This wiki has been archived and is now read-only.

Project Meetings

From Share-PSI EC Project
Jump to: navigation, search

This page records agendas and links to minutes for telcos and project meetings

Telco 15 September 2014

  1. The outline agenda for Lisbon http://www.w3.org/2013/share-psi/workshop/lisbon/agenda Is that what we want to do?
  2. We'll need João and André to help recruit local participation, including the Lisbon group André has told me about (which might amount to a whole track).
  3. We need to promote the CfP http://www.w3.org/2013/share-psi/workshop/lisbon/
  4. We need to recruit programme committee members


Thanks to everyone who was available for today's conference call.

Getting everyone on Skype, with some on the phone bridge, is a bit of a nightmare and basically requires me to add each person one by one. I hope we didn't waste too much time to logistics today.

We discussed the skeleton agenda (http://www.w3.org/2013/share-psi/workshop/lisbon/agenda) and, based on that discussion, I've made some adjustments. Each set of parallel sessions begins with a "Come to My Session" slot - when each of the facilitators having a minute to encourage people to go to their sessions.

These will be in addition to the written synopses that will be on the agenda. Furthermore, we'll encourage session leaders to be available for discussion during the early morning coffee session on day 1 (details TBA with André).

The agenda has 4 sets of parallel sessions. These will be pre-planned via the programme committee review route so that we can be sure that we cover the theme of the workshop.

The unconference/bar camp sessions take place on the afternoon of day 2. We'll take the pitches before lunch, then sort out who is going where during lunch (unless you think this is a bad idea - we can switch the order of the pitches and lunch if you prefer).

@Amanda is going to talk to Jonathan Raper, the man behind http://transportapi.com/ and see what we might need to do to encourage him to come as he'd be a good guest speaker.

@Georg - if you have suggestions for someone from the PSI Alliance world who could talk about commercial exploitation of PSI that would be welcome (for emphasis, no, sorry, there is no budget to pay expenses).

Who would you want to come and listen to?

I'll forward an e-mail that Sebastian has sent me about his idea for a 'Lisbon declaration' (think 5 stars of open data for encouraging commercial use).

@Muriel - as you've seen, I've written to Miguel about Finodex.

@Athina highlighted the usefulness of other EU projects with dissemination plans to fulfil when looking for participants.

And yes, I'll put all the participants' names online (I always do http://www.w3.org/2014/03/lgd/attendees )

@Joao - thanks for joining the call today. I'll pick up with André next week but key points today are:

  • if possible, please confirm how many parallel sessions the venue will support. And are they all next to each other?
  • I've added a slot for the AMA president to open the event, I'm afraid I didn't catch the name - can you let me have that please?

@Noel, I've put you in the second plenary session alongside the minister and Robert Madelin to talk about the Flanders Open Day. OK?

@Noel again - I think it was you who suggested a session or two about recent EC publications?

I'll see if the man behind datamarket.com (Hjalmar Gislason) could be persuaded to join us.

We all need to do whatever we can to promote the event.

For the record I believe those present today were: Valentina (IMP), Mateja (MNZ), Džiugas (UALB), Athina (OGC), Stijn (PwC), Chris (TOG), Simon (BCC), Peter W (SCOT), Amanda (ODI), Makx (AMI), Daniel (UVT), Harris (UAEGEAN), Deirdre (NUIG), Muriel (TUDOR), Noel (CORVe), Sebastian (INIT), Georg (PSIA)

Telco 3 October 2014

  1. We do not have enough content for the event.
  2. we need suggestions from our own team and really need some more from outside too.
  3. The submission deadline is actually this Sunday


Telco 6 November 2014

  1. Lisbon - promotion of the workshop
  2. Project meeting on Tuesday 2nd and Friday 5th
  3. Review meeting, Consortium agreement, our strengths and weaknesses.
  4. Timisoara topic refinement, CfP, organising committee etc (CfP needs to be written by the end of next week)
  5. Krems will come along very soon too.


Telco 6 February 2015

  1. Reviewers' comments - implications for future workshops
  2. Timisoara papers Timisoara/Papers
  3. Timisoara guests (Romanian and Polish governments etc.)
  4. Krems CfP


Best Practices Telco, 17 June 2015


Best Practices Telco 1 July 2015

Result of actions arising from that meeting show what was discussed and agreed:

