W3C

Data on the Web Best Practices Working Group Teleconference

09 Oct 2015

Agenda

See also: IRC log

Attendees

Present
PeterWinstanley, MTCarrasco, phila, riccardoAlbertoni, Caroline_, hadleybeeman, nandana, fradulov, antoine, laufer, Steve, Eric_S, Annette, Riccardo
Regrets
Dee
Chair
Hadley
Scribe
annette_g

Contents


<trackbot> Date: 09 October 2015

<hadleybeeman> Hello!

<hadleybeeman> Uh oh… the webex link is gone.

<Caroline_> hello!

<riccardoAlbertoni> hi everyone

I'm not in to the webex yet. It's asking for a meeting, event, or session number?

<hadleybeeman> annette_g: paste in the webex link

<hadleybeeman> https://mit.webex.com/mit/j.php?MTID=m2c0af451188e3c2177f8d56453c588e9

I did, same as ever

<hadleybeeman> how strange

Ah, yours works better

I can scribe

<hadleybeeman> scribe: annette_g

<hadleybeeman> http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/dwbp/2015-09-18

PROPOSED: accept last week's minutes

<hadleybeeman> +0 (wasn't here)

<Caroline_> +1

<MTCarrasco> +1

+1

<nandana> +1

<antoine> +1

<riccardoAlbertoni> +1

<phila> +1

<fradulov> +1

<phila> RESOLVED: Minutes from http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/dwbp/2015-09-18 accepted

RESOLUTION: approve last week's minutes

<hadleybeeman> http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/dwbp/2015-09-24

<phila> That's harder - we talked for a long time!

PROPOSED: accept minutes from F2F

<laufer> +1 (delayed)

<antoine> +1 I've just re-read them entirely, they're good :-)

<MTCarrasco> 0

<hadleybeeman> http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/dwbp/2015-09-25

<Caroline_> +1

<PeterWinstanley__> +1

<riccardoAlbertoni> +1

<hadleybeeman> +0 (wasn't there :( )

<nandana> +1

<fradulov> +0

+1

<laufer> +1

<antoine> +1

<phila> +1 But I can see I need to clean those minutes up

RESOLUTION: accept minutes from F2F

<adler1> gm

hadleybeeman: goes over the agenda

<ericstephan> ericstephan present+

hadleybeeman: can you review where we are on the DUV, ericstephan?

ericstephan: we met to review and see if we can get a request for comments

we are developing ideas around DUV feedback and citation, trying to make them more clearly spelled out

hadleybeeman: any questions?

silence ensues

Caroline_: Newton and Bernadette send regrets

<Caroline_> https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/F2F_S%C3%A3o_Paulo_-_Agenda_Proposal_DWBP

It would be nice to close some of the last issues from the F2F

<Caroline_> Other Open Issues - To be discussed/closed before the F2F or if we have time during the F2F

the only ones we couldnt are the ones at the end of the list

<phila> The meeting has moved on but I wanted to note the work at http://www.sparontologies.net/ which shows more organisational support for CITO etc.

<phila> issue-93?

<trackbot> issue-93 -- Free Open Data SLAs for Open Data publishing -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/93

<Caroline_> ISSUE-93: Free Open Data SLAs for Open Data publishing

<trackbot> Notes added to ISSUE-93 Free Open Data SLAs for Open Data publishing.

Caroline_: let's see if we can close this issue.

<ericstephan> thank you I look forward to seeing this @phila!

phila: in Sao Paolo, there was a lot of discussion around what an SLA is. It's a kind of pledge. It fits into all sorts of places. I think it's useful to have, but I have to do more thinking. We have to support making comments on the publisher rather than the data itself

adler1: at IBM we talk about a content level agreement, which is a little different from an SLA.

hadleybeeman: where does that leave you, Caroline?

Caroline_: not sure if we can close the issue. Phil?

phila: ODI certificates certify that the data was produced according to a pipeline, no comment on the quality itself. "Data produced in accordance with..."
... it's up to the DQV folks to decide to include it if it makes sense to them. In the BP doc, we can say it's useful to say that it's useful

<adler1> agree

hadleybeeman: does that close the issue?

Caroline_: I think Antoine and Riccardo should weigh in

laufer: we have assertions about the quality of a thing, we have a vocab for that. We have intentions of things to be done about the process, and then we have an SLA, a commitment to do a thing in a certain way. These are two different things.

<ericstephan> Here is an interesting vocab efforts that includes a vocabulary for SLA http://linked-usdl.org/ http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/usdl/

riccardoAlbertoni: we have an action on DQV to figure out in which terms we will address this in the vocab.

