13:57:46 RRSAgent has joined #dwbp 13:57:46 logging to http://www.w3.org/2014/11/07-dwbp-irc 13:57:51 Caroline_ has joined #DWBP 13:57:54 RRSAgent, make logs public 13:58:06 JoaoPauloAlmeida has joined #dwbp 13:58:19 Meeting: DWBP Weekly Telecon 2014-11-07 13:58:23 Chair: Hadley 13:58:33 Agenda: https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20141107 13:58:42 regrets: Laufer 13:58:51 zakim, this will be dwbp 13:58:51 ok, phila; I see DATA_DWBP()9:00AM scheduled to start in 2 minutes 13:58:52 DATA_DWBP()9:00AM has now started 13:59:00 +Caroline_ 13:59:11 RiccardoAlbertoni has joined #DWBP 13:59:22 Zakim, Caroline_ has yaso 13:59:22 +yaso; got it 13:59:26 annette_g has joined #dwbp 13:59:32 +[IPcaller] 13:59:36 +[IPcaller.a] 13:59:39 laufer has joined #dwbp 13:59:42 zakim, ipcaller.a is me 13:59:43 +phila; got it 13:59:46 Zakim, IPcaller is me 13:59:46 +JoaoPauloAlmeida; got it 13:59:56 Hi everyone 14:00:07 Hello! 14:00:10 Hi 14:00:11 Hi Phil 14:00:20 lewismc has joined #dwbp 14:00:28 regrets- laufer 14:00:33 +Eric_Kauz 14:00:34 Sorry, but I will have to leave in the middle of the session 14:00:42 +lewismc 14:00:57 Eric_Kauz has joined #DWBP 14:01:03 MTCarrasco has joined #dwbp 14:01:03 + +1.510.384.aaaa 14:01:03 I have forgotten all this adjustments of time zones... 14:01:08 +??P24 14:01:13 lewismc --> Lewis John McGibbney 14:01:14 +RiccardoAlbertoni 14:01:24 +HadleyBeeman 14:01:24 zakim, ??P24 is me 14:01:26 +MTCarrasco; got it 14:01:34 hello ! 14:02:06 Hi, I am on chat only today. 14:03:20 zakim, who is here? 14:03:20 On the phone I see Caroline_, JoaoPauloAlmeida, phila, Eric_Kauz, lewismc, +1.510.384.aaaa, MTCarrasco, RiccardoAlbertoni, HadleyBeeman 14:03:22 Caroline_ has yaso 14:03:22 On IRC I see MTCarrasco, Eric_Kauz, lewismc, laufer, annette_g, RiccardoAlbertoni, JoaoPauloAlmeida, Caroline_, RRSAgent, Zakim, AdrianoC, yaso, phila, sandro, rhiaro_, 14:03:22 ... hadleybeeman, trackbot 14:03:30 +[IPcaller] 14:04:14 +[IPcaller.a] 14:04:28 I'm the +1.510.384.aaaa 14:04:30 Zakim, IPcaller.a is me 14:04:30 +laufer; got it 14:04:38 ericstephan has joined #dwbp 14:04:46 newton has joined #dwbp 14:04:50 breathing in the mic 14:04:50 zakim, ipcaller is Antoine 14:04:50 +Antoine; got it 14:05:00 zakim, who is noisy? 14:05:07 antoine has joined #DWBP 14:05:08 Zakim, +1.510.384.aaaa is me 14:05:08 +annette_g; got it 14:05:11 phila, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Caroline_ (4%), MTCarrasco (4%), HadleyBeeman (23%), laufer (58%) 14:05:12 Zakim, Caroline_ has newton 14:05:13 Zakim, mute me 14:05:13 +newton; got it 14:05:13 +ericstephan 14:05:13 laufer should now be muted 14:05:32 Hi Annette! Wow great 14:06:04 the TPAC minutes are terribly littered with names that do not match... 14:06:16 can these warnings be removed? 14:06:41 JoaoPauloAlmeida, you can also see http://www.w3.org/2014/10/30-dwbp-minutes.html and http://www.w3.org/2014/10/31-dwbp-minutes.html 14:06:50 thanks Hadley and Phil 14:07:09 I may scribe 14:07:21 scribe: Caroline_ 14:07:44 http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/dwbp/2014-10-24 14:08:02 PROPOSED: approve the minutes http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/dwbp/2014-10-24 14:08:05 +1 14:08:07 +1 14:08:07 +1 14:08:07 +1 14:08:09 +1 14:08:09 +1 14:08:12 +1 14:08:12 +1 14:08:21 +1 14:08:28 +1 14:08:45 +1 14:09:13 +1 14:09:14 RESOLVED: minutes approved 14:09:16 http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/dwbp/2014-10-30 14:09:33 RESOLVED: approve the minutes http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/dwbp/2014-10-24 14:10:05 http://www.w3.org/2014/10/30-dwbp-minutes.html 14:10:15 phila: you may see the minutes of TPAC http://www.w3.org/2014/10/30-dwbp-minutes.html 14:10:40 ... although the content is the same of the one we approved 14:10:50 PROPOSE: approve the minutes http://www.w3.org/2014/10/30-dwbp-minutes.html 14:11:08 PROPOSED: approve the minutes http://www.w3.org/2014/10/30-dwbp-minutes.html 14:11:15 +1 14:11:16 +1 14:11:16 +1 14:11:17 +1 14:11:21 +1 14:11:22 +1 14:12:03 RESOLVED: approve the minutes http://www.w3.org/2014/10/30-dwbp-minutes.html 14:12:04 +1 14:12:20 +1 14:12:27 PROPOSED: approve the minutes http://www.w3.org/2014/10/31-dwbp-minutes.html 14:12:34 +1 14:12:35 +1 14:12:35 +1 14:12:38 +1 14:12:39 +1 14:12:41 +1 14:12:42 +1 14:12:45 +1 14:12:59 RESOLVED: approve the minutes http://www.w3.org/2014/10/31-dwbp-minutes.html 14:13:06 There will be quite a few "eric"s to parse @phila 14:13:30 https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/raised 14:13:39 hadleybeeman: let's start with https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/raised 14:14:08 Open Issues http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/open 14:14:09 https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/open?sort=product 14:14:53 yaso_ has joined #dwbp 14:14:54 hadleybeeman: we all should have an opinion on the issues and decide about them 14:15:03 issue-52? 