Data on the Web Best Practices Working Group Teleconference -- 31 Oct 2014

<trackbot> Date: 31 October 2014

<JeniT> scribenick: JeniT

<Caroline> Hello!

<Caroline> Nathalia and I have called, but we are the only ones on the phone!

<taisuke_> http://fukuno.jig.jp/2014/sparqlknocker

<phila> scribe: phila

<JeniT> hadleybeeman: we’ll sort out agenda & scribes now

<hadleybeeman> https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/TPAC_2014

<scribe> scribe: JeniT

<phila> Meeting: DWBP f2f meeting, day 2 at TPAC

hadleybeeman: our goal for TPAC is to have a rough draft of each of our deliverables before we leave

… we assumed that it would be useful to review issues on tracker

… do that this morning, and work on documents this afternoon

BernadetteLoscio: re best practices, all the issues that were raised yesterday concern the best practices document

… 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

… this can come from the discussion about the issues, because that helps clarify the scope & get agreement about what we’re discussing

… we need to discuss the issues and from that I hope we can get agreement about the scope for each section

hadleybeeman: is that best done talking through the issues rather than the ToC?

BernadetteLoscio: I’d like to show our proposal; we can discuss that and then the issues

… I’d like to have a description of each section by the end of the day

… then it will be easier to describe the best practices for each requirement

<newton> Proposed Structure

… I’d like to show our proposal and discuss the issues

… I’m not sure if that’s best done all together or to break up based on section

… I’m not sure what’s more productive

hadleybeeman: I propose we start that together, then we can ask the question again

… 15-30 minutes of you introducing the work, then we can decide whether to split or not

… then spend the afternoon drafting

ericstephan: I like the idea of starting the discussion on the ToC as a group

… maybe some of the issues will be out of scope and get resolved

… I’d hope we have a really strong sense of identity by the end

… so that we know what we’re working on, and we feel like we have consensus

… I’d rather stay as a larger group today instead of splitting off, because I’m not sure what the split is

<Zakim> phila, you wanted to talk about remaining (new) requirements

phila: yesterday we went through the requirements in the use case document

… while that was being prepared, and since then, Ricardo from Italy, Lewis from NASA, have both put in new use cases

… Eric has put in another one and I’ve put in two more

… yesterday’s discussion helps me see that some of the requirements should be ditched

… but where those new use cases present possible new requirements, if we had a timeboxed discussion, it might be worth looking at those quickly

… I think that would take 30 minutes

<phila> Second round use cases

<Zakim> jtandy_, you wanted to ask whether we would like to develop some "in scope / out of scope" tests

jtandy_: I thought it would be useful to agree between us a couple of simple statements about what’s in and out of scope

… if we all walked away with the same small number of tests

… eg is it testable, is it about publishing data on the web

<ericstephan> +1 Jtandy Amen Amen!

… I think that would help when we split apart, not to get sidetracked

<Ig_Bittencourt> +1 to jtandy_ about agreement of scope

… could we spend a small amount of time in plenary to discuss what those tests should be

Vagner_Br: I’m afraid if we review the issues we’ll go back to the same discussion as yesterday

… I’d like to avoid going back to those discussions, just resolve the issues

… focus on the issue and how to progress it, not just go back on discussion

… we tend to repeat the discussion that led to the issue

hadleybeeman: I’d also like to distribute the chairing responsibilities

… we have lots of capable people in this room

… I’d like to split that up by hour or something, so other people can be chair for a bit

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

… hearing comments from fjh’s perspective would be very important

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

… then 10:30-12:00 to find issues in best practices & do work on best practices

… 12:00-13:00 lunch

… 13:00-17:00 working on drafts

… 17:00-17:30 summary & next steps

[some discussion about some people leaving early]

<hadleybeeman> https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/TPAC_2014#Agenda

<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...

[scribing assignments]

Scoping Questions

hadleybeeman: are the questions on the board the right questions?

phila: “Is it unique to publishing on the web?”

… “is addressing it encouraging people to publish or use data on the web”

… “is it testable?”

BernadetteLoscio: I’m concerned about the third one

… 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

… but they still have to be explained

… I think we should try not to just remove things because they’re out of scope because they’re not testable

… they might still be things people have to know

… for example the data selection thing we discussed yesterday

… this might be out of scope because it’s not possible to test

… but it’s something we should discuss with people, or say something about in a note

… we can’t test it but we have to say something about it

… because when we have the issues we’re trying to say let’s not include this because it’s out of scope

… 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

jtandy_: I think scoping questions should have three possible answers: rec track, note, or bin it

… looking at the first one (is it unique to publishing on the web)

… I’d like to see a differentiation about best practices about publishing data vs those that are specific to on the web

… to keep the scope of the work manageable, not just generally publishing data

… that might be hard because we want to provide as much information to people as possible

… but there’s a lot to do if we take a broad approach, so I’m advocating a narrow approach

BernadetteLoscio: publishing *data*

ericstephan: BernadetteLoscio, in relation to testability

… I’d say if they’re related by context to being testable, I’d consider that in scope

… 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

… a use case that I introduced today, I’m planning an implementation for it

… not only publishing data on the web but were we successful in people using & reusing that data

laufer: about the second test (encouraging people to publish)

… the first is about encouraging people to really use the data

… some are about encouraging people to *publish*

… people are worried about publishing data eg metadata, sometimes it’s difficult

… but it will help people to *use* the data

… the scope of this group is to help people to *use* the data

… the second thought is that the same thing can encourage reuse as encouraging [scribe missed]

… the requirement will encourage people to use data, I don’t know if we can encourage them to publish it

… it’s not easy for them to publish, but we’ll help people reuse it

Ig_Bittencourt: I think both publishing and consuming are in scope for the group

… 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

… and if we’re doing recommendations & creating best practices, the scope should be about publishing data on the web in a good way

laufer: the good way for *whom*?

Ig_Bittencourt: we can make recommendations of good practices about how to publish, eg 5 star scheme

… eg about vocabularies, we can make recommendations about the reuse of vocabularies when publishign data

laufer: because it makes it easy to use

Ig_Bittencourt: if you want to enable people to use data, you have to publish it well

phila: BernadetteLoscio talked about contextualising some of the best practices

… we’ve had discussion about a separate note

… a note is simply a document that we produce that isn’t tested, not part of rec track, not normative

… an alternative would be to include that within the recommendation, but mark sections as non-normative

… to provide background/context, which isn’t tested

… I think it will emerge about whether it’s easier to have everything in one document or to have separate documents

… ie just because it’s in a rec document doesn’t mean it has to be tested

… to pick up on ericstephan’s point, we have to show evidence that two organisations have implemented each recommendation

… when it’s technical that’s clear how to do; with a best practice it’s harder to prove that it’s been used

… 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

… eg in SharePSI, 40 EU partners, including governments, academics, enterprise, SMEs etc

… their contractual obligation to you is that before June 2016 they’ll update their guidelines to refer what we’re writing here

