See also: IRC log
<scribe> scribe: phila
<scribe> scribeNick: phila
<riccardoAlbertoni> \me could you anyone remind me the webex URL please ?
<yaso> I think is this one, riccardoAlbertoni https://mit.webex.com/mit/j.php?MTID=m0642b1c7ce49018a07ffec17ea136ae
<riccardoAlbertoni> \me thanks ..
<yaso> oh I missed an 6 at the end of url. Sorry, https://mit.webex.com/mit/j.php?MTID=m0642b1c7ce49018a07ffec17ea136ae6
<yaso> \me :-)
<yaso> great. tks phila
riccardoAlbertoni, you can always type that command (zakim, code?) and get the info
<riccardoAlbertoni> \me Thanks phil,
<yaso> https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20151211
yaso: Lots of stuff to get through today
PROPOSAL: Accept last week's minutes http://www.w3.org/2015/12/04-dwbp-minutes
<yaso> +1
+1
<Eric_Kauz> +1
<gatemezi> +1
<riccardoAlbertoni> +1
RESOLUTION: Accept last week's minutes http://www.w3.org/2015/12/04-dwbp-minutes
<laufer> +1
-> http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html BP Doc Editors' Draft
newtoncalegari: I can start to
explain...
... We have made a lot of changes in the doc but I'll talk
about some specifics. One on APIs and Conneg
... Those BPs are not 100% completed yet
... We put some notes and issues in the doc to let readers know
that we are still improving those BPs
<BernadetteLoscio> :)
<newtoncalegari> http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#Conneg
phila: Start here? http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#bp-summary
<newtoncalegari> http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#useanAPI
http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#versionsForAPI
newtoncalegari: I think we need
to change the text a little
... keep the smae meaning but change the structure ofhte
text
yaso: So the necessary reqs to complete this BP is to provide examples and the structure of the text
newtoncalegari: Yes, that's why I put those notes in the text. I don't think it's a barrier to publication
yaso: I agree it's not a
barrier
... Anything else to say?
newtoncalegari: No, but BernadetteLoscio might have
BernadetteLoscio: We added a lot
to the doc. See the change history sedction
... We have 2 new sections. We also have a glossary with the
main sections of the doc and we have the benefits associated
with each BP
... Thanks to Phil for scripting
phila: NP
BernadetteLoscio: We also have
many more examples. They still need to be completed and I think
we made a lot of progress
... I think the doc is more mature. It has more content and we
have discussed a lot about this period about identifiers.
... We had a lot of discussion about the data vocab section and
we made some progress and some agreement
... We still have things to do concerning the data access
section
... We need more examples and need some more discussion about
the new BPs
... But now we have a more concrete stuff to discuss
... During the F2F we had a lot of important discussions and we
tried to reflect these doscussions in the new version
yaso: Anything to add Caroline_
Caroline_: No, that's it... Bernadette has explained
laufer: I missed a summary of
each section of the doc
... Something after the Intro but before the main content. I
miss that.
... I think the structure of the sections is inconsistent
... Sections 9, 10 and 11 seem inconsistent in style
<BernadetteLoscio> +q
laufer: Section 11.4 is a conclusion, that's not in the otehr sections
BernadetteLoscio: There is a mistake in the table of contents - it's not correct
laufer: No, not in the ToC
BernadetteLoscio: 11.4 is not
inside 11
... There's a mistake in the HTML, that's all
... That newton is going to correct.
laufer: I don't think we have section 9 BP and then section 10 for Sensitive data
newtoncalegari: I'm going to check the open elements
laufer: I think the glossary,
benefits, UCR etc can be appendices, not sections
... And we have 3 indexes - section 5,6 and 8
... I think that needs explaining
... And the separate section about the template can be in the
BPs. It's just a matter of rearanging things
... And I thought we decided on reuse, not re-use
yaso: So what do you suggest?
laufer: I think we need just one
section called Best practice and then all the BPs are in that
section (as sub sections)
... The other solution is not to have a section called Best
Practices
yaso: So are you against publishing?
<newtoncalegari> I'm already checking and fixing the HTML
phila: Talks about publication steps, validation etc.
