15:58:34 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #dwbp
15:58:34 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2014/06/12-dwbp-irc
15:58:36 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs 351
15:58:36 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #dwbp
15:58:38 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be DWBP
15:58:38 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see DATA_DWBP()12:00PM scheduled to start in 2 minutes
15:58:39 <trackbot> Meeting: Data on the Web Best Practices Working Group Teleconference
15:58:39 <trackbot> Date: 12 June 2014
15:59:13 <HadleyBeeman> HadleyBeeman has changed the topic to: Vocabularies call. Agenda: https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20140612
16:00:18 <Zakim> DATA_DWBP()12:00PM has now started
16:00:25 <Zakim> + +1.509.554.aaaa
16:00:52 <ericstephan> ericstephan has joined #dwbp
16:01:15 <Zakim> - +1.509.554.aaaa
16:01:16 <Zakim> DATA_DWBP()12:00PM has ended
16:01:16 <Zakim> Attendees were +1.509.554.aaaa
16:01:17 <BartvanLeeuwen> BartvanLeeuwen has joined #dwbp
16:01:33 <HadleyBeeman> Sorry, ericstephan.  Diailing in now
16:01:37 <Zakim> DATA_DWBP()12:00PM has now started
16:01:44 <Zakim> + +1.509.554.aaaa
16:01:56 <ericstephan> zakim, +1.509 is me
16:01:56 <Zakim> +ericstephan; got it
16:02:06 <Zakim> + +1.609.557.aabb
16:02:16 <Zakim> +??P7
16:02:27 <BartvanLeeuwen> Zakim, ??p7 is me
16:02:27 <Zakim> +BartvanLeeuwen; got it
16:02:59 <Zakim> +HadleyBeeman
16:03:34 <CarlosIglesias> CarlosIglesias has joined #dwbp
16:03:43 <HadleyBeeman> zakim, who is here?
16:03:43 <Zakim> On the phone I see ericstephan, +1.609.557.aabb, BartvanLeeuwen, HadleyBeeman
16:03:45 <Zakim> On IRC I see CarlosIglesias, BartvanLeeuwen, ericstephan, Zakim, RRSAgent, BernadetteLoscio, HadleyBeeman, ivan, trackbot
16:03:50 <Zakim> + +44.122.333.aacc
16:04:07 <markharrison> markharrison has joined #dwbp
16:04:27 <Zakim> +??P11
16:04:27 <HadleyBeeman> zakim, who is here?
16:04:28 <Zakim> On the phone I see ericstephan, +1.609.557.aabb, BartvanLeeuwen, HadleyBeeman, +44.122.333.aacc, ??P11
16:04:28 <Zakim> On IRC I see markharrison, CarlosIglesias, BartvanLeeuwen, ericstephan, Zakim, RRSAgent, BernadetteLoscio, HadleyBeeman, ivan, trackbot
16:04:35 <markharrison> Zakim, aacc is me
16:04:36 <Zakim> +markharrison; got it
16:05:05 <Eric_Kauz> Eric_Kauz has joined #DWBP
16:05:09 <HadleyBeeman> zakim, who is here?
16:05:09 <Zakim> On the phone I see ericstephan, +1.609.557.aabb, BartvanLeeuwen, HadleyBeeman, markharrison, ??P11
16:05:11 <Zakim> On IRC I see Eric_Kauz, markharrison, CarlosIglesias, BartvanLeeuwen, ericstephan, Zakim, RRSAgent, BernadetteLoscio, HadleyBeeman, ivan, trackbot
16:05:23 <Eric_Kauz> zakim, aabb is me
16:05:23 <Zakim> +Eric_Kauz; got it
16:05:24 <CarlosIglesias> zakim, ??P11 is really me
16:05:25 <Zakim> +CarlosIglesias; got it
16:05:30 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
16:05:35 <BernadetteLoscio> zakim, ipcaller is BernadetteLoscio
16:05:35 <Zakim> +BernadetteLoscio; got it
16:05:51 <Zakim> -HadleyBeeman
16:05:55 <BernadetteLoscio> zakim, mute BernadetteLoscio
16:05:55 <Zakim> BernadetteLoscio should now be muted
16:06:07 <Zakim> +HadleyBeeman
16:07:50 <HadleyBeeman> scribenick: ericstephan
16:07:59 <BernadetteLoscio> my connection is not really good... im affraid of scribing :(
16:07:59 <HadleyBeeman> chair: hadleybeeman
16:08:13 <ericstephan> scribe: Eric Stephan
16:08:44 <ericstephan> Hadley:  Chair for the meetings, should be the editors.