 I have spent time since yesterday's call updating the wiki to help move this along as well.
 The wiki page at
 https://www.w3.org/2013/share-psi/wiki/Best_Practices now has sections for each of the 13 elements. I used the spreadsheet you created and managed to complete that work so that all the existing stories are now allocated to multiple PSI Directive elements.
 For each element now there is:
 * A list of all the stories that claim to have, or I judge to have, some relevance to the element in question.
 * A list of the atomic BPs that have been derived from those stories (or a 'to be done' note)
 * A list of atomic BPs that already exist that we can point to.
 Obviously the ones I know best are from the W3C Data on the Web Best Practices document but I hope that others, particularly Chris and Ingo, can point to other advice that is equally easy to follow (i.e. individual BPs, not whole specification documents). Best practice statements from any source is welcome as long as it's a stable reference.
 Where a best practice that meets the need of the collected stories is already documented, then our work is simply to point to that BP, not to re-write it.
 As we all recognise, the distribution of work is far from even here so we will all need to look at multiple elements but start with the ones in the list that has your name as the primary peron responsible please.
 @Harris - your name isn't there yet but should be. Please pick a section that is of interest to you and dive in.
 Hope this makes sense to everyone, please shout if not.

Best Practices Telco, 15 July 2015

Attendees: Makx, Peter, Martin, Noel, Jan, Valentina


from Noel to Everyone: I can't hear anything!

from Valentina to Everyone: Maybe because the host is missing - I can't hear either

from Makx to Everyone: hi all sorry to be late

from Makx to Everyone: noel valentina are you connecting audio

from Valentina to Everyone: I have problems with the audio, sorry

from Martin to Everyone:


Martin: trying to understand the topics of the existing best practices. Generalized BP from Albania.

Martin: Sometimes difficulties with extracting BP from stories. However the task is not difficult. Will continue work on BPs. Review from the original authors needed.

Makx: Stories sometimes refer to PSI aspects, but indirectly.

Martin: My stories were related to re-use in general.

Martin: Some of the stories have different approaches and some of them are related to too many aspects. These are difficult to turn into atomic BPs.

Valentina: Some of the stories fall into other categories than indicated.

Makx: Yes, sometimes stories indicate that they refer to many aspects but in fact they don’t.

Valentina: Establishing wide area network helps opening up data but it is more like a precondition of the process.

Valentina: Does the atomic BP relates just to one PSI element?

Makx: Yes.

Makx: Read a story and think what it says about one particular element.

Valentina: For the statistical data and geodata generic BPS proposed that relates to more stories.

Makx: This is a good point. It is fine to start grouping stories. However if the stories deal with the same topic differently it might be better to propose a set of different BPs.

Makx: I would start with deriving one BP from one story.

Valentina: If the stories talk about using one particular tool it makes no sense to make a BP for using one particular tool.

Makx: It is up to the author to identify what the BP is.

Martin: I had the same problem. How to reflect the information that one particular tool is described in the story.

problem with your audio, Makx?

Makx dropped out.

Noel: If we are talking about BPs, we need to talk about things repeatable in other member states.

Peter: It is a mine field to talk about good or best practices. What seems to be the best today does not have to be the best tomorrow. We should think about patterns.

Peter: WC DWBP is too down the path to think about the right design patterns. However we should consider this approach.

Peter: We should think about what might help us to succeed and what can gives us troubles.

I think in general we are developing good practices, not best practices.

Noel: Behavioural patterns are helpful to me in Flanders.

Peter: Attaching a licence is something that is done once. However processing feedback is a continuous process.

Peter: Using UTF-8 is a good practice, it is only one way of doing it.

Peter: However in case of the feedback there are many way of doing it.

Noel: Correction. Some of the proposed practices are helpful to me, but others are no applicable.

Noel: Talking about best practices is tricky because the applicability is not always guaranteed.

Noel: We should think about what COULD be an added value in other member states.

Peter: First we need to extract the atomic BPs and then we can get another round and enrich them.

Martin: I completely agree.

from Valentina 2 to Everyone: We are currently doing well, we need 2nd cycle

Martin: Best practice or good practice - it depends on scope.

good practice is re-usable in other member states

Martin: Most of the BPs are created are in fact only good practices.

from Valentina 2 to Everyone: best practice is a dangerous word

Peter: We need to be capturing evidence.

Noel: I agree. We should look into what of the BPs were implemented in different member states:

Peter: We can look abroad as well.

Valentina: Is too early to start with generalization?

Noel: No. It is excellent work.

Noel: I think that what Peter meant was that we need to start collecting evidence for the BPs.

Valentina: We had the evidence section in the first version of the template. However this section is missing the current template.

Noel: I will all the stories and I can document what we did in Flanders.

from Martin to Everyone: +1

Jan: Add separate section for evidence.

The group agreed on that.

Jan: Evidence section is really helpful.

from Valentina 2 to Everyone: Noel: Example of licences - impact in Flanders

Peter: Sharing experience can harmonize ways how the PSI is shared across member states.

Noel: We should make a record about whether a BPs has been implemented or if is going to be implemented. Or even to note that we think it might be helpful to some particular organizations

Noel: I have already found points in documents and workshops that I think are worth implementing in Flanders. It means it is applicable across member states.

