14:08:42 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #dwbp
14:08:42 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/02/26-dwbp-irc
14:08:44 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs 351
14:08:44 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #dwbp
14:08:46 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be DWBP
14:08:46 <Zakim> I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot
14:08:47 <trackbot> Meeting: Data on the Web Best Practices Working Group Teleconference
14:08:47 <trackbot> Date: 26 February 2016
14:08:53 <hadleybeeman> zakim, who is here?
14:08:53 <Zakim> Present: (no one)
14:08:55 <Zakim> On IRC I see RRSAgent, laufer, annette_g, BernadetteLoscio, riccardoAlbertoni, antoine, newton, deirdrelee, Caroline, hadleybeeman, trackbot
14:10:17 <newton> present+ newton
14:10:31 <annette_g> present+ annettte_g
14:10:40 <hadleybeeman> present annette_g
14:11:15 <hadleybeeman> present+ annette_g
14:11:21 <hadleybeeman> zakim, who is here?
14:11:21 <Zakim> Present: newton, annettte_g, annette_g
14:11:23 <Zakim> On IRC I see RRSAgent, laufer, annette_g, BernadetteLoscio, riccardoAlbertoni, antoine, newton, deirdrelee, Caroline, hadleybeeman, trackbot
14:11:29 <hadleybeeman> present- annettte_g
14:11:46 <antoine> present+ antoine
14:11:50 <deirdrelee> present+ deirdrelee
14:11:53 <BernadetteLoscio> present+ BernadetteLoscio
14:12:36 <hadleybeeman> https://www.w3.org/2016/02/19-dwbp-minutes
14:12:41 <antoine> scribenick: antoine
14:12:46 <antoine> scribe: antoine
14:12:55 <antoine> PROPOSED: to accept https://www.w3.org/2016/02/19-dwbp-minutes
14:13:03 <annette_g> +1
14:13:05 <deirdrelee> +1
14:13:06 <Caroline> +1
14:13:09 <antoine> +1
14:13:11 <laufer> +1
14:13:11 <riccardoAlbertoni> +1
14:13:11 <BernadetteLoscio> +1
14:13:12 <hadleybeeman> +1
14:13:18 <newton> +1
14:13:21 <antoine> RESOLVED: accept https://www.w3.org/2016/02/19-dwbp-minutes
14:13:42 <hadleybeeman> http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp-status.html
14:13:43 <antoine> TOPIC: BP-review status update
14:13:52 <BernadetteLoscio> q+
14:14:02 <hadleybeeman> ack bern
14:14:10 <antoine> BernadetteLoscio: annette made some updates
14:14:32 <antoine> ... and we have aproposal for organizing the sections
14:14:47 <antoine> s/sections/API section
14:15:09 <antoine> hadleybeeman: first update on the table?
14:15:18 <annette_g> I did make changes to versioning, too
14:15:21 <antoine> newton: we haven't updated the table much
14:15:31 <antoine> ... updated peter and riccardo's BP
14:15:47 <Caroline> http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp-status.html
14:16:11 <antoine> Caroline: this is the link that has not been updated
14:16:42 <antoine> ... even though some of the BP might have been updated
14:16:49 <antoine> s/BP/BPs
14:16:59 <riccardoAlbertoni> q+
14:17:11 <hadleybeeman> ack riccardo
14:17:19 <antoine> riccardoAlbertoni: I have pushed a revised version of the DQV example
14:17:25 <Caroline> :)
14:17:28 <antoine> ... and the BP table for my part
14:17:32 <Caroline> thank you riccardoAlbertoni
14:17:36 <antoine> ... please merge my pull request!
14:17:45 <antoine> ... (that's about BP7)
14:17:56 <BernadetteLoscio> thanks a lot!
14:18:17 <antoine> ... in the DQV section, we're refering to DQV
14:18:35 <antoine> ... the example BP is complete but depending on DQV issues we may have to update it.
14:18:49 <antoine> ... I promise I will maintain the two docs in synch.
