12:52:52 RRSAgent has joined #dwbp 12:52:52 logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/06/10-dwbp-irc 12:52:54 RRSAgent, make logs 351 12:52:54 Zakim has joined #dwbp 12:52:56 Zakim, this will be DWBP 12:52:56 ok, trackbot 12:52:57 Meeting: Data on the Web Best Practices Working Group Teleconference 12:52:57 Date: 10 June 2016 12:53:59 agenda: https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20160610 12:54:03 chair: Dee 12:54:16 regrets+ makx 12:55:23 deirdrelee has joined #dwbp 12:55:42 trackbot, start meeting 12:55:44 RRSAgent, make logs 351 12:55:46 Zakim, this will be DWBP 12:55:46 ok, trackbot 12:55:47 Meeting: Data on the Web Best Practices Working Group Teleconference 12:55:48 Date: 10 June 2016 12:55:58 RRSAgent, make logs public 12:58:00 regrets+ makx 12:58:02 newton has joined #dwbp 12:58:07 chair: Deirdre 12:58:11 agenda: https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20160610 12:59:32 present+ newton 12:59:46 annette_g has joined #dwbp 12:59:46 PWinstanley has joined #dwbp 12:59:54 present+ PWinstanley 13:00:24 present+ annette_g 13:00:53 EricKauz has joined #DWBP 13:01:35 present+ deirdrelee 13:01:38 Caroline_ has joined #DWBP 13:01:47 riccardoalbertoni has joined #DWBP 13:02:03 I'm sending regrets; am caught in meetings… sorry all! Miss you! 13:02:16 antoine has joined #dwbp 13:02:16 Present+ Caroline_ 13:02:16 regrets+ Hadley 13:02:23 present+ phila 13:02:28 regrets+ Bernadette 13:02:40 present+ antoine 13:02:41 present+ EricKauz 13:02:54 ericstephan has joined #dwbp 13:03:00 PROPOSED Approve last week's minutes https://www.w3.org/2016/06/03-dwbp-minutes 13:03:07 +1 13:03:10 0 13:03:14 +1 13:03:14 +1 13:03:18 0 13:03:27 0 13:03:27 +0 WASN'T THERE 13:03:29 RESOLVED Approve last week's minutes https://www.w3.org/2016/06/03-dwbp-minutes 13:03:36 agenda: https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20160610 13:03:42 s/RESOLVED/RESOLVED:/ 13:04:07 present+ ericstephan 13:05:22 scribe: PWinstanley 13:05:28 scribeNick: PWinstanley 13:06:40 is anyone talking? 13:06:56 now deirdrelee is talking it is much better :) 13:07:11 better! 13:07:21 q+ 13:07:44 each of the editors to comment on the feedback they have received already as we're coming to the end of the timeperiod 13:07:46 ack Caroline_ 13:07:58 regrets+ Bernadette 13:08:09 https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Status_of_comments_about_the_last_call_working_draft 13:09:19 Caroline_: main thing about the comments is the status wiki - started discussing #6 on the last call. and today we'd like to cover #7 and #8 13:09:47 The overall level of comments is good, but there are not many - hope that there will be more in the final few days 13:10:02 q+ 13:10:10 There are still some comments received that have to be added to the wiki 13:10:34 this week we delivered a presentation about DWBP and we invited a lot of people to give feedback 13:10:59 ericstephan: A colleague was interested in providing comments - I will follow up to ensure that they are received in time 13:11:19 Caroline_: deadline is Sunday at 12:00 13:11:54 ack ericstephan 13:11:59 present+ riccardoalbertoni 13:12:15 ericstephan: No comments on DUV. I have been trying to respond to comments I mentioned last week 13:13:10 BartvanLeeuwen has joined #dwbp 13:13:25 antoine: we received internal comments from Jeremie and Makx. we are still discussing them. there are no comments from outside - 13:13:38 deirdrelee: should we be tracking the internal ones? 13:13:58 phila: doesn't do any harm - if possible do it, but it is not mandatory 13:14:00 laufer has joined #dwbp 13:14:42 antoine: do comments from the group need to be formally handled? 13:14:50 phila: it needs to be recorded 13:15:05 antoine: can editors raise issues using the issue tracker? 13:15:08 phila: yes 13:15:16 present+ BartvanLeeuwen 13:15:43 present+ laufer 13:16:10 q+ 13:16:45 phila: Makx's comment - that both vocabs have contributed to the open annotation work, is needing work to ensure that the references are still valid 13:16:49 ack riccardoalbertoni 13:17:47 riccardoalbertoni: my understanding is that we are referring to the right docs of the open annotation group, but the namespace is the old one - and I think they are going to use this for the new work. This is a reasonable assumption because the new doc doesn't refer to any change of namespace 13:18:04 q 13:18:10 q+ 13:18:22 ack newton 13:18:51 newton: re: JSON/LD BP - based on a comment that came in. 13:19:05 Topic: JSON/LD BP 13:19:28 the comment is not on the table - but to a message I got a couple of weeks ago 13:19:59 it's not a comment about one of our docs, right? 