16:08:49 <BartvanLeeuwen> q+
16:08:50 <BernadetteLoscio> +1
16:08:55 <HadleyBeeman> ack bart
16:09:00 <ericstephan> Hadley:  What should be the purpose of the calls?
16:09:39 <laufer> laufer has joined #DWBP
16:09:47 <ericstephan> BartvanLeeuwen:  Still not sure, what we want to see from the combined meetings...curious what we will end up with today
16:10:16 <ericstephan> Hadley:  Phil and I thought it would be useful to discuss topics that we don't have time in the normal meetings
16:10:19 <ericstephan> q+
16:10:23 <BartvanLeeuwen> q+
16:10:32 <HadleyBeeman> ack eric
16:10:47 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
16:10:58 <laufer> zakim, ipcaller is me
16:10:58 <Zakim> +laufer; got it
16:11:10 <laufer> zakim, mute me
16:11:10 <Zakim> laufer should now be muted
16:11:27 <laufer> hello hadley, all
16:11:36 <BernadetteLoscio> hello Laufer!
16:11:43 <HadleyBeeman> ericstephan: I want to coordinate between the vocabularies
16:11:54 <ericstephan> BartvanLeeuwen:  Agree that we make sure we don't overlap with vocabularies in meeting
16:12:14 <ericstephan> BarvanLeeuwen:  Do we want the issue tracker separate or in the general mailing list?
16:12:20 <BernadetteLoscio> YES
16:12:21 <laufer> hi bernadette
16:12:22 <markharrison> yes
16:12:25 <BernadetteLoscio> im sorry
16:12:26 <BernadetteLoscio> yes
16:12:54 <ericstephan> HadleyBeeman:  How much do you need to have separate discussions?  We have the separate mailing list.
16:13:05 <BartvanLeeuwen> ack bart
16:13:11 <BartvanLeeuwen> q+
16:13:15 <ericstephan> HadleyBeeman:  Does this still make sense?
16:13:21 <HadleyBeeman> ack bart
16:14:11 <ericstephan> BartvanLeeuwen:  Good point, understand the reason of the separate mailing list.  Hoping that the general group will be keeping up to date on the evolving vocabularies.
16:14:13 <HadleyBeeman> q+
16:14:57 <HadleyBeeman> ack me
16:15:00 <ericstephan> HadleyBeeman:  What you are saying makes sense, are you proposing to get rid of this mailing list?
16:15:20 <BernadetteLoscio> +q
16:15:35 <BernadetteLoscio> zakim, unmute BernadetteLoscio
16:15:36 <Zakim> BernadetteLoscio should no longer be muted
16:15:43 <HadleyBeeman> ack bern
16:15:46 <ericstephan> BartvanLeeuwen:  If anyone can raise an issue on the tracker, it makes sense to keep discussions on the general mailing list.
16:16:43 <BernadetteLoscio> zakim, mute BernadetteLoscio
16:16:43 <Zakim> BernadetteLoscio should now be muted
16:16:43 <ericstephan> BernadetteLoscio:  Not sure how this will work.  In the best practices working group how will it work if they are not seeing the discussion?
16:17:31 <BernadetteLoscio> ok..
16:18:08 <ericstephan> HadleyBeeman:  How we could outreach:  Our working group has a public mailing list for comments, if it is someone in the working group, they could raise an issue in the issue tracker or send an email to the group mailing list, or they could send an email to the vocab mailing list
16:19:04 <BernadetteLoscio> yes... i understand
16:19:11 <ericstephan> HadleyBeeman:  My suggestion is that we put issues in the tracker based on an identified assignee that that will address the issue as opposed to the person who came up witht the issue.
