12:48:47 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/09/04-dwbp-irc
RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/09/04-dwbp-irc ←
12:48:49 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs 351
Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, make logs 351 ←
12:48:51 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be DWBP
Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, this will be DWBP ←
12:48:51 <Zakim> I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot
Zakim IRC Bot: I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot ←
12:48:52 <trackbot> Meeting: Data on the Web Best Practices Working Group Teleconference
12:48:52 <trackbot> Date: 04 September 2015
12:52:25 <PeterWinstanley> present+ PeterWinstanley
Peter Winstanley: present+ PeterWinstanley ←
12:57:22 <deirdrelee> present+ deirdrelee
Deirdre Lee: present+ deirdrelee ←
13:01:22 <riccardoAlbertoni> hi all!
Riccardo Albertoni: hi all! ←
13:01:36 <deirdrelee> chair: deirdrelee
13:01:43 <deirdrelee> Agenda: https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20150904
13:02:07 <deirdrelee> scribe: PeterWinstanley
(Scribe set to Peter Winstanley)
13:02:17 <nandana> present+ nandana
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: present+ nandana ←
13:02:24 <annette_g> present+ annette_g
Annette Greiner: present+ annette_g ←
13:02:51 <riccardoAlbertoni> present+ riccardoAlbertoni
Riccardo Albertoni: present+ riccardoAlbertoni ←
13:03:10 <newtoncalegari> present+ newtoncalegari
Newton Calegari: present+ newtoncalegari ←
13:03:48 <annette_g> *maybe switch call-in mode, D?*
Annette Greiner: *maybe switch call-in mode, D?* ←
13:04:27 <deirdrelee> PROPOSED: Approve last week's minutes: http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/dwbp/2015-08-28
PROPOSED: Approve last week's minutes: http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/dwbp/2015-08-28 ←
13:04:47 <annette_g> +1
Annette Greiner: +1 ←
13:04:49 <antoine> present+ antoine
Antoine Isaac: present+ antoine ←
13:04:54 <nandana> +1
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: +1 ←
13:04:54 <riccardoAlbertoni> +0 ( i was not present)
Riccardo Albertoni: +0 ( i was not present) ←
13:04:57 <antoine> +1
Antoine Isaac: +1 ←
13:04:57 <newtoncalegari> +1
Newton Calegari: +1 ←
13:05:04 <newtoncalegari> present+ Caroline_
Newton Calegari: present+ Caroline_ ←
13:05:16 <deirdrelee> RESOLVED: Approve last week's minutes: http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/dwbp/2015-08-28
RESOLVED: Approve last week's minutes: http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/dwbp/2015-08-28 ←
13:06:07 <riccardoAlbertoni> I am experiencing the same
Riccardo Albertoni: I am experiencing the same ←
13:06:13 <annette_g> *I can hear her, though it is noisy*
Annette Greiner: *I can hear her, though it is noisy* ←
13:06:15 <laufer> present+ laufer
Carlos Laufer: present+ laufer ←
13:06:49 <Caroline_> I can't hear anyone :/
Caroline Burle: I can't hear anyone :/ ←
13:07:05 <Caroline_> Now I hear! :)
Caroline Burle: Now I hear! :) ←
13:07:19 <riccardoAlbertoni> yes, much better
Riccardo Albertoni: yes, much better ←
13:07:27 <ericstephan> Yes I can hear
Eric Stephan: Yes I can hear ←
13:07:34 <deirdrelee> Agenda: https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20150904#Main_agenda
13:08:09 <PeterWinstanley> 1st item carried over from last week: should we leave/keep normative terms (keywords) from BP doc?
