IRC log of dwbp on 2015-04-14
Timestamps are in UTC.
- 11:52:10 [RRSAgent]
- RRSAgent has joined #dwbp
- 11:52:10 [RRSAgent]
- logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/04/14-dwbp-irc
- 11:52:12 [hadleybeeman]
- Morning, all
- 11:52:14 [Zakim]
- Zakim has joined #dwbp
- 11:52:15 [deirdrelee]
- deirdrelee has joined #dwbp
- 11:52:19 [phila]
- Hi Hadley
- 11:52:25 [phila]
- Just getting ste up here
- 11:52:31 [hadleybeeman]
- How was yesterday? Looks like you covered a lot!
- 11:52:46 [phila]
- Yeah, Dee drove us through a lot of issues :-)
- 11:52:56 [hadleybeeman]
- deirdrelee, you're amazing :)
- 11:52:56 [phila]
- zakim, this will be dwbp
- 11:52:56 [Zakim]
- ok, phila; I see DATA_DWBP()8:00AM scheduled to start in 8 minutes
- 11:53:15 [phila]
- RRSAgent, make logs public
- 11:54:57 [phila]
- zakim, code?
- 11:54:57 [Zakim]
- the conference code is 3927 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), phila
- 11:55:07 [Zakim]
- DATA_DWBP()8:00AM has now started
- 11:55:14 [Zakim]
- +[IPcaller]
- 11:55:26 [Zakim]
- +HadleyBeeman
- 11:55:51 [hadleybeeman]
- zakim, [I is Ipswich
- 11:55:51 [Zakim]
- +Ipswich; got it
- 11:56:11 [hadleybeeman]
- zakim, ipswich has phila, deirdrelee, riccardoalbertoni
- 11:56:11 [Zakim]
- +phila, deirdrelee, riccardoalbertoni; got it
- 11:57:00 [phila]
- Meeting: DWBP Face to Face Day 2
- 11:57:05 [phila]
- Chair: Deirdre
- 11:57:11 [phila]
- Regrets: Steve
- 12:01:57 [deirdrelee]
- Hangout: https://plus.google.com/hangouts/_/g4vna23i4mz4l6doovo34sysm4a
- 12:02:53 [deirdrelee]
- Updated Agenda: https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/April_2015_F2F
- 12:05:01 [makx]
- makx has joined #dwbp
- 12:06:20 [makx]
- makx has left #dwbp
- 12:06:33 [makx]
- makx has joined #dwbp
- 12:13:52 [newton]
- newton has joined #dwbp
- 12:14:09 [flavio]
- flavio has joined #dwbp
- 12:14:17 [GiselePappa]
- GiselePappa has joined #dwbp
- 12:15:46 [ericstephan]
- ericstephan has joined #dwbp
- 12:15:52 [ericstephan]
- Hello everyone
- 12:15:59 [hadleybeeman]
- Hello, Austin!
- 12:16:09 [ericstephan]
- Just getting set up.
- 12:16:14 [deirdrelee]
- Hi Eric & all!
- 12:16:22 [deirdrelee]
- Hangout: https://plus.google.com/hangouts/_/g4vna23i4mz4l6doovo34sysm4a
- 12:16:25 [yaso]
- yaso has joined #dwbp
- 12:16:29 [phila]
- http://dublincore.org/documents/2012/06/14/dcmi-terms/?v=terms#Standard
- 12:17:49 [deirdrelee]
- zakim, who is here?
- 12:17:49 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see Ipswich, HadleyBeeman
- 12:17:51 [Zakim]
- Ipswich has phila, deirdrelee, riccardoalbertoni
- 12:17:51 [Zakim]
- On IRC I see yaso, ericstephan, GiselePappa, flavio, newton, makx, deirdrelee, Zakim, RRSAgent, phila, riccardoAlbertoni, rhiaro, hadleybeeman, trackbot
- 12:19:03 [yaso]
- Thanks for this link, Phil
- 12:19:12 [hadleybeeman]
- ericstephan, I think we have a bit of feedback. Would you mind muting your computer?
- 12:20:50 [laufer]
- laufer has joined #dwbp
- 12:21:14 [Caroline]
- Caroline has joined #DWBP
- 12:21:18 [Zakim]
- +[IPcaller]
- 12:22:03 [deirdrelee]
- updated agenda: https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/April_2015_F2F
- 12:23:02 [laufer]
- https://plus.google.com/hangouts/_/gu2q3xlnxb4p6sjowowzowteema?v=1428094656
- 12:23:04 [BernadetteLoscio]
- BernadetteLoscio has joined #dwbp
- 12:23:18 [laufer]
- I said that I would scribe tomorrow
- 12:23:31 [laufer]
- today is not tomorrow
- 12:23:39 [Caroline]
- I can scribe later! :)
- 12:23:48 [Caroline]
- I must wake up before scribing!
- 12:23:49 [laufer]
- I am scribing
- 12:24:23 [Sumit_Purohit]
- Sumit_Purohit has joined #DWBP
- 12:24:47 [laufer]
- deirdrelee: talking about the agenda of the day
- 12:24:57 [phila]
- -> https://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/68239/WD-dwbp-20150224/3006 DanBri Comment
- 12:25:11 [phila]
- http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/dwbp/2015-04-13#resolution_15
- 12:25:27 [laufer]
- phila: talking about the comments we talked yesterday
- 12:25:31 [laufer]
- ph
- 12:25:53 [Sumit_Purohit]
- Hi deirdrelee
- 12:25:57 [ericstephan]
- sounds good
- 12:26:00 [laufer]
- phila: the comments about dan is defined as not resolved
- 12:26:08 [phila]
- action: PhilA to write to DanBri in response to comment 3006
- 12:26:09 [trackbot]
- Created ACTION-155 - Write to danbri in response to comment 3006 [on Phil Archer - due 2015-04-21].
- 12:26:40 [hadleybeeman]
- +1 to this. I worry about over-enshrining the mental model of "dataset" in what we're doing.
- 12:26:47 [laufer]
- deirdrelee: 15 max for each issue
- 12:26:51 [yaso]
- +1
- 12:26:54 [hadleybeeman]
- issue-52?
- 12:26:54 [trackbot]
- issue-52 -- We keep having confusion around our terms. (glossary?) -- open
- 12:26:54 [trackbot]
- http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/52
- 12:26:54 [yaso]
- to close the issue
- 12:26:56 [phila]
- issue-52?
- 12:26:56 [trackbot]
- issue-52 -- We keep having confusion around our terms. (glossary?) -- open
- 12:26:56 [trackbot]
- http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/52
- 12:27:18 [phila]
- PROPOSED: Close Issue-52 as there is going to be a glossary
- 12:27:20 [ericstephan]
- +1
- 12:27:22 [hadleybeeman]
- +1
- 12:27:24 [deirdrelee]
- +1
- 12:27:33 [laufer]
- could you reapeat the proposal, deirdre
- 12:27:38 [phila]
- +1
- 12:27:44 [laufer]
- thank you phil
- 12:27:52 [riccardoAlbertoni]
- +1
- 12:27:53 [laufer]
- +1
- 12:28:01 [phila]
- RESOLVED: Close Issue-52 as there is going to be a glossary
- 12:28:02 [Caroline]
- +1
- 12:28:02 [phila]
- close issue-52
- 12:28:02 [trackbot]
- Closed issue-52.
- 12:28:09 [phila]
- issue-134?
- 12:28:09 [trackbot]
- issue-134 -- About Formats, schemas, vocabularies and data models -- open
- 12:28:09 [trackbot]
- http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/134
- 12:28:18 [laufer]
- deirdrelee: issue 134
- 12:28:48 [phila]
- PROPOSED: Close issue-134 as the existence of the glossary answers this point
- 12:28:53 [deirdrelee]
- +1
- 12:28:54 [ericstephan]
- +1
- 12:28:56 [phila]
- +1
- 12:28:56 [riccardoAlbertoni]
- +1
- 12:29:03 [hadleybeeman]
- +1
- 12:29:03 [Caroline]
- +1
- 12:29:04 [laufer]
- BernadetteLoscio: this definitions are in the glossary, according to joao carlos ideas
- 12:29:11 [laufer]
- +1
- 12:29:16 [phila]
- RESOLVED: Close issue-134 as the existence of the glossary answers this point
- 12:29:20 [GiselePappa]
- +1
- 12:29:20 [phila]
- close issue-134
- 12:29:20 [trackbot]
- Closed issue-134.
- 12:29:33 [newton]
- newton has left #dwbp
- 12:29:36 [laufer]
- deirdrelee: i am happy...
- 12:29:54 [hadleybeeman]
- issue-123?
- 12:29:54 [trackbot]
- issue-123 -- Use of SHOULD versus MUST for Sensitive Data -- open
- 12:29:54 [trackbot]
- http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/123
- 12:29:59 [NewtonCalegari]
- NewtonCalegari has joined #dwbp
- 12:30:15 [laufer]
- who is talking
- 12:30:27 [yaso]
- Hadley, Lau
- 12:30:34 [laufer]
- hi hadley
- 12:30:46 [hadleybeeman]
- hi laufer :)
- 12:31:31 [laufer]
- ericstephan: in a sense, I do not see problems in changing the info in teh use cases problems
- 12:31:39 [deirdrelee]
- q+
- 12:31:39 [deirdrelee]
- q?
- 12:31:52 [phila]
- ack deirdrelee
- 12:31:55 [ericstephan]
- q+
- 12:32:01 [ericstephan]
- q-
- 12:32:09 [phila]
- deirdrelee: I'm happy to take that suggestion, changing SHOULD to MUST
- 12:32:20 [BernadetteLoscio_]
- BernadetteLoscio_ has joined #dwbp
- 12:32:32 [BernadetteLoscio_]
- q+
- 12:32:49 [deirdrelee]
- ack BernadetteLoscio_
- 12:32:52 [phila]
- PROPOSED: Requirement concerning Sensitive Data, in the UCR, should use RFC 2119 MUST, not MUST
- 12:33:01 [laufer]
- BernadetteLoscio_: I think does not to be now
- 12:33:04 [hadleybeeman]
- zakim, bernadetteloscio_ is BernadetteLoscio
- 12:33:04 [Zakim]
- sorry, hadleybeeman, I do not recognize a party named 'bernadetteloscio_'
- 12:33:16 [phila]
- s/MUST, not MUST/ MUST, not SHOULD/
- 12:33:16 [ericstephan]
- draft PROPOSED: lining up the verbage for the Use Case requirements on sensitive data to the verbage in the BP document.
- 12:33:17 [hadleybeeman]
- zakim, bernadetteloscio is BernadetteLoscio_
- 12:33:17 [Zakim]
- sorry, hadleybeeman, I do not recognize a party named 'bernadetteloscio'
- 12:33:20 [laufer]
- ... we need to read all the document to decide is it is should or must
- 12:33:31 [laufer]
- ... we shoul review all the BPs
- 12:33:57 [annette_g]
- annette_g has joined #dwbp
- 12:34:00 [riccardoAlbertoni]
- s/shoul/should
- 12:34:01 [ericstephan]
- sorry phila didn't see yours
- 12:34:26 [phila]
- We are talking only about http://www.w3.org/TR/dwbp-ucr/#R-SensitivePrivacy
- 12:34:29 [laufer]
- had we to vote eric´s proposal?
- 12:34:31 [ericstephan]
- q+
- 12:34:34 [laufer]
- have
- 12:34:42 [deirdrelee]
- ack ericstephan
- 12:34:55 [laufer]
- ericstephan: phil could you clarify your proposal
- 12:35:13 [ericstephan]
- PROPOSED: Requirement concerning Sensitive Data, in the UCR, should use RFC 2119 MUST, not should
- 12:35:16 [phila]
- PROPOSED: That Requirement on Sensitive Data should use the world 'must' not should. See http://www.w3.org/TR/dwbp-ucr/#R-SensitivePrivacy
- 12:35:25 [deirdrelee]
- +1
- 12:35:27 [ericstephan]
- +1
- 12:35:34 [riccardoAlbertoni]
- +1
- 12:35:35 [hadleybeeman]
- +1
- 12:35:37 [annette_g]
- 0
- 12:35:38 [GiselePappa]
- +1
- 12:35:40 [BernadetteLoscio_]
- +1
- 12:35:42 [phila]
- issue-123?
- 12:35:42 [trackbot]
- issue-123 -- Use of SHOULD versus MUST for Sensitive Data -- open
- 12:35:42 [trackbot]
- http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/123
- 12:35:42 [Caroline]
- +1
- 12:35:42 [laufer]
- +1
- 12:35:43 [flavio]
- +1
- 12:35:52 [yaso]
- +1
- 12:36:06 [phila]
- RESOLVED: That Requirement on Sensitive Data should use the world 'must' not should. See http://www.w3.org/TR/dwbp-ucr/#R-SensitivePrivacy
- 12:36:10 [phila]
- close issue-123
- 12:36:10 [trackbot]
- Closed issue-123.
- 12:36:28 [phila]
- action: deirdre to change should to must in http://www.w3.org/TR/dwbp-ucr/#R-SensitivePrivacy
- 12:36:28 [trackbot]
- Created ACTION-156 - Change should to must in http://www.w3.org/tr/dwbp-ucr/#r-sensitiveprivacy [on Deirdre Lee - due 2015-04-21].
