12:49:29 RRSAgent has joined #dwbp 12:49:29 logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/04/22-dwbp-irc 12:49:31 RRSAgent, make logs 351 12:49:31 Zakim has joined #dwbp 12:49:33 Zakim, this will be DWBP 12:49:33 ok, trackbot 12:49:34 Meeting: Data on the Web Best Practices Working Group Teleconference 12:49:34 Date: 22 April 2016 12:51:57 phila has joined #dwbp 12:56:30 newton has joined #dwbp 12:59:10 annette_g has joined #dwbp 12:59:37 Good morning 13:00:17 PWinstanley has joined #dwbp 13:00:40 PWinstanley_ has joined #dwbp 13:00:55 present+ PWinstanley 13:01:27 present+ newton 13:01:50 zakim, code? 13:01:50 I have been told this is DWBP 13:03:09 BernadetteLoscio has joined #dwbp 13:03:21 Present+ Caroline_ 13:03:42 Present+ BernadetteLoscio 13:04:12 zakim, this is https://mit.webex.com/mit/j.php?MTID=mfd8626d4dcc14c87bfbe980f229e9e0a or +1-617-324-0000 plus 647 415 866 13:04:12 got it, phila 13:04:21 zakim, save this description 13:04:21 this conference description has been saved, phila 13:04:27 zakim, code? 13:04:27 I have been told this is https://mit.webex.com/mit/j.php?MTID=mfd8626d4dcc14c87bfbe980f229e9e0a or +1-617-324-0000 plus 647 415 866 13:04:28 deirdrelee has joined #dwbp 13:04:36 chair: deirdrelee 13:05:07 Agenda: https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20160422 13:05:11 regrets+ Hadley, Yaso 13:05:14 laufer has joined #dwbp 13:05:21 regrets+ Antoine, Riccardo, Eric 13:05:38 hi 13:05:53 zakim, code? 13:05:53 I have been told this is https://mit.webex.com/mit/j.php?MTID=mfd8626d4dcc14c87bfbe980f229e9e0a or +1-617-324-0000 plus 647 415 866 13:06:15 phila has changed the topic to: DWBP Weekly telecon 13:07:28 laufer has joined #dwbp 13:09:18 scribe: Caroline_ 13:09:20 scribe: Caroline_ 13:09:25 scribeNick: Caroline_ 13:09:26 laufer has joined #dwbp 13:09:34 PROPOSED: Accept last week's minutes https://www.w3.org/2016/04/15-dwbp-minutes 13:09:37 present+ laufer 13:09:39 +1 13:09:42 +1 13:09:49 +1 13:09:51 +1 13:09:51 0 13:09:52 +1 13:09:54 +1 13:09:57 +1 13:09:58 RESOLUTION: Accept last week's minutes https://www.w3.org/2016/04/15-dwbp-minutes 13:10:27 deirdrelee: we will focus on BP document this week 13:10:39 Topic: issues from recent comments 13:10:47 -> https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Comments_to_be_considered_before_publishing_the_last_working_draft Issue list 13:10:54 BernadetteLoscio: we would like to thank everyone for the feedback and detailed review 13:10:58 ... thank you a lot! 13:11:35 ..w the editors discussed the comments and we created this table to track the comments and have proposals and resolutions for each comment https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Comments_to_be_considered_before_publishing_the_last_working_draft 13:12:06 q? 13:12:07 ... some of the comments have a resolution and the corresponding commits are there 13:12:10 q+ 13:12:19 ... we still have a lot of comments we need to address 13:12:33 ... we have some questions for the group that will help us to continue updating it 13:12:52 deirdrelee: there were discussions around timeframe last week 13:13:09 ... the idea is when these comments are closed we can freeze the document? 13:13:11 ack q 13:13:13 q+ to talk about CR/LC 13:13:14 ack deirdrelee 13:13:18 ack me 13:13:18 phila, you wanted to talk about CR/LC 13:13:32 BernadetteLoscio: yes, because we had the document frozen until Wednesday night 13:13:44 phila: we will vote on a last draft 13:14:01 ... we should resolve our comments internally before publishing it 13:14:21 BernadetteLoscio: Carol and Newton if want to add something just interrupt me :) 13:14:22 Should we write subtitles using the imperative mode? 13:14:38 ... our first comment is a question: Should we write subtitles using the imperative mode? 13:14:49 https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1eSTt3A6kTfXYTcVMt5VGDardLIk8b7FnsgENpCuNRBA/edit#gid=0 13:14:51 https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1eSTt3A6kTfXYTcVMt5VGDardLIk8b7FnsgENpCuNRBA/edit#gid=0 13:15:05 .... this table has all the BPs and their subtitles 13:15:39 ... if we have to chance the subtitles using the imperative mode we will need help from the Native Speakers to review all of them 13:15:43 q+ to ask what "Metadata must be provided for both human users and computer applications" becomes 13:15:49 s/chance/change 13:15:53 ack me 13:15:53 phila, you wanted to ask what "Metadata must be provided for both human users and computer applications" becomes 13:16:01 Metadata must be provided for both human users and computer applications. 