Caroline_: maybe it can wait to see what riccardoAlbertoni and antoine decide.

hadleybeeman: anyone against?

silence ensues

<phila> action-203?

<trackbot> action-203 -- Riccardo Albertoni to Add an example with an sla as quality policy, trying to use the same dimensions as metrics and annotations -- due 2015-10-01 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/203

<antoine> there's also https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/199

phila: we have action 203 that can be closed and defer to the DQV action.

Caroline_: I think we can close the issue and create an action to decide how to implement in the BP doc.

<scribe> ACTION: Caroline_ to check what DQV has done about SLAs. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/10/09-dwbp-minutes.html#action01]

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

<phila> ACTION: burle to check what DQV folks have done about issue-93 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/10/09-dwbp-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-211 - Check what dqv folks have done about issue-93 [on Caroline Burle - due 2015-10-16].

<phila> close issue-93

<trackbot> Closed issue-93.

<PeterWinstanley__> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2729758/ the 'Terminology Review Criteria' might be helpful in the discussion

<hadleybeeman> issue-94?

<trackbot> issue-94 -- Dataset versioning and dataset replication -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/94

Caroline_: next issue, data set versioning. can it be closed?

<Caroline_> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/94

phila: this is pretty old, trying to recall the meaning of it

hadleybeeman: quotes a note pointing out that it might be good to avoid tying ourselves to specific tools

<hadleybeeman> I was looking at this: http://www.w3.org/mid/8CE0D584-8E19-4881-9C87-D0BB98F48A55%2540lbl.gov

<Zakim> phila, you wanted to talk about http://www.w3.org/2013/share-psi/bp/ec/

<phila> Crowdsourcing BP

phila: one issue in SharePSI is around crowdsourcing, saying it's a really good idea. It talks about using GitHub.
... if this group is not happy about making a rec about policy stuff, we can at least know that SharePSI is covering it.

hadleybeeman: to me crowdsourcing is more about collection of data than publishing it. Glad that SharePSI is doing that.

Caroline_: still not sure if we can close this

hadleybeeman: we can add a note to the issue
... adds a note
... now what do we do with the issue? somebody needs to get back to Peter Hanacek.
... we have to be able to show that we've resolved all the issues.

phila: notes a way to contact Peter via a common project with Deirdre.

<phila> ACTION: Deirdre to follow up on issue-94 with COMSODE project [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/10/09-dwbp-minutes.html#action03]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-212 - Follow up on issue-94 with comsode project [on Deirdre Lee - due 2015-10-16].

* phila, you rock on Zakim

Caroline_: we can close this one

<hadleybeeman> issue-148?

<trackbot> issue-148 -- Can we use the five star rating system as a BP document metric to describe Open Data instead of a path to LD? -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/148

ericstephan: we were grappling with whether there is a way we can characterize open data. Let me dig through earlier meeting notes and look at it again next week.

Caroline_: can we close it and reopen by email if needed?

<phila> Dee https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-wg/2015Mar/0102.html

so what's the action??

<phila> http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#DataIdentifiers

phila: a big hole has been pointed out in the BP doc. in the section on identifiers, we say use persistent IDs and another one says you should assign URIs to datasets. We need something that says you should make use of URIs as identifiers *within* datasets
... I'm hoping that will help address Eric Wilde's issue.

hadleybeeman: that can help us get away from the contentious discussion about linked data.

<scribe> ACTION: ericstephan to look into issue 148 and restart the conversion or close the issue [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/10/09-dwbp-minutes.html#action04]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-213 - Look into issue 148 and restart the conversion or close the issue [on Eric Stephan - due 2015-10-16].

<ericstephan> Yes I'll send out an email

<Caroline_> thank you, ericstephan!

Caroline_: issue-149

<phila> issue-149?

<trackbot> issue-149 -- How to handle metadata that is embedded in the document? -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/149

<phila> issue-150?

<trackbot> issue-150 -- Decide how examples are included in bp doc -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/150

Caroline_: the editors are open to discussion on this one.

we'd like to get some ideas

hadleybeeman: what specific questions are you asking?

Caroline_: input about how the examples should be included in the BP doc. right now they're in a very simple form.

… also, if you have examples to contribute, that would help.

phila: I don't think an example can be too simple
... it shouldn't be too hard to talk about metadata that's embedded. It doesn't seem like a big issue.
... you can have more than one example for an issue that's complex

ericstephan: was thinking about going back to the use case doc to glean examples

<Zakim> hadleybeeman, you wanted to talk about how people use examples in specs

hadleybeeman: makes sense to me. Phil taught me that most people when they look at a spec, they look at examples and pictures rather than reading the words.