14:19:37 <antoine> BP1: providing metadata
14:19:46 <Caroline> but BernadetteLoscio worked a lot in DWBP during her vacation :)
14:19:58 <antoine> BernadetteLoscio: will work on it asap. Really soon
14:20:09 <antoine> hadleybeeman: how much work?
14:20:17 <antoine> BernadetteLoscio: not a lot.
14:20:38 <antoine> ...especially as I have worked on examples for the following BPs
14:20:40 <riccardoAlbertoni> Just for the record, the revision on bp7 were suggested by antoine, Sorry for not giving the proper credit ;)
14:20:55 <antoine> hadleybeeman: need help?
14:20:57 <Caroline> thank you antoine :)
14:21:17 <newton> action to newton to check if the turtle and RDFa examples are validated
14:21:17 <trackbot> Error finding 'to'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/users>.
14:21:29 <hadleybeeman> action newton to check if the turtle and RDFa examples are validated
14:21:29 <newton> action newton to check if the turtle and RDFa examples are validated
14:21:29 <trackbot> Created ACTION-233 - Check if the turtle and rdfa examples are validated [on Newton Calegari - due 2016-03-04].
14:21:29 <trackbot> Created ACTION-234 - Check if the turtle and rdfa examples are validated [on Newton Calegari - due 2016-03-04].
14:21:45 <antoine> BernadetteLoscio: no need for help for now. I'm going to write example and then ask feedback.
14:21:53 <antoine> hadleybeeman: before next week?
14:21:56 <antoine> BernadetteLoscio: yes
14:22:28 <antoine> hadleybeeman: are we in trouble because this one is late?
14:22:42 <hadleybeeman> s/this one/the things in this table
14:22:48 <antoine> BernadetteLoscio: beginning of next week we can have a general view about the document
14:23:05 <antoine> BP 2: Provide descriptive metadata
14:23:28 <antoine> hadleybeeman: do you need someone to help you review this?
14:24:01 <antoine> newton: I can work with BernadetteLoscio
14:24:09 <antoine> ... get it done asap
14:24:21 <antoine> BP 3: Provide locale parameters metadata
14:24:24 <antoine> newton: same
14:24:33 <antoine> BP 4: Provide structural metadata
14:25:07 <BernadetteLoscio> I'm gonna try to connect again
14:25:12 <antoine> newton: we're ok with both examples
14:25:17 <antoine> ... the test will have to be changed
14:25:40 <BernadetteLoscio> I have connection probelms
14:25:47 <antoine> BP 5: Provide data license information
14:25:58 <antoine> newton: same. need to work on test and intented outcome
14:26:05 <antoine> BP 6: Provide data provenance information
14:26:15 <antoine> deirdrelee: issue was whether it needs a more detailed example
14:26:31 <antoine> ... I am considering extending the example early next week
14:26:37 <newton> q+
14:26:41 <antoine> ... for the text I think what's there should be sufficient
14:26:45 <hadleybeeman> ack newton
14:26:58 <antoine> newton: if it's necessary to change the intend outcome please let us know!
14:27:09 <antoine> ... the editors will work on this!
14:27:20 <antoine> hadleybeeman: on all intended outcomes or only BP6?
14:27:22 <antoine> q+
14:27:31 <antoine> BP 7: Provide data quality information
14:27:39 <antoine> riccardoAlbertoni: example is finished
14:27:58 <antoine> ... for the test I didn't change, I wanted to see the other BP
14:28:08 <antoine> ... for now it seems aligned
14:28:16 <antoine> ... the question is whether we need to be more specific
14:28:25 <antoine> ... but that's a question for all BPs no ontoly this one!
14:28:39 <antoine> ... As soon as other BP's testing section are refined I could check and review
14:28:55 <antoine> hadleybeeman: that's something to do for evey BP!
14:29:17 <antoine> riccardoAlbertoni: we have to be careful: test mentions datasets, intended outcome mentions also distribution.
14:29:24 <antoine> ... I can try to align
14:29:34 <antoine> BP 8: Provide versioning information
14:29:45 <antoine> annette_g: there was already a good example
14:29:54 <antoine> q-
14:29:58 <Caroline> thank you annette_g for imporving the English :)
14:30:01 <antoine> ... I think the test is ok.