14:15:03 issue-52 -- We keep having confusion around our terms. (glossary?) -- open 14:15:03 http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/52 14:15:05 issue-52? 14:15:05 issue-52 -- We keep having confusion around our terms. (glossary?) -- open 14:15:05 http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/52 14:15:18 ... let's start with issue 52 https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/raised 14:15:29 q+ 14:15:57 ... we should start a wiki page for each of the issues and that could be discussions pages acumulating notes 14:16:07 ... we can define later if we will use them 14:16:10 s/issues/terms/ 14:16:16 ... it would be useful to keep track of the discussions 14:16:30 ... I propose that we start a wiki page for each of the words we need to define 14:16:37 nathalia has joined #dwbp 14:17:02 CarlosIglesias has joined #dwbp 14:17:06 MTCarrasco: there is a section to put the definitions in the context of the text 14:17:22 ... the dangeur is that we might have a huge terminology specification 14:17:35 hadleybeeman: I agree, but the definitions must be there for us 14:17:54 ... we have some terms that we must define, and others that we are not sure about the definition 14:18:04 An example of an in-document definition can be seen in the intro to the primary XML spec http://www.w3.org/TR/xml/#sec-intro 14:18:07 q? 14:18:12 ack mt 14:18:13 ... we should see that first and then define if we should put them or not 14:18:37 MTCarrasco: I have mix feelings about. If the term should be put as definition in a terminology session 14:18:57 hadleybeeman: a wiki page is temporary 14:19:05 ... it needs to get somewhere more permanent 14:19:14 ... each of the deliverables are in different stages 14:19:18 +1 to both Tomas and Hadley. Wiki is temporary place holder, but final place could well sensibly be in the doc 14:19:26 ... what do the rest of you think? 14:19:48 +1 Wiki page, if we are targetting it into a specific document we should specify this in the wiki page. 14:19:49 phila: I am not sure if we will end up having the definitions in multiple places 14:19:50 +[IPcaller] 14:20:06 q? 14:20:07 zakim, [IPcaller] is me 14:20:08 +CarlosIglesias; got it 14:20:16 ... it is just easier to read if the definition is on the text 14:20:24 ... the wiki page might be useful 14:20:29 +1 to begin with the wiki page 14:21:02 phila: we should talk to each other and align the terms 14:21:37 hadleybeeman: looking at the issues list we need to define the structure 14:21:49 and datasets 14:21:54 ... reference vocabularies 14:21:59 ... and datasets 14:22:06 ... do we need to create a issue for that? 14:22:10 1) Write specifications as oppose to wiki - 2) Define knew concepts in the proper section like XML - 3) When not in sections, into a terms section 14:22:13 didn't we say DCAT? 14:22:16 Structured, Reference Vocabulary, Real Time, datasets etc. all need definitions (or pointers to existing defns) 14:22:19 zakim, unmute me 14:22:19 laufer should no longer be muted 14:22:32 And yes, annette_g we said DCAT (or I get very grumpy!) 14:22:42 aren't other issues / terms related to this problem already? E.g. https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/55 14:22:43 laufer: I don't know if we must creat a issue for each term 14:22:52 ... I don't know if we will have a note 14:23:40 ... we could put a note on the github 14:23:43 Look at the XML style - http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-xml-20081126 14:23:47 Yes, antoine, there are lots of terms that need defining/clarifying 14:23:52 Wiki pages do have a datetime stamp that can be referenced as well just in case there are at worst case one or more pages defining a term. 14:24:17 q+ 14:24:26 MakxDekkers has joined #dwbp 14:24:36 hadleybeeman: I am creating issues for things we need to discuss later 14:24:53 ... if we don't have an answer is a issue, if we do have a answer it should be a action 14:25:00 laufer: dataset should be discussed 14:25:07 issue: we need a definition of "dataset" 14:25:07 Created ISSUE-80 - We need a definition of "dataset". Please complete additional details at . 