1st item carried over from last week: should we leave/keep normative terms (keywords) from BP doc? ←
13:08:27 <deirdrelee> topic: Whether to remove/keep rfc2119 terms in bp doc
13:08:43 <deirdrelee> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt
Deirdre Lee: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt ←
13:09:44 <PeterWinstanley> haldey & phil (not on call) contributed at chairs' discussion
haldey & phil (not on call) contributed at chairs' discussion ←
13:10:03 <PeterWinstanley> ...it's standard W3C practice for recommendation notes
...it's standard W3C practice for recommendation notes ←
13:10:04 <annette_g> q+
Annette Greiner: q+ ←
13:10:08 <yaso> present+ yaso
Yaso Córdova: present+ yaso ←
13:10:44 <deirdrelee> ack annette_g
Deirdre Lee: ack annette_g ←
13:10:45 <PeterWinstanley> ...so hadley & phil in favour of keeping terms, but if the group had an alternative view then that's OK
...so hadley & phil in favour of keeping terms, but if the group had an alternative view then that's OK ←
13:11:33 <newtoncalegari> q+
Newton Calegari: q+ ←
13:11:36 <annette_g> http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/
Annette Greiner: http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/ ←
13:11:36 <PeterWinstanley> annette: good comparitor is WCAG 2.0: where they use levels
Annette Greiner: good comparitor is WCAG 2.0: where they use levels ←
13:11:53 <newtoncalegari> q-
Newton Calegari: q- ←
13:12:09 <PeterWinstanley> deirdrelee: danger is that issue has been around a long time, and it might take time to develop a levels structure
Deirdre Lee: danger is that issue has been around a long time, and it might take time to develop a levels structure ←
13:12:35 <PeterWinstanley> annette_g: if the group votes for the change then we just do it
Annette Greiner: if the group votes for the change then we just do it ←
13:13:02 <newtoncalegari> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/146
Newton Calegari: http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/146 ←
13:13:56 <laufer> q+
Carlos Laufer: q+ ←
13:14:04 <PeterWinstanley> newtoncalegari: the issue 146 is still open, but we could close it by having a maturity model. what is the opinion of chairs? agree with annette_g as this is not a specification doc
Newton Calegari: the ISSUE-146 is still open, but we could close it by having a maturity model. what is the opinion of chairs? agree with annette_g as this is not a specification doc ←
13:15:10 <PeterWinstanley> laufer: i vote to remove terms; levels may be difficult but we need to do it as the terms such as 'MUST' are too broad, not fine-grained enough.
Carlos Laufer: i vote to remove terms; levels may be difficult but we need to do it as the terms such as 'MUST' are too broad, not fine-grained enough. ←
13:15:37 <PeterWinstanley> ... we have to provide both metadata for humans and machines
... we have to provide both metadata for humans and machines ←
13:15:40 <deirdrelee> q?
Deirdre Lee: q? ←
13:15:43 <deirdrelee> ack laufer
Deirdre Lee: ack laufer ←
13:15:47 <newtoncalegari> q+
Newton Calegari: q+ ←
13:15:48 <antoine> q+
Antoine Isaac: q+ ←
13:16:29 <deirdrelee> ack newtoncalegari
Deirdre Lee: ack newtoncalegari ←
13:16:53 <PeterWinstanley> newtoncalegari: I agree; remove rfc terms and create a maturity model; but this needs a number of people in the group to work on this, it's more than newtoncalegari and a few others can do along
Newton Calegari: I agree; remove rfc terms and create a maturity model; but this needs a number of people in the group to work on this, it's more than newtoncalegari and a few others can do along ←
13:17:10 <Caroline_> We made some suggestions for contributors on the timeline: https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/BP_Document_3rd_Draft
Caroline Burle: We made some suggestions for contributors on the timeline: https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/BP_Document_3rd_Draft ←
13:17:25 <deirdrelee> ack antoine
Deirdre Lee: ack antoine ←
13:17:26 <yaso> newtoncalegari, I suggest that you create a task force
Yaso Córdova: newtoncalegari, I suggest that you create a task force ←
13:18:24 <PeterWinstanley> antoine: initially I don't have an objection, but am concerned when I hear about degrees of 'MUST' as this was the issue that rfc was meant to avoid; so I would need to see the proposed replacement first
Antoine Isaac: initially I don't have an objection, but am concerned when I hear about degrees of 'MUST' as this was the issue that rfc was meant to avoid; so I would need to see the proposed replacement first ←
13:18:26 <newtoncalegari> yaso, roger that.