16:19:17 <BernadetteLoscio> zakim, unmute BernadetteLoscio
16:19:17 <Zakim> BernadetteLoscio should no longer be muted
16:19:38 <BartvanLeeuwen> q+
16:19:48 <HadleyBeeman> ack bart
16:19:54 <BernadetteLoscio> zakim, mute BernadetteLoscio
16:19:54 <Zakim> BernadetteLoscio should now be muted
16:20:30 <BernadetteLoscio> zakim, unmute BernadetteLoscio
16:20:30 <Zakim> BernadetteLoscio should no longer be muted
16:20:30 <ericstephan> BartvanLeeuwen:  If we raise an issue,  we create an action of that, if we don't know who raised the issue, it might not be clear how it was initiated.
16:21:09 <markharrison> +q to suggest that anyone who raises an issue should add their name to the description of the issue
16:21:10 <ericstephan> BartvanLeeuwen:  Had this happen in another working group.
16:21:49 <BernadetteLoscio> zakim, mute BernadetteLoscio
16:21:49 <Zakim> BernadetteLoscio should now be muted
16:21:54 <ericstephan> HadleyBeeman:  Trying to head off potential problem, but don't want to create more rules to make things more difficult.
16:22:28 <ericstephan> markharrison:  Can we at least ask people to put their name against this or email address so we have a direction channel back to them.
16:23:08 <ericstephan> BartvanLeeuwen:  Are we changing away from traditional w3c procedures?
16:23:50 <ericstephan> HadleyBeeman:  Not thinking of you as in charge of the document, but you the one responsible for addressing the problem.
16:24:01 <markharrison> +q
16:24:09 <HadleyBeeman> ack mark
16:24:09 <Zakim> markharrison, you wanted to suggest that anyone who raises an issue should add their name to the description of the issue and to
16:24:36 <ericstephan> markharrison:  no way of communicating with that person if they left the group.
16:24:58 <ericstephan> BartvanLeeuwen:  At least this way you could have follow up.
16:25:36 <BartvanLeeuwen> -1
16:25:50 <ericstephan> +
16:25:51 <ericstephan> +1
16:26:13 <ericstephan> +q
16:26:44 <HadleyBeeman> ericstephan: My argument for the vocabularies mailing list. We could use it for an administrative and coordination perspective.
16:27:18 <HadleyBeeman> … I'm hearing that we want to have as much visibility as possible while the vocabularies are evolving.  So it might make sense to not inundate the mailing list with things about our meetings.
16:27:55 <HadleyBeeman> … An example: as we're sending out agendas — though others from the working group might want to attend the meeting if they are interested in it.
16:28:27 <HadleyBeeman> … Others: consistency in the documents as we're evolving the vocabularies.  It wouldn't be a heavily used list.
16:28:45 <BernadetteLoscio> zakim, unmute BernadetteLoscio
16:28:45 <Zakim> BernadetteLoscio should no longer be muted
16:29:24 <ericstephan> BernadetteLoscio:  Agree with ericstephan in terms of coordination, maybe we should wait a bit more and see if this makes sense.  Maybe it is too early to decide.
16:30:04 <ericstephan> HadleyBeeman:  The problem with deciding later is that it might get a bit messy
16:30:45 <ericstephan> BartvanLeeuwen:  Do we keep the tracker on the general mailing list?  Haven't heard anyone talking about separating this.
16:32:19 <ericstephan> PROPOSED: Keep the products and the issue tracker connected to the general mailing list
16:32:27 <HadleyBeeman> +1
16:32:27 <BartvanLeeuwen> +1
16:32:28 <ericstephan> +1
16:32:31 <BernadetteLoscio> +1
16:32:38 <markharrison> +1
16:32:40 <Eric_Kauz> +1
16:32:59 <laufer> q+
16:33:10 <laufer> zakim, unmute me
16:33:10 <Zakim> laufer should no longer be muted
16:33:48 <CarlosIglesias> abstention
16:34:31 <ericstephan> laufer:  I have my doubts if people not interested in the vocabulary will want to see this.