14:25:13 rrsagent, pointer? 14:25:13 See http://www.w3.org/2014/11/07-dwbp-irc#T14-25-13 14:25:32 MTCarrasco:on this http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-xml-20081126 inside the texts there are definitions 14:25:39 We also had a glossary in GLD https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/gld/raw-file/default/glossary/index.html 14:25:41 as a note 14:25:50 Including the term Dataset https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/gld/raw-file/default/glossary/index.html#dataset-rdf 14:25:54 ... this is a good style as a example on how to write a specification 14:26:08 see dcat for definition of dataset http://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-dcat/#class-dataset 14:26:11 Zakim, who is speaking? 14:26:21 Caroline_, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Caroline_ (11%), MTCarrasco (10%), HadleyBeeman (9%), laufer (36%) 14:26:32 http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-xml-20081126/#sec-terminology - http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-xml-20081126/#sec-well-formed 14:26:35 gatemezi has joined #dwbp 14:26:44 MakxDekkers++ 14:27:18 MTCarrasco: http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-xml-20081126/#sec-terminology - http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-xml-20081126/#sec-well-forme along this document is possible to see the definitions 14:27:40 +[IPcaller] 14:27:48 zakim, iocaller is me 14:27:48 sorry, MakxDekkers, I do not recognize a party named 'iocaller' 14:27:53 hadleybeeman: what do we need to decide? How we are going to approach each term? Which terms we need to include? Or make it a open issue? 14:27:57 zakim, ipcaller is me 14:27:57 +MakxDekkers; got it 14:28:12 MTCarrasco: the editors are responsible to define the concepts 14:28:29 q+ 14:28:34 hadleybeeman: we do need to have the WG to agree with them 14:28:38 +1 to MTCarrasco and I think we should try and reuse or align with GLD glossary as well 14:28:44 q- 14:28:45 ack mtc 14:29:05 annette_g: I propose that we take the definition from DCAT 14:29:12 +1 annette_g 14:29:13 hadleybeeman: seems a starting point for me 14:29:17 +1 annette_g 14:29:21 Establised term *must* not be redefined 14:29:23 +1 14:29:31 hadleybeeman: the initial ideas might come from the editors 14:29:33 +q 14:29:41 ack annet 14:29:49 +1 annette 14:30:00 q? 14:30:03 -laufer 14:30:06 scribe: yaso 14:30:10 ack caro 14:30:20 q+ to say that http://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-dcat/#class-dataset defines dataset as A collection of data, published or curated by a single agent, and available for access or download in one or more formats. 14:30:24 Caroline_: I would like to say that Newton, Bernadette and I discussed today 14:30:35 … If you all agree we can do that 14:30:50 +1 for leaving it to the editors to make a first pass recommendation 14:30:50 hadleybeeman: I’m proposing that we can come with a propostal for that 14:31:02 Caroline_: we can make a proposal and then the group decides 14:31:22 +1 for leaving it to the editors to make a first pass recommendation 14:31:27 Later one can comment 14:31:31 … it’s better to discuss with Newton and Bernadette before senting a proposal 14:31:51 hadleybeeman: we have the issues because people said that we have to discuss them 14:32:21 Caroline_: since we understand that github is not easy for everyone 14:32:28 We put the content on https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Data_on_the_Web_Best_Practices and we will always do the same on the Github http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#intro 14:32:31 … we decided that we’re gonna use the wiki 14:33:00 … we are going to work at the wiki 14:33:00 Our proposal is to relate the issues with the themes so it is easier to organize 14:33:27 … this issues that we discussed, we are going to try to relate them with themes, if the group agrees 14:33:44 phil: what goes on github and what goes on the wiki? 14:34:07 If its easier using wiki, its far better to make progress with content. 