Newton Calegari: yaso, roger that. ←
13:18:33 <annette_g> q+
Annette Greiner: q+ ←
13:18:59 <newtoncalegari> yaso, we put some suggestions on the BP schedule to work on this task, as Caroline_ just sent to the group
Newton Calegari: yaso, we put some suggestions on the BP schedule to work on this task, as Caroline_ just sent to the group ←
13:19:15 <annette_g> WCAG is a rec
Annette Greiner: WCAG is a rec ←
13:19:22 <PeterWinstanley> deirdrelee: in general W3C rec docs use rfc levels, even for BP docs. [Mobile group don't use the rfc terms, but Spatial group do]
Deirdre Lee: in general W3C rec docs use rfc levels, even for BP docs. [Mobile group don't use the rfc terms, but Spatial group do] ←
13:19:56 <PeterWinstanley> ...for multi-lingual understanding, maturity models that are prose might be difficult to translate appropriately
...for multi-lingual understanding, maturity models that are prose might be difficult to translate appropriately ←
13:20:03 <deirdrelee> ack annette_g
Deirdre Lee: ack annette_g ←
13:21:17 <yaso> +1 to annette_g
Yaso Córdova: +1 to annette_g ←
13:21:18 <deirdrelee> q+
Deirdre Lee: q+ ←
13:21:26 <PeterWinstanley> annette_g: e.g. of benefit of using levels; when talking about RESTful APIs there are degrees of complexity: 4 levels of doing REST that the rfc terms would not be appropriate as the level to be used depends on the problem being worked on
Annette Greiner: e.g. of benefit of using levels; when talking about RESTful APIs there are degrees of complexity: 4 levels of doing REST that the rfc terms would not be appropriate as the level to be used depends on the problem being worked on ←
13:22:02 <annette_g> q+
Annette Greiner: q+ ←
13:22:40 <PeterWinstanley> deirdrelee: rfc terms include lots of terms MUST, SHOULD, RECOMMEND, MAY and we should use the options to nuance our recommendations; going too far the line of defining our own we might lose focus on the BPs
Deirdre Lee: rfc terms include lots of terms MUST, SHOULD, RECOMMEND, MAY and we should use the options to nuance our recommendations; going too far the line of defining our own we might lose focus on the BPs ←
13:22:57 <laufer> even if we have the implicit levels of the RFC terms, I think that explicit levels grouping the BPs will bem more clear to readers...
Carlos Laufer: even if we have the implicit levels of the RFC terms, I think that explicit levels grouping the BPs will bem more clear to readers... ←
13:23:18 <deirdrelee> ack deirdrelee
Deirdre Lee: ack deirdrelee ←
13:23:21 <deirdrelee> ack annette_g
Deirdre Lee: ack annette_g ←
13:23:23 <PeterWinstanley> ...we might use laufer MAY and RECOMMEND more than MUST. we can also expand on these terms
...we might use laufer MAY and RECOMMEND more than MUST. we can also expand on these terms ←
13:23:55 <PeterWinstanley> annette_g: the rfc is very clear - it is meant for specifications; not in situations where there is the force of a specification.