- 12:36:29 [laufer]
- deirdrelee: there are 2 issues about data identifiers
- 12:36:34 [phila]
- issue-77?
- 12:36:34 [trackbot]
- issue-77 -- We need to bring the COMURI work into the Best Practices format agreed at the TPAC F2F -- open
- 12:36:34 [trackbot]
- http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/77
- 12:36:37 [phila]
- issue-118
- 12:36:37 [trackbot]
- issue-118 -- New Requirement suggestion R-VersionURIDesign -- open
- 12:36:37 [trackbot]
- http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/118
- 12:36:38 [laufer]
- ... maybe we could see both together
- 12:37:22 [deirdrelee]
- q?
- 12:37:46 [laufer]
- isse 118 New Requirement suggestion R-VersionURIDesign
- 12:38:00 [BernadetteLoscio_]
- +q
- 12:38:20 [annette_g]
- q+
- 12:38:23 [deirdrelee]
- ack BernadetteLoscio_
- 12:38:33 [phila]
- q+ to talk about http://www.w3.org/TR/dwbp/#ProvideUniqueIdentifiers
- 12:38:36 [laufer]
- BernadetteLoscio_: we try to discusse this with tomas
- 12:38:50 [laufer]
- ... now we have this things in separate documents
- 12:39:03 [laufer]
- I do not remember exactly what happened
- 12:39:11 [deirdrelee]
- q+
- 12:39:17 [laufer]
- ... tomas worked in the separated document
- 12:39:35 [laufer]
- ... but this info was not tranfered for the bp document
- 12:39:40 [deirdrelee]
- http://bernafarias.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#ProvideUniqueIdentifiers
- 12:40:05 [laufer]
- deirdrelee: incorporate the info of the separate document to the bp document
- 12:40:10 [deirdrelee]
- ack annette_g
- 12:40:25 [laufer]
- annette_g: annette (thinking)
- 12:40:45 [Zakim]
- +??P12
- 12:40:55 [makx]
- ZAKIM, ??P12 IS ME
- 12:40:55 [Zakim]
- +makx; got it
- 12:41:34 [laufer]
- annette_g: explaining a relation between apis and URIs
- 12:41:54 [BernadetteLoscio_]
- q+
- 12:42:30 [hadleybeeman]
- This is a big enough topic that I wouldn't be surprised to see it referenced in various sections.
- 12:42:43 [laufer]
- annette_g: understanding the issue
- 12:42:59 [phila]
- ack me
- 12:42:59 [Zakim]
- phila, you wanted to talk about http://www.w3.org/TR/dwbp/#ProvideUniqueIdentifiers
- 12:43:18 [laufer]
- phila: there is a couple of things
- 12:43:30 [phila]
- http://www.w3.org/TR/dwbp-ucr/#R-PersistentIdentification
- 12:43:37 [laufer]
- ... in the use case documents we have not the requiremets that we have in the issue
- 12:43:48 [phila]
- http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/118
- 12:43:52 [phila]
- New Requirement suggestion R-VersionURIDesign from BBC ontology versioning and Metadata
- 12:43:52 [phila]
- R-VersionURIDesign: “Data should have a canonical way to design URIs for different snapshot of the dataset.”
- 12:44:06 [laufer]
- ... what he is saying is that we need a new requirement of version uri design
- 12:44:08 [phila]
- http://www.w3.org/2014/10/31-dwbp-minutes#onedoc
- 12:44:16 [laufer]
- ... at the moment we have the tomas document
- 12:44:21 [phila]
- http://www.w3.org/TR/dwbp/#ProvideUniqueIdentifiers
- 12:44:29 [laufer]
- ... we decided in tpac not to publish the document
- 12:45:06 [deirdrelee]
- q?
- 12:45:08 [laufer]
- phila: what we can do is to close the issue...
- 12:45:45 [deirdrelee]
- ack deirdrelee
- 12:46:15 [laufer]
- BernadetteLoscio_: i just want to say that we could close the issue but we need to discuss the bp for identification
- 12:46:29 [cgueret]
- cgueret has joined #dwbp
- 12:46:29 [laufer]
- ... maybe later
- 12:46:32 [hadleybeeman]
- +1 to BernadetteLoscio_ — this sounds like we have a new issue here.
- 12:46:57 [laufer]
- PROPOSED: closse the issue 77
- 12:47:01 [ericstephan]
- +1
- 12:47:04 [hadleybeeman]
- +1
- 12:47:05 [annette_g]
- +1
- 12:47:07 [yaso]
- +1
- 12:47:14 [Caroline]
- +1
- 12:47:14 [GiselePappa]
- +1
- 12:47:16 [deirdrelee]
- +1
- 12:47:19 [BernadetteLoscio_]
- +1
- 12:47:25 [phila]
- +1 as it is being incorporated in the BP doc (work still to do)
- 12:47:27 [laufer]
- +1
- 12:47:32 [riccardoAlbertoni]
- +1
- 12:47:35 [NewtonCalegari]
- +1
- 12:47:38 [Sumit_Purohit]
- +1
- 12:47:39 [makx]
- +1
- 12:47:40 [laufer]
- RESOLVED: close the issue 77
- 12:47:55 [phila]
- close issue-77
- 12:47:55 [trackbot]
- Closed issue-77.
- 12:48:04 [deirdrelee]
- q?
- 12:48:20 [BernadetteLoscio_]
- q-
- 12:48:23 [laufer]
- deirdrelee: shouk we create an action tho incorporate the things to the bp document?
- 12:48:43 [phila]
- deirdrelee: We can close 118, URI design overall should be included in the BP doc but may not need pulling out in the UCR doc
- 12:48:54 [ericstephan]
- +1 deirdrelee
- 12:48:56 [phila]
- q?
- 12:49:00 [laufer]
- s/shouk/should/
- 12:49:01 [makx]
- +1
- 12:49:15 [phila]
- PROPOSED: Close Issue-118, because it will be included in the BP doc
- 12:49:18 [deirdrelee]
- +1
- 12:49:19 [ericstephan]
- +1
- 12:49:20 [hadleybeeman]
- +1
- 12:49:22 [annette_g]
- +1
- 12:49:23 [laufer]
- +1
- 12:49:25 [phila]
- +1
- 12:49:25 [GiselePappa]
- +1
- 12:49:26 [riccardoAlbertoni]
- +1
- 12:49:45 [BernadetteLoscio_]
- q+
- 12:49:59 [hadleybeeman]
- q+
- 12:50:16 [phila]
- ack BernadetteLoscio_
- 12:50:30 [laufer]
- BernadetteLoscio_: the uri design will be a requirement?
- 12:50:32 [phila]
- RESOLVED: Close Issue-118, because it will be included in the BP doc
- 12:50:40 [phila]
- close issue-118
- 12:50:40 [trackbot]
- Closed issue-118.
- 12:50:53 [phila]
- ack hadleybeeman
- 12:52:01 [laufer]
- hadleybeeman: there are the actions tyo do these things
- 12:52:03 [phila]
- I will
- 12:52:42 [hadleybeeman]
- I was suggesting we have an action to review it, and a new issue to explain why we were reviewing it.
- 12:53:00 [phila]
- action: phila to work with hadleybeeman to revise the BP on http://www.w3.org/TR/dwbp/#ProvideUniqueIdentifiers and make new suggestions
- 12:53:00 [trackbot]
- Created ACTION-157 - Work with hadleybeeman to revise the bp on http://www.w3.org/tr/dwbp/#provideuniqueidentifiers and make new suggestions [on Phil Archer - due 2015-04-21].
- 12:53:17 [BernadetteLoscio_]
- q+
- 12:54:02 [BernadetteLoscio_]
- q-
- 12:54:09 [laufer]
- deirdrelee: issue 144
- 12:54:24 [phila]
- Topic: Tech Bias in our docs
- 12:54:24 [hadleybeeman]
- issue-144?
- 12:54:24 [trackbot]
- issue-144 -- There is a technological bias in several parts of the document -- open
- 12:54:24 [trackbot]
- http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/144
- 12:54:38 [Zakim]
- +[IPcaller.a]
- 12:54:44 [laufer]
- There is a technological bias in several parts of the document
- 12:54:48 [cgueret]
- zakim, [IPcaller.a] is me
- 12:54:48 [Zakim]
- +cgueret; got it
- 12:54:55 [laufer]
- q+
- 12:55:18 [laufer]
- deirdrelee: there is a lot of discussion about this issue
- 12:55:29 [phila]
- deirdrelee: We could acknowledge that there is a tech bias - and be happy with it - or try and remove itr
- 12:55:32 [yaso]
- Welcome, cgueret!
- 12:55:40 [yaso]
- q?
- 12:55:40 [deirdrelee]
- ack laufer
- 12:55:47 [yaso]
- q+
- 12:56:02 [BernadetteLoscio_]
- q+
- 12:56:18 [annette_g]
- laufer: we acknowledge that we have this kind of thing. But it's a thing that we'll have to think about for all the docs. It will be an open issue in our minds, but we can close it.
- 12:56:27 [ericstephan]
- +1 laufer
- 12:56:31 [phila]
- laufer: This issue will be open until the heat death of the universe
- 12:56:38 [ericstephan]
- nice :-)
- 12:56:50 [yaso]
- lol
- 12:56:50 [phila]
- (scribe paraphrase)
- 12:56:58 [hadleybeeman]
- can we use "until the heat death of the universe" in the document? :)
- 12:56:59 [Zakim]
- -makx
- 12:57:01 [ericstephan]
- couldn't it be for the lifetime of our star?
- 12:57:01 [phila]
- ack yaso
- 12:57:45 [deirdrelee]
- ack yaso
- 12:57:51 [deirdrelee]
- q+
- 12:58:02 [laufer]
- BernadetteLoscio_: is not easy to close this isse
- 12:58:12 [phila]
- ack BernadetteLoscio_
- 12:58:13 [laufer]
- ... in carlos comments about the document
- 12:58:25 [laufer]
- ... he does not like to use uri as identifiers
- 12:58:35 [hadleybeeman]
- q+
- 12:58:39 [yaso]
- I think that this will be partially solved when we have more clearance on terms definitions by scenarios, situations, things like that
- 12:58:40 [laufer]
- ... he prefer to use only identifiers...
- 12:58:45 [Sumit_Purohit]
- +q
- 12:58:47 [annette_g]
- q+
- 12:58:50 [riccardoAlbertoni]
- q+
- 12:58:50 [laufer]
- ... what we would do...
- 12:58:54 [laufer]
- q+
- 12:59:12 [phila]
- ack deirdrelee
- 12:59:25 [laufer]
- deirdrelee: we decided to be out of scope to talk about the formats
- 12:59:45 [phila]
- deirdrelee: yesterday we decided it was in scope to recommend standards, without exclusing other methods, and we decided that formats were out of scope
- 12:59:58 [flavio]
- flavio has joined #dwbp
- 13:00:10 [phila]
- deirdrelee: So I think we effectively closed this issue yesterday - we're open to other methods, but we can recommend
- 13:00:38 [phila]
- deirdrelee: When Hadley and Phil revise the identifier section, they'll have to abide by the scope - formats out, standards in
- 13:00:49 [phila]
- ... so I don't think we shoud spend time talkinbg about it now
- 13:00:53 [phila]
- ack hadleybeeman
- 13:00:57 [phila]
- +1
- 13:01:03 [deirdrelee]
- ack Sumit_Purohit
- 13:01:24 [laufer]
- Sumit_Purohit: we can recommend dcat
- 13:01:46 [laufer]
- ... but we should mantain the right the people to use other things
- 13:01:58 [phila]
- q+
- 13:02:07 [phila]
- q+ to talk about HTTP and URIs
- 13:02:31 [phila]
- +1 to Annette - using alternative IDs is not precluded by the use of URIs
- 13:02:43 [laufer]
- annette_g: having uris as identifiers does not mean that you have to use a specific tec
- 13:02:54 [ericstephan]
- +1 annette_g I use examples all the time for thinking about repurposing in other techologies
- 13:02:57 [hadleybeeman]
- +1 to Annette that "being on the web" is important here.
- 13:03:00 [phila]
- annette_g: It makes not sense to say things need a URI because if they don't, they're not on the Web
- 13:03:17 [phila]
- zakim, close queue
- 13:03:17 [Zakim]
- ok, phila, the speaker queue is closed
- 13:03:24 [phila]
- ack riccardoAlbertoni
- 13:03:34 [deirdrelee]
- ack annette_g
- 13:03:42 [phila]
- riccardoAlbertoni: Concerning the bias, whenever anyone raises this issue, we ask them to give an example using anotehr tech
- 13:03:57 [GiselePappa]
- GiselePappa has left #dwbp
- 13:03:57 [phila]
- ... if this is too LD oriented, then, OK, give an example of anotehr way
- 13:04:03 [cgueret]
- URN are not on the Web, are they ? and still they are URI too ;-)
- 13:04:11 [phila]
- Phila +1 to riccardoAlbertoni
- 13:04:19 [phila]
- ack laufer
- 13:04:22 [GiselePappa]
- GiselePappa has joined #dwbp
- 13:04:47 [annette_g]
- +1 to laufer
- 13:05:29 [phila]
- laufer: Is it bias or is it design? (I think is what he's saying)
- 13:05:31 [deirdrelee]
- issue-144?