13:20:35 We will forward to the public list and include it on the Wiki table https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Status_of_comments_about_the_last_call_working_draft 13:20:45 -> https://rawgit.com/gkellogg/36b51a2681e1d6a0a9146041fd6564d5/raw/0b4af28c82074c3936e62645e2f011ed301247e0/json-ld-api-best-practices.html This documnet 13:21:05 newton: the message came directly, not on the public list. the message asked if it was appropriate for the group to publish bp about json-ld APIs 13:21:31 q+ to say no 13:21:38 deirdrelee: It seems a bit inappropriate because we have not had time to consider it within the BP work 13:21:44 q+ 13:21:47 q+ 13:22:06 phila: we have less than 2 months to go before the charter expires 13:22:34 ack phila 13:22:34 phila, you wanted to say no 13:22:45 ...this group has too much work to include this work by Greg. he can make a member submission. There may be a home in future 13:22:45 ack annette_g 13:23:07 I forward Greg's message to the group 13:23:08 There seem to be a general need for best practices like this in the W3C its beyond the scope of the group 13:23:18 annette_g: I agree with phila . We could have a list of work to take forward, but if we were to take it on we would need to add expertise to the group 13:23:25 +1 to Annette's suggestion to put it on the whish list 13:23:56 newton: bernadette, Caroline_ and I agree that although we like the approach we cannot take this on and will write to Greg to tell him this 13:24:16 ...there will be a group starting if people want to join 13:24:23 +1 to newton 13:24:37 Topic: Comments received for BP doc 13:25:13 Caroline_: the data access (#6) - has been discussed a little already but we don't have a resolution yet 13:25:20 https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-comments/2016May/0027.html 13:25:51 ... the discussion was only preliminary 13:25:52 q+ 13:26:01 q- 13:26:16 phila: 13:26:20 ack phila 13:27:43 ... looking at andrea's email - he makes a valid point and gives us an easy method to work with this. People wanting registration just want to track usage. Andrea's extension to the existing BP looks manageable to me, it is something that we've not covered 13:28:09 q+ I think this is somewhat related to the https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/153 open and closed data 13:28:09 ... providing a mechanism to collect data using the DUV is an alternative/better solution 13:28:23 ... so we can act on what Andrea is saying 13:28:52 issue-153? 13:28:53 issue-153 -- Should open/closed data be addressed in the Data Usage Vocabulary? -- open 13:28:53 http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/153 13:29:06 q? 13:29:06 ericstephan: I agree with phila / looking again at the open/closed data issue, whatever we do needs to be coordinated - there needs to be just one message 13:29:07 q+ 13:29:08 q+ 13:29:16 ack laufer 13:30:11 Privacy interest group report "Do not track"... https://www.w3.org/2012/dnt-ws/report.html 13:30:24 ack newton 13:30:35 I'm hearing wind or breathing 13:30:36 could somebody mute? I hear breathing 13:31:02 the important think is to say in our document that a publisher has to say to the user what she will do wilt data that is collected 13:31:12 thing* 13:31:15 newton: this week we talked with Dr ??? from RJ who works for a Swedish co. that made a portal of data collected from public orgs 13:31:30 +1 to Laufer 13:31:42 ... there is data enrichments and then made available via APIs that need registration. 13:31:45 s/think/thing 13:31:53 s/thing* 13:32:00 ...it is not a good thing for open data, but it is how the world is 13:32:21 s/wilt/will/ 13:32:49 I suggest to put a paragrah in the data access introduction 13:32:51 +1 deirdrelee 13:32:58 deirdrelee: we agree with Andrea's comment - we should acknowledge it and provide some guidance - a few sentences in BP #23 should be sufficient 13:33:09 +1 deirdrelee 13:33:22 Ok 13:33:37 I prefer a paragraph in the introduction and not in the BP 13:33:49 Caroline_: maybe we can make a proposal following laufer suggestion (which we couldn't hear clearly enough to scribe, so laufer is going to write it) 13:33:52 what do you think about? 