Data on the Web Best Practices Working Group Teleconference -- 05 Aug 2016

<hadleybeeman> hi dei

<hadleybeeman> deirdelee: I haven't managed to get webex sorted :(

<hadleybeeman> I'm so sorry

<hadleybeeman> am trying to see if anyone is around now

<BernadetteLoscio> Hi Hadley!

<deirdelee> no worries

<deirdelee> if it's only a couple of us, we could have call on skype

<deirdelee> just to touch base

<deirdelee> not an official meeting

<hadleybeeman> that might be a good way to go

hello!

<deirdelee> hello everyone

<deirdelee> i'm afraid we don't have webex as we're beyond dwbp charter!

<BernadetteLoscio> hi Deirdre!

can all use Skype?

<antoine> hi, I can't get into the webex - it says that the meeting has been cancelled

<antoine> @deirdelee: ok I understand now

<hadleybeeman> hi antoine — we need Phil back to fix that. Our charter is being renewed

<deirdelee> I suggest we have an unofficial meeting on skype, which we can still scribe here?

+1 to deirdelee

<hadleybeeman> I'm up for that

I may scribe :)

<deirdelee> my skype id is deirdrelee

<antoine> ok with this, as the informal call last week was quite productive

<deirdelee> add me if we're not already connected

<hadleybeeman> deirdelee, do you want to start a call?

<deirdelee> :) lots of informal calls

<deirdelee> yes hadleybeeman, i'll see who i have in contacts

<hadleybeeman> k

<antoine> my skype id is antoine.isaac

we may approve all the minutes at once afterwards

mine is carolineburle

<annette_g> mine is annette.greiner.1

<deirdelee> sent invites to caro & newton

I received :)

<newton> Received!

<deirdelee> ok, think that's everyone who's here...

<scribe> scribe: Caroline

deirdelee: we decided to postpone the meeting with the Director
... because of the i18n comments that are still being resolved

<deirdelee> webex doesn't work as we're over charter

<deirdelee> want to join?

BernadetteLoscio: we added the comments we discussed on last week's meeting. They are available in Github

<deirdelee> send me your skype id

BernadetteLoscio: we sent a message to the i18n group and we are waiting for their feedback
... we have some doubts to clarify with them
... the comments we resolved are adressed and we are waiting for i18n confirmation
... also annette_g has comments

annette_g: about local neutral and local parameters

<deirdelee> link to i mean

annette_g: we had a question about it because they don't seem all neutral. I asked how to make sure they are neutral
... hoe to make representation comparable

<BernadetteLoscio> https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Status_of_comments_about_the_last_call_working_draft

annette_g: I didn't get a response about it yet

<BernadetteLoscio> wiki table with comments status

annette_g: I got a response about saying that you have to have some sort of representation there
... we are waiting confirmation about specific details
... the question for the DWBP WG is if do we need to have a new BP about it
... how we will add it if we add it
... I think we should cover it

hadleybeeman: as a separate BP?

annette_g: I am neutral about it. I am not yet giving up to find a way to include it without creating a new BP

<deirdelee> +1 to hadleybeeman

hadleybeeman: from a process pperspective I am worried about creating a new BP

<BernadetteLoscio> +1 to hadleybeeman

hadleybeeman: I think it is a sort of metadata
... is there a way to extend the language a bit to fit it in?

<riccardoAlbertoni> \me yes please add me .. :)

annette_g: I would find odd to put in withou generalizing the title a litle so would make sense for both

hadleybeeman: if we can make it a editorial change it would be good
... if it has to be fundamental chance it worries me that the director would like to see more evidence that more people has reviewed it

antoine: I am also in favor to keep this on the existing BPs
... also because of the spirit of the i18n

<hadleybeeman> An editorial change is a different way to describe what we mean. A more substantive change (which I think would require more review from other people) would be us recommending something that is technically different, or new.

antoine: they tried to put internationalization in what has been done already
... besides I don't think we should change a lot the document

deirdelee: we were asking for minor comments
... if we don't add would that be okay?
... if we incude as a part of an existing BP would be suficient

antoine: I don't think we can say we were expecting minor comments

<Zakim> hadleybeeman, you wanted to respond re what the director will look for

antoine: someone could come with a big comments

hadleybeeman: the director is only going to care if the i18n is happy
... not how we made them happy
... we can talk with them and check if they are happy :)
... the director only has to see that it is solved
... I agree with antoine that we need to solve independtly of the size of the change
... we need to say that was solved to the director

annette_g: it seems that changing the title could be editorial change
... I will think about the title

