11:52:10 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #dwbp
11:52:10 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/04/14-dwbp-irc
11:52:12 <hadleybeeman> Morning, all
11:52:14 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #dwbp
11:52:15 <deirdrelee> deirdrelee has joined #dwbp
11:52:19 <phila> Hi Hadley
11:52:25 <phila> Just getting ste up here
11:52:31 <hadleybeeman> How was yesterday? Looks like you covered a lot!
11:52:46 <phila> Yeah, Dee drove us through a lot of issues :-)
11:52:56 <hadleybeeman> deirdrelee, you're amazing :)
11:52:56 <phila> zakim, this will be dwbp
11:52:56 <Zakim> ok, phila; I see DATA_DWBP()8:00AM scheduled to start in 8 minutes
11:53:15 <phila> RRSAgent, make logs public
11:54:57 <phila> zakim, code?
11:54:57 <Zakim> the conference code is 3927 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), phila
11:55:07 <Zakim> DATA_DWBP()8:00AM has now started
11:55:14 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
11:55:26 <Zakim> +HadleyBeeman
11:55:51 <hadleybeeman> zakim, [I is Ipswich
11:55:51 <Zakim> +Ipswich; got it
11:56:11 <hadleybeeman> zakim, ipswich has phila, deirdrelee, riccardoalbertoni
11:56:11 <Zakim> +phila, deirdrelee, riccardoalbertoni; got it
11:57:00 <phila> Meeting: DWBP Face to Face Day 2
11:57:05 <phila> Chair: Deirdre
11:57:11 <phila> Regrets: Steve
12:01:57 <deirdrelee> Hangout: https://plus.google.com/hangouts/_/g4vna23i4mz4l6doovo34sysm4a
12:02:53 <deirdrelee> Updated Agenda: https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/April_2015_F2F
12:05:01 <makx> makx has joined #dwbp
12:06:20 <makx> makx has left #dwbp
12:06:33 <makx> makx has joined #dwbp
12:13:52 <newton> newton has joined #dwbp
12:14:09 <flavio> flavio has joined #dwbp
12:14:17 <GiselePappa> GiselePappa has joined #dwbp
12:15:46 <ericstephan> ericstephan has joined #dwbp
12:15:52 <ericstephan> Hello everyone
12:15:59 <hadleybeeman> Hello, Austin!
12:16:09 <ericstephan> Just getting set up.
12:16:14 <deirdrelee> Hi Eric & all!
12:16:22 <deirdrelee> Hangout: https://plus.google.com/hangouts/_/g4vna23i4mz4l6doovo34sysm4a
12:16:25 <yaso> yaso has joined #dwbp
12:16:29 <phila> http://dublincore.org/documents/2012/06/14/dcmi-terms/?v=terms#Standard
12:17:49 <deirdrelee> zakim, who is here?
12:17:49 <Zakim> On the phone I see Ipswich, HadleyBeeman
12:17:51 <Zakim> Ipswich has phila, deirdrelee, riccardoalbertoni
12:17:51 <Zakim> On IRC I see yaso, ericstephan, GiselePappa, flavio, newton, makx, deirdrelee, Zakim, RRSAgent, phila, riccardoAlbertoni, rhiaro, hadleybeeman, trackbot
12:19:03 <yaso> Thanks for this link, Phil
12:19:12 <hadleybeeman> ericstephan, I think we have a bit of feedback.  Would you mind muting your computer?
12:20:50 <laufer> laufer has joined #dwbp
12:21:14 <Caroline> Caroline has joined #DWBP
12:21:18 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
12:22:03 <deirdrelee> updated agenda: https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/April_2015_F2F
12:23:02 <laufer> https://plus.google.com/hangouts/_/gu2q3xlnxb4p6sjowowzowteema?v=1428094656
12:23:04 <BernadetteLoscio> BernadetteLoscio has joined #dwbp
12:23:18 <laufer> I said that I would scribe tomorrow
12:23:31 <laufer> today is not tomorrow
12:23:39 <Caroline> I can scribe later! :)
12:23:48 <Caroline> I must wake up before scribing!
12:23:49 <laufer> I am scribing
12:24:23 <Sumit_Purohit> Sumit_Purohit has joined #DWBP
12:24:47 <laufer> deirdrelee: talking about the agenda of the day
12:24:57 <phila> -> https://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/68239/WD-dwbp-20150224/3006 DanBri Comment
12:25:11 <phila> http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/dwbp/2015-04-13#resolution_15
12:25:27 <laufer> phila: talking about the comments we talked yesterday
12:25:31 <laufer> ph
12:25:53 <Sumit_Purohit> Hi deirdrelee
12:25:57 <ericstephan> sounds good
12:26:00 <laufer> phila: the comments about dan is defined as not resolved
12:26:08 <phila> action: PhilA to write to DanBri in response to comment 3006
12:26:09 <trackbot> Created ACTION-155 - Write to danbri in response to comment 3006 [on Phil Archer - due 2015-04-21].
12:26:40 <hadleybeeman> +1 to this. I worry about over-enshrining the mental model of "dataset" in what we're doing.
12:26:47 <laufer> deirdrelee: 15 max for each issue
12:26:51 <yaso> +1
12:26:54 <hadleybeeman> issue-52?
12:26:54 <trackbot> issue-52 -- We keep having confusion around our terms. (glossary?) -- open
12:26:54 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/52
12:26:54 <yaso> to close the issue
12:26:56 <phila> issue-52?
12:26:56 <trackbot> issue-52 -- We keep having confusion around our terms. (glossary?) -- open
12:26:56 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/52
12:27:18 <phila> PROPOSED: Close Issue-52 as there is going to be a glossary
12:27:20 <ericstephan> +1
12:27:22 <hadleybeeman> +1
12:27:24 <deirdrelee> +1
12:27:33 <laufer> could you reapeat the proposal, deirdre
12:27:38 <phila> +1
12:27:44 <laufer> thank you phil
12:27:52 <riccardoAlbertoni> +1
12:27:53 <laufer> +1
12:28:01 <phila> RESOLVED: Close Issue-52 as there is going to be a glossary
12:28:02 <Caroline> +1
12:28:02 <phila> close issue-52
12:28:02 <trackbot> Closed issue-52.
12:28:09 <phila> issue-134?
12:28:09 <trackbot> issue-134 -- About Formats, schemas, vocabularies and data models -- open
12:28:09 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/134
12:28:18 <laufer> deirdrelee: issue 134
12:28:48 <phila> PROPOSED: Close issue-134 as the existence of the glossary answers this point
12:28:53 <deirdrelee> +1
12:28:54 <ericstephan> +1
12:28:56 <phila> +1
12:28:56 <riccardoAlbertoni> +1
12:29:03 <hadleybeeman> +1
12:29:03 <Caroline> +1
12:29:04 <laufer> BernadetteLoscio: this definitions are in the glossary, according to joao carlos ideas
12:29:11 <laufer> +1
12:29:16 <phila> RESOLVED: Close issue-134 as the existence of the glossary answers this point
12:29:20 <GiselePappa> +1
12:29:20 <phila> close issue-134
12:29:20 <trackbot> Closed issue-134.
12:29:33 <newton> newton has left #dwbp
12:29:36 <laufer> deirdrelee: i am happy...
12:29:54 <hadleybeeman> issue-123?
12:29:54 <trackbot> issue-123 -- Use of SHOULD versus MUST for Sensitive Data -- open
12:29:54 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/123
12:29:59 <NewtonCalegari> NewtonCalegari has joined #dwbp
12:30:15 <laufer> who is talking
12:30:27 <yaso> Hadley, Lau
12:30:34 <laufer> hi hadley
12:30:46 <hadleybeeman> hi laufer :)
12:31:31 <laufer> ericstephan: in a sense, I do not see problems in changing the info in teh use cases problems
12:31:39 <deirdrelee> q+
12:31:39 <deirdrelee> q?
12:31:52 <phila> ack deirdrelee
12:31:55 <ericstephan> q+
12:32:01 <ericstephan> q-
12:32:09 <phila> deirdrelee: I'm happy to take that suggestion, changing SHOULD to MUST
12:32:20 <BernadetteLoscio_> BernadetteLoscio_ has joined #dwbp
12:32:32 <BernadetteLoscio_> q+
12:32:49 <deirdrelee> ack BernadetteLoscio_
12:32:52 <phila> PROPOSED: Requirement concerning Sensitive Data, in the UCR, should use RFC 2119 MUST, not MUST
12:33:01 <laufer> BernadetteLoscio_: I think does not to be now
12:33:04 <hadleybeeman> zakim, bernadetteloscio_ is BernadetteLoscio
12:33:04 <Zakim> sorry, hadleybeeman, I do not recognize a party named 'bernadetteloscio_'
12:33:16 <phila> s/MUST, not MUST/ MUST, not SHOULD/
12:33:16 <ericstephan> draft PROPOSED:  lining up the verbage for the Use Case requirements  on sensitive data to the verbage in the BP document.
12:33:17 <hadleybeeman> zakim, bernadetteloscio is BernadetteLoscio_
12:33:17 <Zakim> sorry, hadleybeeman, I do not recognize a party named 'bernadetteloscio'
12:33:20 <laufer> ... we need to read all the document to decide is it is should or must
12:33:31 <laufer> ... we shoul review all the BPs
12:33:57 <annette_g> annette_g has joined #dwbp
12:34:00 <riccardoAlbertoni> s/shoul/should
12:34:01 <ericstephan> sorry phila didn't see yours
12:34:26 <phila> We are talking only about http://www.w3.org/TR/dwbp-ucr/#R-SensitivePrivacy
12:34:29 <laufer> had we to vote eric´s proposal?
12:34:31 <ericstephan> q+
12:34:34 <laufer> have
12:34:42 <deirdrelee> ack ericstephan
12:34:55 <laufer> ericstephan: phil could you clarify your proposal
12:35:13 <ericstephan> PROPOSED: Requirement concerning Sensitive Data, in the UCR, should use RFC 2119 MUST, not should
12:35:16 <phila> PROPOSED: That Requirement on Sensitive Data should use the world 'must' not should. See http://www.w3.org/TR/dwbp-ucr/#R-SensitivePrivacy
12:35:25 <deirdrelee> +1
12:35:27 <ericstephan> +1
12:35:34 <riccardoAlbertoni> +1
12:35:35 <hadleybeeman> +1
12:35:37 <annette_g> 0
12:35:38 <GiselePappa> +1
12:35:40 <BernadetteLoscio_> +1
12:35:42 <phila> issue-123?
12:35:42 <trackbot> issue-123 -- Use of SHOULD versus MUST for Sensitive Data -- open
12:35:42 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/123
12:35:42 <Caroline> +1
12:35:42 <laufer> +1
12:35:43 <flavio> +1
12:35:52 <yaso> +1
12:36:06 <phila> RESOLVED: That Requirement on Sensitive Data should use the world 'must' not should. See http://www.w3.org/TR/dwbp-ucr/#R-SensitivePrivacy
12:36:10 <phila> close issue-123
12:36:10 <trackbot> Closed issue-123.
12:36:28 <phila> action: deirdre to change should to must in http://www.w3.org/TR/dwbp-ucr/#R-SensitivePrivacy
12:36:28 <trackbot> Created ACTION-156 - Change should to must in http://www.w3.org/tr/dwbp-ucr/#r-sensitiveprivacy [on Deirdre Lee - due 2015-04-21].
12:36:29 <laufer> deirdrelee: there are 2 issues about data identifiers
12:36:34 <phila> issue-77?
12:36:34 <trackbot> issue-77 -- We need to bring the COMURI work into the Best Practices format agreed at the TPAC F2F -- open
12:36:34 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/77
12:36:37 <phila> issue-118
12:36:37 <trackbot> issue-118 -- New Requirement suggestion R-VersionURIDesign -- open
12:36:37 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/118
12:36:38 <laufer> ... maybe we could see both together
12:37:22 <deirdrelee> q?
12:37:46 <laufer> isse 118 New Requirement suggestion R-VersionURIDesign
12:38:00 <BernadetteLoscio_> +q
12:38:20 <annette_g> q+
12:38:23 <deirdrelee> ack BernadetteLoscio_
12:38:33 <phila> q+ to talk about http://www.w3.org/TR/dwbp/#ProvideUniqueIdentifiers
12:38:36 <laufer> BernadetteLoscio_: we try to discusse this with tomas
12:38:50 <laufer> ... now we have this things in separate documents
12:39:03 <laufer> I do not remember exactly what happened
12:39:11 <deirdrelee> q+
12:39:17 <laufer> ... tomas worked in the separated document
12:39:35 <laufer> ... but this info was not tranfered for the bp document
12:39:40 <deirdrelee> http://bernafarias.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#ProvideUniqueIdentifiers
12:40:05 <laufer> deirdrelee: incorporate the info of the separate document to the bp document
12:40:10 <deirdrelee> ack annette_g
12:40:25 <laufer> annette_g: annette (thinking)
12:40:45 <Zakim> +??P12
12:40:55 <makx> ZAKIM, ??P12 IS ME
12:40:55 <Zakim> +makx; got it
12:41:34 <laufer> annette_g: explaining a relation between apis and URIs
12:41:54 <BernadetteLoscio_> q+
12:42:30 <hadleybeeman> This is a big enough topic that I wouldn't be surprised to see it referenced in various sections.
12:42:43 <laufer> annette_g: understanding the issue
12:42:59 <phila> ack me
12:42:59 <Zakim> phila, you wanted to talk about http://www.w3.org/TR/dwbp/#ProvideUniqueIdentifiers
12:43:18 <laufer> phila: there is a couple of things
12:43:30 <phila> http://www.w3.org/TR/dwbp-ucr/#R-PersistentIdentification
12:43:37 <laufer> ... in the use case documents we have not the requiremets that we have in the issue
12:43:48 <phila> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/118
12:43:52 <phila> New Requirement suggestion R-VersionURIDesign from BBC ontology versioning and Metadata
12:43:52 <phila>  R-VersionURIDesign: “Data should have a canonical way to design URIs for different snapshot of the dataset.”
12:44:06 <laufer> ... what he is saying is that we need a new requirement of version uri design
12:44:08 <phila> http://www.w3.org/2014/10/31-dwbp-minutes#onedoc
12:44:16 <laufer> ... at the moment we have the tomas document
12:44:21 <phila> http://www.w3.org/TR/dwbp/#ProvideUniqueIdentifiers
12:44:29 <laufer> ... we decided in tpac not to publish the document
12:45:06 <deirdrelee> q?
12:45:08 <laufer> phila: what we can do is to close the issue...
12:45:45 <deirdrelee> ack deirdrelee
12:46:15 <laufer> BernadetteLoscio_: i just want to say that we could close the issue but we need to discuss the bp for identification
12:46:29 <cgueret> cgueret has joined #dwbp
12:46:29 <laufer> ... maybe later
12:46:32 <hadleybeeman> +1 to BernadetteLoscio_ — this sounds like we have a new issue here.
12:46:57 <laufer> PROPOSED: closse the issue 77
12:47:01 <ericstephan> +1
12:47:04 <hadleybeeman> +1
12:47:05 <annette_g> +1
12:47:07 <yaso> +1
12:47:14 <Caroline> +1
12:47:14 <GiselePappa> +1
12:47:16 <deirdrelee> +1
12:47:19 <BernadetteLoscio_> +1
12:47:25 <phila> +1 as it is being incorporated in the BP doc (work still to do)
12:47:27 <laufer> +1
12:47:32 <riccardoAlbertoni> +1
12:47:35 <NewtonCalegari> +1
12:47:38 <Sumit_Purohit> +1
12:47:39 <makx> +1
12:47:40 <laufer> RESOLVED: close the issue 77
12:47:55 <phila> close issue-77
12:47:55 <trackbot> Closed issue-77.
12:48:04 <deirdrelee> q?
12:48:20 <BernadetteLoscio_> q-
12:48:23 <laufer> deirdrelee: shouk we create an action tho incorporate the things to the bp document?
12:48:43 <phila> deirdrelee: We can close 118, URI design overall should be included in the BP doc but may not need pulling out in the UCR doc
12:48:54 <ericstephan> +1 deirdrelee
12:48:56 <phila> q?
