See also: IRC log
.present+ PWinstanley
password for webex?
<Yaso> is xGbzp445, PWinstanley
:-) thanks
<Yaso> no problem :-)
<phila> Yaso: Any volunteer to scribe this week?
<phila> scribe: PWinstanley
<annette_g> *waves back*
<Yaso> PROPOSED: Accept last week's minutes
<annette_g> Yaso, you are very quiet
<annette_g> better
<Yaso> https://www.w3.org/2016/01/29-dwbp-minutes
<phila> PROPOSED: Accept https://www.w3.org/2016/01/29-dwbp-minutes
<ericstephan> it may be your firewall PWinstanley
<annette_g> +1
<Yaso> +1
<Caroline_> +1
<phila> +1
<ericstephan> 0 (was absent)
<newton> +1
RESOLUTION: Accept https://www.w3.org/2016/01/29-dwbp-minutes
<PWinstanley_> phila: will start emailing minutes each week
<PWinstanley_> Yaso: DUV
<Yaso> http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/vocab-du.html
<phila> latest published version
<ericstephan> https://www.w3.org/TR/dwbp/#DataIdentifiers
<ericstephan> https://www.w3.org/TR/dwbp/#feedbacksection
<PWinstanley_> ericstephan: We haven't made links between DUV and the best practices
<PWinstanley_> ...in the glossary there is mention of a citation, but we don't describe a reference
<PWinstanley_> ...separation of these is important and needs to be done
<ericstephan> https://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-duv/
<PWinstanley_> ericstephan: we have been very busy the past 2 weeks trying to get comments (comments from Robin haven't been responded to yet)
<PWinstanley_> .... trying to write in a collaboration journal
<PWinstanley_> ....opportunity to present a poster too
<PWinstanley_> ...these are good opportunities to publicise the DUV
<ericstephan> https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/235
<PWinstanley_> ...Bernadette will be publishing it at meetings too
<phila> FORCE 11 Event, April - DUV has a poster session
<ericstephan> https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/234
<PWinstanley_> ...issue 235, a note back to the editors to make sure we are finding the right namespaces
<phila> I'm planning to offer help with Issue-235
<PWinstanley_> .... JP had questions about the role of the usage tool. We are going to be routing ideas through to communities that have an interest in usage vocabularies
<PWinstanley_> ...questions on 235?
<phila> issue-234?
<trackbot> issue-234 -- Role of Usage Tool -- open
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/234
<phila> issue-235
<trackbot> issue-235 -- Namespaces in DUV -- open
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/235
<PWinstanley_> phila: I am offereing to help (235 - namespaces) . when I was getting doc ready for publication I needed to look through but was careful not to tidy up what I found. However, probably not this month
<ericstephan> https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/236
<Yaso> issue-236
<trackbot> issue-236 -- agentClassification, usageClassification, skos:Concept -- open
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/236
<PWinstanley_> ericstephan: 236 was more a general question abobut SKOS and usage classification.
<Yaso> ericstephan: almost can't hear you
<ericstephan> I have bad reception
<Caroline_> it is better now! :)
<PWinstanley_> ... 236 - JP had some concerns about the use of SKO Concept. The rationale was to be able to describe something beyond what was described for e.g. a Person (including type of Person etc)
<PWinstanley_> phila: the org ontonlogy has concepts of classification and purpose. I worry about type of person, we all fulfill multiple roles and ascribing a type to a person might be problematic
<PWinstanley_> ericstephan: we did have a usage role but were pushed into the FOAF corner.
<PWinstanley_> antoine: I have reservation about introducing new properties. It is the design principle I don't like.
<PWinstanley_> ...if there was a way to reuse from other vocabs I think that would be better
<PWinstanley_> ...we could recommend using vocabs from another namespace
<PWinstanley_> ericstephan: sounds like a pattern of recommendation rather than formal inclusion
<PWinstanley_> antoine: yes
<PWinstanley_> ericstephan: it sounds like we are trying to address corner cases, and that might be confusing to people. In order to be inclusive we could show patterns
<phila> +1 to limiting the scope
<PWinstanley_> antoine: it is a matter of determing core usage vs occasional use where the authoratative version lies elsewhere
<PWinstanley_> ericstephan: there could be an appendix to address these things
<ericstephan> https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/237
<PWinstanley_> ...237: there was a question about the use of a term that we found for feedback.
