Data on the Web Best Practices Working Group Teleconference -- 06 Mar 2015

<trackbot> Date: 06 March 2015

<hadleybeeman> Hey, I got to start the meeting (on Zakim). :)

<deirdrelee> zakiim, ipcaller is me

<Caroline_> I may scribe

<Caroline_> no problem! Yes!

<estephan> having trouble dialing in....

<hadleybeeman> sorry to hear that, estephan!

<RiccardoAlbertoni> i would prefer not to scribe .. sorry I am very tired today..

<scribe> scribe: phila

<hadleybeeman> Ah, timezones! Reminder that we are tied to US East-Coast time (for Boston, USA)

<deirdrelee> http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/dwbp/2015-02-27

PROPOSED: Accept last week's minutes http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/dwbp/2015-02-27

<hadleybeeman> +1

<estephan> +1

<newton> +1

<deirdrelee> +1

<annette_g> +1

<cgueret> +1

<RiccardoAlbertoni> +1

<Caroline_> +1

<antoine> +1

<adler1> gm

RESOLUTION: Accept last week's minutes http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/dwbp/2015-02-27

<adler1> I'm double booked this morning and can only participate via chat

deirdrelee: So let's get started on the agenda.
... want to tie down some timelines for the deliverables
... talked about it last week. Don't want to spend every call on admin!

<hadleybeeman> +1 to that :)

deirdrelee: so wary of spending too much time talking about operationstuff so if we can pin down the milestones today and then crack on with contnet between now and the f2f
... so for the BP Doc
... thanks to Newton for the timelines
... good to see some feedback on the BP doc too

<Caroline_> Bernadette asked me tell you that she had a last minute issue so she will not be able to join the call today.

newton: We have proposed https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/BP_Document_Schedule

Caroline_: We put on the list what we thought would be ideal
... and what we could accomplish
... most important is to think about each BP
... anything you have to flag or want to change
... we thought about the short term plan and then we can think about the longer one

<Zakim> cgueret, you wanted to speak about changes recently proposed

cgueret: Just to say that I sent a mail to the public-dwbp-comments list
... I was with 15 people yesterday and asked them for comments. I got a lot that I have passed on. I also have some printed versions with written annotations

deirdrelee: Thabnks Christophe

<Caroline_> thank you, cgueret!

<cgueret> ur welcome ;-)

deirdrelee: I think it would be interesting to talk about those. But on the time line - it see it doesn't include time for reviews and feedback such as we've just been offered by Christophe
... there's no reference to which organisations we're going to reach out to

<newton> We have this item "Review and make possible changes on the document considering community feedback"

deirdrelee: timelines around when we'll get and react to feedback

Caroline_: Actually we're thinking about group work. I've not looked at those specific comment yet
... we made the schedule thinking about the WG members, but we can certainly take the comments that we have
... but I think the long term goals are the important ones

<Zakim> phila, you wanted to talk about http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/open

We have a lot of open issues http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/open

<deirdrelee> .. something the work has to do is work through the issues

<deirdrelee> ... there's an awful lot of comments

<deirdrelee> ... need to work through these, as well as addressing other comments

annette_g: There were some suggestionbs for some new BPs, maybe in issues? I want to make sure they get schediled too

<Caroline_> +1 to work on the open issues. The idea to Run over each BP and review them until March 30 is to consider these open issues

deirdrelee: It's important that all this feedback we're getting is acted on

<Zakim> phila, you wanted to talk about comment tracking

<cgueret> +1 to open issues, would help tracking progress done on merging comments

<cgueret> phila: we have a tracking tools for comments which is not activated yet for this group

<cgueret> ... will take an action on this

<scribe> ACTION: Phil to investigate the comment tracker tool [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/03/06-dwbp-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-142 - Investigate the comment tracker tool [on Phil Archer - due 2015-03-13].

<RiccardoAlbertoni> +1 to consider the comment tracker

<AdrianoC> Hi all, we are here only in chat mode because the phone number +1.617.761.6200 is not answering. Does anyone have the same problem?

deirdrelee: You were saying Carol and Newton that you were thinking about it, but can you update the plan to show that you're planning to incororpate the comments

<scribe> ACTION: newton to work with Caroline to update the timeline to show when/how they'll integrate the feedback received [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/03/06-dwbp-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-143 - Work with caroline to update the timeline to show when/how they'll integrate the feedback received [on Newton Calegari - due 2015-03-13].

annette_g: You have 3 weeks where you say 'BP tests' - what are those tests? Are the same as the ones we already have in each BP?

