline> back now!
20:41:25 <newton> jtandy: the WCAG have an example of how to test and actions for someone to validate that
20:41:35 <ericstephan_> caroline you can't hear anything?
20:41:54 <Ig_Bittencourt> jtandy told that you way to approach in the BP document is that in spite of tell how we could describe what is the intended outcome.
20:41:59 <nathalia> I think it would be cool to each best practice to indicate which use case inspired
20:42:07 <Caroline> it was mute for a while, ericstephan_
20:42:10 <fjh_> fjh_ has joined #dwbp
20:42:12 <Caroline> now it is back, thank you!
20:42:13 <Ig_Bittencourt> s/you/a
20:43:10 <jtandy_> jtandy_ has joined #dwbp
20:43:29 <yaso> action: ericstephan to investigate how WCAG can be an example for our BP document
20:43:30 <trackbot> Created ACTION-115 - Investigate how wcag can be an example for our bp document [on Eric Stephan - due 2014-11-07].
20:43:39 <yaso> ack ericstephan
20:44:26 <newton> ericstephan_: I liked this ideia of template
20:44:40 <newton> ... you can know what is the BP, how it's related to requirements
20:44:50 <jtandy_> s/ideia/idea/
20:44:53 <ericstephan_> http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/NOTE-xmldsig-bestpractices-20130411/#denial-of-service
20:45:09 <hadleybeeman> @ericstephan is referring to the template phil has produced
20:45:27 <phila_> For Caroline, you can see the template we're talking about at http://philarcher.org/dwbp/bptemplate.html
20:45:42 <phila_> This is not a persistent URI
20:45:42 <BernadetteLoscio> q+
20:45:51 <newton> ... the other thing the XML bp wg have examples
20:46:08 <yaso> ack bernadetteLoscio
20:46:13 <nathalia> q+
20:46:14 <Caroline> thank you, phila_
20:46:26 <jtandy_> q+
20:46:26 <yaso> q+
20:46:27 <Reinaldo> Reinaldo has joined #dwbp
20:46:29 <yaso> q-
20:46:30 <newton> BernadetteLoscio: On XML document  has a lot of examples that we could keep in mind
20:46:44 <fjh_> Here is the information on adding best practices using ReSpec http://www.w3.org/respec/guide.html#best-practice-documents
20:47:28 <yaso> q?
20:47:33 <BernadetteLoscio> q+
20:47:33 <laufer> q+
20:47:40 <yaso> ack nathalia
20:48:05 <nathalia> I think it would be cool to each best practice indicate which use case inspired the practice like I put in "Technical factors for consideration when choosing data sets for publication""
20:48:07 <nathalia> https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Technical_factors_for_consideration_when_choosing_data_sets_for_publication
20:48:35 <fjh> spec-prod is the W3C mailing list to discuss ReSpec features,  etc
20:48:54 <newton> nathalia: is showing how to match BP and requirements
20:49:25 <fjh> om/w3c/respec
20:49:26 <yaso> q?
20:49:27 <Caroline> +1 to phila_ http://philarcher.org/dwbp/bptemplate.html
20:49:35 <fjh> https://github.com/w3c/respec
20:49:48 <newton> hadleybeeman: is there difference between an example and a use case?
20:50:26 <newton> BernadetteLoscio: yes, the example is to illustrate the specific case of BP, not whole scenario
20:50:31 <hadleybeeman> q?
20:50:56 <yaso> ack jtandy_
20:51:53 <newton> jtandy_: if you're going to include URIs to show those examples...
20:52:42 <deirdrelee> deirdrelee has joined #dwbp
20:52:56 <newton> hadleybeeman: what kind of examples are being suggest?
20:53:03 <yaso> ack bernadetteLoscio
20:53:33 <newton> BernadetteLoscio: for each Req we're going to have a BP
20:53:51 <newton> ... each Theme concerns for a lot of Requirements
20:54:02 <yaso> ack laufer
20:54:07 <yaso> q?
20:54:10 <newton> ... as example of Metadata, it concerns about a lot of requirements
20:54:31 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
20:54:36 <hadleybeeman> q+ to ask a different question about how we make best practices
20:54:55 <Zakim> -[IPcaller]
20:55:05 <taisuke> taisuke has joined #dwbp
20:55:10 <deirdrelee> zakim, ipcaller is me
20:55:10 <Zakim> sorry, deirdrelee, I do not recognize a party named 'ipcaller'
20:55:10 <newton> laufer: I didn't the template so well
20:55:24 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
20:55:39 <deirdrelee> zakim, [IPCaller] is me
20:55:39 <Zakim> +deirdrelee; got it
20:55:42 <newton> ... why are we going to use this template
20:55:54 <yaso> q?
20:56:10 <Zakim> -deirdrelee
20:57:10 <yaso> ack Hadleybeeman
20:57:10 <Zakim> hadleybeeman, you wanted to ask a different question about how we make best practices
20:57:19 <newton> laufer: what is the reason to do a BP? It's to encourage a person to use that thing
20:58:12 <newton> hadleybeeman: I'm planning questions for you, editors...
20:58:34 <newton> ... I like of the methodology of Proposed Structure has been done
20:59:03 <yaso> q+
20:59:15 <newton> ... the question is: how to take the conversation with Tomas (COMURI doc) and align that with this propose
20:59:30 <yaso> ack me
20:59:54 <phila_> q+
21:00:03 <newton> yaso: I was going to propose to put this document on github and open it
21:00:05 <ericstephan> ericstephan has joined #dwbp
21:00:14 <phila_> q-
21:00:16 <BernadetteLoscio> q+
21:00:16 <newton> ... I'm talking about COMURI
21:00:18 <ericstephan> q+
21:00:28 <yaso> ack bernadetteloscio
21:00:38 <newton> ... proposing to put it on github and make available to community
21:00:45 <JeniT> JeniT has joined #dwbp
21:00:50 <yaso> q+
21:00:55 <phila_> q+
21:00:59 <yaso> ack ericstephan
21:01:05 <deirdrelee> deirdrelee has joined #dwbp
21:01:12 <yaso> q-
21:01:24 <yaso> ack phila_
21:01:56 <newton> phila_: there are some elements that I agree with
21:03:19 <yaso> q?
21:03:22 <hadleybeeman> scribe: BernadetteLoscio
21:04:04 <ericstephan> q+
21:04:28 <yaso> ack ericstephan
21:04:39 <yaso> q?