<PWinstanley_> ...we found this class (recommended from a social networking vocab) and inserted this into the model. JP's concern is that this introduces another obscure concept to the model.. So, do we just creata a DUV term rather than importing only one term from this other vocab
<annette_g> +1 for keeping the number of referred vocabs lower
<PWinstanley_> phila: if it is just one term then minting is OK
<PWinstanley_> ericstephan: we can put a comment to refer it to the other
<PWinstanley_> hadleybeeman: +1 to phil's comment. the fewer references to other normative standards the better,
<PWinstanley_> ...for the sake of stability caution is better here
<PWinstanley_> antoine: I agree
<PWinstanley_> ericstephan: do we need a vote?
<phila> close issue-237
<trackbot> Closed issue-237.
<PWinstanley_> Yaso: no, it's OK
<PWinstanley_> ericstephan: I think there might be an opportunity to write some notes about vocab reuse in builfding the DUV - some best practice notes illustrating how to reuse vocabularies
<PWinstanley_> ...I think it is an interesting journy we are on
<Yaso> akc antoine
<PWinstanley_> antoine: I am involved in other groups keen on identify these guidelines, so we don't want too many developing BPs. This though might be brought into our own Best Practices
<PWinstanley_> ericstephan: I would like that - to document things and show the evolution of the vocabulary. I think it is something many go through when building vocabs
<PWinstanley_> antoine: can an action be recorded
<phila> ACTION: antoine to work with eric S on writing section on evolution of DUV wrt reuse of namespaces etc. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/02/05-dwbp-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-227 - Work with eric s on writing section on evolution of duv wrt reuse of namespaces etc. [on Antoine Isaac - due 2016-02-12].
<ericstephan> https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/238
<Yaso> tks phila!
<phila> issue-238
<trackbot> issue-238 -- Should some of our properties be sub properties of a parent property? -- open
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/238
<PWinstanley_> ericstephan: 238 - Carlos (not on the call) - in some cases we decided that instead of having 2 domains for dataset and distribution we break out the properties
<ericstephan> https://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-duv/#Vocab_Overview
<PWinstanley_> ...looking at the centre of the model I think that this concern about properties we have broken out - are they subproperties, or not
<PWinstanley_> laufer: in the way that was defined before, we have a conjunction of 2 domains. when someone defines a property there will be a distribution defined at the same time as a dataset.
<PWinstanley_> ...the solution implemneted was 2 properties, each with one domain. but we need another so that the vocabulary can describe things that are not dcat:dataset or dcat:distribution
<laufer> I can hear
<phila> acl p
<laufer> I think thta we have different definitions of dataset
<laufer> data cube, for example... or a datacube slice...
<PWinstanley_> phila: while Laufer is writing, I understood him to ask if we need to put domain and range restrictions everywhere. This ties people down to using the vocab in a narrowly specified way
<laufer> so, it will be interesting to have these propertises, like refersTo, with no ranges, for example
<ericstephan> I would prefer a simpler view with no domains or ranges
<laufer> so duv could be reused...
<antoine> +1
<PWinstanley_> ...where the vocab defines a dataset and a distribution, where it doesn't damage the vocab, I would support Laufer in not referring to domain & range
<PWinstanley_> ericstephan: I totally agree with simplifying. I think we were trying to mimic other vocabs that mentioned these things, but I would prefer not to specify domain & range
<laufer> we can, in our examples, show the use for a dcat dataset or distribution... but others used could be nice too...
<phila> PROPOSED: Do not include domains and ranges on properties unless it genuinely adds to the semantics
<laufer> If duv want to define subproperties for specific uses, I think is ok too...
<PWinstanley_> Yaso: next item is BP doc, the table of issues
<Caroline_> +1
<RiccardoAlbertoni> +1
<Yaso> +1
<phila> +1
<PWinstanley_> +1
<ericstephan> +1
<laufer> +1
RESOLUTION: Do not include domains and ranges on properties unless it genuinely adds to the semantics
<hadleybeeman> +1
<newton> +1
<annette_g> +1
<Yaso> http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp-status.html
<PWinstanley_> Yaso: next agenda item is the table of issues that the editors sent recently
<PWinstanley_> Caroline_: Newton prepared a table to visualise what needs to be done for each BP
<Caroline_> https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/BP_Plan_for_CR
<PWinstanley_> ...we have prepared target dates as per last call
<PWinstanley_> ...we can allocate work from this
<PWinstanley_> ...so take a look
<phila> Just to record, looking at the table, I am feeling smug
<PWinstanley_> ...most important thing is to get people assigned
<PWinstanley_> ...some names have been added, but change/add as you think appropriate. There are still some empty places in the allocation
<PWinstanley_> ...we put Feb 19 as a date
<PWinstanley_> antoine: put me on 16 & 17
<phila> Table of duties
<hadleybeeman> Ah, thanks phila! I was on the BP_plan_for_CR
<PWinstanley_> ... and a question about 18. JP is there. Is there scope for distinguishing between tentative and confirmed assignments?
