11:44:56 RRSAgent has joined #dwbp 11:44:56 logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/04/13-dwbp-irc 11:44:58 RRSAgent, make logs 351 11:44:58 Zakim has joined #dwbp 11:45:00 Zakim, this will be DWBP 11:45:00 ok, trackbot; I see DATA_DWBP()8:00AM scheduled to start in 15 minutes 11:45:01 Meeting: Data on the Web Best Practices Working Group Teleconference 11:45:01 Date: 13 April 2015 11:48:50 RiccardoAlbertoni has joined #DWBP 11:57:23 antoine has joined #dwbp 11:57:57 Hi Antoine 11:58:19 zakim, code? 11:58:19 the conference code is 3927 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), phila 11:58:20 sitting in Phil's sunny conservatory :) Waiting for Austin team 11:58:35 DATA_DWBP()8:00AM has now started 11:58:42 +[IPcaller] 11:58:45 zakim, [ is Ipswich 11:58:45 +Ipswich; got it 11:58:55 zakim, Ipswich has deirdrelee, RiccardoAlbertoni 11:58:55 +deirdrelee, RiccardoAlbertoni; got it 11:59:05 zakim, ipswich has phila 11:59:05 +phila; got it 11:59:10 zakim, who is here? 11:59:10 On the phone I see Ipswich 11:59:12 Ipswich has phila 11:59:12 On IRC I see antoine, RiccardoAlbertoni, Zakim, RRSAgent, deirdrelee, phila, rhiaro, hadleybeeman, trackbot 12:00:28 Makx_Dekkers has joined #dwbp 12:00:52 +[IPcaller] 12:01:03 zakim, IPcaller is me 12:01:03 +antoine; got it 12:01:26 +HadleyBeeman 12:02:42 zakim, who is here? 12:02:42 On the phone I see Ipswich, antoine, HadleyBeeman 12:02:44 Ipswich has phila 12:02:44 On IRC I see Makx_Dekkers, antoine, RiccardoAlbertoni, Zakim, RRSAgent, deirdrelee, phila, rhiaro, hadleybeeman, trackbot 12:03:30 i will survive don't worry :) 12:04:05 -Ipswich 12:04:18 +[IPcaller] 12:04:48 zakim ipcaler is me 12:05:24 zakim, ipcaller is me 12:05:24 +Makx_Dekkers; got it 12:06:05 deirdrelee phila RiccardoAlbertoni — we seem to have lost you? 12:07:39 deirdreleee has joined #dwbp 12:08:15 deirdrelee_ has joined #dwbp 12:08:32 phila_ has joined #dwbp 12:08:33 Phil's rewiring his house... 12:08:48 austincomputer has joined #dwbp 12:08:51 zakim, who is here? 12:08:51 On the phone I see antoine, HadleyBeeman, Makx_Dekkers 12:08:53 On IRC I see austincomputer, phila_, deirdrelee_, Makx_Dekkers, antoine, RiccardoAlbertoni, Zakim, RRSAgent, deirdrelee, phila, rhiaro, hadleybeeman, trackbot 12:09:08 Hi all, just getting on line with our austin AV system 12:09:20 Hi AustinComputer! 12:09:21 (this is Eric S) 12:09:24 +[IPcaller] 12:09:28 :-) 12:09:30 zakim, [ is Ipswich 12:09:30 +Ipswich; got it 12:10:13 Ok everyone, we have a live zakim line and we will have skype online too so that you can see us :) 12:10:24 my skype id is deirdrelee 12:10:39 riccardoAlbertoni has joined #DWBP 12:12:13 RRSAgent, make logs public 12:12:50 zakim, Ipswich has deirdrelee, riccardoAlbertoni, phila 12:12:50 +deirdrelee, riccardoAlbertoni, phila; got it 12:12:54 zakim, who is here? 12:12:54 On the phone I see antoine, HadleyBeeman, Makx_Dekkers, Ipswich 12:12:56 Ipswich has deirdrelee, riccardoAlbertoni, phila 12:12:56 On IRC I see riccardoAlbertoni, austincomputer, phila, deirdrelee, Makx_Dekkers, antoine, Zakim, RRSAgent, rhiaro, hadleybeeman, trackbot 12:17:26 ericstephan has joined #dwbp 12:17:39 laufer has joined #dwbp 12:17:55 Good morningish everyone 12:17:59 it's meant to 12:18:00 Ig_Bittencourt has joined #dwbp 12:18:16 good morning/afternoon ericstephan 12:19:04 Can you hear ipswich? 12:19:11 good morning/afternoon all 12:19:30 Good day would be more appropriate I guess :-) 12:20:11 newton has joined #dwbp 12:20:13 +[IPcaller] 12:20:38 BernadetteLoscio has joined #dwbp 12:22:04 ericphb@gmail.com 12:23:13 Gisele has joined #dwbp 12:23:59 flavio has joined #dwbp 12:24:47 yaso has joined #dwbp 12:26:36 flavio has joined #dwbp 12:27:15 -[IPcaller] 12:27:51 annette_g has joined #dwbp 12:28:40 https://plus.google.com/hangouts/_/g4vna23i4mz4l6doovo34sysm4a 12:30:15 zakim, who is here? 12:30:15 On the phone I see antoine, HadleyBeeman, Makx_Dekkers, Ipswich 12:30:17 Ipswich has deirdrelee, riccardoAlbertoni, phila 12:30:17 On IRC I see annette_g, flavio, yaso, Gisele, BernadetteLoscio, newton, Ig_Bittencourt, laufer, ericstephan, riccardoAlbertoni, austincomputer, phila, deirdrelee, Makx_Dekkers, 12:30:17 ... antoine, Zakim, RRSAgent, rhiaro, hadleybeeman, trackbot 12:30:30 We've lost Austin on Zakim 12:30:59 antoine, we're only trying to use the hangout for video 12:31:08 Hi phila we switched over to google chat 12:31:28 Yeah, Eric, but we have Antoine and Makx on zakim... 12:32:10 ok... 12:32:19 just a sec... 12:33:06 Reconnecting... 12:33:26 +[IPcaller] 12:33:34 zakim, [ is Austin 12:33:34 +Austin; got it 12:34:14 My only concern is Antoine and Makx being able to hear everyone else, Antoine and Makx let us know if you can't hear Austin 12:34:43 i cant hear austin 12:35:00 lots of echo 12:35:06 I can hear Ipswich and Austin only when one person speaks 12:35:07 -Austin 12:35:36 i can hear you 12:35:41 +ericstephan 12:35:43 -ericstephan 12:36:05 +ericstephan 12:37:31 connecting the old fashioned way by iphone 12:39:16 yes it is clear 12:39:35 +[IPcaller] 12:39:39 Start agenda with BP, after one hour, go back to quality vocab discussion, when makx and antoine are present, then return to bp 12:39:46 zakim, ipcaller is BernadetteLoscio 12:39:46 +BernadetteLoscio; got it 12:40:37 +[IPcaller] 12:40:42 -ericstephan 12:40:56 ... 12:40:58 -Ipswich 12:41:05 Zakim, IPcaller is austincomputer 12:41:05 +austincomputer; got it 12:41:45 Add your name to scribe for one hour: https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/April_2015_F2F 12:42:23 +[IPcaller] 12:42:48 zakim, [ is Ipswich 12:42:48 +Ipswich; got it 12:42:50 we just made a new decoration of the room 12:43:09 yaso, you're redecorating? :) 12:43:12 zakim, Ipswich has riccardoAlbertoni, deirdrelee, phila 12:43:12 +riccardoAlbertoni, deirdrelee, phila; got it 12:43:17 zakim, who is here? 12:43:17 On the phone I see antoine, HadleyBeeman, Makx_Dekkers, BernadetteLoscio, austincomputer, Ipswich 12:43:19 Ipswich has riccardoAlbertoni, deirdrelee, phila 12:43:19 On IRC I see annette_g, flavio, yaso, Gisele, BernadetteLoscio, newton, Ig_Bittencourt, laufer, ericstephan, riccardoAlbertoni, austincomputer, phila, deirdrelee, Makx_Dekkers, 12:43:19 ... antoine, Zakim, RRSAgent, rhiaro, hadleybeeman, trackbot 12:43:50 hadleybeeman: no, It was Summit idea :) 12:44:19 @yaso: that's lovely :) 12:45:37 Please add name to scribe before we start!! 12:45:48 no austin team volunteers yet.... 12:46:31 I can scribe 12:47:03 Should I sign up for 9:00? 12:47:54 zakim, who is here? 12:47:54 On the phone I see antoine, HadleyBeeman, Makx_Dekkers, BernadetteLoscio, austincomputer, Ipswich 12:47:56 Ipswich has riccardoAlbertoni, deirdrelee, phila 12:47:56 On IRC I see annette_g, flavio, yaso, Gisele, BernadetteLoscio, newton, Ig_Bittencourt, laufer, ericstephan, riccardoAlbertoni, austincomputer, phila, deirdrelee, Makx_Dekkers, 12:47:56 ... antoine, Zakim, RRSAgent, rhiaro, hadleybeeman, trackbot 12:50:02 Can Austin hear Ipswich? 12:50:17 hi phil! 12:50:29 Can you hear us BernadetteLoscio? 12:50:31 ericstephan BernadetteLoscio can you hear us on the phone? 12:50:33 yes 12:50:35 not yet, phil 12:50:35 i can hera 12:50:36 hear 12:50:50 Eric is hooking up the hangout 12:51:22 Thanks annette_g 12:51:34 -austincomputer 12:51:51 we have hi-lo tech in this f2f 12:51:56 While we're waiting for Austin to get on the phone... please sign up for an hour to scribe! https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/April_2015_F2F#Agenda 12:53:09 zakim, austincomputer has annette_g, laufer, Ig_Bittencourt, flavio, newton, ericstephan, yaso, BernadetteLoscio 12:53:09 sorry, BernadetteLoscio, I do not recognize a party named 'austincomputer' 12:54:12 Gisele 12:54:28 zakim, BernadetteLoscio has annette_g, laufer, Ig_Bittencourt, flavio, newton, ericstephan, yaso, Newton, Gisele, Sumit 12:54:28 +annette_g, laufer, Ig_Bittencourt, flavio, newton, ericstephan, yaso, Newton, Gisele, Sumit; got it 12:54:34 zakim, who is here? 12:54:35 On the phone I see antoine, HadleyBeeman, Makx_Dekkers, BernadetteLoscio, Ipswich 12:54:37 BernadetteLoscio has annette_g, laufer, Ig_Bittencourt, flavio, newton, ericstephan, yaso, Newton, Gisele, Sumit 12:54:37 Ipswich has riccardoAlbertoni, deirdrelee, phila 12:54:37 On IRC I see annette_g, flavio, yaso, Gisele, BernadetteLoscio, newton, Ig_Bittencourt, laufer, ericstephan, riccardoAlbertoni, austincomputer, phila, deirdrelee, Makx_Dekkers, 12:54:38 ... antoine, Zakim, RRSAgent, rhiaro, hadleybeeman, trackbot 12:54:56 scribe: hadleybeeman 12:54:58 zakim, list participants 12:54:58 As of this point the attendees have been deirdrelee, RiccardoAlbertoni, phila, antoine, HadleyBeeman, Makx_Dekkers, Austin, ericstephan, austincomputer, [IPcaller], annette_g, 12:55:01 ... laufer, Ig_Bittencourt, flavio, newton, yaso, Gisele, Sumit 12:55:52 lewis is out of the room for an hour or so 12:56:35 +[IPcaller] 12:56:41 yes :):):) 12:56:56 -BernadetteLoscio 12:57:13 One hour! 12:57:13 zakim, [ is Austin 12:57:13 +Austin; got it 12:57:23 SumitPurohit has joined #DWBP 12:57:47 zakim, Austin has annette_g, laufer, Ig_Bittencourt, flavio, newton, ericstephan, yaso, BernadetteLoscio, SumitPurohit, newton, Gisele 12:57:47 +annette_g, laufer, Ig_Bittencourt, flavio, newton, ericstephan, yaso, BernadetteLoscio, SumitPurohit, newton, Gisele; got it 12:58:03 going to be disconnecting voice for a while 12:58:18 -Makx_Dekkers 12:58:24 topic: Best Practices (for one hour) 12:58:34 chair: deirdrelee 12:58:51 deirdrelee: What we need from this meeting: 12:59:02 Meeting: DWBP Face to Face 3, Day 1 12:59:13 regrets+ Steve 12:59:25 agenda: https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/April_2015_F2F#Agenda 12:59:37 ... look at our three deliverables. We need a clear plan for the next draft of publication. We hope to have a new version of each of those by one month from now, beginning of May. 12:59:40 zakim, who is noisy? 12:59:52 hadleybeeman, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Ipswich (16%), Austin (36%) 12:59:58 deirdrelee: We've been building toward that. We want to get rid of all issues. 13:00:05 zakim, mute austin 13:00:05 Austin should now be muted 13:01:09 deirdrelee: Goal 1: close all issues. 2: set the actions for and 3. clear plan of milestones and dates to publish the next working drafts by early May. 13:01:36 ... I put the issues together in groups https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1aqkh8jJCyHn0GaPk3Xh277b5L1bQjfwDHukmWUTWryg/edit 13:01:46 ... 15 minutes maximum per issue, as we agreed. 13:02:47 ... At the end of tomorrow, we can go back to ones that may be still open. But for each issue, we read it, discuss any points. Please be as short as you can, so everyone can discuss it. At the end, a concrete decisions of how to resolve this issue and close it. 13:03:30 ... Handing over to Bernadette, Caroline and Newton to discuss these issues. I'll remind you when we have 10 minutes left and 15 minutes left, for each issue. 13:03:35 I think we're looking at this version http://bernafarias.github.io/dwbp/bp.html in Berna's GH repo 13:03:37 Issue-76? 13:03:37 Issue-76 -- What advice do we give about publishing metadata so that we identify the intended outcome without making assumptions that maybe false? -- open 13:03:37 http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/76 13:03:45 And the open issues are listed at https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/open 13:03:58 zakim, unmute austin 13:03:58 Austin should no longer be muted 13:03:59 zakim, unmute austincomputer 13:04:00 sorry, phila, I do not know which phone connection belongs to austincomputer 13:04:07 zakim, austin is austincomputer 13:04:07 +austincomputer; got it 13:04:07 Zakim, unmute Austin 13:04:08 austincomputer was not muted, newton 13:05:08 zakim, who is noisy? 13:05:19 hadleybeeman, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Ipswich (12%), austincomputer (52%) 13:05:21 issue-76? 13:05:21 issue-76 -- What advice do we give about publishing metadata so that we identify the intended outcome without making assumptions that maybe false? -- open 13:05:21 http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/76 13:05:36 zakim, mute ipswich 13:05:36 Ipswich should now be muted 13:05:47 BernadetteLoscio: 13:05:55 zakim, who is on the phone? 13:05:55 On the phone I see antoine, HadleyBeeman, Ipswich (muted), austincomputer 13:05:57 austincomputer has annette_g, laufer, Ig_Bittencourt, flavio, newton, ericstephan, yaso, BernadetteLoscio, SumitPurohit, newton, Gisele 13:05:57 Ipswich has riccardoAlbertoni, deirdrelee, phila 13:06:05 ...This issue was opened in the last f2f. For me, it's not clear. Hadley opened it. 13:06:50 Bernadette, there is echo 13:07:10 In the issue, there is a link to the original discussion: http://www.w3.org/2014/10/31-dwbp-irc#T22-37-06 13:08:01 zakim, who is noisy? 13:08:12 antoine, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: austincomputer (67%) 13:08:19 zakim, unmute ipswich 13:08:19 Ipswich should no longer be muted 13:08:23 gguizzardi has joined #DWBP 13:08:38 Hadleybeeman: I think we are already addressing this. It's about making sure we don't make assumptions about the type of data that restricts what might be published. 13:08:45 gguizzardi has joined #DWBP 13:09:16 BernadetteLoscio: We are doing this. We are defining metadata without thinking about the data it's referring to. 13:09:29 ... can we close this issue? 13:09:32 hadleybeeman: Yes 13:09:37 close issue-76 13:09:37 Closed issue-76. 13:09:47 RRSAgent, pointer? 13:09:47 See http://www.w3.org/2015/04/13-dwbp-irc#T13-09-47 13:10:04 deirdrelee: We will be using the queuing system, as usual. Put yourself on the queue if you want to talk. 13:10:05 RESOLUTION: Close issue 76 13:10:13 ... Move on to issue 79 13:10:19 RESOLVED: Close issue 76 13:10:35 Issue-79? 13:10:35 Issue-79 -- Discovery vs structural metadata -- open 13:10:35 http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/79 13:10:44 -antoine 13:11:22 WE don't have any BPs about structural metadata 13:11:28 s/WE/we/ 13:11:30 BernadetteLoscio: We are going to use DCAT vocabulary. But in structured metadata, we don't have a best practice right now for it. I think discovery of metadata is different from structured metadata. 13:11:50 ...I'm not sure, we could have a best practice that structured metadata should be available. 13:11:51 q+ to talk about CSVW and VoID 13:11:57 q+ 13:12:00 + +31.20.420.aaaa 13:12:16 +[IPcaller] 13:12:17 q? 13:12:18 - +31.20.420.aaaa 13:12:30 ...In some case, I'm not sure if it's helpful to provide structured metadata. 13:13:53 ack me 13:13:53 phila, you wanted to talk about CSVW and VoID 13:13:58 deirdrelee: reminds eveyrone to use the queue on zakim 13:13:59 q+ 13:14:16 +[IPcaller.a] 13:14:18 -> https://www.w3.org/2013/csvw/wiki/Main_Page CSVW home page 13:14:18 q+ 13:14:19 phila: Re structured metadata: We have two examples to point to. 13:14:29 zakim, IPcaller.a is me 13:14:29 +antoine; got it 13:14:34 ...The CSV working group is publishing a stable version of this document this week. 13:14:46 ...They're pretty much done. 13:14:56 -> http://www.w3.org/TR/void/ VoID 13:15:04 ...Other one is VoID, which has been around a while 13:15:14 ...An established way of describing an RDF dataset. 13:15:22 ...For XML, you'd publish the schema. 13:15:42 ...Any list we give would always be incomplete. I suspect annette_g and ericstephan would give us examples from NetCDF, etc. 13:15:56 ...I think we do need to talk about structured metadata, and we can give examples on how. 13:16:05 keyboard noise 13:16:08 we are hearing phil typing 13:16:25 s/phil/hadley/ 13:16:30 ack laufer 13:16:32 deirdrelee: WE have a best practice on discovery, structured metadata. so you're saying yes. 13:17:24 +ericstephan 13:17:24 :( 13:17:39 -ericstephan 13:17:52 laufer: I think we have discovery as one thing. For discovery, people may want to choose a lot of metadata. 