21:04:40 <BernadetteLoscio> ericstephan: everyone is in the same rules
21:05:23 <phila_> q+
21:05:27 <BernadetteLoscio> yaso: should we make more clear about what to do about the doc of comuri
21:05:39 <BernadetteLoscio> ericstephan: i dont know if there is an action
21:05:53 <BernadetteLoscio> ...i think it is impoortante to have a template
21:05:55 <yaso> ack phila
21:06:03 <BernadetteLoscio> ...that we can use to build the best practices
21:06:25 <BernadetteLoscio> phila: the colors are not a proposal
21:06:32 <BernadetteLoscio> ...the sections for the template are
21:06:43 <BernadetteLoscio> ... an action that i cant take
21:06:46 <fjh> q+
21:06:58 <BernadetteLoscio> is to create a template
21:07:39 <BernadetteLoscio> phila: theres is a reason to publish the comuri is a differente doc
21:08:11 <hadleybeeman> q+ to suggest a vote on PROPOSED: Each best practice will use this structure: http://philarcher.org/dwbp/bptemplate.html (so that we have a record of the decision)
21:08:28 <BernadetteLoscio> phila: is carrasco follows the best practices then the doc can be published
21:08:40 <BernadetteLoscio> ...however if tit is not we shouldnt publish
21:08:46 <laufer> +1 to phil
21:08:52 <BernadetteLoscio> hadleybeeman: it is a working group decision
21:09:03 <yaso> action: phila to develop into something that we can reuse and make more like a best practice
21:09:04 <trackbot> Created ACTION-116 - Develop into something that we can reuse and make more like a best practice [on Phil Archer - due 2014-11-07].
21:09:11 <laufer> q+
21:09:22 <BernadetteLoscio> ...there are two issues:one is the content and the second the separate doc and the format issue
21:09:32 <BernadetteLoscio> ..if his proposal fits on our proposal
21:09:41 <BernadetteLoscio> ...we as a working group can make this decision
21:09:55 <BernadetteLoscio> ...in the meeting we came with this decision
21:10:08 <yaso> q?
21:10:09 <BernadetteLoscio> ...i'm sorry he is not here, but i think it is not unfair
21:10:29 <BernadetteLoscio> laufer: we can extend this to all of the docs that we are creating
21:10:37 <yaso> ack fjh
21:10:48 <Caroline> +1 to laufer
21:11:08 <BernadetteLoscio> fjh: so, im saying...i believe that in the best practices
21:11:26 <BernadetteLoscio> ...i just mention why to use the xml best practces security
21:11:58 <BernadetteLoscio> ... it is extremelly painful as an editor to keep changes of the changes in teh doc
21:12:08 <yaso> s/teh/the
21:12:13 <yaso> q?
21:12:35 <yaso> +1 to fjh
21:12:37 <BernadetteLoscio> ...the core reason is twofold: automatic generation is extremely valuable...
21:12:40 <jtandy_> (fjh is talking about editing his doc in respec http://www.w3.org/respec/)
21:12:44 <yaso> q?
21:12:53 <yaso> ack HadleyBeeman
21:12:53 <Zakim> hadleybeeman, you wanted to suggest a vote on PROPOSED: Each best practice will use this structure: http://philarcher.org/dwbp/bptemplate.html (so that we have a record of the
21:12:57 <Zakim> ... decision)
21:13:18 <yaso> ack laufer
21:13:26 <BernadetteLoscio> laufer: we need to discuss two things: the docs and the contents
21:13:41 <fjh> my key points - however you edit best practices, make sure you can automate numbering or it is painful as you add/remove/move practices. Also good to have a best practices index, a list of best practices linking to them
21:13:55 <BernadetteLoscio> ... i disagree with the doc and the content (about COMURI)
21:13:55 <phila> q+ to make a suggestion
21:14:07 <fjh> This can be automatically done in ReSpec, but let the ReSpec team know you are using the feature if you do!
21:14:31 <yaso> q?
21:14:38 <BernadetteLoscio> ... we need to apporve the set of documents or section..and we have to vote if the best practices are according... the group should vote
21:14:48 <yaso> PROPOSED: Each best practice will use this structure: http://philarcher.org/dwbp/bptemplate.html
21:14:58 <BernadetteLoscio> hadleybeeman: we propose that all best practices will be in one doc, because it is easiers
21:15:11 <ericstephan> +1
21:15:19 <BernadetteLoscio> and the second that each BP will use the structure that phil proposes
21:15:21 <yaso> +1
21:15:22 <hadleybeeman> +1
21:15:23 <jtandy_> +1 (observer)
21:15:25 <Ig_Bittencourt> +1
21:15:27 <phila> +1
21:15:30 <Caroline> the link http://philarcher.org/dwbp/bptemplate.html is not working
21:15:32 <laufer> +1
21:15:40 <laufer> q+
21:15:44 <BernadetteLoscio> +1
21:15:50 <newton> +1
21:15:52 <Caroline> +1
21:15:57 <BartvanLeeuwen> +0 link is not working
21:16:14 <ericstephan> well I agreed to the template at least ;-)
21:16:23 <nathalia> +1
21:16:24 <BernadetteLoscio> jtandy_: there is a template that has to be followed
21:16:53 <Caroline> +1 to the link that was working before! :)
21:17:01 <flavio> flavio has joined #dwbp
21:17:01 <yaso> q?
21:17:16 <BernadetteLoscio> RESOLVED: Each best practice will use this structure: http://philarcher.org/dwbp/bptemplate.html
21:17:25 <yaso> o/
21:17:27 <hadleybeeman> PROPOSED: all of our best practices will be in one document, because it is easier for readers/implementers to understand and easier for editors/contributors to manage
21:17:42 <deirdrelee> deirdrelee has joined #dwbp
21:17:44 <yaso> ack phila
21:17:44 <Zakim> phila, you wanted to make a suggestion
21:18:03 <BernadetteLoscio> phila: i want to say somtehing... one of the reasons for supporing the proposal that we have
21:18:12 <BernadetteLoscio> ...we dont have a justification for a separate doc
21:18:22 <BernadetteLoscio> ...the use cases dont show this evidence
21:18:39 <JeniT> q+ to disagree that URI design isn’t a big issue
21:18:41 <BernadetteLoscio> ...it doesnt show and evidence for a second document
21:19:11 <JeniT> q- because it would just waste time
21:19:19 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
21:19:20 <BernadetteLoscio> laufer: we have agreed that we have a template... to use just onle document
21:19:22 <JeniT> q- to not waste time just because I disagree
21:19:28 <ericstephan> q+
21:19:29 <deirdrelee> zakim, [ipcaller] is me
21:19:29 <Zakim> +deirdrelee; got it
21:19:35 <hadleybeeman> q?
21:19:35 <phila> q+ JeniT
21:19:43 <laufer> q-
21:19:51 <jtandy_> s/onle/only/
21:19:57 <yaso> Ack ericstephan
21:20:09 <deirdrelee> hi all
21:20:29 <BernadetteLoscio> ericstephan: it will be confuse if we have a set of documents... things should be in one place
21:20:37 <yaso> ack jeniT
21:20:41 <yaso> q?
21:21:42 <BernadetteLoscio> JeniT: i think two points... i think the uri design is an issue...in a uk we have a huge discussion about the design of URIs
21:22:21 <Zakim> -deirdrelee
21:22:37 <BernadetteLoscio> ...the second is to make sure we dont just consider URI design for linked data... the purpose of publishing datasets
21:22:40 <yaso> q?