- 13:05:31 [trackbot]
- issue-144 -- There is a technological bias in several parts of the document -- open
- 13:05:31 [trackbot]
- http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/144
- 13:05:33 [ericstephan]
- +1 to laufer, however death of the star, I have hope for more standards based civilizations
- 13:05:48 [annette_g]
- Laufer: the issue of bias can't be addressed all as one issue. We need to have specific issues to address.
- 13:05:49 [phila]
- ack me
- 13:05:49 [Zakim]
- phila, you wanted to talk about HTTP and URIs
- 13:06:23 [cgueret]
- ^_^
- 13:06:33 [cgueret]
- +1 to Phil for https !
- 13:06:47 [NewtonCalegari]
- http://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/URI.html
- 13:06:53 [yaso]
- +1 to https!!
- 13:07:23 [hadleybeeman]
- phila: W3C is recommending https, rather than http. When Hadley and I look at this, we will take that into account for data too.
- 13:07:40 [ericstephan]
- hypertext transfer protocol stephan (https)
- 13:07:44 [hadleybeeman]
- ...For those of you concerned with SEO, https:// by default increases your pageRank.
- 13:07:59 [phila]
- issue: Whether we should recommend HTTPS by default, rather than HTTP
- 13:07:59 [trackbot]
- Created ISSUE-161 - Whether we should recommend https by default, rather than http. Please complete additional details at <http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/161/edit>.
- 13:08:14 [ericstephan]
- sounds great
- 13:08:21 [cgueret]
- yup, I'm all for it
- 13:08:22 [phila]
- That is the issue cgueret - and consensus is hard to come by
- 13:08:22 [annette_g]
- * cgueret, my thought, too, but what happens when you get it wrong in your browser?
- 13:08:23 [hadleybeeman]
- rrsagent, pointer?
- 13:08:23 [RRSAgent]
- See http://www.w3.org/2015/04/14-dwbp-irc#T13-08-23
- 13:08:51 [deirdrelee]
- PROPOSED: Close issue-144, scope will keep technological bias in mind
- 13:08:56 [ericstephan]
- +1
- 13:09:03 [phila]
- +1
- 13:09:03 [deirdrelee]
- +1
- 13:09:12 [cgueret]
- +1
- 13:09:17 [riccardoAlbertoni]
- +1
- 13:09:18 [phila]
- (the sun just went in...)
- 13:09:24 [ericstephan]
- laufer smiling
- 13:09:31 [phila]
- RESOLVED: Close issue-144, scope will keep technological bias in min
- 13:09:35 [ericstephan]
- su-mit su-mit
- 13:09:39 [Sumit_Purohit]
- scribe:sumit
- 13:09:49 [annette_g]
- +1
- 13:10:03 [BernadetteLoscio_]
- -1
- 13:10:24 [ericstephan]
- no kicking needed, sumit has spunk :-)
- 13:10:35 [laufer]
- q+
- 13:11:10 [laufer]
- the queue is closed for me... it is not fair
- 13:11:14 [Sumit_Purohit]
- BernadetteLoscio_ : yaso made some changes in the document based on carlos idea, but it is not resolved as yet......
- 13:11:26 [Sumit_Purohit]
- .....so the issue is still open
- 13:11:27 [yaso]
- q+
- 13:12:35 [deirdrelee]
- zakim, queue is open
- 13:12:35 [Zakim]
- sorry, deirdrelee, I do not recognize a party named 'queue'
- 13:12:45 [Sumit_Purohit]
- deirdrelee: we as a group will decide to accept or reject recommendations we get from hadley and Phil
- 13:12:53 [ericstephan]
- q+
- 13:13:15 [Sumit_Purohit]
- laufer: if its a thing i have to access over the web, its an URI
- 13:13:33 [hadleybeeman]
- zakim, open the queue
- 13:13:33 [Zakim]
- ok, hadleybeeman, the speaker queue is open
- 13:13:37 [Sumit_Purohit]
- ...if you use it in your own context, you can have anything you want.
- 13:13:46 [Sumit_Purohit]
- but if it is over web, its a URI
- 13:13:49 [ericstephan]
- that's fine
- 13:13:52 [yaso]
- ok!
- 13:14:28 [hadleybeeman]
- +1 to deirdrelee on creating a new issue
- 13:14:55 [ericstephan]
- BernadetteLoscio_- trying to speak
- 13:14:56 [yaso]
- Deirdre, I think that BernadetteLoscio_ has some comments on that
- 13:14:57 [Sumit_Purohit]
- Austin.....want to talk....
- 13:14:59 [annette_g]
- can you hear us?
- 13:15:47 [ericstephan]
- scribe: ericstephan
- 13:16:03 [phila]
- issue: Should the BP document refer to URIs or Identifiers
- 13:16:03 [trackbot]
- Created ISSUE-163 - Should the bp document refer to uris or identifiers. Please complete additional details at <http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/163/edit>.
- 13:16:16 [hadleybeeman]
- rrsagent, pointer?
- 13:16:16 [RRSAgent]
- See http://www.w3.org/2015/04/14-dwbp-irc#T13-16-16
- 13:16:22 [ericstephan]
- deirdrelee: following agenda now BernadetteLoscio_ and will cover this at the end of the meeting if we have time. Is that fair?
- 13:16:26 [ericstephan]
- BernadetteLoscio_: ok
- 13:16:49 [phila]
- Topic: Archiving and Preservation
- 13:16:58 [cgueret]
- yeah! :-)
- 13:16:59 [phila]
- Step forward Dr Gueret...
- 13:17:10 [deirdrelee]
- issue-62?
- 13:17:10 [trackbot]
- issue-62 -- What info is given when dereferencing a persistent identifier after the resource has been removed/archived -- open
- 13:17:10 [trackbot]
- http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/62
- 13:17:14 [deirdrelee]
- issue-63?
- 13:17:14 [trackbot]
- issue-63 -- If a resource is archived, is the correct response 410, 303 or something else? -- open
- 13:17:14 [trackbot]
- http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/63
- 13:17:17 [deirdrelee]
- issue-143?
- 13:17:17 [trackbot]
- issue-143 -- Is Data Preservation in the scope of the DWBP document? -- open
- 13:17:17 [trackbot]
- http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/143
- 13:17:21 [ericstephan]
- beyond data-dome
- 13:17:27 [cgueret]
- give me a sec, I need to move to a place where I can speak....
- 13:17:55 [phila]
- I think 62 and 63 are the same
- 13:18:04 [ericstephan]
- deirdrelee: I propose that preservation and archiving are in scope
- 13:18:20 [cgueret]
- +1
- 13:19:05 [laufer]
- q+
- 13:19:07 [ericstephan]
- deirdrelee: looking at issue-143 first for a more fundamental question
- 13:19:08 [phila]
- phila: Let's look at 143 first which will decide whether the other are relevant
- 13:19:15 [Zakim]
- -cgueret
- 13:19:17 [deirdrelee]
- ack laufer
- 13:19:41 [ericstephan]
- laufer: looking at description of issue, persistence, versioning and data preservation.
- 13:19:55 [ericstephan]
- laufer: archiving is a must
- 13:20:16 [ericstephan]
- laufer: I don't know what we will write in this BP we must have preservation.
- 13:20:19 [phila]
- Draft proposal - that data archiving (taking data offline) is out of scope, but what is left on the Web after archiving has taken place *is* in scope
- 13:20:21 [deirdrelee]
- bp doc: http://bernafarias.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#dataPreservation
- 13:20:24 [ericstephan]
- laufer: versioning may be optional
- 13:20:28 [phila]
- q+ to make my proposal
- 13:20:34 [ericstephan]
- laufer: shouldn't be handled the same way
- 13:20:37 [cgueret_]
- cgueret_ has joined #dwbp
- 13:20:49 [Zakim]
- +[IPcaller.a]
- 13:21:02 [cgueret_]
- zakim, [IPcaller.a] is me
- 13:21:02 [Zakim]
- +cgueret_; got it
- 13:21:24 [ericstephan]
- deirdrelee: just to clear data preservation and archiving are in scope laufer?
- 13:21:39 [ericstephan]
- laufer: data preservation and archiving are the same thing to me
- 13:21:58 [phila]
- ack me
- 13:21:59 [Zakim]
- phila, you wanted to make my proposal
- 13:22:24 [deirdrelee]
- q+
- 13:22:28 [cgueret_]
- q+ to say I agree with Phil
- 13:22:29 [annette_g]
- +1 to phil
- 13:22:46 [ericstephan]
- phila: I think there are boundaries when you go out of scope, if you get to the point where you go offline, what is the stuff you leave behind?
- 13:22:47 [laufer]
- s/are the same/are not the same/
- 13:23:03 [Sumit_Purohit]
- Sumit_Purohit has joined #DWBP
- 13:23:06 [riccardoAlbertoni]
- +1 to deirdrelee
- 13:23:06 [annette_g]
- q+
- 13:23:15 [Sumit_Purohit]
- +1 deirdrelee
- 13:23:21 [Sumit_Purohit]
- scribe : sumit
- 13:23:22 [deirdrelee]
- ack me
- 13:23:24 [ericstephan]
- deirdrelee: once it goes offline it goes out of scope.
- 13:23:25 [hadleybeeman]
- +1 to deirdrelee
- 13:23:27 [phila]
- ack cgueret
- 13:23:27 [Zakim]
- cgueret_, you wanted to say I agree with Phil
- 13:23:35 [laufer]
- s/are not the same/are the same/
- 13:23:53 [ericstephan]
- having problems hearing
- 13:24:11 [cgueret_]
- oh :/
- 13:24:23 [cgueret_]
- and there is the accent too :-p
- 13:24:29 [Sumit_Purohit]
- austin can not hear as well
- 13:24:57 [deirdrelee]
- q?
- 13:25:00 [cgueret_]
- fully agree with Phil and deirdree but we should not say everything must be preserved
- 13:25:10 [phila]
- PROPOSED: That we recognise that archiving is part of the lifecycle of data management. How data is managed in an offline repository is out of scope, however, what is left on the Web after archiving has taken place *is* in scope.
- 13:25:13 [cgueret_]
- the decision on sending something to an archive is up to the publisher
- 13:25:22 [Sumit_Purohit]
- +q
- 13:25:27 [cgueret_]
- we should give indications on what to do with the remaining URIs
- 13:25:38 [cgueret_]
- which still exist even if the data is taken offline
- 13:25:43 [phila]
- ack annette_g
- 13:26:21 [Sumit_Purohit]
- annette_g: we need to stick with context on the data on the web ,such as persistent is in scope, but not archiving
- 13:26:27 [laufer]
- q+
- 13:26:28 [ericstephan]
- +1 annette_g
- 13:26:33 [phila]
- +1 annette_g
- 13:26:37 [cgueret_]
- +1
- 13:26:37 [phila]
- ack Sumit_Purohit
- 13:26:59 [ericstephan]
- Sumit_Purohit: I was agreeing with what laufer said that archiving and preservation go hand in hand
- 13:27:10 [cgueret_]
- it would be also good for us to make it clear that archiving the Web of Data is not quite the same as archiving the Web of Documents
- 13:27:51 [deirdrelee]
- q+
- 13:27:53 [Sumit_Purohit]
- laufer: its a Question, when we have deliverables, we have draft, we do access all the older version.
- 13:27:55 [deirdrelee]
- ack laufer
- 13:28:24 [annette_g]
- q+
- 13:28:24 [hadleybeeman]
- It sounds like we're down to definitions again. What is "archiving"? We should write that.
- 13:28:28 [Sumit_Purohit]
- ....but if we have all the documents available then it is a best practice....you should have access to all the deliverables
- 13:28:29 [cgueret_]
- -1 to laufer. Archiving is not a matter of giving access to all data
- 13:28:51 [cgueret_]
- s/giving access/giving online access/
- 13:29:16 [phila]
- deirdrelee: Should there be a reference to versioning if we have a spedcific BP about archiving...
- 13:29:29 [cgueret_]
- versioning is related to preservation but that's not a strict coupling. You can have one without the other
- 13:29:30 [phila]
- ... and to recommend that there should be a specific BP on the topic
- 13:30:07 [laufer]
- cgueret_: I am not saying that you must give the access... but you may... and I think that for some types of data it is a bp to do that...
- 13:30:29 [riccardoAlbertoni]
- s/spedcific/specific
- 13:30:30 [cgueret_]
- laufer, ok then :)
- 13:30:49 [phila]
- PROPOSED: That we recognise that archiving is part of data management. How data is managed in an offline repository is out of scope, however, what is left on the Web after archiving has taken place *is* in scope. There will be at least one Best Practice on this topic. Versioning needs to be taken into account.
- 13:31:04 [BernadetteLoscio_]
- q+
- 13:31:09 [cgueret_]
- +1
- 13:31:11 [annette_g]
- +1
- 13:31:11 [ericstephan]
- +1
- 13:31:21 [cgueret_]
- (we're allowed to vote now, right ?)
- 13:31:27 [hadleybeeman]
- Well articulated, phila.
