Data on the Web Best Practices Working Group Teleconference

<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

BP Document

-> 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

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.

Dataset Usage Vocabulary

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