14:30:03 <newton> q+
14:30:11 <Caroline> s/imporving/improving
14:30:13 <antoine> ... I've reviewed it but I may have written it too ;-)
14:30:22 <antoine> hadleybeeman: who'd be a good person?
14:30:29 <antoine> annette_g: I don't know
14:30:48 <antoine> newton: I've not merged the pull request now
14:30:58 <antoine> q+ to ask about changes in intended outcome
14:31:24 <hadleybeeman> ack newton
14:31:27 <antoine> hadleybeeman: let's go BP by BP not step by step
14:31:54 <antoine> annette_g: I've looked at the content, my PR also makes suggestions for the intro
14:32:05 <antoine> newton: I will review the test
14:32:20 <antoine> ACTION: newton to review annette's test for BP8
14:32:20 <trackbot> Created ACTION-235 - Review annette's test for bp8 [on Newton Calegari - due 2016-03-04].
14:32:28 <antoine> BP 9: Provide version history
14:32:34 <antoine> annette_g: I think it's fine
14:32:51 <antoine> ... maybe need review from a vocabulary person
14:33:25 <antoine> ACTION: antoine to review the voc aspect of BP9
14:33:25 <trackbot> Created ACTION-236 - Review the voc aspect of bp9 [on Antoine Isaac - due 2016-03-04].
14:33:31 <antoine> BP 10: Avoid Breaking Changes to Your API, Communicate Changes to Developers
14:33:49 <antoine> annette_g: I did a lot of re-write, but let's discuss it later
14:34:01 <antoine> ... I need opinions on how to test
14:34:13 <antoine> ... sthg like 'send email to devlopers' would be really helpful?
14:34:23 <antoine> s/devlopers/developers
14:34:44 <antoine> ... maybe scribe the actions one should take
14:34:49 <riccardoAlbertoni> q+
14:34:49 <newton> q+
14:34:50 <antoine> ... a notice on the API homepage
14:35:21 <hadleybeeman> q- later antoine
14:35:25 <hadleybeeman> q+ antoine
14:35:45 <antoine> riccardoAlbertoni: is DUV keeping a list of users adopting a dataset or distribution?
14:35:56 <antoine> ... perhaps the BP example could re-use part of that info in DUV
14:36:21 <BernadetteLoscio> q+
14:36:37 <antoine> hadleybeeman: finding your name in somebody else's metadata is a bit strange
14:36:41 <hadleybeeman> ack bern
14:36:54 <antoine> BernadetteLoscio: we don't have a proeprty to capture this in DUV
14:37:00 <antoine> ack riccardoAlbertoni
14:37:07 <antoine> ... it shouldn't be mandatory
14:37:16 <hadleybeeman> ack newton
14:37:28 <antoine> newton: annette_g maybe we can talk with SDW
14:37:35 <antoine> ... they have issues about APIs and examples
14:37:44 <antoine> ... we meet them next wednesday
14:37:53 <BernadetteLoscio> q+
14:38:14 <antoine> annette_g: the issue here is really how one can write a BP for noticing users
14:38:22 <antoine> ... is it covered by SDW?
14:38:27 <antoine> newton: not sure
14:38:38 <antoine> hadleybeeman: I could imagine situations like this
14:38:57 <antoine> ... it might as well be solved the same way as everyone else
14:39:05 <antoine> ... there's nothing special about spatial data.
14:39:23 <antoine> ... Why don't you send an email to their list and our list?
14:39:37 <hadleybeeman> ack bern
14:40:00 <antoine> BernadetteLoscio: examples says [cites the BP]
14:40:05 <hadleybeeman> action annette to email SDW (and DWBP) to ask about their API work (with regard to examples for BP 10)
14:40:05 <trackbot> Created ACTION-237 - Email sdw (and dwbp) to ask about their api work (with regard to examples for bp 10) [on Annette Greiner - due 2016-03-04].
14:40:36 <antoine> ... maybe we can use an API as example and show waht should be done with that API.
14:40:51 <antoine> annette_g: like, saying what change would break the API?