- 13:31:31 [phila]
- ack annette_g
- 13:31:33 [Sumit_Purohit]
- +1
- 13:31:40 [deirdrelee]
- ack deirdrelee
- 13:31:53 [Sumit_Purohit]
- annette_g: data preservation should be offline as well as online....
- 13:31:58 [cgueret_]
- Probably the longest proposal we've voted on so far ;-)
- 13:32:13 [Sumit_Purohit]
- ......if we put some sort of encouragement then it is OK
- 13:32:17 [hadleybeeman]
- @annette_g, to whose mind is that a bad practice?
- 13:32:31 [Sumit_Purohit]
- ......it is not a good idea to treat web servers as data archiving system
- 13:32:51 [deirdrelee]
- ack BernadetteLoscio_
- 13:32:53 [hadleybeeman]
- (Sorry annette_g, that sounded very combative. I didn't mean that — just that it sounds like it may be something from a community that isn't just Data on the Web.)
- 13:33:05 [annette_g]
- @hadleybeeman, anyone who worries about security
- 13:33:10 [Sumit_Purohit]
- BernadetteLoscio_: we have a section about data preservation but we removed it from the document...
- 13:33:16 [Sumit_Purohit]
- are we talking about new BP ?
- 13:33:37 [hadleybeeman]
- @annette_g I wish we could explore that over coffee. Sounds a) very interesting, and b) may in scope but maybe not?
- 13:33:51 [cgueret_]
- +1 to reuse what I did before ;-)
- 13:34:01 [phila]
- phila has joined #dwbp
- 13:34:03 [BernadetteLoscio_]
- +q
- 13:34:04 [Sumit_Purohit]
- ....we should review work of christoph...
- 13:34:14 [deirdrelee]
- ack BernadetteLoscio_
- 13:34:19 [ericstephan]
- +1 BernadetteLoscio_
- 13:34:24 [hadleybeeman]
- +1 to that, BernadetteLoscio_
- 13:34:26 [riccardoAlbertoni]
- +1 to BernadetteLoscio_
- 13:34:29 [cgueret_]
- +1
- 13:34:34 [Sumit_Purohit]
- BernadetteLoscio_: ...we should also add data definition of archiving on glossory
- 13:34:39 [deirdrelee]
- +1 to BernadetteLoscio_
- 13:34:47 [cgueret_]
- can you make an action for me ?
- 13:34:49 [Sumit_Purohit]
- s/glossory/glossary
- 13:34:54 [NewtonCalegari]
- or in github: http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/glossary.html
- 13:35:14 [riccardoAlbertoni]
- PROPOSED: That we recognise that archiving is part of data management. How data is managed in an offline repository is out of scope, however, what is left on the Web after archiving has taken place *is* in scope. There will be at least one Best Practice on this topic. Versioning needs to be taken into account.
- 13:35:17 [hadleybeeman]
- s/of archiving/of archiving and presentation and preservation
- 13:35:31 [cgueret_]
- I'll also get the glossary definition validated by an archivist here
- 13:35:32 [deirdrelee]
- +1
- 13:35:36 [Sumit_Purohit]
- +1
- 13:35:37 [hadleybeeman]
- +1
- 13:35:38 [cgueret_]
- +1
- 13:35:39 [annette_g]
- +1
- 13:35:42 [GiselePappa]
- +1
- 13:35:42 [laufer]
- +1
- 13:35:44 [ericstephan]
- +1
- 13:35:46 [NewtonCalegari]
- +1
- 13:35:49 [BernadetteLoscio_]
- +1
- 13:35:49 [Caroline]
- +1
- 13:35:51 [riccardoAlbertoni]
- +1
- 13:35:52 [phila]
- +1
- 13:36:12 [Caroline]
- +1to cgueret_ to get the glossary definition validated by an archivist
- 13:36:40 [deirdrelee]
- action: deirdrelee to add preservtion text to scope
- 13:36:40 [trackbot]
- Error finding 'deirdrelee'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/users>.
- 13:36:57 [deirdrelee]
- action: deirdre to add preservtion text to scope
- 13:36:58 [trackbot]
- Created ACTION-158 - Add preservtion text to scope [on Deirdre Lee - due 2015-04-21].
- 13:37:12 [deirdrelee]
- action: christoph to define preseravation bp
- 13:37:12 [trackbot]
- Error finding 'christoph'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/users>.
- 13:37:25 [phila]
- action: cgueret to write a definition of archiving (and preservation) in the glossary (again!)
- 13:37:25 [trackbot]
- Created ACTION-159 - Write a definition of archiving (and preservation) in the glossary (again!) [on Christophe Gueret - due 2015-04-21].
- 13:37:47 [deirdrelee]
- action: cgueret to write a bp on preservation in bp doc
- 13:37:47 [trackbot]
- Created ACTION-160 - Write a bp on preservation in bp doc [on Christophe Gueret - due 2015-04-21].
- 13:38:30 [phila]
- close issue-143
- 13:38:30 [trackbot]
- Closed issue-143.
- 13:38:36 [annette_g]
- * PROPOSED: that we get coffee
- 13:38:42 [cgueret_]
- +1 annette_g
- 13:38:45 [ericstephan]
- +1 its just a plus one kind of day
- 13:38:45 [phila]
- Which leaves Issues 62 and 63 for after coffee
- 13:38:46 [yaso]
- +1 to annette_g
- 13:38:52 [Sumit_Purohit]
- coffee break time NOW...
- 13:39:05 [Sumit_Purohit]
- 20 min break
- 13:39:12 [Zakim]
- -HadleyBeeman
- 13:39:24 [flavio]
- flavio has joined #dwbp
- 13:39:24 [phila]
- Thanks Christophe
- 13:39:34 [phila]
- RRSAgent, draft minutes
- 13:39:34 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/04/14-dwbp-minutes.html phila
- 13:40:23 [phila]
- zakim, list participants
- 13:40:23 [Zakim]
- As of this point the attendees have been [IPcaller], HadleyBeeman, phila, deirdrelee, riccardoalbertoni, makx, cgueret, cgueret_
- 13:40:30 [Zakim]
- -cgueret_
- 13:40:35 [phila]
- RRSAgent, draft minutes
- 13:40:35 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/04/14-dwbp-minutes.html phila
- 13:41:13 [phila]
- zakim, ipcaller is Austin
- 13:41:13 [Zakim]
- +Austin; got it
- 13:41:59 [phila]
- zakim, Austin has Bernadette, Caroline, Eric S, Flavio, Gisele, Laufer, Newton, Sumit, Yaso
- 13:41:59 [Zakim]
- +Bernadette, Caroline, Eric, S, Flavio, Gisele, Laufer, Newton, Sumit, Yaso; got it
- 13:42:11 [phila]
- RRSAgent, draft minutes
- 13:42:11 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/04/14-dwbp-minutes.html phila
- 13:42:26 [Zakim]
- -Austin
- 13:42:40 [phila]
- zakim, list participants
- 13:42:40 [Zakim]
- As of this point the attendees have been HadleyBeeman, phila, deirdrelee, riccardoalbertoni, makx, cgueret, cgueret_, Bernadette, Caroline, Eric, S, Flavio, Gisele, Laufer, Newton,
- 13:42:43 [Zakim]
- ... Sumit, Yaso
- 13:42:50 [phila]
- RRSAgent, draft minutes
- 13:42:50 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/04/14-dwbp-minutes.html phila
- 13:58:24 [yaso]
- yaso has joined #dwbp
- 13:59:00 [flavio]
- flavio has joined #dwbp
- 13:59:16 [Caroline]
- Caroline has joined #DWBP
- 13:59:27 [NewtonCalegari]
- https://plus.google.com/hangouts/_/g4vna23i4mz4l6doovo34sysm4a
- 13:59:37 [deirdrelee]
- Hi, welcome back
- 14:01:50 [Caroline]
- Hello! :)
- 14:02:14 [annette_g]
- annette_g has joined #dwbp
- 14:02:29 [deirdrelee]
- Let's get started guys & gals...
- 14:03:47 [NewtonCalegari]
- Austin is calling
- 14:04:02 [deirdrelee]
- cool
- 14:04:09 [yaso]
- dialing again
- 14:04:30 [Zakim]
- +[IPcaller]
- 14:04:45 [deirdrelee]
- zakim, who is here?
- 14:04:45 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see Ipswich, [IPcaller]
- 14:04:47 [Zakim]
- Ipswich has phila, deirdrelee, riccardoalbertoni
- 14:04:47 [Zakim]
- On IRC I see annette_g, Caroline, flavio, yaso, phila, Sumit_Purohit, GiselePappa, BernadetteLoscio_, NewtonCalegari, laufer, ericstephan, makx, deirdrelee, Zakim, RRSAgent,
- 14:04:47 [Zakim]
- ... riccardoAlbertoni, rhiaro, hadleybeeman, trackbot
- 14:05:16 [Zakim]
- +HadleyBeeman
- 14:06:43 [Zakim]
- +riccardoAlbertoni
- 14:06:53 [Caroline]
- scribe: Caroline
- 14:07:13 [deirdrelee]
- issue-62?
- 14:07:13 [trackbot]
- issue-62 -- What info is given when dereferencing a persistent identifier after the resource has been removed/archived -- open
- 14:07:13 [trackbot]
- http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/62
- 14:07:16 [deirdrelee]
- issue-63?
- 14:07:16 [trackbot]
- issue-63 -- If a resource is archived, is the correct response 410, 303 or something else? -- open
- 14:07:16 [trackbot]
- http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/63
- 14:07:35 [phila]
- q+ to make a suggestion
- 14:07:41 [phila]
- ack me
- 14:07:41 [Zakim]
- phila, you wanted to make a suggestion
- 14:07:46 [Caroline]
- deirdrelee: sorry, I couldn't hear you
- 14:08:10 [deirdrelee]
- zakim, who is here?
- 14:08:10 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see Ipswich, [IPcaller], HadleyBeeman, riccardoAlbertoni
- 14:08:12 [Zakim]
- Ipswich has phila, deirdrelee, riccardoalbertoni
- 14:08:12 [Zakim]
- On IRC I see annette_g, Caroline, flavio, yaso, phila, Sumit_Purohit, GiselePappa, BernadetteLoscio_, NewtonCalegari, laufer, ericstephan, makx, deirdrelee, Zakim, RRSAgent,
- 14:08:12 [Zakim]
- ... riccardoAlbertoni, rhiaro, hadleybeeman, trackbot
- 14:08:17 [Caroline]
- yes
- 14:08:20 [Caroline]
- thank you1
- 14:08:48 [ericstephan]
- q+
- 14:09:14 [phila]
- ack ericstephan
- 14:09:17 [Caroline]
- sorry, phila please write down this
- 14:09:58 [Caroline]
- ericstephan: when you take something offline but it still there
- 14:10:09 [Caroline]
- .... somehow is not available
- 14:10:16 [laufer]
- q+
- 14:10:24 [yaso]
- I think we should presume that data can always be back to online environments
- 14:10:26 [Caroline]
- phila, please talk not so close of the mic
- 14:10:39 [trackbot_]
- trackbot_ has joined #dwbp
- 14:10:42 [deirdrelee]
- ack laufer
- 14:10:54 [Zakim]
- -riccardoAlbertoni
- 14:11:05 [Caroline]
- laufer: issue 63, are we going to describe what archive on th web is?
- 14:11:09 [phila]
- phila: I was saying that it's very context dependent. If the URI always pointed to a landing page then update the landing page. If the URI pointed to the data, make it a 303 to a page giving info about the data and how to get it. basic rule - don't just delete and leave us with a 404
- 14:11:18 [Caroline]
- ... is that on our scope?
- 14:11:33 [Caroline]
- phila: we are not archiving on the web
- 14:11:57 [yaso]
- +1 to phila
- 14:12:01 [Caroline]
- deirdrelee: we are talking about what happen with the identifier
- 14:12:15 [Caroline]
- laufer: to me seems that we have a broken link
- 14:12:16 [ericstephan]
- Its fine tuning conditions rather than a boolean 404
- 14:12:23 [annette_g]
- q+ to ask if this issue is specific to data on the web
- 14:12:25 [Caroline]
- deirdrelee: it is not necessarly a broken link
- 14:12:42 [Caroline]
- laufer: if I archive something it does mean the linke would be broken?
- 14:12:46 [ericstephan]
- Yes it would be broken, but it would have an explanation
- 14:12:47 [phila]
- phila: I want to avoid broken links, even if the data has been removd
- 14:13:08 [Caroline]
- +1 to phila
- 14:13:22 [Caroline]
- annette_g: maybe this issue is out of scope
- 14:13:42 [deirdrelee]
- ack annette_g
- 14:13:42 [Zakim]
- annette_g, you wanted to ask if this issue is specific to data on the web
- 14:13:42 [ericstephan]
- +1 phila
- 14:13:47 [Caroline]
- ... maybe talking about momento would be ok
- 14:13:55 [phila]
- annette_g: It may be reasonable to talk about memento in this context too
- 14:14:20 [NewtonCalegari]
- s/momento/memento
- 14:14:42 [Caroline]
- phila: I think is about the ??
- 14:14:46 [ericstephan]
- it would seem like more of a warning condition as opposed to a fatal error.