12:49:00 <laufer> s/shouk/should/
12:49:01 <makx> +1
12:49:15 <phila> PROPOSED: Close Issue-118, because it will be included in the BP doc
12:49:18 <deirdrelee> +1
12:49:19 <ericstephan> +1
12:49:20 <hadleybeeman> +1
12:49:22 <annette_g> +1
12:49:23 <laufer> +1
12:49:25 <phila> +1
12:49:25 <GiselePappa> +1
12:49:26 <riccardoAlbertoni> +1
12:49:45 <BernadetteLoscio_> q+
12:49:59 <hadleybeeman> q+
12:50:16 <phila> ack BernadetteLoscio_
12:50:30 <laufer> BernadetteLoscio_: the uri design will be a requirement?
12:50:32 <phila> RESOLVED: Close Issue-118, because it will be included in the BP doc
12:50:40 <phila> close issue-118
12:50:40 <trackbot> Closed issue-118.
12:50:53 <phila> ack hadleybeeman
12:52:01 <laufer> hadleybeeman: there are the actions tyo do these things
12:52:03 <phila> I will
12:52:42 <hadleybeeman> I was suggesting we have an action to review it, and a new issue to explain why we were reviewing it.
12:53:00 <phila> action: phila to work with hadleybeeman to revise the BP on http://www.w3.org/TR/dwbp/#ProvideUniqueIdentifiers and make new suggestions
12:53:00 <trackbot> Created ACTION-157 - Work with hadleybeeman to revise the bp on http://www.w3.org/tr/dwbp/#provideuniqueidentifiers and make new suggestions [on Phil Archer - due 2015-04-21].
12:53:17 <BernadetteLoscio_> q+
12:54:02 <BernadetteLoscio_> q-
12:54:09 <laufer> deirdrelee: issue 144
12:54:24 <phila> Topic: Tech Bias in our docs
12:54:24 <hadleybeeman> issue-144?
12:54:24 <trackbot> issue-144 -- There is a technological bias in several parts of the document -- open
12:54:24 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/144
12:54:38 <Zakim> +[IPcaller.a]
12:54:44 <laufer> There is a technological bias in several parts of the document
12:54:48 <cgueret> zakim, [IPcaller.a] is me
12:54:48 <Zakim> +cgueret; got it
12:54:55 <laufer> q+
12:55:18 <laufer> deirdrelee: there is a lot of discussion about this issue
12:55:29 <phila> deirdrelee: We could acknowledge that there is a tech bias - and be happy with it - or try and remove itr
12:55:32 <yaso> Welcome, cgueret!
12:55:40 <yaso> q?
12:55:40 <deirdrelee> ack laufer
12:55:47 <yaso> q+
12:56:02 <BernadetteLoscio_> q+
12:56:18 <annette_g> laufer: we acknowledge that we have this kind of thing. But it's a thing that we'll have to think about for all the docs. It will be an open issue in our minds, but we can close it.
12:56:27 <ericstephan> +1 laufer
12:56:31 <phila> laufer: This issue will be open until the heat death of the universe
12:56:38 <ericstephan> nice :-)
12:56:50 <yaso> lol
12:56:50 <phila> (scribe paraphrase)
12:56:58 <hadleybeeman> can we use "until the heat death of the universe" in the document? :)
12:56:59 <Zakim> -makx
12:57:01 <ericstephan> couldn't it be for the lifetime of our star?
12:57:01 <phila> ack yaso
12:57:45 <deirdrelee> ack yaso
12:57:51 <deirdrelee> q+
12:58:02 <laufer> BernadetteLoscio_: is not easy to close this isse
12:58:12 <phila> ack BernadetteLoscio_
12:58:13 <laufer> ... in carlos comments about the document
12:58:25 <laufer> ... he does not like to use uri as identifiers
12:58:35 <hadleybeeman> q+
12:58:39 <yaso> I think that this will be partially solved when we have more clearance on terms definitions by scenarios, situations, things like that
12:58:40 <laufer> ... he prefer to use only identifiers...
12:58:45 <Sumit_Purohit> +q
12:58:47 <annette_g> q+
12:58:50 <riccardoAlbertoni> q+
12:58:50 <laufer> ... what we would do...
12:58:54 <laufer> q+
12:59:12 <phila> ack deirdrelee
12:59:25 <laufer> deirdrelee: we decided to be out of scope to talk about the formats
12:59:45 <phila> deirdrelee: yesterday we decided it was in scope to recommend standards, without exclusing other methods, and we decided that formats were out of scope
12:59:58 <flavio> flavio has joined #dwbp
13:00:10 <phila> deirdrelee: So I think we effectively closed this issue yesterday - we're open to other methods, but we can recommend
13:00:38 <phila> deirdrelee: When Hadley and Phil revise the identifier section, they'll have to abide by the scope - formats out, standards in
13:00:49 <phila> ... so I don't think we shoud spend time talkinbg about it now
13:00:53 <phila> ack hadleybeeman
13:00:57 <phila> +1
13:01:03 <deirdrelee> ack Sumit_Purohit
13:01:24 <laufer> Sumit_Purohit: we can recommend dcat
13:01:46 <laufer> ... but we should mantain the right the people to use other things
13:01:58 <phila> q+
13:02:07 <phila> q+ to talk about HTTP and URIs
13:02:31 <phila> +1 to Annette - using alternative IDs is not precluded by the use of URIs
13:02:43 <laufer> annette_g: having uris as identifiers does not mean that you have to use a specific tec
13:02:54 <ericstephan> +1 annette_g  I use examples all the time for thinking about repurposing in other techologies
13:02:57 <hadleybeeman> +1 to Annette that "being on the web" is important here.
13:03:00 <phila> annette_g: It makes not sense to say things need a URI because if they don't, they're not on the Web
13:03:17 <phila> zakim, close queue
13:03:17 <Zakim> ok, phila, the speaker queue is closed
13:03:24 <phila> ack riccardoAlbertoni
13:03:34 <deirdrelee> ack annette_g
13:03:42 <phila> riccardoAlbertoni: Concerning the bias, whenever anyone raises this issue, we ask them to give an example using anotehr tech
13:03:57 <GiselePappa> GiselePappa has left #dwbp
13:03:57 <phila> ... if this is too LD oriented, then, OK, give an example of anotehr way
13:04:03 <cgueret> URN are not on the Web, are they ? and still they are URI too ;-)
13:04:11 <phila> Phila +1 to riccardoAlbertoni
13:04:19 <phila> ack laufer
13:04:22 <GiselePappa> GiselePappa has joined #dwbp
13:04:47 <annette_g> +1 to laufer
13:05:29 <phila> laufer: Is it bias or is it design? (I think is what he's saying)
13:05:31 <deirdrelee> issue-144?
13:05:31 <trackbot> issue-144 -- There is a technological bias in several parts of the document -- open
13:05:31 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/144
13:05:33 <ericstephan> +1 to laufer, however death of the star, I have hope for more standards based civilizations
13:05:48 <annette_g> Laufer: the issue of bias can't be addressed all as one issue. We need to have specific issues to address.
13:05:49 <phila> ack me
13:05:49 <Zakim> phila, you wanted to talk about HTTP and URIs
13:06:23 <cgueret> ^_^
13:06:33 <cgueret> +1 to Phil for https !
13:06:47 <NewtonCalegari> http://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/URI.html
13:06:53 <yaso> +1 to https!!
13:07:23 <hadleybeeman> phila: W3C is recommending https, rather than http.  When Hadley and I look at this, we will take that into account for data too.
13:07:40 <ericstephan> hypertext transfer protocol stephan (https)
13:07:44 <hadleybeeman> ...For those of you concerned with SEO, https:// by default increases your pageRank.
13:07:59 <phila> issue: Whether we should recommend HTTPS by default, rather than HTTP
13:07:59 <trackbot> Created ISSUE-161 - Whether we should recommend https by default, rather than http.  Please complete additional details at <http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/161/edit>.
13:08:14 <ericstephan> sounds great
13:08:21 <cgueret> yup, I'm all for it
13:08:22 <phila> That is the issue cgueret - and consensus is hard to come by
13:08:22 <annette_g> * cgueret, my thought, too, but what happens when you get it wrong in your browser?
13:08:23 <hadleybeeman> rrsagent, pointer?
13:08:23 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2015/04/14-dwbp-irc#T13-08-23
13:08:51 <deirdrelee> PROPOSED: Close issue-144, scope will keep technological bias in mind
13:08:56 <ericstephan> +1
13:09:03 <phila> +1
13:09:03 <deirdrelee> +1
13:09:12 <cgueret> +1
13:09:17 <riccardoAlbertoni> +1
13:09:18 <phila> (the sun just went in...)
13:09:24 <ericstephan> laufer smiling
13:09:31 <phila> RESOLVED: Close issue-144, scope will keep technological bias in min
13:09:35 <ericstephan> su-mit su-mit
13:09:39 <Sumit_Purohit> scribe:sumit
13:09:49 <annette_g> +1
13:10:03 <BernadetteLoscio_> -1
13:10:24 <ericstephan> no kicking needed, sumit has spunk :-)
13:10:35 <laufer> q+
13:11:10 <laufer> the queue is closed for me...  it is not fair
13:11:14 <Sumit_Purohit> BernadetteLoscio_ : yaso made some changes in the document based on carlos idea, but it is not resolved as yet......
13:11:26 <Sumit_Purohit> .....so the issue is still open
13:11:27 <yaso> q+
13:12:35 <deirdrelee> zakim, queue is open
13:12:35 <Zakim> sorry, deirdrelee, I do not recognize a party named 'queue'
13:12:45 <Sumit_Purohit> deirdrelee: we as a group will decide to accept or reject recommendations we get from hadley and Phil
13:12:53 <ericstephan> q+
13:13:15 <Sumit_Purohit> laufer: if its a thing i have to access over the web, its an URI
13:13:33 <hadleybeeman> zakim, open the queue
13:13:33 <Zakim> ok, hadleybeeman, the speaker queue is open
13:13:37 <Sumit_Purohit> ...if you use it in your own context, you can have anything you want.
13:13:46 <Sumit_Purohit> but if it is over web, its a URI
13:13:49 <ericstephan> that's fine
13:13:52 <yaso> ok!
13:14:28 <hadleybeeman> +1 to deirdrelee on creating a new issue
13:14:55 <ericstephan> BernadetteLoscio_- trying to speak
13:14:56 <yaso> Deirdre, I think that BernadetteLoscio_ has some comments on that
13:14:57 <Sumit_Purohit> Austin.....want to talk....
13:14:59 <annette_g> can you hear us?
13:15:47 <ericstephan> scribe: ericstephan
13:16:03 <phila> issue: Should the BP document refer to URIs or Identifiers
13:16:03 <trackbot> Created ISSUE-163 - Should the bp document refer to uris or identifiers.  Please complete additional details at <http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/163/edit>.
13:16:16 <hadleybeeman> rrsagent, pointer?
13:16:16 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2015/04/14-dwbp-irc#T13-16-16
13:16:22 <ericstephan> deirdrelee: following agenda now BernadetteLoscio_ and will cover this at the end of the meeting if we have time.  Is that fair?
13:16:26 <ericstephan> BernadetteLoscio_: ok
13:16:49 <phila> Topic: Archiving and Preservation
13:16:58 <cgueret> yeah! :-)
13:16:59 <phila> Step forward Dr Gueret...
13:17:10 <deirdrelee> issue-62?
13:17:10 <trackbot> issue-62 -- What info is given when dereferencing a persistent identifier after the resource has been removed/archived -- open
13:17:10 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/62
13:17:14 <deirdrelee> issue-63?
13:17:14 <trackbot> issue-63 -- If a resource is archived, is the correct response 410, 303 or something else? -- open
13:17:14 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/63
13:17:17 <deirdrelee> issue-143?
13:17:17 <trackbot> issue-143 -- Is Data Preservation in the scope of the DWBP document? -- open
13:17:17 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/143
13:17:21 <ericstephan> beyond data-dome
13:17:27 <cgueret> give me a sec, I need to move to a place where I can speak....
13:17:55 <phila> I think 62 and 63 are the same
13:18:04 <ericstephan> deirdrelee: I propose that preservation and archiving are in scope
13:18:20 <cgueret> +1
13:19:05 <laufer> q+
13:19:07 <ericstephan> deirdrelee: looking at issue-143 first for a more fundamental question
13:19:08 <phila> phila: Let's look at 143 first which will decide whether the other are relevant
13:19:15 <Zakim> -cgueret
13:19:17 <deirdrelee> ack laufer
13:19:41 <ericstephan> laufer: looking at description of issue, persistence, versioning and data preservation.
13:19:55 <ericstephan> laufer: archiving is a must
13:20:16 <ericstephan> laufer: I don't know what we will write in this BP we must have preservation.
13:20:19 <phila> Draft proposal - that data archiving (taking data offline) is out of scope, but what is left on the Web after archiving has taken place *is* in scope
13:20:21 <deirdrelee> bp doc: http://bernafarias.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#dataPreservation
13:20:24 <ericstephan> laufer: versioning may be optional
13:20:28 <phila> q+ to make my proposal
13:20:34 <ericstephan> laufer: shouldn't be handled the same way
13:20:37 <cgueret_> cgueret_ has joined #dwbp
13:20:49 <Zakim> +[IPcaller.a]
13:21:02 <cgueret_> zakim, [IPcaller.a] is me
13:21:02 <Zakim> +cgueret_; got it
13:21:24 <ericstephan> deirdrelee: just to clear data preservation and archiving are in scope laufer?
13:21:39 <ericstephan> laufer: data preservation and archiving are the same thing to me
13:21:58 <phila> ack me
13:21:59 <Zakim> phila, you wanted to make my proposal
13:22:24 <deirdrelee> q+
13:22:28 <cgueret_> q+ to say I agree with Phil
13:22:29 <annette_g> +1 to phil
13:22:46 <ericstephan> phila: I think there are boundaries when you go out of scope, if you get to the point where you go offline, what is the stuff you leave behind?
13:22:47 <laufer> s/are the same/are not the same/
13:23:03 <Sumit_Purohit> Sumit_Purohit has joined #DWBP
13:23:06 <riccardoAlbertoni> +1 to deirdrelee
13:23:06 <annette_g> q+
13:23:15 <Sumit_Purohit> +1 deirdrelee
13:23:21 <Sumit_Purohit> scribe : sumit
13:23:22 <deirdrelee> ack me
13:23:24 <ericstephan> deirdrelee: once it goes offline it goes out of scope.
13:23:25 <hadleybeeman> +1 to deirdrelee
13:23:27 <phila> ack cgueret
13:23:27 <Zakim> cgueret_, you wanted to say I agree with Phil
13:23:35 <laufer> s/are not the same/are the same/
13:23:53 <ericstephan> having problems hearing
13:24:11 <cgueret_> oh :/
13:24:23 <cgueret_> and there is the accent too :-p
13:24:29 <Sumit_Purohit> austin can not hear as well
13:24:57 <deirdrelee> q?
13:25:00 <cgueret_> fully agree with Phil and deirdree but we should not say everything must be preserved
13:25:10 <phila> PROPOSED: That we recognise that archiving is part of the lifecycle of data management. How data is managed in an offline repository is out of scope, however, what is left on the Web after archiving has taken place *is* in scope.
13:25:13 <cgueret_> the decision on sending something to an archive is up to the publisher
13:25:22 <Sumit_Purohit> +q
13:25:27 <cgueret_> we should give indications on what to do with the remaining URIs
13:25:38 <cgueret_> which still exist even if the data is taken offline
13:25:43 <phila> ack annette_g
13:26:21 <Sumit_Purohit> annette_g: we need to stick with context on the data on the web ,such as persistent is in scope, but not archiving
13:26:27 <laufer> q+
13:26:28 <ericstephan> +1 annette_g
13:26:33 <phila> +1 annette_g
13:26:37 <cgueret_> +1
13:26:37 <phila> ack Sumit_Purohit
13:26:59 <ericstephan> Sumit_Purohit: I was agreeing with what laufer said that archiving and preservation go hand in hand
13:27:10 <cgueret_> it would be also good for us to make it clear that archiving the Web of Data is not quite the same as archiving the Web of Documents
13:27:51 <deirdrelee> q+
13:27:53 <Sumit_Purohit> laufer: its a Question, when we have deliverables, we have draft, we do access all the older version.