Jan: I created a technical BP oriented at site scraping and added it into the Techniques section.

Valentina: OK, good.

Agreed that we need a table/matrix to track status of the BPs (implemented, planned to be implemented ...)

sorry about this. just continue without me. my suggestion for next two weeks is that people who haven't done atomic BPs yet try to do two or three from their list and then we'll discuss experiences next time. That way we'll have 20-25 to play with.

Valentina: What the tracking table will look like?

Valentina: Once we have the BPs we should ask the consortium to fill in who is using what and what are the future plans for example.

BPs tracking table will be opened on the wiki.

Jan: I will add the tracking table and ask for comments.

Valentia: Should we add a name of the editor to the BPs template?

Peter: No need. Wiki tracks it.

Next meeting in two weeks’ time.

Berlin organising Committee Telco 20 July 2015

Present: Chris Harding, Hannes Kiivet, Ľubor Illek, Makx Dekkers, Yury Glikman, Martin Alvarez, Pekka Kaponnen, PhilA, José Luis Roda García.

Regrets: Benedikt, Noel, Nikos, Danica

The meeting agreed that the current text of the CfP (originally prepared in time for the Krems meeting and updated 2/7/15) was OK. The focus should now be on promotion. Hannes said we needed to be core precise in targeting of the promotional messages as the 4 areas listed in the CfP are quote varied.

Phil reported that Nikos Loutas is looking into collocating the next meeting of the SEMIC Community of Practice on Core Data Models group. Everyone agreed that this would be a very good thing and that we want to encourage this. Yury said that as far as he could see, Fraunhofer would be able to host that meeting as part of events around the Share-PSI workshop.

We're keen to attract the Smart Cities community if possible. Pekka reported that Open Agile Smart Cities network have decided to launch their 3rd wave of cities in Barcelona Smart City Expo on week before SharePSI Berlin. That may compete a bit with our workshop, but on the other hand SharePSI is more focused event and goes deeper into details. Expo is more about promoting the OASC network and people attending from the cities might not be the same.

The meeting discussed options for how to explicitly attract the Smart Cities community and decided that to advertise that there would be track on this, it would be better to highlight possibility for multiple tracks and give Smart Cities as an example.

Yury reported that the JRC's ARE3NA project has expressed interest in participating. Good!

There was a more general discussion about how to handle and support the best practices work in Berlin. This is something that the BP task force will need to address but we will need to make decisions about what to include and not include during the Berlin event. Phil explained the need to record which localised guides cite which BPs, which gives the cited BPs more credibility but it shouldn't be positioned as a quality metric.


  • Phil to: add new section to CfP and encourage promotion.
  • Write to the partners who have already submitted ideas for sessions and encourage them to write them up for publication.
  • Write to Nikos encouraging involvement of the SEMIC Community of Practice.

(Note, all actions executed 20/7/15)

Best Practices Telco 29th July 2015

Valentina: Using an exel table for analysis of the BPs. Valentina: BPs on techniques can be turned into atomic BPs 1:1. Valentina: However regarding the formats was not possible. Valentina: Shared the exel sheet. Valentina: In one case it seemed better to turn one story into 2 atomic BPs. http://www.w3.org/TR/dwbp/#metadata Phil: It is OK to just point to the BPs to the existing BPs of the DWBP. Phil: If you feel the wording should be improved I can forward your suggestions to the group. Phil: BPs of the DWBP are linkable. Phil: It would be good to show that SharePSI improves operation of the DWBP. Valentina: Regarding practices on formats very little new information can be extracted Valentina: Most of it has already been covered by external BPs. Valentina: Should I create a wiki page for an external BP? Phil: It would be helpful to the relevant working group and let them know about what is going on in Share PSI. Phil: Do not write a BP for what has already been done. Valentina: OK. I will check again. Valentina: There is a story about mobile ticket app. It is not a technique. Nancy: Working on BPs assigned to me. Nancy: Sometimes we have a lot of information but in other cases there is not so much detail. Phil: We ageed to aim for 1/2 page. In policy domain it might be too limited. Nancy: I can try to cut the BPs to 1 page. Nancy: I was confused about the chapters 3.1 and 3.3 of the template. Sometimes it was difficult to write something different in these sections. Phil: We lost the how to test it sections https://www.w3.org/2013/share-psi/wiki/Best_Practices/Implementations Jan: Implementation of BPs. Phil: We need to do it. Phil: We need to prove that what we have done is important. Valentina: Who should report about usage of the BPs? We or public servants in our country? Phil: It does not matter who puts on the wiki. It matters that there is an evidence. Phil: Valentina, use your connections in Serbia but you will need to curate the responses. Nancy: We need to validate our work with the orifinal authors Nancy: Should we have a public call? Phil: There has some discussion about doing it in Berlin. Phil: Regardles of who wrote the atomic BPs it needs to be a consensus of the consortium. Nancy: We should set up a list of atomic BPs and the contact points. Nancy: Some people do not even know that we list them as contacts. Phil: Table with contacts is important. Nancy: What is the process for contating the original authors? Phil: Feel free to contact them. Do not hang around. Emma: What about the review of other members of this group? Phil: Yes we need to get review from both the group and the original authors. Phil: We can mark validated BPs on the wiki. Phil: I would avoid making too much tables. Phil: Just make a mark in the list of BPs. Nancy: There is a change of persons in our oranization. Is it an issues? Phil: It is a question to Phillipe. Nancy: I cannot create a new page in the wiki. Phil: Practical demostration. Nancy: I will try to finish the rest of the BPs by the end of the next week. Emma: I will also try to finish my BPs by the end of next week. Phil: I will need to move some of the atomic BPs from the wiki to the project page. Phil: Carola pointed out that there is still only 4 of them. https://www.w3.org/2013/share-psi/wiki/Best_Practices/Maintain_records_of_stakeholders%27_rights_and_interests Sensitive Data http://www.w3.org/TR/dwbp/#sensitive Jan: There are stories without contact info. In my case I think it was from Chris. Phil: Contact Chris.