21:22:54 <phila> q+
21:23:17 <BernadetteLoscio> hadleybeeman: if should be an independent doc?
21:23:42 <BernadetteLoscio> JeniT: i think there are BP to design URIs
21:23:47 <yaso> ack phila
21:23:54 <phila> -> http://philarcher.org/diary/2013/uripersistence/ My work on this
21:24:00 <BernadetteLoscio> hadleybeeman: your concern is about the content
21:24:03 <hadleybeeman> q+
21:24:44 <BernadetteLoscio> phila: i have experience on URI design...
21:25:11 <BernadetteLoscio> ...i wish to have more use cases to show evidences on what you said
21:25:52 <BernadetteLoscio> ...to take an action. to explore actions that clarify that need for URI design
21:26:01 <yaso> action: phila to explore the use cases that might clarify the need for URI and URL design
21:26:01 <trackbot> Created ACTION-117 - Explore the use cases that might clarify the need for uri and url design [on Phil Archer - due 2014-11-07].
21:26:08 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
21:26:11 <yaso> q?
21:26:15 <phila> -> http://www.w3.org/TR/urls-in-data/ Is also very relevant (Jeni's work)
21:26:18 <yaso> ack hadleybeeman
21:26:59 <flavio_> flavio_ has joined #dwbp
21:27:04 <Zakim> -[IPcaller]
21:27:09 <BernadetteLoscio> hadleybeeman: if all best practices are in oe document...
21:27:24 <nathalia> s/oe/one
21:27:27 <BernadetteLoscio> ...discussing how to organize the best practices
21:27:37 <ericstephan> +1 hadleybeeman
21:27:39 <hadleybeeman> PROPOSED: all of our best practices will be in one document, because it is easier for readers/implementers to understand and easier for editors/contributors to manage
21:27:42 <ericstephan> +1
21:27:42 <yaso> +1
21:27:45 <phila> +1
21:27:46 <AdrianoC> +1
21:27:49 <BernadetteLoscio> ...we need to make decisions
21:27:50 <flavio_> +1
21:27:54 <laufer> +1
21:27:55 <Caroline> +1
21:27:56 <Ig_Bittencourt> +1
21:27:58 <JeniT> +1 (observer)
21:27:58 <nathalia> +1
21:28:10 <newton> +1
21:28:15 <hadleybeeman> +1
21:28:16 <BernadetteLoscio> ...this is gonna make the decision with carrasco easier
21:28:37 <BernadetteLoscio> +1
21:28:41 <hadleybeeman> s/the decision with /incorporating the ideas of
21:28:53 <hadleybeeman> s/carrasco/carrasco's COMURI work
21:29:05 <hadleybeeman> RESOLVED: all of our best practices will be in one document, because it is easier for readers/implementers to understand and easier for editors/contributors to manage
21:30:02 <BernadetteLoscio> phila: the URI with the template proposal is now on github
21:30:09 <phila> s/http:\/\/philarcher.org\/dwbp\/bptemplate.html\/http:\/\/w3c.github.io\/dwbp\/bptemplate.html/g
21:30:21 <phila> -> http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bptemplate.html The template
21:30:37 <hadleybeeman> Phila: What was at http://philarcher.org/dwbp/bptemplate.html is now at http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bptemplate.html
21:30:43 <yaso> q?
21:30:48 <BernadetteLoscio> ...the template for BP is on github... the colors and numbers are temporary
21:31:08 <BernadetteLoscio> yaso:  let's make a break of 10 min
21:31:43 <Caroline> very nice, phila!
21:37:57 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
21:38:02 <ErikM> ErikM has joined #DWBP
21:41:21 <deirdrelee> zakim, [ipcaller] is me
21:41:21 <Zakim> +deirdrelee; got it
21:41:40 <em> em has joined #DWBP
21:41:42 <deirdrelee> how's tricks?
21:42:45 <Zakim> -deirdrelee
21:49:27 <nathalia> nathalia has joined #dwbp
21:50:26 <flavio> flavio has joined #dwbp
21:52:16 <newton> newton has joined #dwbp
21:54:24 <yaso> ls
21:55:40 <yaso> :-) wrong window, Newton
21:55:52 <jtandy> jtandy has joined #dwbp
21:56:02 <yaso> trying to list participants on the irc using ls command
21:56:35 <fjh> fjh has joined #dwbp
21:57:26 <Bernadetteloscio> Bernadetteloscio has joined #dwbp
21:57:28 <flavio_> flavio_ has joined #dwbp
21:57:42 <yaso> chair: BernadetteLoscio
21:57:46 <yaso> scribe: yaso
21:58:01 <yaso> yes! Our super meta chair \o/
21:58:02 <Ig_Bittencourt> +1 to JeniT
21:58:15 <jtandy> oh yes
21:58:35 <yaso> BernadetteLoscio: I think everybody that is here is already in one of the items
21:59:12 <yaso> … I’m not sure if we’re going to have enough people to write just one section
21:59:27 <phila> zakim, who is on the phone?
21:59:27 <Zakim> On the phone I see Salona, Caroline_
21:59:28 <Zakim> Caroline_ has nathalia
21:59:36 <phila> zakim, unmute salona
21:59:36 <Zakim> Salona was not muted, phila
22:00:10 <fjh> fjh has joined #dwbp
22:00:17 <hadleybeeman> We are looking at https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Proposed_structure#Feedback.28.3F.29
22:00:24 <yaso> … the only new section with contributors is the data formats
22:00:48 <Bernadetteloscio> q?
22:01:08 <yaso> EricKauz: data type usage, and I was looking more for onthology perspective
22:01:27 <yaso> Phila: the mobile BP was writen before the Iphone
22:01:34 <Bernadetteloscio> q?
22:01:34 <yaso> phila: and it still apply
22:01:44 <Ig_Bittencourt> q+
22:02:00 <yaso> … even when the format that you mentioned is obsolete the advice is still useful
22:02:24 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
22:02:30 <yaso> BernadetteLoscio: what will be the content of that section. We were thinking that we’re gonna have this today at tpac
22:02:56 <yaso> … and we raised a lot of issues. Those issues will have a lot of impact in each item of the proposed structure
22:03:01 <Zakim> -[IPcaller]
22:03:31 <yaso> … I don’t know if we can the items discuss after or before discussing the issues that we raised before.
22:03:50 <yaso> s/the items discuss/discuss the items
22:03:57 <Bernadetteloscio> q?
22:04:05 <Bernadetteloscio> ack Ig_Bittencourt
22:04:23 <Caroline> +1 to pass through each theme
22:04:25 <newton> q+ to propose to take a look on raised issues and try to fit them on these themes
22:04:41 <Caroline> +1 to newton's propose
22:04:41 <yaso> ig_bittencourt my question is related to the focus that we will give to the data vocabularies
22:04:45 <Bernadetteloscio> q?
22:05:00 <yaso> … one of our perspectives was about the data vocabularies creation, another one about using data vocabs
22:05:13 <yaso> … I would like to know what were going to do
22:05:37 <Bernadetteloscio> q?