13:27:55 <deirdrelee> ack laufer
13:28:24 <annette_g> q+
13:28:24 <hadleybeeman> It sounds like we're down to definitions again.  What is "archiving"? We should write that.
13:28:28 <Sumit_Purohit> ....but if we have all the documents available then it is a best practice....you should have access to all the deliverables
13:28:29 <cgueret_> -1 to laufer. Archiving is not a matter of giving access to all data
13:28:51 <cgueret_> s/giving access/giving online access/
13:29:16 <phila> deirdrelee: Should there be a reference to versioning if we have a spedcific BP about archiving...
13:29:29 <cgueret_> versioning is related to preservation but that's not a strict coupling. You can have one without the other
13:29:30 <phila> ... and to recommend that there should be a specific BP on the topic
13:30:07 <laufer> cgueret_: I am not saying that you must give the access...  but you may... and I think that for some types of data it is a bp to do that...
13:30:29 <riccardoAlbertoni> s/spedcific/specific
13:30:30 <cgueret_> laufer, ok then :)
13:30:49 <phila> PROPOSED: That we recognise that archiving is part of data management. How data is managed in an offline repository is out of scope, however, what is left on the Web after archiving has taken place *is* in scope. There will be at least one Best Practice on this topic. Versioning needs to be taken into account.
13:31:04 <BernadetteLoscio_> q+
13:31:09 <cgueret_> +1
13:31:11 <annette_g> +1
13:31:11 <ericstephan> +1
13:31:21 <cgueret_> (we're allowed to vote now, right ?)
13:31:27 <hadleybeeman> Well articulated, phila.
13:31:31 <phila> ack annette_g
13:31:33 <Sumit_Purohit> +1
13:31:40 <deirdrelee> ack deirdrelee
13:31:53 <Sumit_Purohit> annette_g: data preservation should be offline as well as online....
13:31:58 <cgueret_> Probably the longest proposal we've voted on so far ;-)
13:32:13 <Sumit_Purohit> ......if we put some sort of encouragement then it is OK
13:32:17 <hadleybeeman> @annette_g, to whose mind is that a bad practice?
13:32:31 <Sumit_Purohit> ......it is not a good idea to treat web servers as data archiving system
13:32:51 <deirdrelee> ack BernadetteLoscio_
13:32:53 <hadleybeeman> (Sorry annette_g, that sounded very combative. I didn't mean that — just that it sounds like it may be something from a community that isn't just Data on the Web.)
13:33:05 <annette_g> @hadleybeeman, anyone who worries about security
13:33:10 <Sumit_Purohit> BernadetteLoscio_: we have a section about data preservation but we removed it from the document...
13:33:16 <Sumit_Purohit> are we talking about new BP ?
13:33:37 <hadleybeeman> @annette_g I wish we could explore that over coffee. Sounds a) very interesting, and b) may in scope but maybe not?
13:33:51 <cgueret_> +1 to reuse what I did before ;-)
13:34:01 <phila> phila has joined #dwbp
13:34:03 <BernadetteLoscio_> +q
13:34:04 <Sumit_Purohit> ....we should review work of christoph...
13:34:14 <deirdrelee> ack BernadetteLoscio_
13:34:19 <ericstephan> +1 BernadetteLoscio_
13:34:24 <hadleybeeman> +1 to that, BernadetteLoscio_
13:34:26 <riccardoAlbertoni> +1 to BernadetteLoscio_
13:34:29 <cgueret_> +1
13:34:34 <Sumit_Purohit> BernadetteLoscio_: ...we should also add data definition of archiving on glossory
13:34:39 <deirdrelee> +1 to BernadetteLoscio_
13:34:47 <cgueret_> can you make an action for me ?
13:34:49 <Sumit_Purohit> s/glossory/glossary
13:34:54 <NewtonCalegari> or in github: http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/glossary.html
13:35:14 <riccardoAlbertoni> PROPOSED: That we recognise that archiving is part of data management. How data is managed in an offline repository is out of scope, however, what is left on the Web after archiving has taken place *is* in scope. There will be at least one Best Practice on this topic. Versioning needs to be taken into account.
13:35:17 <hadleybeeman> s/of archiving/of archiving and presentation and preservation
13:35:31 <cgueret_> I'll also get the glossary definition validated by an archivist here
13:35:32 <deirdrelee> +1
13:35:36 <Sumit_Purohit> +1
13:35:37 <hadleybeeman> +1
13:35:38 <cgueret_> +1
13:35:39 <annette_g> +1
13:35:42 <GiselePappa> +1
13:35:42 <laufer> +1
13:35:44 <ericstephan> +1
13:35:46 <NewtonCalegari> +1
13:35:49 <BernadetteLoscio_> +1
13:35:49 <Caroline> +1
13:35:51 <riccardoAlbertoni> +1
13:35:52 <phila> +1
13:36:12 <Caroline> +1to cgueret_ to get the glossary definition validated by an archivist
13:36:40 <deirdrelee> action: deirdrelee to add preservtion text to scope
13:36:40 <trackbot> Error finding 'deirdrelee'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/users>.
13:36:57 <deirdrelee> action: deirdre to add preservtion text to scope
13:36:58 <trackbot> Created ACTION-158 - Add preservtion text to scope [on Deirdre Lee - due 2015-04-21].
13:37:12 <deirdrelee> action: christoph to define preseravation bp
13:37:12 <trackbot> Error finding 'christoph'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/users>.
13:37:25 <phila> action: cgueret to write a definition of archiving (and preservation) in the glossary (again!)
13:37:25 <trackbot> Created ACTION-159 - Write a definition of archiving (and preservation) in the glossary (again!) [on Christophe Gueret - due 2015-04-21].
13:37:47 <deirdrelee> action: cgueret to write a bp on preservation in bp doc
13:37:47 <trackbot> Created ACTION-160 - Write a bp on preservation in bp doc [on Christophe Gueret - due 2015-04-21].
13:38:30 <phila> close issue-143
13:38:30 <trackbot> Closed issue-143.
13:38:36 <annette_g> * PROPOSED: that we get coffee
13:38:42 <cgueret_> +1 annette_g
13:38:45 <ericstephan> +1 its just a plus one kind of day
13:38:45 <phila> Which leaves Issues 62 and 63 for after coffee
13:38:46 <yaso> +1 to annette_g
13:38:52 <Sumit_Purohit> coffee break time NOW...
13:39:05 <Sumit_Purohit> 20 min  break
13:39:12 <Zakim> -HadleyBeeman
13:39:24 <flavio> flavio has joined #dwbp
13:39:24 <phila> Thanks Christophe
13:39:34 <phila> RRSAgent, draft minutes
13:39:34 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/04/14-dwbp-minutes.html phila
13:40:23 <phila> zakim, list participants
13:40:23 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been [IPcaller], HadleyBeeman, phila, deirdrelee, riccardoalbertoni, makx, cgueret, cgueret_
13:40:30 <Zakim> -cgueret_
13:40:35 <phila> RRSAgent, draft minutes
13:40:35 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/04/14-dwbp-minutes.html phila
13:41:13 <phila> zakim, ipcaller is Austin
13:41:13 <Zakim> +Austin; got it
13:41:59 <phila> zakim, Austin has Bernadette, Caroline, Eric S, Flavio, Gisele, Laufer, Newton, Sumit, Yaso
13:41:59 <Zakim> +Bernadette, Caroline, Eric, S, Flavio, Gisele, Laufer, Newton, Sumit, Yaso; got it
13:42:11 <phila> RRSAgent, draft minutes
13:42:11 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/04/14-dwbp-minutes.html phila
13:42:26 <Zakim> -Austin
13:42:40 <phila> zakim, list participants
13:42:40 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been HadleyBeeman, phila, deirdrelee, riccardoalbertoni, makx, cgueret, cgueret_, Bernadette, Caroline, Eric, S, Flavio, Gisele, Laufer, Newton,
13:42:43 <Zakim> ... Sumit, Yaso
13:42:50 <phila> RRSAgent, draft minutes
13:42:50 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/04/14-dwbp-minutes.html phila
13:58:24 <yaso> yaso has joined #dwbp
13:59:00 <flavio> flavio has joined #dwbp
13:59:16 <Caroline> Caroline has joined #DWBP
13:59:27 <NewtonCalegari> https://plus.google.com/hangouts/_/g4vna23i4mz4l6doovo34sysm4a
13:59:37 <deirdrelee> Hi, welcome back
14:01:50 <Caroline> Hello! :)
14:02:14 <annette_g> annette_g has joined #dwbp
14:02:29 <deirdrelee> Let's get started guys & gals...
14:03:47 <NewtonCalegari> Austin is calling
14:04:02 <deirdrelee> cool
14:04:09 <yaso> dialing again
14:04:30 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
14:04:45 <deirdrelee> zakim, who is here?
14:04:45 <Zakim> On the phone I see Ipswich, [IPcaller]
14:04:47 <Zakim> Ipswich has phila, deirdrelee, riccardoalbertoni
14:04:47 <Zakim> On IRC I see annette_g, Caroline, flavio, yaso, phila, Sumit_Purohit, GiselePappa, BernadetteLoscio_, NewtonCalegari, laufer, ericstephan, makx, deirdrelee, Zakim, RRSAgent,
14:04:47 <Zakim> ... riccardoAlbertoni, rhiaro, hadleybeeman, trackbot
14:05:16 <Zakim> +HadleyBeeman
14:06:43 <Zakim> +riccardoAlbertoni
14:06:53 <Caroline> scribe: Caroline
14:07:13 <deirdrelee> issue-62?
14:07:13 <trackbot> issue-62 -- What info is given when dereferencing a persistent identifier after the resource has been removed/archived -- open
14:07:13 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/62
14:07:16 <deirdrelee> issue-63?
14:07:16 <trackbot> issue-63 -- If a resource is archived, is the correct response 410, 303 or something else? -- open
14:07:16 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/63
14:07:35 <phila> q+ to make a suggestion
14:07:41 <phila> ack me
14:07:41 <Zakim> phila, you wanted to make a suggestion
14:07:46 <Caroline> deirdrelee: sorry, I couldn't hear you
14:08:10 <deirdrelee> zakim, who is here?
14:08:10 <Zakim> On the phone I see Ipswich, [IPcaller], HadleyBeeman, riccardoAlbertoni
14:08:12 <Zakim> Ipswich has phila, deirdrelee, riccardoalbertoni
14:08:12 <Zakim> On IRC I see annette_g, Caroline, flavio, yaso, phila, Sumit_Purohit, GiselePappa, BernadetteLoscio_, NewtonCalegari, laufer, ericstephan, makx, deirdrelee, Zakim, RRSAgent,
14:08:12 <Zakim> ... riccardoAlbertoni, rhiaro, hadleybeeman, trackbot
14:08:17 <Caroline> yes
14:08:20 <Caroline> thank you1
14:08:48 <ericstephan> q+
14:09:14 <phila> ack ericstephan
14:09:17 <Caroline> sorry, phila please write down this
14:09:58 <Caroline> ericstephan: when you take something offline but it still there
14:10:09 <Caroline> .... somehow is not available
14:10:16 <laufer> q+
14:10:24 <yaso> I think we should presume that data can always be back to online environments
14:10:26 <Caroline> phila, please talk not so close of the mic
14:10:39 <trackbot_> trackbot_ has joined #dwbp
14:10:42 <deirdrelee> ack laufer
14:10:54 <Zakim> -riccardoAlbertoni
14:11:05 <Caroline> laufer: issue 63, are we going to describe what archive on th web is?
14:11:09 <phila> phila: I was saying that it's very context dependent. If the URI always pointed to a landing page then update the landing page. If the URI pointed to the data, make it a 303 to a page giving info about the data and how to get it. basic rule - don't just delete and leave us with a 404
14:11:18 <Caroline> ... is that on our scope?
14:11:33 <Caroline> phila: we are not archiving on the web
14:11:57 <yaso> +1 to phila
14:12:01 <Caroline> deirdrelee: we are talking about what happen with the identifier
14:12:15 <Caroline> laufer: to me seems that we have a broken link
14:12:16 <ericstephan> Its fine tuning conditions rather than a boolean 404
14:12:23 <annette_g> q+ to ask if this issue is specific to data on the web
14:12:25 <Caroline> deirdrelee: it is not necessarly a broken link
14:12:42 <Caroline> laufer: if I archive something it does mean the linke would be broken?
14:12:46 <ericstephan> Yes it would be broken, but it would have an explanation
14:12:47 <phila> phila:  I want to avoid broken links, even if the data has been removd
14:13:08 <Caroline> +1 to phila
14:13:22 <Caroline> annette_g: maybe this issue is out of scope
14:13:42 <deirdrelee>  ack annette_g
14:13:42 <Zakim> annette_g, you wanted to ask if this issue is specific to data on the web
14:13:42 <ericstephan> +1 phila
14:13:47 <Caroline> ... maybe talking about momento would be ok
14:13:55 <phila> annette_g: It may be reasonable to talk about memento in this context too
14:14:20 <NewtonCalegari> s/momento/memento
14:14:42 <Caroline> phila: I think is about the ??
14:14:46 <ericstephan> it would seem like more of a warning condition as opposed to a fatal error.
14:15:02 <Caroline> annette_g: it is too specific data
14:15:15 <phila> phila: I think Memento only applies if you have dated data available. I think we're talking about removing data altogether and what happens to the identifier
14:15:22 <ericstephan> good point hadleybeeman
14:15:28 <annette_g> s/it is too specific data/is it specific to data?
14:15:47 <Caroline> deirdrelee, I can't understand, sorry
14:15:56 <deirdrelee> q?
14:16:00 <phila> phila: Persistent identifiers don't die, only what they identify
14:16:02 <Caroline> maybe if deirdrelee talk not so close to the mic
14:16:20 <laufer> q+
14:16:27 <phila> ack laufer
14:16:35 <Caroline> deirdrelee: archiving is out of scope?
14:16:36 <deirdrelee> ack laufer
14:17:12 <deirdrelee> deirdrelee: is addressing how identifiers on the Web are handled after a data resource is no longer on the web in scope?
14:17:14 <phila> q+ to offer to write a BP on the topic
14:17:19 <ericstephan> error handling bp?
14:17:29 <Caroline> laufer: I don't know if we should have a BP to data being archived
14:17:41 <Sumit_Purohit> q+
14:17:50 <phila> ack me
14:17:50 <Zakim> phila, you wanted to offer to write a BP on the topic
14:17:50 <Caroline> laufer: I don't know how this would be resolved
14:17:54 <flavio> flavio has joined #dwbp
14:18:10 <Caroline> phila: we arre not talking about data archiving, but about consistence
14:18:28 <riccardoAlbertoni> s/arre/are
14:18:29 <hadleybeeman> I would assume that a request for archived data would return a 410... is that just me?
14:18:30 <deirdrelee> ack Sumit_Purohit
14:19:09 <phila> phila: Yes, Sumit, that's what we should do
14:19:13 <annette_g> q+
14:19:14 <phila> (I think)
14:19:15 <ericstephan> +1 Sumit_Purohit
14:19:19 <Caroline> Sumit_Purohit: for a BP, if we can explain what had happen to that data in a common sense, instead of saying that data existed it might be more useful
14:19:36 <Caroline> ... data has been moved or has been removed for some reason
14:19:38 <laufer> q+
14:19:45 <phila> ack annette_g
14:19:46 <ericstephan> give a chance to do real exception handling
14:19:50 <deirdrelee> q+
14:19:57 <Caroline> annette_g: thinking about what Sumit_Purohit said
14:20:15 <Caroline> ... it should be understanded by a machine as well as humen
14:20:20 <Caroline> s/humen/human
14:20:26 <ericstephan> q+
14:20:31 <hadleybeeman> q+
14:20:34 <Caroline> ...maybe it is up to us to point somehting
14:20:51 <Caroline> laufer: for me is the same comment to indicate information not only to humans
14:20:59 <riccardoAlbertoni> s/somehting/something
14:21:05 <Zakim> +??P3
14:21:15 <makx> zakim, ??p3 is me
14:21:15 <Zakim> +makx; got it
14:21:15 <Caroline> ... how do people do it today? They put a message saying that page is not here anymore
14:21:23 <Caroline> ... is there a standard for that?