13:34:21 +1 deirdrelee in the bp 13:34:21 q+ 13:34:26 because the BP is about an explanation of data that it is not avaiable... 13:34:27 +1 to having it in the BP 13:34:30 action: caroline to reply to Andrea to say that we'll include his suggestion to talk about registration and will refer to the DUV as an alternative route. Always important to say what will be done with the registration data 13:34:30 Created ACTION-284 - Reply to andrea to say that we'll include his suggestion to talk about registration and will refer to the duv as an alternative route. always important to say what will be done with the registration data [on Caroline Burle - due 2016-06-17]. 13:34:34 ack newton 13:34:37 deirdrelee: people will dip in and out of the document, so guidance should be in the BP rather than the introduction 13:34:42 newton: in the BP 13:34:45 But this is not data that is not available 13:34:47 +1 to putting it in a BP 13:35:09 well, it's not available to unregistered people 13:35:21 I do not know why to include in this bp 13:35:39 I think that if it is not a BP we did not to test this 13:35:56 deirdrelee: the DUV describes this very well, so we don't want to repeat 13:36:05 Caroline_: we could link to the DUV 13:36:21 That would be great Caroline_ 13:36:21 This could be a kind of politics of the publisher... 13:36:46 I thisk is more lionked to a kinbd of license 13:36:52 deirdrelee: laufer will write a para that will go into the BP 13:36:55 think* 13:37:06 s/lionked/linked 13:37:09 I will write the paragraph 13:37:12 It is BP22, not 23 13:37:20 s/kinbd/kind 13:37:23 then we decide where to put it 13:37:32 ok 13:37:55 Caroline_: comment #7 about numerical data 13:37:55 https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-comments/2016May/0022.html 13:38:01 I will write the paragraph and send by email to the editors 13:38:43 ... it is to do with inappropriate precision 13:38:54 q+ 13:39:23 q+ to pronounce name correctly 13:39:31 phila: we have talked about this some times previously. 13:39:42 ack annette_g 13:39:49 yes, phil... it is not data on the web specific 13:40:15 annette_g: I had thought of this early on, but it is not specific to the web, so I think it is out of scope 13:40:50 BartvanLeeuwen: I know we talked about it previously and thought it was resolved as being out of scope 13:41:17 deirdrelee: we will review earlier meetings, find the resolution agreed and respond to Frans 13:41:42 https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-comments/2016Jun/0000.html 13:41:46 Caroline_: #8, enrichment 13:42:16 ... from David. 13:42:38 q+ 13:42:49 ack BartvanLeeuwen 13:42:49 BartvanLeeuwen, you wanted to pronounce name correctly 13:42:58 ack annette_g 13:44:30 annette_g: the best way to think about this is David's example of precalculated data, accepting requests to do calculations. The requests are quantifiable. The data set accretes as missing values are added after people reaslise that they are missing. 13:44:49 ... David recognises that the addition is driven by user need 13:45:25 phila: seems to me that the key thing is provenance, but it looks as though David is extending this a bit 13:45:34 deirdrelee: we should update the BP? 13:45:44 annette_g: seems reasonable to add a sentence about it 13:45:50 Caroline_: I think it is OK 13:46:08 ... we can do that. annette_g to write, or me? 13:46:22 annette_g: if you are clear about it then just go ahead 13:46:46 Caroline_: could you do it annette_g 13:47:26 https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1a9cOGzWJTIhh2OrAemvWBR8f0rv5xqvL03pJeMrotCo/edit#gid=0 13:47:29 Caroline_: I included a link for the implementation grid. 13:47:44 -> https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20160610 Agenda 13:47:46 https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1YS-rBihjb_mOuTLVxptWuiejDLxd-L4WwK8hXsaSbEM/edit 13:48:49 ... we started the form to have a better idea about what we are going to do with the questionnaire for the implementation report. We want to make it easy for those testing the BP. We talked last time about who would be the implementers 13:48:59 We transposed the table into this form in order to make easier for implementors to answer 13:49:19 q+ 13:49:29 ... the test area would be a portal. we would appreciate feedback from the group on the form - is it easy to use? 13:50:14 q+ 13:50:34 deirdrelee: reference to evidence is only a dataset or portal, not a policy or guideline? 