Caroline_: The idea is to think about the tests
... do we need to change something?
... are they executable etc?
... What can we add, etc. Idea is to think about and document the tests

annette_g: I'm thinking that 3 weeks is a lot when we have so many issues to think about
... maybe we should split into groups and work in parallel?

newton: Nathalia and I are going to research on testing tools for BPs and this work could be done in parallel
... to adding new BPs etc.
... If you have idea for the tests, that would be helpful. Yaso is also looking at tests
... she can help us too.

deirdrelee: A more general question on timing. There's this focus on tests in the coming weeks, but in the context of the naturity of the doc as a whole and each BP, does it make sense to focu on the testing before the BP itself is mature?
... Some BPs need to be thought about, refined etc. Maybe that's the first before testing?
... or doing them in parallel
... but improvements of the actual BPs doesn't get lost

phila: +1 to Deirdre

newton: Yes, we could do it in parallel
... but I think the testing aspects are necessary too

deirdrelee: The purpose of the testing is to ensure that the BP can be implemengted in the real world

newton: And we'd like to make some examples to illustrate the BP

<hadleybeeman> +1 to deirdrelee from me too. Testing is critical, but time-consuming. We'll need to create tests that other people can run too. So maybe best to do that when we're sure what the tests need to will be?

newton: Bernadette was talking about finding examples

<annette_g> +1 to Deirdre

<antoine> +1

Caroline_: It's no problem for us to follow what the WG suggests

hadleybeeman: Just to expand on what I put in IRC. We need to make sure that everyone using our Recs can show that they have followed the BPs
... long term we do need tests and we need to be able to run those tests to establish whether there are implementations
... we need to go to people who are doing the things we're recommending to demo that they're doing it.

deirdrelee: And in terms of timing, should be be focussing on that in parallel?

hadleybeeman: I think it's useful to have it in mind but I also think we shouldn't put too much effort into writing tests for things that might change

<annette_g> +1 to Hadley

deirdrelee: I want to go to the other vocabs too and hear about those plans
... and then see how we can make best use of future calls
... is it one vocab per call, one BP per call... whatever, resolving the issues
... but to give us some context, can we hear from the vocab editors

<antoine> https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Data_quality_schedule

antoine: I had some discussions with Bart and worked on an informal action I had on creating the draft schedule ^^
... I think it matches what we discussed
... on the BP. Contrary to what's in there for the target dates, I had set aside some time to work on the BPs
... I think that should happen too
... We need help going through ther requirements and UCS

<deirdrelee> +1

antoine: same for the BPs.
... Then roughly one week before the f2f we'll try and gather these requirements and report to the group
... see if we have enough capacity
... then a week of discussion before the f2f so the WG can react to the requirements
... then the f2f can be where the group makes progress
... we were talking about whether the vocabs should be merged, do we have enough for 2 etc.
... the after the f2f we actually get on with defining gthe classes and properties. That would take about a month
... These are some actions - we'd need everyone to review the vocabs in June
... FPWD in mid-late June

phila: Likes the schedule, thanks antoine

<RiccardoAlbertoni> I like the schedule..

<cgueret> I can help in last week of March + April

antoine: We need to have names on the list but I don't want to make false expectations

deirdrelee: The schedule looks concrete. FPWD in early summer (northern hemisphere)
... so you havae a lot of f2f time on requirements and only after that getting into defining classes and properties

<RiccardoAlbertoni> +1 to deirdrelee

deirdrelee: will it make sense to have some f2f time specifically for discussing not just reqs but also starting to try and think about initial classes and properties
... so we'd be looking at concrete outputs during the f2f

antoine: Yes, that is a good point. First I'd say that when I mean reqs, I mean very concrete requirements
... like 'there should be a property that reflects X'
... it would be a vocab but it would be a long way towards it
... The 2nd point - you;re right that we should use the f2f for more than reqs. But I have doubts that we'll manage to do it

<estephan> +q

antoine: It looks as if we have a lot of time but in reality, there are dozens of open issues. On current speed of progress, I'm not envisioning there will be a lot of time to devote to writing the vocabs.

deirdrelee: Yep, I can see that reqs that are concerete like that, it makes sense, that's almost the vocab
... So maybe us chairs need to talk about the f2f agenda on our Tuesday call
... The last thing is, in terms of Friday meetings, how can they bets be used to best progress the quality vocab?

antoine: For a first step I think it will be useful to discuss either the use cases or what's in the BP doc that's relevant to the vocab
... maybe clarifying something

estephan: I just wanted to add something that we've talked about before. We have talked about the vocabs moving ahead independently, the f2f might be a good time to talk about where the 2 vocabs might intersect
... I'd like to propose that we picki up that discussion at this next f2f

antoine: As you may have seen in the schedule, the 2nd editor is referred to as '2nd editor' as Bart says he won't have the bandwidth to act as an eduitor/coordinator in the coming couple of months
... so maybe we should try and find another co-editor, so this is the call for hekpo

<Zakim> cgueret, you wanted to offer to replace Bart

cgueret: Yes I can work with Antoine on this document

phila: I note that they're both in the same city to :-)

<cgueret> indeed ;-)

<cgueret> we'll have plenty of F2F ^_^

<cgueret> :-D

deirdrelee: So you have my name down too to help out.

