IRC log of csvw on 2015-10-21

Timestamps are in UTC.

13:18:26 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #csvw
13:18:26 [RRSAgent]
logging to
13:18:28 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
13:18:28 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #csvw
13:18:30 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be CSVW
13:18:31 [trackbot]
Meeting: CSV on the Web Working Group Teleconference
13:18:31 [Zakim]
I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot
13:18:31 [trackbot]
Date: 21 October 2015
13:18:36 [ivan]
Chair: DanBri
13:18:40 [ivan]
zakim, code?
13:18:40 [Zakim]
I have been told this is WebEx URL: Conf Code: 649 989 326 passwd csvw
13:59:26 [gkellogg]
gkellogg has joined #csvw
14:00:35 [danbri]
> US Toll Number: tel:%2B1-617-324-0000
14:01:56 [danbri]
here: ivan, gregg, danbri,
14:01:59 [danbri]
jtandy on his way
14:02:08 [danbri]
jtandy arrived
14:02:40 [danbri]
agenda: well-known? any other?
14:02:59 [danbri]
14:03:02 [jtandy]
q+ to refer to ISSUE 755
14:03:45 [danbri]
re #741
14:03:57 [danbri]
gkellogg: jeni needs to sign off on all tests, so we can finalize
14:04:22 [danbri]
leaving #741 highlighted in tracker, but is in Jeni's hands
14:04:43 [danbri]
gkellogg: only thing needing changes #481 is usecases
14:04:49 [danbri]
ivan de-tagged it
14:04:55 [danbri]
leaving only 2 , wellknown and measures
14:05:00 [danbri]
measures is with jeni ...
14:05:05 [danbri]
therefore: well-known
14:05:45 [danbri]
danbri invites ivan us to guide us through .well-known situation
14:05:52 [jtandy]
14:07:10 [danbri]
ivan: the group has advice from W3C TAG. The argument from David has not changed that advice. At the moment, in this sense, we are not in a position to change whatever we did on previous request from TAG. That's all we can say right now. We have kept it open for as long as possible, but at this moment we have to close the issue. And the only [plausible] way we can close it is to keep the feature in it.
14:07:36 [danbri]
ivan: that being said, there may be 1 or 2 minor editorial things in the document that we could address. Jeni added something in that direction in her comments, copying here now -
14:07:41 [ivan]
From Jeni, as an editorial comment: "I also suggest that we add a note encouraging people to link directly to metadata files rather than CSV files, or to use the Link header, wherever that is possible."
14:08:51 [danbri]
gkellogg: also need to address david's request that we add something saying it is a bad idea. Or is this what Jeni's note is intended to cover?
14:09:24 [danbri]
ivan: I believe it would be inappropriate in a recommendation [i.e. to say the design is a bad idea]
14:09:56 [danbri]
… I did miss that there is [currently] a default setup, so we have in effect in a slightly hidden way, that the fixed path is part of the doc, when wellknown isn't there
14:10:17 [danbri]
…. we can maybe add a remark in parenthesis in bullet points as an editorial change
14:10:25 [danbri]
… to avoid others making the same misreading as I did.
14:10:59 [danbri]
… these 2 ( fwd ref + jeni's comment ) plus removing the status note are what we need to do
14:11:04 [danbri]
gkellogg: 5.3 is clear
14:11:07 [danbri]
(url to spec please)
14:11:26 [danbri]
ivan: at v beginning of section 5, there are 4 items, giving priority. I think it actually no.3 that refers to this
14:11:37 [danbri]
… "in absense of a site-wide configuration file, use the defaults as…" etc
14:11:51 [danbri]
gkellogg: i can take a stab at those, jeni may decide my wording isn't ideal
14:12:22 [danbri]
thanks jtandy
14:12:35 [jtandy]
editors draft:
14:12:51 [ivan]
Proposal: we leave the .well-known mechanism in the standard, with two editorial changes (Jeni's text on clarification and the forward reference)
14:13:09 [jtandy]
14:13:10 [ivan]
14:13:10 [gkellogg]
14:13:11 [danbri]
14:13:25 [ivan]
RESOLVED: we leave the .well-known mechanism in the standard, with two editorial changes (Jeni's text on clarification and the forward reference)
14:13:31 [ivan]
rrsagent, pointer?