Project Telco 17 December 2015


Minutes from Phil Archer (internal) to Everyone:

https://www.w3.org/2013/share-psi/wiki/Project_Meetings#Project_Telco_17_December_2015 from Phil Archer (internal) to Everyone:


from Phil Archer (internal) to Everyone:

Emma: We made little tweaks based on the discussion in Berlin. We weren't looking at content

from Phil Archer (internal) to Everyone:

... The OECD style guide is really useful, especially for non-native speakers

from Phil Archer (internal) to Everyone:

Emma: Something Valentina raised was putting gthe challenges and solution section close to the PSID

from Phil Archer (internal) to Everyone:

... This responds to comments from the reviewers

from Phil Archer (internal) to Everyone:

... Towards the bottom on ther contact section - need to think about what we want to include

from Phil Archer (internal) to Everyone:

Emma: Main thing is - do you think it's OK?

from Phil Archer (internal) to Everyone:

Phil: Asks for clarification of the question from the PSID

from Phil Archer (internal) to Everyone:

Valentina - the reviewers want us to have something about (the Why question linked to the BP)... the question for stat data is e.g. what format should I use to publish stat data

from Phil Archer (internal) to Everyone:

Phil: So we ask a question that helps us provide the answer

from Lorenzo (privately):

Hi All! Sorry for the delay!

from Phil Archer (internal) to Everyone:

Valentina: Why is the dataset of sufficient quality to be used for the task in question, for example

from Lorenzo to Everyone:

Hi All! Sorry for the delay!

from Phil Archer (internal) to Everyone:

Valentina; So these are the questions

from Valentina Janev to Everyone:

see example https://github.com/impvalentina/share-psi/blob/gh-pages/bp/eqa.html

from Phil Archer (internal) to Everyone:

Joseph: I was under the impression that the classification was sufficient - which element

from Phil Archer (internal) to Everyone:

So the question refines the element

from Phil Archer (internal) to Everyone:

Emma: It's not clear whether we include the original author as well as the editor

from Phil Archer (internal) to Everyone:

valentina - but we have the contact point in the section on where it has been implemented, that gives you the authors

from Phil Archer (internal) to Everyone:

... But we can also have people from the group that cover that area

from Phil Archer (internal) to Everyone:

Valentina - a single contact may not be safe - people move and are busy

from Phil Archer (internal) to Everyone:

Phil: All the links point to more people, but we can add more contact names as a backup

from Phil Archer (internal) to Everyone:

Joseph - maybe we could have a single overseer, a contact for the long term

from Phil Archer (internal) to Everyone:

... SOme form of permanent editor

from Phil Archer (internal) to Everyone:

Phil: I think that should be a mailing list

from Phil Archer (internal) to Everyone:

... Maybe the GitHub repo's list/issye tracker

from Phil Archer (internal) to Everyone:

...That uncoouples the function from the person

from Phil Archer (internal) to Everyone:

... So we can include the link to that mailing list as a backup for all.

from Phil Archer (internal) to Everyone:

Jan - what about the links to pages inlanguages that the reader doesn't speak

from Phil Archer (internal) to Everyone:

Jan: I think Makx mentioned - how we title each BP?

from Phil Archer (internal) to Everyone:

... In this example, it's imperative, but not all of them. So I think the style guide should say that the heading should be imperative

from Phil Archer (internal) to Everyone:

Topic: Stats data in LD https://www.w3.org/2013/share-psi/wiki/Best_Practices/Publishing_Statistical_Data_In_Linked_Data_Format

from Phil Archer (internal) to Everyone:

Valentina - we have examples from many countries of using RDF Cube

from Phil Archer (internal) to Everyone:

... I have suggested this one which I'll rename 'Publish...' rather than 'Publishing' so I'll revise the BO using the enw template

from Phil Archer (internal) to Everyone:

Valentina - if I'm editing the doc in the GH repo, I was offered the option of eitehr editing directly or making a new branch

from Phil Archer (internal) to Everyone:

... This one about qualityb assessment, I changed directly in the document

from Phil Archer (internal) to Everyone:

Valentina - my changes are visible in my branch

from Phil Archer (internal) to Everyone:

Phil - I fork the repo

from András to Everyone:

I dont hear clearly

from Phil Archer (internal) to Everyone:

... and use my local repo, then send a pull request

from Valentina Janev to Everyone:

problems as well

from Phil Archer (internal) to Everyone:


from Phil Archer (internal) to Everyone:

Benedikt: I missed how these topics were derived from the PSID

from Phil Archer (internal) to Everyone:

... These topics and their descriptions will be in the deliverable

from Phil Archer (internal) to Everyone:

Phil: I agree it's unclear where that list came from

from Phil Archer (internal) to Everyone:

... So I'll ask Noel to write something about that

from Phil Archer (internal) to Everyone:

Joseph - what we need is the article or the sub article that, in his opinion generates these 13

from Phil Archer (internal) to Everyone:


from Phil Archer (internal) to Everyone:

Fatemeh - I remember during the Berlin meeting, we talked about having some bullet points before the outline of the BP

from Phil Archer (internal) to Everyone:


from Phil Archer (internal) to Everyone:

Emma - yes, we agreed that might be a good idea. But I don't thinkm it's part of the template, it's before you get there

from Phil Archer (internal) to Everyone:

Phil so those bullets go into the intro before the BPs

from Phil Archer (internal) to Everyone:

Phil - in the half pages

from Phil Archer (internal) to Everyone:

Phil - it's in the intro material, not the template

from Phil Archer (internal) to Everyone:

fatemeh - what about the candidate BP authors

from Phil Archer (internal) to Everyone:

.. We want our BPs to go through

from Phil Archer (internal) to Everyone:


from Phil Archer (internal) to Everyone:

Those are the original responses

from Phil Archer (internal) to Everyone:

Phil: Talks about an iterative process

from Phil Archer (internal) to Everyone:

New survey in mid Ja n to ask if you don't like this BP, what needs to change so that you might?

from Phil Archer (internal) to Everyone:

PeterW - the session that we had in Berlin with all the post it notes

from Phil Archer (internal) to Everyone:

.. I've trsnacribed them all. happy to make each of those available for people to look at

from Phil Archer (internal) to Everyone:

... There are just odd little bits

from Phil Archer (internal) to Everyone:

... I'll dig out the links

from Phil Archer (internal) to Everyone:

PW: At the moment, I have photos and I transcribed them in the properties of the photos - of that's accessible from google photos that's the easiest way to get at it [1] Select a photo and look at the Information bit to see the transcribed text

Project Telco 13 January 2016

Rough Agenda:

  • Is the review fair?
  • Is the reponse correct?
  • To Do:
    • Berlin Report
    • Website updates
    • D7.1.1

Valentina: I've not only read, I've studied the review comments which were very detailed

... I'm a little afraid but we have to go on

Phil: What are you afraid of, the amount of work?

VJ: Yes

... I have to work on the open data handbook, the translations etc. but to write down everything for even the 15, to specify how to implement them in Serbia is a lot of material

... If I want to write down how to do all these things, this can't be done in one sentence/paragraph

... I agree that we can say yes, we'll implenet this in the localised guidelines. We can promise it but not everyien will. I'll do ours for Serbia

DP: I agree with Valentina.

... Not to create detailed recommendation. Some of that detail is out of scope for us. We can't influence policy at the national level.

PW: At part C, the new version will respond to the issues, we'll give a description of how the BPs may be converted into proactical implementatyion guidelines. Giving an idea of the type of work that needs to be done, not actually doing it.

... So saying things like link A to B and do C, doesn't mean you do it all.

PW: taking into account - means that you can give illustrations of how it was done, not giving details of every possible combination.

Our intention is to find the best balance between generality and detail so that readers understand what the potential benefits are of implementing a best practice and at the same time leave sufficient flexibility to apply the best practices to specific national environments.

VJ: I like that formulation.

... If we say that our BPs are non-tech and, as Peter said, we can give a description of how to convert, then if that description is on one page, then OK.

... And for what we put in the OD handbook...

... The localisied guide might expand more, that will be critical. But we need agreemente on the cosortium level that we will provide a set of steps of what to do

... then the instructions can be written. But the reviewers may not like that.

VJ: reviewers said it was too superficial.

