13:55:15 RRSAgent has joined #dwbp 13:55:15 logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/01/23-dwbp-irc 13:55:17 RRSAgent, make logs 351 13:55:17 Zakim has joined #dwbp 13:55:19 Zakim, this will be DWBP 13:55:19 ok, trackbot; I see DATA_DWBP()9:00AM scheduled to start in 5 minutes 13:55:20 Meeting: Data on the Web Best Practices Working Group Teleconference 13:55:21 Date: 23 January 2015 13:55:45 INWEB-AdrianoC has joined #dwbp 13:55:48 rrsagent, make logs public 13:56:28 AdrianoC has joined #dwbp 13:58:00 zakim, who is here? 13:58:00 DATA_DWBP()9:00AM has not yet started, hadleybeeman 13:58:02 On IRC I see AdrianoC, Zakim, RRSAgent, deirdrelee, BernadetteLoscio, phila, hadleybeeman, rhiaro, sandro, trackbot 13:58:07 DATA_DWBP()9:00AM has now started 13:58:13 +[IPcaller] 13:58:22 zakim, [ipcaller] is me 13:58:22 +deirdrelee; got it 13:58:36 antoine has joined #dwbp 13:59:08 annette_g has joined #dwbp 13:59:58 +[IPcaller] 14:00:03 zakim, IPcaller is me 14:00:03 +antoine; got it 14:00:13 +HadleyBeeman 14:00:22 ericstephan has joined #dwbp 14:00:26 Caroline_ has joined #DWBP 14:00:27 +annette_g 14:00:28 MTCarrasco has joined #dwbp 14:01:16 +ericstephan 14:01:32 +??P21 14:01:47 zakim, ??P21 is me 14:01:47 +MTCarrasco; got it 14:01:52 + +1.609.557.aaaa 14:02:09 Eric_Kauz has joined #DWBP 14:02:13 zakim, who is here? 14:02:13 On the phone I see deirdrelee, antoine, HadleyBeeman, annette_g, ericstephan, MTCarrasco, +1.609.557.aaaa 14:02:16 On IRC I see Eric_Kauz, MTCarrasco, Caroline_, ericstephan, annette_g, antoine, AdrianoC, Zakim, RRSAgent, deirdrelee, BernadetteLoscio, phila, hadleybeeman, rhiaro, sandro, 14:02:16 ... trackbot 14:02:29 zakim, aaaa is me 14:02:29 +Eric_Kauz; got it 14:02:34 +[IPcaller] 14:02:39 zakim, [ is me 14:02:39 +phila; got it 14:02:40 newton and I will call in 1min 14:02:50 gatemezi has joined #dwbp 14:03:06 +??P29 14:03:38 zakim, who is here? 14:03:38 On the phone I see deirdrelee, antoine, HadleyBeeman, annette_g, ericstephan, MTCarrasco, Eric_Kauz, phila, ??P29 14:03:40 On IRC I see gatemezi, Eric_Kauz, MTCarrasco, Caroline_, ericstephan, annette_g, antoine, AdrianoC, Zakim, RRSAgent, deirdrelee, BernadetteLoscio, phila, hadleybeeman, rhiaro, 14:03:40 ... sandro, trackbot 14:03:47 zakim, ??P29 is AdrianoC 14:03:47 +AdrianoC; got it 14:04:00 riccardoAlbertoni has joined #DWBP 14:04:00 scribe: phila 14:04:05 scribeNick: phila 14:04:06 newton has joined #dwbp 14:04:14 chair: Deirdre 14:04:14 laufer has joined #dwbp 14:04:25 agenda: https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20150123 14:04:39 zakim, who is noisy? 14:04:45 +riccardoAlbertoni 14:04:50 phila, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: deirdrelee (32%), MTCarrasco (21%) 14:05:02 hi all 14:05:03 +[IPcaller] 14:05:16 Zakim, IPcaller is me 14:05:16 +laufer; got it 14:05:27 Zakim, mute me 14:05:28 laufer should now be muted 14:05:37 zakim, who is here? 14:05:37 On the phone I see deirdrelee, antoine, HadleyBeeman, annette_g, ericstephan, MTCarrasco, Eric_Kauz, phila, AdrianoC, riccardoAlbertoni, laufer (muted) 14:05:40 On IRC I see laufer, newton, riccardoAlbertoni, gatemezi, Eric_Kauz, MTCarrasco, Caroline_, ericstephan, annette_g, antoine, AdrianoC, Zakim, RRSAgent, deirdrelee, 14:05:40 ... BernadetteLoscio, phila, hadleybeeman, rhiaro, sandro, trackbot 14:06:01 \me hi deirdre 14:06:04 +[IPcaller] 14:06:07 zakim, ipcaller is BernadetteLoscio 14:06:07 +BernadetteLoscio; got it 14:06:22 +yaso 14:06:30 Zakim, yaso is