13:16:11 phila: regarding this example above 13:16:23 ... if you take out the word must 13:16:28 yes, that's correct 13:16:39 SO it becomes Provide metadata for both human users and computer applications. 13:16:41 BernadetteLoscio: it would be "provide metadata for both human users and computer applications 13:17:04 ... some BPs will need to have something added so won't be the same as the title 13:17:21 q+ 13:17:31 phila: if that is the case my suggestion might be that if the title itself is already nice and short don't bother with the subtitle at all 13:17:51 ack annette_g 13:17:53 BernadetteLoscio: or we could say provide data provenance for both humand and computer applications 13:18:01 q+ 13:18:14 ack BernadetteLoscio 13:18:16 annette_g: there is probably something we can say for each BP that will be useful for the users 13:18:26 BernadetteLoscio: I think the subtitles should be short 13:18:40 ... because if it is long it would be almost as the "Why" 13:18:56 deirdrelee: all subtitles will be reviewd but they will be capt short 13:19:10 BernadetteLoscio: we need to have a Native Speaker review again 13:19:21 ... before puting in the document 13:19:27 +1 for native speaker review. I'm willing to help. 13:19:35 annette_g - how about you and me split the doc and we do the new subtitles? 13:19:41 sure 13:19:41 ... please help us changin this table https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1eSTt3A6kTfXYTcVMt5VGDardLIk8b7FnsgENpCuNRBA/edit#gid=0 13:19:48 thank you annette_g :) 13:20:29 BernadetteLoscio: let's use this table and then when it is finished we put on the document 13:20:35 phila: annette_g and I will do it 13:20:42 thank you phila and annette_g :) 13:21:10 http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/dwbp-example.html 13:21:16 BernadetteLoscio: about the human-readable example (should we include the example in the doc or keep it as a separate file?) 13:21:37 http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#DataLicense 13:21:42 ... when there is human readable example, for example in BP 5 we link to the example http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/dwbp-example.html 13:21:51 action: phila to provide imperative subtitles for BPs 1-19 13:21:52 Created ACTION-273 - Provide imperative subtitles for bps 1-19 [on Phil Archer - due 2016-04-29]. 13:22:03 ... it was not clear that we were showing data license, or the information about location parameters 13:22:07 action: annette to provide imperative subtitles for BPs 20-37 13:22:07 Created ACTION-274 - Provide imperative subtitles for bps 20-37 [on Annette Greiner - due 2016-04-29]. 13:22:19 ... the suggestion was to include the human readable directly in the document 13:22:26 ... I am not sure it is a good idea 13:22:29 q? 13:22:37 ... newton put links to each fragment 13:22:57 ... if you want to see the structural metadata the link we will take you there 13:23:18 ... we would split the HTML if we put them in the document 13:23:24 q+ 13:23:38 ack annette_g 13:23:41 .... do you the ink we should put just the HTML text in the doc? 13:23:55 annette_g: I like the metadata document 13:24:12 ... there are a few lines that you can't find 13:24:24 ... I would suggest that ?? 13:24:40 q+ to make a slightly diff suggestion 13:25:18 annette_g: maybe put something bold in the BP doc itself 13:25:29 1+ 13:25:30 q+ 13:25:48 BernadetteLoscio: for the structure metadata we could keep in the HTML, for example 13:25:59 present+ deirdrelee 13:26:01 annette_g: when it is a bigger text you can keep the HTML 13:26:08 ack me 13:26:08 phila, you wanted to make a slightly diff suggestion 13:26:16 phila: I am happy with the HTML 13:26:30 ... another alternative would be to have a table 13:26:43 ... which BP is relevant in the HTML example 13:26:48 ... that would be more work 13:26:59 ... I am happy with your suggestion 13:27:18 BernadetteLoscio: the idea is to show how it would look after you finished 13:27:41 newton: I like phila suggestion 13:28:02 phila: newton if you want to try it you could do annotation, light box, etc 13:28:08 ... it would take more time 13:28:20 ... you would enjoy doing but it would take time 13:28:31 newton: I will try doing it and I will share with you 13:28:52 .... we could point to the URL fragment the specifc texts 13:28:54 PWinstanley has joined #dwbp 13:29:03 present+ PWinstanley 13:29:06 phila: sometimes that doesn't work 13:29:08 q? 13:29:11 ack newton 13:29:15 newton: I will try to change 13:29:23 annette_g: you can refer the link 13:29:29 present+ phila 13:29:32 ... it might be more geek 13:29:50 BernadetteLoscio: talking about the description of the example 13:29:52 ... Discuss basic example. Should we change to include other transito modes? 