… we have people from Spanish government, people from Albania, through to PwC, ODI, Open Knowledge, OGC, it’s a big group

… I’m hoping that will be useful as evidence

… if there are recommendations that no one can actually use, you shouldn’t include it

… getting to a W3C Recommendation is hard

hadleybeeman: they’re actually obliged to use what we’ve written?

phila: they have to read & review & consider using it

… they don’t have to use it

… it has to be relevant for them

… and they’re contributing use cases

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

… I worry about suggesting updates to data at a particular frequency, or creating feedback mechanisms, where we can’t test it

… to me that’s different to general description and context

… that’s a distinction that I keep coming back to

… I feel like there are lots of other organisations that are spending time on the behavioural/economic/democratic implications stuff

… but I don’t think most of those discussions will help us make data on the web more reusable in a technical way

EricKauz: At GS1 we’re putting together guidelines about publishing product data on the web

… so we’ll also incorporate the guidelines from here

ericstephan: is this related to data.gov work in the US?

phila: not directly, but there’s crossover

… we have good connections into data.gov

hadleybeeman: should we try to get wording like these questions that we can all agree to?

<ericstephan> @phila who was the point of contact you had at data.gov?

… it would be great to have some set of rules, whatever they are, because these questions do keep coming up

… is that possible?

phila: I suggest we use these questions unless we decide to change it

BernadetteLoscio: if the requirement are in scope & are testable then they will be normative, otherwise they’ll be non-normative

ericstephan: these should get us started

hadleybeeman: let’s put them in a wiki page

<Caroline> https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Proposed_structure#Feedback.28.3F.29

phila: yes, but we should also put them in a resolution

<Caroline> this link I just put is Bernadette's suggestion to be discussed

Caroline: I think BernadetteLoscio’s said, it would be nice if we could include in a document how we have these done already

… so we don’t start from zero again

… what I did is add in the link the questions that BernadetteLoscio was talking about

… we have something else that’s more specific about each of the things

taisuke_: I proposed to my town to open data

… they are doing 3 star, we want to say that 5 star open data is the best way to publish open data

… I want to take this best practice to Japan

<Ig_Bittencourt> taisuke_: Is your comment related to this doc http://www.w3.org/TR/ld-bp/ ?

<Caroline> https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Proposed_structure

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

… when we have a standard, I can point at an application and prove that it’s working

… testable here is a very different thing

… we have to show it’s a good thing for W3C or people

… we have to confirm that people are using it; phila_ suggested that it’s to include it in their guidelines

… I don’t know if it’s a thing that W3C will see as the same thing as testing

<newton> laufer: how about 'assess' ou evaluate?

… phila can answer that

… a kind of assessment, not of testing

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

… if it’s a guideline that is a nice idea, you have to prove that people agree and that it’s implementable

… you’re looking for evidence that the community finds it useful and has acted on it

… 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

… saying something less concrete; you could offer evidence that people have included it in their guidelines, like GS1 or the geospatial community

… but it has to be rigorous

… so testable is important

laufer: my worry is that they will have to put it in the guidelines before it gets approved

hadleybeeman: it is a bit of a negotiation process because in Last Call we put out the document for comments & we get feedback

… then we go to CR and show implementations

<taisuke_> Ig_Bittencourt: I mean I want to encouraging local government people to publish open data as 5 star, because It's the best

… but it might be that CR shows we don’t have implementations, which means we have to go back

phila: Last Call & CR have been merged

… that’s agile W3C!

hadleybeeman: I think this needs to go into best practices, but it’s important to have somewhere else too

… we need to demonstrate to the rest of the world what we’re doing

… we could have put this (these questions) in the charter

… because it’s about who we are and what we’re doing

… these ideas & our commitment to them needs to be above our documents, it needs to feed into everything we do

fjh: my familiarity is that Rec track you have do testing of things in code & implementations

… I don’t know if there’s experience with Rec track best practices

phila: what I mentioned will work so long as we’re rigorous

… the first WG I was involved with was mobile web best practices

… some of it was testable, some was wooly

… the things that were machine testable, we built a validator

… there was a validator suite that was built

… and another bunch that was human testable

… more than half weren’t machine testable

fjh: it might be useful to mention testability ahead of time

phila: I think it’s in the charter

<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.

<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.

<hadleybeeman> http://www.w3.org/2013/05/odbp-charter.html

phila: in the charter the vocabularies are notes

… take that as a minimum

BernadetteLoscio: phila just said that there might be machine testable best practices

… it would be nice to have examples of how to test best practice

phila: sounds like an action item

BernadetteLoscio: just to look at how best practices were tested in other W3C specs

… because everybody will produce some best practices so everyone needs to know how we’re going to test them

hadleybeeman: who’d like to volunteer?

BernadetteLoscio: newton?

newton: ok

<hadleybeeman> ACTION: newton to research and report ways that technical best practices have been tested [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/10/31-dwbp-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-112 - Research and report ways that technical best practices have been tested [on Newton Calegari - due 2014-11-07].

<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

phila: you should find every BP in mobile has at least 2 green bars in the table

… it’s hard to do

<hadleybeeman> https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Scope

hadleybeeman: I’ve put this discussion into a wiki page ^^

<newton> thanks phila

<ericstephan> nice example @phila

PROPOSAL: we agree these questions for the moment, as of today

<CarlosIglesias> newton, also WCAG could be a good reference http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/

<ericstephan> +1

<jtandy_> +1 (observer)

phila: can we resolve one by one?

PROPOSAL: Do you agree that one of the scoping criteria is “Is it unique to publishing data on the web?”?

<newton> thank @CarlosIglesias, I'm going to read it as well

<hadleybeeman> +1

<phila> +1

<jtandy_> +1 (observer)

<Ig_Bittencourt> +1

<ericstephan> +1

<yaso> =1

<yaso> OPS

<laufer> +1

<yaso> +1

<Adriano> +1

<nathalia> +1

<BartvanLeeuwen> +1

<BernadetteLoscio> +1

<newton> +1

<CarlosIglesias> Is it unique to publishing on the web?

<Vagner_Br> +1

<taisuke_> +1

<CarlosIglesias> why?

<Caroline> +1

<CarlosIglesias> the *unique* I mean

hadleybeeman: phila, can you respond to CarlosIglesias?

<CarlosIglesias> Is it for publishing on the Web?