14:13:31 [RRSAgent]
14:13:46 [jtandy]
(and we remove the issue marker: FEATURE AT RISK 555)
14:14:05 [danbri]
(yes, remove issue marker; that is implied I think)
14:14:08 [jtandy]
s/marker/marker in the spec/
14:14:30 [danbri]
action is on gregg to implement this change
14:14:31 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-66 - On gregg to implement this change [on Ingo Simonis - due 2015-10-28].
14:14:44 [danbri]
(ignore that trackbot)
14:18:08 [danbri]
14:18:40 [danbri]
ivan: where are we exactly with the implementations and the reporting?
14:19:23 [danbri]
[jtandy merges something from gregg]
14:19:28 [danbri]
ivan: … implementations?
14:19:47 [jtandy]
Pull Request 757 relating to Issue 755
14:20:04 [danbri]
gkellogg: we have my impl, which is complete w.r.t. current tests. Jeni's - couple more TODO. Was also going to do RDF. Once that is complete, and signed off that she agrees with all the tests, then we will have 2 complete implementations.
14:20:21 [danbri]
We also got notice from Davide of his partial implementation (in R) + impl report, which I will integrate.
14:20:29 [danbri]
Nothing from Austria yet.
14:21:15 [danbri]
Also Juan and Peter Mika may be able to make statements of support
14:21:19 [danbri]
ivan: we need to plan.
14:21:28 [danbri]
… I will be out for practically 2 weeks (TPAC + china)
14:21:41 [danbri]
… then 2 more travelling; won't be on calls
14:21:47 [danbri]
danbri: also at TPAC
14:22:11 [danbri]
jeremy, danbri, ivan … will all be at TPAC
14:22:32 [danbri]
ivan: what is a really realistic date for publication for a PR?
14:22:46 [danbri]
gkellogg: let's wait for impl stuff to settle
14:23:02 [danbri]
ivan: problem I have … possible dates for a PR transition call
14:23:08 [danbri]
nov 9, 10, 16, 17, 18
14:23:19 [danbri]
publication proper cannot happen before the 24
14:23:44 [danbri]
what I wonder is … is it possible to plan for let's say the 16, 17 or 18…
14:24:34 [danbri]
depends on jeni - ivan to ask by email
14:25:03 [danbri]
proposed rec 24th nov, REC by mid-january
14:25:07 [danbri]
or end january
14:25:24 [danbri]
leaves us 2 months to finalize the use case doc, if we want it done as a Note, and the question of a Primer
14:25:26 [danbri]
and an HTML Note
14:26:49 [danbri]
danbri: also saw Anastasia & friends, they have impl of the mapping part via (R2)RML
14:29:25 [danbri]
14:29:30 [danbri]
ivan: one more thing to discuss, gregg...
14:29:49 [danbri]
… it is one thing that we produce a report that is sort of frozen for the transition and archiving, but do we want to leave the testing mechanism open
14:29:54 [danbri]
like you guys did with the rdf testing
14:30:02 [danbri]
gkellogg: … json-ld, and rdfa, …
14:30:17 [danbri]
…repos remain open,. indeed even after publication and WG closure we have made changes later
14:30:24 [danbri]
… now have rdf-tests community group too
14:30:43 [danbri]
… seems to me that we can keep the csvw repository open. the impl report exists in there and the tests.
14:30:48 [danbri]
… w3c infrastructure points there
14:31:05 [danbri]
… when we point to the impl report from the rec do we point to a frozen report, or something more alive?
14:31:16 [danbri]
ivan: from the doc, the impl report has to be frozen
14:31:54 [danbri]
gkellogg: i disagree
14:32:19 [danbri]
danbri: not big deal. link to both. frozen is work of a chartered W3C WG, latter dynamic is work of an unconstrained community followup
14:32:26 [danbri]
14:32:38 [jtandy]
14:35:19 [danbri]
14:35:24 [danbri]
rrsagent, please draft minutes
14:35:24 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate danbri
14:35:30 [danbri]
rrsagent, please publish minutes
14:35:30 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate danbri
14:35:53 [danbri]
thanks all!
14:36:10 [ivan]
rrsagent, draft minutes
14:36:10 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate ivan
16:05:33 [danbri]
copying a reply from David into
16:11:00 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #csvw
18:53:01 [danbri]
danbri has joined #csvw
19:40:41 [JeniT]
JeniT has joined #csvw