22:05:38 <yaso> BernadetteLoscio: maybe we can discuss the issues
22:05:43 <yaso> … if we can discuss then
22:05:47 <Bernadetteloscio> ack newton
22:05:47 <Zakim> newton, you wanted to propose to take a look on raised issues and try to fit them on these themes
22:06:14 <nathalia> +1 to newton
22:06:21 <yaso> Newton:  I was going to propose that we can take a look at the issues and try to fit them in the topics of the document
22:06:29 <Bernadetteloscio> q?
22:06:34 <phila> LD-BP doc on vocabularies http://www.w3.org/TR/ld-bp/#VOCABULARIES
22:06:52 <yaso> phila: this link is the BP of the government WG,
22:07:23 <yaso> .. that document includes a section o URI design, a section on how to use vocabularies, and if you don’t find one that fits in, then go about creating one
22:07:34 <yaso> … however, it’s linked data way
22:07:35 <MakxDekkers> MakxDekkers has joined #dwbp
22:07:42 <Bernadetteloscio> q?
22:08:11 <Bernadetteloscio> q?
22:08:43 <phila> -> http://www.w3.org/TR/urls-in-data/ URLs in Data Primer
22:09:00 <yaso> … it’s the document that jenny wrote last year, about june
22:09:05 <yaso> … who else wants to review that?
22:09:14 <Bernadetteloscio> q?
22:09:17 <ericstephan> ericstephan has joined #dwbp
22:09:23 <phila> action: Ig to review the URLs in Data Primer http://www.w3.org/TR/urls-in-data/
22:09:23 <trackbot> Error finding 'Ig'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/users>.
22:09:24 <Bernadetteloscio> hi Eric!
22:09:52 <BartvanLeeuwen> BartvanLeeuwen has joined #dwbp
22:09:57 <phila> action: Ig_Bittencourt to review the URLs in Data Primer http://www.w3.org/TR/urls-in-data/
22:09:58 <trackbot> Created ACTION-118 - Review the urls in data primer http://www.w3.org/tr/urls-in-data/ [on Ig Ibert Bittencourt Santana Pinto - due 2014-11-07].
22:10:12 <ericstephan> Hello @Bernadette!  Will be joining by phone soon :-)  BTW traffic is awful, plan accordingly all
22:10:18 <phila> action: phila  to review the URLs in Data Primer http://www.w3.org/TR/urls-in-data/
22:10:18 <trackbot> Created ACTION-119 -  to review the urls in data primer http://www.w3.org/tr/urls-in-data/ [on Phil Archer - due 2014-11-07].
22:10:22 <yaso> bernadetteloscio: do you think that we can use the LD document’s ideas to start our processes?
22:10:26 <Bernadetteloscio> q?
22:10:27 <yaso> phila: absolutely
22:10:31 <yaso> …yes
22:10:31 <Vagner_Br> Vagner_Br has joined #dwbp
22:10:47 <yaso> … to put in the rec, we got to get a review
22:11:23 <yaso> BernadetteLoscio: making controled vocabularies acessible with URIs, it’s something that we previously arranged with mark
22:11:35 <Zakim> +ericstephan
22:11:40 <yaso> … so we should discuss with mark and antoine about the item
22:11:42 <phila> issue: Whether it would be helpful to this WG if Jeni's work at http://www.w3.org/TR/urls-in-data/ were to be published as a TAG Finding
22:11:42 <trackbot> Created ISSUE-75 - Whether it would be helpful to this wg if jeni's work at http://www.w3.org/tr/urls-in-data/ were to be published as a tag finding.  Please complete additional details at <http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/75/edit>.
22:11:43 <Bernadetteloscio> q?
22:12:32 <Bart_van_Leeuwen> Bart_van_Leeuwen has joined #dwbp
22:12:39 <yaso> BernadetteLoscio: laufer, can you talk about the metadata section?
22:12:42 <Caroline> are we working on https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Proposed_structure#Mapping_of_Themes.5B1.5D?
22:13:13 <Bernadetteloscio> q?
22:13:18 <yaso> laufer: what we will talk about in this topic is how to use a vocab? what kind of properties do we need to put in dcat (?) extention
22:13:20 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
22:13:32 <Bernadetteloscio> q+
22:13:35 <MakxDekkers> zakim, ipcaller is me
22:13:35 <Zakim> +MakxDekkers; got it
22:13:36 <yaso> laufer: what kind of vocab we must suggest ?
22:13:58 <yaso> … now in DCAT we don’t have how to link differente types of metadata
22:14:13 <yaso> hi makx
22:14:17 <phila> q+
22:14:22 <ericstephan> Hi Makx!
22:14:24 <Bernadetteloscio> q?
22:14:28 <yaso> … in the way that we can use this information to extend the DCAT
22:14:40 <ericstephan> zakim, mute me
22:14:42 <Zakim> ericstephan should now be muted
22:14:57 <yaso> bernadetteLoscio: laufer, do you think that if we’re going to talk about provenance, for example, should we indicate that there is a vocab for provenance?
22:15:04 <jtandy> q+
22:15:06 <phila> ack Bernadetteloscio
22:15:21 <Bernadetteloscio> ack Bernadetteloscio
22:15:23 <Bernadetteloscio> q?
22:15:24 <yaso> laufer: maybe we can say what are the main vocabularies being used
22:15:35 <yaso> … but I think it’s a kind of metadata about metadata
22:15:51 <yaso> … when we will give information about licence, it’s the same thing
22:16:06 <yaso> … this is the vocabulary that’s being used?
22:16:10 <Bernadetteloscio> ack phila
22:16:59 <yaso> laufer: i think that for the discovery we need information about licence, discovery, and we have to link this to DCAT
22:17:00 <Reinaldo> Reinaldo has joined #dwbp
22:17:07 <Bernadetteloscio> q?
22:17:07 <phila> -> http://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-adms/ ADMS
22:17:17 <yaso> phila:  there’s another vocabulary, it is an extension to DCAT
22:17:23 <Bernadetteloscio> q?
22:17:34 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
22:17:55 <yaso> phila: I’m saing that adms includes versioning
22:18:06 <ericstephan> Interesting...http://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-adms/#file-format
22:18:11 <Bernadetteloscio> ack jtandy
22:18:12 <newton> s/saing/saying
22:18:27 <yaso> jtandy: what vocab should we use
22:18:42 <yaso> … I think that we should take a look on the template
22:18:59 <Bernadetteloscio> q?
22:19:21 <yaso> …. just look at that flipping template
22:19:28 <phila> RRSAgent, draft minutes
22:19:28 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/10/31-dwbp-minutes.html phila
22:19:32 <ericstephan> "Its the template stupid"
22:19:41 <yaso> Thank you eric!
22:20:09 <Bernadetteloscio> q?
22:21:00 <yaso> jtandy: we need to understand how 1,2 3 vocabularies or more are being used
22:21:26 <Bernadetteloscio> q?