Chris Harding: The Open Group "Localized Guide" will be of a different kind to the rest. It's probably better that we don't worry about that in the response that we are making now, but The Open Group will have to communicate with everyone at some point to ensure that they are happy with what we plan to do.

VJ: We have the BPs, we started to improve the English version but they may not be satisified with the EN version. In the description I can say about enabling quality assessment. I can say use this tool, use this vocab - will that be enough?

... Or do they want ... I can give a link to W3C for tech references, but some of the BPs that we have forumlated are the results of our discussions. They're hidden in our stroies and discussions.

VJ: So we need to provide more links

... I can make references but this may not be enough. They may be to researchers, not goivernments.

Makx: What I said in Berlin...

... We shouldn't be defensive. We have promised to do certain things and we're doing them. It's for them to decide whether they agree with that or not

... We do what we can do. You're writing the Serbian handbook and that's what you do.

... We could have the same discussion again at te final review. We do what we can can, we don't need to be defensive about what we can't do.

... In the national guidelines, that's where we translate the PSID

... Local community members may not like what we do but we do what we can.

MD: In a bad review situation, I think about what wold happen if we went to court. We'd have to have arguments that say yes, we saw that comment, but we couldn't do that so we did this. We shouldn't be afraid to assert what we're going to do.

MD. I tried to cautiously make those points in the latter. We can't do more than we can do.

Jan: I agree with Makx

... We can make this part of our review process for ther BPs

... We can ask the group whetehr we think the BP has enough detail to be actionable

... then we can say to the reviewers that our group agreed that eacah BP was implementable.

MD; not we think we've done it, but 'we've done it.

VJ: On the template

VJ: We have this version that is not so different from the first one

... We threw away some of the formulations in the question. But hte reviewers want to see a section on lessons learnt.

... Do we have to add this to the template?

Phil: Do we have the answers?

VJ: We can say that they'll be improved after the end of the project.

PW: That could be an optional part of the template.

... We can have BPs with more detail than others.,

Phil: Can we quote the DoW back at them?

MD: I think that's what CH said we should take out

MD: we make that point already

... we passed that bridge

... we didn't have anything show in Lisbon from DWBP. So we've done more

MD: And then I agree with Chris that we shouldn't try to go back to last year's discussion.

CH: The Commission were expecting that the Woprkshops would dewscribe what people were doing and the DWBP would sdtandardise that.

... If we quote the DoW back at them, we need to be clear on what we are implementing, given that we're not implemetning it the way everyone thought we were going to.

CH: We're certainly doing more in some respects, maybe not quite what they thought.

MD: I thought the DoW was clear in what we were going to do and what we're not. And I think we're doing more than the DoW says.

... We're incorporating the DWBP in our output

... and we're doing more.

... We're following their expectations, even those that are not supported by the DoW.

CH: Maybe they were assuming that the Wg could be instructed in what to do. Which of course it can't, it's not party to the contract. Maybe there was a basic flaw in the DoW.

MD: There is a design flaw in the DoW but thayt's what the EC signed so they're as resposible for the error as we are. WE listened to what you said in the first review and we've added to the DoW.

Daniel: Reading hte report, I notice that we are a Thematic Network wich is not the same as a BP Network. We have been evaluated as if we're a BP network. I think the reviewers focus too much on the BP doc. I think we need to say that were a TN amd the BPs are only one output.

DP: We could emphasise the type of network that we are.

Phil: Expresses views. Agree with DP but we have to do what we have to do.

MD; They see D711 as the crucial thing. make/break

... we have to respond to that.

DP: On P3 it talks about corrective action by end of January, letter says mid Feb

MD: The response letter makes it clear we'll go for mid Feb.

To Do

  1. Berlin Report
  2. Web site updates
  3. D7.1.1

Peter K - I'm happy to help with the website update

CH: I can make a contribution to D711, but not drive it

VJ; Likewise

VJ: I have a Serbian localised guide to write

CH: Our ToG conference will take most of my driving capability

VJ: I'm travelling all next week

... maybe one or two days after that, and in Feb

CH: Do we have an overview of what has to be done

CH So you have a doc that has evolving BPs, but it doesn't demonstrate the impact of the workshops.

PA: yes

CH: So we need to try and demonstrate the impact of the workshops. I'd be able to help with that and bring in the business scenario that ToG created

... especially at the Samos Workshop

... But I won't be ablew to cover the whole of the ground of course.

CH: So we need to add some sort of matrix, against each BP and the workshops and put something the approariate cells

CH: It'll be mostly blank

VJ: I have done this for my 2 BPs that I've edited.

... I make a link in the PPT and identified links from the workshops to be BPs, the one I sent

... But this is just for the BPs for which I was responsible.

... It's just an example, and that can potentially be enough to show the impact, we don't have to do it for all 15 necessarily?