13:18:07 ... Descriptions, version, structure. We don't know what they'll choose. 13:18:38 ...Structured metadata is one kind of metadata. We have to talk about it giving it. I don't think VoID is structured metadata; it's equivalent to DCAT. 13:18:43 +1 to laufer comment about VoID. 13:18:48 ...But a data dictionary would be structure. 13:19:19 ...We should talk about someone giving XML schema, or a data dictionary from a relational database. But I think we need a specific best practice saying that someone 13:19:41 ...If you don't understand the structure, you don't understand the dataset. 13:19:42 q? 13:19:54 ack laufer 13:20:11 annette_g: Bernadette mentioned that files like audio files may not have a structure and it could be difficult to require that for people. 13:20:39 ...My thought is that it has a linear structure in it. You just also need to document that structure 13:20:54 -[IPcaller] 13:21:09 deirdrelee: we're talking about the structure of the metadata, not the data itself. 13:21:17 ... also, as discussed on Friday, file formats are out of scope. 13:21:28 ...Okay to give as examples, but not in the scope of the group. 13:21:31 +[IPcaller] 13:21:36 ...annette_g, is that okay here? 13:21:46 i think we are talking about structural metadata not about structured metadata 13:22:01 annette_g: The idea is that there is metadata for the structure of the data. 13:22:16 metadata about the structure of the dataset 13:22:21 yes! 13:22:21 q? 13:22:28 ack annette_g 13:22:29 deirdrelee: I think we all agree that there should be an agreement that says the structure of the actual data should be one of the metadata values. 13:23:10 BernadetteLoscio: I think we agree we should provide info re the structure of the data. It will depend on the data format. We should have a best practice that says structural metadata should be provided whenever possible. 13:23:23 ...metadata to describe the structure of the data. 13:23:45 deirdrelee: Close the issue then and create an action for the BP editors to add a BP for structural metadata 13:23:56 close action-79 13:23:56 Closed action-79. 13:24:01 close issue-79 13:24:01 Closed issue-79. 13:24:01 close issue 79 13:24:14 action: bernadette to to add a BP for structural metadata 13:24:14 Created ACTION-147 - to add a bp for structural metadata [on Bernadette Farias Loscio - due 2015-04-20]. 13:24:17 q+ 13:24:21 zakim, pointer? 13:24:21 I don't understand your question, hadleybeeman. 13:24:27 rrsagent pointer? 13:24:32 rrsagent, pointer? 13:24:32 See http://www.w3.org/2015/04/13-dwbp-irc#T13-24-32 13:24:55 Ig_Bittencourt: For every BP we are proposing, should we define a use case? 13:25:20 BernadetteLoscio: I think we should start with the use case/requirement that we have. If we don't find one, then we need a new one. 13:25:50 issue-84? 13:25:50 issue-84 -- Should DCAT include a pointer to a mirror/back up? -- open 13:25:50 http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/84 13:26:12 RESOLVED: Close issue 79. ACtion on BP editors to add BO for structural metadata 13:26:41 BernadetteLoscio: Steve raised this. Anyone else know about it? 13:27:08 phila: I don't know why steve raised it, but I do have an answer. I would tell Steve that a mirror is another distribution, which is already accommodated in DCAT 13:27:21 deirdrelee: Is this about preservation and archiving? Backups? 13:27:26 q? 13:27:30 ack BernadetteLoscio r 13:27:35 ack Ig_Bittencourt 13:27:45 q? 13:27:49 ack BernadetteLoscio 13:27:50 zakim, who is making noise 13:27:50 I don't understand 'who is making noise', ericstephan 13:28:12 zakim, who is noisy? 13:28:12 zakim, who is speaking? 13:28:22 hadleybeeman, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Ipswich (41%), antoine (4%), HadleyBeeman (4%), austincomputer (54%), [IPcaller] (9%) 13:28:31 deirdrelee: So let's close this issue. 13:28:32 ericstephan, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Ipswich (53%), antoine (50%), HadleyBeeman (9%), austincomputer (35%), [IPcaller] (9%) 13:28:34 close issue-84 13:28:34 Closed issue-84. 13:28:37 RESOLVED: CLOSE ISSUE-84 13:28:37 issue-136? 13:28:37 issue-136 -- Proposal for Metadata BP -- open 13:28:37 http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/136 13:29:00 BernadetteLoscio: I think we should discuss the proposal we have now. 13:29:29 ...We were saying that metadata should be available, machine-readable and to document what metadata we are using, self-documented metadata, and reuse of terms. 13:29:35 q? 13:30:02 ...We now have 2 best practices for metadata. 1) general, providing metadata, which includes the three best practices at the top, and a 2) which is about the others. 13:30:04 http://bernafarias.github.io/dwbp/bp.html 13:30:14 ...This is our new proposal on metadata best practices. 13:30:51 ...I'd also like to discuss another ideal. Now we have two BPs on metadata. 13:31:10 -[IPcaller] 13:31:18 http://bernafarias.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#DocumentMetadata 13:31:55 zakim, who is talking? 13:32:01 q+ 13:32:05 hadleybeeman, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Ipswich (13%), antoine (11%), austincomputer (89%) 13:32:22 ...The idea of the first best practice was that metadata should be provided in human-readable and machine readable forms. 13:32:22 this sounds complex: isn't all this about merging old BP1 and BP2 into a new BP2, and keeping old BP3 as such (except its number)? 13:32:44 ...But I was thinking about the DCAT vocab, and how we agreed to use the def of dataset provided by DCAT 13:33:01 ...Then, the metadata should be a description of the dataset based on the DCAT definition. 13:33:14 ...We have properties for discovery, versioning, etc., which are different. 13:33:36 +[IPcaller] 13:33:38 ...In my opinion, "provide metadata" should be "provide a description of the dataset according to the DCAT vocabulary", if we agree we will use the defintions in DCAT 13:33:40 +1 to saying 'provide a description of the dataset using the terms from DCAT' 13:34:05 ...For the human-readable property, I propose to extend DCAT with a new property. 13:34:21 q+ 13:34:29 ...There we have dataset descriptions with all the topics we want to cover in our different types of metadata. 13:34:51 q+ to suggest that dcat:landingPage *might* do what Berna is talking about 13:34:54 Perhaps, to this human-readable, we could use owl:seeAlso 13:34:54 ...In each one of the specific best practices that we have, we want to explain some properties of the definition to give info about discovery. 13:35:00 q? 13:35:04 ...In the implementation, we can give examples, 13:35:52 q? 13:35:53 +1 to BernadetteLoscio 13:36:04 ack ericstephan 13:36:26 +q 13:36:42 ericstephan: I'm finding, in the Data Usage vocab work, that it's easy to look at standards terms (like W3C) to use. But when we're looking at terms used by other communities — it's hard to determine what is standard. 13:37:01 ...It's almost like we need metrics for one person in the world, a speciality. 13:37:41 ...It's a problem in how people define standards. There are other vocaburalies out there too. Can we use the best practices to help people work out if their own vocabularies are standard or just made up by one person? 13:37:44 q+ 13:37:52 ack laufer 13:38:22 laufer: I think we have to talk about DCAT, but as ericstephan said, we don't know. We know we have a minimum of types of metadata. 13:38:45 ...But each community will have its own, which is important to them. We have the example of CLS community, which Phila gave. 13:39:02 ...We'll have lots of examples of how to describe datasets, in different communities. 13:39:18 ...We can say that we have a minimum, and that we are supporting DCAT as the minimum. 13:39:20 q+ to suggest that publishers do due diligence to determine what is standard 13:40:07 deirdrelee: Is this similar to what we did with scope, that we don't pick a particular format to discuss. But, phila — do we have to refer to W3C standards? 13:40:12 ack me 13:40:12 phila, you wanted to suggest that dcat:landingPage *might* do what Berna is talking about 13:40:21 s/CLS/HCLS/ 13:41:10 phila: We're now talking about 'what is a standard'. What a community decides they're going to do. A group of people hacking together once a week, a government choosing something with international recognition. RSS is not a standard, robots.txt is not a standard. 13:41:22 GeoJSON isn't a standard, but often used. 13:41:49 http://www.w3.org/TR/ld-bp/#vocabulary-creation 13:41:56 phila: The danger is that you are so general that yu don't give actionable advice. Where we have a clear spec we can point to, we can give advice on what you need to look for 13:42:25 ... And you can say: "for this BP, use DCAT unless you have a reason not to." "Comply or explain" is more useful and actionable and testable. 13:42:37 q- 13:42:40 +1 Phil 13:42:44 +1 Phil 13:42:48 ...It's okay to give people an out, a way to decide not to follow the advice. But it helps to tell people what we think they should do. 13:42:49 +1 13:42:55 +q 13:43:01 BernadetteLoscio: I agree with PhilA. We need something more concrete to work with. 13:43:09 Folks, just to be clear, we should differentiate between "de facto" standards and formal standards. Just for the sake of clarity. Formally speaking, standards are the things that are produced by standardization bodies 13:43:12 q+ to talk about scope 13:43:19 ack BernadetteLoscio 13:43:20 ...Maybe when we say "provide metadata", it should be "provide a description for the dataset" 13:43:26 q+ to suggest that dcat:landingPage *might* be the human readable description 13:43:30 formally speaking, "de facto" standards are not standards 13:43:52 okay 13:43:59 ...We could say, "You are free to use other vocabularies for dataset description. But we propose W3C's DCAT. 13:44:02 and, of course, there are things that are not even "de facto" standards, they are just "frequently used" 13:44:03 scribe: annette_g 13:44:18 np 13:44:57 BernadetteLoscio: what is data? datasets? we need to see which BP applies to data itself or content of dataset. Maybe "data" is too general 13:45:02 -HadleyBeeman 13:45:07 q+ 13:45:14 q- 13:45:22 BernadetteLoscio: we need a concrete definition 13:45:30 q+ 13:45:52 zakim, close queue 13:45:52 ok, phila, the speaker queue is closed 13:45:58 zakim, next 13:45:58 I don't understand 'next', phila 13:46:04 ack next 13:46:04 http://bernafarias.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#ShareOpenVocabularies 13:46:07 Ig_Bittencourt: re standards and vocabs, we already have BP 15 13:46:33 assessment is hard 13:46:55 maybe after we find vocabularies, we can do the assessment 13:47:05 we could extend DCAT 13:47:29 q+ 13:47:32 ack SumitPurohit 13:47:36 Nice link Ig_Bittencourt, okfn has a vocabulary for assessing vocab stability I'll try to find it 13:47:40 oh 13:48:25 Nice ericstephan, perhaps it could be put also in the indication of BP15. 13:48:31 SumitPurohit: agrees with Phil and BernadetteLoscio in saying ppl should use DCAT, but be can also show alternative to use something else. A concrete example would be good. 13:48:51 +1 to sumit 13:48:51 +1 to giving examples 13:48:51 We should give that example in our BP 13:49:04 BernadetteLoscio: agrees with Sumit 13:49:04 +1 to SumitPurohit and BernadetteLoscio 13:49:13 ack deirdrelee 13:49:13 deirdrelee, you wanted to talk about scope 13:49:42 deirdrelee: summarizes that we want to include DCAT by name and also other options 13:49:54 +1 to name dcat and be open 13:50:00 PROPOSAL: That we include concrete standards from W3C but that we leave it open for other standards to be used as well 13:50:10 s/PROPOSAL/PROPOSED/ 13:50:32 q- 13:50:43 BernadetteLoscio: this doesn't close the issue 13:50:51 we still need to talk about structured metadata 13:52:08 I'm happy to support the editors' choices. When I read it, if I don't like it, I'll say 13:52:17 BernadetteLoscio: should we keep the metadata BPs as they are now, or have one type of metadata link to the other? 13:52:28 q? 13:52:29 +1 13:52:33 q- BernadetteLoscio 13:52:39 Folks, sorry for insisting on this rather picky issue, but something like this "Is it really an error if a standard vocabulary was not used? How people will know which vocabularies should be used?" is not really meaningful unless we have a precise definition of what we mean by standard 13:52:40 +1 13:52:45 +1 13:52:51 +1 13:52:53 +1 13:52:59 +1 13:53:01 +1 13:53:08 +1 13:53:08 not meeting a best practice is not an error 13:53:13 muffled audio 13:53:14 zakim, open the queue 13:53:14 ok, phila, the speaker queue is open 13:54:02 q+ to make a proposal about defn of standards 13:54:04 +1 13:54:15 who is speaking now? 13:54:20 why don't we just agree that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical_standard is ok? And yes it's vague but the world is such. 13:54:27 +1 13:54:56 gguizzardi: need a definition of what it means to be standard 13:55:15 RESOLVED: That we include concrete standards from W3C but that we leave it open for other standards to be used as well 13:55:22 q? 13:55:48 +1 to the proposal 13:56:21 +1 to the proposal 13:56:25 http://bernafarias.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#ShareOpenVocabularies 13:56:32 ack me 13:56:32 phila, you wanted to make a proposal about defn of standards 13:56:38 not this 13:56:47 off topic 13:56:53 http://bernafarias.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#DocumentMetadata 13:56:57 we have 02 general best practices BP1 and BP2 13:57:02 +1 to having a definition in the glossary 13:57:08 and specific BP for each type of metadata 13:57:27 action: Yaso to include a definition of 'a standard' in the glossary 13:57:28 Created ACTION-148 - Include a definition of 'a standard' in the glossary [on Yaso Córdova - due 2015-04-20]. 13:57:42 deirdrelee: asks yaso if it's okay to add to the glossary our definition of standard 13:57:46 yaso: yes 13:57:46 The glossary is here, just commited 13:57:47 https://github.com/w3c/dwbp/blob/gh-pages/glossary.html 13:58:18 BernadetteLoscio: we should update the glossary in an incremental way, so we don't have to do it all last minute 13:58:56 -> http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/glossary.html The glossary as HTML page 13:59:06 laufer: communities decide to use a standard as a de facto thing. They choose what they think is best at that moment. It's a kind of "light standard" 13:59:25 for info the wikipedia def mentioned de facto standards 13:59:50 my proposal is to keep the current organization of BP metadata section: two general best practices (provide metadata and use standard terms) and specific BP for specific types of metadata 14:00:19 Yes, Antoine, but we are putting together Formal Standards, "light standards", community conventions, de facto standards and putting it all together under the same term. The point is that we are recommending BPs to other people that cannot be sure if something is "light" standard enough to be consider a case of following the BP in question 14:00:28 Provide metadata 14:00:38 Use standard terms to define metadata 14:00:48 http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#DocumentMetadata and http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#ProvideMetadataMachine 14:00:57 Proposed: to keep the current organization of BP metadata section: two general best practices (provide metadata and use standard terms) and specific BP for specific types of metadata 14:00:58 I made comments at the commit. https://github.com/w3c/dwbp/commit/7bc41017a8a39cc766c920ba791ec43d0def8594 - but we can make it as issues, or new commits with suggestions. 