22:21:35 <yaso> … we need to be clear in our vocabulary on where are going to put this information is there
22:21:42 <yaso> BernadetteLoscio: if we
22:21:47 <Bart_van_Leeuwen> hadleybeeman: phila partly, I would order them differently, why do we have a best practice, how to test you comply, and what you should do to comply, motivation first
22:22:05 <Bernadetteloscio> q?
22:22:06 <hadleybeeman> q+
22:22:31 <Bernadetteloscio> ack hadleybeeman
22:23:02 <yaso> hadleyBeeman:  I worrie about use cases, I worrie that are som many different vocabs to use that we just create sugestions that are sensible and helpfull to each case
22:23:05 <Bernadetteloscio> q?
22:23:20 <yaso> I’m more to the second option
22:23:43 <nathalia> s/worrie/worry
22:23:49 <phila> q+
22:23:50 <ericstephan> +1 Bernadettelosico for showing examples
22:23:51 <yaso> bernadetteLoscio:  It’s hard to talk about without the examples
22:24:11 <Ig_Bittencourt> q+
22:24:25 <ericstephan> examples of vocabularies could be very powerful, without sounding bossy
22:24:26 <yaso> … maybe a good exercise is to have an example. What would be the metadata that we plain to describe.
22:24:32 <nathalia> s/Bernadettelosico/Bernadetteloscio
22:25:03 <nathalia> s/som/some
22:25:19 <jtandy> q+
22:25:31 <yaso> BernadetteLoscio: if you have a dataset what is going to be the metadata that you have in your dataset. So, whats gonna be this metadata file. It can be JSON, or something
22:25:40 <yaso> hadleybeeman: it may envolve DCAT
22:25:43 <Bernadetteloscio> q?
22:26:16 <phila> ack me
22:26:18 <taisuke> http://fukuno.jig.jp/2014/csvwithmetadata.html
22:26:20 <Bernadetteloscio> ack phila
22:26:34 <taisuke> this is a draft sample of CSV with metadata
22:26:37 <Ig_Bittencourt> q-
22:27:02 <yaso> phila: at the time of writing DCAT can be the best choice, but you should’nt say DCAT is the best choice for ever
22:27:26 <ericstephan> +1 Yes I agree I think its good to put preferences like DCAT, schema.org etc
22:27:31 <Bernadetteloscio> ack jtandy
22:27:33 <yaso> laufer: one of the things that we can make is to say how this metadata will be described
22:28:00 <Bernadetteloscio> q?
22:28:53 <yaso> jtandy: we shouldnt assume that the only way that metadata is gonna be provided is with a file
22:29:05 <Bernadetteloscio> q?
22:29:49 <phila> jtandy: Assuming that metadata is always separate is not valid - many formats indlude metadata within the file itself
22:29:54 <Bernadetteloscio> q?
22:30:00 <phila> RRSAgent, draft minutes
22:30:00 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/10/31-dwbp-minutes.html phila
22:30:10 <Bernadetteloscio> q+
22:30:38 <ericstephan> assuming again that we support best practices for < 5 star solutions.  Agreed jtandy
22:30:50 <Bernadetteloscio> q?
22:31:12 <Bernadetteloscio> ack Bernadetteloscio
22:31:37 <deirdrelee_> deirdrelee_ has joined #dwbp
22:31:39 <nathalia> s/indlude/include/
22:31:43 <yaso> BernadetteLoscio: Maybe we can have more that one way to do this. Because in the example that you gave, ok. But in another use case, maybe we will not have the information
22:31:45 <Bernadetteloscio> q?
22:31:58 <yaso> … so, in this other case, how the metadata should be refferenced
22:32:16 <ericstephan> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NetCDF is one example of files embedded with metadata.
22:32:57 <Bernadetteloscio> q?
22:33:04 <nathalia> s/refferenced/referenced
22:33:21 <MakxDekkers> is someone recording what eric jsut said? I think this is perfect text for the BP document!!!
22:33:41 <MakxDekkers> s/jsut/just
22:33:50 <yaso> MakxDekkers, I just stopped writing to pay properly attention :-/
22:34:12 <yaso> MarkDekkers if you can resume that it would be helpful
22:34:16 <yaso> BernadetteLoscio:
22:34:17 <MakxDekkers> I understand,b ut an audio recording would have been handy!
22:34:30 <yaso> hadleybeeman: :-)
22:34:31 <Bernadetteloscio> q?
22:34:37 <ericstephan> JCAMP files also provide spectroscopy information in a text file formats but support use defined metadata.
22:36:11 <ericstephan> https://badc.nerc.ac.uk/help/formats/jcamp_dx/
22:37:06 <jtandy> (so what I was saying was that the 'original' metadata might be provided in any number of forms - perhaps embedded in a binary format or provided in as a complementary YAML file. We can't control how people will do this. But we _should_ say that people will provide an
22:37:50 <jtandy> ... automated method to extract the original metadata into a portable form - like a DCAT record - for sharing with discovery catalogues)
22:38:24 <Bernadetteloscio> ISSUE: What advice do we give about publishing metadata so that we identify the intended outcome without making assumptions that maybe false?
22:38:24 <trackbot> Created ISSUE-76 - What advice do we give about publishing metadata so that we identify the intended outcome without making assumptions that maybe false?.  Please complete additional details at <http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/76/edit>.
22:39:06 <yaso> BernadetteLoscio: should we have an action for laufer to give an example about metadata description?
22:39:29 <Bernadetteloscio> action: laufer to create an example about metadata description
22:39:30 <trackbot> Created ACTION-120 - Create an example about metadata description [on Carlos Laufer - due 2014-11-07].
22:39:36 <Bernadetteloscio> q?
22:40:04 <Bernadetteloscio> q?
22:40:25 <yaso> BernadetteLoscio: I think for the metadata we have something to work on
22:42:48 <Bernadetteloscio> q?
22:42:49 <phila> action: Ig_Bittencourt To look at Linked Data BP at http://www.w3.org/TR/ld-bp/#VOCABULARIES and to talk with Mark H and Antoine to see if the controlled vocab section fits with the data vocabs
22:42:50 <trackbot> Created ACTION-121 - Look at linked data bp at http://www.w3.org/tr/ld-bp/#vocabularies and to talk with mark h and antoine to see if the controlled vocab section fits with the data vocabs [on Ig Ibert Bittencourt Santana Pinto - due 2014-11-07].
22:43:30 <yaso> BernadetteLoscio: EricKauz, for data formats
22:43:53 <yaso> … if you can consider the issues that we raised yesterday it would be nice, because we can start the discussions about data format
22:44:01 <Bernadetteloscio> q?
22:44:23 <ericstephan> make it so! @phila
22:44:34 <yaso> phila ask people to write actions with sense!
22:44:56 <Bernadetteloscio> q?
22:45:08 <phila> RRSAgent, draft minutes
22:45:08 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/10/31-dwbp-minutes.html phila
22:46:04 <Bernadetteloscio> q?