DP: I agree that D711 should be a collaborative effort, but if Phil can create the structure, that would be help and we'll contribute.

PA: I will set up a Google doc with a ToC

If I know who should, fill in, I'll identify them

If not, I'll ask for volunteers

Thank you Phil!

Action items

  • PA to write Berlin report
  • PA to work on website, supported by PK
  • PA to create ToC for D7.1.1 in Google Docs
    • Bulk of document to be written by partners

D7.1.1 Discussion Telco 8/2/16

Hi everybody (now to all)

from Johann (DUK) to Everyone:

Phones working? Hear nothing

from Jan Kucera to Everyone:


from Jens Klessmann to Everyone:


from Lorenzo to Everyone:

Hi everybody!

from nroutzouni to Everyone:

hi from Athens

from Harris (UAEGEAN) to Everyone:

You have to select "connect with computer"

from Johann (DUK) to Everyone:

Thank you

from Phil Archer (internal) to Everyone:

The doc is at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sRwL3FhugZV03DfNdKjMwM0EZzzR7qpTfs5Y1CS2O9E/edit

from Harris (UAEGEAN) to Everyone:

too much background noise

from Peter Winstanley to Everyone:

do we need to scribe actions? Each can perhaps do their own?

Phil: I will updated the website to match the D7.1.1 document

Phil: After this call I want to know what needs to be updated.

from Martin Alvarez to Everyone:


from Jan Kucera to Everyone:

Phil: We have very little time. If someone thinks something needs to be moved, just move it.

Daniel: Section 2 - should we make it shorter?

Makx: I think it is fine.

from Jan Kucera to Everyone:

Daniel: Do we include the candidate BPs in the document?

Daniel: Do we also list the other BPs, not even candidates?

Makx: There is a duplication in section about the WS with the section from WS to BPs.

from nroutzouni to Everyone:

D.7.1.1 section "From workshops to Best Practices", I will conclude it on Wednesday

​It will include a general introduction about the value of the collected knowledge and will describe the process followed. VAlentina has provided valuable info, also Phil and others

Makx: Process of development of BPs should be moved before the table of BPs.

Makx: I propose to move my description of the workflow to the front of the section 3.

Danie: Makx's part on the process, then Valentina's section, then the text about the WS

Makx: Valentina, did you describe the criteria?

Valentina: Not everything needs to be kept in the document

Makx: Valentina's description is good

Makx: In my section I focused on the reviewers' comments so I would kept the text

Makx: Section 4 needs to say somethink about the format

Makx: Some of the part I wrote should go to section 4

Chris: I am happy to do it

Chris: Before the subsection about the template?

Makx: Yes

Makx: My text needs to be veryfied that we really did it

Makx: Do we have the dos and donts section?

Chris: I do not think this is in the template

Nancy: I think we should keep your text in section 3

Makx: I fine with it

from Emma to Everyone:

I am really sorry I have to drop for an org update here, but happy to help or answer questions etc if someone wants to send me action points later if needed. Thanks!

Nancy: I can work a bit on this section, revise it

Nancy: I will prepare it before Wednesday

Makx: We have a lot of text, just polish it, do not add too much

Peter: I think it is safer to not deduplicate too much to avoid breaking things

Daniel: I will be responsible for editing it

Daniel: Who will be responsible for section 4?

Nancy: I will review sextion 3, not section 4

Chris: We need to check what BPs we have

Chris: Candidate BPs not ready to by Thursday should be removed

Chris: I can do the cleaning

/Chris I would love to keep Holistic Metrics, I think it's fine & polished as is and I think it worthwhile to keep it

Daniel: Do we keep the format of the BPs?

Chris: We also need to insert the W3C BPs

Daniel: W3C BPs have different format

Makx: We should keep the W3C BPs as they are

Makx: W3C BPs should be included in a separate section

from Peter Winstanley to Everyone:

+1 to Makx' suggestion - we include W3C 'as is'

Chris: We need to explain that the template does not apply to W3C BPs

Daniel: BP editors should include their BPs

Makx: Do we keep the GDocs doc?

Phil: Later it will be converted into Word doc

Phil: Daniel do not care about the heading formating, I will do that

Makx: I reviewed the conclusions and I this they are fine

Valentina: We should make cleare that everyone should fine the table in the conclusions by the end of the project

Daniel: BP editors need to update the BPs by Wednesday

Makx: In the introduction it is necessary to say that this document is based on a collective effort

Makx: We should we need to add a list of contributors

Makx: What is the time when Phil can start prepring the word doc?

Phil: I expect this to be a weekend job.

Phil: Probably sunday morning

Daniel: Everyone try to provide your contributions by Thursday

from Valentina Janev (privately):

please pull the 2 BP from my branch of GitHub

Phil: I can prepare the doc on Friday morning if everything is rady

Makx: As Phillippe said it would be good if we could deliver on Friday

Daniel: Section 7 - should we just provide an overview and refere to the web pages?