14:01:02 q+ 14:01:22 ack annette_g 14:01:25 ack ant 14:01:46 q? 14:01:55 PROPOSED: that we use two general metadata best practices, one to say that people should provide metadata and one to say to use standard terms, and then to provide other BPs for specific metadata. 14:02:25 I'm looking at http://www.w3.org/TR/dwbp/#metadata 14:02:53 antoine: what about the third one? 14:03:12 hi gguizzardi, but if we basically provide in the glossary what we are meant by standard, them it could be enough. 14:03:39 Sure. I am fine with that 14:03:41 +1 14:03:51 q 14:03:56 q? 14:03:58 q+ 14:04:06 ack antoine 14:04:12 great gguizzardi 14:04:28 +1 14:04:29 +1 14:05:02 http://bernafarias.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#DocumentMetadata 14:05:02 antoine: was referring to the older version of the BPs 14:06:32 action: Lee to include the standard resolution in the scope page on the wiki 14:06:33 'Lee' is an ambiguous username. Please try a different identifier, such as family name or username (e.g., dlee8, klee5). 14:06:43 action: Deirdre to include the standard resolution in the scope page on the wiki 14:06:43 Created ACTION-149 - Include the standard resolution in the scope page on the wiki [on Deirdre Lee - due 2015-04-20]. 14:06:48 antoine: so, the proposal is to just publish 1 and 2 under metadata 14:07:01 should we try voting again? 14:07:26 BernadetteLoscio: some people didn't agree that the human and machine readable should be separate BPs 14:08:10 BernadetteLoscio: so, if we accept this proposal, we resolve the issue 14:08:41 PROPOSED: that we use two general metadata best practices, one to say that people should provide metadata and one to say to use standard terms, and then to provide other BPs for specific metadata. 14:08:48 +1 14:08:52 +1 14:08:53 +1 14:08:59 +1 14:08:59 +1 14:09:00 1 14:09:01 +1 14:09:02 +1 14:09:03 +1 14:09:07 +1 14:09:10 +1 14:09:11 s/1/+1/ 14:09:16 RESOLVED: that we use two general metadata best practices, one to say that people should provide metadata and one to say to use standard terms, and then to provide other BPs for specific metadata. 14:09:27 woo hoo! 14:09:29 +1 14:09:32 PROPOSED: The the current structure is fine 14:09:34 http://bernafarias.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#DocumentMetadata 14:09:37 +1 to woo hoo! 14:09:42 +1 14:09:43 +1 14:09:43 +1 14:09:58 PROPOSED: The the structure at http://bernafarias.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#DocumentMetadata on 2015-04-13 is fine 14:09:59 +1 14:09:59 +1 14:10:08 +1 14:10:09 RESOLVED: The the structure at http://bernafarias.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#DocumentMetadata on 2015-04-13 is fine 14:10:10 +1 14:10:11 http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/136 14:10:43 issue-136? 14:10:43 issue-136 -- Proposal for Metadata BP -- open 14:10:43 http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/136 14:11:01 close close close 14:11:02 close issue-136 14:11:05 Closed issue-136. 14:11:05 :-) 14:11:30 issue-139? 14:11:30 issue-139 -- Suggests additional content for BP1 implementation -- open 14:11:30 http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/139 14:11:35 +1 but after that someone will have to explain me what we've resolved. the structure of http://bernafarias.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#metadata is the same as http://www.w3.org/TR/2015/WD-dwbp-20150224/#metadata 14:11:39 BernadetteLoscio: issue 139 14:12:11 is from a really old version of the doc. can we close? 14:12:32 Yes 14:12:40 close issue-139 14:12:41 Closed issue-139. 14:12:41 q? 14:12:55 issue-147? 14:12:55 issue-147 -- We should differentiate a metadata document from documenting metadata (meta metadata) -- open 14:12:55 http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/147 14:12:56 RESOLVED: close 139 as new teplate overrides it. 14:13:36 +[IPcaller.a] 14:13:40 Ig_Bittencourt: Vocab status that I mentioned earlier: http://lov.okfn.org/dataset/lov/vocabs/vs 14:13:50 clcloclose 14:13:54 BernadetteLoscio: I think we solved this with the new version 14:14:03 laufer: yes 14:14:04 zakim, ipcaller.a is me 14:14:04 +Makx_Dekkers; got it 14:14:27 close issue-147 14:14:27 Closed issue-147. 14:14:44 issue-145? 14:14:44 issue-145 -- Should we change the title of BP7? -- open 14:14:44 http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/145 14:15:04 "provide unique identifiers" 14:15:41 -> http://bernafarias.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#ProvideUniqueIdentifiers BP on Identifiers perhaps? 14:15:57 Q= 14:16:00 q+ 14:16:06 So issue-147 is about http://bernafarias.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#ProvideUniqueIdentifiers 14:16:12 ack annette_g 14:16:23 q+ 14:16:34 ack me 14:16:40 deirdrelee: So what do you propose to change it to annette_g ? 14:16:41 +q 14:17:34 annette_g: I'm not sure it means anythinbg to say you need to give something a unique ID whewn it's on the Web - since URIs are the only way to do it 14:17:41 ... Not sure it's a useful BP 14:17:47 ack BernadetteLoscio 14:18:41 BernadetteLoscio: agrees with Annette, points out that datasets need to be associated with a unique identifier. we need to talk more about what the identifiers are for. resources? 14:18:50 ericstephan: nice. I didn't know this Vocab status. Somehow it is related to the DUV. 14:19:30 deirdrelee: this is not really about metadata, okay to move it? 14:19:34 BernadetteLoscio: yes 14:19:38 ericstephan: perhaps we could reuse it in DUV. 14:19:40 deirdrelee: Issue postponed until discussion of identifiers 14:19:47 SumitPurohit: yes, it 14:19:50 q? 14:19:51 will be more relevant later 14:20:01 q- SumitPurohit 14:20:12 breaking up 14:20:29 BernadetteLoscio: we 14:20:43 are going to change the issue title to show the name of the bP 14:20:53 Ig_Bittencourt: interesting about including it in DUV, we've been focusing on usage of dataset, metadata would be good. 14:20:56 deirdrelee: 10 minute break? 14:21:02 yes 14:21:07 -[IPcaller] 14:21:16 https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Requirements_From_FPWD_BP 14:21:57 Not getting a response from that wiki page :-( 14:22:16 deirdrelee: come back at half past to talk about Q+G vocab 14:22:19 deirdre I'm really not sure we can talk about quality if the wiki's not working :-( 14:22:48 Seems the wiki is having a hissy fit 14:23:57 -Makx_Dekkers 14:32:25 Makx_Dekkers has joined #dwbp 14:37:01 trying to coenect to https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/ but site seems to be dead 14:37:15 We have wikis! 14:37:22 (Someone turned them off and on again) 14:37:36 Topic: Quality discussion 14:37:48 scribe: phila 14:38:23 +??P5 14:38:31 annette_g has joined #dwbp 14:38:42 yaso has joined #dwbp 14:38:44 scribe is back 14:38:52 still a couple missing here 14:38:53 zakim, ??P5 is me i guess 14:38:53 I don't understand '??P5 is me i guess', Makx_Dekkers 14:38:55 gguizzardi has joined #DWBP 14:38:57 thanks, Phil! 14:39:03 zakim, ??P5 is Makx_Dekkers 14:39:03 +Makx_Dekkers; got it 14:39:14 OK! 14:39:16 newton_ has joined #dwbp 14:39:19 deirdrelee: We'll do this for 2 hours then break for lunch 14:39:28 ... over to Antoine 14:39:28 q? 14:39:44 We're looking at https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Requirements_From_FPWD_BP 14:39:59 +[IPcaller] 14:40:44 link to doc does not work 14:40:54 zakim, who is here? 14:40:54 On the phone I see Ipswich, austincomputer, antoine, Makx_Dekkers, [IPcaller] 14:40:55 No, Makx_Dekkers Grr 14:40:56 austincomputer has annette_g, laufer, Ig_Bittencourt, flavio, newton, ericstephan, yaso, BernadetteLoscio, SumitPurohit, newton, Gisele 14:40:56 Ipswich has riccardoAlbertoni, deirdrelee, phila 14:40:56 On IRC I see newton_, gguizzardi, yaso, annette_g, Makx_Dekkers, Gisele, BernadetteLoscio, Ig_Bittencourt, laufer, ericstephan, riccardoAlbertoni, austincomputer, phila, 14:40:56 ... deirdrelee, antoine, Zakim, RRSAgent, rhiaro, hadleybeeman, trackbot 14:41:01 I am the ipcaller 14:41:11 @phila, having trouble with the wiki again, I can scribe next 14:41:38 wiki is stalled? 14:42:23 antoine: the first thing was looking at the bp group and tring to identify concrete things about the scope of quality vocab, what we call competency questions 14:42:36 yes i see it now 14:43:03 I can't access it 14:43:30 me neither. 14:43:32 Gisele got it, the rest of us are waiting 14:44:04 https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Requirements_From_FPWD_BP 14:44:07 https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Requirements_From_FPWD_BP 14:44:32 Could anything be sent via email attachment? 14:45:13 Good idea ericstephan. Gisele or BernadetteLoscio, please send the file by email. 14:45:20 Topic: Comments 14:45:26 maybe you can generate a pdf and send by email 14:45:29 See https://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/68239/WD-dwbp-20150224/ 14:45:38 as eric said 14:45:52 okay just didn't know if local copies existed somewhere 14:46:08 ...https://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/68239/WD-dwbp-20150224/ 14:46:28 https://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/68239/WD-dwbp-20150224/3003 14:47:56 deirdrelee: Points out that Andrea's comment is at odds with what we just agreed 14:48:28 BernadetteLoscio: I'm not sure ... we have a new proposal now. WE have already discussed the proposal 14:48:31 flavio has joined #dwbp 14:48:36 ... so I suggest we close it with what we just agreed 14:48:38 +1 to BernadetteLoscio 14:49:14 https://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/68239/WD-dwbp-20150224/3003?cid=3003 14:50:31 q+ 14:50:37 q+ 14:51:37 phila: Explains the comment system, how we can resolve in differnet names 14:51:56 ack annette_g 14:52:04 annette_g: It feels like we have resolved no - we don't agree with Andrea 14:52:31 BernadetteLoscio: I think it's more resolve partial because we have another proposal. 14:52:51 I think resolving partial keeps the door open to get his feedback 14:53:14 +1 to BernadetteLoscio 14:53:23 +1 14:53:25 +1 14:54:06 PROPOSED: Mark as Resolved Partial and action on BernadetteLoscio to contact Andrea and let him know about the new wording 14:54:23 +1 14:54:29 https://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/68239/WD-dwbp-20150224/3004 14:54:29 +1 14:54:34 RESOLVED: Mark as Resolved Partial and action on BernadetteLoscio to contact Andrea and let him know about the new wording 14:55:06 BernadetteLoscio: I've already written to him - OK, no action required 14:55:45 I'm gonna write a new message 14:56:01 you can create an action if you want 14:56:27 action: BernadetteLoscio to write to Andrea Perego informing of the new text 14:56:27 Created ACTION-150 - Write to andrea perego informing of the new text [on Bernadette Farias Loscio - due 2015-04-20]. 14:57:14 laufer: The three comments that Andrea made are all related 14:57:19 SumitPurohit has joined #DWBP 14:57:27 BernadetteLoscio: So I can write to him once and say that his comments are taken into accoiunt in the new version 14:57:29 ... of the BP doc 14:58:25 Now looking at https://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/68239/WD-dwbp-20150224/3005 14:58:37 q+ 14:58:40 BernadetteLoscio: I didn't cover this issue in the new version of the BP text arund data discovery 14:58:44 ack BernadetteLoscio 14:59:27 laufer: Our scope should be the dataset... should I say that it's not part of our goals to talk about data discovery? 14:59:33 q+ 15:00:02 ack annette_g 15:00:24 q+ 15:00:41 ack ericstephan 15:01:13 ericstephan: I agree that we should stick at the dataset level 15:01:15 +1 to ericstephan 15:01:18 Bernadette 15:01:22 and annette_g 15:01:23 q? 15:01:26 q+ 15:01:27 +q 15:01:29 ack SumitPurohit 15:02:08 SumitPurohit: I'm not happy with saying you have any gibberish in your data as long as the description is goof 15:02:12 s/goof/good/ 15:02:32 q+ 15:02:35 ack deirdrelee 15:03:07 deirdrelee: I agree. In terms of the content, we still recommend quality data, standards etc. All we're saying is that for the discoverability, that the metadata shoujld facilitate discoverability 15:03:33 s/shoujld/should 15:03:38 ... it's implied that if you do that then there's potential for data being discoverable 15:03:44 scribe is very confused 15:03:50 q- 15:04:03 I filtered myself :-) 15:04:35 BernadetteLoscio: If we're going to provide structrual metata, this can hekp find more info about the data itself. 15:04:42 ack BernadetteLoscio 15:04:50 Metadata should be useful and appropriate 15:05:04 deirdrelee: Calls for a proposal 15:05:40 PROPOSED: We're not going to go into detail on the discovery of data content that is addressed by metadata, including quality of data etc. We're not going into discovery of the data itself 15:06:27 I would ammend this with we arent going to define a BP for going into detail.. 15:06:32 -austincomputer 15:06:40 phila: happy for someone to put in a better proposal 15:06:44 we lost skype..... 15:06:48 I think search engines are the responsibles for creating the metadata about content itself (just thinking...) 15:06:55 skype absents 15:06:59 austin we have a problem 15:07:07 :) 15:07:12 working on it 15:07:17 one moment 15:07:23 we are pooling money to get back on skype 15:07:28 very near houston... 15:07:44 ok, let's leave these comments and get back to quality- 15:07:53 our 2F2F 15:07:54 ok ;) 15:08:42 Folks, I can no longer understand anything 15:09:21 +[IPcaller.a] 15:09:26 bernadette - let's mark all as three as resolved-part, reply to Andrea 15:09:46 Yaso saves the day 15:10:14 yes Deirdre! I agree 15:10:56 austin, can you hear us? 15:11:00 no 15:11:01 Not yet, deirdre 15:11:04 w--e a-- he--..ari--ng y o u ... li---ke thi...s 15:11:06 please, create an action for me to send a new message to Andrea 15:11:24 Run out of credits on skype, and then run out of battery in our bluetooth micro 15:11:32 action-150? 15:11:32 action-150 -- Bernadette Farias Loscio to Write to andrea perego informing of the new text -- due 2015-04-20 -- OPEN 15:11:32 http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/150 15:11:55 we can hear you, talk to us! 15:11:58 what's happening? 15:12:02 gguizzardi: the discussion was about Andrea's comments about the BP Doc. 15:12:04 thanks Phil! 15:12:08 apollo 14 it´s back home 15:12:12 https://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/68239/WD-dwbp-20150224/3003?cid=3003 15:12:13 Thanks, Ig. 15:12:15 https://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/68239/WD-dwbp-20150224/3005 15:12:18 Yes 15:12:24 I couldn't hear anything 15:12:28 Now, it seems to be working again 15:12:32 thanks! 15:12:33 drums beating 15:12:36 https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Requirements_From_FPWD_BP 15:12:46 deirdrelee: Back to you Antoine - with audio and a functioning wiki 15:12:58 https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Requirements_From_FPWD_BP 15:13:26 antoine: First thing ion the agenda is trying to identify relevant requirements from the Best Practices 15:13:42 s/ion/on/ 15:13:44 antoine: First outcome is a table https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Requirements_From_FPWD_BP#Requirements 15:14:15 antoine: We're aware of different levels. Some reqs are more general than making classes and properties in the vocab 15:15:04 ... third catageory is what we called competency questions 15:15:26 ... for e.g. there has to be a quality score. This calls for classes and props to describe the score 15:15:45 ... what we could do is to go through these requirements 15:15:56 ... I could go through them all and then get an overview 15:16:27 ... for example, the first req stems from BPs 2 and 8, 15:17:03 ... this is something about how the vocab shouold be desigend in general. It's a general need for data quality expression as some form of metadata but not what form it should take 15:17:40 q+ 15:17:46 q+ 15:17:54 ack Makx_Dekkers 15:18:32 Makx_Dekkers: Maybe a more fundamental Q first. 