Caroline_ 14:06:30 +Caroline_; got it 14:06:43 Zakim, Caroline_ has newton 14:06:43 +newton; got it 14:07:00 deirdrelee: Opens the meeteing 14:07:12 ... we have a couple of decisions to make today 14:07:25 ... whether we publish FPWD of the BP and the next WD of the UCR 14:07:40 ... acknowledge the huge amount of work being done this week 14:07:40 +1 to deirdrelee. It's been a busy couple of weeks. Well done us! :) 14:07:44 CarlosIglesias has joined #dwbp 14:07:46 ... as a result we have a lot of content in the doc 14:08:09 PROPOSED: Accept last week's minutes http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/dwbp/2015-01-16 14:08:13 +1 14:08:21 +1 14:08:22 1 14:08:24 +1 14:08:24 +1 14:08:25 +1 14:08:25 +1 14:08:27 +1 14:08:29 +1 14:08:31 +1 14:08:31 +1 14:08:34 RESOLVED: Accept last week's minutes http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/dwbp/2015-01-16 14:08:36 MakxDekkers has joined #dwbp 14:08:41 +0 was absent 14:08:45 +1 14:08:53 Topic: BP Document 14:09:17 s/BP Document/UCR Document/ 14:09:28 JoaoPauloAlmeida has joined #dwbp 14:09:32 deirdrelee: Doc looks pretty complete. Now very few open issues. Most have been resolved 14:09:50 ... some we may need to reopen some again, should some reqs be refined 14:10:10 ... strong set of reqs. Each req leads to multiple UCs and vice versa 14:10:22 +[IPcaller] 14:10:29 Zakim, IPcaller is me 14:10:29 +JoaoPauloAlmeida; got it 14:10:39 -> http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/usecasesv1.html the UCR doc 14:10:47 +[IPcaller] 14:10:54 q? 14:10:57 deirdrelee: Any comments on the UCR doc 14:11:00 zakim, [IPcaller] is me 14:11:00 +CarlosIglesias; got it 14:11:06 it's *first* PWD, no? 14:11:11 deirdrelee: And so to the BP doc 14:11:17 Topic: The BP Doc 14:11:43 BernadetteLoscio: We have had a lot of discssions about the BP doc this week including some major changes in the vocab section, metadaat seection etc. 14:11:48 ... some improvements etc. 14:11:54 @annette_g yes 14:11:58 ... clear that we havea some terminological issues to discuss and agree 14:12:22 BernadetteLoscio: And we need to go deeper on some discussions, that's clear 14:12:28 yaso has joined #dwbp 14:12:36 sorry I thought the question was related to BP 14:12:43 BP doc http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html 14:12:44 BernadetteLoscio: We have opened several issues, not alll that can be solved immediately 14:13:20 Zakim, who is speaking? 14:13:26 BernadetteLoscio: I hope everyone's happy now? 14:13:30 +[IPcaller] 14:13:32 gatemezi, listening for 10 seconds I could not identify any sounds 14:13:46 zakim, iocaller is me 14:13:46 sorry, MakxDekkers, I do not recognize a party named 'iocaller' 14:13:54 zakim, ipcaller is me 14:13:54 +MakxDekkers; got it 14:13:59 BernadetteLoscio: I;m happy that we can have substantive discussions now 14:14:06 s/I;m/I'm/ 14:14:21 Caroline_: I think you said it all so maybe we should talk about Phil's proposal 14:14:31 Caroline_: We are very happy with the collaborative work 14:14:39 Zakim, who is making noise? 