16:34:51 <laufer> 0
16:36:30 <laufer> q+
16:36:43 <ericstephan> RESOLVED: We will keep the products and the issue tracker connected to the general mailing list
16:36:56 <HadleyBeeman> ack eric
16:36:59 <HadleyBeeman> ack laufer
16:37:13 <ericstephan> woohoo
16:38:00 <BartvanLeeuwen> q+
16:38:06 <HadleyBeeman> ack bart
16:38:17 <laufer> zakim, mute me
16:38:17 <Zakim> laufer should now be muted
16:38:17 <ericstephan> laufer:  There may be some checkpoints where people will be interested in keeping up to date on the vocabularies.
16:39:19 <ericstephan> BartvanLeeuwen:  Keep it as simple as possible for the people actually doing the work.
16:39:52 <BartvanLeeuwen> q+
16:40:04 <HadleyBeeman> ack bart
16:40:09 <ericstephan> HadleyBeeman:  For W3C purposes and the rest of the community we need to have agendas.  Do you want them to be project management focused or focused in another way?
16:40:45 <ericstephan> BarvanLeeuwen:  For the general call we can talk about things in greater detail and give a summary in the working group meeting.
16:40:48 <markharrison> +1 to technical discussions rather than procedural / project management
16:41:01 <BernadetteLoscio> yes
16:41:30 <ericstephan> HadleyBeeman:  How will you decide the topics?
16:41:41 <ericstephan> HadleyBeeman:  question to editors
16:41:42 <BartvanLeeuwen> q+
16:41:49 <HadleyBeeman> ack bart
16:42:24 <ericstephan> BartvanLeeuwen:  Maybe go so far as to go into depth about something.  Maybe bring in guests to the call.
16:42:30 <BernadetteLoscio> zakim, unmute BernadetteLoscio
16:42:30 <Zakim> BernadetteLoscio was not muted, BernadetteLoscio
16:43:21 <ericstephan> BernadetteLoscio:  Need more technical discussions in the vocab call.  Eric and I have a standing meeting on the Data Usage vocabulary as well.
16:44:05 <HadleyBeeman> ericstephan: I do agree about keeping the meetings technical.  There is a stewardship that Bernadette has mentioned that we need to consider.  We have to provide a cohesive picture for best practices.
16:44:21 <HadleyBeeman> … The vocubularies have to be cohesive together, and be consumable.
16:45:00 <HadleyBeeman> … One example:  looking at the use case document in the context of each vocabulary.  Make sure the use cases could represent the vocabularies, work out what's missing.
16:45:36 <ericstephan> HadleyBeeman:  Mechanics of meetings, do we pick someone?
16:45:48 <BartvanLeeuwen> q+
16:45:53 <ericstephan> +1
16:45:55 <HadleyBeeman> ack bert
16:45:56 <ericstephan> +q
16:46:01 <HadleyBeeman> ack bart
16:46:32 <HadleyBeeman> ack eric
16:46:36 <ericstephan> BartvanLeeuwen:  Exchange among the editors and prepare an agenda as a propsal
16:47:04 <HadleyBeeman> ericstephan: I agree that a rotating assignment is good. I like having a clause where if one vocab has a hot topic, they we can focus on it.
16:47:15 <BernadetteLoscio> +1
16:49:18 <ericstephan> HadleyBeeman:  Come up with agenda, put it out 24 hours in advance and facilitate meeting
16:49:28 <HadleyBeeman> ericstephan will chair next meeting
16:50:18 <BernadetteLoscio> zakim, unmute BernadetteLoscio
16:50:18 <Zakim> BernadetteLoscio was not muted, BernadetteLoscio
16:50:40 <BartvanLeeuwen> +q
16:50:46 <ericstephan> HadleyBeeman:  Recommends Use Cases discussion so that we can have something we can work on in the next two weeks.
16:50:54 <Zakim> -HadleyBeeman
16:50:58 <HadleyBeeman> ack bart
16:51:31 <BernadetteLoscio> +1
16:51:33 <Zakim> +HadleyBeeman
16:51:40 <ericstephan> BartvanLeeuwen:  Recommendation from the W3C to discuss the various procedures.  There are quite a few differences between the two approaches.
16:52:27 <ericstephan> BartvanLeeuwen:  In other working groups there is quite a bit of difference between each approach.
16:52:38 <ericstephan> +1
16:52:41 <BernadetteLoscio> +1
16:53:36 <ericstephan> HadleyBeeman:   Use cases document:  BernadetteLoscio can you start the discussion?