15:18:49 ... We have rewuirements and then we jump to the conclusion that we need a vocab for that 15:18:57 ... a lot can already be expressed in DCAT et al 15:19:02 q+ 15:19:22 ... intrinsic characteristics of datasets can be expressed. Why are we jumping to a new vocab - maybe we can do it already? 15:19:25 q+ 15:19:26 ack annette_g 15:19:32 I feel the same... 15:19:42 q+ 15:19:48 q+ 15:19:49 annette_g: It's in our charter to do this. There are lots of things that we left out of the BO doc because we thought they'd be in the quality vocab 15:19:59 q+ 15:20:12 q+ 15:20:20 s/BO doc/BP doc/ 15:20:44 deirdrelee: we are not defining vocabulary for its sake but we want to address specifically quality 15:21:02 q+ 15:21:10 ack deirdrelee 15:21:22 perhaps, we don't need a new vocabulary but we want more a plrofile 15:21:35 s/a plrofile/application profile 15:22:00 ack antoine 15:22:23 ack laufer 15:22:28 antoine: we are identifining requirements if these requirements are already satisfied by existing vocabulary so we can avoid to have a new one, bu first let picture requirements 15:23:08 q+ 15:23:32 laufer: maybe we don't have to define a new vocabulary but give advice on how to use the existing 15:23:42 scribe: phila 15:23:42 q+ 15:24:05 ack BernadetteLoscio 15:24:05 ack BernadetteLoscio 15:24:24 close speaker queue 15:24:29 BernadetteLoscio: We don't know exactly *what* should be described to cover quality 15:24:41 zakim, close the queue 15:24:41 ok, deirdrelee, the speaker queue is closed 15:24:48 I fully agree with Bernadette 15:24:52 q+ 15:25:42 Ig_Bittencourt: I agree with Berna that we should follow up with a conceptual framework to define the vocab 15:25:55 ... I like the way Antoine has started. Also important to define the concepts 15:25:56 http://www.slideshare.net/OpenDataSupport/open-data-quality-29248578 15:26:05 ... e.g. (points to makx's work) 15:26:05 ack Ig_Bittencourt 15:26:46 BernadetteLoscio: The table of reqs that we have - fne - but how to provide the quality metrics 15:27:06 ack ericstephan 15:27:51 ericstephan: I was at a smart release workshop a month ago. One of the things they said was there are a lot of vocabs but very few effots to get things done 15:28:03 ... the DUV is a kind of glue 15:28:05 If you look in the link, there are some dimensions: accuracy, availability, completeness, conformance, consistency, credibility, processability, relevance and timeliness 15:28:12 Has http://qudt.org/ been considered for standard quantities? It might be useful for metrics 15:28:38 ericstephan: The otehr comment - Jeremy Tandy sent me a link to a vocab for quantity that I thought was useful 15:28:53 ... a standardised set of metrics would be good 15:28:54 Ack annette_g 15:29:14 annette_g: I wanted to agree with eric and Berna - we need to focus on the metrics that are in the caht. That's the value 15:29:26 ... I appreciate the effort that went into the list 15:29:34 ... but I don't want to reiterate what we already have in the BP doc 15:29:42 q- 15:29:49 ... requirements to include prov - that's BP 15:29:56 +1 annette_g 15:30:01 +1 to antoine 15:30:06 ... those would be hard to discuss without a vocab 15:30:09 ops... +1 to annette_g 15:30:25 deirdrelee: So, Antoine, what do you see as the next steps 15:30:39 zakim, open the queue 15:30:39 ok, deirdrelee, the speaker queue is open 15:30:46 https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Data_quality_schedule 15:31:10 antoine: The schedule includes a lot of references to things like the work already mentioned 15:31:19 ... we do want to start from the UCR as a concrete starting poinbt 15:31:34 .. Helps to identify what we should focus on 15:31:44 q+ 15:31:54 ... Right now we're focussed more on looking at ... 15:31:54 -[IPcaller] 15:32:11 ... after the f2f we hope we'll have enough consensus on the scope to sgtart looking at the related work 15:32:19 s/looking at.../ looking at the scope/ 15:32:21 ack Makx_Dekkers 15:32:52 Makx_Dekkers: Coming back to an earlier poinbt - we're still talking on the meta level. How to express quality. We're not talking about what quality is 15:33:12 ... something we discussed at Share-PSI in Romania - what do people think reflects quality 15:33:26 q+ 15:33:37 ... I wrote a message to the group - we want a metric like processability 15:33:55 ... someone said well, a metric for that wouold be the number of stars in the 5 star scheme 15:34:09 q+ 15:34:13 ... so far we used 'quality' the same way we use otehr words 15:34:17 gguizzardi__ has joined #DWBP 15:34:28 ... they want info about processability, consistency etc. 15:34:45 ... then you can see whether there is an objective metric, or a subjective metric, like freshness 15:34:49 q+ 15:34:52 +[IPcaller] 15:34:54 ... I think we need to get to what are the components of quality 15:35:07 ... you can say how fresh data is but you don't need a qulaity vocab for that 15:35:15 ... I;m not sure we're going into the right aspects 15:35:18 ack deirdrelee 15:35:27 -[IPcaller] 15:35:34 q+ 15:35:40 deirdrelee: What Antoine, riccardo and I have been looking at is how to describe quality in an abstract layer 15:36:00 +[IPcaller] 15:36:01 ... then the next layer is the dimensions - and that's what I think makx is talkinbg about 15:36:12 ... and then at the lowest level - the metrics, how do you measure it 15:36:47 ... If that's all in scope for us is to be decided 15:36:49 ack riccardoAlbertoni 15:36:52 i think daq describes the abstract layer 15:37:02 the sound is really bad! 15:37:21 cant hear either 15:37:21 riccardoAlbertoni: I would like to add some words... I am a big supporter of metrics, but I'm not sure they're the only way to express quality 15:37:29 daq is kind of "foundation ontology" for quality... 15:37:38 +1 to riccardoAlbertoni 15:37:51 +1 laufer 15:38:14 riccardoAlbertoni: My question is - is there any other way to represent qwuality that we should consider 15:38:21 'metrics' can also be subjective statements not necessarily numbers 15:38:31 q? 15:38:37 ... for example - people publishing open data will assess the quality in some metrics framework, or a short decsription 15:38:43 ... what is really used by people? 15:38:55 ... I know about metrics and we'll have a framework, 15:39:02 Could you give an example Makx_Dekkers ? 15:39:21 ... but I guess that at the moment, as metrics aren't so commonly deployed, people figure out other ways to speak out quality 15:39:26 about terminology - a metric is a number, a "measure" can be a different thing 15:39:28 ack annette_g 15:39:34 gguizzardi has joined #DWBP 15:39:39 annette_g: hard to jear what you were saying 15:39:55 ... looking at what we have to start with, porocessability is embodied in others 15:39:56 s/jear/hear 15:40:13 ... accuracy, completeness etc. 15:40:26 ... these are all good, but processability will be determined by the otehr dimensions 15:40:29 ack BernadetteLoscio 15:40:36 the list: accuracy, 15:40:36 availability, 15:40:36 completeness, 15:40:36 conformance, 15:40:37 consistency, 15:40:37 credibility, 15:40:37 processability, 15:40:38 relevance 15:40:38 timeliness 15:40:44 Makx_Dekkers has joined #dwbp 15:40:59 deirdre I can try 15:41:02 BernadetteLoscio: We have dimensions, critera, metrics 15:41:09 @annette where is this list coming from? 15:41:33 @annette is it fromMakx' presentation? 15:41:34 deirdrelee: For me, annette's list is a list of dimensions 15:41:37 Ig pasted it in before 15:41:41 ... we can also call them criteria 15:41:51 yes antoine 15:42:07 BernadetteLoscio: We can look at th literature an dsee what is at different levels 15:42:23 +1 to Bernadette 15:42:34 ... I think it should have a way to describe these criteria - which I think is a better word than dimensions 15:43:04 group discusses dimension vs criteria 15:43:06 flavio has joined #dwbp 15:43:16 q+ 15:43:26 deirdrelee: Please use the queue or remotes can't understand 15:43:50 q- 15:43:50 define as items, maybe? 15:43:52 deirdrelee: Want to go back to Antoine... want to focus the conversation 15:43:57 scribe: ericstephan 15:44:35 deirdrelee: what do you want to spend the next hour on antoine ? 15:45:06 q+ to take a stab at that list 15:45:13 http://onlinehelp.tableau.com/v6.1/public/online/en-us/Id112A8A00YEX.html 15:45:19 antoine: We should add dimensions and metrics and have standards to represent that... 15:45:42 q+ to say maybe we mean measures? 15:45:52 antoine: maybe we could go to the next stage, actually defining dimensions and metrics 15:46:19 +q 15:46:21 daq talk about categories... 15:46:32 antoine: In the next hour get some confirmation on dimensions and metrics, looking at the use case owner as well to get some confirmation as well 15:47:16 antoine: do we have the right amount of information as well? 15:47:21 @annette we have put definition in our draft questions: https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/QualityQuestionnaire 15:47:26 q- 15:47:26 ack me 15:47:27 phila, you wanted to take a stab at that list 15:48:22 q+ 15:48:30 phila: (sorry hard to hear) mentioned layered model, Makx_Dekkers mentioned the need for accuracy conformance etc. 15:48:48 q+ 15:49:06 phila: some things can only be described in natural language, how do you declare credibility for instance? Very difficult problems... 15:49:37 q+ 15:49:37 phila: How you express that difficult, how it is expressed in a use case helps provide focus 15:49:53 phila - I hope I captured your thoughts... 15:50:30 q+ 15:50:46 SumitPurohit: If the relevance is not there, its all subjective. Quantitative measurements are criteria we can provide guidance. 15:50:47 ack SumitPurohit 15:51:09 phila: I mean that that list of dimensions is helpful. How you declare each of them will vary and may or may not need a new vocab. ANd we'll prob have to be flexible in how it's expressed anyway 15:51:28 phila: And the fact the our charter says we'll create a vocab is not a reason to do it. Use cases are 15:52:06 deirdrelee: we have stronger feelings around the abstract layer than metrics etc. It should be closed, always will be exceptions. 15:52:41 +1 to deirdrelee dimensions can't be a close set we define 15:52:47 ack Makx_Dekkers 15:52:50 deirdrelee: reliability is subjective, it needs specific critiera. 15:52:52 ack deirdrelee 15:53:36 Makx_Dekkers: phila said some things can be computed (repeatibility) the level of quality based on opinions, relability is perspective based. 15:54:10 q+ 15:54:19 Makx_Dekkers: raw data that needs to be verified, for some communities the data is valuable (mashups) might not be for other communities. 15:54:21 we are mixing the dimensoins of what we call quality with dimensions of qualities of the dataset... 15:54:45 q? 15:54:47 ack BernadetteLoscio 15:54:56 Makx_Dekkers: maybe step back to the abstract level to answer "who says" its quality. Credintials perhaps? Provenance may help here 15:56:12 BernadetteLoscio: Describing the quality of a dataset is important, the vocabulary should provide the means to provide common terms to describe quality in their own particular way. E.g. dimension concept. 15:56:39 BernadetteLoscio: maybe the vocabulary should be about describing the concepts not the properties 15:56:40 q+ to talk about PROV of statements 15:56:46 ack annette_g 15:57:25 who say what are the dimensions of quality that would be important... different consumers could have different qualities needs... 15:57:31 annette_g: maybe part of the solution to this, is not having a good/bad assignment, its more about definiing what raw data means... 15:57:48 annette_g: provide clarity on terms as opposed to judgements about the data 15:58:27 annette_g: my first question about datasets is: how clean is it, how many zeros are in it etc. These are in my mind important to capture. 15:59:53 deirdrelee: agree with annette_g , its not the most useful thing is to describe how reliable something is...where we can define items we should, defined in vocabulary or examples... 15:59:57 ack me 15:59:57 phila, you wanted to talk about PROV of statements 16:00:03 ack me 16:00:11 https://certificates.theodi.org/about 16:00:43 what is the quality of a mp3 file... 16:00:55 phila: we talk about the dimensions theodi tries to get around the complexity with ennumerations but not describe what that means. 16:01:02 q? 16:01:42 BTW, PROV of statements happens to be the requirement no.5 in the list of requirements 16:01:53 q? 16:02:02 phila: theodi advangtage is simplicity, compared to provenance it might not always be accurate we need to weigh these different approaches 16:02:33 q+ 16:02:37 speak louder please 16:03:07 antoine: (had trouble hearing) 16:03:44 q+ 16:03:49 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/04/13-dwbp-minutes.html phila 16:04:05 q+ 16:04:07 antoine: from the completeness perspective, its difficult to find completeness. Should we attempt to define metrics or is it perhaps to difficult? 16:04:23 q+ 16:04:35 +q 16:04:37 ack ericstephan 16:04:38 q+ 16:04:55 q- 16:05:16 ericstephan: We have something to start on. I like Annete's idea of a base vocab that I can adpt to what I need 16:05:30 ... I like general terms that I can tailor 16:05:48 ... terms might not always work out but we start from a common definition 16:06:16 ... start at the concept level and then add properties. That's the starting place I think 16:06:21 ack Makx_Dekkers 16:06:37 a lot echo 16:07:08 Makx_Dekkers: Eric made a good point. Quality is in the eye of the beholder. 16:07:26 ... it's about giving people enough info to allow them to decide whether it's useful 16:07:51 ... is it complete, yes or not? I think it's about perspective. The publisher may not think it's complete 16:08:03 Makx_Dekkers: quality is in the perception in the way a person looks at it. antoine mentioned is it complete yes or no? In the eyes of the data owner, they will provide a subjective answer. 16:08:10 ... (gives example of subjective statements) 16:08:18 q+ 16:09:25 q? 16:09:29 daq 16:09:40 Ig_Bittencourt: starting to rethink about the need for a vocabulary. If we look at each dimension, it could be very difficult to maintain. If we need to go to a new vocabulary we need to think about the ramifications of redefining metrics etc 16:10:05 Ig_Bittencourt: maybe we should define a foundational ontology for that. 16:10:27 http://butterbur04.iai.uni-bonn.de/ontologies/daq/daq# 16:10:52 BernadetteLoscio: The vocabulary - the daq could be the starting point for the vocabulary. 16:11:18 it is actually listed among the vocabulary on which we can start building .. 16:11:20 q+ 16:11:21 well we're already doing this 16:11:25 BernadetteLoscio: we should start with something that is there, if they have a description for dimensions, why not use that as a starting place? 16:11:46 Giancarlo Guizzardi 16:11:51 I think we have here problems with different complexity levles for the audience of our documents 16:11:57 ack Ig_Bittencourt 16:12:00 ack BernadetteLoscio 16:12:02 ack gguizzardi 16:12:14 zakim, close the queue 16:12:14 ok, deirdrelee, the speaker queue is closed 16:12:46 gguizzardi: One issue which I think is important to address dimensions and metrics, we should provide a vocabulary to describe things in a way that someone else will understand. We are just providing a language. 