<phila> Welcome to W3C ;-)

<CarlosIglesias> but not necessarily *unique*

<phila> Our remit stops at the end of the Web

<phila> if it's not unique to the Web then others are as able to make recommendations as we are

<phila> we need to limit our scope to our area of expertise

<phila> But... it's a wiki, it can be changed over time if the Wg so decides of course

<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?

phila: it could end up that under each best practice we have a line that says ‘how this encourages reuse’

BernadetteLoscio: we have a scope section

… but yes, for each best practice

laufer: also the first question, we have to justify against these criteria

<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"

phila: one of the questions about the first one is whether the key word is ‘data’ or ‘web’

<ericstephan> We are talking about the second question about reuse of data on the web @Caroline

… ie is it about uniqueness wrt publishing data rather than documents, or wrt to publishing on the web rather than through other means

JeniT: both

phila: as well as resolving these, track an issue of them

BernadetteLoscio: I think we shouldn’t talk too much longer on this

<Zakim> jtandy_, you wanted to ask if we should review these scoping points against the charter ... is there anything we won't now deliver?

jtandy_: once we’ve agreed these, maybe go through the charter and see if there’s anything that won’t then be delivered

<hadleybeeman> ACTION: Hadley to check the scoping criteria against the deliverables/commitments in our charter [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/10/31-dwbp-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-113 - Check the scoping criteria against the deliverables/commitments in our charter [on Hadley Beeman - due 2014-11-07].

<nathalia> It's confused for remote participants

BernadetteLoscio: publishing data documents that I create & give to someone vs just publishing data

… just publishing on the web might be documents. They have to be together: “data on the web”

PROPOSAL: Do you agree that one of the scoping criteria is “Is it unique to publishing data on the web?”?

<ericstephan> +1

<hadleybeeman> +1

<jtandy_> +1 (observer)

<newton> +1

<Ig_Bittencourt> +1

<RiccardoAlbertoni> +1

<nathalia> +1

<laufer> +1

<phila> We've been discussing your point, Carlos. Consensus is that both data and Web are keywords in that statement

<Caroline> +1

+1 (observer)

<phila> +1

<Vagner_Br> +1

<BernadetteLoscio> isso servira +1

<yaso> +1

<taisuke_> +1

RESOLUTION: Do you agree that one of the scoping criteria is “Is it unique to publishing data on the web?”?

<CarlosIglesias> completely agree, my concern is with unique, not any other keyword

PROPOSAL: Do you agree that one of the scoping criteria is “Does it encourage reuse of data on the Web?”?

<yaso> +1

<ericstephan> +1

<hadleybeeman> +1

+1 (observer)

<Ig_Bittencourt> +1

<phila> +1

<laufer> +1

<RiccardoAlbertoni> +1

<nathalia> +1

<Vagner_Br> +1

<jtandy_> +1

<BernadetteLoscio> +1

<jtandy_> (observer)

<taisuke_> +1

<Caroline> +1

<flavio> +1

BernadetteLoscio: it should be both publishing and reuse

hadleybeeman: laufer suggested focusing on reuse

phila: publishing is in the first one

BernadetteLoscio: the first one is focusing on data on the web, not other contexts

… that was the main reason rather than publishing

… we are proposing for data on the web, but people can use in other contexts

… CarlosIglesias was concerned about the ‘unique’: it doesn’t mean it can’t be used in other contexts

<EricKauz> +1

BernadetteLoscio: the second one, it should be together ‘publish’ and ‘reuse’

<CarlosIglesias> then it is perfectly ok for me, but don't understand why the unique is there

ericstephan: “encouraging people to publish and reuse”?

BernadetteLoscio: yes, because we’re trying to help people to do both

laufer: I think we argue, we’ll talk about this for hours, so I accept

… the same thing can encourage use and discourage publication

… because it’s difficult to publish

… to me you have to split into two: encourage publish yes, encourage reuse too

hadleybeeman: “does it encourage reuse or publication…”

jtandy_: yesterday we talked about eg common vocabularies

… doesn’t encourage reuse, but helps publishers

… I think they are separate

ericstephan: so ‘or’ works

<ericstephan> Yes GO!

<yaso> y

PROPOSAL: Do you agree that one of the scoping criteria is “Does it encourage reuse or publication of data on the Web?”?

<nathalia> +1

<flavio_> +1

<RiccardoAlbertoni> +1

<yaso> +1

<ericstephan> +1 to 00 01 10 11

<laufer> +1

<hadleybeeman> +1

<Caroline> +1

<Vagner_Br> +1

<phila> +1

<BernadetteLoscio> +1

<Ig_Bittencourt> +1

+1 (to 01 10 11, as observer)

<jtandy_> +1 (observer)

<newton> +01

RESOLUTION: Do you agree that one of the scoping criteria is “Does it encourage reuse or publication of data on the Web?”?

<nathalia> I like too

PROPOSAL: Do you agree that one of the scoping criteria is “Is it testable?”?

<ericstephan> +1

<hadleybeeman> +1

<Ig_Bittencourt> +1

<EricKauz> +1

<flavio_> +1

<yaso> +1

phila: testable but not necessarily machine testable

<newton> +1

<taisuke_> +1

<Caroline> +1

<BernadetteLoscio> +1

<phila> +1

<nathalia> +1

+1 (observer)

<Adriano> +1

<laufer> +1

<jtandy_> 0 ... testable to be included in the REC

RESOLUTION: Do you agree that one of the scoping criteria is “Is it testable?”?

<Vagner_Br> +1

<scribe> ScribeNick: fjh

<nathalia> what is happening now?

<yaso> we’re taking a break

<Ig_Bittencourt> nathalia: break

<nathalia> ok

<yaso> 10 minutes for coffee, Nathalia o/

<nathalia> ok

Best Practices Table of Contents

<scribe> ScribeNick: fjh

jeremy is chairing

<jtandy> https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Proposed_structure#Table_of_Contents_DWBP

<newton> @fjh this is the link: https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Proposed_structure

<newton> @jtandy was faster than me

<nathalia> hello again.

<BernadetteLoscio> https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Proposed_structure

BernadetteLoscio: will proposal for table of oontents for best practices doc, audience, acope, backghround

… scope section important

… need to work on audience

… and context

… these are non-normative sections

<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

… lifecycle discussed in last F2F

… can change all of this

… themes section, to organize best practices themselves

1.5.1 Data Selection

1.5.2 Data Organization

1.5.3 Data Publication

1.5.4 Data usage

1.5.5 Feedback(?)

… each section will have challenges based on use case document

<jtandy_> http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/usecasesv1.html#requirements-by-challenge

… challenges need to be grouped into appropriate sections

… e.g. types of metadata

… note that we have many requirements of form, ABC is available, meaning that the metadata is available

… propose to have metadata section for this

.q?

<jtandy_> frederik (fjh)

fjh: i see, metadata section is in Data organization section

<Ig_Bittencourt> Caroline: That was fjh

<phila> issue: Do we include versioning in the BP doc? Currently there are no use cases for it

<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>.

BernadetteLoscio: data enrichment is a challenge, how consumer can encrich data before using it

… how to add value to data before using it

<phila> issue: Should we include data enrichment in the BP doc? Currently there are no use cases for it

<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>.

sounds like annotations might be relevant here

discussion about issue numbers

<phila> http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/usecasesv1.html#UC-FeedbackLoopforCorrections

BernadetteLoscio: dont have use case for feedback

phila: yes we have one or two

BernadetteLoscio: proposal to organize lifecycle

<phila> issue: We have use cases for feedback but is it in scope given the 3 aximoatic criteria resolved at TPAC

<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>.