- 14:15:02 [Caroline]
- annette_g: it is too specific data
- 14:15:15 [phila]
- phila: I think Memento only applies if you have dated data available. I think we're talking about removing data altogether and what happens to the identifier
- 14:15:22 [ericstephan]
- good point hadleybeeman
- 14:15:28 [annette_g]
- s/it is too specific data/is it specific to data?
- 14:15:47 [Caroline]
- deirdrelee, I can't understand, sorry
- 14:15:56 [deirdrelee]
- q?
- 14:16:00 [phila]
- phila: Persistent identifiers don't die, only what they identify
- 14:16:02 [Caroline]
- maybe if deirdrelee talk not so close to the mic
- 14:16:20 [laufer]
- q+
- 14:16:27 [phila]
- ack laufer
- 14:16:35 [Caroline]
- deirdrelee: archiving is out of scope?
- 14:16:36 [deirdrelee]
- ack laufer
- 14:17:12 [deirdrelee]
- deirdrelee: is addressing how identifiers on the Web are handled after a data resource is no longer on the web in scope?
- 14:17:14 [phila]
- q+ to offer to write a BP on the topic
- 14:17:19 [ericstephan]
- error handling bp?
- 14:17:29 [Caroline]
- laufer: I don't know if we should have a BP to data being archived
- 14:17:41 [Sumit_Purohit]
- q+
- 14:17:50 [phila]
- ack me
- 14:17:50 [Zakim]
- phila, you wanted to offer to write a BP on the topic
- 14:17:50 [Caroline]
- laufer: I don't know how this would be resolved
- 14:17:54 [flavio]
- flavio has joined #dwbp
- 14:18:10 [Caroline]
- phila: we arre not talking about data archiving, but about consistence
- 14:18:28 [riccardoAlbertoni]
- s/arre/are
- 14:18:29 [hadleybeeman]
- I would assume that a request for archived data would return a 410... is that just me?
- 14:18:30 [deirdrelee]
- ack Sumit_Purohit
- 14:19:09 [phila]
- phila: Yes, Sumit, that's what we should do
- 14:19:13 [annette_g]
- q+
- 14:19:14 [phila]
- (I think)
- 14:19:15 [ericstephan]
- +1 Sumit_Purohit
- 14:19:19 [Caroline]
- Sumit_Purohit: for a BP, if we can explain what had happen to that data in a common sense, instead of saying that data existed it might be more useful
- 14:19:36 [Caroline]
- ... data has been moved or has been removed for some reason
- 14:19:38 [laufer]
- q+
- 14:19:45 [phila]
- ack annette_g
- 14:19:46 [ericstephan]
- give a chance to do real exception handling
- 14:19:50 [deirdrelee]
- q+
- 14:19:57 [Caroline]
- annette_g: thinking about what Sumit_Purohit said
- 14:20:15 [Caroline]
- ... it should be understanded by a machine as well as humen
- 14:20:20 [Caroline]
- s/humen/human
- 14:20:26 [ericstephan]
- q+
- 14:20:31 [hadleybeeman]
- q+
- 14:20:34 [Caroline]
- ...maybe it is up to us to point somehting
- 14:20:51 [Caroline]
- laufer: for me is the same comment to indicate information not only to humans
- 14:20:59 [riccardoAlbertoni]
- s/somehting/something
- 14:21:05 [Zakim]
- +??P3
- 14:21:15 [makx]
- zakim, ??p3 is me
- 14:21:15 [Zakim]
- +makx; got it
- 14:21:15 [Caroline]
- ... how do people do it today? They put a message saying that page is not here anymore
- 14:21:23 [Caroline]
- ... is there a standard for that?
- 14:22:02 [deirdrelee]
- ack ericstephan
- 14:22:06 [deirdrelee]
- ack laufer
- 14:22:09 [deirdrelee]
- ack deirdrelee
- 14:22:09 [flavio_]
- flavio_ has joined #dwbp
- 14:22:11 [deirdrelee]
- q+
- 14:22:38 [Caroline]
- ericstephan: this might be an opportunity to the data vocabulary to provide an explanation
- 14:22:52 [annette_g]
- q+
- 14:22:56 [Caroline]
- ... the data usage vocabulary coujld provide an exaplation for this
- 14:23:02 [deirdrelee]
- Draft Proposal: Close issue 62 and 63, Action for Phil to write BP on topic of what happens to identifiers after data resource is no longer online (e.g. through archiving). WG will then decide if this should be included in BP doc, and if it is, should it be separate BP or merged with another BP
- 14:23:08 [deirdrelee]
- ack h
- 14:23:16 [riccardoAlbertoni]
- s/coujld/could
- 14:23:32 [deirdrelee]
- ack deirdrelee
- 14:23:35 [deirdrelee]
- ack annette_g
- 14:23:52 [Caroline]
- annette_g: I think this is more of a publisher side than a user side
- 14:24:00 [ericstephan]
- q+
- 14:24:02 [hadleybeeman]
- +1 to annette_g!!
- 14:24:03 [Caroline]
- ... it could be on the BP document
- 14:24:06 [hadleybeeman]
- That's what I was going to say. :)
- 14:24:16 [laufer]
- I think that someone could have no more access to some data even if it is online
- 14:24:27 [phila]
- q+ To talk about possible new status (ADMS-like)
- 14:24:36 [laufer]
- because, perhaps, now it is necessary to pay for it, for example
- 14:24:39 [Caroline]
- ... we could use the code 401 for something that has been removed
- 14:24:41 [deirdrelee]
- ack ericstephan
- 14:24:49 [hadleybeeman]
- s/401/410
- 14:24:58 [annette_g]
- * 410 is "gone"
- 14:25:10 [Caroline]
- ericstephan: the way we are looking to the data usage vocabulary is that some useful information should be there
- 14:25:20 [Caroline]
- ... we can debate it this afternoon
- 14:25:44 [Caroline]
- ... to me giving the information about what is going on
- 14:25:47 [hadleybeeman]
- q?
- 14:25:51 [hadleybeeman]
- zakim, close the queue
- 14:25:51 [Zakim]
- ok, hadleybeeman, the speaker queue is closed
- 14:26:00 [phila]
- q-
- 14:26:00 [Caroline]
- deirdrelee: we can discuss it this afternoon
- 14:26:31 [phila]
- PROPOSED: Close issue 62 and 63, Action for Phil to write BP on topic of what happens to identifiers after data resource is no longer online (e.g. through archiving). WG will then decide if this should be included in BP doc, and if it is, should it be separate BP or merged with another BP
- 14:26:46 [ericstephan]
- +1
- 14:26:53 [riccardoAlbertoni]
- +1
- 14:26:55 [annette_g]
- +1
- 14:27:00 [laufer]
- +1
- 14:27:03 [Caroline]
- +1
- 14:27:04 [phila]
- +1
- 14:27:18 [hadleybeeman]
- +1
- 14:27:20 [deirdrelee]
- +1
- 14:27:35 [phila]
- RESOLVED: Close issue 62 and 63, Action for Phil to write BP on topic of what happens to identifiers after data resource is no longer online (e.g. through archiving). WG will then decide if this should be included in BP doc, and if it is, should it be separate BP or merged with another BP
- 14:27:35 [BernadetteLoscio_]
- +1
- 14:27:43 [phila]
- CLOSE ISSUE-62
- 14:27:43 [trackbot]
- Closed ISSUE-62.
- 14:27:43 [trackbot_]
- Closed ISSUE-62.
- 14:27:49 [phila]
- close issue-63
- 14:27:49 [trackbot_]
- Closed issue-63.
- 14:27:49 [trackbot]
- Closed issue-63.
- 14:27:56 [hadleybeeman]
- rrsagent, pointer?
- 14:27:56 [RRSAgent]
- See http://www.w3.org/2015/04/14-dwbp-irc#T14-27-56
- 14:28:06 [ericstephan]
- set up another round again, ever forward!
- 14:28:12 [hadleybeeman]
- :)
- 14:28:19 [Caroline]
- deirdrelee: issue number 137
- 14:28:26 [phila]
- Topic: The Right to privacy, Issue-137
- 14:28:34 [phila]
- issue-137?
- 14:28:34 [trackbot]
- issue-137 -- Review BP Preserve person's right to privacy -- open
- 14:28:34 [trackbot_]
- issue-137 -- Review BP Preserve person's right to privacy -- open
- 14:28:34 [trackbot_]
- http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/137
- 14:28:34 [trackbot]
- http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/137
- 14:28:44 [Caroline]
- https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/137
- 14:28:50 [hadleybeeman]
- q+
- 14:28:56 [hadleybeeman]
- zakim, open the queue
- 14:28:56 [Zakim]
- ok, hadleybeeman, the speaker queue is open
- 14:28:57 [Caroline]
- deirdrelee: maybe changing the text
- 14:28:58 [hadleybeeman]
- q+
- 14:29:05 [phila]
- ack hadleybeeman
- 14:29:16 [deirdrelee]
- Action: phila to write BP on topic of what happens to identifiers after data resource is no longer online (e.g. through archiving). WG will then decide if this should be included in BP doc, and if it is, should it be separate BP or merged with another BP
- 14:29:17 [trackbot]
- Created ACTION-161 - Write bp on topic of what happens to identifiers after data resource is no longer online (e.g. through archiving). wg will then decide if this should be included in bp doc, and if it is, should it be separate bp or merged with another bp [on Phil Archer - due 2015-04-21].
- 14:29:18 [trackbot_]
- Created ACTION-162 - Write bp on topic of what happens to identifiers after data resource is no longer online (e.g. through archiving). wg will then decide if this should be included in bp doc, and if it is, should it be separate bp or merged with another bp [on Phil Archer - due 2015-04-21].
- 14:29:33 [Caroline]
- hadleybeeman: I have trouble with this one because is so country specific and culture specific, there is no easy way to make it global
- 14:29:54 [deirdrelee]
- q?
- 14:30:00 [ericstephan]
- really good points hadleybeeman
- 14:30:07 [Caroline]
- ... it is very dificult to deal with the fact the data should deal with so many jurisdiction and it is so close to legal laws
- 14:30:11 [annette_g]
- q+
- 14:30:12 [Caroline]
- +1 to hadleybeeman
- 14:30:12 [ericstephan]
- q+
- 14:30:15 [riccardoAlbertoni]
- +1 to hadleybeeman
- 14:30:30 [hadleybeeman]
- The topic is too close to us giving legal advice, which isn't in scope for us.
- 14:30:35 [yaso]
- +1 to annette_g
- 14:30:53 [deirdrelee]
- BP: http://bernafarias.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#PreservePrivacy
- 14:31:08 [ericstephan]
- +1 that's the approach companies, orgs use (security plans)
- 14:31:10 [Caroline]
- annette_g: the BP 19
- 14:31:11 [hadleybeeman]
- q+ to comment that I don't think this is technical
- 14:31:11 [ericstephan]
- q-
- 14:31:24 [deirdrelee]
- ack annette_g
- 14:31:29 [Caroline]
- ... it helps people who are more familiarized with the data other than us
- 14:31:30 [phila]
- ack h
- 14:31:30 [Zakim]
- hadleybeeman, you wanted to comment that I don't think this is technical
- 14:31:52 [ericstephan]
- have we got any advice from the privacy interest group?
- 14:31:57 [annette_g]
- q+
- 14:32:04 [Caroline]
- hadleybeeman: I am not sure is technical enough to be in the scope here
- 14:32:07 [deirdrelee]
- ack annette_g
- 14:32:18 [ericstephan]
- q+
- 14:32:28 [Caroline]
- annette_g: It might help people how to deal with this
- 14:32:38 [Caroline]
- ... if we could give them some guidance
- 14:32:39 [Caroline]
- q+
- 14:32:44 [hadleybeeman]
- q+
- 14:32:53 [phila]
- q+ to support Hadley's point
- 14:33:10 [Caroline]
- ... focusing on how they might do a security plan
- 14:33:21 [Caroline]
- right now the title is very general
- 14:33:30 [hadleybeeman]
- q- later
- 14:33:36 [Caroline]
- ... it could explain how a security plan would be
- 14:33:48 [Caroline]
- ericstephan: in the commercial industry there are so many approaches
- 14:34:05 [Caroline]
- ... something that is fine with one kind is not with another
- 14:34:15 [deirdrelee]
- ack ericstephan
- 14:34:17 [deirdrelee]
- ack Caroline
- 14:35:11 [ericstephan]
- +1 to Caroline as a footnote bp
- 14:35:24 [phila]
- ack me
- 14:35:24 [Zakim]
- phila, you wanted to support Hadley's point
- 14:35:29 [Caroline]
- Caroline: proposal to put this as a note (footnote)
- 14:35:47 [phila]
- -> http://www.w3.org/2013/share-psi/bp/cas/ Share-PSI
- 14:35:51 [hadleybeeman]
- phila: When were in TPAC, Hadley made similar comments about some of the proposed best practices then. Though it has caused me pain since then, she's right.
- 14:35:59 [ericstephan]
- +1 phila->hadleybeeman (pointer reference)
- 14:36:19 [hadleybeeman]
- ... That is a link to a best practice that could have been in our document except that we agreed we were only doing technical matters, not policy matters.