14:34:16 data best practice: keep your data in one place only 14:34:26 -MakxDekkers 14:34:28 Caroline_: the same, we are going to work at the wiki, and then we are going to mirror at github 14:34:29 I think Wiki it's more content focused 14:34:37 I like github :-/ 14:35:06 Caroline_: since our main goal is to have the content, we understand that we should use the wiki 14:35:21 +Makx_Dekkers 14:35:21 http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html 14:35:45 :-/ I already lost the battle 14:35:45 what means "in one place only" ? Is it physical ? URI? annette_g ? 14:35:57 q+ 14:36:05 q- later 14:36:11 hadleybeeman: are you ok with the amount of work? 14:37:02 Caroline_: even Newtonn wants to use the wiki 14:37:05 sounds like a github consultant is needed to put in the content. 14:37:26 Wiki is more productive to focus on content than github, I think 14:37:36 I also like Github ;) 14:37:43 yaso: I don't have many contributors outside of the group 14:37:50 +1 doesn't see the point in allowing external people to edit a group draft 14:37:51 I too am uneasy about non-WG members editing the doc. 14:38:00 +1 14:38:07 ... we could have if we use github is okay 14:38:09 +1 14:38:17 q- 14:38:19 hadleybeeman: it is good that we keep coming back and check it 14:38:22 Mind you, only WG members have the credentials to accept merges on GitHub 14:38:45 hadleybeeman: I am a bit confused by non WG member editing the document 14:38:56 We could use them both. I think that discussing at github it’s better. Better than emails, not for editing the document 14:39:17 ... I have seen them contributing, but is is unsual them not being a part of the and edit the document 14:39:20 q+ 14:39:28 q- later 14:39:37 ACK CARO 14:39:55 Caroline_: just to make a proposal: keep like this 14:40:11 … we do it on the wiki and mirror at github 14:40:27 hadleybeeman: for the best practices, you are editor and you can do as you like 14:40:44 q- 14:40:46 q+ 14:41:36 hadleybeeman: I can think of the wiki in an way to prepare to document 14:42:17 Caroline_: that is what the editors think should be done 14:42:58 scribe: caroline 14:43:02 hadleybeeman: Caroline_ and the other editors of the BP documents 14:43:02 zakim, who is speaking? 14:43:13 gatemezi, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Caroline_ (4%), phila (30%), Eric_Kauz (4%), MTCarrasco (4%), HadleyBeeman (17%) 14:43:17 ... ask if the contributos mays write each of their sections on the wiki 14:43:30 q? 14:43:30 as teh place to get all the content 14:43:39 phila: I am trying to use github 14:43:47 q+ 14:43:48 q+ 14:43:50 ... I much prefer to write HTML 14:44:00 -JoaoPauloAlmeida 14:44:10 I got to go, bye 14:44:11 ... the document on Github is the on that will be translated 14:44:32 ack me 14:44:35 ... Caroline_ is saying that if people prefer to write on the wiki it is okay 14:44:57 phila: as a member of the group you have made a commitment that you are writing the group 14:45:21 ... you cannot allow other people to write it for you because there is a legal process behind it 14:45:21 q- 14:45:44 ... if there is anything on the document that the members do not agree they are able to say it 14:45:57 ... being members means that you made this commitments 14:46:19 ... the person editing the document must be a member of the group 14:46:23 q+ 14:46:46 ... so if you are editing the document you must be a member of the group 14:46:51 ack eric 14:47:02 ... of course you may receive contributions, but only members of the group may edit it 14:47:18 ericstephan: I wonder if the editors mays provide a template 14:47:19 q+ 14:47:39 ... each of the writers may be not even in their styles 14:47:47 +1 to eric 14:48:00 Caroline_: we are already working on that 14:48:06 http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#intro 14:48:16 http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bptemplate.html 14:48:18 … I don’t know if you had a chance to take a look at phil’s work 14:48:33 See, for example, http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#licenses 14:48:37 … there’s a table that is a template there 14:48:45 q+ 14:48:53 scribe: Caroline_ 14:48:57 q- 14:48:58 ack yaso 14:49:10 q+ 14:49:17 yaso: just to clarify that I did not want people from outsite of the group to contribute in the document 14:49:32 ack me 14:49:34 ... I just wanted them to be part of the process and be able to see what the WG is doing 14:49:39 phila: about the template 14:50:00 ... what I did was to put the strucuture we talked about a week ago 14:50:16 zakim, who is noisy? 