14:14:50 Caroline_, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: BernadetteLoscio (15%), Caroline_ (64%), MakxDekkers (14%) 14:15:14 zakim, mute me 14:15:14 MakxDekkers should now be muted 14:15:40 Caroline_: We haven't had time to discuss Phil's proposal by e-mail yet. Not sure whether we can classify them all this meeting 14:15:55 I have a question. How stable should the document be to go into FPWD? 14:16:09 BernadetteLoscio: IMO we have a lot already and I know that we still have open issues and conflicting issues but we made a lot of progress 14:16:20 ... maybe an external view will help us solve inernal conflicts 14:16:23 +1 Bernadette 14:16:26 +1 to Bernadette 14:16:32 +1 to BernadetteLoscio 14:16:35 +1 Bernadette 14:16:35 +1 to Joao Paulo's question 14:16:59 deirdrelee: Which relates to what I wanted to ask... are things not resolved because we've run out of time or because we need external input? 14:17:09 Zakim, Caroline_ has yaso 14:17:09 +yaso; got it 14:17:23 BernadetteLoscio: For some issues (most) we need more time because we need to discuss. I don't think the editors can decide by themseleves 14:17:23 +0 to Bernadette. Not sure external view can necessary help to have consensus in some points 14:17:42 BernadetteLoscio: I think the terminological issues we have is important. We have differnet opinions 14:17:52 +1 to deirdrelee question 14:17:57 BernadetteLoscio: We can agree but we'll need more time 14:18:00 vagner has joined #dwbp 14:18:09 BernadetteLoscio: We had a long discussion about the audience and then we agreed 14:18:11 Zakim, Caroline_ has vagner 14:18:11 +vagner; got it 14:18:14 q+ 14:18:28 deirdrelee: So I guess we should discuss this a little more 14:18:30 ack hadleybeeman 14:18:54 hadleybeeman: My question is... we don't have that much time as a WG to talk. An hour a week isn't a lot. 14:19:07 ... is it possible to do some of this dicussion by e-mail? 14:19:13 ... can we have a thread per issue? 14:19:15 I think it is not only possible but highly desirable 14:19:16 q+ 14:19:25 BernadetteLoscio: how can we have a WG conversation 14:19:26 no other way to address such amount of issues 14:19:48 s/BernadetteLoscio:/Hadley:/ 14:19:51 ack BernadetteLoscio 14:20:13 BernadetteLoscio: I agree Hadley, we need to discuss this by mail during ther week and Friday is just to solve things that aren't clear 14:20:24 BernadetteLoscio: What I think is important is to keep the rhythm 14:20:26 +1 to hadleybeeman 14:21:13 BernadetteLoscio: It's good that finally we're having detailed discussions and if we continue then we can make progress 14:21:15 q? 14:21:40 deirdrelee: In terms of the terminology - we've discussed that a lot and we need to do so some more. 14:21:42 q+ 14:21:54 deirdrelee: We can create a wiki page on that topic 14:21:56 q+ 14:22:19 BernadetteLoscio: I'm going to create the wiki page to start the process of discussing... 14:22:35 Bernadette sounds good about starting wiki page for terminology 14:22:50 action: bernadette to create a wiki page to begin a glossary of terminology 14:22:50 Created ACTION-136 - Create a wiki page to begin a glossary of terminology [on Bernadette Farias Loscio - due 2015-01-30]. 14:23:03 BernadetteLoscio: TNhis might go to GH later 14:23:09 *suggests one page per term 14:23:20 s/TNhis/This/g 14:23:25 BernadetteLoscio: Everyone can contribute. We might have multiple definitions to choose from 14:23:35 I think we also need a good discussion on the whole "technological bias" issue. 