13:58:25 RRSAgent has joined #dwbp 13:58:25 logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/01/30-dwbp-irc 13:58:27 RRSAgent, make logs 351 13:58:27 Zakim has joined #dwbp 13:58:29 Zakim, this will be DWBP 13:58:29 ok, trackbot, I see DATA_DWBP()9:00AM already started 13:58:30 Meeting: Data on the Web Best Practices Working Group Teleconference 13:58:30 Date: 30 January 2015 13:58:51 zakim, this will be dwbp 13:58:52 ok, phila, I see DATA_DWBP()9:00AM already started 13:58:54 rrsagent, make logs public 13:58:55 + +1.626.487.aabb 13:59:01 chair: deirdrelee 13:59:14 riccardoAlbertoni has joined #DWBP 13:59:16 +[IPcaller] 13:59:19 zakim, [ is me 13:59:19 +phila; got it 13:59:38 +[IPcaller] 13:59:49 zakim, +[ipcaller] is me 13:59:49 sorry, deirdrelee, I do not recognize a party named '+[ipcaller]' 13:59:55 no I am 609 13:59:57 zakim, +[IPCaller] is me 13:59:57 sorry, deirdrelee, I do not recognize a party named '+[IPCaller]' 14:00:00 zakim, [ is deirdrelee 14:00:00 +deirdrelee; got it 14:00:01 +riccardoAlbertoni 14:00:10 hi All! 14:00:23 agenda: http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20150130 14:00:36 lewismc has joined #dwbp 14:00:41 Hi all, I am in transit, only in chat. Hi All! 14:01:09 regrets+ Christophe, Laufer, EricS 14:01:37 BernadetteLoscio has joined #dwbp 14:01:59 +annette_g 14:02:05 yaso has joined #dwbp 14:02:36 annette_g has joined #dwbp 14:02:39 JoaoPauloAlmeida has joined #dwbp 14:02:49 jerdeb has joined #DWBP 14:03:12 adler1 has joined #DWBP 14:03:13 +[IPcaller] 14:03:21 Zakim, IPcaller is me 14:03:21 +JoaoPauloAlmeida; got it 14:03:29 Caroline_ has joined #DWBP 14:03:30 zakim, who is here 14:03:30 deirdrelee, you need to end that query with '?' 14:03:33 zakim, who is here? 14:03:33 On the phone I see +1.609.557.aaaa, +1.626.487.aabb, phila, deirdrelee, riccardoAlbertoni, annette_g, JoaoPauloAlmeida 14:03:35 On IRC I see Caroline_, adler1, jerdeb, JoaoPauloAlmeida, annette_g, yaso, BernadetteLoscio, lewismc, riccardoAlbertoni, Zakim, RRSAgent, AdrianoC-UFMG, Eric_Kauz, deirdrelee, 14:03:35 ... phila, rhiaro, hadleybeeman, sandro, trackbot 14:03:49 zakim, aaaa is me 14:03:49 +Eric_Kauz; got it 14:04:13 regrets+ Hadley 14:04:16 zakim, lewismc is me 14:04:18 sorry, lewismc, I do not recognize a party named 'lewismc' 14:04:18 +yaso 14:04:20 RRSAgent, make logs public 14:04:26 Zakim, yaso is Caroline_ 14:04:26 +Caroline_; got it 14:04:27 +??P25 14:04:27 +Steve 14:04:31 zakim, aabb is lewismc 14:04:31 +lewismc; got it 14:04:44 Thank you phila 14:04:48 zakim, who is here? 14:04:48 On the phone I see Eric_Kauz, lewismc, phila, deirdrelee, riccardoAlbertoni, annette_g, JoaoPauloAlmeida, Caroline_, ??P25, Steve 14:04:50 On IRC I see Caroline_, adler1, jerdeb, JoaoPauloAlmeida, annette_g, yaso, BernadetteLoscio, lewismc, riccardoAlbertoni, Zakim, RRSAgent, AdrianoC-UFMG, Eric_Kauz, deirdrelee, 14:04:50 ... phila, rhiaro, hadleybeeman, sandro, trackbot 14:05:09 Zakim, P25 is me 14:05:10 sorry, jerdeb, I do not recognize a party named 'P25' 14:05:14 Zakim, ??P25 is me 14:05:14 +jerdeb; got it 14:05:19 newton has joined #dwbp 14:05:21 nathalia has joined #dwbp 14:05:35 scribe: lewismc 14:05:54 phila has changed the topic to: agenda: https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20150130 14:06:08 Zakim, Caroline_ has nathalia and newton 14:06:08 +nathalia, newton; got it 14:07:00 www.w3.org/2013/meeting/dwbp/2015-01-23 14:07:03 -> http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/dwbp/2015-01-23 last week's minutes 14:07:12 propose: http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/dwbp/2015-01-16 14:07:21 s/-16/-23/ 14:07:32 propose: http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/dwbp/2015-01-23 14:07:34 +[IPcaller] 14:07:37 zakim, ipcaller is BernadetteLoscio 14:07:37 +BernadetteLoscio; got it 14:07:42 PROPOSED: Accept last week's minutes http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/dwbp/2015-01-23 14:07:51 zakim, mute BernadetteLoscio 14:07:51 BernadetteLoscio should now be muted 14:07:56 +1 14:07:57 +1 14:07:58 +1 14:07:58 +1 14:08:02 +1 14:08:04 +1 14:08:05 +[IPcaller] 14:08:06 +1 14:08:13 +1 14:08:16 Zakim, IPcaller is yaso 14:08:16 +yaso; got it 14:08:16 +1 14:08:25 Hi Phill, I would like to ask you if you know why my name is shown as Guest +1 14:08:33 +1 14:08:40 ACCEPT: Accept last week's minutes http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/dwbp/2015-01-23 14:09:00 agenda: http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20150130 14:09:13 s/ACCEPT/RESOLVED 14:09:58 Zakim, mute me 14:09:58 yaso should now be muted 14:10:10 Topic: Best Practice document 14:11:05 PROPOSED: That we re-vote on publication of BP doc 14:11:29 CarlosIglesias has joined #dwbp 14:11:31 q 14:11:32 +1 14:11:34 deirdrelee: Alternative would be to publish doc as it was last week 14:11:46 q+ 14:11:50 zakim, unmute BernadetteLoscio 14:11:50 BernadetteLoscio should no longer be muted 14:11:56 +1 to revote as long as we have a whole week as Deirdre proposes 14:11:57 deirdrelee: Changes made since last week are relatively minor but numerous 14:12:10 ... to review the document 14:12:24 Agree with JoaoPauloAlmeida, revote w/1 week to review doc 14:12:32 q? 14:12:34 ack q 14:12:35 ack adler1 14:12:56 Keith has read document, assessment is that 1st draft is good 14:13:22 s/Keith/adler1 14:13:44 adler1 states that many of the recommendations have been seen elsewhere 14:14:04 adler1: first impression is that document is good, but that many of the recommendations have been seen elsewhere 14:14:04 s/adler1/adler1:/ 14:14:16 +[IPcaller] 14:14:30 zakim, IPcaller is me 14:14:30 +CarlosIglesias; got it 14:15:13 vagner has joined #dwbp 14:15:24 adler1: this document represents a table of contents pfor our work 14:15:29 Zakim, Caroline_ has vagner 14:15:29 +vagner; got it 14:15:39 adler1: enables public to see our work over the next year 14:15:57 Zakim, Caroline_ has vagner 14:15:57 vagner was already listed in Caroline_, Caroline_ 14:15:58 deirdrelee: asked BernadetteLoscio about her options on whether to VOTE next week 14:16:13 BernadetteLoscio: stated that the group requires more time 14:16:17 q+ 14:16:41 BernadetteLoscio: stated the group had a review, acknwledging there was consensus that more needs to be done 14:17:30 BernadetteLoscio: stated that more time is required, however some sections of thr document did not receive comments... due to lack of time 14:18:02 BernadetteLoscio: stated that it is an incremental process but that more time is required to make those incremental improvements 14:18:32 BernadetteLoscio: the WG requires more time before document goes public 14:18:40 thank you Caroline_ 14:18:50 I propose that phila summarize the changes to the document, during the call so that we can decide on this; I understand this would be a defense for a revote? 14:18:51 good points 14:18:58 BernadetteLoscio: it is not clear when the document is good enough to become public 14:19:15 BernadetteLoscio: if everyone has more time to review we have more time to improve 14:19:21 lewismc, I don't think this is not what BernadetteLoscio is saying... 14:19:23 +1 to BernadetteLoscio 14:19:25 BernadetteLoscio: this generally needs to be clearer 14:20:11 deirdrelee: there were trivial changes but not specifically content changes 14:20:31 ack me 14:20:32 deirdrelee: prompted phila to comment on background 14:20:46 This is the first working draft of this document to be formally published and all text is explicitly open to review. In this first version, 29 best practices are proposed and more than 25 requirements have been addressed. However, there are still many 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, metadat 14:20:46 a, data model, data format, schema 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 re-use 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 comp 14:20:47 rehensive. Please send comments to public-dwbp-wg@w3.org (subscribe, archives). 