BernadetteLoscio: I agree that would be complicated to add a new BP
... are talking about BP3
... the focus about this BP is about metadata
... I don't know if would be weird if became not related to metadata

deirdelee: if we change the title, remove metadata and change the position of it
... if we move the position of it out of metadata section it would cover

I am not sure it would be possible to do what deirdelee is suggeting

BernadetteLoscio: we need to see were we could put it
... I am not sure if creating a new section is a good idea

<annette_g> "internationalize your data with locale parameters metadata and locale-neutral presentation"

BernadetteLoscio: I am not crazy about this idea

annette_g: I suggested the title "internationalize your data with locale parameters metadata and locale-neutral presentation"

hadleybeeman: we can add under another Possible approach to implementation or using the example they gave
... basicaly to include where appropriate in the BP3
... I am not suggesting changing the title, but adding their example as another apossible approach to implementation

annette_g: I feel it need to be in the title or it could get lost otherwise

deirdelee: what if we do what hadleybeeman is suggesting and id they are not happy about it we change the title?

annette_g: I worry about us being driven by trying to minimize change
... if we prefer to do something different otherwise

deirdelee: if we jsut change the short description
... I don't think we have to change the title to prove we are talking about it
... maybe we could make the title more general

antoine: I am trying to understand what are talking about
... about comment 13?

deirdelee: yes

antoine: I think we should have metadata about the localization
... the data is already localized
... are we going to ask people to change their data?

<annette_g> Title: Provide locale information. Subtitle: "internationalize your data with locale parameters metadata and locale-neutral presentation"

antoine: if we do this, we could suggest as part of data enrichment

deirdelee: do we need local neutral and local parameters?

antoine: is it changing the data?
... are we asking people to change their value and units?

BernadetteLoscio: I agree with antoine
... BP 3 is not the place to alk about it
... we could mention it as a general guideline in the introduction
... I am not sure if I understood correctly, but I think it is something different of what we say at BP3

annette_g: we still have the same problem if we put it in the data enrichment section

BernadetteLoscio: If I look into the BPs now I don't see a BP where this comment really fit in
... I can add a phrase about it in the introduction
... say something that this is also a standard and give links to documents related to it
... I think we shouldn't include another BP
... the introduction of the document itself
... in the introduction there is a paragraph that says that it is need to use standards to publish data on the web
... we had this discussion with laufer and the group and we added that paragraph

deirdelee: let's hear antoine and annette_g and discuss the vocabs
... then we can finish this discussion on the mailing list

antoine: I feel okay as having this on BP 31 - data enrichment

annette_g: this is not new data
... BP 31 is enrich data on generating new data
... if I have my value in feet and I want in meeters it is new data
... I think we are asking people to separate value from the unit
... in many situation the unit will be just implicit

<annette_g> My suggestion for where to put it: BP 3. Title: Provide locale information. Subtitle: "internationalize your data with locale parameters metadata and locale-neutral presentation"

giving them these options

<BernadetteLoscio> +1 to Hadley

hadleybeeman: I think the discussion with the i18n will go better with a suggestion

okay, hadleybeeman :)

deirdelee: we are moving to DQV and moving the comments to email as annette_g is typing it

<deirdelee> My suggestion for where to put it: BP 3. Title: Provide locale information. Subtitle: "internationalize your data with locale parameters metadata and locale-neutral presentation"

BernadetteLoscio: just to clarify, annette_g is suggesting to change the title of BP3 and then we will discuss it by email before sending the suggestion to the i18n group?

deirdelee: yes

DQV

<riccardoAlbertoni> yes

<riccardoAlbertoni> please

antoine: we are using the extra time during summer to polish it
... we are not changing much to the basic proposal on data model
... we want to make the document better for readers
... most of the changes are editorial
... we still have ongoing discussions
... people made some suggestions
... they might endup in several extra changes
... if people in the group are okay with it that is the way we can continue owrking in August
... we are happy the way the document is being changed in the past weeks