14:40:56 <antoine> BernadetteLoscio: yes
14:41:12 <antoine> annette_g: it's a great thought
14:41:50 <antoine> annette_g: I was not sure we should have an example of a maintained example
14:42:22 <antoine> BernadetteLoscio: we could have a documentation page for the API
14:42:30 <antoine> annette_g: a fake documentation page?
14:42:37 <antoine> BernadetteLoscio: yes
14:42:55 <antoine> annette_g: who would build and maintain it?
14:43:31 <antoine> BernadetteLoscio: I don't know, but if we have real data, we could have a real or fake API.
14:43:45 <antoine> hadleybeeman: we need to show that it is practical
14:43:55 <antoine> ... other groups need implementations in the wild
14:44:08 <antoine> ... but we don't need to rely on sthg that needs to be maintained
14:44:16 <antoine> ... we just need enough code to show what we mean
14:44:25 <antoine> ... so that devlopers can adapt it to their case.
14:44:33 <antoine> BernadetteLoscio: yes
14:44:45 <antoine> annette_g: what can we put? An API is a system
14:44:58 <antoine> hadleybeeman: we're not telling people how to build their APIs, aren't we?
14:45:06 <antoine> annette_g: no, but we give ideas.
14:45:22 <antoine> hadleybeeman: so we're pointing to other APIs?
14:45:45 <antoine> ... examples on how to use this in the context of data on the web?
14:46:17 <antoine> ... We need to provide examples of the parts we're describing, not what others are describing
14:46:22 <antoine> annette_g: there is no spec
14:46:32 <antoine> hadleybeeman: is there any normative references to REST work?
14:46:44 <antoine> annette_g: ref to functioning APIs or work about how to create them?
14:46:51 <antoine> hadleybeeman: looking at BP21
14:47:05 <antoine> ... it's becoming complicated now.
14:47:34 <laufer> I cannot hear anybody now...
14:47:41 <annette_g> me neither
14:47:42 <BernadetteLoscio> me neither
14:48:01 <annette_g> restart the call?
14:48:03 <deirdrelee> sound gone, i'm talking away
14:48:17 <Caroline> Caroline has joined #DWBP
14:49:13 <hadleybeeman> Maybe WebEx has crashed? I can't seem to rejoin the call
14:49:25 <Caroline> me neither
14:49:33 <hadleybeeman> Wait, now I'm back in.
14:49:34 <laufer> neither me
14:50:46 <annette_g> just finally got audio connected
14:50:53 <antoine> hadleybeeman: I'm suggesting that Annette has a go at putting down what a developer should have in mind as a bare minimum
14:51:17 <antoine> ... when they're implementing this
14:52:11 <antoine> ... instinctively
14:52:26 <antoine> ... (that's about the BP for making changes)
14:52:40 <antoine> annette_g: I really like BernadetteLoscio 's suggestion
14:52:51 <antoine> hadleybeeman: as you wish
14:53:13 <laufer> again...
14:53:15 <riccardoAlbertoni> no sound again..
14:53:16 <annette_g> no
14:53:37 <laufer> it is a ghost...
14:53:46 <Caroline> no audio :(
14:53:52 <hadleybeeman> Right. Well, I was saying — we have 8 mins left.
14:54:00 <annette_g> *holy cow, tempus fugit
14:54:08 <newton> @annette_g we're thinking in put all BPs related to APIs into a subsection under Data Access.
14:54:18 <hadleybeeman> I suggest we leave the BP table for now — but it would be great if everyone working on the rest of the BPs make an effort to complete the table by next week
14:54:23 <hadleybeeman> (since we're already a week overdue)
14:54:37 <annette_g> yes, I want to see them all together, with the one about having an API in the first place coming first
14:54:37 <antoine> newton: can we avoid huge changes in the document at this stage?
14:54:47 <newton> @annette_g the APIs BP will be "Data Access API"
14:54:53 <laufer> I have raised an issue about the BPs I am reviewing
14:54:53 <antoine> sorry I meant @newton
14:55:21 <hadleybeeman> okay ————  hang on please
14:55:30 <hadleybeeman> Let's finish this meeting here on IRC
14:55:41 <hadleybeeman> a) as above:  I suggest we leave the BP table for now — but it would be great if everyone working on the rest of the BPs make an effort to complete the table by next week
14:55:46 <hadleybeeman> (since we're already a week overdue)
14:55:52 <annette_g> Could we have a section called "Data APIs"? I think people will want to search for that.