<estephan> https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Data_usage_schedule

data Usage Vocab

estephan: We've shared this schedule last week.
... WE see after April, an iterative evolution
... we're already behind scheduke asking for feedback by now
... Bernadette and I had conflicting schedules this week.
... so we're going to meet next Tuesday to discuss that
... We'll ask for agenda time when we need it, for example, we're likely to need some next week
... The scenarios help us to describe the basic requirements for the DUV
... in the Data usage doc, we should be able to draw from our use cases
... I'd alos like to say that although we may not mention certain use cases, we will look at them all
... March 20 we want to have the res available to ask the WG what you think
... and then by end March we want to be identifying classes etc.
... The BP doc certainly helped us think about that

<estephan> http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/data-shapes-primer/no-class-templates

estephan: ^^ And example of how to depict the vocabulary
... this doc has the ability to look at the vocab through JSON and Turtle

<adler1> can we add Data Discovery to the BP Document as a category of practices?

estephan: (press J for JSON, T for turtle)

<adler1> I am still collecting feedback from my IBM colleagues

phila: whispers to adler1 http://www.w3.org/TR/dwbp/#discovery

<adler1> :)

deirdrelee: I like the schedule. But I see that it's all on you and Bernadette. You're meeting outside these calls which emphasises the weight on your shoulders.
... and Bernadette is also editor of the BP doc. You shouldn't be carrying everything

estephan: The self-imposed pressure is that I found some projects I'm working on have a need for feedback on data quality. So I'm putting my feet to the fire for a reason :-)
... but of course we welcome help from everyone
... Sumit is on my project team so I know what he'sll be working on this

<RiccardoAlbertoni> yea I am curios ..

phila: I'm certainly interested in the DUV

estephan: It might worth Bernadette and I putting out a status report in the mailing list

deirdrelee: Couple of minutes left...
... We'll talk about the f2f agenda on the chairs call

How to use the Friday Calls

deirdrelee: Now that we have a clearish timeline for each of the different deliverables for all of us... we want to talk about the nitty gritty.
... what I suggest is that we dedicate half of the call for the next few weeks to the BPs, maybe looking at individual BPs
... we look at the open issues, the feedback we're getting and our own comments. Limit ourselves to half an hour

<estephan> RiccardoAlbertoni: if you are interested in participating in the weekly calls let me know :-)

deirdrelee: and then split the other half of the call to the 2 vocabs (equally)
... We shouldn't all feel the need to be on multiple calls each week for te one WG
... so we can focus on the content and resolving issues

<hadleybeeman> +1

phila: +1 from me deirdrelee

<estephan> +1

hadleybeeman: We can adapt it as needs be but let's start with that

<hadleybeeman> +1 to anything that helps people prepare for meetings.

deirdrelee: And it would help if the BP editors were prepared for each Friday meeting to say, right, this is the BP/issue we want to talk about this week

<Caroline_> ok, we can do that

estephan: I think that's a great idea. From the editors of the vocabs if we communicate to the Wg ahead of time what kinds of things we need help with
... the questions we'll have etc.

<Caroline_> ok

<RiccardoAlbertoni> Estephan: I'd like to .. unfortunately I am not sure I will have the time in the next two weeks.. please send in the mailing list some update and I'll check how I can contribute to the discussion

deirdrelee: And even if it's just looking through the issue list, maybe resolving 'these three issues' or whatever.

<MTCarrasco> bye

deirdrelee: The only other thing that came up was from the Data Activity Coordination Group

<estephan> RiccardoAlbertoni: ok I'll keep you in the loop, participate when you can

<RiccardoAlbertoni> estephan: Many Thanks! :)

deirdrelee: There is some feeling that we should/could be more prescriptive. e.g. CSVW are punting some of their stuff to this WG, or rather, hoping that we'll cover it

<Caroline_> thank you! Bye

<cgueret> thx!

<cgueret> bye

<RiccardoAlbertoni> thanks !

<CarlosIglesias> bye bye!

<nathalia> bye

<annette_g> bye all!

<AdrianoC> Thanks all, see you! Bye!

trackbot end meeting

- DRAFT -

Data on the Web Best Practices Working Group Teleconference

06 Mar 2015

Attendees

Contents

data Usage Vocab

How to use the Friday Calls

Summary of Action Items

Scribe.perl diagnostic output