14:21:07 +1 for first sentence 14:21:13 phila: provide commentary on some proposed and accepted changes to the BPWD 14:21:32 phila: document is inconsistent in the way it was represented 14:22:15 phila: template defines a structure 14:22:31 phila: however that is not what is present within the doument 14:22:49 phila: disagrees with a lot fo the document, however trying not to comment 14:23:16 phila: more work was done by other and phila returned to the document in an effort to make it more consistent 14:23:27 phila: substantiative content has not changed much 14:23:35 MakxDekkers has joined #dwbp 14:23:39 phila: data preservation very confusing 14:24:25 phila: lots of confusing language in this particular section... simplest thing to do was remove preservation section and archive it 14:24:40 phila: asking group to look at obtaining consistency 14:24:51 phila: would support VOTE'ing next week 14:25:17 phila: if people make comments in coming days, reflect on whether comment should be addressed before we VOTE or afterwards 14:25:21 phila: on deadline 14:25:25 q? 14:25:34 can't we just leave the original version and publish it, and then review phil's changes and vote on that in a few weeks? 14:25:46 phila: one week may not make a different based on fact that we have not published in a year 14:25:57 I think JoaoPauloAlmeida was on the q 14:26:04 I left the queue 14:26:09 q? 14:26:10 deirdrelee: suggesting that VOTE'ing next week 14:26:28 Caroline, because the proposal I made in the IRC was accepted, so no need to speak :-) 14:26:31 q+ 14:26:35 q+ 14:26:42 deirdrelee suggesting that quality of content is influx 14:26:47 sorry, JoaoPauloAlmeida! 14:27:11 deirdrelee: suggesting that the document seems very much 'up in the air' 14:27:32 deirdrelee: working towards a stable version of the document is very important 14:27:38 ack adler1 14:27:39 ack adler1 14:27:45 q- adler 14:27:47 ack adler 14:27:48 adler1: version seems to have a very fixed meaning 14:28:20 adler1: what would be the harm... since you VOTE'd last week, to allow the incomplete, incohesive version to go forth and publish 14:28:32 adler1: then consider phila additions in a week or two 14:28:38 adler1: allow people to review changes 14:28:45 adler1: then publish verion 1.1 14:28:52 adler1: then publish 1.2 14:29:09 adler1: questioning if this is the way W3C works 14:29:32 adler1: would incremental document versioning be acceptable? 14:29:41 phila: versioning is OK 14:29:59 phila: would be frowned upon if revisions were very close together 14:30:05 phila: first impressions last 14:30:17 phila: inconsistencies were things which needed to be ironed out 14:30:31 phila: this is just his opinion 14:30:40 deirdrelee: 14:31:13 deirdrelee: proposed three options 14:31:23 q+ adler1 14:31:30 ack annette_g 14:31:43 option1: publish last week's FPWD option2: vote next week for Phil's latest updates option3: push out revote for couple of weeks 14:31:44 annette_g: require some time to resolve the changes 14:32:03 annette_g: what we need to address the most, what things are in scope 14:32:05 q+ to ease timing concerns 14:32:17 annette_g: over next two weeks we need to sope which BP we need to set aside 14:32:30 annette_g: at least we would have structure which people can comment on 14:32:42 deirdrelee: can you please add your threee options? 14:32:46 do the teams have the energy and time to do the extra work necessary in a short time frame? 14:33:14 ack adler1 14:34:22 q 14:34:23 ack me 14:34:23 phila, you wanted to ease timing concerns 14:34:23 q+ 14:34:43 *thinks we need pressure* 14:35:03 adler1: concerned of impact of the team if we undo the VOTE 14:35:47 q? 14:35:50 phila: any document gets mention on W3C homepage, presented to W3C team follwing thursday, triggers legal process, 90 days to make essentisl claims on IP 14:36:00 ... ease tensions on timing 14:36:19 whew 14:36:19 ... no troubles at all to convinve others that the group requires more time 14:36:22 q+ to say I am not comfortable with the situation. Last week we were under pressure to vote. We did it? Suddenly we got to know few changes needed. Now, we got to know the document is not consistent and we need more time to read it over and review. We need some clear orientation about when we have to finish it in order to know how much time we reealy have to work on it 14:36:39 ack JoaoPauloAlmeida 14:36:52 JoaoPauloAlmeida: have people made all the changes they wanted to for this public working draft? 14:36:53 ... 14:37:07 ... has feeling we did not 14:37:30 ... are the proposed changes already there or does this just open the box again? 