14:22:02 <deirdrelee> ack ericstephan
14:22:06 <deirdrelee> ack laufer
14:22:09 <deirdrelee> ack deirdrelee
14:22:09 <flavio_> flavio_ has joined #dwbp
14:22:11 <deirdrelee> q+
14:22:38 <Caroline> ericstephan: this might be an opportunity to the data vocabulary to provide an explanation
14:22:52 <annette_g> q+
14:22:56 <Caroline> ... the data usage vocabulary coujld provide an exaplation for this
14:23:02 <deirdrelee> Draft Proposal: Close issue 62 and 63,  Action for Phil to write BP on topic of what happens to identifiers after data resource is no longer online (e.g. through archiving). WG will then decide if this should be included in BP doc, and if it is, should it be  separate BP or merged with another BP
14:23:08 <deirdrelee> ack h
14:23:16 <riccardoAlbertoni> s/coujld/could
14:23:32 <deirdrelee> ack deirdrelee
14:23:35 <deirdrelee> ack annette_g
14:23:52 <Caroline> annette_g: I think this is more of a publisher side than a user side
14:24:00 <ericstephan> q+
14:24:02 <hadleybeeman> +1 to annette_g!!
14:24:03 <Caroline> ... it could be on the BP document
14:24:06 <hadleybeeman> That's what I was going to say. :)
14:24:16 <laufer> I think that someone could have no more access to some data even if it is online
14:24:27 <phila> q+ To talk about possible new status (ADMS-like)
14:24:36 <laufer> because, perhaps, now it is necessary to pay for it, for example
14:24:39 <Caroline> ... we could use the code 401 for something that has been removed
14:24:41 <deirdrelee> ack ericstephan
14:24:49 <hadleybeeman> s/401/410
14:24:58 <annette_g> * 410 is "gone"
14:25:10 <Caroline> ericstephan: the way we are looking to the data usage vocabulary is that some useful information should be there
14:25:20 <Caroline> ... we can debate it this afternoon
14:25:44 <Caroline> ... to me giving the information about what is going on
14:25:47 <hadleybeeman> q?
14:25:51 <hadleybeeman> zakim, close the queue
14:25:51 <Zakim> ok, hadleybeeman, the speaker queue is closed
14:26:00 <phila> q-
14:26:00 <Caroline> deirdrelee: we can discuss it this afternoon
14:26:31 <phila> PROPOSED: Close issue 62 and 63,  Action for Phil to write BP on topic of what happens to identifiers after data resource is no longer online (e.g. through archiving). WG will then decide if this should be included in BP doc, and if it is, should it be  separate BP or merged with another BP
14:26:46 <ericstephan> +1
14:26:53 <riccardoAlbertoni> +1
14:26:55 <annette_g> +1
14:27:00 <laufer> +1
14:27:03 <Caroline> +1
14:27:04 <phila> +1
14:27:18 <hadleybeeman> +1
14:27:20 <deirdrelee> +1
14:27:35 <phila> RESOLVED: Close issue 62 and 63,  Action for Phil to write BP on topic of what happens to identifiers after data resource is no longer online (e.g. through archiving). WG will then decide if this should be included in BP doc, and if it is, should it be  separate BP or merged with another BP
14:27:35 <BernadetteLoscio_> +1
14:27:43 <phila> CLOSE ISSUE-62
14:27:43 <trackbot> Closed ISSUE-62.
14:27:43 <trackbot_> Closed ISSUE-62.
14:27:49 <phila> close issue-63
14:27:49 <trackbot_> Closed issue-63.
14:27:49 <trackbot> Closed issue-63.
14:27:56 <hadleybeeman> rrsagent, pointer?
14:27:56 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2015/04/14-dwbp-irc#T14-27-56
14:28:06 <ericstephan> set up another round again, ever forward!
14:28:12 <hadleybeeman> :)
14:28:19 <Caroline> deirdrelee: issue number 137
14:28:26 <phila> Topic: The Right to privacy, Issue-137
14:28:34 <phila> issue-137?
14:28:34 <trackbot> issue-137 -- Review BP Preserve person's right to privacy -- open
14:28:34 <trackbot_> issue-137 -- Review BP Preserve person's right to privacy -- open
14:28:34 <trackbot_> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/137
14:28:34 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/137
14:28:44 <Caroline> https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/137
14:28:50 <hadleybeeman> q+
14:28:56 <hadleybeeman> zakim, open the queue
14:28:56 <Zakim> ok, hadleybeeman, the speaker queue is open
14:28:57 <Caroline> deirdrelee: maybe changing the text
14:28:58 <hadleybeeman> q+
14:29:05 <phila> ack hadleybeeman
14:29:16 <deirdrelee> Action: phila to write BP on topic of what happens to identifiers after data resource is no longer online (e.g. through archiving). WG will then decide if this should be included in BP doc, and if it is, should it be  separate BP or merged with another BP
14:29:17 <trackbot> Created ACTION-161 - Write bp on topic of what happens to identifiers after data resource is no longer online (e.g. through archiving). wg will then decide if this should be included in bp doc, and if it is, should it be  separate bp or merged with another bp [on Phil Archer - due 2015-04-21].
14:29:18 <trackbot_> Created ACTION-162 - Write bp on topic of what happens to identifiers after data resource is no longer online (e.g. through archiving). wg will then decide if this should be included in bp doc, and if it is, should it be  separate bp or merged with another bp [on Phil Archer - due 2015-04-21].
14:29:33 <Caroline> hadleybeeman: I have trouble with this one because is so country specific and culture specific, there is no easy way to make it global
14:29:54 <deirdrelee> q?
14:30:00 <ericstephan> really good points hadleybeeman
14:30:07 <Caroline> ... it is very dificult to deal with the fact the data should deal with so many jurisdiction and it is so close to legal laws
14:30:11 <annette_g> q+
14:30:12 <Caroline> +1 to hadleybeeman
14:30:12 <ericstephan> q+
14:30:15 <riccardoAlbertoni> +1 to hadleybeeman
14:30:30 <hadleybeeman> The topic is too close to us giving legal advice, which isn't in scope for us.
14:30:35 <yaso> +1 to annette_g
14:30:53 <deirdrelee> BP: http://bernafarias.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#PreservePrivacy
14:31:08 <ericstephan> +1 that's the approach companies, orgs use (security plans)
14:31:10 <Caroline> annette_g: the BP 19
14:31:11 <hadleybeeman> q+ to comment that I don't think this is technical
14:31:11 <ericstephan> q-
14:31:24 <deirdrelee> ack annette_g
14:31:29 <Caroline> ... it helps people who are more familiarized with the data other than us
14:31:30 <phila> ack h
14:31:30 <Zakim> hadleybeeman, you wanted to comment that I don't think this is technical
14:31:52 <ericstephan> have we got any advice from the privacy interest group?
14:31:57 <annette_g> q+
14:32:04 <Caroline> hadleybeeman: I am not sure is technical enough to be in the scope here
14:32:07 <deirdrelee> ack annette_g
14:32:18 <ericstephan> q+
14:32:28 <Caroline> annette_g: It might help people how to deal with this
14:32:38 <Caroline> ... if we could give them some guidance
14:32:39 <Caroline> q+
14:32:44 <hadleybeeman> q+
14:32:53 <phila> q+ to support Hadley's point
14:33:10 <Caroline> ... focusing on how they might do a security plan
14:33:21 <Caroline> right now the title is very general
14:33:30 <hadleybeeman> q- later
14:33:36 <Caroline> ... it could explain how a security plan would be
14:33:48 <Caroline> ericstephan: in the commercial industry there are so many approaches
14:34:05 <Caroline> ... something that is fine with one kind is not with another
14:34:15 <deirdrelee> ack ericstephan
14:34:17 <deirdrelee> ack Caroline
14:35:11 <ericstephan> +1 to Caroline as a footnote bp
14:35:24 <phila> ack me
14:35:24 <Zakim> phila, you wanted to support Hadley's point
14:35:29 <Caroline> Caroline: proposal to put this as a note (footnote)
14:35:47 <phila> -> http://www.w3.org/2013/share-psi/bp/cas/ Share-PSI
14:35:51 <hadleybeeman> phila: When were in TPAC, Hadley made similar comments about some of the proposed best practices then. Though it has caused me pain since then, she's right.
14:35:59 <ericstephan> +1 phila->hadleybeeman (pointer reference)
14:36:19 <hadleybeeman> ... That is a link to a best practice that could have been in our document except that we agreed we were only doing technical matters, not policy matters.
14:36:44 <makx> +1 to phil
14:36:44 <hadleybeeman> ...This BP says "security plan". We ruled lots of things out of scope because they were too policy oriented, and to be consistent we should remove this one too.
14:36:48 <ericstephan> q+
14:37:09 <hadleybeeman> q?
14:37:22 <deirdrelee> ack hadleybeeman
14:37:31 <Caroline> hadleybeeman: I agree with phila and Caroline
14:37:39 <deirdrelee> ack ericstephan
14:37:51 <Caroline> ericstephan: we have talked about that the BP needs to be dataset center
14:37:59 <hadleybeeman> s/center/centered
14:38:07 <Caroline> ... this would be an interesting note, but it is not dataset centered
14:38:15 <Caroline> ... I would take it out
14:38:18 <annette_g> q+
14:38:27 <deirdrelee> ack annette_g
14:38:28 <phila> Draft proposal - that http://bernafarias.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#PreservePrivacy be deleted, however, reference to the importance of preserviving privacy should be included in the introductory material in the context of the overall policy in which data is made available.
14:38:34 <Caroline> annette_g: I respectly desagree.
14:39:00 <Caroline> ... I think it is dataset centered. I think the data publishers in general have to deal with a lot
14:39:09 <deirdrelee> q+
14:39:10 <laufer> q+
14:39:14 <hadleybeeman> q+
14:39:15 <phila> ack deirdrelee
14:39:16 <Caroline> ... I think it is more an issue for publishing data than publishing other formats on the web
14:39:22 <Caroline> deirdrelee: I tend to agree with annette_g
14:39:37 <Caroline> ... it might not be as tecnhical centered as others, but it has to be considered
14:39:48 <Caroline> ... it doesn't have to be a BP
14:39:52 <phila> ack laufer
14:39:56 <Caroline> ... but it should be on the BP document
14:39:57 <ericstephan> I understand your point annette_g, but I still don't want it to be a BP
14:40:15 <Caroline> laufer: I thinking that privacy is one of the things that can control the access to data
14:40:27 <Caroline> ... we have other things that can control access to data
14:40:36 <Caroline> ... maybe we are talking about control of access
14:40:46 <Caroline> q+
14:40:53 <ericstephan> q+
14:41:15 <Caroline> ... I don't konw if we are talking about access of data and privacy is one of them
14:41:18 <phila> ack h
14:41:21 <hadleybeeman> "Intended Outcome:  Data that can identify an individual person must not be published without their consent."
14:41:28 <deirdrelee> q+ to talk about data access and classification
14:41:35 <Caroline> +1 to hadleybeeman
14:42:18 <Caroline> hadleybeeman: I don't see a way to give any kind of guidance without getting into a legal trouble
14:42:28 <annette_g> +1 to hadley
14:42:42 <annette_g> q+
14:42:55 <phila> ack Caroline
14:43:13 <hadleybeeman> caroline: What are we proposing?
14:43:33 <deirdrelee> Draft proposal - that http://bernafarias.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#PreservePrivacy be deleted, however, reference to the importance of preserviving privacy should be included in the introductory material in the context of the overall policy in which data is made available.
14:43:36 <hadleybeeman> ...I think "Intended Outcome:  Data that can identify an individual person must not be published without their consent." is very clear
14:43:56 <Caroline> Caroline: what is hadleybeeman proposal?
14:43:58 <hadleybeeman> ...The question should be: should we keep it or not?
14:44:11 <Caroline> ... should we keep the section 8.5 on the BP document?
14:44:20 <makx> +000000000000000000000.
14:44:33 <annette_g> -1
14:45:01 <deirdrelee> q?
14:45:04 <phila> zakim, close queue
14:45:04 <Zakim> ok, phila, the speaker queue is closed
14:45:05 <BernadetteLoscio_> q+
14:45:16 <phila> zakim, open queue
14:45:16 <Zakim> ok, phila, the speaker queue is open
14:45:20 <phila> q+ BernadetteLoscio_
14:45:24 <phila> zakim, close queue
14:45:24 <Zakim> ok, phila, the speaker queue is closed
14:45:32 <Caroline> phila: we would have to remove 2 BP (19 and 20)
14:45:43 <Caroline> Zakim, open the speaker queue
14:45:43 <Zakim> I don't understand 'open the speaker queue', Caroline
14:46:16 <Caroline> ericstephan: I am wondering if we deduce security, somethings might be available or not
14:46:39 <Caroline> ... this data isn't availabe. Maybe we can provide an explanation or not
14:46:51 <deirdrelee> q-
14:46:55 <deirdrelee> ack ericstephan
14:47:09 <phila> ack annette_g
14:47:09 <Caroline> ... instead of security plan, it can envolve all about puting the data on the web
14:47:22 <Caroline> annette_g: I agree that is dangerous to propose specif rules
14:47:46 <Caroline> ... I think it is important to mention this issue
14:47:59 <Caroline> ... I think it might help the web to be a better place to publish
14:48:11 <deirdrelee> ack BernadetteLoscio_
14:48:14 <annette_g> annette_g:
14:48:24 <ericstephan> +1 BernadetteLoscio_
14:48:31 <annette_g> annette_g: that's why I propose we suggest publishers make a plan
14:48:34 <Caroline> BernadetteLoscio_: I think it we are going to remove the BP 19, we would have to review the entire section
14:48:59 <ericstephan> By +1 I mean revisit, to see what to do
14:49:00 <Caroline> ... I am not against to remove the BP 19, but then we would have to review the BP 20 and discuss what to do with it
14:49:07 <deirdrelee> PROPOSED: that http://bernafarias.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#PreservePrivacy be deleted, however, reference to the importance of preserviving privacy should be included in the introductory material in the context of the overall policy in which data is made available.
14:49:19 <hadleybeeman> +1
14:49:30 <annette_g> -10
14:49:42 <deirdrelee> -1
14:49:52 <laufer> the proposal is to revise...
14:49:53 <makx> +1 to deleting and mention in introduction
14:49:54 <phila> I don't want to delete the BP about unavailability reference
14:49:56 <yaso> -1
14:49:57 <Caroline> -1
14:50:10 <ericstephan> +1
14:50:38 <ericstephan> annette_g used the nuclear option
14:51:04 <Caroline> I think before removing it is important to review it
14:51:13 <Caroline> the entire section
14:51:26 <yaso> q+
14:51:34 <deirdrelee> zakim, open queue
14:51:34 <Zakim> ok, deirdrelee, the speaker queue is open
14:51:51 <Caroline> yaso: I think we should take a look more careful of what means a security plan
14:52:10 <Caroline> ... maybe we can recommend more tecnichal details to recommend on this issue
14:52:32 <riccardoAlbertoni> s/tecnichal/technical
14:52:59 <Caroline> ... we could split
14:53:17 <Caroline> ... there are a lot  of W3C recommendations about privacy
14:53:20 <hadleybeeman> q+ to respond to Yaso
14:53:26 <Caroline> ... we could remove the word security plan
14:53:29 <deirdrelee> ddraft PROPOSal: that http://bernafarias.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#PreservePrivacy should remain, but rephrased so that it does not give any specific recommendations of HOW it should be achieved, e.g. the consent sentence Hadley referenced
14:53:37 <deirdrelee> q?