16:13:35 ack gguizzardi 16:13:36 gguizzardi: I should know if I am publishing data it would be useful to provide a language so that people can talk about it 16:14:06 antoine: I agree with many things, I have a lot of doubts on granularity in terms of what we should address. 16:14:50 -[IPcaller] 16:15:09 antoine: completeness I could think of the amount to represent persons, it could be about the average (something) about all persons, 16:15:16 +[IPcaller] 16:15:43 q? 16:15:46 antoine: there is a whole range about possibilities and there isn't a lot of concrete clues about what we should focus on. 16:15:46 That's an interesting point re Use Cases 16:15:50 ack antoine 16:15:56 ack laufer 16:16:10 s/(something)/of the time a name is present 16:16:35 laufer: I don't know if we have two different complexities around the document we are writing here. Wil the BP document be the same as how to generate information on the quality of data. 16:16:41 -[IPcaller] 16:16:44 q+ 16:16:58 laufer: How are we addressing things from the consumers perspective? 16:17:05 PROPOSED: Provide a vocab (or vocab AP) to allow someone to define quality of data on the web PROPOSED: This vocab AP should allow someone to define a quality dimension PROPOSED: This vocab AP should allow someone to define a quality metric PROPOSED: Quality vocab should include specific dimentsions (not exhaustive) PROPOSED: Specific dimensions should be defined as separate list PROPOSED: Quality vocab should include specific metrics (not exhaustive)[CUT] 16:17:18 +[IPcaller] 16:17:25 multiset-proposal? 16:17:45 PROPOSED: Provide a vocab (or vocab AP) to allow someone to define quality of data on the web 16:18:04 With this proposal, are we agreeing that we should really provide a vocab? 16:18:04 q+ to challenge the assumption in those proposals 16:18:27 zakim, open the queue 16:18:28 ok, deirdrelee, the speaker queue is open 16:18:31 deirdrelee: Do you generally agree with the proposal? 16:18:37 -1 16:18:40 -1 16:18:41 deirdrelee: does it make sense? 16:18:43 +1 16:18:43 -1 16:18:59 -1 16:19:20 We should first think if we should really provide a new vocab. 16:19:41 phila: The reason why I am saying no, we have antoine saying its difficult to go to the use cases and come up with something concrete about how to move forward? 16:20:06 the list is not 'correct', it's a list of things that are maybe useful 16:20:41 phila: If the list of dimensions are correct, then as the vocab evolves, the list could be used to create other dimensions. 16:20:50 list of caveats? 16:20:55 +10 to phil 16:21:08 \me it seems like things that maybe will be useful to didcover things... 16:21:24 giancarlo_guizzardi has joined #DWBP 16:21:25 phila: if one or more of these dimensions shows the need to create a new vocabulary then that provides an argument to move forward on the creation process. 16:21:52 I agree with phila. 16:22:01 I was pointing at the list of citeria - accessibility, processability etc 16:23:02 q+ 16:23:13 +q 16:23:18 Makx_Dekkers: the list of dimensions and critiera is what phila was expressing. What dimensions and criteria you have and contextually how you interpret it. Frequency is an example of where you can point to an existing vocab rather than inventing somehting new 16:23:30 +1 to Makx about the design principle 16:23:38 Draft proposal: We will consider whether the Open Data Support list of dimensions is the best list we can identify, based on the use cases that we have 16:23:43 deirdrelee: is there a list of criteria someone has? 16:23:56 accuracy, 16:23:56 availability, 16:23:56 completeness, 16:23:56 conformance, 16:23:57 consistency, 16:23:57 credibility, 16:23:57 processability, 16:23:58 relevance 16:23:58 timeliness 16:24:08 https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Data_quality_notes#Suggested_requirements: 16:24:50 phila: can we evalue this (link) in the context of the use cases? 16:25:07 Makx_Dekkers: Its sort of a meta-list of the open data support? 16:26:35 Some metrics here: http://www.scielo.cl/pdf/jtaer/v9n2/art06.pdf 16:26:38 phila: we should be able to provide some type of comparison between this and the use cases. Can someone spend some time just making an assessment at a starting point? 16:27:33 q? 16:27:37 deirdrelee: maybe, there are some metrics related to some of these dimensions. 16:27:38 ack annette_g 16:27:52 s\maybe\ 16:28:09 Open Data Support presentation http://www.slideshare.net/OpenDataSupport/open-data-quality-29248578 16:28:32 annette_g: distinction between timelyness and frequency. its important to address this in the quality vocabulary 16:28:36 q+ 16:29:00 ack BernadetteLoscio 16:29:09 q+ 16:29:16 BernadetteLoscio: Its going to be hard to extract from the use cases detailed information. Unless you are familiar with the use case, its difficult to evaluate. 16:29:22 q+ 16:29:26 Draft proposal: We will review the Open Data Support list of dimensions in the light of the use cases that we have, looking for any obvious omissions or unnecessary dimensions 16:29:41 BernadetteLoscio: from the perspective of the consumer (user) what are the needs? 16:29:43 I saw one in the requirements: 21 says Quality data must be available in an up-to-date manner and the update frequency made explicit. 16:29:57 q+ 16:30:12 BernadetteLoscio: we don't have enough to really make the assessment. 16:31:15 giancarlo_guizzardi: It would be a good idea to use a shared open vocabulary, to describe terms from a standard vocabulary rather than use local terms. 16:31:33 giancarlo_guizzardi: this is just one example 16:31:41 q? 16:31:44 deirdrelee: any vocabs in mind? 16:31:46 ack giancarlo_guizzardi 16:32:16 giancarlo_guizzardi: everything we put in the recommendation in the bp practice document, we should be giving people a way to show how they can comply 16:32:34 inaudible 16:32:43 no sound quality 16:32:44 q+ 16:32:52 ack deirdrelee 16:33:56 ack annette_g 16:34:04 in one half hour /lunch slash dinner break. We should find a path forward, even though the use cases aren't complete, we should try to find use cases where these dimensions could be drawn out. 16:34:28 annette_g: is a survey relevant? asking people what are the barriers? 16:34:31 ack Ig_Bittencourt 16:34:31 q+ 16:34:43 +1 to Annette 16:35:20 ack riccardoAlbertoni 16:35:36 q? 16:35:45 the sound is bad :( 16:35:47 very hard to understand 16:35:48 riccardoAlbertoni: (hard to hear muffled) 16:36:08 * type it? 16:36:12 -[IPcaller] 16:36:16 riccardoAlbertoni - could you add your thoughts to the notes? 16:36:22 compliance to best practice dct:conformsTo 16:36:25 ack ericstephan 16:36:37 +[IPcaller] 16:36:56 q+ 16:37:13 I was saying compliancy to BP can be a further way to represent quality, that can be used besides metrics, 16:37:34 Ig_Bittencourt: What I said was that we firstly should define the conceptual framework (e.g. those dimensions) we should follow/use in order to guide us in a more detailed discussion. After that, to check if it is really possible to define metrics for that conceptual framework and so on..... 16:37:47 ack antoine 16:38:05 https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/QualityQuestionnaire 16:38:17 so the my question was if statements about compliance to Bp should be included in the vocabulary quality 16:38:20 -[IPcaller] 16:38:26 q+ 16:38:33 antoine: the idea of the survey, would it be different than what we started to put together? Annette could you send around ideas? 16:39:15 annette_g: yes, you show more of a verification. I suggest something is more open, more qualitatie approach? 16:39:15 q+ 16:39:30 q+ to make a suggestion for gathering some feedback 16:39:57 giancarlo_guizzardi_ has joined #DWBP 16:40:02 +[IPcaller] 16:40:08 q- 16:40:38 antoine: trying to understand what you suggest. 16:41:07 annette_g: the point is to get something from an original source, rather than coming up with something on our own. 16:41:12 q+ to talk about evidence we already have available 16:41:28 antoine: thinking about taking this back to the use case owner... 16:41:58 aren't the use case owners people in this group? 16:42:10 -Ipswich 16:42:30 sorry guys, we dropped... 16:42:32 Agree with Antoine 16:43:04 +[IPcaller.aa] 16:43:13 We didn't do it this time (just being contextual on quality) 16:43:14 zakim, ipcaller.aa is Ipswich 16:43:14 +Ipswich; got it 16:43:17 W3C has expressed interest in getting better relationships with developers. We should get info from developers for this in particular, not just W3C people. 16:43:29 @annette ok I get it 16:43:36 q? 16:44:08 If I got his point correctly, that is what I was saying. If there is something which we judge to be a BP, we should give people a way to state how they comply to that. Just to clarify my previous example: IF we say, people should use a Standard Vocabularity. We should have a dimension for them to rank how they comply to this 16:44:10 dogfood, man 16:44:26 lol annette_g sick em :-) 16:45:12 q? 16:45:15 deirdrelee: what proposals should be introduced? annette_g , antoine Makx_Dekkers ? 16:45:26 PROPOSED: that we do a survey to find out what the barriers to data reuse are 16:45:50 giancarlo_guizzardi_: I agree with what you are saying, but I believe that most of the BP is related to Data Usage Vocabulary in spite of Data Quality Vocab. Another point is that if we do not follow a conceptual framework, it will quite hard to go through this vocab and provide an interesting one. 16:46:09 q+ 16:46:29 PRPOSED: ask use case authors to sy whihc aspects of quality they want to see expressed and how 16:46:33 annette_g: ask anyone who considers themselves a user of data on the web? from a data quality point of view? 16:47:17 s/PRPOSED/PROPOSED 16:47:22 I think Annette's suggestion is excellent. But I'm afraid of the resources it would consume to make a success 16:47:32 s/make a/make it a 16:47:33 PROPOSED: that we do a survey to find out what the barriers to data reuse are 16:47:48 I am fine with using a conceptual framework, of course. However, we might need to adapt existing ones to deal with Datasets on the web. This seems to me a systematic way to find obvious omissions. My example of "how authoritative/standard" a vocabulary is came to mind as an omission without effort 16:47:50 -1 16:48:02 -1 - it's what the W3C process does 16:48:07 -1 16:48:14 s/sy whihc/say which/ 16:48:18 +0 if someone volunteers I think it's ok 16:48:43 -1 16:48:56 deirdrelee: in this stage, this might take too many resources and would delay the work very much.. 16:49:09 Draft proposal: We will review the Open Data Support list of dimensions in the light of the use cases that we have and Makx's Share-PSI session, looking for any obvious omissions or unnecessary dimensions. Publish a draft ASAP and seek review, asking specifically whether we have the right dimensions. 16:49:13 q+ 16:49:16 q- 16:49:32 (so Annette says I'm not against what she's saying, just the method) 16:49:32 PRPOSED: ask use case authors to sy whihc aspects of quality they want to see expressed and how 16:49:33 q- 16:49:51 0 16:50:07 agree with phila's way of thinking. 16:50:34 PROPOSED: ask use case authors to say which aspects of quality they want to see expressed and how 16:50:54 Draft PRPOSED: ask use case authors to sy which aspects of quality, from list of 12 criteria above they want to see expressed and how 16:50:55 does writing a use case qualify someone in particular to speak for data consumers? 16:51:19 +1 16:51:26 -1 16:51:34 +0 16:51:36 0 16:51:56 -101+ 16:52:46 DRAFT PROPOSED: ask use case authors what type of feedback they want from data consumers? 16:52:50 I would expect use case owners to have good knowledge of the applications, no? 16:53:12 one question: when we ask what criteria of quality one consumer whant to see, he will answer completeness or the number of interviewed people? 16:53:24 q? 16:53:28 ack deirdrelee 16:54:20 like asking Microsoft to provide feedback on usability? 16:54:28 q+ 16:54:41 ack annette_g 16:54:50 q+ 16:54:56 q+ 16:55:17 ack me 16:55:17 phila, you wanted to talk about evidence we already have available 16:55:28 annette_g: trying to find ways to do this, I'm am just worried that going back to the group for the same thing isn't going to do that. 16:55:32 PROPOSED: We will review the Open Data Support list of dimensions in the light of the use cases that we have and Makx's Share-PSI session, looking for any obvious omissions or unnecessary dimensions. Publish a draft ASAP and seek review, asking specifically whether we have the right dimensions and perhaps highlighting ones that didn't make the cut. 16:55:47 q- 16:56:21 -> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-wg/2015Apr/0023.html Makx's mail 16:56:26 phila: we have a starting point as noted in my proposal 16:56:43 q- (because I agree with phil's proposal). 16:56:48 q- 16:56:54 phila: Makx_Dekkers proposed the list and got some feedback, so we have a sense of a review. 16:56:56 +1 to phila 16:57:25 phila: if we take that list and put it in a doc that can be reviewed as a draft recommendation, we can ask, did we get this right? 16:58:04 phila: we aren't starting from nothing, Makx_Dekkers list is a good starting point, the best way is to get something out in a draft for public review 16:58:19 PROPOSED: We will review the Open Data Support list of dimensions in the light of the use cases that we have and Makx's Share-PSI session, looking for any obvious omissions or unnecessary dimensions. Publish a draft ASAP and seek review, asking specifically whether we have the right dimensions and perhaps highlighting ones that didn't make the cut. 16:58:25 +1 ( It seems a very pragmatical way to go ) 16:58:27 +1 16:58:27 +1 for getting public feedback asap 16:58:29 +1 16:58:31 +1 16:58:32 +1 16:58:32 +1 16:58:36 +1 16:58:40 +1 ~ 16:58:50 +1 16:58:50 _q 16:58:51 does ~ mean ish? 16:58:51 ack me 16:58:53 +1 16:58:53 +1 16:58:58 yes, ish 16:59:06 Also see rough notes of Share-PSI session https://www.w3.org/2013/share-psi/wiki/Timisoara/Scribe#Tuesday_17th_March_.2811:30_-_12:40_Parallel_Sessions_B.29 16:59:11 RESOLVED: We will review the Open Data Support list of dimensions in the light of the use cases that we have and Makx's Share-PSI session, looking for any obvious omissions or unnecessary dimensions. Publish a draft ASAP and seek review, asking specifically whether we have the right dimensions and perhaps highlighting ones that didn't make the cut. 16:59:16 +1 16:59:18 q? 16:59:22 high noon in the heart of Texas 16:59:25 aftre the approval 16:59:41 -[IPcaller] 16:59:44 deirdrelee: antoine what say you? 16:59:49 s\aftre\after 16:59:53 I'm logging. I don't understand 'draft minutes#', phila. Try /msg RRSAgent help 16:59:57 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/04/13-dwbp-minutes.html phila 17:00:03 +[IPcaller] 17:00:04 antoine: it seems like a good approach 17:00:22 may I ask Makx to be co-actor on this? 17:00:29 ACTION: antoine to follow up on resolution that Phil proposed 17:00:30 Created ACTION-151 - Follow up on resolution that phil proposed [on Antoine Isaac - due 2015-04-20]. 17:00:39 action: antoine to follow up on the resolution re starting with the ODS list, Makx's list etc, working towards FPWD ASAP 17:00:39 Created ACTION-152 - Follow up on the resolution re starting with the ods list, makx's list etc, working towards fpwd asap [on Antoine Isaac - due 2015-04-20]. 17:00:46 did I screw that up phila? 17:01:01 close action-151 17:01:02 Closed action-151. 17:01:02 antoine, afraid that I can't commit myself 17:01:08 thank you 17:01:14 already overloaded 17:02:11 -Makx_Dekkers 17:02:30 -antoine 17:02:34 flavio has joined #dwbp 17:02:34 see u in 40'-ish 17:02:42 Thanks. 