Chris: Web pages change

Phil: But we provide stable URIs

Peter: I think it is better to include them in the document

Makx: I agree that we should include W3C BPs in the document

from Peter Winstanley to Everyone:

No annexes!!

Makx: If formating will not work well we could attach the W3C BPs into an annex

Phil: I am afraid that nobody will care about the BPs in the annex

Peter: It might be easy to include them as PDF

from Peter Winstanley to Everyone:

...from PDF

Chris: Could we make our document as HTML, merge it with the W3C HTML and print it as PDF

Phil: I can actually use split and merge of PDFs to include the W3C BPs

10 June 20916 telco


  • Responses to the new survey. So far from:
    • Makx
    • Chris
    • Hannes
    • Johann
    • Fatemeh
    • Andras
    • Valentina
    • Aleksi (VM)
    • Lorenzo
    • Georg
    • Jan
    • José Luis
    • Dzugas
    • Benedikt
    • Emma
  • Need resposnes from:
    • Muriel/Slim
    • Nikos/Michiel
    • Oystein/Heather
    • Pekka
    • Neven
    • Joseph
    • Harris
    • Dolores
    • Uldis/Reinars/Edgars
    • André
    • Gabriele/Giorgia
    • Martin
    • Peter K
    • Jens/Yuri
    • Birmingham
    • Sebastian
    • PeterW
    • James Smith (ODI)
    • Daniel
    • Nancy
    • Athina
    • Mateja/Ales
  • Localised Guides Progress. See also page under construction
  • D 7.2 preparation & delivery
  • Review meeting 14 or 15 September, Luxembourg.
    • Daniel (as D7.2 managing editor)
    • Emma (localised guide rep)
    • Philippe Rohou and PhilA
  • Smart Descriptions & Smarter Vocabularies (SDSVoc) 30 November - 1 December, Amsterdam


Phil: Not everybody have filled in the survey. But we need response from everyone. Reviewers insisted on it.


Phil: Athina prepared OGC BP document.

We'll need a final set of BPs in order to complete the localised guides. So please can we have a dened cut-off date?

Phil: Survey results will go into the final report.

defined cut-off date


Me also


Emma: Please comment on the table.


Chris: We are developing a guide for organizations developing solutions with TOGAF.

Chris: We need a finalised list of BPs to cite them in the document.

Phil: Cut-off date for BPs is end of the next week.

Share-PSI members from Germany and Austria started comparing the BPs with the existing local recommendations (see the Google Doc)

Jens: We have been comparing BPs with local recommendations in German speaking partners.


I can update on our plans

Phil: The table with localised guides should cover any localised guide as long as it cites the Share-PSI BPs or provides recommendation consistent with the SharPSI BPs.

Serbia http://www.linkeddata.rs/OpenDataHandbook/

James: We will prepare a mapping of the practice and the SharePSI BPs. and to fill in the survey of course, asap :)

RewriteEngine On RewriteBase /2013/share-psi/bp/odpp/ RewriteCond  %{REQUEST_URI}  !/2013/share-psi/bp/ord-[0-9]{8}/ RewriteRule ^(.*)$ /2013/share-psi/bp/ord-20160526/$1 [P]

Phil: Short URLs will not change after we turn draft BPs into final BPs.

Phil: In the D7.1.1 we added the "Lessons learned" section. But it is empty.

Phil: The BPs will link to the GitHub repository and issues tracker. This link will go into the "Lessons learned" section.

Phil: We need to produce D7.2 with the final version of BPs.

Phil: We can reuse most of the text from D7.1.1.

Phil: Some more should be added about the survey.

Phil: Carola was informed that Danie, Emma, Philippe and Phil will attend the review.

Phil: We also informed Carola that FOCUS will not be there but we have not received any response from Carola yet.

Valentina: Why not ask people from Luxembourg to come to the review?

Phil: That is a good idea. I will ask them.


Phil: In the progress report everyone should describe what they have done.

Serbia http://www.linkeddata.rs/OpenDataHandbook/

Phil: Could you post a URL or send info via mail to the workshop?

Phil, can you paste a link? ODI would be interested.


Phil: I can establish a language negotiation on the SharePSI site. So you translate the BPs, the translated versions will be published as well.

Valentina: Serbian Open Data Hanbook is available. References to the BPs are included. The BPs are not translated.

Phil: If the BPs is cited in the localized guide we need a link from the BP to the localized guide as well. Please provide the link in the survey.

Neven: How official the localised guide need to be?

Phil: The localised guide does not have to be official.

Phil: If you say that you work on some officials on the topic it is fine.

Emma: When you need our contribution to D7.2.

Phil: I will talk to Daniel about it and will inform you.