Annette Greiner: the rfc is very clear - it is meant for specifications; not in situations where there is the force of a specification. ←
13:24:21 <PeterWinstanley> ...i think it would elimnate confusion if we avoided being unnecessarily mandatory
...i think it would elimnate confusion if we avoided being unnecessarily mandatory ←
13:25:04 <PeterWinstanley> ...RECOMMEND is one that we could use, but MAY and SHOULD are probably not appropriate for the doc we are working witih
...RECOMMEND is one that we could use, but MAY and SHOULD are probably not appropriate for the doc we are working witih ←
13:25:31 <deirdrelee> PROPOSED: Remove the RFC2119 normative terms from the BP Document and instead will create our own levels/maturity-model
PROPOSED: Remove the RFC2119 normative terms from the BP Document and instead will create our own levels/maturity-model ←
13:25:51 <laufer> together
Carlos Laufer: together ←
13:25:59 <PeterWinstanley> +1
+1 ←
13:26:02 <ericstephan> together +1
Eric Stephan: together +1 ←
13:26:10 <deirdrelee> PROPOSED: Remove the RFC2119 normative terms from the BP Document and instead will create our own levels/maturity-model
PROPOSED: Remove the RFC2119 normative terms from the BP Document and instead will create our own levels/maturity-model ←
13:26:17 <newtoncalegari> q+
Newton Calegari: q+ ←
13:26:18 <PeterWinstanley> +1
+1 ←
13:26:24 <annette_g> +1
Annette Greiner: +1 ←
13:26:28 <deirdrelee> 0
Deirdre Lee: 0 ←
13:26:32 <antoine> 0
Antoine Isaac: 0 ←
13:26:41 <ericstephan> 0
Eric Stephan: 0 ←
13:26:50 <yaso> 0
Yaso Córdova: 0 ←
13:26:53 <laufer> +1
Carlos Laufer: +1 ←
13:27:08 <PeterWinstanley> newtoncalegari: my concern is that our vote might go against what the chairs think
Newton Calegari: my concern is that our vote might go against what the chairs think ←
13:27:08 <nandana> 0
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: 0 ←
13:27:12 <riccardoAlbertoni> 0
13:27:17 <newtoncalegari> +1
Newton Calegari: +1 ←
13:27:24 <yaso> q+
Yaso Córdova: q+ ←
13:27:24 <ericstephan> q+
Eric Stephan: q+ ←
13:27:26 <laufer> how many zeros are equivalent to -1
Carlos Laufer: how many zeros are equivalent to -1 ←
13:27:28 <annette_g> "Imperatives of the type defined in this memo must be used with care
Annette Greiner: "Imperatives of the type defined in this memo must be used with care ←
13:27:28 <annette_g> and sparingly. In particular, they MUST only be used where it is
Annette Greiner: and sparingly. In particular, they MUST only be used where it is ←
13:27:28 <annette_g> actually required for interoperation or to limit behavior which has
Annette Greiner: actually required for interoperation or to limit behavior which has ←
13:27:28 <annette_g> potential for causing harm (e.g., limiting retransmisssions) For
Annette Greiner: potential for causing harm (e.g., limiting retransmisssions) For ←
13:27:30 <annette_g> example, they must not be used to try to impose a particular method
Annette Greiner: example, they must not be used to try to impose a particular method ←
13:27:30 <annette_g> on implementors where the method is not required for interoperability"
Annette Greiner: on implementors where the method is not required for interoperability" ←
13:27:35 <PeterWinstanley> deirdrelee: that's ok, but I am concerned about zeroes. what do they mean?
Deirdre Lee: that's ok, but I am concerned about zeroes. what do they mean? ←
13:27:38 <deirdrelee> ack newtoncalegari
Deirdre Lee: ack newtoncalegari ←
13:27:41 <deirdrelee> ack yaso
Deirdre Lee: ack yaso ←
13:27:49 <yaso> unmute me]
Yaso Córdova: unmute me] ←
13:28:10 <PeterWinstanley> yaso: suggestion: better to vote seperately
Yaso Córdova: suggestion: better to vote seperately ←
13:28:23 <deirdrelee> ack ericstephan
Deirdre Lee: ack ericstephan ←
13:29:40 <newtoncalegari> we need to plan how we're going to create the maturity model: build a team to work on this, set a deadline, etc...