BernadetteLoscio: There is an issue about the three indexes, I raised that
laufer: I see no problem with the three indexes, I just think we need to explain them and say that the user can access them in 3 differnet ways
<riccardoAlbertoni> please phil send the same check list l to me and Antoine as well
yaso: So if there are no other questions?
acl c
<yaso> hahahah, sorry. It's my keyboard crazy sound for "repeated letter"
<BernadetteLoscio> https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/227
Caroline_: Thanks laufer, Newton is fixing that now, and I think we could add a new issue about the indexes
phila: That's been raised already
Thanks BernadetteLoscio
That the Editors' Draft of the BP Doc at http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html be published as a next Working Draft on 17 December subject to the section numbers being sorted (through HTML validation)
<riccardoAlbertoni> I tend to agree with laufer :(
<yaso> phila: next pub date: january
<yaso> ... if we decide to not vote today
<laufer> we have to vote to not vote? we will have the same problem
PROPOSED: That we have sufficient people present to vote through a publication
<yaso> +1
<BernadetteLoscio> +1
<riccardoAlbertoni> +1
<Caroline_> +1
<newtoncalegari> +1
<laufer> I vote... What I want to know is if there is a minimum quorum for that...
ericstephan: If we wait until 6 Jan, will we have more or fewer people?
yaso: I'm afarid that people will
be on holidayt in January
... Newton and I won't be here 6 Jan
<laufer> we have the call saying that there will be a voting...
<Caroline_> I will be in January until the 19th
yaso: I thinkw e should vote now
<Caroline_> ops! on Holliday!
<ericstephan> +1
yaso: I think you're right...
ericstephan: I'll vote +1 just becausze I don't think the numebrs will be great this time of year and it seems that things won't be any better in early January
<Caroline_> I think we have a chance to send emails before January and try to get some external feedback
<Caroline_> if we vote today! :)
phila: gets his head around January being summer holiday/carnival time
<newtoncalegari> I think today is the last reasonable date to vote.
yaso: It's external feedback we
want
... And Caroline_ is right, we should publish now and get the
feedback
<ericstephan> yaso you also gave sufficient notice about this
RESOLUTION: That we have sufficient people present to vote through a publication
<laufer> let´s vote
<ericstephan> What is summer?
<laufer> is the guy that sums...
<ericstephan> laufer :-)
<Caroline_> come to Brazil, ericstephan to understand what is summer! :)
phila: Goes on about summer holidays etc
ericstephan: I just want to say that I've not had a chance to look at the BP doc as much as I'd like, but through all the dicsussion that we've had, this is one of the most mature docs we have
<riccardoAlbertoni> I agree with ericstephan ..
ericstephan: So unless there's somethign really horribly wrong, I'd advocate a vote to have it reviewed externally
That the Editors' Draft of the BP Doc at http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html be published as a next Working Draft on 17 December subject to the section numbers being sorted (through HTML validation)
That the Editors' Draft of the BP Doc at http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html be published as a next Working Draft on 17 December subject to the section numbers being sorted (through HTML validation) and PhilA updating the SVG diagram
PROPOSED: That the Editors' Draft of the BP Doc at http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html be published as a next Working Draft on 17 December subject to the section numbers being sorted (through HTML validation) and PhilA updating the SVG diagram
<laufer> +1
<riccardoAlbertoni> +1
<yaso> +1
<BernadetteLoscio> +1
<ericstephan> +1
<Caroline_> +1
<newtoncalegari> +1
<Eric_Kauz> +1
RESOLUTION: That the Editors' Draft of the BP Doc at http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html be published as a next Working Draft on 17 December subject to the section numbers being sorted (through HTML validation) and PhilA updating the SVG diagram
<BernadetteLoscio> :)
<riccardoAlbertoni> congrats!
<ericstephan> congrats BP team
<yaso> Data Quality Vocabulary
<BernadetteLoscio> congrats everyone!
<riccardoAlbertoni> http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/vocab-dqg.html
<Caroline_> congrats everyone! Specially Berna! :)
riccardoAlbertoni: If you click
on the link... you can see the latest version of our DQV
... I'll go through the doc and highlight the main changes
since the last publication
... First 3 sections haven't changed much. Thanks Phil for
producing the Turtle
... In the vocab overview, you can see the classes in the
diagram
... There are 3 sections
... bascially the part of the vocab that allow us to state the
quality assessment
... Upper Right is on dataset is compliant to a standard or
policy
... Bottom Right to express quality annotation
... has a quality certificiate
... There are some new constraints, dimensions, quality
feedback...
... During this period there has been plenty of
discussion
... We have kept the discussion up to date.
... In section http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/vocab-dqg.html#examples
we have included some earlier examples and added 4 new
examples
... in particular an example that received an ODI
certificate
... setion 6.5
... And there's another example of expressing the quality of a
Skos scheme and of a linkset
... And there's stuff on expressing conformance of a dataset to
a standard
... That came from a discussion with Phil
... and Andrea perego
... Only the dimension and metric section hasn't changed
bevcause we already decided that we want to align with ISO
200512
... blocked a little by the discussion that we're having on
issue 204 and 205
... So we have explained this in the doc.
... And we added a change history section
... I think we made a lot of progress. More to do of course but
the doc shows the direction that we're following
... SO I think it's the right time to make a snapshot
... Any questions?
yaso: Thank you Riccardo
laufer: Thank you for excellent
work. I've comment on how you've enhanced the comprehension.