16:53:59 <ericstephan> BernadetteLoscio:  From the use case document we don't have a lot of requirements for the vocabularies.
16:54:26 <ericstephan> BernadetteLoscio:  We need to go into more detail to extract more requirements from the use cases we already have.
16:54:31 <ericstephan> +q
16:54:51 <BernadetteLoscio> https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Best_practices_guidelines
16:54:54 <ericstephan> BernadetteLoscio:  Tried mapping general requirements to best practices
16:55:40 <laufer> +1
16:55:44 <ericstephan> BernadetteLoscio:  From the best practices we are going to have requirements for vocabularies
16:55:48 <ericstephan> +1
16:56:20 <ericstephan> BernadetteLoscio:  From the use cases we are going to talk about quality and usage or are we going to just talk about data.
16:56:37 <BartvanLeeuwen> +1
16:56:53 <BartvanLeeuwen> q+
16:58:10 <ericstephan> BernadetteLoscio:  I think for next steps, we have 9 general best practices (in the wiki document) what are the general best practices.  What kind of data usage and data vocabulary should be available?
16:58:34 <ericstephan> BernadetteLoscio:  I think we need to discuss more about what we need to provide
16:59:25 <ericstephan> https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Data_Usage_Examples_in_CSVW_Use_Cases
16:59:30 <HadleyBeeman> ericstephan: I like Bernadette's best practice's guidelines.  I looked at the requirements and the overlap; I was drawn into the best practices from a data usage perspective.  Could see the applications for data quality and granularity as well.
17:00:23 <BernadetteLoscio> +1
17:00:23 <HadleyBeeman> … This [link above] is the CSV on the Web use cases, a rough list.  It's more implementation oriented, and shows different categories with examples of usage.  We could do this with quality and granularity.  We could draw from this.
17:00:36 <HadleyBeeman> ack bart
17:00:40 <HadleyBeeman> ack eric
17:01:22 <ericstephan> BartvanLeeuwen:  The complete group should do this to lift the weight off of our shoulders, can we propose this to be discussed in the call?
17:02:20 <ericstephan> BartvanLeeuwen:  BernadetteLoscio had the right approach mapping the best practices to vocabularies.
17:03:09 <ericstephan> HadleyBeeman:  It would be good to discuss this with the rest of the group.
17:03:19 <ericstephan> We could sing to you
17:03:32 <laufer> bye...  good football world cup for all
17:03:40 <BernadetteLoscio> yes :)
17:03:50 <Zakim> -BartvanLeeuwen
17:03:50 <BernadetteLoscio> bye
17:03:52 <Zakim> -HadleyBeeman
17:03:54 <ericstephan> bye bye
17:03:54 <Zakim> -Eric_Kauz
17:03:55 <CarlosIglesias> bye!
17:04:00 <HadleyBeeman> rrsagent, make logs public
17:04:01 <Zakim> -laufer
17:04:03 <Zakim> -CarlosIglesias
17:04:04 <Zakim> -ericstephan
17:04:19 <Zakim> -BernadetteLoscio
17:04:31 <ericstephan> Do I need to do anything further?
17:04:44 <HadleyBeeman> I don't think so, ericstephan.
17:05:05 <HadleyBeeman> Thank you enormously for scribing!
17:05:17 <ericstephan> Alright, Happy early birthday thanks for chairing!
17:05:22 <HadleyBeeman> Thanks :)
17:05:33 <ericstephan> bye
17:07:34 <HadleyBeeman> zakim, bye
17:07:34 <Zakim> leaving.  As of this point the attendees were +1.509.554.aaaa, ericstephan, +1.609.557.aabb, BartvanLeeuwen, HadleyBeeman, +44.122.333.aacc, markharrison, Eric_Kauz,
17:07:34 <Zakim> Zakim has left #dwbp
17:07:37 <Zakim> ... CarlosIglesias, BernadetteLoscio, laufer
17:07:39 <HadleyBeeman> trackbot, bye
17:07:39 <trackbot> trackbot has left #dwbp
17:07:43 <HadleyBeeman> rrsagent, bye
17:07:43 <RRSAgent> I see no action items