14:53:40 <deirdrelee> ack hadleybeeman
14:53:40 <Zakim> hadleybeeman, you wanted to respond to Yaso
14:53:42 <deirdrelee> q+
14:54:02 <Caroline> hadleybeeman: I still think we have to be very careful on how we describe the use cases
14:54:12 <ericstephan> draft proposal:  that http://bernafarias.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#PreservePrivacy be deleted, and be replaced by BP for sharing datasets and metadata.
14:54:21 <Caroline> ... I am not sure we are talking about data individuals
14:54:24 <phila> ack deirdrelee
14:55:02 <ericstephan> q+
14:55:06 <hadleybeeman> q+
14:55:24 <laufer> is about of  what different types of consumers could see...
14:55:25 <Caroline> deirdrelee: I agree with hadleybeeman
14:55:35 <phila> q+ to ask what the intended outcome will be
14:55:43 <phila> ack ericstephan
14:55:44 <deirdrelee> ack ericstephan
14:55:46 <hadleybeeman> q+ to respond to deirdrelee's point about HOW.  I think my worries are more about the "when" and the "why".
14:56:18 <Caroline> ericstephan: deirdrelee was saying that this is about the publishers and they would have to figure out about the laws and what is privacy or not
14:56:34 <Caroline> ... but we should share what should be published or note
14:56:39 <Caroline> s/note/not
14:56:42 <laufer> is about the publishers and the consumers
14:56:52 <Caroline> ... that might be about data and metadata
14:57:13 <phila> ack h
14:57:13 <Zakim> hadleybeeman, you wanted to respond to deirdrelee's point about HOW.  I think my worries are more about the "when" and the "why".
14:57:20 <ericstephan> okay sorry if I was off topic deirdrelee
14:57:21 <deirdrelee> zakim, close queue
14:57:21 <Zakim> ok, deirdrelee, the speaker queue is closed
14:57:23 <Caroline> deirdrelee, I could'nt understand you, sorry
14:57:36 <Caroline> hadleybeeman: I have a problem about talking about how
14:57:54 <Caroline> ... saying to protect personal data of another people causes legal issues
14:58:05 <Caroline> ... that feels to me that is out of scope
14:58:13 <phila> ack me
14:58:13 <Zakim> phila, you wanted to ask what the intended outcome will be
14:58:21 <ericstephan> hadleybeeman +1 yeah for practical advice like https
14:58:22 <phila> Data that can identify an individual person must not be published without their consent.
14:58:42 <yaso> So we should make a note and clearly point to somewhere, so that people can find advice about this
14:58:51 <annette_g> q+
14:58:59 <Caroline> phila: if we change it, talking about only the tecnhical aspects, what would be the intended BP?
14:59:01 <laufer> this is a world law, phil?
14:59:25 <Caroline> annette_g: I think the intended outcome is that data would be published with some thoughs about these issues
14:59:34 <Caroline> ... that itself is an important outcome
15:00:02 <Caroline> deirdrelee: if we agree to remove the BP and put a note
15:00:16 <Caroline> ... or we could revise the BP
15:00:28 <ericstephan> could we do both?
15:00:38 <Caroline> +1 to ericstephan suggestion
15:00:43 <phila> deirdrelee: We have replacing the BP with a footnote (on Hadley) and we have Deirdre and Annette on rewording the BP. Maybe we take those as actions and then decide
15:00:43 <yaso> I do not agree that this turns in to a footnote, at least I do not agree now...
15:00:47 <ericstephan> add a note and make a new and improved BP
15:00:58 <laufer> if the bp depends on local laws a bp in one place could be a bad practice in another place
15:01:00 <annette_g> I'm happy to work on the BP
15:01:00 <ericstephan> okay
15:01:42 <hadleybeeman> rrsagent, pointer?
15:01:42 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2015/04/14-dwbp-irc#T15-01-42
15:01:51 <Caroline> action to ericstephan and hadleybeeman to review the BP thinking about a footnote
15:01:51 <trackbot_> Error finding 'to'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/users>.
15:01:51 <trackbot> Error finding 'to'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/users>.
15:02:00 <deirdrelee>  PROPOSED: Action for Hadley & Eric to propose alterantive text if BP is removed. Action for Annetee & Dee to revise BP text if BP remains. Leave Makx's issue open
15:02:12 <deirdrelee> +1
15:02:12 <ericstephan> +1
15:02:14 <hadleybeeman> +1
15:02:14 <yaso> +1
15:02:15 <flavio_> +1
15:02:15 <annette_g> +1
15:02:16 <Caroline> +1
15:02:16 <GiselePappa> +1
15:02:17 <phila> +1
15:02:21 <makx> +1
15:02:21 <laufer> +1
15:02:22 <BernadetteLoscio_> +1
15:02:22 <riccardoAlbertoni> +1
15:02:23 <Sumit_Purohit> +1
15:02:38 <phila> RESOLVED: Action for Hadley & Eric to propose alterantive text if BP is removed. Action for Annetee & Dee to revise BP text if BP remains. Leave Makx's issue open
15:02:45 <ericstephan> we are an agreeable bunch today - even dancing around security issues.
15:03:00 <hadleybeeman> :)
15:03:30 <phila> action: hadley to work with Phil to propose text to replace http://bernafarias.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#PreservePrivacy
15:03:30 <trackbot> Created ACTION-163 - Work with phil to propose text to replace http://bernafarias.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#preserveprivacy [on Hadley Beeman - due 2015-04-21].
15:03:30 <trackbot_> Created ACTION-164 - Work with phil to propose text to replace http://bernafarias.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#preserveprivacy [on Hadley Beeman - due 2015-04-21].
15:03:38 <ericstephan> you were breaking up deirdrelee
15:03:54 <phila> action: annette to work with Dee to propose alternative text for http://bernafarias.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#PreservePrivacy
15:03:54 <trackbot> Created ACTION-166 - Work with dee to propose alternative text for http://bernafarias.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#preserveprivacy [on Annette Greiner - due 2015-04-21].
15:03:54 <trackbot_> Created ACTION-165 - Work with dee to propose alternative text for http://bernafarias.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#preserveprivacy [on Annette Greiner - due 2015-04-21].
15:03:57 <Caroline> deirdrelee: let's talk about the issues 53, 54 and 93
15:03:57 <ericstephan> we are moving ahead on BP issues, and timeline in the remaining time?
15:04:03 <deirdrelee> issue-53
15:04:03 <trackbot> issue-53 -- Whether sla is/can be thought of as part of the licence or whether it needs to be pulled out spearately? -- open
15:04:03 <trackbot_> issue-53 -- Whether sla is/can be thought of as part of the licence or whether it needs to be pulled out spearately? -- open
15:04:03 <trackbot_> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/53
15:04:03 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/53
15:04:07 <deirdrelee> issue-54
15:04:07 <trackbot_> issue-54 -- The term "sla" is vague, undefined, and may not actually represent an agreement between the publisher and reuser -- open
15:04:07 <trackbot> issue-54 -- The term "sla" is vague, undefined, and may not actually represent an agreement between the publisher and reuser -- open
15:04:07 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/54
15:04:07 <trackbot_> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/54
15:04:08 <phila> Topic: SLAs
15:04:15 <deirdrelee> issue-93
15:04:15 <trackbot> issue-93 -- Free Open Data SLAs for Open Data publishing -- open
15:04:15 <trackbot_> issue-93 -- Free Open Data SLAs for Open Data publishing -- open
15:04:15 <trackbot_> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/93
15:04:15 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/93
15:05:22 <phila> deirdrelee: SLAs not currently included in the BPs
15:05:44 <deirdrelee> PROPOSED: SLAs are not in scope
15:05:58 <deirdrelee> +1
15:06:01 <yaso> Agree. +1
15:06:08 <ericstephan> +1
15:06:11 <NewtonCalegari> +1
15:06:11 <Caroline> +1
15:06:16 <BernadetteLoscio_> +1
15:06:18 <phila> -1, see http://www.w3.org/TR/dwbp-ucr/#R-SLAAvailable
15:06:24 <makx> +1
15:06:41 <flavio_> +1
15:06:45 <GiselePappa> +1
15:06:52 <laufer> but to give metadata for sla is not in the scope?
15:07:02 <Caroline> BernadetteLoscio_: we have other requirements that are not covered. This is not the onyl one
15:07:04 <annette_g> -1
15:07:08 <Caroline> s/onyl/only
15:07:08 <laufer> -1
15:07:08 <yaso> Not specific to SLA, I think that is covered, Laufer
15:07:20 <deirdrelee> q?
15:07:20 <riccardoAlbertoni> q+
15:07:29 <phila> zakim, open queue
15:07:29 <Zakim> ok, phila, the speaker queue is open
15:07:34 <phila> q+ riccardoAlbertoni
15:08:05 <annette_g> q+
15:08:09 <Caroline> deirdrelee: sla is out of scope even though there is a requirement?
15:08:13 <annette_g> can't understand
15:08:16 <BernadetteLoscio_> we cant understand :(
15:08:17 <deirdrelee> ack riccardoAlbertoni
15:08:24 <Caroline> riccardoAlbertoni: I cannot understand you, sorry
15:08:27 <ericstephan> muffled sounding unfortunately
15:08:46 <ericstephan> glossary suggested?
15:08:50 <BernadetteLoscio_> q+
15:08:54 <Caroline> what is the suggestion?
15:09:03 <laufer> I think that license and sla has some common things...
15:09:07 <riccardoAlbertoni> I am proposing to have the definition in the glossary for sla
15:09:08 <deirdrelee> ack annette_g
15:09:14 <Caroline> annette_g: I agree that the term sla is vague an not helpful
15:09:20 <Zakim> -makx
15:09:26 <Caroline> ... but I think we need to address the issue of availability
15:09:27 <ericstephan> q+
15:09:36 <riccardoAlbertoni> becouse It is not clear to me the difference between licence and SLA
15:09:41 <Caroline> BernadetteLoscio_: availability is data quality
15:09:48 <Zakim> -HadleyBeeman
15:09:51 <deirdrelee> ack BernadetteLoscio_
15:10:03 <Caroline> ... availability is a quality criteria
15:10:13 <Caroline> annette_g: why do you think is data quality?
15:10:16 <deirdrelee> q+
15:10:18 <phila> I think I agree with Berna
15:10:24 <Caroline> BernadetteLoscio_: availability is another criteria
15:10:27 <phila> q+
15:10:45 <Caroline> ... in my opinio availability is a dataset and a data quality information
15:11:00 <Caroline> annette_g: I think is a different thing
15:11:06 <phila> +1 to BernadetteLoscio
15:11:08 <phila> q-
15:11:13 <yaso> +1 to berna
15:11:25 <Caroline> laufer: I think the sla is the way the consumer could evaluate it
15:11:31 <Caroline> ... the consumer need a license
15:11:48 <phila> CHAIR INTERRUPT - BEHAVE!
15:11:56 <phila> ack ericstephan
15:12:06 <Caroline> ... to decide about to use it or not.
15:12:27 <phila> +1 to Eric
15:12:27 <Caroline> ericstephan: I need someway to describe the availability of the data
15:12:37 <Caroline> ... I think we can discuss wich ways we can do that
15:12:43 <phila> q+ to say that SLAs are an aspect of DQ
15:12:43 <Caroline> ... we must have some way of convey that
15:12:53 <phila> ack deirdrelee
15:13:04 <Zakim> +[IPcaller.a]
15:13:09 <Caroline> deirdrelee: even though there is a requirement it is not currently included on the BP
15:13:16 <makx> zakim, ipcaller.a is me
15:13:16 <Zakim> +makx; got it
15:13:27 <Caroline> ... if it is important to be included, where it should be on the BP document?
15:13:43 <phila> Draft proposal - The the subject of Service Level Agreement be included in the Data Quality work as one way to convey info about accessibility
15:13:44 <deirdrelee> q?
15:13:45 <phila> ack me
15:13:45 <Zakim> phila, you wanted to say that SLAs are an aspect of DQ
15:13:51 <Caroline> ... should we include in the Glossary a definition
15:14:07 <Caroline> phila: I think we have several agreements. I agree with BernadetteLoscio_ and ericstephan
15:14:26 <Caroline> ... keeping the discussion we had yesterdary on data quality
15:14:45 <ericstephan> phila sla as an alternative approach and part of data quality +1
15:15:20 <phila> phila: I am saying that SLAs can be seen as one way to express data quality wrt accessibility and availability. So I suggest the issue is taken up by the Data Quality (vocab) work
15:15:32 <ericstephan> +1 phila
15:15:55 <Caroline> +1 to phila suggestion
15:15:57 <annette_g> q+
15:16:10 <yaso> +1 to phila
15:16:20 <phila> PROPOSAL: Close issue-53 - SLA should nto be referred to in the BP doc as it is distinct from the notion of licence
15:16:26 <phila> ack annette_g
15:17:00 <Caroline> annette_g: as long as we say we are including a reference. The BP will include what would be in the data quality vocabulary
15:17:01 <phila> annette_g: I can get behind this if the BPs say that we'll include what's in the DQV
15:17:11 <Caroline> ... we should make it clear what the availability is
15:17:16 <BernadetteLoscio_> q+
15:17:23 <Caroline> laufer: we will have a vocabulary to talk about this, but not a BP
15:17:36 <Caroline> annette_g: I suggest we write a BP that refers to the vocabulary
15:17:45 <phila> ack BernadetteLoscio_
15:18:03 <Caroline> BernadetteLoscio_: this will appears as one of the dimensions to describe data quality
15:18:26 <Caroline> annette_g: I would suggest that we have a BP taht tell us what the availbility is
15:18:38 <phila> I think http://www.w3.org/TR/dwbp/#ProvideDataQuality addresses Annette's point (modulo any updates)
15:18:49 <ericstephan> suggested alternative draft proposal:  Close issue-53 - SLA should nto be referred to in the BP doc.  SLA can be a dimension of data quality, data availability may be described in other  ways in the DQ vocab
15:18:50 <Caroline> BernadetteLoscio_: if we have a vocabulary that describes the availability, then we jave it
15:18:55 <Caroline> s/jave/have
15:19:11 <phila> RRSAgent, draft minutes
15:19:11 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/04/14-dwbp-minutes.html phila
15:19:14 <Caroline> laufer: we will have a BP taht someone has to give metadata about quality
15:19:20 <ericstephan> q+
15:19:26 <Caroline> BernadetteLoscio_: we already have a BP taht information about data quality should be available
15:19:28 <Caroline> +1 to BernadetteLoscio_
15:19:37 <phila> ack ericstephan
15:19:40 <yaso> q+
15:19:44 <annette_g> +1 to BernadetteLoscio_
15:19:52 <riccardoAlbertoni> q+
15:20:24 <yaso> ack me o/
15:20:25 <phila> ack yaso
15:20:28 <Caroline> ericstephan: I suggest that we close this issue. SLA is an alternative way to express data availability. There are simpler ways, that could be described in the data quality vocabulary
15:20:53 <Caroline> yaso: how can we describe availabity in a simple way?
15:21:09 <phila> Dependencies witehin the WG are generally OK. Dependecies on outside WGs can be dangerous
15:21:24 <Caroline> s/witehin/whithin
15:21:24 <laufer> q+
15:21:33 <BernadetteLoscio_> q+
15:21:35 <ericstephan> "Back in ss minutes" concept might be introduced?
15:21:39 <phila> ack rhiaro
15:21:43 <phila> ack riccardoAlbertoni
15:21:44 <annette_g> q+
15:21:55 <riccardoAlbertoni> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Service-level_agreement
15:21:56 <phila> riccardoAlbertoni: If you want to have an SLA as a quality dimension - OK
15:22:09 <annette_g> q_
15:22:12 <annette_g> q-
15:22:12 <yaso> My question to BernadetteLoscio_ was: is there a simpler or alternative way to provide info about availability of data?
15:22:17 <phila> ... the wiki page pointed to includes some kind oif promise that the publisher makes wrt quality
15:22:25 <phila> [Abba Dancing Queen]
15:22:34 <ericstephan> lol
15:22:46 <deirdrelee> yaso, yes, refer to data quality work..