<phila> The feedback section in the structure is at https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Proposed_structure#Feedback.28.3F.29

<Caroline> Feedback(?) Data usage feedback Data to be published Lifecycle

laufer: useful to have use case about data enrichment

<jtandy_> @Caroline ... coming to you next on the queue\

<phila> issue: Is data enrichment in scope for DWBP?

<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>.

<RiccardoAlbertoni> Sorry I have to leave, enjoy the rest of discussion, Bye!

Adriano: data integration, segmentation , categorization all matter

<yaso> Bye Riccardo!

<yaso> Thanks for participating

<jtandy_> fjh .... this is Adriano

<BernadetteLoscio> Adriano is speaking

Adriano: can encrich data like use case ??

<phila_> Dengue Fever reference

… data consumption side can use encriched data after aggregating with meta data

… working to formalize, looking for ideas from group

laufer: concerned if encrichment is embedded in app, don’t have linked data yet

… need to consider layering

BernadetteLoscio: propose use case then requirements, then decide on scope

… hard to talk about this stuff

<phila_> issue-72?

<trackbot> issue-72 -- Is data enrichment in scope for dwbp? -- raised

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/72

… we need concrete proposals

jtandy_: lets give an action to adriano

<phila_> ACTION: Adriano to complete use case and requirements for data enrichment. Related to issue-72 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/10/31-dwbp-minutes.html#action03]

<trackbot> 'Adriano' is an ambiguous username. Please try a different identifier, such as family name or username (e.g., adrianoc, adrianov).

jtandy_: process of encrichment is out of our scope

ISSUE-72?

<trackbot> ISSUE-72 -- Is data enrichment in scope for dwbp? -- raised

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/72

<phila_> ACTION: Adrianoc to complete use case and requirements for data enrichment. Related to issue-72 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/10/31-dwbp-minutes.html#action04]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-114 - Complete use case and requirements for data enrichment. related to issue-72 [on Adriano Pereira - due 2014-11-07].

Adriano: disagree with laufer
... data on web has many aspects

… can address data enrichment later, lets defer

jtandy_: outlines process to review use cases, requirements then make decision

… we have way forward, so can move on

… goals, common understanding of each section and secondly people should review sections and be prepared to contribute

<Caroline> https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Proposed_structure#Mapping_of_Themes.5B1.5D

BernadetteLoscio: on deliverable sections

… people have offered to contribute and are noted

jtandy_: not all clear

BernadetteLoscio: some from charter

<Caroline> +1 to understand what the sections are about!

<ericstephan> https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Main_Page#Best_Practices (this is what we are looking at...

BernadetteLoscio: no related between thsi and the challenge and the use case document

<Caroline> I suggest to also look at https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Proposed_structure#Mapping_of_Themes.5B1.5D

jtandy_: proposing to organize around challenges rather than chartered deliverables

<phila_> Bernadette refers to the charter technology-agnostic approach to cover aspects such as:

fjh: to rephrase - no clear linkage between charter and challenge/use case documents

phila: this is ok, charter leaves room to the WG

jtandy_: can we agree to organize doc around challenges

hadleybeeman: we need more infomration to comment

phila: this is very helpful progress, especially since we are reflecting use cases

…

… we updated use cases, so you are going to have to update this table of contents

BernadetteLoscio: we can adjust

phila: discvoery metadata vs content metadata is one example to think about

jtandy_: what is useful of this structure is that it is tied to data lifecyle

… despite use case changes the lifecycle will be stable so this is good

BernadetteLoscio: one use case could span entire lifecycle

phila: +1 to using lifecycle

<jtandy_> @Caroline ... just giving hadley some time off!

… editorial framework is helpful

… are we sure we want to lose some requirements, Shakespeare wrote something that says we need a plan

… need backing from higher level management

s/Shakespeare….//

phila: we should still have a top level non-normative policy section both to give advice and to enable buy in

<Zakim> hadleybeeman, you wanted to question the wisdom of keeping the policy stuff

<nathalia> I'm not understanding the disccusion. Is it about?

hadleybeeman: disagree, thinking about other web standards like HTML, CSS etc

… did not have to explain how to maintain web pages

… important aspects may not need to be W3C items

BernadetteLoscio: need to define audience of this document

<Caroline> +1 to define the audience!

hadleybeeman: agree

<nathalia> +1 to Bernadette

<yaso> yaso

<yaso> ops

BernadetteLoscio: need to be clear on what to focus on , technical, non technical etc

<phila> issue: What exactly is the audience for the BP doc?

<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>.

ericstephan: we are at a very high level, could add lots of non-normative text

… everything we do could have a motivation, or poicy behind it

… agree with Phil

… climate data has birth of the data stream

… community defines policy

yaso: are two audiences, technical and policy

<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

<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>.

yaso: should focus on technical audience

jtandy_: do we want to make proposal to focus on technical audience

<jtandy_> proposal: the best practices document should focus on the technical audiaence

<yaso> Caroline, I said that I don’t see 2 diff audiences

<yaso> for me, it’s always “technical” audience

<nathalia> +1 to Yaso

laufer: roles define the audience

… name of group has ‘best practices’ but for what

<hadleybeeman> I'm wondering if we all have different ideas of what "best practices" mean

<nathalia> now the sound is better

… can be about communicationn between publishers and consumers

… not sure about CSV files

<nathalia> s/communiucation/communication/

fjh: isn’t there a CSV on the web WG for that?

<yaso> they are best practices for **publishing, using, reusing** data on the Web, aren’t they?

<nathalia> fjh You're welcome!

BernadetteLoscio: not just for developers, but also for non-technical people who are interested

<Ig_Bittencourt> According to the charter:

<Ig_Bittencourt> The mission of the Data on the Web Best Practices Working Group, part of the Data Activity, is:

… this is not just a technical work, for non-technical as well

Vagner_Br: just because W3C doc does not mean obliged to be technial, see this

… W3C Note for policy making people: http://www.w3.org/TR/egov-improving/

<CarlosIglesias> remember the wcag? one of the most famous and widespread w3c documents

… we are only addressing technical people, given how we are writing this document

<CarlosIglesias> a guidelines one, not technical at all

<Zakim> phila, you wanted to talk about 'difference' between BPs for publishing CSV and RDF

<yaso> +1 to Vagner

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

… on policy am persuaded by Hadley

… our audience is technical, that is what W3C is for

… “these are meant to be technical guidelines for those implementing a policy"

<nathalia> +1 to phila

<ericstephan> +1 phila

… leave the rest to them

<Zakim> fjh, you wanted to ask about usability

fjh: we might want to consider usability somewhere

hadleybeeman: worried that policy will distract group and also consume time etc etc

<Ig_Bittencourt> I sad I agree with Vagner_Br about technical audience and it is clear in the charter (mission).