Newton Calegari: we need to plan how we're going to create the maturity model: build a team to work on this, set a deadline, etc... ←
13:29:42 <nandana> +q
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: +q ←
13:29:43 <PeterWinstanley> ericstephan: I understand desire to use normative terms, I also understand desire for maturity model,. I think the proof is in the pudding - is there evidence (perhaps for F2F) that the maturity model, even roughly, exists. is there a real alternative to the normative text
Eric Stephan: I understand desire to use normative terms, I also understand desire for maturity model,. I think the proof is in the pudding - is there evidence (perhaps for F2F) that the maturity model, even roughly, exists. is there a real alternative to the normative text ←
13:29:57 <deirdrelee> ack nandana
Deirdre Lee: ack nandana ←
13:29:59 <antoine> proof is in the pudding ++
Antoine Isaac: proof is in the pudding ++ ←
13:30:26 <PeterWinstanley> nandana: same opinion; am convinced about removal of rfc terms, but developing/agreeing a maturity model would be challenging/time comsuming
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: same opinion; am convinced about removal of rfc terms, but developing/agreeing a maturity model would be challenging/time comsuming ←
13:30:50 <PeterWinstanley> deirdrelee: would editors be willing to create a first draft for next week?
Deirdre Lee: would editors be willing to create a first draft for next week? ←
13:31:11 <yaso> +1 to deirdrelee
Yaso Córdova: +1 to deirdrelee ←
13:31:14 <PeterWinstanley> ... my concern is that this might divert attention from BPs
... my concern is that this might divert attention from BPs ←
13:31:16 <annette_g> q+
Annette Greiner: q+ ←
13:31:29 <ericstephan> +1 to deirdrelee concerns about taking up to much time
Eric Stephan: +1 to deirdrelee concerns about taking up to much time ←
13:31:30 <Caroline_> +q
Caroline Burle: +q ←
13:31:33 <deirdrelee> ack annette_g
Deirdre Lee: ack annette_g ←
13:31:50 <deirdrelee> ack Caroline_
Deirdre Lee: ack Caroline_ ←
13:31:51 <PeterWinstanley> annette_g: there mihgt be things that don't work well with the maturity model and we use it selectively
Annette Greiner: there mihgt be things that don't work well with the maturity model and we use it selectively ←
13:31:56 <ericstephan> that is interesting annette_g
Eric Stephan: that is interesting annette_g ←
13:32:26 <newtoncalegari> Who could work on this? I can, but would be nice if someone else could join in this journey...
Newton Calegari: Who could work on this? I can, but would be nice if someone else could join in this journey... ←
13:32:31 <PeterWinstanley> Caroline_: can we first create a task force - editors are not capable of doing this maturity model work themselves.
Caroline Burle: can we first create a task force - editors are not capable of doing this maturity model work themselves. ←
13:32:58 <laufer> q+
Carlos Laufer: q+ ←
13:33:10 <Caroline_> https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/BP_Document_3rd_Draft
Caroline Burle: https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/BP_Document_3rd_Draft ←
13:33:24 <PeterWinstanley> ...BP doc is important - must be released mid october - see suggestions in BP timeline
...BP doc is important - must be released mid october - see suggestions in BP timeline ←
13:33:33 <deirdrelee> ack laufer
Deirdre Lee: ack laufer ←
13:34:48 <PeterWinstanley> laufer: it's difficult to build the levels framework, but we only have 2 words of the rfc and this is not a good enough guide to implementation as having 2 levels is not a clear enought guide
Carlos Laufer: it's difficult to build the levels framework, but we only have 2 words of the rfc and this is not a good enough guide to implementation as having 2 levels is not a clear enought guide ←
13:35:10 <PeterWinstanley> deirdrelee: there are more terms in the rfc and we could use these as well
Deirdre Lee: there are more terms in the rfc and we could use these as well ←
13:35:34 <PeterWinstanley> ...going back to the Caroline_ proposal, are there people willing to work on this this week?