14:23:40 ... we want to use existing definitions, not crearte new ones 14:23:43 ack me 14:23:59 +1 for using the existing definition as much as possible 14:24:27 +1 to phila's request 14:24:34 phila: to request that bernadette gives us a guided tour of the doc 14:24:38 s/crearte/create 14:24:44 BernadetteLoscio: We're looking at http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html 14:24:53 BernadetteLoscio: The intro is stable, no comments on this one 14:25:07 ... new para to talk about the relationship with the LD-BP 14:25:28 BernadetteLoscio: We had a lot of discussion about the audeince, now we have the final version 14:25:32 ... now looks OK 14:25:40 BernadetteLoscio: Scope was decided at TPAC 14:25:56 BernadetteLoscio: Context - the DW challenges and life cycle 14:26:17 BernadetteLoscio: The challenges can probably be improved, they're probably too informal 14:26:25 ... but they make reference to the UCR 14:26:52 BernadetteLoscio: Challenges lead to requirements 14:27:04 BernadetteLoscio: The life cycle is based on an existing life cycle 14:27:16 ... our initial idea was to organise the BP accoridng to the life cycle 14:27:40 ... but it turned out not to work out so we haven't stuck to that but we think the LC is interesting as it gives context 14:27:51 ... maybe later we can try to associate each BP to a phase of the LC 14:27:59 BernadetteLoscio: There is an open issue for this 14:28:03 q? 14:28:27 ... I think Annette wasn't too happy with the inclusion of the LC and we need to discuss the definitions within it. 14:28:32 ack BernadetteLoscio 14:28:39 BernadetteLoscio: Then we have the template 14:28:47 here there is also overlap with GLD BP which was not accounted for 14:28:51 BernadetteLoscio: The template was proposed at TPAC 14:29:18 (the lifecycle in DWBP x process in GLD BP) 14:29:46 BernadetteLoscio: I don't think we'll change the template much although Makx's commetn about why something is a BP can be added bu the template itself is prob stable 14:30:02 BernadetteLoscio: The summary and the numbers are generated automatically 14:30:11 ... but this is not a stable version and numbers change 14:30:23 one question: the template currently says "Possible Approach to Implementation". Should it be possible approaches (in the plural)? 14:30:25 ... so in mails we have some problems of identifiers 14:30:32 ... but this won't be a problem when we stablise 14:30:43 BernadetteLoscio: The BPs are divided according to the main challenges 14:30:46 a/commetn/comment 14:31:01 BernadetteLoscio: There are some challenges that are not here, e.g. data enrichment 14:31:17 ... the BPs are for data publishers 14:31:30 ... they'll use thre BPs to improve relationship with users 14:31:44 BernadetteLoscio: First set is the metadata section. There are 6 BPs here 14:31:49 ... lots of discussion on this 14:32:04 ... there were an intersection with the data vocab section. 14:32:19 ... it's also not clear on terminilogy - metadata vs. vocabulary 14:32:39 ... and we have a new proposal for organisation but I think for now we should keep it like this 14:32:54 ... for now it should dtay like this but this is one of the sections that generated a lot of discussion 14:33:18 BernadetteLoscio: Another issue is related to the technological bias - we should be more neutral 14:33:41 ... so I think in the metadata and vocab section there's lots of talk about Linked Data and vocabs related to that 14:33:46 ... this needs more discussion 14:33:49 q? 14:34:00 ... but the metadata section is very important 14:34:06 ... but more work is needed 14:34:15 Maybe in the intro section, group BPs by sections, like metadata section contains 6 BPs which are BPX, BPY, etc..? 14:34:15 BernadetteLoscio: The data identification so far as one BP 14:34:24 BernadetteLoscio: We also had some discussion about this BP 14:34:50 BernadetteLoscio: I think in future we might have more BPs in this section but for now we