… legal risks, ethical aspects, especially when international, this would be a huge job

<phila> Big +1 to Hadley on not trying to define global policy

<ericstephan> +1 hadleybeeman - just a mention that publication is motivated and dictated by policy is okay with me

<Caroline> +1 to Vagner_Br Ig_Bittencourt and hadleybeeman

i’m an observer, but Hadley is making a good point

<ericstephan> no additional details are needed

hadleybeeman: most policy wonks don’t understand technology, but we could make our documents useful and reassuring

phila: +1

EricKauz: other groups are working in this space

<nathalia> is it necessary to vote the audience point?

<taisuke_> +1

jtandy_: i hear strong support for technical focus

… need a resolution

<nathalia> +1 to need a resolution

<nathalia> and go on for next topic

proposed RESOLUTION: focus of the DWBP document will be technical

<phila> Working on this... The primary audience for our work is technical. That technical work should be in context

Caroline: need to understand audience

<phila> PROPOSED: That the focus of our work is technical

<hadleybeeman> +1

<laufer> +1

<flavio_> +1

<ericstephan> +1

<Vagner_Br> +1

<EricKauz> +1

<Ig_Bittencourt> +1

<Caroline> +1

<yaso> +1

<newton> +1

<nathalia> +1

<phila> +1 (Welcome to W3C)

<BernadetteLoscio> +1

<taisuke_> +1

<phila> RESOLVED: That the focus of our work is technical

<Adriano> +1

<Caroline> I am wondering if is it worth to discuss the audience and if it would be publishers and users

jtandy_: will the draft document structure work for technical audience

BernadetteLoscio: yes

<jtandy_> @Caroline ... will come back to you question about publishers & users in a moment

… will need to add some contact and descriptive non-normative material

<Caroline> jtandy_: thank you

<phila> It is an issue in te tracker, Caroline, see http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/73

<nathalia> I think both publishers and users are technical audience

jtandy_: caroline asked what is specific to publishers vs users

BernadetteLoscio: tried this before, didn’t work

<Ig_Bittencourt> +1 to hadleybeeman

… our focus is consumer

Caroline: need better explanation on feedback related to consumers and publishers, not sure there was an agreement

<phila> issue-71?

<trackbot> issue-71 -- We have use cases for feedback but is it in scope given the 3 aximoatic criteria resolved at tpac -- raised

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/71

laufer: should refer to consumers not users

… defining interface between publishers and users and how to communicate the data that is shared

<nathalia> +1 to laufer

<Caroline> what is the difference between consumers and users?

… the best practice is for communicating information about the data

jtandy_: this will not change the style of how we write the document

… so can defer

<Ig_Bittencourt> +1 to jtandy_

laufer: publishers are also users

<Caroline> understood. Thank you!

<BernadetteLoscio> ;)

jtandy_: BernadetteLoscio can you please summarize next steps for today so we can move this forward, today

BernadetteLoscio: 1. agreement from group that we can organize document around challenges from the use cases

<Caroline> +1 to BernadetteLoscio quesiton

… 2. need people to write material, need to assign action items

<Caroline> s/quesiton\/question/

<Caroline> each theme or subject

BernadetteLoscio notes that doc has people noted

<Caroline> BernadetteLoscio is talking about the Maping of Themes: https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Proposed_structure#Mapping_of_Themes.5B1.5D

… data formats section is new, so need people for this

BernadetteLoscio: some TBD notes indicate missing use cases

<Caroline> Would be great to have more people contributing where there are TBD

BernadetteLoscio: if add challenges, need to add in more than one place

phila: need to add an example of best practice

… may be we can do this during f2f

… we can pick one that is easy

… makes it easier for people to contribute

BernadetteLoscio: we need short descriptions for everyhing

<nathalia> a example will be good

<Caroline> +1 to have a short description of each theme for the contributor

fjh: I note that ReSpec has some support for this, see http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/NOTE-xmldsig-bestpractices-20130411/

<nathalia> it will be clear to contribute

<Zakim> fjh, you wanted to ask about #3 of what to do today

<Ig_Bittencourt> The scructure of the XML Signature Best Practices is very interesting and split the best practices according to the user.

jtandy_: need volunteers to write tests for each best practice
... request that all think during lunch about volunteering and also specifically about what they need to understand

<Caroline> +1 to jtandy_ request

ericstephan: need to link table to use case requirements

<hadleybeeman> BREAK FOR LUNCH: back in 1 hour

jtandy_: breaking for lunch, resuming 10 past 1pm PT

<nathalia> ok, thank you

rrrsagent, generate minutes

s/rrrs.*//

<Caroline> Hello! Should we call already?

<hadleybeeman> hi! We're gathering people in the room. Will be there soon

<hadleybeeman> ^ Caroline

<Caroline> thank you, hadleybeeman!

<nathalia> kkkkkkk

<nathalia> it's really you

<newton> scribe: newton

<phila_> scribe: Newton

<phila_> chair: yaso

<yaso_> https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Proposed_structure#Feedback.28.3F.29

yaso: we accepeted the proposed structure

<yaso_> https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Proposed_structure#Feedback.28.3F.29

phila_: it helps to clarify things about bps doc
... showing a propose page for describe each BP
... with the following structure: BP Title, What, How, Why, How to Test and Evidence

<ericstephan_> +1 phil a can we propose to use this template approach?

<Ig_Bittencourt> +1 to phila_

+1 for that

jtandy: the WCAG has a kind of guide to test BPs using timestamps
... (?)

<Caroline> we cannot here anything

<Caroline> back now!

jtandy: the WCAG have an example of how to test and actions for someone to validate that

<ericstephan_> caroline you can't hear anything?

<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.

<nathalia> I think it would be cool to each best practice to indicate which use case inspired

<Caroline> it was mute for a while, ericstephan_

<Caroline> now it is back, thank a!

<yaso> ACTION: ericstephan to investigate how WCAG can be an example for our BP document [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/10/31-dwbp-minutes.html#action05]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-115 - Investigate how wcag can be an example for our bp document [on Eric Stephan - due 2014-11-07].

ericstephan_: I liked this idea of template
... you can know what is the BP, how it's related to requirements

<ericstephan_> http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/NOTE-xmldsig-bestpractices-20130411/#denial-of-service

<hadleybeeman> @ericstephan is referring to the template phil has produced

<phila_> For Caroline, you can see the template we're talking about at http://philarcher.org/dwbp/bptemplate.html

<phila_> This is not a persistent URI

ericstephan_: the other thing the XML bp wg have examples

<Caroline> thank you, phila_

BernadetteLoscio: On XML document has a lot of examples that we could keep in mind

<fjh_> Here is the information on adding best practices using ReSpec http://www.w3.org/respec/guide.html#best-practice-documents

<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""

<nathalia> https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Technical_factors_for_consideration_when_choosing_data_sets_for_publication

<fjh> spec-prod is the W3C mailing list to discuss ReSpec features, etc

nathalia: is showing how to match BP and requirements

<fjh> om/w3c/respec

<Caroline> +1 to phila_ http://philarcher.org/dwbp/bptemplate.html

<fjh> https://github.com/w3c/respec

hadleybeeman: is there difference between an example and a use case?