15:22:50 <phila> riccardoAlbertoni: I wonder if there is more than just measuring the level of service
15:23:11 <phila> ... is an SLA an actual agreement. is it a legal contract and not just quality
15:23:14 <phila> q?
15:23:27 <phila> deirdrelee: The SLA isn't just about quality, it's a legal agreement
15:23:29 <phila> ack l
15:23:35 <yaso> Yes, but if this data quality work does not exist? Suppose that we don't make it. How can I publish information about the availability of my data?
15:23:35 <BernadetteLoscio_> q-
15:23:52 <yaso> (naive question, I know)
15:24:06 <phila> Have a little faith Yaso!
15:24:16 <Caroline> laufer: we have a BP that says 2 ways to provide this information: for humand and for machines
15:24:35 <deirdrelee> q?
15:24:52 <Caroline> ... the BP about providing quality informaiton solves this issue
15:25:02 <phila> deirdrelee: Time's up on this topic
15:25:05 <Caroline> ... the BP 8
15:25:12 <phila> deirdrelee: How can we refer to DQV if we don't have it it
15:25:18 <yaso> Trying to have, phila! can't I as a small creator of data just say in specific field: "monthly provided" - maybe a different approach for implementation
15:25:22 <phila> ... we can assume that there will be this work
15:25:24 <riccardoAlbertoni> s/informaiton/information
15:25:39 <yaso> okok, so I'll assume that too :-)  phila
15:25:40 <ericstephan> +1 deirdrelee
15:25:45 <phila> deirdrelee: If for some reason the DQV doesn't happen, Ok, we'll deal with it
15:25:49 <annette_g> +1 if there is a BP for publishing data quality info
15:25:50 <phila> ... in terms ofthe SLA issue
15:26:02 <Caroline> deirdrelee: we are going to ericstephan proposal in terms of SAL
15:26:06 <Caroline> s/SAL/SLA
15:26:40 <ericstephan> PROPOSAL:  Close issue-53 - SLA should nto be referred to in the BP doc.  SLA can be a dimension of data quality, data availability may be described in other  ways in the DQ vocab
15:26:54 <deirdrelee> s/proposal/proposed
15:26:54 <yaso> +1
15:26:59 <Caroline> s/nto/not
15:27:00 <ericstephan> sorry
15:27:04 <ericstephan> +1
15:27:11 <annette_g> can the proposal say that we have a BP for quality?
15:27:11 <phila> PROPOSED:  Close issue-53 - SLA should not be referred to in the BP doc.  SLA can be a dimension of data quality, data availability may be described in other  ways in the DQ vocab
15:27:12 <deirdrelee> +1
15:27:13 <phila> +1
15:27:31 <phila> annette_g - see http://www.w3.org/TR/dwbp/#ProvideDataQuality
15:27:42 <riccardoAlbertoni> +0
15:27:46 <annette_g> +1
15:27:50 <GiselePappa> q+
15:28:01 <laufer> SLA is not a dimension of DQV
15:28:14 <phila> riccardoAlbertoni: My 0 ... it's find me to treat an SLA as a dimension of quality, but it's something different
15:28:21 <annette_g> riccardo is too close to the mic?
15:28:25 <laufer> some aspects of SLA could be covered by dimensions of DQV
15:28:27 <yaso> scribe: yaso
15:29:01 <phila> riccardoAlbertoni: An SLA is a promise between the provider and the consumer
15:29:11 <ericstephan> q+
15:29:12 <phila> ... the consumer will receive a certain level of service
15:29:14 <phila> q+
15:29:17 <yaso> tks phila
15:29:35 <phila> ack GiselePappa
15:29:42 <deirdrelee> zakim, close the queue
15:29:42 <Zakim> ok, deirdrelee, the speaker queue is closed
15:29:49 <yaso> GiselePappa: Just to say that I agree with Laufer that is not a dimension
15:29:59 <yaso> ... is a way to measure data quality, but is not a dimension
15:30:02 <laufer> +1 to riccardo... and the contract could attend or not the quality needs of the consumer
15:30:07 <phila> ack e
15:30:12 <yaso> GiselePappa: I'll try to rewrite it
15:31:01 <phila> ack me
15:31:01 <yaso> ericstephan: to me, I'm not getting caught by the term, I would suggest that perhaps that we it falls under a type of data quality but it is just to use a more generic
15:31:12 <GiselePappa> PROPOSED:  Close issue-53 - SLA should not be referred to in the BP doc.  SLA aspects can be covered by a dimension of data quality, data availability may be described in other  ways in the DQ vocab
15:31:29 <yaso> phila: An SLA is one way to provide info about the quality of data
15:31:42 <ericstephan> +1
15:31:47 <yaso> +1
15:31:47 <Sumit_Purohit> +1
15:31:51 <annette_g> +1
15:32:02 <riccardoAlbertoni> +1 I agree with phil
15:32:05 <phila> deirdrelee: There's too much uncertainty about what the DQV will offer so we should leave the issues open and come back to them later
15:32:06 <laufer> +1
15:32:12 <phila> ... spoke too soon
15:32:13 <BernadetteLoscio_> +1
15:32:50 <yaso> BernadetteLoscio_:  says that she disagrees of deirdre's proposal
15:33:08 <phila> PROPOSED: Close issue-53 - SLA should not be referred to in the BP doc.  SLA can be one way to express data quality across multiple dimensions defined in the DQV
15:33:32 <laufer> do we have a SLA here?
15:33:37 <yaso> +1
15:33:38 <laufer> +1
15:33:39 <BernadetteLoscio_> +1
15:33:40 <annette_g> +1
15:33:40 <phila> Stop being awkward laufer
15:33:41 <GiselePappa> +1
15:33:43 <Sumit_Purohit> +1
15:33:49 <ericstephan> +
15:33:52 <laufer> hmmmm
15:34:30 <BernadetteLoscio_> q+
15:34:31 <ericstephan> uncertainty quantification needed about data quality, is what we are basically saying
15:35:18 <deirdrelee> draft proposal: data quality vocab includes a note on how data quality can be expressed, e.g. in SLAs, using ODI certs, metadata, etc
15:35:20 <makx> +1 to phil
15:35:30 <yaso> deirdre: inconcrete terms
15:35:31 <laufer> I agree phil...  the sla could not be an explicit thing called sla... but a thing that can be extracted of things thta the publisher say...
15:35:35 <ericstephan> I think we are defining the DQV model right now phila
15:35:45 <BernadetteLoscio_> q+
15:35:47 <makx> call it guarantees
15:35:59 <BernadetteLoscio_> it should be on the BP, no?
15:36:05 <laufer> yes, makx
15:36:21 <annette_g> yes, makx, SLA is not a good term
15:36:28 <phila> PROPOSED: data quality vocab includes methods for expressing data quality, e.g. in SLAs, using ODI certs, metadata, etc
15:36:38 <BernadetteLoscio_> different ways of providing data quality should be possible approaches for implementation
15:36:58 <laufer> SLA is a way to express guarantees...
15:37:09 <ericstephan> phila there seems to be a natural parent concept there ("guarentees"?) and sla a child concept?
15:37:10 <yaso> BernadetteLoscio_:  I think that I'm not sure that the Data Vocabulary is the right place
15:37:31 <makx> yes laufer that's what i wanted to say
15:37:39 <phila> Could be, ericstephan
15:37:40 <yaso> ... not sure about the right place to put it
15:38:02 <phila> PROPOSED: data quality vocab includes methods for expressing data quality, e.g. in SLAs, using ODI certs, metadata, etc
15:38:08 <phila> +1
15:38:17 <laufer>  I am just agreeing with what you said, makx
15:38:23 <annette_g> +1
15:38:29 <laufer> +1
15:38:30 <yaso> +1
15:38:33 <Sumit_Purohit> +1
15:38:33 <BernadetteLoscio_> 0
15:38:35 <ericstephan> +1
15:38:51 <ericstephan> whaaaa BernadetteLoscio_ ?
15:38:53 <phila> zakim, [ is Austin
15:38:54 <Zakim> +Austin; got it
15:38:55 <Caroline> scribe: Caroline
15:38:55 <riccardoAlbertoni> +1 let's re-discuss this when we have  aversion of data quality vocabulary  ..
15:39:03 <deirdrelee> +1
15:39:08 <laufer> aversion...
15:39:20 <phila> Close issue-53
15:39:20 <trackbot_> Closed issue-53.
15:39:20 <trackbot> Closed issue-53.
15:39:27 <phila> issue-54?
15:39:27 <trackbot_> issue-54 -- The term "sla" is vague, undefined, and may not actually represent an agreement between the publisher and reuser -- open
15:39:27 <trackbot> issue-54 -- The term "sla" is vague, undefined, and may not actually represent an agreement between the publisher and reuser -- open
15:39:27 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/54
15:39:27 <trackbot_> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/54
15:39:31 <riccardoAlbertoni> s/aversion/ a version
15:39:39 <deirdrelee> PROPOSED: close issue 54
15:39:42 <phila> +1
15:39:45 <ericstephan> "aversion" or "a version"?
15:40:25 <annette_g> +1 to close 54
15:40:32 <ericstephan> +1
15:40:36 <BernadetteLoscio_> +1
15:40:41 <GiselePappa> +1
15:40:42 <Caroline> +1
15:40:43 <riccardoAlbertoni> to ericstephan: a version
15:40:53 <riccardoAlbertoni> +1
15:41:08 <phila> RESOLVED: Close issue-54
15:41:12 <deirdrelee> PROPOSED: close issue-93
15:41:13 <ericstephan> okay thanks riccardoAlbertoni :-)
15:41:18 <phila> issue-93?
15:41:18 <trackbot> issue-93 -- Free Open Data SLAs for Open Data publishing -- open
15:41:18 <trackbot_> issue-93 -- Free Open Data SLAs for Open Data publishing -- open
15:41:18 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/93
15:41:18 <trackbot_> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/93
15:41:18 <deirdrelee> +1
15:42:34 <laufer> q+
15:42:47 <laufer> hello
15:43:12 <laufer> I want to talk about 93
15:43:12 <phila> action: Riccardo to ensure that the DQV document includes SLAs as a possible method for expressing quality
15:43:13 <trackbot> Created ACTION-167 - Ensure that the dqv document includes slas as a possible method for expressing quality [on Riccardo Albertoni - due 2015-04-21].
15:43:13 <trackbot_> Created ACTION-168 - Ensure that the dqv document includes slas as a possible method for expressing quality [on Riccardo Albertoni - due 2015-04-21].
15:43:20 <laufer> 93
15:43:22 <deirdrelee> https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/April_2015_F2F
15:44:09 <phila> close issue-54
15:44:09 <trackbot> Closed issue-54.
15:44:09 <trackbot_> Closed issue-54.
15:44:27 <Caroline> deirdrelee: for the last 15min we will talk about the BP public working draft
15:44:27 <phila> Topic: BP Doc Time Line
15:44:50 <Caroline> ... we have created a lot of action
15:44:59 <Caroline> s/action/actions
15:45:15 <phila> close issue-144
15:45:15 <trackbot> Closed issue-144.
15:45:15 <trackbot_> Closed issue-144.
15:45:47 <Caroline> ... the editors must keep on track with the contributors to incorporate them in the document. It is up to the editors to make decisions on what to incorporate or not
15:46:08 <Caroline> q+
15:46:18 <phila> zakim, open queue
15:46:18 <Zakim> ok, phila, the speaker queue is open
15:46:27 <phila> ack Caroline
15:47:06 <BernadetteLoscio_> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/BP_Document_Schedule
15:48:40 <Caroline> Caroline: asks to everyone to read the proposed schedule so we can discuss it in 2min from now
15:49:20 <Caroline> ... it is important to have an agreement on this so the editors can make decisions regarding the discussions/actions/issues and edit the document
15:49:42 <Caroline> ... also, if people can contribute direct on github it would very much help the editors
15:49:51 <NewtonCalegari> q+ to ask about memento and versioning (yesterday topic)
15:50:10 <yaso> phila: would you reconsider opening issues on github for the second round on community feedback?
15:50:21 <BernadetteLoscio_> yes
15:52:04 <deirdrelee> ACK NewtonCalegari
15:52:04 <Zakim> NewtonCalegari, you wanted to ask about memento and versioning (yesterday topic)
15:52:10 <Caroline> NewtonCalegari: about the memento and versioning
15:52:36 <Caroline> ... we must creat an action about it
15:52:43 <Caroline> deirdrelee: go ahead and creat it, NewtonCalegari
15:52:46 <Caroline> NewtonCalegari: ok
15:52:55 <yaso> q?
15:52:59 <Caroline> scribre: yaso
15:53:14 <yaso> phila: to the BP doc editors
15:53:22 <BernadetteLoscio_> q+
15:53:37 <phila> ack b
15:53:39 <yaso> ... in there's anything you need to discuss today, say it
15:54:08 <yaso> BernadetteLoscio_: I think that for the proposed scheduled there are 3 improtant things:
15:54:11 <phila> phila: Is there anything stopping the BP editors meeting the 18 May target as described in https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/BP_Document_Schedule
15:54:18 <NewtonCalegari> action newton create a "Possible Approach to Implementation" showing Memento examples
15:54:19 <trackbot_> Created ACTION-169 - Create a "possible approach to implementation" showing memento examples [on Newton Calegari - due 2015-04-21].
15:54:19 <trackbot> Created ACTION-170 - Create a "possible approach to implementation" showing memento examples [on Newton Calegari - due 2015-04-21].
15:54:31 <yaso> ... 1: we are going to try to include the resolutions on the doc, but there are other comments that we need to discuss
15:54:35 <Zakim> -Ipswich
15:54:46 <yaso> ... so I suggest that in the next meeting we discuss this issues
15:54:51 <yaso> ... and comments
15:54:57 <yaso> Ahá, the wine!
15:54:59 <deirdrelee> which comments BernadetteLoscio_ ?
15:55:06 <ericstephan> you didn't want us to hear you eating the chocolate
15:55:08 <Zakim> +??P0
15:55:16 <yaso> lol
15:55:43 <yaso> BernadetteLoscio_: about the comments
15:55:53 <yaso> ... there are comments that are still in discussion
15:56:10 <yaso> ... the second thing is about this examples, it is really important to show
15:56:18 <yaso> ... because people want to see how to do this
15:56:21 <yaso> q+
15:56:24 <phila> q+ to ask what comments?
15:56:43 <yaso> BernadetteLoscio_: for the next version we would like to see some examples
15:57:33 <yaso> BernadetteLoscio_: I think if we are going thru this is a great improvement for the doc
15:58:06 <yaso> BernadetteLoscio_: for the next version, I think that there is not enough resources to build tests
15:58:07 <ericstephan> q+
15:58:50 <yaso> ... for the next draft I think we should consider the comments, the examples and also to consider the things that we discussed during this f2f. The action that we can use to improve this version of the doc
15:58:51 <ericstephan> +1 BernadetteLoscio_
15:59:03 <yaso> ... the tests I think we should leave for the next version
15:59:05 <yaso> -q
15:59:30 <yaso> deirdre: I think that having a couple of examples is the right way to keep going forward
16:00:05 <BernadetteLoscio_> q+
16:00:21 <yaso> deirdre: is a lot easier to get feedback on content that is example
16:00:54 <phila> ack me
16:00:54 <Zakim> phila, you wanted to ask what comments?
16:01:07 <yaso> phila: BernadetteLoscio_ what comments are you talking about?
16:01:17 <yaso> phila: we have resolved them
16:01:33 <yaso> ... so what are the comments that you need we to look at?
16:01:39 <phila> This is the only open comment in the tracker https://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/68239/WD-dwbp-20150224/3008 And we have talked about Memento already
16:01:48 <yaso> Caroline: I think we have to create an action to put that on the tracker
16:02:16 <yaso> deirdre feedback from the public we should discuss
16:02:39 <phila>  acke
16:02:41 <phila> ack e
16:02:52 <yaso> ericstephan: this examples can be developed while we go with the work
16:02:54 <Caroline> ack ericstephan
16:02:59 <deirdrelee> ACTION: BernadetteLoscio_  to add all public comments to comment tracker
16:02:59 <trackbot> Error finding 'BernadetteLoscio_'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/users>.