...going back to the Caroline_ proposal, are there people willing to work on this this week? ←
13:36:14 <newtoncalegari> q+
Newton Calegari: q+ ←
13:36:21 <ericstephan> q+
Eric Stephan: q+ ←
13:36:33 <PeterWinstanley> ...back to the editors, if people cannot contribute on this, can Caroline_ and newtoncalegari prepare a first draft (you are both very familiar with the doc and the nuance that you are wanting in the use of levels
...back to the editors, if people cannot contribute on this, can Caroline_ and newtoncalegari prepare a first draft (you are both very familiar with the doc and the nuance that you are wanting in the use of levels ←
13:36:38 <deirdrelee> ack newtoncalegari
Deirdre Lee: ack newtoncalegari ←
13:37:52 <deirdrelee> ack ericstephan
Deirdre Lee: ack ericstephan ←
13:37:53 <PeterWinstanley> newtoncalegari: as we don't have concensus, I will create an action to analyse the other rfc terms and see if they can be used. if they cannot then the maturity model approach must be done. however, this needs more than just the editors contribution to be authoritative
Newton Calegari: as we don't have concensus, I will create an action to analyse the other rfc terms and see if they can be used. if they cannot then the maturity model approach must be done. however, this needs more than just the editors contribution to be authoritative ←
13:38:01 <annette_g> wait, didn't we just vote against the RFC terms?
Annette Greiner: wait, didn't we just vote against the RFC terms? ←
13:38:18 <deirdrelee> there was no resolution annette_g
Deirdre Lee: there was no resolution annette_g ←
13:39:07 <PeterWinstanley> ericstephan: perhaps we can change the language to provide clarity
Eric Stephan: perhaps we can change the language to provide clarity ←
13:39:25 <annette_g> it sounded like everyone opposed was opposed to the MM, not removing the RFC
Annette Greiner: it sounded like everyone opposed was opposed to the MM, not removing the RFC ←
13:39:53 <PeterWinstanley> deirdrelee: we haven't had complete resolution; generally a positive reaction, but most people would like to know what it might look like before deciding
Deirdre Lee: we haven't had complete resolution; generally a positive reaction, but most people would like to know what it might look like before deciding ←
13:40:00 <newtoncalegari> annette_g, our concern, as editors, we don't have the needed force to create a maturity model, and if the maturity levels are not made, the doc would be without the RFC and MM...
Newton Calegari: annette_g, our concern, as editors, we don't have the needed force to create a maturity model, and if the maturity levels are not made, the doc would be without the RFC and MM... ←
13:40:19 <annette_g> I see, thanks
Annette Greiner: I see, thanks ←
13:40:27 <PeterWinstanley> ...editors will prepare a draft, but if this is not acceptible we will retain the rfc terms
...editors will prepare a draft, but if this is not acceptible we will retain the rfc terms ←
13:41:01 <newtoncalegari> action newton analyze the RFC2119 and see if other terms could be used in the document or should we create a maturity model
Newton Calegari: action newton analyze the RFC2119 and see if other terms could be used in the document or should we create a maturity model ←
13:41:04 <trackbot> Created ACTION-197 - Analyze the rfc2119 and see if other terms could be used in the document or should we create a maturity model [on Newton Calegari - due 2015-09-11].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-197 - Analyze the rfc2119 and see if other terms could be used in the document or should we create a maturity model [on Newton Calegari - due 2015-09-11]. ←
13:41:40 <riccardoAlbertoni> q+
Riccardo Albertoni: q+ ←
13:42:15 <ericstephan> I did some sorting antoine ... https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Issues_Tagged_Incorrectly
Eric Stephan: I did some sorting antoine ... https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Issues_Tagged_Incorrectly ←
13:42:30 <PeterWinstanley> antoine: I suggest sorting issues: DUV has a huge number of issues, but most of them are for the BP doc
Antoine Isaac: I suggest sorting issues: DUV has a huge number of issues, but most of them are for the BP doc ←
13:42:31 <ericstephan> q+
Eric Stephan: q+ ←
13:42:46 <newtoncalegari> I don't know for what reasons a lot of issues are assigned to the DUV doc..
Newton Calegari: I don't know for what reasons a lot of issues are assigned to the DUV doc.. ←
13:42:55 <PeterWinstanley> deirdrelee: I could do this offline
Deirdre Lee: I could do this offline ←
13:43:23 <newtoncalegari> Some issues that were wrong, I assigend to the BP doc
Newton Calegari: Some issues that were wrong, I assigend to the BP doc ←
13:43:24 <laufer> \me please, could someone list the links for DUV and DQV
Carlos Laufer: \me please, could someone list the links for DUV and DQV ←
13:43:54 <deirdrelee> action for deirdrelee to reassign products on open issue list https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/open
Deirdre Lee: action for deirdrelee to reassign products on open issue list https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/open ←
13:43:54 <trackbot> Error finding 'for'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/users>.