14:56:10 <newton> @antoine we would only replace them into a subsection into Data Access. Won't create new ones.
14:56:17 <laufer> +1 to annette
14:56:34 <newton> Under Data Access section, to have a "Data Section API" as a subsection
14:56:41 <BernadetteLoscio> yes! that's our idea!
14:57:00 <newton> I will not reflect into a huge change, I would be a structural change
14:57:16 <newton> s/I will not/ It will not/
14:57:21 <antoine> antoine seriously object to structure change and any re-shuffling at the time you're asking text to 10 contributors
14:57:42 <annette_g> Maybe make the change and then send around an email telling us you're done
14:57:50 <annette_g> so we can do a pull
14:58:10 <hadleybeeman> antoine, what are your concerns?
14:58:18 <laufer> We have the problem of the BPs numbers...
14:58:31 <antoine> I'm afraid that we lose time figuring out what the impact of the changes are on the individual BPs
14:58:39 <antoine> I won't have time to figure this out
14:58:45 <antoine> so I won't work on my BPs
14:58:49 <BernadetteLoscio> but the Data Access section needed to be reviewed
14:58:59 <hadleybeeman> Aren't we only talking about the API BPs?
14:59:05 <BernadetteLoscio> its just on the Data Access section
14:59:09 <BernadetteLoscio> yes!
14:59:11 <antoine> review doesn't imply changes while everyone else is working on the doc
14:59:23 <BernadetteLoscio> its just the Data Access section
14:59:30 <riccardoAlbertoni> +1 to antoine, laufer ..
14:59:34 <BernadetteLoscio> Data vocabularies section wont be affected
14:59:36 <hadleybeeman> antoine, if their changes won't affect the areas you're looking at... Does it matter?
14:59:40 <antoine> At a minimum *Zero* BP numbers should change
14:59:44 <annette_g> things are going to be changing if multiple people are editing anyway
14:59:47 <Caroline> @antoine, I don't think this would stop you working in your BPs, it would be only putting APIs' together
14:59:59 <BernadetteLoscio> we're gonna make the merge
15:00:08 <BernadetteLoscio> on github
15:00:17 <annette_g> I still think APIs deserve their own section
15:00:23 <hadleybeeman> Re BP numbers, I'd suggest putting a temporary header on any merged ones that say, for example, "BP 10 and 21."
15:00:26 <BernadetteLoscio> we're gonna review the numbers when necessary
15:00:30 <hadleybeeman> we can renumber at the very end
15:00:35 <BernadetteLoscio> yes
15:00:43 <newton> +1 to hadleybeeman suggestion
15:00:47 <hadleybeeman> antoine, does that work for you?
15:00:49 <annette_g> All the static, unwebby stuff in our doc gets so much text and multiple sections; I think we need to give the dynamic stuff fair treatment
15:00:58 <antoine> I'm ok with renumbering at the very end. Just please don't pull the carpet under our feets while we're working.
15:01:01 <laufer> I agree that APIs deserve a section but we have to be careful in changing the BPs order now...
15:01:03 <hadleybeeman> Totally fair.
15:01:10 <hadleybeeman> Okay — we're out of time.
15:01:14 <newton> We can track every change and show which BP Numbers has changed
15:01:22 <hadleybeeman> You all are champions for continuing this without sound!!
15:01:32 <antoine> I don't have the time to follow your tracking
15:02:01 <BernadetteLoscio> we wont change the structure of the document, its just the Data Access section
15:02:04 <annette_g> when moving things around, that is the time to re-order API BPs
15:02:06 <BernadetteLoscio> mainly API BP
15:02:07 <Caroline> thank you @antoine and @laufer for this concern, we will work on it
15:02:10 <laufer> Well, in this way we do not need a scribe...  it is an advantage...