Antoine desceribed the diagram very well,. What I miss is the
serialisation of the diagram
... I think some sentences to help understand the diagram
... Easier with text to explain the image
riccardoAlbertoni: You may have
noticed that at the beginning of the vocab overview there is a
short summary. but there are still a lot of technical issues
pending
... The parts I have described are more or less stable, but
soem parts are not. If you have some specific suggestions,
they'd be welcome
laufer: I saw the intro. But I think we can have a more informal description of what the idea of quality is
Laufer and Riccardo discuss the issue further
<yaso> ok
riccardoAlbertoni: So we could put an intro about the diagram, rephrasing things in more general terms
laufer: That would work...
yaso: Can you discuss this later by mail?
laufer: It's not an issue, I;m OK with this
<laufer> ok
<riccardoAlbertoni> fine
<riccardoAlbertoni> ok
PROPOSED: That the document at http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/vocab-dqg.html be published as the next WD of the Data Quality Vocabulary, subject to a Note being added that a textual description of the diagram will be added.
<yaso> its ok!
<yaso> +1
<gatemezi> +1
<ericstephan> +1
<BernadetteLoscio> +1
<laufer> +1
<Caroline_> +1
<Eric_Kauz> +1
<riccardoAlbertoni> +1
<PWinstanley> +1
<newtoncalegari> +1
RESOLUTION: That the document at http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/vocab-dqg.html be published as the next WD of the Data Quality Vocabulary, subject to a Note being added that a textual description of the diagram will be added.
yaso: Do we have time to go through the DUV?
ericstephan: Let me explain where
we are
... I can go over really quickly. Thanks to Bernadette for the
much cleaner model
<BernadetteLoscio> ;)
ericstephan: The issues 214-218
have been resolved
... Thanks to Phil for improvementes to get ready for
publication and the TTL file
phila: NP
ericstephan: Sumit went back in
and improved the turtle file with major improvements made in
the last 24 hours
... and we've had comments from Phil
... What's missing are some properties that need to be added,
and there are some changes Phil has suggested that I agree
with
... We need stronger refs to external vocabs and there are
issues that need to be added before it's published
... Is that it Berna?
BernadetteLoscio: Yes, I agree. We needed to make changes to the model. We had a lot of discussions about the citations
PWinstanley: The image in section
7 (vocab overview) works very micely in my Firefox but in my
coroprate IE11 it's not supported
... It's an embedded SVG that causes me a problem on my
corporate desktop
q
<ericstephan> thank you for bringing that to our attention!
yaso: I think we can add an issue about that, thanks PWinstanley
<ericstephan> +1 laufer I agree
laufer: I have the same comment
as for DQV - we could do with a textual decription of the
diagram
... and the order of sections might be improved
... And we have a ref to a class of duvFeedback that was
changed to duv:userfeedback
... And we have several terms i the diagram that aren't in the
spec and vice versa
yaso: I don't think it's an issue about the diagram/list issue
-> http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#challenges
phila: Checked with PWinstanley that the SVG at http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#challenges is visible to him (it is)
newtoncalegari: I have updated the doc and ToC, i think it's right now
laufer: Agaiun, we have around 10
terms in the vocab overview andnot in the spec - I think the
spec is the main thing of the doc
... I think we need all the terms decsribed
BernadetteLoscio: There more that needs to be included, Laufer is right, and we need to address Phil's last comment
yaso: So maybe the DUV shouldn't be published yet
ericstephan: I tend to
agree
... I am usually very proactive about getting things out and
there are some editorial things that we need to work through.
I'm disappointed but that's where we are I think
laufer: I can send some text to help the editors
<scribe> ACTION: laufer to send a list of things to be added to/addressed in the DUV document [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/12/11-dwbp-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-224 - Send a list of things to be added to/addressed in the duv document [on Carlos Laufer - due 2015-12-18].
BernadetteLoscio: And about the4 Bp doc please laufer
yaso: Although we doidn't vote on the DUV, I think we had a successful meeting
<riccardoAlbertoni> thanks all
<BernadetteLoscio> thanks all!
yaso: Congratulations to the editors of the docs that wuill be published. I suggest next week we talk about DUV
<laufer> congrats to the editors of the three docs...
ericstephan: I would ecnourage everyone to read through, comment etc. so that we can get it ready
<ericstephan> wow
<BernadetteLoscio> wow wow
<riccardoAlbertoni> Thanks phil ..
<laufer> bye all... nice weekend...
<BernadetteLoscio> yes Phil! Thanks a lot!
<PWinstanley> bye
phila: Goes on about PubRules
<gatemezi> bye
<Caroline_> thank you!! Bye!
<yaso> rssagent, draft minutes
<yaso> ops
<yaso> tks phil