13:50:47 don't forget to replace the X with a number in the intro 13:50:53 newton: policy is a good thing, but not evidence of implemtation 13:50:57 we'll annette_g :-) 13:50:59 it is an evidence om implementation of our document... 13:51:22 if you have some time, could you give a feedback about the form or suggest modifications if you think it's necessary 13:51:34 s/om/of/ 13:51:38 deirdrelee: timeframe - what dates are we working to for this? we are only operating until the end of July 13:52:23 q+ to talk about candidates to implementation 13:52:55 q- 13:53:05 phila: do we have a sense of who we think will be able to provide evidence of implementation? if we do that's good. Can we in advance identify any BP that we feel/know we are not going to get >=2 implementations for. The chances of us finishing CR by end July are tiny 13:53:06 ack deirdrelee 13:54:03 ... we need to push for more reviews. We need to arrange a transition call with the Director (will take 2/52) We need to show we're making progress. We need to move before the summer break 13:54:27 q+ 13:54:35 summer is already in effect in Berkeley 13:54:35 ... in reality we're not going to finish CR untill September. We need to have evidence of progress to take to the Director and ask for an extension 13:54:35 ack Caroline_ 13:54:35 Caroline_, you wanted to talk about candidates to implementation 13:54:38 q+ 13:55:13 Caroline_: we have been talking to many people in Brasil - I feel that if we finish the form we can do a lot of work next week 13:55:30 ... do we have to have the implementation period completed before we go to CR? 13:56:24 phila: CR is when there is proof of implementation. If we can identify the problem areas then we mark 'at risk' - if we don't then if we get to CR without the 2 pieces of proof then we are back to working draft 13:56:42 ... but if we mark 'at risk' then we can still proceed 13:57:05 Caroline_: each BP has to be tested by 2 organisations or 2 data sets? 13:57:22 phila: we need 2 independent organisations to have proof 13:58:03 ack ericstephan 13:58:39 q+ 13:58:57 ericstephan: I was at Provenance Week last week and I think I can find potential implementers from that. When we are going through it is yes/no or some qualitative estimation of how well it was done? 13:59:27 phila: newton has a yes/no approach but some qualitative comment would be a good addition 14:00:19 deirdrelee: I think this is do-able before July. All issues and actions closed by next Friday. Review the form and the BPs for any "at risk". Next friday we vote to go into transition 14:01:00 ...vote to CR on 24th and we have a month to gather implementations. Discuss/resolve issues on the mailing list 14:01:09 go deirdrelee go! 14:01:11 ack deirdrelee 14:01:16 regrets+ yaso 14:01:29 Caroline_: any news about IODC? 14:01:33 RRSAgent, draft minutes 14:01:33 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/06/10-dwbp-minutes.html phila 14:01:42 the form will need to offer a N/A option, in case someone says false by accident and then can't change back to neutral 14:01:44 deirdrelee: nothing official. 14:02:08 -> https://www.w3.org/2016/11/sdsvoc/ the next WG starts here 14:02:16 deirdrelee: I will write to the list the actions 14:02:47 phila: link to a workshop at the end of November - opportunity to start a new working group 14:02:56 wow that looks really great 14:03:01 ... research data is very much in the frame 14:03:05 science!! 14:03:13 I will start swimming now! 14:03:22 ... let me konw if you're interested in joining the PC 14:03:35 count on me too 14:03:44 bye all 14:03:48 deirdrelee: thanks - end of meeting 14:03:50 rrsagent, generate minutes 14:03:50 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/06/10-dwbp-minutes.html deirdrelee 14:03:52 Thanks Antoine and riccardoalbertoni 14:03:54 bye 14:03:56 bye 14:20:11 newton has joined #dwbp 15:21:49 jtandy has joined #dwbp 15:30:22 newton has joined #dwbp 15:34:01 newton_ has joined #dwbp 16:01:58 Zakim has left #dwbp 16:07:26 newton has joined #dwbp 16:26:10 newton has joined #dwbp 16:45:11 newton_ has joined #dwbp 16:45:38 newton has joined #dwbp 17:34:19 newton has joined #dwbp 17:37:41 newton has joined #dwbp 17:39:38 newton_ has joined #dwbp 17:41:43 newton has joined #dwbp 17:55:19 newton has joined #dwbp 20:14:13 newton has joined #dwbp 20:53:34 newton_ has joined #dwbp