Trackbot IRC Bot: Error finding 'for'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/users>. ←
13:44:06 <deirdrelee> action: deirdrelee to reassign products on open issue list https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/open
ACTION: deirdrelee to reassign products on open issue list https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/open ←
13:44:06 <trackbot> Error finding 'deirdrelee'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/users>.
Trackbot IRC Bot: Error finding 'deirdrelee'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/users>. ←
13:44:08 <PeterWinstanley> riccardoAlbertoni: Are we in the position to close ISSUE 182 ? discussion on the mailing list
Riccardo Albertoni: Are we in the position to close ISSUE-182 ? discussion on the mailing list ←
13:44:19 <deirdrelee> create action deirdrelee to reassign products on open issue list https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/open
Deirdre Lee: create action deirdrelee to reassign products on open issue list https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/open ←
13:44:25 <ericstephan> q-
Eric Stephan: q- ←
13:44:29 <deirdrelee> ack riccardoAlbertoni
Deirdre Lee: ack riccardoAlbertoni ←
13:44:34 <deirdrelee> issue-182?
13:44:34 <trackbot> issue-182 -- The label of daq:QualityGraph does not fit well with the current model -- open
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-182 -- The label of daq:QualityGraph does not fit well with the current model -- open ←
13:44:34 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/182
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/182 ←
13:44:40 <PeterWinstanley> antoine: I cannot decide at the moment
Antoine Isaac: I cannot decide at the moment ←
13:45:20 <newtoncalegari> action Deirdre Lee to reassign products on open issue list https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/open
Newton Calegari: action Deirdre Lee to reassign products on open issue list https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/open ←
13:45:20 <trackbot> Created ACTION-198 - Lee to reassign products on open issue list https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/open [on Deirdre Lee - due 2015-09-11].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-198 - Lee to reassign products on open issue list https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/open [on Deirdre Lee - due 2015-09-11]. ←
13:45:33 <PeterWinstanley> ...another question : is the group interested in the 2 issues: cube datasets vs graph
...another question : is the group interested in the 2 issues: cube datasets vs graph ←
13:45:45 <annette_g> q+
Annette Greiner: q+ ←
13:45:51 <PeterWinstanley> riccardoAlbertoni: we can close by email
Riccardo Albertoni: we can close by email ←
13:45:54 <deirdrelee> ack annette_g
Deirdre Lee: ack annette_g ←
13:46:52 <PeterWinstanley> annette_g: my concern isn't the technical issue, just that we recommend something that is easy for people to understand - and jargon-free (the word 'graph' can cause confusion)
Annette Greiner: my concern isn't the technical issue, just that we recommend something that is easy for people to understand - and jargon-free (the word 'graph' can cause confusion) ←
13:48:01 <PeterWinstanley> antoine: I can see a general agreement on the structure of the metadata, but there still needs to be discussion on the naming of these terms
Antoine Isaac: I can see a general agreement on the structure of the metadata, but there still needs to be discussion on the naming of these terms ←
13:49:12 <PeterWinstanley> deirdrelee: from the DQV most issues are technical
Deirdre Lee: from the DQV most issues are technical ←
13:49:33 <ericstephan> I have a timeline to share
Eric Stephan: I have a timeline to share ←
13:49:57 <PeterWinstanley> antoine: we can continue the discussion by email
Antoine Isaac: we can continue the discussion by email ←
13:50:17 <PeterWinstanley> deirdrelee: move to DUV - new timeline
Deirdre Lee: move to DUV - new timeline ←
13:50:17 <ericstephan> https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Data_usage_vocab_timetable
Eric Stephan: https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Data_usage_vocab_timetable ←
13:51:14 <PeterWinstanley> ericstephan: 2 things: I responded to message about tags that antoine mentioned; I set up a wiki page; tags that shouldnot be part of DUV
Eric Stephan: 2 things: I responded to message about tags that antoine mentioned; I set up a wiki page; tags that shouldnot be part of DUV ←
13:52:00 <PeterWinstanley> ...the model has been improved following discussion over the summer
...the model has been improved following discussion over the summer ←
13:52:48 <PeterWinstanley> ...suggestion for targeting communities for getting feedback for the second publication; by Nov-Dec we can collect external user feedback
...suggestion for targeting communities for getting feedback for the second publication; by Nov-Dec we can collect external user feedback ←
13:52:59 <PeterWinstanley> a published working draft by Feb 2016
a published working draft by Feb 2016 ←
13:53:11 <PeterWinstanley> a WG note sometime in May 2016
a WG note sometime in May 2016 ←
13:53:16 <deirdrelee> q?