BernadetteLoscio: yes, the example is to illustrate the specific case of BP, not whole scenario

jtandy_: if you're going to include URIs to show those examples...

hadleybeeman: what kind of examples are being suggest?

BernadetteLoscio: for each Req we're going to have a BP
... each Theme concerns for a lot of Requirements
... as example of Metadata, it concerns about a lot of requirements

laufer: I didn't the template so well
... why are we going to use this template

<Zakim> hadleybeeman, you wanted to ask a different question about how we make best practices

laufer: what is the reason to do a BP? It's to encourage a person to use that thing

hadleybeeman: I'm planning questions for you, editors...
... I like of the methodology of Proposed Structure has been done
... the question is: how to take the conversation with Tomas (COMURI doc) and align that with this propose

yaso: I was going to propose to put this document on github and open it
... I'm talking about COMURI
... proposing to put it on github and make available to community

phila_: there are some elements that I agree with

<hadleybeeman> scribe: BernadetteLoscio

ericstephan: everyone is in the same rules

yaso: should we make more clear about what to do about the doc of comuri

ericstephan: i dont know if there is an action
... i think it is impoortante to have a template
... that we can use to build the best practices

phila: the colors are not a proposal
... the sections for the template are
... an action that i cant take

is to create a template

phila: theres is a reason to publish the comuri is a differente doc
... is carrasco follows the best practices then the doc can be published
... however if tit is not we shouldnt publish

<laufer> +1 to phil

hadleybeeman: it is a working group decision

<yaso> ACTION: phila to develop into something that we can reuse and make more like a best practice [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/10/31-dwbp-minutes.html#action06]

<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].

hadleybeeman: there are two issues:one is the content and the second the separate doc and the format issue
... if his proposal fits on our proposal
... we as a working group can make this decision
... in the meeting we came with this decision
... i'm sorry he is not here, but i think it is not unfair

laufer: we can extend this to all of the docs that we are creating

<Caroline> +1 to laufer

fjh: so, im saying...i believe that in the best practices
... i just mention why to use the xml best practces security
... it is extremelly painful as an editor to keep changes of the changes in the doc

<yaso> +1 to fjh

fjh: the core reason is twofold: automatic generation is extremely valuable...

<jtandy_> (fjh is talking about editing his doc in respec http://www.w3.org/respec/)

<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

laufer: we need to discuss two things: the docs and the contents

<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

laufer: i disagree with the doc and the content (about COMURI)

<fjh> This can be automatically done in ReSpec, but let the ReSpec team know you are using the feature if you do!

laufer: 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

<yaso> PROPOSED: Each best practice will use this structure: http://philarcher.org/dwbp/bptemplate.html

hadleybeeman: we propose that all best practices will be in one doc, because it is easiers

<ericstephan> +1

and the second that each BP will use the structure that phil proposes

<yaso> +1

<hadleybeeman> +1

<jtandy_> +1 (observer)

<Ig_Bittencourt> +1

<phila> +1

<Caroline> the link http://philarcher.org/dwbp/bptemplate.html is not working

<laufer> +1

<newton> +1

<Caroline> +1

<BartvanLeeuwen> +0 link is not working

<ericstephan> well I agreed to the template at least ;-)

<nathalia> +1

jtandy_: there is a template that has to be followed

<Caroline> +1 to the link that was working before! :)

RESOLUTION: Each best practice will use this structure: http://philarcher.org/dwbp/bptemplate.html

<yaso> o/

<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

<Zakim> phila, you wanted to make a suggestion

phila: i want to say somtehing... one of the reasons for supporing the proposal that we have
... we dont have a justification for a separate doc
... the use cases dont show this evidence
... it doesnt show and evidence for a second document

laufer: we have agreed that we have a template... to use just only document

<deirdrelee> hi all

ericstephan: it will be confuse if we have a set of documents... things should be in one place

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
... the second is to make sure we dont just consider URI design for linked data... the purpose of publishing datasets

hadleybeeman: if should be an independent doc?

JeniT: i think there are BP to design URIs

<phila> My work on this

hadleybeeman: your concern is about the content

phila: i have experience on URI design...
... i wish to have more use cases to show evidences on what you said
... to take an action. to explore actions that clarify that need for URI design

<yaso> ACTION: phila to explore the use cases that might clarify the need for URI and URL design [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/10/31-dwbp-minutes.html#action07]

<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].

<phila> Is also very relevant (Jeni's work)

hadleybeeman: if all best practices are in one document...
... discussing how to organize the best practices

<ericstephan> +1 hadleybeeman

<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

<ericstephan> +1

<yaso> +1

<phila> +1

<AdrianoC> +1

hadleybeeman: we need to make decisions

<flavio_> +1

<laufer> +1

<Caroline> +1

<Ig_Bittencourt> +1

<JeniT> +1 (observer)

<nathalia> +1

<newton> +1

<hadleybeeman> +1

hadleybeeman: this is gonna make incorporating the ideas ofcarrasco's COMURI work easier

<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

phila: the URI with the template proposal is now on github

<phila> s/http:\/\/philarcher.org\/dwbp\/bptemplate.html\/http:\/\/w3c.github.io\/dwbp\/bptemplate.html/g

<phila> The template

<hadleybeeman> Phila: What was at http://philarcher.org/dwbp/bptemplate.html is now at http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bptemplate.html

phila: the template for BP is on github... the colors and numbers are temporary

yaso: let's make a break of 10 min

<Caroline> very nice, phila!

<deirdrelee> how's tricks?

<yaso> ls

<yaso> :-) wrong window, Newton

<yaso> trying to list participants on the irc using ls command

<yaso> chair: BernadetteLoscio

<yaso> scribe: yaso

yes! Our super meta chair \o/

<Ig_Bittencourt> +1 to JeniT

<jtandy> oh yes

BernadetteLoscio: I think everybody that is here is already in one of the items

… I’m not sure if we’re going to have enough people to write just one section

<hadleybeeman> We are looking at https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Proposed_structure#Feedback.28.3F.29

… the only new section with contributors is the data formats

EricKauz: data type usage, and I was looking more for onthology perspective

Phila: the mobile BP was writen before the Iphone
... and it still apply

… even when the format that you mentioned is obsolete the advice is still useful

BernadetteLoscio: what will be the content of that section. We were thinking that we’re gonna have this today at tpac

… and we raised a lot of issues. Those issues will have a lot of impact in each item of the proposed structure

… I don’t know if we can discuss the items after or before discussing the issues that we raised before.

<Caroline> +1 to pass through each theme

<Caroline> +1 to newton's propose

ig_bittencourt my question is related to the focus that we will give to the data vocabularies

… one of our perspectives was about the data vocabularies creation, another one about using data vocabs

… I would like to know what were going to do

BernadetteLoscio: maybe we can discuss the issues

… if we can discuss then

<Zakim> newton, you wanted to propose to take a look on raised issues and try to fit them on these themes

<nathalia> +1 to newton

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

<phila> LD-BP doc on vocabularies http://www.w3.org/TR/ld-bp/#VOCABULARIES

phila: this link is the BP of the government WG,
... 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

… however, it’s linked data way

<phila> URLs in Data Primer

… it’s the document that jenny wrote last year, about june

… who else wants to review that?