<ericstephan> key point here about examples

hadleybeeman: they help people learn what they need. Keeping them simple is great.

Caroline_: I agree 100%.
... would anyone like to help us make examples, try to write about it as well?

<ericstephan> I can help write some that relate to the data usage vocab

<phila> The mind is willing but not this side of TPAC

ericstephan: in developing the DUV, that might help us tie things back to the BP doc.

Caroline_: we can close the issue.

<ericstephan> maybe make an assignment table?

Caroline_: not sure if we should make an action

ericstephan: we could make a table for people to fill in examples

<newtoncalegari> action to create the assignment table to fill examples

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

ericstephan: I'd be happy to help

<newtoncalegari> action newtoncalegari to create the assignment table for relate people to work on examples

<trackbot> Created ACTION-214 - Create the assignment table for relate people to work on examples [on Newton Calegari - due 2015-10-16].

<hadleybeeman> close issue-150?

<trackbot> Closed issue-150.

hadleybeeman: we are running short on time. do we want to spend time on open issues or talk about DQV?

antoine: I'd like to do some basic discussion about DQV instead of open issues

<adler1> gotta drop

Data Quality Vocab

antoine: there are some issues from the F2F that maybe we can close.

<hadleybeeman> issue-185?

<trackbot> issue-185 -- dqv:QualityAnnotation modeling issues -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/185

hadleybeeman: did the issue come from you?

<phila> That issue has a recorded resolution - that means it should probably be closed

antoine: yes, driven by a specific modeling question

<hadleybeeman> close issue-185

<trackbot> Closed issue-185.

hadleybeeman: we have a recorded resolution on this

<hadleybeeman> issue-184?

<trackbot> issue-184 -- Is an dqv:ServiceLevelAgreement a kind of certificate, or a standard? -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/184

antoine: we have two resolutions for this one, and we opened a new issue

<phila> issue-199

<trackbot> issue-199 -- Is dqv:QualityPolicy a subclass of dcterms:Standard? -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/199

<hadleybeeman> close issue-184

<trackbot> Closed issue-184.

<phila> So I'd say that 184 can be closed and handed to 199

antoine: I was the one who raised this

<phila> action-201?

<trackbot> action-201 -- Antoine Isaac to Add note to dqv document seeking examples from external reviewers -- due 2015-10-01 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/201

<antoine> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-wg/2015Sep/0093.html

<hadleybeeman> closer action-201

antoine: that was an action on me, I sent an email to the list.

<hadleybeeman> close action-201

<trackbot> Closed action-201.

<antoine> https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/201

antoine: new editorial issue Riccardo has raised about using instances of OA:motivation

<hadleybeeman> issue-201?

<trackbot> issue-201 -- Should we exploit predefined instances of oa:Motivation to further characterize the UserQualityFeedback purposes? -- raised

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/201

antoine: the action is currently only raised as an issue.
... riccardoAlbertoni has put some text asking feedback from readers.

<antoine> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-wg/2015Aug/0146.html

antoine: we need to come back to it with whatever feedback we receive

<antoine> Relation between DQV, ISO 19115/19157 and GeoDCAT-AP

antoine: ISO and DQV, I'd like to not loose track of these things

<hadleybeeman> issue: relation between DQV, ISO 19115/19157 and GeoDCAT-AP

<trackbot> Created ISSUE-202 - Relation between dqv, iso 19115/19157 and geodcat-ap. Please complete additional details at <http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/202/edit>.

antoine: there was a lot of discussion on this, but we are out of time now.

hadleybeeman: puts the email into the issue
... \a\n

y

any other comments?

silence reigns

<phila> Regrets for next Friday (moving house)

hadleybeeman: reviews next week's agenda

<phila> I'll try and have something to offer on the Erik W issues for next week

hadleybeeman: if people want to suggest agenda items, feel free

antoine: can you take care of carrying on nandana and fadi's items?

hadleybeeman: yep

Caroline_: let's keep talking about issues on email. editors will try to prioritize.

<MTCarrasco> bye

<riccardoAlbertoni> have a good weekend!

<laufer> bye all... nice to see you...

bye all!

<Caroline_> bye! Thank you!!

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: Caroline to check what DQV has done about SLAs. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/10/09-dwbp-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: Deirdre to follow up on issue-94 with COMSODE project [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/10/09-dwbp-minutes.html#action03]
[NEW] ACTION: ericstephan to look into issue 148 and restart the conversion or close the issue [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/10/09-dwbp-minutes.html#action04]
 
[End of minutes]