- 14:36:44 [makx]
- +1 to phil
- 14:36:44 [hadleybeeman]
- ...This BP says "security plan". We ruled lots of things out of scope because they were too policy oriented, and to be consistent we should remove this one too.
- 14:36:48 [ericstephan]
- q+
- 14:37:09 [hadleybeeman]
- q?
- 14:37:22 [deirdrelee]
- ack hadleybeeman
- 14:37:31 [Caroline]
- hadleybeeman: I agree with phila and Caroline
- 14:37:39 [deirdrelee]
- ack ericstephan
- 14:37:51 [Caroline]
- ericstephan: we have talked about that the BP needs to be dataset center
- 14:37:59 [hadleybeeman]
- s/center/centered
- 14:38:07 [Caroline]
- ... this would be an interesting note, but it is not dataset centered
- 14:38:15 [Caroline]
- ... I would take it out
- 14:38:18 [annette_g]
- q+
- 14:38:27 [deirdrelee]
- ack annette_g
- 14:38:28 [phila]
- Draft proposal - that http://bernafarias.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#PreservePrivacy be deleted, however, reference to the importance of preserviving privacy should be included in the introductory material in the context of the overall policy in which data is made available.
- 14:38:34 [Caroline]
- annette_g: I respectly desagree.
- 14:39:00 [Caroline]
- ... I think it is dataset centered. I think the data publishers in general have to deal with a lot
- 14:39:09 [deirdrelee]
- q+
- 14:39:10 [laufer]
- q+
- 14:39:14 [hadleybeeman]
- q+
- 14:39:15 [phila]
- ack deirdrelee
- 14:39:16 [Caroline]
- ... I think it is more an issue for publishing data than publishing other formats on the web
- 14:39:22 [Caroline]
- deirdrelee: I tend to agree with annette_g
- 14:39:37 [Caroline]
- ... it might not be as tecnhical centered as others, but it has to be considered
- 14:39:48 [Caroline]
- ... it doesn't have to be a BP
- 14:39:52 [phila]
- ack laufer
- 14:39:56 [Caroline]
- ... but it should be on the BP document
- 14:39:57 [ericstephan]
- I understand your point annette_g, but I still don't want it to be a BP
- 14:40:15 [Caroline]
- laufer: I thinking that privacy is one of the things that can control the access to data
- 14:40:27 [Caroline]
- ... we have other things that can control access to data
- 14:40:36 [Caroline]
- ... maybe we are talking about control of access
- 14:40:46 [Caroline]
- q+
- 14:40:53 [ericstephan]
- q+
- 14:41:15 [Caroline]
- ... I don't konw if we are talking about access of data and privacy is one of them
- 14:41:18 [phila]
- ack h
- 14:41:21 [hadleybeeman]
- "Intended Outcome: Data that can identify an individual person must not be published without their consent."
- 14:41:28 [deirdrelee]
- q+ to talk about data access and classification
- 14:41:35 [Caroline]
- +1 to hadleybeeman
- 14:42:18 [Caroline]
- hadleybeeman: I don't see a way to give any kind of guidance without getting into a legal trouble
- 14:42:28 [annette_g]
- +1 to hadley
- 14:42:42 [annette_g]
- q+
- 14:42:55 [phila]
- ack Caroline
- 14:43:13 [hadleybeeman]
- caroline: What are we proposing?
- 14:43:33 [deirdrelee]
- Draft proposal - that http://bernafarias.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#PreservePrivacy be deleted, however, reference to the importance of preserviving privacy should be included in the introductory material in the context of the overall policy in which data is made available.
- 14:43:36 [hadleybeeman]
- ...I think "Intended Outcome: Data that can identify an individual person must not be published without their consent." is very clear
- 14:43:56 [Caroline]
- Caroline: what is hadleybeeman proposal?
- 14:43:58 [hadleybeeman]
- ...The question should be: should we keep it or not?
- 14:44:11 [Caroline]
- ... should we keep the section 8.5 on the BP document?
- 14:44:20 [makx]
- +000000000000000000000.
- 14:44:33 [annette_g]
- -1
- 14:45:01 [deirdrelee]
- q?
- 14:45:04 [phila]
- zakim, close queue
- 14:45:04 [Zakim]
- ok, phila, the speaker queue is closed
- 14:45:05 [BernadetteLoscio_]
- q+
- 14:45:16 [phila]
- zakim, open queue
- 14:45:16 [Zakim]
- ok, phila, the speaker queue is open
- 14:45:20 [phila]
- q+ BernadetteLoscio_
- 14:45:24 [phila]
- zakim, close queue
- 14:45:24 [Zakim]
- ok, phila, the speaker queue is closed
- 14:45:32 [Caroline]
- phila: we would have to remove 2 BP (19 and 20)
- 14:45:43 [Caroline]
- Zakim, open the speaker queue
- 14:45:43 [Zakim]
- I don't understand 'open the speaker queue', Caroline
- 14:46:16 [Caroline]
- ericstephan: I am wondering if we deduce security, somethings might be available or not
- 14:46:39 [Caroline]
- ... this data isn't availabe. Maybe we can provide an explanation or not
- 14:46:51 [deirdrelee]
- q-
- 14:46:55 [deirdrelee]
- ack ericstephan
- 14:47:09 [phila]
- ack annette_g
- 14:47:09 [Caroline]
- ... instead of security plan, it can envolve all about puting the data on the web
- 14:47:22 [Caroline]
- annette_g: I agree that is dangerous to propose specif rules
- 14:47:46 [Caroline]
- ... I think it is important to mention this issue
- 14:47:59 [Caroline]
- ... I think it might help the web to be a better place to publish
- 14:48:11 [deirdrelee]
- ack BernadetteLoscio_
- 14:48:14 [annette_g]
- annette_g:
- 14:48:24 [ericstephan]
- +1 BernadetteLoscio_
- 14:48:31 [annette_g]
- annette_g: that's why I propose we suggest publishers make a plan
- 14:48:34 [Caroline]
- BernadetteLoscio_: I think it we are going to remove the BP 19, we would have to review the entire section
- 14:48:59 [ericstephan]
- By +1 I mean revisit, to see what to do
- 14:49:00 [Caroline]
- ... I am not against to remove the BP 19, but then we would have to review the BP 20 and discuss what to do with it
- 14:49:07 [deirdrelee]
- PROPOSED: that http://bernafarias.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#PreservePrivacy be deleted, however, reference to the importance of preserviving privacy should be included in the introductory material in the context of the overall policy in which data is made available.
- 14:49:19 [hadleybeeman]
- +1
- 14:49:30 [annette_g]
- -10
- 14:49:42 [deirdrelee]
- -1
- 14:49:52 [laufer]
- the proposal is to revise...
- 14:49:53 [makx]
- +1 to deleting and mention in introduction
- 14:49:54 [phila]
- I don't want to delete the BP about unavailability reference
- 14:49:56 [yaso]
- -1
- 14:49:57 [Caroline]
- -1
- 14:50:10 [ericstephan]
- +1
- 14:50:38 [ericstephan]
- annette_g used the nuclear option
- 14:51:04 [Caroline]
- I think before removing it is important to review it
- 14:51:13 [Caroline]
- the entire section
- 14:51:26 [yaso]
- q+
- 14:51:34 [deirdrelee]
- zakim, open queue
- 14:51:34 [Zakim]
- ok, deirdrelee, the speaker queue is open
- 14:51:51 [Caroline]
- yaso: I think we should take a look more careful of what means a security plan
- 14:52:10 [Caroline]
- ... maybe we can recommend more tecnichal details to recommend on this issue
- 14:52:32 [riccardoAlbertoni]
- s/tecnichal/technical
- 14:52:59 [Caroline]
- ... we could split
- 14:53:17 [Caroline]
- ... there are a lot of W3C recommendations about privacy
- 14:53:20 [hadleybeeman]
- q+ to respond to Yaso
- 14:53:26 [Caroline]
- ... we could remove the word security plan
- 14:53:29 [deirdrelee]
- ddraft PROPOSal: that http://bernafarias.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#PreservePrivacy should remain, but rephrased so that it does not give any specific recommendations of HOW it should be achieved, e.g. the consent sentence Hadley referenced
- 14:53:37 [deirdrelee]
- q?
- 14:53:40 [deirdrelee]
- ack hadleybeeman
- 14:53:40 [Zakim]
- hadleybeeman, you wanted to respond to Yaso
- 14:53:42 [deirdrelee]
- q+
- 14:54:02 [Caroline]
- hadleybeeman: I still think we have to be very careful on how we describe the use cases
- 14:54:12 [ericstephan]
- draft proposal: that http://bernafarias.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#PreservePrivacy be deleted, and be replaced by BP for sharing datasets and metadata.
- 14:54:21 [Caroline]
- ... I am not sure we are talking about data individuals
- 14:54:24 [phila]
- ack deirdrelee
- 14:55:02 [ericstephan]
- q+
- 14:55:06 [hadleybeeman]
- q+
- 14:55:24 [laufer]
- is about of what different types of consumers could see...
- 14:55:25 [Caroline]
- deirdrelee: I agree with hadleybeeman
- 14:55:35 [phila]
- q+ to ask what the intended outcome will be
- 14:55:43 [phila]
- ack ericstephan
- 14:55:44 [deirdrelee]
- ack ericstephan
- 14:55:46 [hadleybeeman]
- q+ to respond to deirdrelee's point about HOW. I think my worries are more about the "when" and the "why".
- 14:56:18 [Caroline]
- ericstephan: deirdrelee was saying that this is about the publishers and they would have to figure out about the laws and what is privacy or not
- 14:56:34 [Caroline]
- ... but we should share what should be published or note
- 14:56:39 [Caroline]
- s/note/not
- 14:56:42 [laufer]
- is about the publishers and the consumers
- 14:56:52 [Caroline]
- ... that might be about data and metadata
- 14:57:13 [phila]
- ack h
- 14:57:13 [Zakim]
- hadleybeeman, you wanted to respond to deirdrelee's point about HOW. I think my worries are more about the "when" and the "why".
- 14:57:20 [ericstephan]
- okay sorry if I was off topic deirdrelee
- 14:57:21 [deirdrelee]
- zakim, close queue
- 14:57:21 [Zakim]
- ok, deirdrelee, the speaker queue is closed
- 14:57:23 [Caroline]
- deirdrelee, I could'nt understand you, sorry
- 14:57:36 [Caroline]
- hadleybeeman: I have a problem about talking about how
- 14:57:54 [Caroline]
- ... saying to protect personal data of another people causes legal issues
- 14:58:05 [Caroline]
- ... that feels to me that is out of scope
- 14:58:13 [phila]
- ack me
- 14:58:13 [Zakim]
- phila, you wanted to ask what the intended outcome will be
- 14:58:21 [ericstephan]
- hadleybeeman +1 yeah for practical advice like https
- 14:58:22 [phila]
- Data that can identify an individual person must not be published without their consent.
- 14:58:42 [yaso]
- So we should make a note and clearly point to somewhere, so that people can find advice about this
- 14:58:51 [annette_g]
- q+
- 14:58:59 [Caroline]
- phila: if we change it, talking about only the tecnhical aspects, what would be the intended BP?
- 14:59:01 [laufer]
- this is a world law, phil?
- 14:59:25 [Caroline]
- annette_g: I think the intended outcome is that data would be published with some thoughs about these issues
- 14:59:34 [Caroline]
- ... that itself is an important outcome
- 15:00:02 [Caroline]
- deirdrelee: if we agree to remove the BP and put a note
- 15:00:16 [Caroline]
- ... or we could revise the BP
- 15:00:28 [ericstephan]
- could we do both?
- 15:00:38 [Caroline]
- +1 to ericstephan suggestion
- 15:00:43 [phila]
- deirdrelee: We have replacing the BP with a footnote (on Hadley) and we have Deirdre and Annette on rewording the BP. Maybe we take those as actions and then decide
- 15:00:43 [yaso]
- I do not agree that this turns in to a footnote, at least I do not agree now...
- 15:00:47 [ericstephan]
- add a note and make a new and improved BP
- 15:00:58 [laufer]
- if the bp depends on local laws a bp in one place could be a bad practice in another place
- 15:01:00 [annette_g]
- I'm happy to work on the BP
- 15:01:00 [ericstephan]
- okay
- 15:01:42 [hadleybeeman]
- rrsagent, pointer?
- 15:01:42 [RRSAgent]
- See http://www.w3.org/2015/04/14-dwbp-irc#T15-01-42
- 15:01:51 [Caroline]
- action to ericstephan and hadleybeeman to review the BP thinking about a footnote
- 15:01:51 [trackbot_]
- Error finding 'to'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/users>.
- 15:01:51 [trackbot]
- Error finding 'to'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/users>.