16:02:59 <trackbot_> Error finding 'BernadetteLoscio_'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/users>.
16:03:02 <yaso> ... we are looking for implementations
16:03:06 <deirdrelee> ACTION: Bernadette  to add all public comments to comment tracker
16:03:07 <trackbot_> Created ACTION-171 -  to add all public comments to comment tracker [on Bernadette Farias Loscio - due 2015-04-21].
16:03:07 <trackbot> Created ACTION-172 -  to add all public comments to comment tracker [on Bernadette Farias Loscio - due 2015-04-21].
16:03:16 <yaso> ... why are people publishing or using this best practices
16:03:27 <deirdrelee> q?
16:03:31 <Caroline> Caroline and NewtonCalegari will help BernadetteLoscio_ with ACTION-171
16:03:52 <yaso> BernadetteLoscio_: I'd like that a small group could work in the examples
16:03:52 <ericstephan> q+
16:04:06 <yaso> a task force?
16:04:14 <yaso> agree
16:04:17 <yaso> +1 to BernadetteLoscio_
16:04:26 <deirdrelee> ack ericstephan
16:04:33 <deirdrelee> ack BernadetteLoscio_
16:04:35 <phila> q+ to talk about examples
16:04:56 <yaso> ericstephan: at the dinner we had a good conversation about expertise
16:04:56 <deirdrelee> q+
16:05:01 <phila> ack me
16:05:03 <Zakim> phila, you wanted to talk about examples
16:05:08 <yaso> ericstephan: mentioned annette_g as a good example of expertise
16:05:20 <annette_g> I can help
16:05:23 <BernadetteLoscio_> q+
16:05:26 <deirdrelee> ack me
16:05:26 <ericstephan> good point phila +1
16:05:53 <ericstephan> May 18th, Mount Saint Helens (Washington state USA) eruption 35th anniversary for those interested.
16:06:14 <ericstephan> another example of a deliverable
16:06:36 <annette_g> * I wish we could deliver on such short notice
16:06:42 <ericstephan> lol
16:07:13 <Caroline> we will change the schedule according to this discussion
16:07:21 <deirdrelee> q?
16:07:27 <deirdrelee> ack BernadetteLoscio_
16:07:51 <ericstephan> unfortunately I was in high school at that time phila (still have a jar of ash) :-)
16:08:11 <deirdrelee> PROPOSED: The BP schedule is https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/BP_Document_Schedule
16:08:14 <annette_g> q+
16:08:40 <yaso> BernadetteLoscio_: we did not worked on the how to test section
16:08:47 <yaso> Caroline:  maybe we can update this now
16:08:51 <yaso> q?
16:09:01 <phila> When my manager looks at this group he sees: a UCR, an FPWD of the BP doc and no sign of the two vocabs. We need to prove the (substantial) progress we've made in this meeting.
16:09:04 <yaso> people here wants to keep working
16:09:10 <ericstephan> dissension
16:09:16 <yaso> And work till lunch
16:09:18 <phila> Not lunch yet!
16:09:30 <phila> Just a 10 min break
16:09:41 <ericstephan> only whiskey in texas
16:09:51 <phila> Propose lunch at 12:30 Austin time
16:09:58 <yaso> +1 to phila
16:10:01 <ericstephan> +1
16:10:07 <Caroline> ok! We will change the schedule in 10min
16:10:10 <Caroline> so we can vote it
16:10:12 <Caroline> :)
16:10:35 <deirdrelee> PROPOSED: The BP next PWD to be published on May 18th
16:10:48 <Caroline> no!!!
16:10:53 <Caroline> that is not the proposal!
16:10:57 <yaso> Caroline: strongly disagrees
16:11:06 <Caroline> yes! Thks
16:11:11 <NewtonCalegari>  22 May 2015 Group voting
16:11:29 <Caroline> PROPOSED :  Last review of document before publishing it on May 18th
16:11:33 <yaso> +1
16:11:37 <ericstephan> +1
16:11:42 <annette_g> +1
16:11:57 <deirdrelee> +1
16:12:10 <Caroline> rephrasing it
16:12:58 <Caroline> PROPOSED :  on May 18th is the deadline for the Last review of document before publishing it. 22th May Group voting the document to be published
16:13:06 <deirdrelee> +1
16:13:46 <phila> PROPOSED : May 18th is the deadline for the Last review of the BP document before publishing it. 22th May Group voting the document to be published
16:14:30 <ericstephan> <whispers>
16:14:42 <flavio_> not yet
16:14:44 <yaso> Because people are confabulating on something.
16:14:53 <Caroline> let's rephrase it. Sorry!
16:14:57 <Caroline> Just 2min
16:15:15 <yaso> deirdre: we ARE going to breake
16:15:18 <Caroline> we need 5min
16:15:19 <ericstephan> eleven thirtyish
16:15:34 <Caroline> ok
16:15:38 <ericstephan> okay
16:16:08 <Zakim> -Austin
16:17:52 <Zakim> -makx
16:22:06 <NewtonCalegari> NewtonCalegari has joined #dwbp
16:31:30 <yaso> everybody ready to get back?
16:33:48 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
16:34:42 <ericstephan> re-docking to the mothership roger
16:34:52 <yaso> Caroline: Just one more minute
16:35:03 <phila> zakim, [ is Austin
16:35:05 <Zakim> +Austin; got it
16:35:06 <Caroline> The schedule is updated https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/BP_Document_Schedule. We will put the tests on the next schedule.
16:35:10 <NewtonCalegari> NewtonCalegari has joined #dwbp
16:35:10 <phila> RRSAgent, draft minutes
16:35:10 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/04/14-dwbp-minutes.html phila
16:35:22 <Caroline> The schedule is updated https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/BP_Document_Schedule. We will put the tests on the next schedule.
16:35:53 <yaso> I think is too far away
16:37:25 <yaso> Caroline: can you hear us?
16:38:47 <phila> When do you plan to publish the FPWD of the glossary?
16:38:56 <BernadetteLoscio_> q+
16:39:01 <annette_g> q-
16:39:05 <phila> All we hear is background hubub, nothing we can actually follow
16:39:41 <yaso> deirdre: this is the proposal?
16:39:41 <yaso> BernadetteLoscio_:  yes]
16:39:42 <yaso> PROPOSED: to change the schedule to d https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/BP_Document_Schedule
16:39:43 <yaso> sorry guys
16:39:50 <ericstephan> +1
16:39:59 <yaso> PROPOSED: to change the schedule to https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/BP_Document_Schedule
16:40:19 <yaso> BernadetteLoscio_: the glossary is going to be a note, but published together
16:40:27 <yaso> _1 to BernadetteLoscio_
16:40:33 <annette_g> +1 to BernadetteLoscio_
16:40:34 <yaso> I think is a separate document
16:40:39 <laufer> +1
16:40:42 <yaso> _1
16:40:47 <yaso> +q
16:40:50 <Sumit_Purohit> +1 BernadetteLoscio_
16:41:04 <ericstephan> +1 glossary, its information on the web
16:41:13 <phila> PROPOSED: That the Glossary is a separate document (a WG NOTE)
16:41:18 <Caroline> +1
16:41:19 <yaso> deirdre: is the glossary a separate note or it will be published with the BP doc
16:41:21 <yaso> ?
16:41:21 <annette_g> -1
16:41:24 <yaso> +1
16:41:33 <phila> ack annette_g
16:41:34 <Sumit_Purohit> -1
16:41:40 <yaso> q-
16:41:59 <yaso> annette_g: I put -1 because I think that it should be part of the document
16:42:04 <laufer> q+
16:42:13 <deirdrelee> q+ to say it applies to all documents in dwbp wg
16:42:14 <ericstephan> q+
16:42:17 <phila> annette_g: I think it should be part of the document that it's about. If separate, the BO should make sense without it and the glossary should make sense on its own
16:42:19 <yaso> ... if it is a separate document I think it should make sense on it's own
16:42:20 <phila> ack BernadetteLoscio_
16:42:28 <BernadetteLoscio_> http://www.w3.org/TR/ld-glossary/
16:42:33 <yaso> BernadetteLoscio_: It is not clear to me what the glossary will be
16:42:35 <yaso> +1
16:42:51 <yaso> BernadetteLoscio_: the idea of the glossary is for us to have an agreement of the terms
16:42:56 <deirdrelee> q?
16:43:02 <yaso> BernadetteLoscio_: that is why Im surprised
16:43:07 <yaso> q+
16:43:12 <deirdrelee> ack laufer
16:43:28 <yaso> laufer: we will publish this agreement because the audience has to understand our agreement
16:43:42 <Sumit_Purohit> +1 for annette_g and BernadetteLoscio_
16:43:51 <yaso> ... I think the glossary is not only for terms that we use at the BP doc, in the other docs of the group we will use the same content
16:43:54 <phila> ack next
16:43:55 <Zakim> deirdrelee, you wanted to say it applies to all documents in dwbp wg
16:44:02 <yaso> deirdre: I agree with laufer
16:44:16 <phila> deirdrelee: I think the doc should be independent as it applies to all the docs we create
16:44:24 <deirdrelee> http://htmlpreview.github.io/?https://github.com/w3c/dwbp/blob/gh-pages/glossary.html
16:44:28 <phila> ... what should it be - it's a list if terms
16:44:29 <yaso> ... the document should be independent because I think that the document applies to all the deliverables
16:44:39 <phila> q+
16:44:40 <deirdrelee> ack ericstephan
16:44:58 <yaso> ericstephan: I'm looking at what yaso has untill now
16:45:30 <yaso> ... if it something like what I'm looking at know, then is just something that people should point or read
16:45:33 <phila> q+ to make a suggestion (we could do both)
16:45:49 <annette_g> q+
16:46:01 <deirdrelee> zakim, close queue
16:46:01 <Zakim> ok, deirdrelee, the speaker queue is closed
16:47:05 <ericstephan> yes we did talk about this yaso, adding mental models as examples in the glossary.
16:47:24 <phila> ack me
16:47:24 <Zakim> phila, you wanted to make a suggestion (we could do both)
16:47:30 <deirdrelee> zakim, open queue
16:47:30 <Zakim> ok, deirdrelee, the speaker queue is open
16:47:31 <ericstephan> OPEN THE QUEUE
16:47:34 <ericstephan> :-)
16:47:37 <yaso> BernadetteLoscio_:  feels trapped by the closed queue
16:47:43 <BernadetteLoscio_> ==
16:47:58 <ericstephan> queue-straphobic
16:48:00 <BernadetteLoscio_> http://www.w3.org/TR/ld-glossary/
16:48:02 <yaso> phila: q-
16:48:06 <yaso> sorry
16:48:06 <BernadetteLoscio_> example of glossary!
16:48:07 <yaso> q-
16:48:11 <deirdrelee> q?
16:48:49 <yaso> annette_g: I think we need to consider what is the audience of the glossary
16:49:07 <ericstephan> initially its for us, to keep us in line for what we decide as a definition... :-)
16:49:10 <Sumit_Purohit> q+
16:49:13 <yaso> ... if it's made for the people who are reading the document so I think that it should be separated
16:49:15 <deirdrelee> ack annette_g
16:49:19 <deirdrelee> q+
16:49:23 <deirdrelee> ack Sumit_Purohit
16:49:36 <yaso> Sumit_Purohit: I think the glossary is a separated material
16:49:44 <yaso> ..I'm
16:49:47 <yaso> trying to
16:49:57 <ericstephan> q+
16:50:09 <yaso> Ok, thanks, phila!
16:50:47 <ericstephan> q-
16:50:48 <yaso> deirdre: when we have the 1st version
16:50:55 <yaso> ... then we can decide
16:51:00 <yaso> .. if it is ok or not
16:51:08 <yaso> q?
16:51:09 <Ig_Bittencourt> Ig_Bittencourt has joined #dwbp
16:51:12 <deirdrelee> ack deirdrelee
16:51:35 <NewtonCalegari> if the glossary is a separate doc, should we remove it from BP Schedule and deal with it in a separate schedule as well?
16:51:48 <BernadetteLoscio_> +1 to Newton
16:51:49 <yaso> ok
16:51:49 <deirdrelee> PROPOSED: Glossary should be separate doc from the bp doc
16:51:52 <yaso> +1
16:51:53 <phila> I'd say it can be FPWD when the BP doc is updated
16:51:56 <annette_g> -1 to separate schedule
16:51:57 <phila> +1
16:52:03 <riccardoAlbertoni> +1
16:52:05 <annette_g> we need to publish together
16:52:07 <GiselePappa> +1
16:52:11 <ericstephan> +1
16:52:12 <BernadetteLoscio_> +1
16:52:13 <Caroline> +1
16:52:16 <Ig_Bittencourt> +1
16:52:16 <deirdrelee> +1
16:52:16 <flavio_> 0
16:52:18 <Sumit_Purohit> -1
16:52:32 <BernadetteLoscio_> q+
16:52:41 <laufer> +1
16:52:49 <Ig_Bittencourt> and +1 to annette_g comments to do not have separate schedule.
16:52:52 <phila> PROPOSED: That the glossary is published simultaneously with the next version of the BP doc, with deep links from the BP doc to the relevant terms in the glossary
16:52:54 <yaso> BernadetteLoscio_: we are discussing here that if there are 2 docs, we should have separated schedules
16:53:07 <annette_g> +1 to phil
16:53:12 <phila> q+ to say you can't publish a doc with broken links
16:53:14 <yaso> ... this doesn't mean they should not be published together
16:53:17 <phila> ack BernadetteLoscio_
16:53:31 <flavio_> -1
16:53:44 <phila> ack me
16:53:44 <Zakim> phila, you wanted to say you can't publish a doc with broken links
16:53:52 <yaso> ... it can be synchronized but I think that is another doc, that has another editor, then it should have a separated schedule
16:54:03 <Sumit_Purohit> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/glossary
16:54:03 <deirdrelee> q+
16:54:21 <yaso> phila: you cannot publish document in w3c without proper links
16:54:45 <annette_g> you're breaking up
16:54:47 <phila> s/without proper links/with broken links/
16:54:57 <yaso> tks phila
16:55:15 <yaso> Can't hear
16:55:17 <yaso> ops
16:55:29 <phila> deirdrelee: We can have separate dates but they can be published together
16:55:33 <deirdrelee> ack me
16:55:40 <flavio_> when you publish a thesis, the glossary comes togheter
16:55:41 <BernadetteLoscio_> i agree!
16:55:44 <ericstephan> can we make that a proposal?
16:55:49 <Caroline> ok
16:55:55 <phila> We're actually creating a dependency for the BP doc on the glossary - but that's OK (and quite common)
16:56:09 <ericstephan> ok
16:56:11 <phila> deirdrelee: We have a date in the schedule... let's get the revised version of the glossary completed
16:56:26 <phila> phila: I would urge Yaso to include ids for every term in the glossary
16:56:54 <yaso> yes!
16:57:04 <yaso> No problem
16:57:08 <phila> deirdrelee: Are you OK, yaso, with the date of 23 April for the updated glossary?
16:57:29 <yaso> Yes
16:57:40 <phila> phila: And I'll try and get that para about the mental models done by then ;-)
16:57:59 <deirdrelee> PROPOSED : May 18th is the deadline for the Last review of the BP document before publishing it. 22th May Group voting the document to be published
16:58:04 <yaso> Yes yes, I have full days vacation at NY to do that :-D
16:58:09 <yaso> +1
16:58:09 <GiselePappa> q+
16:58:17 <deirdrelee> +1
16:58:38 <ericstephan> +1
16:58:52 <laufer> +1
16:58:54 <flavio_> +1
16:59:01 <phila> +1
16:59:02 <Sumit_Purohit> +1
16:59:03 <annette_g> +1
16:59:06 <Caroline> +1
16:59:07 <NewtonCalegari> +1
16:59:11 <BernadetteLoscio_> +1
16:59:13 <GiselePappa> +1
16:59:16 <phila> ack GiselePappa
16:59:24 <deirdrelee> RESOLVED: May 18th is the deadline for the Last review of the BP document before publishing it. 22th May Group voting the document to be published
16:59:29 <Caroline> ops
16:59:34 <Caroline> the dates are wrong!