should leave it as is for now 14:35:09 BernadetteLoscio: The data formats section... we had some discussion but it feels more stable 14:35:13 ... we have 3 BPs 14:35:19 ... we had discussion but not a lot 14:35:41 ... but terminology came up agaian (format cf. serialisation) 14:36:09 BernadetteLoscio: Lots of discssion about the data vocabs section 14:36:18 ... issue of tech neutrality comes up a lot 14:36:39 ... we made some good improvements. But we still have some conflicts and I'm not sure that they're solved. More work is needed 14:36:52 ... I think it's also related to terminology as well as tech 14:37:04 BernadetteLoscio: Data Licence section - not a lot of discussion about this 14:37:07 I think the issues of terminology and technological bias are quite intertwined 14:37:25 BernadetteLoscio: Almost no discussion on this so far 14:37:40 ... more detailed review needed 14:38:04 BernadetteLoscio: data Provenance, Quality and ?? still not much discussion 14:38:19 s/??/Licences/ 14:38:39 BernadetteLoscio: We had on eissue around Sensitive data. We have an open issue on this 14:39:00 BernadetteLoscio: Data Access section, also a little discussion about #23 but maybe we should come back to this 14:39:07 ... but for now we have 4 BPs 14:39:34 BernadetteLoscio: Data Versioning - 3 BPs. It feels stable as we haven't had many comments or make changes 14:39:59 BernadetteLoscio: data Preservation - some comments on this. Carlos not too happy wth it but Christophe is defending 14:40:09 ... maybe we need to come back to this 14:40:33 BernadetteLoscio: And finally feedback feels stable. Just one BP so far. Section needs improvement 14:40:43 BernadetteLoscio: Not a lot of feedbacl so far 14:40:54 ... most discussion about metadata and data vocabs 14:41:24 ... other general issues that were open but in the end we have... it's a lot of wowrk to review everything. 14:41:45 ... when I go through the whole doc and now I feel that it will be really great to get feedback from outside 14:41:50 Excellent walkthrough of the whole BP document by Bernadette, congratulations! 14:42:13 Thanks, bernadette! 14:42:16 q+ to ask a question 14:42:45 deirdrelee: Thanks Bernadette - there's so much to take in, the status etc. 14:42:45 Thanks, Bernadette, great job in this complete description! (y) 14:42:46 By the way 14:42:50 Conclusions is curently blank 14:42:52 ... gald that going through it gives oyu more confidence 14:42:55 ack annette_g 14:42:55 annette_g, you wanted to ask a question 14:42:56 @yaso - good news about your contact with Christine in the privacy group 14:42:58 s/curently/currently 14:43:47 Very nice presentation, thanks BernadetteLoscio 14:44:00 +1 to gatemezi 14:45:15 ericstephan_ has joined #dwbp 14:45:51 guys I'm wary of time.....time to vote? 14:48:04 vote vote vote vote :-) 14:48:41 q+ to ask question 14:48:58 phila: Tries to clarify the situation 14:49:02 q? 14:49:05 ack JoaoPauloAlmeida 14:49:05 JoaoPauloAlmeida, you wanted to ask question 14:49:12 zakim, close speaker queue 14:49:12 I don't understand 'close speaker queue', deirdrelee 14:49:19 zakim, close the queue 14:49:19 ok, hadleybeeman, the speaker queue is closed 14:49:39 JoaoPauloAlmeida: In some cases, it's not clear that we're looking for feedback on everything 14:49:54 BernadetteLoscio: If I understand you want something more explicit 14:50:01 It could also go out in the announcement as well 14:50:39 This is the first working draft of this document to be formally published. In