<phila> ACTION: Ig to review the URLs in Data Primer http://www.w3.org/TR/urls-in-data/ [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/10/31-dwbp-minutes.html#action08]

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

<Bernadetteloscio> hi Eric!

<phila> ACTION: Ig_Bittencourt to review the URLs in Data Primer http://www.w3.org/TR/urls-in-data/ [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/10/31-dwbp-minutes.html#action09]

<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].

<ericstephan> Hello @Bernadette! Will be joining by phone soon :-) BTW traffic is awful, plan accordingly all

<phila> ACTION: phila to review the URLs in Data Primer http://www.w3.org/TR/urls-in-data/ [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/10/31-dwbp-minutes.html#action10]

<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].

bernadetteloscio: do you think that we can use the LD document’s ideas to start our processes?

phila: absolutely

…yes

… to put in the rec, we got to get a review

BernadetteLoscio: making controled vocabularies acessible with URIs, it’s something that we previously arranged with mark

… so we should discuss with mark and antoine about the item

<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

<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>.

BernadetteLoscio: laufer, can you talk about the metadata section?

<Caroline> are we working on https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Proposed_structure#Mapping_of_Themes.5B1.5D?

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
... what kind of vocab we must suggest ?

… now in DCAT we don’t have how to link differente types of metadata

hi makx

<ericstephan> Hi Makx!

… in the way that we can use this information to extend the DCAT

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?

laufer: maybe we can say what are the main vocabularies being used

… but I think it’s a kind of metadata about metadata

… when we will give information about licence, it’s the same thing

… this is the vocabulary that’s being used?

laufer: i think that for the discovery we need information about licence, discovery, and we have to link this to DCAT

<phila> ADMS

phila: there’s another vocabulary, it is an extension to DCAT
... I’m saying that adms includes versioning

<ericstephan> Interesting...http://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-adms/#file-format

jtandy: what vocab should we use

… I think that we should take a look on the template

…. just look at that flipping template

<ericstephan> "Its the template stupid"

Thank you eric!

jtandy: we need to understand how 1,2 3 vocabularies or more are being used

… we need to be clear in our vocabulary on where are going to put this information is there

BernadetteLoscio: if we

<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

hadleyBeeman: I worrie about use cases, I worry that are some many different vocabs to use that we just create sugestions that are sensible and helpfull to each case

I’m more to the second option

<ericstephan> +1 Bernadetteloscio for showing examples

bernadetteLoscio: It’s hard to talk about without the examples

<ericstephan> examples of vocabularies could be very powerful, without sounding bossy

… maybe a good exercise is to have an example. What would be the metadata that we plain to describe.

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

hadleybeeman: it may envolve DCAT

<taisuke> http://fukuno.jig.jp/2014/csvwithmetadata.html

<taisuke> this is a draft sample of CSV with metadata

phila: at the time of writing DCAT can be the best choice, but you should’nt say DCAT is the best choice for ever

<ericstephan> +1 Yes I agree I think its good to put preferences like DCAT, schema.org etc

laufer: one of the things that we can make is to say how this metadata will be described

jtandy: we shouldnt assume that the only way that metadata is gonna be provided is with a file

<phila> jtandy: Assuming that metadata is always separate is not valid - many formats include metadata within the file itself

<ericstephan> assuming again that we support best practices for < 5 star solutions. Agreed jtandy

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

… so, in this other case, how the metadata should be referenced

<ericstephan> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NetCDF is one example of files embedded with metadata.

<MakxDekkers> is someone recording what eric just said? I think this is perfect text for the BP document!!!

MakxDekkers, I just stopped writing to pay properly attention :-/

MarkDekkers if you can resume that it would be helpful

BernadetteLoscio:

<MakxDekkers> I understand,b ut an audio recording would have been handy!

hadleybeeman: :-)

<ericstephan> JCAMP files also provide spectroscopy information in a text file formats but support use defined metadata.

<ericstephan> https://badc.nerc.ac.uk/help/formats/jcamp_dx/

<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

<jtandy> ... automated method to extract the original metadata into a portable form - like a DCAT record - for sharing with discovery catalogues)

<Bernadetteloscio> ISSUE: What advice do we give about publishing metadata so that we identify the intended outcome without making assumptions that maybe false?

<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>.

BernadetteLoscio: should we have an action for laufer to give an example about metadata description?

<Bernadetteloscio> ACTION: laufer to create an example about metadata description [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/10/31-dwbp-minutes.html#action11]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-120 - Create an example about metadata description [on Carlos Laufer - due 2014-11-07].

BernadetteLoscio: I think for the metadata we have something to work on

<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 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/10/31-dwbp-minutes.html#action12]

<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].

BernadetteLoscio: EricKauz, for data formats

… if you can consider the issues that we raised yesterday it would be nice, because we can start the discussions about data format

<ericstephan> make it so! @phila

phila ask people to write actions with sense!

BernadetteLoscio: for each section that we have there, it’s nice to have a short description

If this is to trivial you can write a best practice

<Ig_Bittencourt> teachair

Newton, can you replace me as scribe for 5 minutes? Need coffee

<newton> Ok Yaso!

<newton> Bernadetteloscio: how we gonna work on this

BernadetteLoscio: how we’re going to work on this. Should we create a wikipage for each section?

<phila> ACTION: eric kauz to wotk with Sumit to write at least a description of the best practice(s) around data formats [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/10/31-dwbp-minutes.html#action13]

<trackbot> 'eric' is an ambiguous username. Please try a different identifier, such as family name or username (e.g., ek1, estephan).

<newton> ... should we create an wiki page for each section

<phila> ACTION: kauz to wotk with Sumit to write at least a description of the best practice(s) around data formats [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/10/31-dwbp-minutes.html#action14]

<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].

newton, thanks :-) hadleybeeman went for some coffee for me.

berna

Caroline: I suggest that

<phila> Vagner is editing https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Proposed_structure

<nathalia> Caroline: what are you doing?

<phila> Adding numbering etc.

<nathalia> Caroline: what Vagner is doing on the wiki?

BernadetteLoscio: Vagner is organizing the table of contents, putting numbers in each item

Caroline: it would be nice if we could find the description in the 1st page

<ericstephan> phone is still cutting out ....

I can

I cant understand what are you saying Caroline, maybe you can write it

<Caroline> I think it is important to have the description of each theme

yes

<phila> +1 to Caroline

<ericstephan> no I think it is just the phone connection

<ericstephan> It was just bad when Caroline was speaking, better now

BernadetteLoscio: in the table of contents in each link we’re gonna have a link to each wiki page

<nathalia> Caroline: it is nice to have a little description in the sections

<hadleybeeman> yaso: We will have a table of contents that point to a document that point to another document?