22:46:20 <yaso> BernadetteLoscio: for each section that we have there, it’s nice to have a short description
22:46:31 <yaso> If this is to trivial you can write a best practice
22:47:23 <Ig_Bittencourt> teachair
22:48:14 <yaso> Newton, can you replace me as scribe for 5 minutes? Need coffee
22:48:28 <Bernadetteloscio> q?
22:48:38 <newton> Ok Yaso!
22:48:46 <newton> Bernadetteloscio: how we gonna work on this
22:48:53 <Caroline> q+
22:48:57 <yaso> BernadetteLoscio: how we’re going to work on this. Should we create a wikipage for each section?
22:48:59 <phila> action: eric kauz to wotk with Sumit to write at least a description of the best practice(s) around data formats
22:48:59 <trackbot> 'eric' is an ambiguous username. Please try a different identifier, such as family name or username (e.g., ek1, estephan).
22:49:00 <newton> ... should we create an wiki page for each section
22:49:14 <phila> action: kauz to wotk with Sumit to write at least a description of the best practice(s) around data formats
22:49:15 <trackbot> Created ACTION-122 - Wotk with sumit to write at least a description of the best practice(s) around data formats [on Eric Kauz - due 2014-11-07].
22:49:23 <yaso> newton, thanks :-) hadleybeeman went for some coffee for me.
22:49:25 <yaso> berna
22:49:39 <yaso> q+
22:51:05 <Bernadetteloscio> ack Caroline
22:51:19 <yaso> Caroline: I suggest that
22:51:39 <phila> Vagner is editing https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Proposed_structure
22:51:41 <nathalia> Caroline: what are you doing?
22:51:46 <phila> Adding numbering etc.
22:51:59 <nathalia> Caroline: what Vagner is doing on the wiki?
22:52:07 <yaso> BernadetteLoscio: Vagner is organizing the table of contents, putting numbers in each item
22:52:39 <yaso> Caroline: it would be nice if we could find the description in the 1st page
22:52:53 <ericstephan> phone is still cutting out ....
22:53:00 <yaso> I can
22:53:15 <yaso> I cant understand what are you saying Caroline, maybe you can write it
22:53:28 <Caroline> I think it is imporant to have the description of each theme
22:53:28 <Bernadetteloscio> q?
22:53:35 <yaso> yes
22:53:45 <nathalia> s/imporant/important
22:53:47 <phila> +1 to Caroline
22:53:48 <ericstephan> no I think it is just the phone connection
22:54:02 <ericstephan> It was just bad when Caroline was speaking, better now
22:54:05 <yaso> BernadetteLoscio: in the table of contents in each link we’re gonna have a link to each wiki page
22:54:12 <Bernadetteloscio> q?
22:54:44 <nathalia> Caroline: it is nice to have a little description in the sections
22:54:44 <Bernadetteloscio> ack yaso
22:55:01 <hadleybeeman> yaso:  We will have a table of contents that point to a document that point to another document?
22:55:05 <Bernadetteloscio> q?
22:55:15 <hadleybeeman> ... phil's document that link to the document Bernadette made that link to the contents?
22:56:03 <Bernadetteloscio> q?
22:56:21 <hadleybeeman> Bernadetteloscio: It's just a way to organise. Because people need to know where to write things.
22:56:27 <deirdrelee> deirdrelee has joined #dwbp
22:56:28 <hadleybeeman> yaso: I think Caroline's suggestion is easier.
22:56:43 <Caroline> my suggestion is to have a brief description of each theme. Actually Bernadetteloscio newton and I have discussed it before. In order to facilitate for each contributor and for everyone has the same understanding
22:56:43 <hadleybeeman> Bernadetteloscio: Yes, we can do this — but the table of contents is just the index of the whole thing.
22:57:11 <Caroline> the idea is that each contributor writes the description and, if nedeed, the group might discuss ir
22:57:12 <hadleybeeman> yaso: With my UX designer hat, I encourage Bernadette to allow us to make an excerpt of each item for the table of contents
22:57:13 <Caroline> it
22:57:27 <Caroline> q+
22:57:37 <hadleybeeman> Bernadetteloscio: The table of contents is just the structure, [shows the top of a wiki page]
22:57:49 <hadleybeeman> ... For each item, we can write a short description.  Its not a problem.
22:57:50 <Bernadetteloscio> q?
22:58:02 <Bernadetteloscio> ack Carol
22:58:30 <yaso> Caroline: you’ll have to write ir
22:58:37 <ericstephan> bad phone reception I think....
22:58:37 <yaso> s/ir/it
22:58:38 <Caroline> my suggestion is to have a brief description of each theme. Actually Bernadetteloscio newton and I have discussed it before. In order to facilitate for each contributor and for everyone has the same understanding
22:58:50 <Caroline> the idea is that each contributor writes the description and, if nedeed, the group might discuss  it
22:59:11 <yaso> BernadetteLoscio: we agree that we need this description
22:59:22 <yaso> … so the contributers will work on this description
23:00:01 <yaso> BernadetteLoscio: that’s it, Caroline?
23:00:05 <yaso> Caroline: yes
23:00:21 <phila> action: laufer to write a description for the beginning of the metadata section
23:00:21 <trackbot> Created ACTION-123 - Write a description for the beginning of the metadata section [on Carlos Laufer - due 2014-11-07].
23:00:43 <deirdrelee> zakim, who is here?
23:00:43 <Zakim> On the phone I see Salona, Caroline_, ericstephan (muted), MakxDekkers, [IPcaller]
23:00:45 <Zakim> Caroline_ has nathalia
23:00:45 <Zakim> On IRC I see deirdrelee, Reinaldo, Bart_van_Leeuwen, Vagner_Br, ericstephan, MakxDekkers, flavio_, Bernadetteloscio, jtandy, newton, nathalia, taisuke, EricKauz, yaso, phila,
23:00:45 <Zakim> ... AdrianoC, Caroline, sandro, laufer, Ig_Bittencourt, Zakim, RRSAgent, rhiaro_, hadleybeeman, trackbot
23:00:55 <deirdrelee> zakim, [ipcaller] is me
23:00:55 <Zakim> +deirdrelee; got it
23:00:56 <Bernadetteloscio> q?
23:01:51 <phila> action: Ig_Bittencourt to write description as intro to vocab section of BP doc
23:01:52 <trackbot> Created ACTION-124 - Write description as intro to vocab section of bp doc [on Ig Ibert Bittencourt Santana Pinto - due 2014-11-07].
23:01:58 <Bernadetteloscio> q?
23:02:18 <Zakim> -MakxDekkers
23:02:53 <yaso> BernadetteLoscio: for sentitive data and data identification we don’t have anyone
23:03:06 <yaso> MakxDekkers: thank you!
23:03:23 <yaso> BernadetteLoscio: we are proposing to call this data versioning
23:03:27 <newton> q+
23:03:32 <yaso> … and we don’t have requirements for this
23:03:44 <yaso> … there’s an issue to discuss data versioning
23:04:49 <Bernadetteloscio> q?