<Zakim> Caroline, you wanted to ask about having a discussion with i18n before we decide

antoine: there need to be a pont when the group decide to publish it

Zakim: I asked already

deirdelee: it is completely fine to use the time until September
... it is good to have a particularly cutting point
... would be good to have implementation examples

<Zakim> hadleybeeman, you wanted to talk about deadlines... and the working group

hadleybeeman: Phil is owrking to have an extention of the WG

<antoine> list of pointers for implementations of DQV: https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/List_of_DQV_implementations

hadleybeeman: it is good to use the time to improve the document
... if we get pass the end of having regular meetings we will have to call a specific meeting to pass on transitions

<Zakim> newton, you wanted to talk about evidences

hadleybeeman: you will have to catch everyone's atention and the further we get away from our rotine will be harder to get the WG together to review and vote on publication

riccardoAlbertoni: considering the implementation for DQV my group is planning to use the doument
... in September we will have dataset to document the DQV implementation
... the implementation being already collected
... we are not on the CR

deirdelee: to vote DQV when would that be/

s//?

antoine: we would be ready to publish something anytime 2 weeks from now
... we are gathering implementations, but they are not needed, right?

deirdelee: yes

antoine: that is why I said the model is not changing
... it is stable and if the WG wants to vote we can do it

hadleybeeman: the only thing is that the WG has to vote for any change on the document

deirdelee: that is the same for DUV
... we should arrange the same dat for both
... let's see with the DUV editors to schedule a date

antoine: we can adpat to the BP document voting

hadleybeeman: we are making changes because of the i18n comments
... we will need to make a vote to transition on the BP document
... does it make sense to vote them together?

deirdelee: if we agree on that
... the BP document voting would tide the DQV and DUV voting

antoine: I would be help to help to make sure we can vote on the DQV at the same time

<riccardoAlbertoni> sorry i missed the date you proposed

deirdelee: BernadetteLoscio can you discuss it with Eric and see if we are all on the same page?
... I think Eric made the last changes we discussed but we still don't have the implementations
... I will discuss with him to propose imlpementations
... dont'having implementations it isn't a blocking

BernadetteLoscio: I think it is possible to implementations
... about annette_g's proposal on the BP document
... the proposal annette_g did is good but we also to change the BP's text
... not only the title

annette_g: true

<newton> Ales Versic | Ministry of Public Administration | aversic@gov.si

newton: about the evidences, we only have a few until now

<newton> Deirdre Lee | National Transport Authority | deirdre@derilinx.com

I still have to send my emails about the evidences

I am sorry I am late on doing that

deirdelee: we are not asking people for implementation yet
... Caroline made the email that is on the week and we have to start sending the emails

BP's editors will send an email about the implementations to the WG remember to send emails to their contacts

hadleybeeman: we can have implementations already, but we don't have to set a deadline until the director's call
... there is no pressure yet

deirdelee: just a reminder that we as WG members can also add implementations
... is there any final comments?

hadleybeeman: are we having another call next week?

deirdelee: I hope so

<deirdelee> PROPOSED: Approve meetings from 22nd July https://www.w3.org/2016/07/22-dwbp-minutes.html

hadleybeeman: we can do oficial calls on Skype if they are on the mailing list with 24h in advance

<hadleybeeman> +1

<deirdelee> +1

BernadetteLoscio: one final question about the comment on BP3

<newton> +0

BernadetteLoscio: annette_g is going to make a proposal for the hole BP or are we discussing with the i18n?

annette: I sent an email as a starting point

<riccardoAlbertoni> +1

BernadetteLoscio: I just want to know who is going to make the changes

annette_g: it might help to see the discussion

RESOLUTION: Approve meetings from 22nd July https://www.w3.org/2016/07/22-dwbp-minutes.html

hadleybeeman: if you just put it the proposal new line it might be easier to explains how that meet the i18n's suggestoin

annette_g: I sent the email aleady :s:)

<deirdelee> https://www.w3.org/2016/07/29-dwbp-minutes.html

<newton> bye all

<riccardoAlbertoni> have a good weekend !

<newton> thank you and have a nice weekend!

- DRAFT -

Data on the Web Best Practices Working Group Teleconference

05 Aug 2016

Attendees

Contents

DQV

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

Scribe.perl diagnostic output