17:02:47 thanks 17:02:48 -Ipswich 17:02:49 Bye everyone, thanks for the great discussion, and enjoy the rest of the meeting! 17:02:57 I wish I could be with you F2F 17:03:04 Thanks Antoine! 17:03:16 Talk to you later 17:03:42 -[IPcaller] 17:06:24 newton has joined #dwbp 17:06:29 -[IPcaller.a] 17:06:30 DATA_DWBP()8:00AM has ended 17:06:30 Attendees were deirdrelee, RiccardoAlbertoni, phila, antoine, HadleyBeeman, Makx_Dekkers, ericstephan, austincomputer, [IPcaller], annette_g, laufer, Ig_Bittencourt, flavio, 17:06:30 ... newton, yaso, Gisele, Sumit, BernadetteLoscio, SumitPurohit, +31.20.420.aaaa, Ipswich 17:09:09 RRSAgent, draft minutes 17:09:09 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/04/13-dwbp-minutes.html phila 17:09:49 zakim, list particiapnts 17:09:49 I don't understand 'list particiapnts', phila 17:09:56 zakim, list participants 17:09:56 sorry, phila, I don't know what conference this is 17:44:57 giancarlo_guizzardi has joined #DWBP 17:47:06 zakim, this is dwbp 17:47:06 phila, I see DATA_DWBP()8:00AM in the schedule but not yet started. Perhaps you mean "this will be dwbp". 17:47:14 zakim, this will be dwbp 17:47:14 ok, phila; I see DATA_DWBP()8:00AM scheduled to start 347 minutes ago 17:47:34 DATA_DWBP()8:00AM has now started 17:47:41 +[IPcaller] 17:47:52 zakim, [ is Ipswich 17:47:52 +Ipswich; got it 17:54:20 giancarlo_guizzardi has joined #DWBP 17:58:21 +[IPcaller] 17:58:42 -[IPcaller] 18:09:54 Makx_Dekkers has joined #dwbp 18:12:04 giancarlo_guizzardi_ has joined #DWBP 18:14:13 google hangout: https://plus.google.com/hangouts/_/gu2q3xlnxb4p6sjowowzowteema 18:14:37 zakim, who is here? 18:14:37 On the phone I see Ipswich 18:14:39 On IRC I see giancarlo_guizzardi_, Makx_Dekkers, giancarlo_guizzardi, phila, deirdrelee, Zakim, RRSAgent, rhiaro, hadleybeeman, trackbot 18:15:46 +[IPcaller] 18:16:05 zakim, [ is Makx_Dekkers 18:16:05 +Makx_Dekkers; got it 18:16:22 -Makx_Dekkers 18:17:59 no that's not me 18:19:28 +??P1 18:19:45 zakim p1 is me 18:20:03 -??P1 18:20:15 zakim, who is here? 18:20:15 On the phone I see Ipswich 18:20:17 On IRC I see giancarlo_guizzardi_, Makx_Dekkers, phila, deirdrelee, Zakim, RRSAgent, rhiaro, hadleybeeman, trackbot 18:20:47 zakim, Ipswich has deirdrelee, Riccardo, phila 18:20:47 +deirdrelee, Riccardo, phila; got it 18:21:18 +??P1 18:21:34 +[IPcaller] 18:21:44 zakim, p1 is me 18:21:44 sorry, Makx_Dekkers, I do not recognize a party named 'p1' 18:21:58 zakim, ??p1 is me 18:21:58 +Makx_Dekkers; got it 18:24:58 The sound quality here is very bad 18:25:03 can't understand anything right now 18:25:34 i cant understand a word that is said 18:26:00 zakim, who is here? 18:26:00 On the phone I see Ipswich, Makx_Dekkers, [IPcaller] 18:26:02 Ipswich has deirdrelee, Riccardo, phila 18:26:02 On IRC I see giancarlo_guizzardi_, Makx_Dekkers, phila, deirdrelee, Zakim, RRSAgent, rhiaro, hadleybeeman, trackbot 18:26:12 has the meeting started yet? 18:26:26 yes 18:26:52 zakim, [ is giancarlo_guizzardi_ 18:26:52 +giancarlo_guizzardi_; got it 18:28:46 yaso has joined #dwbp 18:29:11 annette_g has joined #dwbp 18:33:00 google hangout: https://plus.google.com/hangouts/_/gu2q3xlnxb4p6sjowowzowteema 18:33:10 Welcome back Austin! 18:33:16 zakim, who is here? 18:33:16 On the phone I see Ipswich, Makx_Dekkers, giancarlo_guizzardi_ 18:33:18 Ipswich has deirdrelee, Riccardo, phila 18:33:18 On IRC I see annette_g, yaso, giancarlo_guizzardi_, Makx_Dekkers, phila, deirdrelee, Zakim, RRSAgent, rhiaro, hadleybeeman, trackbot 18:33:43 newton has joined #dwbp 18:33:51 flavio has joined #dwbp 18:37:56 zakim, who is here? 18:37:56 On the phone I see Ipswich, Makx_Dekkers, giancarlo_guizzardi_ 18:37:58 Ipswich has deirdrelee, Riccardo, phila 18:37:58 On IRC I see flavio, newton, annette_g, yaso, giancarlo_guizzardi_, Makx_Dekkers, phila, deirdrelee, Zakim, RRSAgent, rhiaro, hadleybeeman, trackbot 18:38:29 yaso, where is everyone?? 18:38:37 We're nearly ready for bed ;) 18:38:53 us, too 18:39:08 :-) annette_g 18:39:16 ericstephan has joined #dwbp 18:39:40 riccardoAlbertoni has joined #DWBP 18:39:42 +[IPcaller] 18:40:02 google hangout: https://plus.google.com/hangouts/_/gu2q3xlnxb4p6sjowowzowteema 18:40:14 zakim, [ is Austin 18:40:14 +Austin; got it 18:40:27 zakim, who is here? 18:40:27 On the phone I see Ipswich, Makx_Dekkers, giancarlo_guizzardi_, Austin 18:40:29 Ipswich has deirdrelee, Riccardo, phila 18:40:29 On IRC I see riccardoAlbertoni, ericstephan, flavio, newton, annette_g, yaso, giancarlo_guizzardi_, Makx_Dekkers, phila, deirdrelee, Zakim, RRSAgent, rhiaro, hadleybeeman, trackbot 18:40:30 BernadetteLoscio has joined #dwbp 18:40:49 GiselePappa has joined #dwbp 18:40:59 zakim, Austin has ericstephan, flavio, newton, annette_g, yaso, BernadetteLoscio 18:40:59 +ericstephan, flavio, newton, annette_g, yaso, BernadetteLoscio; got it 18:41:26 the quality of my credit card usage was called into question when I purchased our external speaker at 1am in the Austin Airport from an electronics vending machine. 18:41:26 laufer has joined #dwbp 18:42:06 deirdrelee: Re-Starts the meeting 18:42:11 Topic: Quality issues 18:42:46 zakim, pick a victim 18:42:46 Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose BernadetteLoscio 18:43:03 scribe: BernadetteLoscio 18:43:13 RRSAgent, draft minutes 18:43:13 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/04/13-dwbp-minutes.html phila 18:44:04 issue-116? 18:44:04 issue-116 -- Best Practices for Data Quality - Insertion of specific strategies apart from DATA QUALITY Vocabulary -- open 18:44:04 http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/116 18:44:15 SumitPurohit has joined #DWBP 18:44:16 issue-117? 18:44:16 issue-117 -- Should Data quality vocabulary be mentioned as specific strategy in BP Document? -- open 18:44:16 http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/117 18:44:52 really bad audio 18:44:53 riccardoAlbertoni: At the time we drafted the doc, my concern was that we didn't get much input 18:45:01 BP Doc: http://bernafarias.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#ProvideDataQuality 18:45:08 Ig_Bittencourt has joined #DWBP 18:45:21 i'm sorry... i cant understand 18:46:06 me neither 18:46:10 riccardoAlbertoni: We shouod mention for sure that we are going to develop a vocab to hekp documetn quality and that should be clearly stated 18:46:12 me neither 18:46:32 riccardoAlbertoni: My concern/question was, is there any obecjtion to the proposal that... 18:46:36 in Austin it is hard to hear 18:46:42 could the proposal be written? 18:46:51 ... that we explicitly mention in the BP doc that there will be advice/vocab on quality description 18:46:52 s\hekp\help 18:47:07 s\documetn\document 18:47:27 PROPOSED: That the data quality work is explicitly mentioned in the data Quality section of the BP document 18:47:32 +1 18:47:34 +1 18:47:35 +1 18:47:37 +1 18:47:39 +1 18:47:41 +1 18:47:43 q+ 18:47:44 +1 18:47:44 +1 18:47:44 +1 18:47:46 0 I lost the discussion 18:47:56 RESOLVED: That the data quality work is explicitly mentioned in the data Quality section of the BP document 18:48:01 close 116 18:48:07 close issue-116 18:48:07 Closed issue-116. 18:48:11 close issue-117 18:48:11 Closed issue-117. 18:48:13 q? 18:48:23 ack BernadetteLoscio 18:48:23 ack BernadetteLoscio 18:48:44 q+ 18:49:03 BernadetteLoscio: Someone said that we shouldn't mention the quality work in the BP doc... 18:49:11 deirdrelee: Can you recall who made the comment? 18:49:43 BernadetteLoscio: Might have been Carlos I? 18:49:46 ack annette_g 18:50:04 Annette: We should have a reference to the vocabulary in the document 18:50:47 annette_g: What I voted yes to was having a reference to the vocabulary doc from the BP doc 18:50:58 ... what I would oppose would be having BPs in the vocab document 18:51:01 q? 18:51:36 * yes, Phil 18:52:43 Scribe: yaso 18:52:51 thanks yaso ;) 18:53:00 deirdre: issue n.55 18:53:03 Issue-55? 18:53:03 Issue-55 -- The word "granularity" can been many things. scope, city/state/country, data aggregation -- open 18:53:03 http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/55 18:53:23 q? 18:53:29 q+ 18:54:00 -giancarlo_guizzardi_ 18:54:17 deirdre: Is it something that we want to include, or we can forget about it and go ahed 18:54:27 ack BernadetteLoscio 18:54:33 +[IPcaller] 18:54:37 Berna: It is not clear what type of granularity we are talking about. 18:55:00 q+ 18:55:18 ... In the doc we identified some types of granularity. For example, we can talk about different levels of granularity 18:55:29 yes, thanks, Phila 18:55:36 giancarlo_guizzardi has joined #DWBP 18:55:50 q+ 18:56:00 ... if we are going to consider this in the document, because we had a section about it, but it was removed because it was empty 18:56:16 laufer: this issue is about the word? 18:56:34 BernadetteLoscio: we need to define what is granularity for us, for the group. 18:56:50 -Makx_Dekkers 18:57:02 ... this issue was opened due the last F2F. We removed because we had nothing written. 18:57:11 q? 18:57:21 draft proposal - that we effectively ignore the word 'granularity' and just talk about data quality 18:58:09 google hangout: https://plus.google.com/hangouts/_/gu2q3xlnxb4p6sjowowzowteema 18:58:16 https://plus.google.com/hangouts/_/g4vna23i4mz4l6doovo34sysm4a 18:58:17 q- 18:58:19 q+ 19:01:03 ack BernadetteLoscio 19:01:04 ack deirdrelee 19:01:04 q+ 19:01:08 had to get out, computer was freezing. Sorry 19:01:19 BernadetteLoscio: should we talk about this in the BP document? 19:01:44 ... this issue es related to the BP document, but also related to the DQ vocabulary 19:01:54 ack ericstephan 19:02:12 q+ 19:02:19 ericstephan: this is just a draft, if we leave it now, and then add it when it becomes clear 19:02:25 q+ 19:02:52 +1 to eric 19:03:03 ack me 19:03:05 BernadetteLoscio: we should keep it like this 19:03:21 zakim, who is here? 19:03:21 On the phone I see Ipswich, Austin, [IPcaller] 19:03:23 Ipswich has deirdrelee, Riccardo, phila 19:03:23 Austin has ericstephan, flavio, newton, annette_g, yaso, BernadetteLoscio 19:03:23 On IRC I see giancarlo_guizzardi, Ig_Bittencourt, SumitPurohit, laufer, GiselePappa, BernadetteLoscio, riccardoAlbertoni, ericstephan, flavio, newton, annette_g, yaso, phila, 19:03:24 ... deirdrelee, Zakim, RRSAgent, rhiaro, hadleybeeman, trackbot 19:03:56 yes 19:04:04 I called via skype 19:04:06 I don't see it as being useless, its just not really clear about how we articulate it 19:04:06 zakim, [ is giancarlo_guizzardi 19:04:07 +giancarlo_guizzardi; got it 19:04:30 +q 19:04:32 ack deirdrelee 19:04:38 my connection is not very stable so I have to reconnect frequently 19:04:53 PROPOSED: That we put the word 'granularity' on ice until and unless we need it 19:04:58 Thanks, phila 19:05:08 +1 19:05:14 +1 19:05:15 +1 19:05:17 +1 19:05:17 +1 19:05:18 +1 ice cubes, blocks whatever granularity you want 19:05:22 +1 19:05:23 +1 19:05:26 +1 19:05:27 +1 19:05:34 RESOLVED: That we put the word 'granularity' on ice until and unless we need it 19:05:40 close issue-55 19:05:40 Closed issue-55. 19:05:44 issue-64? 19:05:44 issue-64 -- Jeremy t's expression of concern over 'data must be complete' - not realistic. better to say where it isn't complete -- open 19:05:44 http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/64 19:05:58 deirdre: this is about completeness 19:06:11 (Jeremy T is Jeremy Tandy from the UK Met Office who joined us at TPAC) 19:06:30 q? 19:07:01 q+ 19:07:07 SumitPurohit: doo we think that granularity can be related to quality in some way? 19:07:30 ack SumitPurohit 19:07:37 ericstephan: I think I remember when Jeremy mentioned this 19:07:58 ... Phil had introduced the idea of how do we measure the BPs 19:08:14 ... I thinkin all the data quality points that we were talking today 19:08:31 s/thinkin/thin in 19:08:44 s/thinkin/think in 19:08:54 I like that idea deirdrelee 19:09:01 ack ericstephan 19:09:12 Makx_Dekkers has joined #dwbp 19:10:19 q+ 19:10:31 ack riccardoAlbertoni 19:10:40 riccardoAlbertoni: I think the discussion about granularity should be addressed at the level of BPs 19:10:43 can't und :-/erstand 19:10:56 ... It's not related to quality, it's the way you;re going to provide your data 19:11:02 ... that's best practice, not quality 19:11:25 +??P15 19:11:37 Everyone says they don't want it, BP or quality vocab 19:11:41 zakim, ??p15 is me 19:11:41 +Makx_Dekkers; got it 19:11:59 deirdre: maybe we should not keep it 19:12:01 riccardoAlbertoni: If the data quality editors don't want it and the BP editors don't want it then maybe we shouldn't keep it 19:12:31 is this about completeness or granularity? 19:12:48 I have the same problem 19:12:51 We're talking about completeness I think... 19:13:17 As consequence, I am a bit confused as well what we are discussing about now. Completeness or granularity or something more general 19:13:18 PROPOSED: Let data quality editors look at completeness as one of the quality dimensions 19:13:27 +1 19:13:31 +1 19:13:33 +1 19:13:33 +1 19:13:34 +1 19:13:35 +1 19:13:35 +1 19:13:37 +1 19:13:38 +1 19:13:40 +1 19:13:42 +1 19:13:43 +1 19:14:00 +1 19:14:19 RESOLVED: Let data quality editors look at completeness as one of the quality dimensions 19:14:26 close issue-64 19:14:27 Closed issue-64. 19:14:41 action: antoine to look at completeness as one of the quality dimensions 19:14:42 Created ACTION-153 - Look at completeness as one of the quality dimensions [on Antoine Isaac - due 2015-04-20]. 19:14:52 Topic: Best Practices 19:15:19 -Makx_Dekkers 19:15:34 https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1aqkh8jJCyHn0GaPk3Xh277b5L1bQjfwDHukmWUTWryg/edit#gid=0 19:15:43 q? 19:15:54 Grrr Google Docs :-( 19:16:01 because 54 is to solve tomorrow 19:16:19 Commente 3006 https://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/68239/WD-dwbp-20150224/3006?cid=3006 19:16:45 Someone wants to scribe? It is difficult to follow 19:17:01 BernadetteLoscio: we had some discussion about this by email 19:17:23 ... dan said that there is not a complete distinction about metadata and data 19:17:33 q+ 19:17:37 ... this is something that the group have to resolve 19:17:50 q+ to argue for the sentence that DanBri suggests 19:17:51 q+ 19:17:54 ... we are going to keep this definition, that metadata is data about data 19:18:08 ... or we are going to discuss another definition 19:18:26 ... we are going to keep this discussion or leave it as it is 19:18:26 ack annette_g 19:18:29 annette_g: 19:18:43 annette_g: I like to suggest that we stick with our definition 19:18:48 +1 19:18:49 q? 19:18:55 ack me 19:18:55 phila, you wanted to argue for the sentence that DanBri suggests 19:19:20 phila: In 2003 we drafted RDF spec 19:20:56 draft proposal: Dan is right, however we keep the informal standard metadata/data definition because it is more easily understood by the general open data community. 19:21:12 q+ 19:21:14 q+ 19:21:43 ack ericstephan 19:21:44 Draft proposal - that we include the sentence Dan suggests and then say that for this document we are using the simplified definition that metadata is data about data 19:21:56 ericstephan: I'd rather go with that, that go with something too complex 19:22:05 ... the community can understand easily 19:22:08 ack yaso 19:22:16 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-wg/2015Apr/0019.html 19:22:59 yaso: I think it's related to the Makz point sent on this e-mail; I think people will continue having discussions like this if we don't define in a clear way what metadata is 19:23:25 metadata is in the eye of the beholder, so to speak 19:23:29 ack giancarlo_guizzardi 19:24:07 giancarlo_guizzardi: I think that the sentence can mean anything we want 19:24:16 giancarlo_guizzardi: if we want to be more precise, 19:24:28 ... I think that this is intuitive, 19:24:43 ... there is not a real distinction of what is metadata and data 19:24:52 perhaps a more detailed explaination of data/metadata could be in the glossary? 