23:04:49 <ericstephan> data versioning can be soooo complex, they are still trying to figure it out again in the scientific world...
23:05:56 <ericstephan> Macduff M, S Beus, and B Lee. 2014. “Versioning Complex Data.” Presented at: 3rd International Congress on Big Data, BigData 2014. June 27-July 02, 2014, Anchorage, Alaska.
23:06:12 <ericstephan> example of the stuff you have to wade thru
23:06:32 <hadleybeeman> Shame that isn't on the Web, ericstephan
23:06:54 <yaso> phila: I’m gonna write a use case about URIs
23:07:22 <Bernadetteloscio> q?
23:07:27 <newton> action: to review doc about dataset version and look up for standards about dataset version
23:07:27 <trackbot> Error finding 'to'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/users>.
23:07:28 <newton> q-
23:07:40 <Bernadetteloscio> ack newton
23:07:53 <newton> action: newton to review doc about dataset version and look up for standards about dataset version
23:07:53 <trackbot> Created ACTION-125 - Review doc about dataset version and look up for standards about dataset version [on Newton Calegari - due 2014-11-07].
23:07:55 <yaso> q+
23:08:13 <Bernadetteloscio> ack yaso
23:08:59 <ericstephan> some activity on versioning on force11 as well @newton
23:09:42 <ericstephan> @hadleybeeman I'll send you a copy, its behind a paywall.
23:09:49 <yaso> BernadetteLoscio: about the COMURI doc, we decided that if we are going to write something, we’re going to write following the template
23:09:56 <Zakim> -ericstephan
23:10:05 <yaso> BernadetteLoscio: just to decide what do we have to do about it
23:10:11 <ericstephan> bye bye everyone safe travels
23:10:14 <yaso> hadleybeeman: what would you recommend?
23:10:15 <newton> ok @ericstephan, I'm going to look on it, thanks!
23:10:58 <yaso> should I change the word “issues” for “actions” now? http://i.imgur.com/oQ18rek.jpg
23:11:09 <yaso> BernadetteLoscio: if we’re going to use his ideas
23:11:13 <Bernadetteloscio> q?
23:11:17 <yaso> … then he needs to know
23:12:43 <yaso> BernadetteLoscio: for data persistence, there’s phil and Cristople
23:12:45 <hadleybeeman> action: Hadley to put the topic of combining the COMURI work with the Best Practices on the agenda for 14 Nov's call
23:12:45 <trackbot> Created ACTION-126 - Put the topic of combining the comuri work with the best practices on the agenda for 14 nov's call [on Hadley Beeman - due 2014-11-07].
23:12:59 <yaso> s/Cristople/Cristophe
23:13:05 <Bernadetteloscio> q?
23:13:41 <phila> action: phil to write description of data identification section
23:13:42 <trackbot> Created ACTION-127 - Write description of data identification section [on Phil Archer - due 2014-11-07].
23:14:11 <yaso> BernadetteLoscio: for data identification, the original was data persistence
23:14:38 <Bernadetteloscio> q+
23:14:40 <Bernadetteloscio> q-
23:14:42 <Bernadetteloscio> q?
23:16:37 <em> em has joined #DWBP
23:16:49 <Bernadetteloscio> q?
23:17:08 <newton> Bernadetteloscio: there is one item here about feedback
23:17:15 <yaso> scribe: newton
23:17:26 <newton> Bernadetteloscio: this is one thing we should work on it
23:17:44 <newton> ... Bart_van_Leeuwen, you would like to write something about that
23:17:56 <phila> issue-71?
23:17:57 <trackbot> issue-71 -- We have use cases for feedback but is it in scope given the 3 axiomatic criteria resolved at tpac -- raised
23:17:57 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/71
23:17:58 <newton> Bart_van_Leeuwen: I've no experience on that
23:18:35 <Bernadetteloscio> q?
23:19:00 <newton> Bernadetteloscio: I think with this we're going to have some content
23:19:07 <hadleybeeman> issue: we need to bring the COMURI work into the best practices format agreed at the TPAC F2F
23:19:07 <trackbot> Created ISSUE-77 - We need to bring the comuri work into the best practices format agreed at the tpac f2f.  Please complete additional details at <http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/77/edit>.
23:19:23 <yaso> acribe: yaso
23:19:24 <newton> Bernadetteloscio: ask Carol for her opinio about the progress that we made
23:19:28 <newton> scribe: yaso
23:19:28 <yaso> scribe: yaso
23:19:42 <newton> s/Carol/Caroline_
23:19:44 <yaso> BernadetteLoscio: at least we’re going to have the descriptions of the sections
23:19:46 <nathalia> s/opinio/opinion
23:19:50 <yaso> Caroline: it’s a great progress
23:20:16 <yaso> … I don’t know if you can get this until the next week, but for now
23:20:18 <newton> q+
23:20:34 <phila> ack newton
23:20:34 <Caroline> I think it is very important what we have done until
23:20:39 <Caroline> now
23:20:54 <Bernadetteloscio> q?
23:21:06 <Caroline> it would be nice to get more contributors where there still are TBD
23:21:08 <yaso> newton: Caroline was telling that we need to have the contributors to this items. Would be nice if we could distribute the sections to the contributers
23:21:32 <Caroline> +1 to Bernadetteloscio that for now everybody has work to do!
23:21:41 <phila> q+
23:21:43 <yaso> BernadetteLoscio: we’re gonna have new challenges and we should work on this and then, later on, we can update the sections and the table of contents and then have new contributors
23:22:12 <phila> ack me
23:22:13 <yaso> Thanks BernadetteLoscio! Great job!
23:22:16 <Bart_van_Leeuwen> q+
23:22:29 <Bernadetteloscio> q?
23:22:41 <Bernadetteloscio> ack Bart_van_Leeuwen
23:23:15 <Bernadetteloscio> q?
23:23:26 <Caroline> +1 to yaso great job Bernadetteloscio
23:23:36 <phila> issue: What is the best order for the elements in the best practices template
23:23:36 <trackbot> Created ISSUE-78 - What is the best order for the elements in the best practices template.  Please complete additional details at <http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/78/edit>.
23:23:37 <yaso> and for Caroline also :-D
23:24:16 <yaso> BernadetteLoscio: about the vocabs. Should we have some extra-issues on this because we didn
23:24:27 <yaso> s/didn/did not
23:24:44 <yaso> …discussed the vocab
23:25:18 <yaso> hadleybeeman: I proposed that we discuss it on the next vocab call
23:25:35 <phila> issue-50?
23:25:35 <trackbot> issue-50 -- Bernadette to help us find more use cases on the vocabulary itself (including creating a vocabulary) -- raised
23:25:35 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/50
23:26:53 <phila> scribe: phila
23:27:09 <phila> hadleybeeman: I wanted to say that I think we've made enormous progress in the last 2 days
23:27:13 <Bernadetteloscio> q?
23:27:15 <phila> ... we've set out the issues
23:27:26 <phila> ... we've established what documents this will go into
23:27:45 <phila> ... we are now in a much better position to work together far apart than we were.