14:50:20 q- 14:50:26 hadleybeeman, listening for 10 seconds I could not identify any sounds 14:50:43 ... the schema that I put together in guthub it was to mae a HTML version of what we discussed last week 14:50:51 zakim, who is here? 14:50:51 On the phone I see Caroline_, phila, Eric_Kauz, lewismc, annette_g, MTCarrasco, RiccardoAlbertoni, HadleyBeeman, Antoine, ericstephan, CarlosIglesias, Makx_Dekkers 14:50:54 Caroline_ has newton 14:50:54 On IRC I see gatemezi, MakxDekkers, CarlosIglesias, nathalia, yaso, antoine, newton, ericstephan, MTCarrasco, Eric_Kauz, lewismc, annette_g, RiccardoAlbertoni, Caroline_, RRSAgent, 14:50:54 ... Zakim, AdrianoC, phila, sandro, rhiaro_, hadleybeeman, trackbot 14:50:57 .... there are 2 things that are hard to differentiate 14:51:03 ... ??? 14:51:15 Zakim, Caroline has nathalia 14:51:15 +nathalia; got it 14:51:21 ... as we start to populate it with actual content we may have to revise it 14:51:32 q? 14:51:33 ... I am also concerned of how big it is 14:51:53 good point @phila 14:52:03 +1 to phila's concern 14:52:04 issue: Is the Best practices template still right? http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html 14:52:04 Created ISSUE-81 - Is the best practices template still right? http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html. Please complete additional details at . 14:52:10 rrsagent, pointer? 14:52:10 See http://www.w3.org/2014/11/07-dwbp-irc#T14-52-10 14:52:21 q? 14:52:31 :-) 14:52:44 hadleybeeman: we haven't followed the agenda but the session has been useful 14:52:50 ... let's go back to the agenda 14:53:04 ... open issue https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/56 14:53:29 ... there are many issues we may talk about 14:54:06 ... the issue https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/69 clearly we don't have a use case for that 14:54:08 q+ 14:54:17 issue-69? 14:54:17 issue-69 -- Do we include versioning in the bp doc? currently there are no use cases for it -- open 14:54:17 http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/69 14:54:17 ... does anyone want to write a use case about it? 14:54:18 q+ 14:54:29 ack eric 14:54:30 ack ericstephan 14:54:56 ack annette 14:54:56 ericstephan: One of our use cases implies versioning but we didn't bring it out very clearly 14:55:11 ericstephan: I do have a use case that I need to follow up and bring it clearly 14:55:14 annette_g: I have a use cases too but it's quite complex 14:55:21 hadleybeeman: having multiple using cases is not a bad thing 14:55:29 ... it would be wonderful 14:55:32 action: eric stephan to bring out the versioning issues in his use case (ref issue 69) 14:55:32 'eric' is an ambiguous username. Please try a different identifier, such as family name or username (e.g., ek1, estephan). 14:55:43 action: ericstephan to bring out the versioning issues in his use case (ref issue 69) 14:55:44 Created ACTION-128 - Bring out the versioning issues in his use case (ref issue 69) [on Eric Stephan - due 2014-11-14]. 14:55:47 ... annette_g I may focus on the versioning 14:55:56 action: annette to write a use case focusing on versioning (ref issue 69) 14:55:56 Created ACTION-129 - Write a use case focusing on versioning (ref issue 69) [on Annette Greiner - due 2014-11-14]. 14:56:06 @annette_g did you see the second round use case wiki page I entered your mass spec use case? 14:56:29 @eric yes thank you for putting that in! 14:56:45 ericstephan: to talk about the use cases 14:56:55 The Mass Spectrometry Use case is at https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Second-Round_Use_Cases#Mass_Spectrometry_Imaging_.28MSI.29 14:56:59 Zakim, who is speaking? 14:57:08 @phila thank you 14:57:09 Caroline_, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Eric_Kauz (4%), annette_g (75%), HadleyBeeman (20%), ericstephan (4%) 14:57:40 hadleybeeman: how do we go about filling the requirments 14:57:47 s/hadleybeeman/annette_g 14:58:02 ericstephan: I will look at the requirments that are already tehre 14:58:09 s/tehre/there 14:58:17 q? 14:58:40 -MTCarrasco 14:58:41 bye! 14:58:44 bye 14:58:45 -Eric_Kauz 14:58:47