- 15:02:00 [deirdrelee]
- PROPOSED: Action for Hadley & Eric to propose alterantive text if BP is removed. Action for Annetee & Dee to revise BP text if BP remains. Leave Makx's issue open
- 15:02:12 [deirdrelee]
- +1
- 15:02:12 [ericstephan]
- +1
- 15:02:14 [hadleybeeman]
- +1
- 15:02:14 [yaso]
- +1
- 15:02:15 [flavio_]
- +1
- 15:02:15 [annette_g]
- +1
- 15:02:16 [Caroline]
- +1
- 15:02:16 [GiselePappa]
- +1
- 15:02:17 [phila]
- +1
- 15:02:21 [makx]
- +1
- 15:02:21 [laufer]
- +1
- 15:02:22 [BernadetteLoscio_]
- +1
- 15:02:22 [riccardoAlbertoni]
- +1
- 15:02:23 [Sumit_Purohit]
- +1
- 15:02:38 [phila]
- RESOLVED: Action for Hadley & Eric to propose alterantive text if BP is removed. Action for Annetee & Dee to revise BP text if BP remains. Leave Makx's issue open
- 15:02:45 [ericstephan]
- we are an agreeable bunch today - even dancing around security issues.
- 15:03:00 [hadleybeeman]
- :)
- 15:03:30 [phila]
- action: hadley to work with Phil to propose text to replace http://bernafarias.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#PreservePrivacy
- 15:03:30 [trackbot]
- Created ACTION-163 - Work with phil to propose text to replace http://bernafarias.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#preserveprivacy [on Hadley Beeman - due 2015-04-21].
- 15:03:30 [trackbot_]
- Created ACTION-164 - Work with phil to propose text to replace http://bernafarias.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#preserveprivacy [on Hadley Beeman - due 2015-04-21].
- 15:03:38 [ericstephan]
- you were breaking up deirdrelee
- 15:03:54 [phila]
- action: annette to work with Dee to propose alternative text for http://bernafarias.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#PreservePrivacy
- 15:03:54 [trackbot]
- Created ACTION-166 - Work with dee to propose alternative text for http://bernafarias.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#preserveprivacy [on Annette Greiner - due 2015-04-21].
- 15:03:54 [trackbot_]
- Created ACTION-165 - Work with dee to propose alternative text for http://bernafarias.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#preserveprivacy [on Annette Greiner - due 2015-04-21].
- 15:03:57 [Caroline]
- deirdrelee: let's talk about the issues 53, 54 and 93
- 15:03:57 [ericstephan]
- we are moving ahead on BP issues, and timeline in the remaining time?
- 15:04:03 [deirdrelee]
- issue-53
- 15:04:03 [trackbot]
- issue-53 -- Whether sla is/can be thought of as part of the licence or whether it needs to be pulled out spearately? -- open
- 15:04:03 [trackbot_]
- issue-53 -- Whether sla is/can be thought of as part of the licence or whether it needs to be pulled out spearately? -- open
- 15:04:03 [trackbot_]
- http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/53
- 15:04:03 [trackbot]
- http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/53
- 15:04:07 [deirdrelee]
- issue-54
- 15:04:07 [trackbot_]
- issue-54 -- The term "sla" is vague, undefined, and may not actually represent an agreement between the publisher and reuser -- open
- 15:04:07 [trackbot]
- issue-54 -- The term "sla" is vague, undefined, and may not actually represent an agreement between the publisher and reuser -- open
- 15:04:07 [trackbot]
- http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/54
- 15:04:07 [trackbot_]
- http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/54
- 15:04:08 [phila]
- Topic: SLAs
- 15:04:15 [deirdrelee]
- issue-93
- 15:04:15 [trackbot]
- issue-93 -- Free Open Data SLAs for Open Data publishing -- open
- 15:04:15 [trackbot_]
- issue-93 -- Free Open Data SLAs for Open Data publishing -- open
- 15:04:15 [trackbot_]
- http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/93
- 15:04:15 [trackbot]
- http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/93
- 15:05:22 [phila]
- deirdrelee: SLAs not currently included in the BPs
- 15:05:44 [deirdrelee]
- PROPOSED: SLAs are not in scope
- 15:05:58 [deirdrelee]
- +1
- 15:06:01 [yaso]
- Agree. +1
- 15:06:08 [ericstephan]
- +1
- 15:06:11 [NewtonCalegari]
- +1
- 15:06:11 [Caroline]
- +1
- 15:06:16 [BernadetteLoscio_]
- +1
- 15:06:18 [phila]
- -1, see http://www.w3.org/TR/dwbp-ucr/#R-SLAAvailable
- 15:06:24 [makx]
- +1
- 15:06:41 [flavio_]
- +1
- 15:06:45 [GiselePappa]
- +1
- 15:06:52 [laufer]
- but to give metadata for sla is not in the scope?
- 15:07:02 [Caroline]
- BernadetteLoscio_: we have other requirements that are not covered. This is not the onyl one
- 15:07:04 [annette_g]
- -1
- 15:07:08 [Caroline]
- s/onyl/only
- 15:07:08 [laufer]
- -1
- 15:07:08 [yaso]
- Not specific to SLA, I think that is covered, Laufer
- 15:07:20 [deirdrelee]
- q?
- 15:07:20 [riccardoAlbertoni]
- q+
- 15:07:29 [phila]
- zakim, open queue
- 15:07:29 [Zakim]
- ok, phila, the speaker queue is open
- 15:07:34 [phila]
- q+ riccardoAlbertoni
- 15:08:05 [annette_g]
- q+
- 15:08:09 [Caroline]
- deirdrelee: sla is out of scope even though there is a requirement?
- 15:08:13 [annette_g]
- can't understand
- 15:08:16 [BernadetteLoscio_]
- we cant understand :(
- 15:08:17 [deirdrelee]
- ack riccardoAlbertoni
- 15:08:24 [Caroline]
- riccardoAlbertoni: I cannot understand you, sorry
- 15:08:27 [ericstephan]
- muffled sounding unfortunately
- 15:08:46 [ericstephan]
- glossary suggested?
- 15:08:50 [BernadetteLoscio_]
- q+
- 15:08:54 [Caroline]
- what is the suggestion?
- 15:09:03 [laufer]
- I think that license and sla has some common things...
- 15:09:07 [riccardoAlbertoni]
- I am proposing to have the definition in the glossary for sla
- 15:09:08 [deirdrelee]
- ack annette_g
- 15:09:14 [Caroline]
- annette_g: I agree that the term sla is vague an not helpful
- 15:09:20 [Zakim]
- -makx
- 15:09:26 [Caroline]
- ... but I think we need to address the issue of availability
- 15:09:27 [ericstephan]
- q+
- 15:09:36 [riccardoAlbertoni]
- becouse It is not clear to me the difference between licence and SLA
- 15:09:41 [Caroline]
- BernadetteLoscio_: availability is data quality
- 15:09:48 [Zakim]
- -HadleyBeeman
- 15:09:51 [deirdrelee]
- ack BernadetteLoscio_
- 15:10:03 [Caroline]
- ... availability is a quality criteria
- 15:10:13 [Caroline]
- annette_g: why do you think is data quality?
- 15:10:16 [deirdrelee]
- q+
- 15:10:18 [phila]
- I think I agree with Berna
- 15:10:24 [Caroline]
- BernadetteLoscio_: availability is another criteria
- 15:10:27 [phila]
- q+
- 15:10:45 [Caroline]
- ... in my opinio availability is a dataset and a data quality information
- 15:11:00 [Caroline]
- annette_g: I think is a different thing
- 15:11:06 [phila]
- +1 to BernadetteLoscio
- 15:11:08 [phila]
- q-
- 15:11:13 [yaso]
- +1 to berna
- 15:11:25 [Caroline]
- laufer: I think the sla is the way the consumer could evaluate it
- 15:11:31 [Caroline]
- ... the consumer need a license
- 15:11:48 [phila]
- CHAIR INTERRUPT - BEHAVE!
- 15:11:56 [phila]
- ack ericstephan
- 15:12:06 [Caroline]
- ... to decide about to use it or not.
- 15:12:27 [phila]
- +1 to Eric
- 15:12:27 [Caroline]
- ericstephan: I need someway to describe the availability of the data
- 15:12:37 [Caroline]
- ... I think we can discuss wich ways we can do that
- 15:12:43 [phila]
- q+ to say that SLAs are an aspect of DQ
- 15:12:43 [Caroline]
- ... we must have some way of convey that
- 15:12:53 [phila]
- ack deirdrelee
- 15:13:04 [Zakim]
- +[IPcaller.a]
- 15:13:09 [Caroline]
- deirdrelee: even though there is a requirement it is not currently included on the BP
- 15:13:16 [makx]
- zakim, ipcaller.a is me
- 15:13:16 [Zakim]
- +makx; got it
- 15:13:27 [Caroline]
- ... if it is important to be included, where it should be on the BP document?
- 15:13:43 [phila]
- Draft proposal - The the subject of Service Level Agreement be included in the Data Quality work as one way to convey info about accessibility
- 15:13:44 [deirdrelee]
- q?
- 15:13:45 [phila]
- ack me
- 15:13:45 [Zakim]
- phila, you wanted to say that SLAs are an aspect of DQ
- 15:13:51 [Caroline]
- ... should we include in the Glossary a definition
- 15:14:07 [Caroline]
- phila: I think we have several agreements. I agree with BernadetteLoscio_ and ericstephan
- 15:14:26 [Caroline]
- ... keeping the discussion we had yesterdary on data quality
- 15:14:45 [ericstephan]
- phila sla as an alternative approach and part of data quality +1
- 15:15:20 [phila]
- phila: I am saying that SLAs can be seen as one way to express data quality wrt accessibility and availability. So I suggest the issue is taken up by the Data Quality (vocab) work
- 15:15:32 [ericstephan]
- +1 phila
- 15:15:55 [Caroline]
- +1 to phila suggestion
- 15:15:57 [annette_g]
- q+
- 15:16:10 [yaso]
- +1 to phila
- 15:16:20 [phila]
- PROPOSAL: Close issue-53 - SLA should nto be referred to in the BP doc as it is distinct from the notion of licence
- 15:16:26 [phila]
- ack annette_g
- 15:17:00 [Caroline]
- annette_g: as long as we say we are including a reference. The BP will include what would be in the data quality vocabulary
- 15:17:01 [phila]
- annette_g: I can get behind this if the BPs say that we'll include what's in the DQV
- 15:17:11 [Caroline]
- ... we should make it clear what the availability is
- 15:17:16 [BernadetteLoscio_]
- q+
- 15:17:23 [Caroline]
- laufer: we will have a vocabulary to talk about this, but not a BP
- 15:17:36 [Caroline]
- annette_g: I suggest we write a BP that refers to the vocabulary
- 15:17:45 [phila]
- ack BernadetteLoscio_
- 15:18:03 [Caroline]
- BernadetteLoscio_: this will appears as one of the dimensions to describe data quality
- 15:18:26 [Caroline]
- annette_g: I would suggest that we have a BP taht tell us what the availbility is
- 15:18:38 [phila]
- I think http://www.w3.org/TR/dwbp/#ProvideDataQuality addresses Annette's point (modulo any updates)
- 15:18:49 [ericstephan]
- suggested alternative draft proposal: Close issue-53 - SLA should nto be referred to in the BP doc. SLA can be a dimension of data quality, data availability may be described in other ways in the DQ vocab
- 15:18:50 [Caroline]
- BernadetteLoscio_: if we have a vocabulary that describes the availability, then we jave it
- 15:18:55 [Caroline]
- s/jave/have
- 15:19:11 [phila]
- RRSAgent, draft minutes
- 15:19:11 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/04/14-dwbp-minutes.html phila
- 15:19:14 [Caroline]
- laufer: we will have a BP taht someone has to give metadata about quality
- 15:19:20 [ericstephan]
- q+
- 15:19:26 [Caroline]
- BernadetteLoscio_: we already have a BP taht information about data quality should be available
- 15:19:28 [Caroline]
- +1 to BernadetteLoscio_
- 15:19:37 [phila]
- ack ericstephan
- 15:19:40 [yaso]
- q+
- 15:19:44 [annette_g]
- +1 to BernadetteLoscio_
- 15:19:52 [riccardoAlbertoni]
- q+
- 15:20:24 [yaso]
- ack me o/
- 15:20:25 [phila]
- ack yaso
- 15:20:28 [Caroline]
- ericstephan: I suggest that we close this issue. SLA is an alternative way to express data availability. There are simpler ways, that could be described in the data quality vocabulary
- 15:20:53 [Caroline]
- yaso: how can we describe availabity in a simple way?
- 15:21:09 [phila]
- Dependencies witehin the WG are generally OK. Dependecies on outside WGs can be dangerous
- 15:21:24 [Caroline]
- s/witehin/whithin
- 15:21:24 [laufer]
- q+
- 15:21:33 [BernadetteLoscio_]
- q+
- 15:21:35 [ericstephan]
- "Back in ss minutes" concept might be introduced?
- 15:21:39 [phila]
- ack rhiaro
- 15:21:43 [phila]
- ack riccardoAlbertoni
- 15:21:44 [annette_g]
- q+
- 15:21:55 [riccardoAlbertoni]
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Service-level_agreement
- 15:21:56 [phila]
- riccardoAlbertoni: If you want to have an SLA as a quality dimension - OK
- 15:22:09 [annette_g]
- q_
- 15:22:12 [annette_g]
- q-
- 15:22:12 [yaso]
- My question to BernadetteLoscio_ was: is there a simpler or alternative way to provide info about availability of data?