23:28:03 <phila> Topic: Next f2f
23:28:10 <Bernadetteloscio> q?
23:28:21 <phila> Bart_van_Leeuwen: I have enquired whether VU (Univerisyt on Amsterdam) would host us - no reply yet
23:28:39 <Caroline> I will put the link here
23:28:51 <phila> Carol's wiki page https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Choosing_the_venue_for_a_F2F_2015_hosted_by_NIC.br
23:28:55 <Caroline> https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Choosing_the_venue_for_a_F2F_2015_hosted_by_NIC.br
23:29:02 <Caroline> thank you, phila
23:30:20 <Caroline> q+
23:31:03 <phila> ack Caroline:
23:31:07 <phila> ack Caroline
23:31:08 <Bernadetteloscio> ack Carol
23:31:21 <deirdrelee> weird
23:31:32 <Caroline> wanted to mention that only few people have put their choices on https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Choosing_the_venue_for_a_F2F_2015_hosted_by_NIC.br
23:31:51 <Caroline> it would be nice if at least most of the group could put there
23:31:55 <Caroline> their choices
23:32:15 <newton> It's good to know that on November is going to be during the IGF Forum http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/
23:32:50 <Bernadetteloscio> q?
23:32:51 <phila> It's really going to happen https://www.w3.org/2015/10/TPAC/
23:33:30 <Bernadetteloscio> q?
23:33:33 <Caroline> do we need to decide it now?
23:33:39 <Caroline> ok
23:33:44 <Caroline> hahahahahha
23:33:55 <Caroline> can we put a deadline to decide it?
23:34:09 <phila> There is a working group call next week, 7 Nov
23:34:16 <phila> Thanks everyone
23:34:17 <deirdrelee> :)
23:34:20 <hadleybeeman> Bye all!
23:34:20 <Bernadetteloscio> thank you!!!!
23:34:30 <Caroline> thank you!!
23:34:34 <Caroline> bye bye
23:34:42 <phila> zakim, drop alona
23:34:42 <Zakim> sorry, phila, I do not see a party named 'alona'
23:34:43 <deirdrelee> bye, enjoy the rest of your time in CA, Diverti-se
23:34:43 <newton> bye, Carol
23:34:49 <deirdrelee> speak to you next week
23:34:56 <yaso> Bye all! Thanks!!
23:34:57 <phila> zakim, drop salona
23:34:57 <Zakim> Salona is being disconnected
23:34:58 <yaso> yaso has left #dwbp
23:34:58 <Zakim> -Salona
23:34:59 <Zakim> -deirdrelee
23:35:02 <nathalia> bye!!
23:35:07 <Zakim> -Caroline_
23:35:09 <Zakim> DATA_DWBP()11:30AM has ended
23:35:09 <Zakim> Attendees were nathalia, Salona, deirdrelee, ericstephan, MakxDekkers
23:37:27 <newton> auf wiedersehen
23:40:44 <phila> RRSAgent, generate minutes
23:40:44 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/10/31-dwbp-minutes.html phila
23:42:13 <phila> zakim, bye
23:42:13 <Zakim> Zakim has left #dwbp
23:42:30 <phila> RRSAgent, bye
23:42:30 <RRSAgent> I see 20 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2014/10/31-dwbp-actions.rdf :
23:42:30 <RRSAgent> ACTION: newton to research and report ways that technical best practices have been tested [1]
23:42:30 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/10/31-dwbp-irc#T17-09-02
23:42:30 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Hadley to check the scoping criteria against the deliverables/commitments in our charter [2]
23:42:30 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/10/31-dwbp-irc#T17-18-02
23:42:30 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Adriano to complete use case and requirements for data enrichment. Related to issue-72 [3]
23:42:30 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/10/31-dwbp-irc#T18-16-00
23:42:30 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Adrianoc to complete use case and requirements for data enrichment. Related to issue-72 [4]
23:42:30 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/10/31-dwbp-irc#T18-16-29
23:42:30 <RRSAgent> ACTION: ericstephan to investigate how WCAG can be an example for our BP document [5]
23:42:30 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/10/31-dwbp-irc#T20-43-29
23:42:30 <RRSAgent> ACTION: phila to develop into something that we can reuse and make more like a best practice [6]
23:42:30 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/10/31-dwbp-irc#T21-09-03
23:42:30 <RRSAgent> ACTION: phila to explore the use cases that might clarify the need for URI and URL design [7]
23:42:30 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/10/31-dwbp-irc#T21-26-01
23:42:30 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Ig to review the URLs in Data Primer http://www.w3.org/TR/urls-in-data/ [8]
23:42:30 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/10/31-dwbp-irc#T22-09-23
23:42:30 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Ig_Bittencourt to review the URLs in Data Primer http://www.w3.org/TR/urls-in-data/ [9]
23:42:30 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/10/31-dwbp-irc#T22-09-57
23:42:30 <RRSAgent> ACTION: phila  to review the URLs in Data Primer http://www.w3.org/TR/urls-in-data/ [10]
23:42:30 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/10/31-dwbp-irc#T22-10-18
23:42:30 <RRSAgent> ACTION: laufer to create an example about metadata description [11]
23:42:30 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/10/31-dwbp-irc#T22-39-29
23:42:30 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Ig_Bittencourt To look at Linked Data BP at http://www.w3.org/TR/ld-bp/#VOCABULARIES and to talk with Mark H and Antoine to see if the controlled vocab section fits with the data vocabs [12]
23:42:30 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/10/31-dwbp-irc#T22-42-49
23:42:30 <RRSAgent> ACTION: eric kauz to wotk with Sumit to write at least a description of the best practice(s) around data formats [13]
23:42:30 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/10/31-dwbp-irc#T22-48-59
23:42:30 <RRSAgent> ACTION: kauz to wotk with Sumit to write at least a description of the best practice(s) around data formats [14]
23:42:30 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/10/31-dwbp-irc#T22-49-14
23:42:30 <RRSAgent> ACTION: laufer to write a description for the beginning of the metadata section [15]
23:42:30 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/10/31-dwbp-irc#T23-00-21
23:42:30 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Ig_Bittencourt to write description as intro to vocab section of BP doc [16]
23:42:30 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/10/31-dwbp-irc#T23-01-51
23:42:30 <RRSAgent> ACTION: to review doc about dataset version and look up for standards about dataset version [17]
23:42:30 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/10/31-dwbp-irc#T23-07-27
23:42:30 <RRSAgent> ACTION: newton to review doc about dataset version and look up for standards about dataset version [18]
23:42:30 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/10/31-dwbp-irc#T23-07-53
23:42:30 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Hadley to put the topic of combining the COMURI work with the Best Practices on the agenda for 14 Nov's call [19]
23:42:30 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/10/31-dwbp-irc#T23-12-45
23:42:30 <RRSAgent> ACTION: phil to write description of data identification section [20]
23:42:30 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/10/31-dwbp-irc#T23-13-41