this first version, more than 30 best practices are proposed and more than 25 requirements have been addressed. However, there are still some ongoing discussions in the group about important subjects, like terminology and scope. The group is still working towards consensus on the meaning and application of some important terms including: vocabulary, metadata, data model, data format, sche 14:50:39 ma and dataset. Other important issues relate to the definition of best practices for vocabularies. For example it is not clear if providing advice to data publishers to create and reuse vocabularies is in the scope of the DWBP. Likewise, there is not yet consensus on whether data preservation is in scope. The Working Group is therefore particularly keen to receive comments to ensure that its future work is relevant, useful and comprehensive. 14:51:03 phila: ^ is a propsoed block of text to go in the intro 14:51:09 this reads good 14:51:14 nice 14:51:18 looks good 14:51:23 and yes, ericstephan we can say things in the anno, blog posts etc. 14:51:37 still doesn't say that everything is under reiew 14:51:47 s/reiew/review 14:52:01 nice 14:52:06 annette_g: "The Working Group is therefore particularly keen to receive comments" 14:52:19 to be included as an issue note? 14:52:20 I think, by definition, everything is under review until it's a formal recommendation, no? 14:52:35 annette_g: it says in the end that we are looking to receive comments 14:52:43 +1 to put this text in the introduction 14:53:31 -AdrianoC 14:53:49 Discussion around inclusion of the text, where it goes etc 14:54:02 still think data preservation sections needs an specific issue note 14:54:04 deirdrelee: Concerned about timing 14:54:09 a caipirinha 14:54:09 +1 to put the text .. 14:54:17 yes Carlos! We're gonna include 14:54:19 PROPOSED: To include this para or something like it, in the intro 14:54:23 +1 14:54:24 relevant enough to deserve that 14:54:27 +1 14:54:27 +1 14:54:27 +1 14:54:27 +1 14:54:28 +1 14:54:29 +1 14:54:29 +1 14:54:30 +1 14:54:30 +1 14:54:31 +1 14:54:34 +1 14:54:36 +1 14:54:39 +1 14:54:42 +1 14:54:43 RESOLVED: To include this para or something like it, in the intro 14:54:45 +1 14:54:49 +[GVoice] 14:54:50 deirdrelee: So we have two votes 14:54:50 +1 14:54:58 +1 14:55:00 +1 14:55:25 btw I note that our organization is not on it :-) 14:55:25 http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/usecasesv1.html 14:55:39 PROPOSED: That the WG publish the next WD of the Use Case document http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/usecasesv1.html 14:55:44 +1 14:55:45 +1 14:55:46 +1 14:55:50 +1 14:55:53 +1 14:55:53 +1 14:55:54 +1 14:55:54 +1 14:55:55 +1 14:55:58 +1 14:55:59 +1 14:55:59 +1 14:56:00 +1 14:56:02 +1 14:56:03 +1 14:56:05 +1 14:56:05 +1 14:56:08 +1 if the DWBP doc is published simultaneously 14:56:16 +1 14:56:24 RESOLVED: That the WG publish the next WD of the Use Case document http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/usecasesv1.html 14:56:38 +1 14:56:55 PROPOSED: That the BP doc currenetly at http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html is published a a FPWD 14:57:01 +1 14:57:01 +1 14:57:01 +1 14:57:01 +1 14:57:02 +1 14:57:03 +1 14:57:06 +1 14:57:06 +1 14:57:07 +1 14:57:09 +1 14:57:09 +1 14:57:10 +1 14:57:11 +1 14:57:12 +1 14:57:13 s/currenetly/currently 14:57:13 0 14:57:31 +1 14:57:38 +1 14:57:38 +1 14:57:40 ack MakxDekkers 14:57:45 zakim, unmute me 14:57:45 MakxDekkers was not muted, MakxDekkers 14:57:45