14:37:53 phila: this will not be the case 14:38:06 ack vagner 14:38:07 vagner, you wanted to say I am not comfortable with the situation. Last week we were under pressure to vote. We did it? Suddenly we got to know few changes needed. Now, we got to 14:38:08 that makes me comfortable to review Phil's changes and revote 14:38:09 ack vagner 14:38:10 ... know the document is not consistent and we need more time to read it over and review. We need some clear orientation about when we have to finish it in order to know how much 14:38:10 ... time we reealy have to work on it 14:39:42 q+ to offer you a deadline 14:39:43 valid risk 14:40:21 vagner: support BernadetteLoscio comments, not comfortable with back and forth situation. We are under pressure to publish. Last week document needed review. The team worked hard this week in order to finish it for VOTE'ing. Now it turns out that VOTE'ing is not happening today. we need clear deadlines for finishing the document. 14:40:37 phila: understands frustration 14:40:48 ... suggestion on new deadline 14:41:02 ... adler1 promised we would visit COMURI document 14:41:17 ... propose meeting on 13 to COMURI 14:41:18 q+ 14:41:23 ack phila 14:41:23 phila, you wanted to offer you a deadline 14:41:28 ... next week could be considered a deadline on 1st working draft 14:41:46 deirdrelee: possibly throwing something else in to the mix 14:42:15 ... two question for today (1) do we go ahead with draft with draft from last week without changes from this week? 14:42:17 q 14:42:22 the problem I have with extending the deadline is that we are effectively saying that the chairs can extend deadlines when they want to and if we do that more than once we lose credibility for the very notion of deadlines 14:42:23 q+ 14:42:41 ... (2) the chanes that have been made this week e.g. consistency, should we VOTE on this next week 14:42:42 ... 14:42:46 PROPOSED: That we publish the version that was voted on last week without the changes made since then 14:42:59 s/chanes/changes/g 14:43:02 ... we don't have an option to put it off 14:43:09 ack deirdrelee 14:43:24 BernadetteLoscio: we don't feel comfortable version from last week 14:43:47 ... its better to have more time, this is the option of th editors 14:44:03 deirdrelee: draw line int he sand about VOTE next week? 14:44:21 ... are you happy to publish version today? 14:44:27 q+ to say that after so many comments os current document it is NOT CONSISTENT to publish the document as iit was voted last week. 14:44:29 BernadetteLoscio: we need more time 14:44:54 q+ 14:44:58 phila: we can re-VOTE to put it off 14:45:01 ack BernadetteLoscio 14:45:17 phila: we could take a VOTE on whether last weeks VOTE stands 14:45:39 ... can we push for a VOTE in three of four weeks time? 14:45:44 I see three options: (1) keep last week's version; (2) freeze today, and vote next week; (3) backtrack completely and have more time 14:45:45 ... timeline is very useful 14:45:58 ... overstepped his role 14:46:18 ... tell him to shut up or just accept the changes 14:46:33 q? 14:46:59 deirdrelee: Should we publish as we voted last week, should we pubich next week, or vote to publush in a few weeks' time 14:47:06 deirdrelee: (1) publish last weeks (2) should we VOTE next week (3) VOTE in 3 weeks and leave it to editors 14:47:19 vagner: feels uncomfortable VOTE'ing on document as it is 14:47:54 ... the chairs need to clarify thier situation and help direct the group 14:48:04 ... only a few people actually debating VOTE'ing, etc 14:48:19 ... are the rest of the group actually concerned about this debate? 14:48:29 ... the group are lost on this topic 14:48:45 deirdrelee: fair points , would love to hear other opinions 14:49:10 I ma definitely lost 14:49:11 deirdrelee: we need to have decisions and not just have things hanging, but maybe after this week 14:49:37 adler1: we need to consider how the work is being appreciated 14:49:45 q+ 14:49:50 I think we should first get the document in shape before we even consider voting on publication 14:49:53 we all want to be proud of the work we create 14:50:04 JoaoPauloAlmeida: are we overreacting to proposals? 