<hadleybeeman> ... phil's document that link to the document Bernadette made that link to the contents?

<hadleybeeman> Bernadetteloscio: It's just a way to organise. Because people need to know where to write things.

<hadleybeeman> yaso: I think Caroline's suggestion is easier.

<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

<hadleybeeman> Bernadetteloscio: Yes, we can do this — but the table of contents is just the index of the whole thing.

<Caroline> the idea is that each contributor writes the description and, if nedeed, the group might discuss ir

<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

<Caroline> it

<hadleybeeman> Bernadetteloscio: The table of contents is just the structure, [shows the top of a wiki page]

<hadleybeeman> ... For each item, we can write a short description. Its not a problem.

Caroline: you’ll have to write it

<ericstephan> bad phone reception I think....

<Caroline> the idea is that each contributor writes the description and, if nedeed, the group might discuss it

BernadetteLoscio: we agree that we need this description

… so the contributers will work on this description

BernadetteLoscio: that’s it, Caroline?

Caroline: yes

<phila> ACTION: laufer to write a description for the beginning of the metadata section [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/10/31-dwbp-minutes.html#action15]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-123 - Write a description for the beginning of the metadata section [on Carlos Laufer - due 2014-11-07].

<phila> ACTION: Ig_Bittencourt to write description as intro to vocab section of BP doc [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/10/31-dwbp-minutes.html#action16]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-124 - Write description as intro to vocab section of bp doc [on Ig Ibert Bittencourt Santana Pinto - due 2014-11-07].

BernadetteLoscio: for sentitive data and data identification we don’t have anyone

MakxDekkers: thank you!

BernadetteLoscio: we are proposing to call this data versioning

… and we don’t have requirements for this

… there’s an issue to discuss data versioning

<ericstephan> data versioning can be soooo complex, they are still trying to figure it out again in the scientific world...

<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.

<ericstephan> example of the stuff you have to wade thru

<hadleybeeman> Shame that isn't on the Web, ericstephan

phila: I’m gonna write a use case about URIs

<newton> ACTION: to review doc about dataset version and look up for standards about dataset version [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/10/31-dwbp-minutes.html#action17]

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

<newton> ACTION: newton to review doc about dataset version and look up for standards about dataset version [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/10/31-dwbp-minutes.html#action18]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-125 - Review doc about dataset version and look up for standards about dataset version [on Newton Calegari - due 2014-11-07].

<ericstephan> some activity on versioning on force11 as well @newton

<ericstephan> @hadleybeeman I'll send you a copy, its behind a paywall.

BernadetteLoscio: about the COMURI doc, we decided that if we are going to write something, we’re going to write following the template
... just to decide what do we have to do about it

<ericstephan> bye bye everyone safe travels

hadleybeeman: what would you recommend?

<newton> ok @ericstephan, I'm going to look on it, thanks!

should I change the word “issues” for “actions” now? http://i.imgur.com/oQ18rek.jpg

BernadetteLoscio: if we’re going to use his ideas

… then he needs to know

BernadetteLoscio: for data persistence, there’s phil and Cristophe

<hadleybeeman> ACTION: Hadley to put the topic of combining the COMURI work with the Best Practices on the agenda for 14 Nov's call [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/10/31-dwbp-minutes.html#action19]

<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].

<phila> ACTION: phil to write description of data identification section [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/10/31-dwbp-minutes.html#action20]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-127 - Write description of data identification section [on Phil Archer - due 2014-11-07].

BernadetteLoscio: for data identification, the original was data persistence

<newton> Bernadetteloscio: there is one item here about feedback

<scribe> scribe: newton

Bernadetteloscio: this is one thing we should work on it
... Bart_van_Leeuwen, you would like to write something about that

<phila> issue-71?

<trackbot> issue-71 -- We have use cases for feedback but is it in scope given the 3 axiomatic criteria resolved at tpac -- raised

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/71

Bart_van_Leeuwen: I've no experience on that

Bernadetteloscio: I think with this we're going to have some content

<hadleybeeman> issue: we need to bring the COMURI work into the best practices format agreed at the TPAC F2F

<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>.

<yaso> acribe: yaso

Bernadetteloscio: ask Caroline_ for her opinion about the progress that we made

<scribe> scribe: yaso

BernadetteLoscio: at least we’re going to have the descriptions of the sections

Caroline: it’s a great progress

… I don’t know if you can get this until the next week, but for now

<Caroline> I think it is very important what we have done until

<Caroline> now

<Caroline> it would be nice to get more contributors where there still are TBD

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

<Caroline> +1 to Bernadetteloscio that for now everybody has work to do!

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

Thanks BernadetteLoscio! Great job!

<Caroline> +1 to yaso great job Bernadetteloscio

<phila> issue: What is the best order for the elements in the best practices template

<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>.

and for Caroline also :-D

BernadetteLoscio: about the vocabs. Should we have some extra-issues on this because we did not

…discussed the vocab

hadleybeeman: I proposed that we discuss it on the next vocab call

<phila> issue-50?

<trackbot> issue-50 -- Bernadette to help us find more use cases on the vocabulary itself (including creating a vocabulary) -- raised

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/50

<phila> scribe: phila

hadleybeeman: I wanted to say that I think we've made enormous progress in the last 2 days
... we've set out the issues
... we've established what documents this will go into
... we are now in a much better position to work together far apart than we were.

Next f2f

Bart_van_Leeuwen: I have enquired whether VU (Univerisyt on Amsterdam) would host us - no reply yet

<Caroline> I will put the link here

Carol's wiki page https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Choosing_the_venue_for_a_F2F_2015_hosted_by_NIC.br

<Caroline> https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Choosing_the_venue_for_a_F2F_2015_hosted_by_NIC.br

<Caroline> thank you, phila

ack Caroline:

<deirdrelee> weird

<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

<Caroline> it would be nice if at least most of the group could put there

<Caroline> their choices

<newton> It's good to know that on November is going to be during the IGF Forum http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/

It's really going to happen https://www.w3.org/2015/10/TPAC/

<Caroline> do we need to decide it now?

<Caroline> ok

<Caroline> hahahahahha

<Caroline> can we put a deadline to decide it?

There is a working group call next week, 7 Nov

Thanks everyone

<deirdrelee> :)

<hadleybeeman> Bye all!

<Bernadetteloscio> thank you!!!!

<Caroline> thank you!!

<Caroline> bye bye

<deirdrelee> bye, enjoy the rest of your time in CA, Diverti-se

<newton> bye, Carol

<deirdrelee> speak to you next week

<yaso> Bye all! Thanks!!

<nathalia> bye!!

<newton> auf wiedersehen

- DRAFT -

Data on the Web Best Practices Working Group Teleconference

31 Oct 2014

Attendees

Contents

Scoping Questions

Best Practices Table of Contents

Next f2f

Summary of Action Items

Scribe.perl diagnostic output