Deirdre Lee: q? ←
13:53:20 <annette_g> Can we get links to editor's drafts for all docs updated on the main page?
Annette Greiner: Can we get links to editor's drafts for all docs updated on the main page? ←
13:54:01 <annette_g> np, it's new!
Annette Greiner: np, it's new! ←
13:54:21 <PeterWinstanley> deirdrelee: between now and F2F ....any specific preparation work?
Deirdre Lee: between now and F2F ....any specific preparation work? ←
13:55:32 <PeterWinstanley> ericstephan: hope to get draft out next week ...
Eric Stephan: hope to get draft out next week ... ←
13:56:17 <PeterWinstanley> deirdrelee: helpful to give people enough time to prepare for the F2F
Deirdre Lee: helpful to give people enough time to prepare for the F2F ←
13:58:24 <newtoncalegari> q+
Newton Calegari: q+ ←
13:59:35 <newtoncalegari> https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/BP_Document_3rd_Draft
Newton Calegari: https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/BP_Document_3rd_Draft ←
14:00:17 <PeterWinstanley> newtoncalegari: BP document schedule: please take a look and see if the timetable is one you agree with
Newton Calegari: BP document schedule: please take a look and see if the timetable is one you agree with ←
14:00:53 <PeterWinstanley> deirdrelee: can you make a long term timetable upto June/July 2016 [end of WG]?
Deirdre Lee: can you make a long term timetable upto June/July 2016 [end of WG]? ←
14:00:57 <deirdrelee> ack newtoncalegari
Deirdre Lee: ack newtoncalegari ←
14:01:24 <PeterWinstanley> newtoncalegari: I'll take to Caroline_ and bernadette and make a rough plan
Newton Calegari: I'll talk to Caroline_ and bernadette and make a rough plan ←
14:01:42 <Caroline_> s/take/talk
14:02:23 <annette_g> can someone paste link to working bp draft?
Annette Greiner: can someone paste link to working bp draft? ←
14:02:33 <riccardoAlbertoni> thanks, have a good week end..
Riccardo Albertoni: thanks, have a good week end.. ←
14:02:39 <Caroline_> thank you!!
Caroline Burle: thank you!! ←
14:02:39 <ericstephan> have a great weekend thank you!
Eric Stephan: have a great weekend thank you! ←
14:02:40 <newtoncalegari> This link, annette_g? http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html
Newton Calegari: This link, annette_g? http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html ←
14:02:40 <PeterWinstanley> bye
bye ←
14:02:42 <laufer> bye all
Carlos Laufer: bye all ←
14:02:46 <nandana> bye !!
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: bye !! ←
14:03:21 <annette_g> thanks, Newton
Annette Greiner: thanks, Newton ←
14:03:27 <newtoncalegari> you're welcome!
Newton Calegari: you're welcome! ←
14:03:31 <newtoncalegari> bye, have a nice weekend
Newton Calegari: bye, have a nice weekend ←
14:03:33 <deirdrelee> oh, and thanks peter for scribing!
Deirdre Lee: oh, and thanks peter for scribing! ←
Formatted by CommonScribe