14:50:04 It's why I abstained last week 14:50:11 ack va 14:50:11 vagner, you wanted to say that after so many comments os current document it is NOT CONSISTENT to publish the document as iit was voted last week. 14:50:13 ack vagner 14:50:16 ack JoaoPauloAlmeida 14:50:53 q+ 14:50:57 ... it looks like this weeks version is better than lasts week however unsure right now, backing option (2) for the time being 14:51:03 ... feels that people are overreacting 14:51:12 s/os current/on current/ 14:51:23 BernadetteLoscio: we need more time not just about changes for this week 14:51:50 ... changes were good and scope to review in 1 week is OK 14:51:53 -yaso 14:51:56 q+ 14:51:57 ... however the document is not stable 14:52:05 ack BernadetteLoscio 14:52:06 ... unsure about making the document public 14:52:25 ... not sure if the document is good enough to be a 1st public working draft 14:52:39 ... if it is not good enough then it needs more time 14:52:42 +[IPcaller] 14:52:46 but we all though it was good enough last week (with only one abstention!) 14:52:49 Zakim, IPcaller is yaso 14:52:49 +yaso; got it 14:52:54 ... we need more time 14:53:29 q? 14:53:31 phila: it is good enough for it to be public working draft I have no intentions to make changes over the next week 14:53:41 my questions for clarificarion from chairs and Phil are: (1) do we really have a deadline? If yes, when it is? (2) Is the current version of the document inconsistent? If yes, where it is consistent and how many time we have to work on it? 14:53:44 I feel a good compromise to take a week to read the changes and vote next week 14:53:46 q- 14:53:54 deirdrelee: appreciated vagner POV about uncertainty 14:54:07 ... will address this within the group 14:54:12 -yaso 14:54:13 s/how many/how much/ 14:54:35 PROPOSED: go ahead and publish what we VOTE'd on last week 14:54:48 -1 given that we now have a potentially better version concerning consistency 14:54:50 -1 14:54:53 -1 14:54:53 -1 14:54:54 -1 14:54:55 -1 14:54:56 -1 14:54:56 -1 14:54:56 -1 14:54:58 -1 14:55:00 -1 14:55:00 0 14:55:04 -1 14:55:07 -1 14:55:09 -1 14:55:10 -1 14:55:11 lewismc: 0 14:55:30 RESOLVED: That we will NOT publish the doc as voted on last week 14:55:48 +1 14:55:49 PROPOSED: whatever the draft is today, we publish whatever is current document today at next fridays call 14:55:50 PROPOSED: That we freeze the current version and puiblish to vote next Friday 14:55:55 +1 14:55:56 -1 14:55:56 +1 14:56:00 +1 14:56:02 +1 14:56:07 0 14:56:11 +1 14:56:12 0 14:56:13 0 14:56:16 +1 to vote next week after a bit more review 14:56:27 0 14:56:34 +1 to vote next week w review 14:56:40 -1 14:56:46 0 14:56:51 0 14:56:54 0 14:56:54 0 14:57:39 deirdrelee: Next week we can vote on whetehr we'll vote the following week 14:57:49 RESOLVED: spend this week reviewing it, next week come together and repeat VOTE about VOTE'ing next week 14:58:00 Phila, could you please summarize in a single email to the list all changes made with a short motivation? 14:58:03 deirdrelee: not sure how that affects deadlines and timelines 14:58:06 +1 to deirdrelee 14:58:06 +1 14:58:10 +1 14:58:11 +1 to Deirdre 14:58:21 please, note also that multiple review extensions will lead the group to nowhere if we are not really to be actually reviewing something 14:58:27 +1 14:58:29 BernadetteLoscio: it is OK 14:58:44 0 14:58:45 0 14:58:48 0 14:58:53 deirdrelee: maybe it would be good for BernadetteLoscio to review the changes directly with the editors 14:58:56 we have seen few reviews/comments on the mailing list so far 14:59:08 BernadetteLoscio: someone will try and be there 14:59:13 JoaoPauloAlmeida see https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-wg/2015Jan/0299.html and https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-wg/2015Jan/0313.html 14:59:22 thanks 14:59:38 +1 to CarlosIglesias 14:59:40 deirdrelee: we touched nothing of the agenda 14:59:51 That was my fault, changes were made *after* the chairs' meeting on Tuesday 14:59:55 ... face to face meeting email will be discussed on email 15:00:11 Thanks Dee - great chairing! 15:00:16 Thanks to Lewis for scribing 15:00:19 -Steve 15:00:22 bye 15:00:23 Thanks, Have a good week end! 15:00:25 -lewismc 15:00:25 bye 15:00:26 -annette_g 15:00:27 bye 15:00:27 bye! 15:00:27 -Eric_Kauz 15:00:28 -JoaoPauloAlmeida 15:00:29