<PWinstanley_> newton: we just made some suggestions. if you are ok then we keep
<PWinstanley_> antoine: but how do we distinguish between proposed and confirmed assignments?
<PWinstanley_> Caroline_: please can people confirm their assignments
<annette_g> I'm happy to help where my name shows up
<RiccardoAlbertoni> let's put in green the people who has confirmed ..
<phila> Like annette_g, I'm happy with my assignments
<ericstephan> oops I am very delinquent looking at the table...my apologies...I am happy with my assignments
<PWinstanley_> antoine: I have a quesiton about assignment, did you use the table prepared some weeks ago?
<newton> https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Call_for_BP_example_contributors
<PWinstanley_> Caroline_: we created another table - it is easier to see things
<PWinstanley_> ...newton used the one on the wiki as the basis to make this more detailed version of the table
<PWinstanley_> ...we are focusing on the examples, we used that table as a basis for assignment
<PWinstanley_> ...but things are not fixed - you can choose to work on other things
<newton> who is not comfortable to contribute in one specific BP, we can change it...
<RiccardoAlbertoni> I confirm my contribution in Bp 7
<PWinstanley_> Caroline_: can people on this call attend to confirming, or altering their assignment
<newton> thanks RiccardoAlbertoni
<RiccardoAlbertoni> yes.. i can
<RiccardoAlbertoni> whatever i will start
<PWinstanley_> phila: I am happy with the assignments - and unusually I have lots of green on my assignments
<PWinstanley_> Yaso: Newton sent an email a few days ago - we could use the github assignment
<annette_g> does needs review mean review by editors?
<newton> @annette_g, not only by the editors, but from the group, because we need to make sure that the tests are deterministics
<PWinstanley_> ericstephan: I am on the opposite end of the spectrum - lots of red - but am comfortable with my assignments. I think it is OK as it is, but will think about versioning with Phil
<PWinstanley_> phila: send me an email
<newton> @annette_g and the editors could help with who was assigned to the tasks in what is necessary
<annette_g> yes
<PWinstanley_> Caroline_: maybe annette could confirm her assignments
<annette_g> yes
<annette_g> I think I could help with versioning
<PWinstanley_> I could help with 16 & 17
<laufer> yes
<newton> @PWinstanley_ would you like to contribute in another one, this way we can replace the "?" :-)
<laufer> I think it is ok... my timetable is full...
<PWinstanley_> ok .... let me know another
<phila> I can ping Christophe who wrote those BPs
<phila> He's still reachable
<ericstephan> bp 6 is pretty easy
<PWinstanley_> I will take 28 and 29
<ericstephan> someone should be able to pick that up
<PWinstanley_> antoine: question about contribution - what has happened to the contributor listing?
<PWinstanley_> ...the previous version had a list of contributors
<PWinstanley_> Caroline_: there is a coding issue that Phil is sorting out
<PWinstanley_> ...the generation of the first page has a problem that is being resolved in due course
<phila> ACTION: phila to fix bpconfig.js to restore contributors to BP doc [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/02/05-dwbp-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-228 - Fix bpconfig.js to restore contributors to bp doc [on Phil Archer - due 2016-02-12].
<phila> Good to see such focussed progress!
<PWinstanley_> Yaso: all covered. Thanks for making yourselves available. Editors are available if you need specific help
<PWinstanley_> newton: Do we need to create actions for each piece of work?
<ericstephan> annette_g are you going to CoDa in Santa Fe March 1-2?
<PWinstanley_> Yaso: we should perhaps use github. I will send an email.
<annette_g> @ericstephan, I don't even know what that is
<PWinstanley_> phila: if we come back to the table every week then we don't need an action
<ericstephan> annette_g http://www.cvent.com/events/coda-2016-conference-on-data-analysis-2016/event-summary-a11ed42531524891a3ebeb626147a980.aspx
<PWinstanley_> Caroline_: next and the following week can we have this on the agenda
<PWinstanley_> Yaso: no problem
<ericstephan> It might be an interesting place to talk about some topics
<ericstephan> data versioning etc
<annette_g> @ericstephan whoa! maybe...
<phila> Zagreb F2F
<PWinstanley_> phila: if you are going to Zagreb fill in the wiki
<ericstephan> Its really limited in terms of who can go, but would be interesting for you to go
<laufer> bye all... nice wknd... abraços...
<Yaso> bye all!
<PWinstanley_> bye
<RiccardoAlbertoni> bye .. thanks ..
<annette_g> @ericstephan are you going?
<ericstephan> Ywa
<ericstephan> yes