13:30:18 ... we have to be careful 13:30:20 q+ 13:30:30 ... I don't know how to rewrite it in a way that is short 13:30:44 ... that we would have example considering the transit mod 13:30:48 s/mod/mode 13:31:01 annette_g: we just have to not limite it when we first describe it 13:31:16 BernadetteLoscio: are you talking about the description of the example? 13:31:31 annette_g: if the description is only abobut buses we will limit it 13:31:42 BernadetteLoscio: we will change the first line than 13:31:56 ... instead of buses stops what do you suggest? 13:32:08 annette_g: we can say transit stops instead of bus stops 13:32:25 BernadetteLoscio: when you go to the example it is only for bus stops 13:32:31 make it 'Transit stops' not just 'bus stops' (all bus stops are transit stops) 13:32:38 ... the example for everything 13:32:52 annette_g: some examples need to be more general 13:33:12 q? 13:33:14 ack annette_g 13:33:16 ... I would say "he is in charge of publishing data about the transit system" 13:33:35 yep 13:33:42 BernadetteLoscio: the editors will discuss that and see if could be more general 13:34:07 BernadetteLoscio: What should we do with the BP about Content Negotiation? Shoul we keep it or move to BP 14? 13:34:18 ... about providing multiple formats 13:34:29 ... we think we should keep the BP about content negotiation 13:34:50 annette_g: as a BP I don't think it is clearly a BP to always use content negotiation 13:35:00 we could link them, instead of merging them 13:35:08 ... among developers it is not at all 13:35:15 phila: what are the main objections? 13:35:30 annette_g: the main one is that it doesn't allow someone to share the link 13:35:39 ... you have to tell them taht you use content negotiation 13:35:56 phila: you give people a directly serialization 13:36:07 ... if you take of the file extension 13:36:20 +1 to annette claim that it is an implementation issue 13:36:33 annette_g: if people want to do content negotiation let them avoid poiting URI 13:36:40 q? 13:36:47 ... can you point to any place that is actually doing that? 13:36:54 phila: yes, we do all the time 13:37:00 ... our namespace doc will do it 13:37:23 newton: is very useful when you are requestiong the specific resource 13:37:35 -> https://www.w3.org/ns/org, also available https://www.w3.org/ns/org.rdf, https://www.w3.org/ns/org.ttl 13:37:37 ... we can likn the BPs and put in the content negotiation 13:37:47 ... if you can provide the specifc URL 13:38:16 And https://www.w3.org/ns/org.n3 if you want the triples 13:38:48 annette_g: my reading on the subject has not came up yet 13:38:55 maybe we can do the other way around in BP14 we make a link to BP21 13:39:09 deirdrelee: annette_g do you want to complete remove the BP? 13:39:11 And elsewhere data.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/doc/postcodeunit/IP83PX (add .ttl, xml, .json) 13:39:24 annette_g: I think we could leave it there, I just want to know if there are people doing it 13:39:33 deirdrelee: maybe puting more examples 13:39:54 it is a way of providing multiple formats 13:39:59 newton: a lot of RDF stars like virtuoso and Jena Fusek use content negotiation 13:40:13 deirdrelee: even the extension for DCAT 13:40:27 http://statistics.gov.scot/data/social-work-staffing.ttl 13:40:28 newton: I think it is a good practice for the machine 13:40:36 it is an implementation issue... 13:40:40 deirdrelee: the human readble it is also used 13:40:44 annette_g: let's go then 13:41:02 BernadetteLoscio: we will keep the BP then 13:41:12 ... we will make a link from BP 14 to BP 21 13:41:30 ... then I have two questions related 13:41:56 q? 13:42:09 ... should we say the multiple access should be availvabe.. 13:42:15 annette_g: no 13:42:32 BernadetteLoscio: in our BPs we say that we should have bulk donwload and APIs 13:42:52 ... aren't they multiple access mechanisms? 13:43:23 ... when I have a dataset I will have just one way to access the dataset? 13:43:34 we have two things here... what and how 13:43:42 annette_g: I need to be convinced that I need to take to trouble to do both ways 13:43:52 what to get... and how to get... 13:44:00 ... the reason to do multiple formats is that people will have more than one format 13:44:10 ... you have that trhough the API 13:44:17 BernadetteLoscio: I am not saying this is a BP 13:44:22 ... it is just the description 13:44:26 q+ 13:44:35 annette_g: then you don't have to use the word should 13:44:46 BernadetteLoscio: the problem is with should? 