16:59:42 <BernadetteLoscio_> 29 May 2015
16:59:51 <Caroline> Second Draft of DWBP Document 	  18 May 2015 	  Freeze the document to be reviewed by the group before publishing it 	 	  Second Draft of DWBP Document 	  22 May 2015 	  Last feedback from the group before publishing it 	 	  Second Draft of DWBP Document 	  29 May 2015 	  Group voting the document
17:00:28 <phila> s/22 May/29 May/
17:00:46 <annette_g> draft proposal: adopt the schedule on the wiki
17:00:57 <Caroline> https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/BP_Document_Schedule
17:01:01 <yaso> I quit from scribbing
17:01:11 <phila> CHAIR INTERRUPT - It was just a typo in the resolution - now fixed
17:01:20 <phila> Topic: Data Usage Vocabulary
17:01:28 <phila> deirdrelee: We have 3 hours left including lunch/dinner
17:01:41 <phila> deirdrelee: Goals - address as many issues as we can
17:01:45 <BernadetteLoscio_> q+
17:01:49 <phila> deirdrelee: Build the DUV team
17:01:55 <phila> ... look at the schedule
17:01:55 <yaso> q+
17:01:56 <ericstephan> sounds like a plan!
17:02:20 <phila> deirdrelee: Yesterday we had 90 min lunch - we can't afford that. 40 mins max today
17:02:24 <BernadetteLoscio_> q-
17:02:33 <ericstephan> we are kind of stuck with the accommodations here
17:02:47 <yaso> q-
17:03:09 <yaso> Agrees with deirdre that we have to stick with the agenda
17:04:21 <yaso> I propose that we go for lunch now
17:04:33 <yaso> And then go back to the data enrichment topic
17:04:34 <Caroline> +1 to yaso proposal
17:04:44 <Caroline> +10 to yaso proposal
17:04:45 <Ig_Bittencourt> 0
17:05:19 <yaso> phila: you are scribing?
17:05:22 <ericstephan> https://docs.google.com/document/d/17Wqrh4SKhFcHPykGPyXlljNNw8WJgMnpwzinvvGXn0o/edit?usp=sharing
17:06:08 <phila> ericstephan: I wanted to go over some of the issues that Dee and I have been talking about
17:06:12 <phila> scribe: phila
17:06:32 <phila> ericstephan: Some of the notes are not up to date but it shows the kind of thing we've been looking at
17:07:29 <phila> ericstephan: First thing I wanted to mention... we need another editor - Sumit
17:07:38 <phila> ... Is this OK with the team?
17:07:52 <deirdrelee> +1 :)
17:07:55 <phila> ... Sumit is a good fit for this team as he and I are working on the same schedule
17:08:01 <Caroline> +1 to Sumit_Purohit as a editor of the data usage vocabulary document
17:08:09 <phila> ... so there's joint motivation, and offers a pair of fresh eyes
17:08:33 <phila> ... in order to make him editor, do we need to make a proposal?
17:08:38 <phila> phila: No - go for it
17:09:02 <phila> ericstephan: So I'd like Berna, Sumit and I to walk through https://docs.google.com/document/d/17Wqrh4SKhFcHPykGPyXlljNNw8WJgMnpwzinvvGXn0o/edit#
17:09:53 <phila> ericstephan: We've been talking about data, datasets... it hit me that we're talking about ??
17:10:35 <phila> ericstephan: So I edited the first two paras to talk about datasets, not data
17:10:44 <phila> s/??/dataset usage//
17:10:46 <phila> s/??/dataset usage/
17:10:50 <annette_g> +1 to Eric
17:11:41 <phila> PROPOSED: That the 'Data Usage Vocaulary' be renamed the 'Dataset Usage Vocabulary'
17:11:47 <ericstephan> +1
17:11:48 <Ig_Bittencourt> +1 to ericstephan about talk about datasets.
17:11:51 <phila> +1
17:11:52 <NewtonCalegari> +1
17:11:54 <Sumit_Purohit> +1
17:11:54 <BernadetteLoscio_> +1
17:12:01 <yaso> +1
17:12:03 <Ig_Bittencourt> +1
17:12:04 <deirdrelee> +1
17:12:06 <makx> +1
17:12:09 <deirdrelee> q?
17:12:11 <phila> RESOLVED: That the 'Data Usage Vocaulary' be renamed the 'Dataset Usage Vocabulary'
17:12:22 <phila> BernadetteLoscio_: If we keep this in mind, it can help the BP doc
17:12:37 <phila> ... it will be more concrete to apply the BPs
17:12:46 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
17:12:52 <makx> zakim, ipcaller is me
17:12:52 <Zakim> +makx; got it
17:13:21 <phila> ericstephan: What occurred to me was that we can talk about datasets in the abstract, as a logical unit
17:13:34 <phila> q+ to make a slightly different proposal on the name
17:13:43 <annette_g> lots of nodding going on here
17:13:49 <phila> ack me
17:13:49 <Zakim> phila, you wanted to make a slightly different proposal on the name
17:14:20 <phila> my proposal - the Dataset Usage and Citation Vocabulary
17:15:18 <yaso> think it needs more reading on that so we can vote
17:15:21 <phila> phila: Talks about sci data publishing
17:15:38 <phila> ericstephan: Can we defer that discission until we've been through the model
17:15:42 <phila> phila: Of course
17:15:49 <yaso> q?
17:16:04 <phila> ericstephan: One of the things at the top of the doc - a bunch of observations
17:16:08 <Ig_Bittencourt> I could not understand phil's proposal.
17:16:27 <Ig_Bittencourt> But OK to skip this discussion to later on.
17:16:39 <phila> This is hte doc that has Turtle/JSON-LD switch http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/data-shapes-primer/
17:17:01 <phila> ericstephan: I like that because it gives the impression that it's not all about Sem Web
17:17:13 <ericstephan> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/153
17:17:18 <phila> ericstephan: I'd like to also raise the issue of open and closed data - does the vocab change depending on that?
17:17:43 <yaso> q?
17:17:49 <deirdrelee> q+
17:17:52 <Ig_Bittencourt> Thanks deirdrelee.
17:17:54 <phila> q+
17:17:54 <ericstephan> ack deirdrelee
17:18:07 <Ig_Bittencourt> Thanks Caroline. I am happy to be with you all, even by distance.
17:18:14 <Caroline> thank you ericstephan, great explanation!
17:18:34 <phila> deirdrelee: So you mean closed because it's behind a firewall, or legally encumbered or whatever
17:18:37 <annette_g> * waves at Ig
17:18:56 <phila> ericstephan: Phil crafted a short section about closed data in the UCR
17:19:03 <Ig_Bittencourt> :)
17:19:20 <phila> ... one of the things in the DUV - some things in the BP talk about when data isn't available
17:19:22 <deirdrelee> http://www.w3.org/TR/dwbp-ucr/#a-word-on-open-and-closed-data
17:19:24 <phila> q-
17:19:30 <annette_g> q+
17:19:33 <laufer> q+
17:19:40 <phila> ack annette_g
17:19:41 <ericstephan> ack annette_g
17:19:42 <Caroline> ericstephan: would be the difference between open data regarding the concept of the 5 stars and closed data as data that are not inclued on this concept?
17:19:42 <deirdrelee> +1 for including closed data
17:20:02 <phila> annette_g: Just to clarify - do you mean datasets that may or may not be open?
17:20:22 <phila> ericstephan: We might have been working on proprietary projects behind the firewall
17:20:33 <deirdrelee> q+
17:20:46 <phila> ericstephan: One of the first use cases in the doc was about different jurisdictions having different levels of sharing
17:21:27 <phila> ericstephan: I don't think this is sophisticated, just a couple of classes to formalise it
17:21:29 <deirdrelee> q+ to say that closed data should be specifically mentioned in scope
17:21:29 <phila> q?
17:21:32 <ericstephan> ack
17:21:38 <Caroline> +q
17:21:38 <deirdrelee> ack laufer
17:21:39 <phila> ack l
17:21:41 <Caroline> q+
17:22:32 <Ig_Bittencourt> According to the concept of closed data in de ucr doc, it is also related to the concept of deep web - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Web
17:22:44 <phila> ericstephan: The DUV is more about capturing feedback, providing info to publishers, not so much for machines
17:22:53 <annette_g> q+
17:22:57 <deirdrelee> q-
17:23:10 <Sumit_Purohit> +q
17:23:19 <Caroline> q-
17:23:48 <ericstephan> ack
17:23:57 <deirdrelee> ack annette_g
17:24:11 <phila> annette_g: It's important where I work to be able to say that some work you have dine has been cited by other researchers
17:24:21 <phila> ... by the DoE or whoever
17:25:05 <phila> ... you may do things at your end to make it easy to use but without a way to report back you won't know
17:25:23 <ericstephan> ack
17:25:24 <phila> ... as the person publishing the original work, I don't know whether you have used my data or not
17:25:28 <phila> ack Sumit_Purohit
17:26:10 <phila> Sumit_Purohit: I want to capture what the use is. We staretd with the UCR, if it's BP for publishing, then how many times it has been used is not part of the publisher's BP
17:26:44 <phila> Sumit_Purohit: Publishgers don't just vocabs, they provide a feedback mechanism, even if it's just a natural language field
17:26:46 <BernadetteLoscio_> q+
17:27:14 <ericstephan> ack BernadetteLoscio_
17:27:29 <phila> Sorry, Sumit, I lost that
17:27:31 <ericstephan> sorry BernadetteLoscio you are next
17:27:42 <phila> annette_g: Publishers wnat to know that fact that their data has been used at all
17:28:05 <phila> Sumit_Purohit: If you know the exact usage then you can create a template
17:28:12 <riccardoAlbertoni> s/wnat/want
17:28:36 <phila> annette_g: If you're the original publisher... how do they find out that it's been used
17:29:01 <laufer> q+
17:29:03 <phila> ericstephan: I think we're going as far as making it possible
17:29:25 <deirdrelee> q+
17:29:37 <phila> Sumit_Purohit: If you share someething on G+ or facebook, you get feedback - you know if it's shared
17:29:55 <phila> Sumit_Purohit: That kind of mechanism would be good
17:30:03 <phila> ... it requires that every usage has its own identifier
17:30:46 <phila> BernadetteLoscio: The BP in the doc we say that the publisher should provide a feedback mechanism so we'll link to the DUV
17:30:59 <Ig_Bittencourt> I remember a discussion in this way, related to pingbak (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pingback) and semantic pingbak (http://aksw.org/Projects/SemanticPingback.html)
17:31:18 <ericstephan> ack laufer
17:31:27 <deirdrelee> q-
17:31:30 <ericstephan> phila: ok
17:31:43 <Ig_Bittencourt> Perhap a BP could be to apply some pingback mecanism.
17:31:51 <ericstephan> can we propose something briefly?  attempt?
17:31:51 <Ig_Bittencourt> s/perhap/perhaps
17:32:15 <phila> ericstephan: I'd like to resolve the open/closed data issue
17:32:16 <Ig_Bittencourt> s/pingbak/pingback
17:32:17 <ericstephan> PROPOSED:  Explore the inclusion of open/closed data indicators in the data usage vocabulary.
17:32:23 <annette_g> +1
17:32:26 <Ig_Bittencourt> +1
17:32:27 <BernadetteLoscio> +1
17:32:28 <GiselePappa> +1
17:32:31 <flavio_> +1
17:32:31 <ericstephan> +1
17:32:32 <Sumit_Purohit> +1
17:32:33 <NewtonCalegari> +1
17:32:37 <laufer> phil, I am saying that for open data is difficult to have a way to identify the usage
17:33:00 <annette_g> gee, I wish there were a vocabulary for that
17:33:19 <laufer> when we have ids for users, or controlled data provided by apis we can control this... but with open data is difficult...
17:33:30 <phila> PROPOSED:  Include open/closed data indicators in the data usage vocabulary.
17:33:34 <yaso> +1
17:33:34 <Caroline> +1
17:33:36 <ericstephan> +1
17:33:37 <annette_g> +1
17:33:38 <riccardoAlbertoni> +1
17:33:44 <flavio_> +1
17:33:45 <ericstephan> thank you :-)
17:33:45 <GiselePappa> +1
17:33:47 <phila> q+
17:33:48 <laufer> +a
17:33:49 <Sumit_Purohit> +1
17:33:54 <BernadetteLoscio> +1
17:33:55 <ericstephan> ack phila
17:34:12 <Ig_Bittencourt_> Ig_Bittencourt_ has joined #dwbp
17:36:13 <deirdrelee> q+
17:36:29 <Sumit_Purohit> +1 for Phil's point.....we need to look into this
17:36:42 <ericstephan> +1
17:36:47 <phila> phila: I undertsand now - it's whether the feedback that the data has been used is public or not
17:36:59 <deirdrelee> q-
17:37:07 <phila> phila: That makes sense.
17:37:20 <phila> PROPOSED: Include open/closed indicators for feedback/usage info in the data usage vocabulary.
17:37:32 <ericstephan> +1
17:37:42 <annette_g> +1
17:37:43 <Ig_Bittencourt_> 0
17:38:05 <ericstephan> protecting feedback and constraining usage information
17:38:10 <phila> +1
17:38:20 <deirdrelee> +1
17:39:02 <laufer> +1
17:39:36 <Caroline> +1
17:39:54 <phila> RESOLVED: Include open/closed indicators for feedback/usage info in the data usage vocabulary.
17:39:57 <makx> some feedback serives ask you two questions: 1. do you want your feedback to be visible and 2. do you want your name to be visible or make the feedback anonymously
17:40:07 <phila> RRSAgent, draft minutes
17:40:07 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/04/14-dwbp-minutes.html phila
17:40:12 <yaso> 40 minutes
17:40:14 <yaso> ?
17:40:21 <yaso> 1h?
17:40:33 <phila> deirdrelee: We'll break for lunch. We will finsih at 15:00 Austin (21:00 Ipswich, 22:00 Barcelona)
17:40:50 <phila> We'll try and rush lunch
17:40:57 <phila> deirdrelee: So we'll aim for 20 past the hour
17:41:02 <phila> to reconvene
17:41:06 <phila> ==LUNCH==
17:41:06 <Caroline> thank you!
17:41:07 <Sumit_Purohit> +1 laufer  . consumer knowing feedback is open/close also affects the feedback level
17:41:08 <Zakim> -makx
17:41:11 <Zakim> -??P0
17:41:11 <Ig_Bittencourt_> by
17:41:12 <Ig_Bittencourt_> bye
17:41:13 <phila> RRSAgent, draft minutes
17:41:13 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/04/14-dwbp-minutes.html phila
17:41:31 <NewtonCalegari> NewtonCalegari has joined #dwbp
17:45:42 <Zakim> -Austin
17:45:43 <Zakim> DATA_DWBP()8:00AM has ended
17:45:43 <Zakim> Attendees were HadleyBeeman, phila, deirdrelee, riccardoalbertoni, makx, cgueret, cgueret_, Bernadette, Caroline, Eric, S, Flavio, Gisele, Laufer, Newton, Sumit, Yaso, Annette,
17:45:43 <Zakim> ... EricS, Austin
17:47:27 <giancarlo_guizzardi> giancarlo_guizzardi has joined #DWBP
17:47:56 <Zakim> DATA_DWBP()8:00AM has now started
17:48:03 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
17:50:37 <Zakim> -[IPcaller]
17:50:38 <Zakim> DATA_DWBP()8:00AM has ended
17:50:38 <Zakim> Attendees were [IPcaller]
18:08:28 <riccardoAlbertoni> riccardoAlbertoni has joined #DWBP
18:20:30 <flavio> flavio has joined #dwbp
18:27:19 <Zakim> DATA_DWBP()8:00AM has now started
18:27:26 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
18:27:37 <phila> zakim, [ is Ipswich
18:27:37 <Zakim> +Ipswich; got it
18:28:05 <phila> zakim, Ipswich has deirdrelee, riccardoAlbertoni, phila
18:28:05 <Zakim> +deirdrelee, riccardoAlbertoni, phila; got it