19:25:09 +1 to glossary for this 19:25:18 ... I think if we want to make this more clear, 19:25:42 q? 19:26:10 +1 to glossary for this too, showing the distinction. 19:26:15 deirdre: should we leave the description of metadata as it is 19:26:32 ... or we add this to glossary? 19:26:36 q? 19:26:36 PROPOSED: that we include the sentence Dan suggests and then say that for this document we are using the simplified definition that metadata is data about data 19:27:03 -1 (see the glossary comments) 19:27:07 +1 only if it's in the glossary 19:27:12 +1 19:27:17 +1 19:27:36 +1, but it is not simplified, it is the standard 19:27:39 -1 19:27:50 -1 19:27:57 +1 only if it's in the glossary 19:27:57 +1 to including the definition in the glossary 19:28:28 PROPOSED: to include the term metadata in the glossary and give a definition (TBD) 19:28:30 Current glossary: http://htmlpreview.github.io/?https://github.com/w3c/dwbp/blob/gh-pages/glossary.html 19:28:35 q+ 19:28:45 ack Ig_Bittencourt 19:28:56 Ig_Bittencourt: we should change the proposal 19:29:01 q+ 19:29:20 ack BernadetteLoscio 19:29:37 BernadetteLoscio: just to comment that at the tracker there is something else that we should remove from the document 19:29:52 the prefix meta indicates that metadata is data... we do not have to clarify this... 19:30:02 ... because it makes the things worse. So it is not that we are going to have a metadata doc separated 19:30:08 +1 to Bernadette 19:30:13 ... we should remove the sentence off the document 19:30:26 PROPOSED: that we include an explanation (and Dan's comments) in the glossary and then say that for this document we are using the definition that metadata is data about data 19:30:32 "A metadata document must be published together with the data"; taken together this makes the distinction seem more clear-cut than it often seems in practice. 19:30:37 ... I just suggested to remove this phrase 19:30:44 +++++ 19:31:00 I think the comment of Dan is about to confuse the reader 19:31:29 we do not have to say that a metalanguage is a language... 19:31:59 a metaproperty is a property... and so on... 19:32:22 let's vote on Ig's 19:32:28 +1 to Ig's proposal 19:32:38 +1 19:32:41 A metaproperty is a property but one about a property 19:32:42 +1 19:32:43 +1 19:32:43 +1 19:32:44 not about individuals in the domain 19:32:45 +1 to Ig's 19:32:46 +1 19:32:46 0 19:32:49 that makes a lot of difference 19:32:50 +1 19:32:54 -1 19:33:06 0 19:34:00 did you go away? 19:34:13 deirdrelee: We're going to leave this comment for now - it will come up again tomorrow I'm sure 19:34:32 I am very confused right now... 19:36:09 Topic: Data Versioning 19:36:23 issue-94? 19:36:23 issue-94 -- Dataset versioning and dataset replication -- open 19:36:23 http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/94 19:36:24 issue 94 19:36:59 deirdre: we are following the agenda? 19:37:21 The discussion between the relative notions of level and meta-level, from a logical point of view is IMHO very well addressed here: http://nemo.inf.ufes.br/mlt 19:37:32 Moving on to Comment 3007 https://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/68239/WD-dwbp-20150224/3007?cid=3007 19:37:42 (we'll come back to issue-94) 19:37:50 q+ 19:38:19 ack annette_g 19:38:52 annette_g: My understanding is that memento is for preserving documents, so I would mention this at the implementation section 19:38:55 +1 anne 19:38:58 +1 19:39:07 -> http://mementoweb.org/about/ About Memento 19:39:14 +1 to annette_g 19:39:22 s/preserving/preserving versions of/ 19:39:38 thanks annette_g 19:39:47 q+ to talk about referencing Memento 19:39:55 ack me 19:39:55 phila, you wanted to talk about referencing Memento 19:40:08 what annette_g is proposing is to mention memento at the implnementation sectio 19:40:24 s/implnementation sectio/implementation section 19:40:49 -giancarlo_guizzardi 19:40:57 +1 to Phil 19:40:59 phila: I would include it as a possible implementation 19:41:04 BernadetteLoscio: We agree 19:41:14 phila: I'm happy to refer to it as a possible approach but I wouldn't put it more stringly than that 19:41:19 giancarlo_guizzardi_ has joined #DWBP 19:41:22 laufer: I think that it is a general advise for all the BPS 19:41:33 ... for all the implementation approaches 19:41:37 The name of the section in BP doc is "Possible Approach to Implementation" 19:41:46 So it is OK to put there. 19:41:57 +[IPcaller] 19:42:00 deirdre: we can create an action to include this at the possible implementation 19:42:04 Newton: I can do this 19:42:15 suggested ammendment is there a simpler example that can also be shown? 19:42:17 PROPOSED: That we refer to Memento in the 'possible implementation' section of the relevent BP; resolve yes to the comment and action Newton to write to Herbert vS 19:42:27 +1 19:42:28 +1 19:42:29 +1 19:42:31 +1 19:42:33 +1 19:42:34 +1 19:42:34 newton: Laufer and me worked together at the versioning section 19:42:38 +1 19:42:39 +1 19:42:44 s/Laufer/Annette 19:42:45 +1 if we can have another simpler example that could also be shown 19:42:48 +1 19:42:57 agree with ericstephan 19:43:08 "if we can have another simpler example that could also be shown" 19:43:11 s/Laufer/Annette/ 19:43:13 q+ 19:43:34 ericstephan: there are others indication in the BP 17 (Vocabulary versioning). 19:43:39 q+ 19:43:46 +1 to have a second example 19:44:03 ericstephan: I think it is great to have this example at the BP, but it can scare people, so we can have another example, simpler, 19:44:04 ack ericstephan 19:44:27 ... to do not overwhelm anyone with a too much complex implementation approach 19:44:52 q+ to seek clarificiation 19:44:55 Ig_Bittencourt: there are 2 vocabularies that provide purpose to versioning numbers, so maybe it can solve this problem 19:45:36 deirdre: I said that there are 2 examples in the BP-27, and maybe it sufficient to add the memento and it is ok 19:45:43 Are we looking at http://bernafarias.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#VersioningVocabularies ? 19:45:46 laufer: memento is more that that data versioning 19:45:56 ... it is about data preservation also 19:46:23 Phil, Ig talks about this doc http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#VersioningVocabularies 19:46:43 q? 19:46:50 ack Ig_Bittencourt 19:46:56 q- 19:46:57 Vocabulary Versioning. 19:47:12 http://bernafarias.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#VersioningVocabularies 19:47:25 are the same BP, only with different numbers... 19:47:29 yes phila. This one http://bernafarias.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#VersioningVocabularies 19:47:37 Yes, we're looking at the same one. Excpet we have 15 differevnt versions of the doc and I no longer know which one I;m suppoed to be looking at! 19:47:47 q+ 19:47:53 s/I;m/I'm/g# 19:47:56 s/I;m/I'm/g 19:48:00 ack BernadetteLoscio 19:48:20 http://bernafarias.github.io/dwbp/bp.html 19:48:42 OK, so we're just looking at http://bernafarias.github.io/dwbp/bp.html, not a Google doc. OK, I'm happy enough 19:48:49 Thanks BernadetteLoscio 19:49:23 So we 8are* looking at http://bernafarias.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#VersioningVocabularies 19:50:40 q+ 19:50:49 q+ to propose that versioning is only discussed once 19:50:51 BernadetteLoscio: the feedback that we had was for both: versioning of vocabularies and for datasets 19:51:04 ack annette_g 19:51:08 q? 19:51:32 PROPOSED: That we only have one BP about versioning 19:51:34 q- 19:52:03 annette_g: I think that we really should have only one BP about versioning, just deleting n. 60 19:52:26 +1 19:52:27 s/60/16/ 19:52:32 giancarlo_guizzardi has joined #DWBP 19:52:59 annette_g: proposed is to remove the BP for vocabulary versioning 19:53:01 q? 19:53:06 PROPOSED: That we only have one BP about versioning, by merging data versioning and vocabulary versioning, favouring the data versioning one 19:53:22 BernadetteLoscio: maybe we need more time for this one 19:53:49 Ig_Bittencourt: thinking about the differences of remove or merge it, 19:54:01 ... different things 19:54:29 PROPOSED: That we only have one BP about versioning, by merging data versioning and vocabulary versioning, favouring the data versioning one 19:54:33 +1 19:54:33 -1 19:54:39 -1 19:54:43 -1 19:54:47 -1 19:54:49 Then we misunderstood here... 19:55:14 PROPOSED: that we remove the best practice about versioning vocabularies 19:55:15 No 19:55:22 +1 19:55:23 -1 19:55:24 +1 19:55:25 _1 19:55:34 +q 19:55:41 -1 19:55:50 -1 19:55:52 ack SumitPurohit 19:56:03 PROPOSED: Keep both bps on versioning and add memento to both 19:56:09 -1 19:56:29 Vagner has joined #dwbp 19:56:39 q+ 19:56:39 q+ 19:56:47 SumitPurohit: data also includes vocabulary 19:57:05 ... but once you start working with data, this distinction actually fades 19:57:32 ack ericstephan 19:57:36 q? 19:58:08 +q 19:58:20 "data includes vocabulary" could be interpreted as a version of "there is not distinction between data and metadata" 19:58:31 s/not/no 19:58:33 ericstephan: in some ways what I'm suggesting is dumming down things, unless you can make cristal clear for the 2 19:58:44 q+ 19:58:51 ericstephan: that is why I made my +1 for merging the 2 19:58:53 PROPOSED: That we remove the best practice on versioning vocabularies, transferring any relevant points to the data versioning BP. We will refer to memento as a possible implementation 19:59:05 ack BernadetteLoscio 19:59:08 zakim, close the queue 19:59:08 ok, deirdrelee, the speaker queue is closed 19:59:11 +1 19:59:31 BernadetteLoscio: I agree with ericstephan, but when writing the BP, we are talking about data or a dataset? 19:59:51 BernadetteLoscio: if we can solve this we are going to solve a lot of problems at the document 19:59:59 IMO - for DWBP data = dataset 20:00:02 q+ 20:00:03 ... a dataset should have a version number, 20:00:07 a vocabulary is data, not metadata. you can have metadata about a vocabulary (e.g. ADMS) 20:00:14 +1 to phila 20:00:30 ... we need 1 BP for datasets and 1 BP for vocabulary 20:00:39 ... BP should be applied on something 20:00:50 q? 20:00:59 I like the idea about tightening up the language on data 20:01:25 BernadetteLoscio: data will be updated over time - we are talking about data collection or dataset updating? 20:01:26 Makx: Vocabulary is a kind of content metadata. The fact that we can have metadata about it, it does not mean that it cannot be metadata 20:01:30 q+ 20:01:33 we can have metadata about metadata 20:01:42 that is what I meant by this being a relative notion 20:01:53 giancarlo, don't go there! 20:02:04 I think we're proving DanBri's point... 20:02:24 is metadata about metadata metameta? 20:02:33 I think we are proving that if we don't have precise definitions, it is very easy to get lost in all related discussions 20:02:33 agree with phila 20:02:44 CHAIR INTERRUPT 20:02:44 :) 20:02:52 +1 to phila and giancarlo_guizzardi 20:03:05 deirdrelee: We have 2 issues. We have a BP on vocab versioning and another on data versioning 20:03:17 +1 to giancarlo! 20:03:22 ... we've gone back to talling about metadata and data. I know they're related bu t we jave to move on 20:03:32 -q 20:03:34 semantics is exactly about the confusion, giancarlo... 20:03:56 deirdrelee: Looks like we have agreement to include Memento as a possible implementation 20:03:57 nce between BPs for data and metadata, and BPS for data and vocabularies 20:04:10 laufer: I am confused and not about semantics :-) 20:04:12 one best practice for versioning that can be applied to dataset and vocab 20:04:26 q- 20:04:27 +1 to eric 20:04:32 +1 to eric 20:04:46 +1 to eric 20:05:03 PROPOSED: That we remove the best practice on versioning vocabularies, transferring any relevant points to the data versioning BP. We will refer to memento as a possible implementation 20:05:10 Maybe the ericstephan's proposal could be the best way 20:06:09 BernadetteLoscio: a BP for versioning that is UNIVERSAL 20:06:39 Not necessarily universal, but that fits to both. 20:06:39 q+ 20:06:42 PROPOSED: That we remove the best practice on versioning vocabularies, transferring any relevant points to the data versioning BP. We will refer to memento as a possible implementation 20:07:18 PROPOSED: We have one best practice for versioning that can be applied to dataset and vocabulary 20:07:24 +1 20:07:26 +1 20:07:26 +1 to ericstephan 20:07:27 +1 20:07:30 +1 to ericstephan 20:07:30 +1 20:07:34 +1 20:07:34 .+1 20:07:35 +1 20:07:35 +1 20:07:35 +0 20:07:36 +1 20:07:36 +1 20:07:37 we are just postponing the necessity of the BP for vocabularies versioning... 20:07:39 +1 20:07:44 q+ 20:07:44 +1 20:07:46 zakim, open queue 20:07:47 ok, phila, the speaker queue is open 20:07:59 +1 20:08:22 giancarlo_guizzardi: I think that we should ask is why people would want versioning, in the first place 20:08:36 It has to do with the compliance to this vocabulary 20:09:01 ... that could be ok, for a given application 20:09:25 ... why do we think that this is relevant 20:09:51 ... this BP are important to reflect some quality dimensions? 20:10:27 you may not want versioning, but it is a fact of life. things chang 20:10:44 +q 20:10:44 deirdre: moving to the next point 20:10:46 RESOLVED: We have one best practice for versioning that can be applied to dataset and vocabulary 20:10:54 the versioning is necessary because we have the same identifier for the dataset during the life of data... 20:11:17 ack annette_g 20:11:23 no! different version, different identifier! 20:11:27 annette_g: our document is really long 20:11:33 +1 Makx 20:11:37 not for vocabularies, makx 20:11:42 annette_g: we should look for opportunities to make it shorter 20:11:44 ack SumitPurohit 20:12:00 q+ 20:12:16 SumitPurohit: that inconsistent with the rest of the document. If wauallity is only about dataset, and not about versioning, it is kind of confusing 20:12:29 laufer, even for vocabularies 20:12:38 s/wauallity/quality/ 20:12:48 SumitPurohit: just scan the document and make sure that we used all the words when needed 20:13:16 even for uris, makx? 20:13:27 q? 20:13:42 laufer, the terms may not change and keep the same identifiers, but the vocabulary as a whole may be versioned 20:13:54 ack BernadetteLoscio 20:14:07 BernadetteLoscio: I think what SumitPurohit is saying that in the document we are explicit about the terms 20:14:27 Folks, unfortunately I will need to leave right now. This has been very interesting. Thanks. 20:14:38 -[IPcaller] 20:14:41 a vocab with terms a, b, and c is different from the vocabulary with a, b, c and d, even if a, b, and c stay the same 20:14:42 BernadetteLoscio: in several parts we talk about datasets, then we need to review the document and see if the BP apply to both cases 20:14:45 Thanks giancarlo_guizzardi 20:14:52 the vocabulary is versioned but is the same uri 20:14:57 Thanks giancarlo_guizzardi. Look at my e-mail after. 20:15:08 ok. will do. talk to you tomorrow 20:15:09 ciao 20:15:16 ... when we talk about data licences, for instance, vocabulary and dataset? Why not include the vocabulary? 20:15:25 .. this is going to be a big change to the document 20:15:38 no! different version, different uri 20:15:47 +1 20:15:53 Are dataset and vocab to be assumed unless otherwise noted? 