13:44:57 multiple dataset access mechanisms can be available 13:45:03 ... if we say datasets and mechanisms "can" be available 13:45:06 ack laufer 13:45:10 laufer: I think we are talking about 2 things 13:45:18 q+ to talk about timing 13:45:19 ... how to get and ?? 13:45:34 ... when we have bulk donwload someone has to give some time of data 13:45:43 ... or how will you provide this? 13:45:57 ... 2 things: what to get and how to get 13:46:10 q+ 13:46:17 s/??/what 13:46:47 ack me 13:46:47 phila, you wanted to talk about timing 13:46:52 deirdrelee: are you satisfied with annette_g's proposal sayhing that the word will change for can instead of should? 13:46:56 i a having problems with audio... sorry 13:47:00 its ok for me 13:47:13 phila: we just began the few questions 13:47:26 ... how are we going to handle the other discussions? 13:47:34 ... because we are having a great discussion 13:47:50 deirdrelee: if we continue the discussion next week we might have infinite looping 13:48:03 ... we should make a timeframe to address them 13:48:04 q? 13:48:14 ack BernadetteLoscio 13:48:27 BernadetteLoscio: we have several questions to annette_g so maybe we can have a chat with her today or monday to clarify these questions 13:48:37 ... also we need help to rewrite some BPs 13:49:03 ... and maybe this is a task to annette_g because a lot of questions were from her about data access 13:49:36 ... since annette_g is the one who really knows about data access I would like to know if she is okay with dealing with her comments on that 13:49:55 ... it would be more usefull if you may change 13:50:12 annette_g: I gave you some comments, do you want to talk on skype? 13:50:18 BernadetteLoscio: yes, thank you 13:50:27 ... some comments we can do the update 13:50:51 ... but for the data access would be more productive if you could work on your comments since you know that subject better 13:51:01 BernadetteLoscio: we will talk later then :) 13:52:16 BernadetteLoscio: What should we do with the BP Use Standardized Terms and Reuse Vocabularies? Should we merge? (see Antoine's message) 13:52:38 ... Antoine mentioned we could merge these BPs 13:52:54 ... I am not sure if would be clear if we keep as it is 13:53:06 ... if we decide to merge them we would have to rewrite 13:53:10 http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#MetadataStandardized 13:53:12 ... BPs 15 and 16 13:53:19 http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#ReuseVocabularies 13:53:19 http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#MetadataStandardized 13:53:22 ... that we are talking about 13:54:07 BernadetteLoscio: we need Antoine's feedback to know if he agrees with the BPs 13:54:34 ... I am affraid that this might not be enough to clarify the difference between the 2 BPs 13:54:45 q? 13:54:46 ... instead of writing a new BP 13:55:10 annette_g: mostly keeping BP 15 and adding BP 16 to be part of that 13:55:16 phila: it makes sense to me 13:55:21 +1 13:55:26 ... maybe Antoine has something else to say 13:55:48 annette_g: the sense I get from reading Antoine's email is taht he agrees we could merge them 13:55:55 BernadetteLoscio: we need his feedback 13:56:29 phila: if you are editors able to spend time with annette_g and Antoine I might join and we see how far we can get before next week 13:56:41 BernadetteLoscio: we will work on this BP and try to talk with Antoine as well 13:56:51 phila: this discussion is very important 13:57:11 ... we are having a detail discussion 13:57:23 +1 to phila, I'm really excited to see things shaping up1 13:57:24 BernadetteLoscio: the group is very mature and it is easier to talk about these things 13:57:28 RRSAgent, make logs public 13:57:34 RRSAgent, draft minutes 13:57:34 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/04/22-dwbp-minutes.html phila 13:57:59 ... deirdrelee, for us editors is really hard to give you a dealine before talking with annette_g and doing more things 13:58:10 deirdrelee: we can have another talk next week 13:58:34 ... I will be more available this week as well to help with the native English 13:58:49 BernadetteLoscio: we will try to finish everything before Wednsday 13:58:49 many thanks to the editors for all their hard work!!! 13:59:34 :):):) 13:59:46 bye all... 13:59:48 RRSAgent, draft minutes 13:59:48 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/04/22-dwbp-minutes.html phila 13:59:49 bye! 14:00:11 the meeting got ended 14:00:53 Yes, sorry, I thought we were done and I have another WebEx meeting now, annette_g 14:03:03 deirdrelee has left #dwbp 15:28:49 annette_g has joined #dwbp 15:32:08 annette_g has joined #dwbp 16:00:42 Zakim has left #dwbp