15:02:11 <hadleybeeman> @newton, I think it might keep everything more sensible now to keep all the numbers as they are, even if they end up in the wrong order or multiple numbers for one BP.
15:02:21 <hadleybeeman> True, laufer :)
15:02:31 <laufer> bye antoine...
15:02:42 <BernadetteLoscio> we dont refer to numbers in our document
15:02:50 <hadleybeeman> We will, I promise, make sure it's all lovely and pretty (with numbers in order!) before it goes out to the public.
15:02:54 <BernadetteLoscio> we always refer to the title of the BP
15:02:58 <BernadetteLoscio> to the identifier
15:03:00 <annette_g> I find it awkward that the idea of having a API at all comes so late. It seems strange to start telling people how to make an API first and then come back to that fundamental point
15:03:02 <hadleybeeman> True, BernadetteLoscio — but we do in our actions/issues and notes.
15:03:04 <newton> We will do it in a different branch or repository, and if the group agrees, we will merge it to the main document
15:03:08 <BernadetteLoscio> the number is created automatically
15:03:28 <hadleybeeman> that's frustrating. :(
15:03:31 <BernadetteLoscio> if we also use the title, then it wont be a problem
15:03:41 <hadleybeeman> We haven't always thus far, which is part of the issue.
15:03:53 <hadleybeeman> I think we need to keep them for the moment, if we can -- even if it ends up being an extra bit of text
15:04:10 <BernadetteLoscio> but just BP abou Data Access and APIs will change
15:04:11 <Caroline> we will do our best to not get in the way of what authors have been working on
15:04:18 <BernadetteLoscio> others will keep the same
15:04:31 <BernadetteLoscio> the order of the rest wont change
15:04:32 <hadleybeeman> That sounds great, Caroline.  Please do that, for now.
15:04:33 <annette_g> others will be renumbered, though
15:04:52 <annette_g> because BP 10 has to move
15:05:00 <BernadetteLoscio> ah ok
15:05:17 <Caroline> if we see that this change may get in someone's way, we will wait to do it at the end. Would that be okay @annette?
15:05:32 <annette_g> sure, as long as we do it
15:05:41 <Caroline> great! Thank you! :)
15:06:06 <hadleybeeman> Brilliant.  I'm sorry we have to end this meeting!
15:06:11 <BernadetteLoscio> ok! thanks!
15:06:15 <BernadetteLoscio> thanks a lot!
15:06:18 <hadleybeeman> Have a wonderful weekend, all. And thank you again for switching to text!
15:06:19 <laufer> I will send and e-mail abou the issue I raised...
15:06:20 <newton> @annette_g I have some other issues to talk to you, may we have a call early next week to talk about it?
15:06:26 <hadleybeeman> Talk next week.
15:06:27 <Caroline> thank you all!!
15:06:28 <hadleybeeman> thanks, laufer.
15:06:33 <hadleybeeman> bye for now :)
15:06:37 <newton> @annette_g it's about the Content Negotiation issue
15:06:40 <annette_g> @Newton, sure, want to use Skype?
15:06:45 <riccardoAlbertoni> good weekend !!
15:06:50 <newton> @annette_g yes, Skype :-)
15:06:56 <laufer> s/abou the/about the/
15:06:56 <annette_g> yay!
15:07:03 <Caroline> :))))
15:07:51 <annette_g> @newton, let's exchange email to coordinate
15:08:04 <newton> @annette_g ok, thanks :)
15:08:23 <annette_g> okay, bye!
15:08:31 <hadleybeeman> trackbot, end meeting
15:08:31 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
15:08:31 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been newton, annettte_g, annette_g, antoine, deirdrelee, BernadetteLoscio
15:08:39 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
15:08:39 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/02/26-dwbp-minutes.html trackbot
15:08:40 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
15:08:56 <hadleybeeman> rrsagent, make logs public
15:08:58 <newton> Thank you all for the meeting
15:09:09 <hadleybeeman> thank you, newton! You're doing loads here. :)
15:09:15 <laufer> bye all
15:58:49 <annette_g> annette_g has joined #dwbp
17:21:24 <Zakim> Zakim has left #dwbp