20:15:56 q+ to talk about dataset/vocab 20:16:11 ack me 20:16:11 phila, you wanted to talk about dataset/vocab 20:16:13 q+ 20:16:56 q+ to question the assumption that a vocabulary is a dataset 20:16:57 so, schem.org has different uris for each new verion of its vocabularies, maks... is this? 20:17:19 q+ 20:17:21 phila: we don't want to have 2 separated BPs 20:17:41 ack deirdrelee 20:17:50 http://htmlpreview.github.io/?https://github.com/w3c/dwbp/blob/gh-pages/glossary.html 20:18:04 o 52, 55, 59, 68, 80, 82, 133, 134 20:18:16 https://w3c.github.io/dwbp/glossary.html 20:18:28 laufer, I don't know about schema.org. I know what I've been doing for ADMS vocabularies. 20:18:29 perhaps a "context" field needs to be added to describe what 'thing' it should be applied 20:18:55 BernadetteLoscio: we talked about how to use this vocabularies, we should talk about licences 20:18:58 ok, makx 20:19:19 BernadetteLoscio: the second question is: the BPs for metadata apply to datasets and vocabs? 20:19:45 q+ 20:20:08 deirdrelee: Can we frame things so that it's clear whether we're talking about data, vocabs and/or metadata? 20:20:08 ack annette_g 20:20:08 annette_g, you wanted to question the assumption that a vocabulary is a dataset 20:20:11 ack annette_g 20:20:27 q= 20:20:29 q+ 20:20:30 annette_g: the more I think about the less I think it is true that a vocabulary is metadata 20:20:49 q+ 20:20:50 annette_g: I think it is out of scope 20:21:02 ack BernadetteLoscio 20:21:04 In my opinion, a vocabulary is a dataset. It fits the definition of dataset in DCAT 20:21:10 +q 20:21:14 BernadetteLoscio: it is just that: what is the difference between publishing a dataset and a vocabulary 20:21:34 I describe vocabularies with ADMS as a adms:Asset which is a subclass of dcat:Dataset 20:21:39 ... in the document we are talking about publishing dataset and publishing vocabulary 20:22:07 annette_g: I think we should mention vocabs but I do not think that we are here to teach people how to make a vocabulary 20:22:20 deirdre: it is in scope? 20:22:28 ... we really want to make some decisions 20:22:33 deirdrelee: I think Annette brings up an important issue, not only are datasets and vocabs different and is that question is scope 20:22:37 Could we be onto a new glossary term "vataset" or "docab"? ;-) 20:22:43 ... if it's in scope, how do we include it in the docs 20:22:45 ack yaso 20:22:52 +1 ericstephan 20:23:53 The issue is, I think, that people have a mental model of what a dataset is. I've been asking to make that mental model explicit. 20:24:11 zakim, who is here? 20:24:11 On the phone I see Ipswich, Austin 20:24:11 a vocabulary is a language to talk with machines... as a natural language is a language to talk with humans... 20:24:13 Ipswich has deirdrelee, Riccardo, phila 20:24:13 Austin has ericstephan, flavio, newton, annette_g, yaso, BernadetteLoscio 20:24:13 On IRC I see Makx_Dekkers, Ig_Bittencourt, SumitPurohit, laufer, GiselePappa, BernadetteLoscio, riccardoAlbertoni, ericstephan, flavio, newton, annette_g, yaso, phila, deirdrelee, 20:24:14 ... Zakim, RRSAgent, rhiaro, hadleybeeman, trackbot 20:24:25 +1 Makx_Dekkers 20:24:44 I favour an inclusive mental model that includes vocabularies, images, text collections, spreadsheets, video streams etc. 20:24:56 +1 to Makx_Dekkers 20:24:59 q? 20:25:00 +q 20:25:04 q+ 20:25:11 present+ GiselePappa, Sumit, 20:25:14 ack Ig_Bittencourt 20:25:36 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/04/13-dwbp-minutes.html phila 20:25:44 Makx_Dekkers, I agree with you. Do you have any suggestions or would like to start it? 20:25:46 But I have also expressed my opinion that we can't write BPs for all those types of data. We just don't have the knowledge for that. 20:25:52 vocabularies are replicating the way humans establish communication... 20:25:57 maintenance is different of creation imho 20:26:14 Laufer: do you want to scribe? 20:26:32 My proposal was to focus our work just on spreadsheet-like data and leave the rest ot other experts. 20:26:42 Makx_Dekkers - I like the schema.org term https://schema.org/CreativeWork which is a parent to many mental model digital objects 20:26:59 This is a bargain, deirdre 20:27:20 ack SumitPurohit 20:27:26 Otherwise, BPs can only be very general. What's the similarity between publishing a spreadsheet and a video feed? Not much. 20:27:50 thank you, phil... I almost believed... 20:28:28 sorry, deirdre, I lost that 20:28:37 I like https://schema.org/Thing better... 20:28:51 it is the parent of https://schema.org/CreativeWork 20:28:53 thanks, deirdre! 20:28:54 vagner has joined #dwbp 20:28:58 tomorrow... 20:29:03 scribe: Newton 20:29:36 SumitPurohit: for this group probably we may distinguish between data and vocabulary 20:29:49 Apologies, have to sign off. Supper calls... 20:30:06 q+ to make a proposal that Berna might not like but might move us on a little 20:30:14 Ig: even this situation we are talking about data on the web, not necessary about vocabulary or ontology 20:30:17 Ig_Bittencourt: we are talking about creation of BP for vocabulary creation 20:30:21 Thanks Makx - bon apetite 20:30:43 q+ 20:31:03 ... In my opinion is still the same, and I agree on removing versioning vocabulary BP 20:31:26 If anyone wants to explore this question about a mental model with me after the meeting, We could spend an hour on this 20:31:28 we need a definition of data 20:31:33 q- 20:31:34 remove remove remove 20:31:47 I really believe that this could help the grou to stick to situations related to context 20:32:07 ack ericstephan 20:32:09 ericstephan: Makz was sharing great thoughts 20:32:31 ... BernadetteLoscio and I were thinking about different kinds of data to put on the web 20:32:56 ... Makz shared thoghts about a mental model concerning about more kinds of data 20:33:10 s/Makz/Makx/g 20:33:43 I agree with ericstephan 20:33:45 s\talking\not talking 20:34:02 ... I think that might be example that people use everyday, such as videos, experimental datasets 20:34:12 q+ 20:34:35 data = recorded observations 20:34:59 ericstephan: I think we need a glossary 20:35:23 ack me 20:35:23 phila, you wanted to make a proposal that Berna might not like but might move us on a little 20:35:34 ... we could have a glossary not only for general terms, but to specific things too 20:36:37 q+ 20:36:37 q+ 20:36:45 draft proposal: define example "mental models" as examples of dataset, vocabulary in glossary. 20:37:31 phila: I was saying thagt most BPs will apply to all kinds of data. Where they only apply to specific types, say, vocabs, then we should say so. perhaps organise the doc from general down to specific. 20:37:54 In the glossary or BP doc, eric? 20:37:56 yaso: I was going to propose about the mental model, but ericstephan already said about it 20:38:12 ack yaso 20:38:15 ack annette_g 20:40:20 annette_g: I think this is a very fundamental distinction; versioning is important to data, and it's necessary to have a meaning of what is data 20:40:26 I'm recalling the conversation in Croke Park a few years ago when we came to the conclusion that dcat:Dataset = Information Resource, which is counter to what Annette is saying 20:41:02 CHAIR INTERRUPT 20:41:05 ack deirdrelee 20:41:10 20 mins to go... 20:41:18 deirdrelee: 20 minutes left... and a couple of things to decide 20:41:33 flavio has joined #dwbp 20:41:42 ... first of all is the vocabulary is not a dataset (?) 20:41:46 deirdrelee: Options are - vocabs, metadata are treated as datasets, or we agree that they are not, or that it's out of scope and we don't have to decide 20:41:58 ... and there's the added thing of deciding which BP applies to each 20:42:14 ... that may be a very long conversation 20:42:44 deirdrelee: Consensus seems to be that we treat metadata and vocabs as datasets... most of the time 20:42:59 ... what gets included in the glossary, what gets included in the BP doc 20:43:08 flavio_ has joined #dwbp 20:43:15 draft proposal: conclude that vocabs, datasets aren't the same thing, but the same technique can at times be applied to both 20:43:34 q+ to ask what is not data? 20:43:41 1+ 20:43:46 +1 20:43:57 conclude that vocabs, datasets aren't the same thing, but the same technique can at times be applied to both 20:44:29 ericstephan: we have different mental model on what those things are 20:44:45 ... but we can use the same BP technique on vocab, datasets 20:45:07 ... we need to focus on methodology and on how methodology could be applied on it 20:45:19 +1 to conclude that vocabs, datasets aren't the same thing, but the same technique can at times be applied to both 20:45:35 annette_g: I agree that a specific methodology can be applied on both 20:45:40 draft proposal: to decide if vocab and dataset are equal is out of scope, but if BPs specifically to metadata or vocab, we call it out in the BP (not that we have to say it necessarily for each BP) 20:46:15 q+ to make a concrete proposal 20:46:30 ack annette_g 20:46:30 annette_g, you wanted to ask what is not data? 20:46:48 ack me 20:46:48 phila, you wanted to make a concrete proposal 20:46:54 One can treat vocabularies, metadata and data as one species - the boundaries between them are not always absolute. However, for the purpose of the Best Practices, we have a number of mental models to help: 20:46:54 A dataset is... 20:46:54 A vocbulary is... 20:46:54 Metadata is... 20:47:01 annette_g: jpeg picture published with encoded exif data, for instance: jpeg is not data, but has data encoded in exif tags. This metadata can be extracted. Jpeg is not data, but can be read by spiders that identify some features and put them together in a dataset. Then is data extracted from the picture, I think... 20:47:23 https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Glossary 20:47:38 yaso, yes, one can use it as data if that is the intention 20:47:49 q? 20:47:56 +1 phila 20:48:15 annette_g: that's why I think we should think in mental models, or "situations" 20:48:18 deirdrelee: we have a glossary that yaso and bernadette are working on 20:48:33 ... we also may include a disclaimer to recognize 20:48:58 yaso: if we cover all situations, we will have an endless document 20:48:58 and then say: in this specific situations, this wg will not work, like best formats to encode metadata, or best softwares to extract data from media 20:49:03 ... we can assume that all BPs apply to dataset 20:49:21 scribe: yaso 20:49:22 defining situations mean that we can get rid of some of them :-) 20:49:31 and we have to define what we assume of beeing a dataset... 20:49:57 yaso: I was talking to annette_g to define some situations that could help us 20:50:03 PROPOSED: That we state that the boundaries between metadata, dataset and vocabulary is not always clear, however, we have the following menatl models in mind... and then talk about the three 20:50:17 s/menatl /mental 20:50:30 +1 20:50:39 +1 20:50:40 ... we need to defines the situations before, for instance, we cannot recommend BPs to extract metadata from media files 20:51:01 ... we have to recognize are data on the web also, but we don't necessary work on those situations 20:51:40 +q 20:51:43 + 1 to phila 20:51:45 ... we can't ignore that, so we can recognize that but not necessary to work on that 20:51:45 ack SumitPurohit 20:52:20 +1 20:52:26 SumitPurohit: have we the distinction between vocabularies and metadata 20:52:35 +1 20:52:38 +1 20:52:39 +1 20:52:47 scribe: yaso 20:52:50 +1 20:52:52 RESOLVED: That we state that the boundaries between metadata, dataset and vocabulary is not always clear, however, we have the following mental models in mind... and then talk about the three 20:52:53 +1 20:53:10 +1 20:53:51 action: yaso to add the definitions of dataset, vocabulary and metadata in the glossary, noting that the boundaries are not always distinct (or helpful). 20:53:51 Created ACTION-154 - Add the definitions of dataset, vocabulary and metadata in the glossary, noting that the boundaries are not always distinct (or helpful). [on Yaso Córdova - due 2015-04-20]. 20:54:01 +q 20:54:05 Yaso - I'm happy to help write that 20:54:09 Thank you all, see you tomorrow! 20:54:20 ack SumitPurohit 20:55:09 phila: great! I will appreciate it indeed 20:55:23 maybe discuss over email? 20:55:45 phila: I'try to write something today, then you can review as soon as I finish, is that ok for you? 20:55:49 There is a definition about dataset and vocab in the glossary. So we just need to give a definition to metadata. 20:55:49 deirdrelee: I'd like to park the conversation about defining the three things or we'll spend endless time discussing it. 20:55:58 Thanks yaso - that would be great 20:56:05 Nice! 20:56:10 Eneergy levels at critical here now I'm afraid 20:56:43 people get too much philosophical when tired 20:56:46 The DCAT definition Dataset is "A collection of data, published or curated by a single agent, and available for access or download in one or more formats." 20:57:19 phila: Suggests you have plenty to talk about over dinner in Austin. Please come back with a consensus decision that we can all agree to tomorrow 20:57:36 ;) 20:57:37 Yes I think we need to hit the bars on this one 20:57:38 deirdrelee: Wraps up the meeting 20:58:19 phila: Records thanks to Dee for excellent chairing today 20:58:20 bye bye 20:58:26 Night all 20:58:34 bye, thanks 20:58:36 Tks, bye, see you tomorrow 20:58:41 yaso has left #dwbp 20:58:44 -Ipswich 20:58:47 zakim, list participants 20:58:47 As of this point the attendees have been [IPcaller], Makx_Dekkers, deirdrelee, Riccardo, phila, giancarlo_guizzardi_, ericstephan, flavio, newton, annette_g, yaso, 20:58:50 ... BernadetteLoscio, giancarlo_guizzardi 20:59:05 RRSAgent, generate minutes 20:59:05 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/04/13-dwbp-minutes.html phila 20:59:35 zakim, bye 20:59:35 leaving. As of this point the attendees were [IPcaller], Makx_Dekkers, deirdrelee, Riccardo, phila, giancarlo_guizzardi_, ericstephan, flavio, newton, annette_g, yaso, 20:59:35 Zakim has left #dwbp 20:59:38 ... BernadetteLoscio, giancarlo_guizzardi 20:59:40 RRSAgent, bye 20:59:40 I see 9 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2015/04/13-dwbp-actions.rdf : 20:59:40 ACTION: bernadette to to add a BP for structural metadata [1] 20:59:40 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/04/13-dwbp-irc#T13-24-14 20:59:40 ACTION: Yaso to include a definition of 'a standard' in the glossary [2] 20:59:40 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/04/13-dwbp-irc#T13-57-27 20:59:40 ACTION: Lee to include the standard resolution in the scope page on the wiki [3] 20:59:40 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/04/13-dwbp-irc#T14-06-32 20:59:40 ACTION: Deirdre to include the standard resolution in the scope page on the wiki [4] 20:59:40 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/04/13-dwbp-irc#T14-06-43 20:59:40 ACTION: BernadetteLoscio to write to Andrea Perego informing of the new text [5] 20:59:40 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/04/13-dwbp-irc#T14-56-27 20:59:40 ACTION: antoine to follow up on resolution that Phil proposed [6] 20:59:40 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/04/13-dwbp-irc#T17-00-29 20:59:40 ACTION: antoine to follow up on the resolution re starting with the ODS list, Makx's list etc, working towards FPWD ASAP [7] 20:59:40 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/04/13-dwbp-irc#T17-00-39 20:59:40 ACTION: antoine to look at completeness as one of the quality dimensions [8] 20:59:40 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/04/13-dwbp-irc#T19-14-41 20:59:40 ACTION: yaso to add the definitions of dataset, vocabulary and metadata in the glossary, noting that the boundaries are not always distinct (or helpful). [9] 20:59:40 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/04/13-dwbp-irc#T20-53-51