- 15:22:17 [phila]
- ... the wiki page pointed to includes some kind oif promise that the publisher makes wrt quality
- 15:22:25 [phila]
- [Abba Dancing Queen]
- 15:22:34 [ericstephan]
- lol
- 15:22:46 [deirdrelee]
- yaso, yes, refer to data quality work..
- 15:22:50 [phila]
- riccardoAlbertoni: I wonder if there is more than just measuring the level of service
- 15:23:11 [phila]
- ... is an SLA an actual agreement. is it a legal contract and not just quality
- 15:23:14 [phila]
- q?
- 15:23:27 [phila]
- deirdrelee: The SLA isn't just about quality, it's a legal agreement
- 15:23:29 [phila]
- ack l
- 15:23:35 [yaso]
- Yes, but if this data quality work does not exist? Suppose that we don't make it. How can I publish information about the availability of my data?
- 15:23:35 [BernadetteLoscio_]
- q-
- 15:23:52 [yaso]
- (naive question, I know)
- 15:24:06 [phila]
- Have a little faith Yaso!
- 15:24:16 [Caroline]
- laufer: we have a BP that says 2 ways to provide this information: for humand and for machines
- 15:24:35 [deirdrelee]
- q?
- 15:24:52 [Caroline]
- ... the BP about providing quality informaiton solves this issue
- 15:25:02 [phila]
- deirdrelee: Time's up on this topic
- 15:25:05 [Caroline]
- ... the BP 8
- 15:25:12 [phila]
- deirdrelee: How can we refer to DQV if we don't have it it
- 15:25:18 [yaso]
- Trying to have, phila! can't I as a small creator of data just say in specific field: "monthly provided" - maybe a different approach for implementation
- 15:25:22 [phila]
- ... we can assume that there will be this work
- 15:25:24 [riccardoAlbertoni]
- s/informaiton/information
- 15:25:39 [yaso]
- okok, so I'll assume that too :-) phila
- 15:25:40 [ericstephan]
- +1 deirdrelee
- 15:25:45 [phila]
- deirdrelee: If for some reason the DQV doesn't happen, Ok, we'll deal with it
- 15:25:49 [annette_g]
- +1 if there is a BP for publishing data quality info
- 15:25:50 [phila]
- ... in terms ofthe SLA issue
- 15:26:02 [Caroline]
- deirdrelee: we are going to ericstephan proposal in terms of SAL
- 15:26:06 [Caroline]
- s/SAL/SLA
- 15:26:40 [ericstephan]
- PROPOSAL: Close issue-53 - SLA should nto be referred to in the BP doc. SLA can be a dimension of data quality, data availability may be described in other ways in the DQ vocab
- 15:26:54 [deirdrelee]
- s/proposal/proposed
- 15:26:54 [yaso]
- +1
- 15:26:59 [Caroline]
- s/nto/not
- 15:27:00 [ericstephan]
- sorry
- 15:27:04 [ericstephan]
- +1
- 15:27:11 [annette_g]
- can the proposal say that we have a BP for quality?
- 15:27:11 [phila]
- PROPOSED: Close issue-53 - SLA should not be referred to in the BP doc. SLA can be a dimension of data quality, data availability may be described in other ways in the DQ vocab
- 15:27:12 [deirdrelee]
- +1
- 15:27:13 [phila]
- +1
- 15:27:31 [phila]
- annette_g - see http://www.w3.org/TR/dwbp/#ProvideDataQuality
- 15:27:42 [riccardoAlbertoni]
- +0
- 15:27:46 [annette_g]
- +1
- 15:27:50 [GiselePappa]
- q+
- 15:28:01 [laufer]
- SLA is not a dimension of DQV
- 15:28:14 [phila]
- riccardoAlbertoni: My 0 ... it's find me to treat an SLA as a dimension of quality, but it's something different
- 15:28:21 [annette_g]
- riccardo is too close to the mic?
- 15:28:25 [laufer]
- some aspects of SLA could be covered by dimensions of DQV
- 15:28:27 [yaso]
- scribe: yaso
- 15:29:01 [phila]
- riccardoAlbertoni: An SLA is a promise between the provider and the consumer
- 15:29:11 [ericstephan]
- q+
- 15:29:12 [phila]
- ... the consumer will receive a certain level of service
- 15:29:14 [phila]
- q+
- 15:29:17 [yaso]
- tks phila
- 15:29:35 [phila]
- ack GiselePappa
- 15:29:42 [deirdrelee]
- zakim, close the queue
- 15:29:42 [Zakim]
- ok, deirdrelee, the speaker queue is closed
- 15:29:49 [yaso]
- GiselePappa: Just to say that I agree with Laufer that is not a dimension
- 15:29:59 [yaso]
- ... is a way to measure data quality, but is not a dimension
- 15:30:02 [laufer]
- +1 to riccardo... and the contract could attend or not the quality needs of the consumer
- 15:30:07 [phila]
- ack e
- 15:30:12 [yaso]
- GiselePappa: I'll try to rewrite it
- 15:31:01 [phila]
- ack me
- 15:31:01 [yaso]
- ericstephan: to me, I'm not getting caught by the term, I would suggest that perhaps that we it falls under a type of data quality but it is just to use a more generic
- 15:31:12 [GiselePappa]
- PROPOSED: Close issue-53 - SLA should not be referred to in the BP doc. SLA aspects can be covered by a dimension of data quality, data availability may be described in other ways in the DQ vocab
- 15:31:29 [yaso]
- phila: An SLA is one way to provide info about the quality of data
- 15:31:42 [ericstephan]
- +1
- 15:31:47 [yaso]
- +1
- 15:31:47 [Sumit_Purohit]
- +1
- 15:31:51 [annette_g]
- +1
- 15:32:02 [riccardoAlbertoni]
- +1 I agree with phil
- 15:32:05 [phila]
- deirdrelee: There's too much uncertainty about what the DQV will offer so we should leave the issues open and come back to them later
- 15:32:06 [laufer]
- +1
- 15:32:12 [phila]
- ... spoke too soon
- 15:32:13 [BernadetteLoscio_]
- +1
- 15:32:50 [yaso]
- BernadetteLoscio_: says that she disagrees of deirdre's proposal
- 15:33:08 [phila]
- PROPOSED: Close issue-53 - SLA should not be referred to in the BP doc. SLA can be one way to express data quality across multiple dimensions defined in the DQV
- 15:33:32 [laufer]
- do we have a SLA here?
- 15:33:37 [yaso]
- +1
- 15:33:38 [laufer]
- +1
- 15:33:39 [BernadetteLoscio_]
- +1
- 15:33:40 [annette_g]
- +1
- 15:33:40 [phila]
- Stop being awkward laufer
- 15:33:41 [GiselePappa]
- +1
- 15:33:43 [Sumit_Purohit]
- +1
- 15:33:49 [ericstephan]
- +
- 15:33:52 [laufer]
- hmmmm
- 15:34:30 [BernadetteLoscio_]
- q+
- 15:34:31 [ericstephan]
- uncertainty quantification needed about data quality, is what we are basically saying
- 15:35:18 [deirdrelee]
- draft proposal: data quality vocab includes a note on how data quality can be expressed, e.g. in SLAs, using ODI certs, metadata, etc
- 15:35:20 [makx]
- +1 to phil
- 15:35:30 [yaso]
- deirdre: inconcrete terms
- 15:35:31 [laufer]
- I agree phil... the sla could not be an explicit thing called sla... but a thing that can be extracted of things thta the publisher say...
- 15:35:35 [ericstephan]
- I think we are defining the DQV model right now phila
- 15:35:45 [BernadetteLoscio_]
- q+
- 15:35:47 [makx]
- call it guarantees
- 15:35:59 [BernadetteLoscio_]
- it should be on the BP, no?
- 15:36:05 [laufer]
- yes, makx
- 15:36:21 [annette_g]
- yes, makx, SLA is not a good term
- 15:36:28 [phila]
- PROPOSED: data quality vocab includes methods for expressing data quality, e.g. in SLAs, using ODI certs, metadata, etc
- 15:36:38 [BernadetteLoscio_]
- different ways of providing data quality should be possible approaches for implementation
- 15:36:58 [laufer]
- SLA is a way to express guarantees...
- 15:37:09 [ericstephan]
- phila there seems to be a natural parent concept there ("guarentees"?) and sla a child concept?
- 15:37:10 [yaso]
- BernadetteLoscio_: I think that I'm not sure that the Data Vocabulary is the right place
- 15:37:31 [makx]
- yes laufer that's what i wanted to say
- 15:37:39 [phila]
- Could be, ericstephan
- 15:37:40 [yaso]
- ... not sure about the right place to put it
- 15:38:02 [phila]
- PROPOSED: data quality vocab includes methods for expressing data quality, e.g. in SLAs, using ODI certs, metadata, etc
- 15:38:08 [phila]
- +1
- 15:38:17 [laufer]
- I am just agreeing with what you said, makx
- 15:38:23 [annette_g]
- +1
- 15:38:29 [laufer]
- +1
- 15:38:30 [yaso]
- +1
- 15:38:33 [Sumit_Purohit]
- +1
- 15:38:33 [BernadetteLoscio_]
- 0
- 15:38:35 [ericstephan]
- +1
- 15:38:51 [ericstephan]
- whaaaa BernadetteLoscio_ ?
- 15:38:53 [phila]
- zakim, [ is Austin
- 15:38:54 [Zakim]
- +Austin; got it
- 15:38:55 [Caroline]
- scribe: Caroline
- 15:38:55 [riccardoAlbertoni]
- +1 let's re-discuss this when we have aversion of data quality vocabulary ..
- 15:39:03 [deirdrelee]
- +1
- 15:39:08 [laufer]
- aversion...
- 15:39:20 [phila]
- Close issue-53
- 15:39:20 [trackbot_]
- Closed issue-53.
- 15:39:20 [trackbot]
- Closed issue-53.
- 15:39:27 [phila]
- issue-54?
- 15:39:27 [trackbot_]
- issue-54 -- The term "sla" is vague, undefined, and may not actually represent an agreement between the publisher and reuser -- open
- 15:39:27 [trackbot]
- issue-54 -- The term "sla" is vague, undefined, and may not actually represent an agreement between the publisher and reuser -- open
- 15:39:27 [trackbot]
- http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/54
- 15:39:27 [trackbot_]
- http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/54
- 15:39:31 [riccardoAlbertoni]
- s/aversion/ a version
- 15:39:39 [deirdrelee]
- PROPOSED: close issue 54
- 15:39:42 [phila]
- +1
- 15:39:45 [ericstephan]
- "aversion" or "a version"?
- 15:40:25 [annette_g]
- +1 to close 54
- 15:40:32 [ericstephan]
- +1
- 15:40:36 [BernadetteLoscio_]
- +1
- 15:40:41 [GiselePappa]
- +1
- 15:40:42 [Caroline]
- +1
- 15:40:43 [riccardoAlbertoni]
- to ericstephan: a version
- 15:40:53 [riccardoAlbertoni]
- +1
- 15:41:08 [phila]
- RESOLVED: Close issue-54
- 15:41:12 [deirdrelee]
- PROPOSED: close issue-93
- 15:41:13 [ericstephan]
- okay thanks riccardoAlbertoni :-)
- 15:41:18 [phila]
- issue-93?
- 15:41:18 [trackbot]
- issue-93 -- Free Open Data SLAs for Open Data publishing -- open
- 15:41:18 [trackbot_]
- issue-93 -- Free Open Data SLAs for Open Data publishing -- open
- 15:41:18 [trackbot]
- http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/93
- 15:41:18 [trackbot_]
- http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/93
- 15:41:18 [deirdrelee]
- +1
- 15:42:34 [laufer]
- q+
- 15:42:47 [laufer]
- hello
- 15:43:12 [laufer]
- I want to talk about 93
- 15:43:12 [phila]
- action: Riccardo to ensure that the DQV document includes SLAs as a possible method for expressing quality
- 15:43:13 [trackbot]
- Created ACTION-167 - Ensure that the dqv document includes slas as a possible method for expressing quality [on Riccardo Albertoni - due 2015-04-21].
- 15:43:13 [trackbot_]
- Created ACTION-168 - Ensure that the dqv document includes slas as a possible method for expressing quality [on Riccardo Albertoni - due 2015-04-21].
- 15:43:20 [laufer]
- 93
- 15:43:22 [deirdrelee]
- https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/April_2015_F2F
- 15:44:09 [phila]
- close issue-54
- 15:44:09 [trackbot]
- Closed issue-54.
- 15:44:09 [trackbot_]
- Closed issue-54.
- 15:44:27 [Caroline]
- deirdrelee: for the last 15min we will talk about the BP public working draft
- 15:44:27 [phila]
- Topic: BP Doc Time Line
- 15:44:50 [Caroline]
- ... we have created a lot of action
- 15:44:59 [Caroline]
- s/action/actions
- 15:45:15 [phila]
- close issue-144
- 15:45:15 [trackbot]
- Closed issue-144.
- 15:45:15 [trackbot_]
- Closed issue-144.
- 15:45:47 [Caroline]
- ... the editors must keep on track with the contributors to incorporate them in the document. It is up to the editors to make decisions on what to incorporate or not
- 15:46:08 [Caroline]
- q+
- 15:46:18 [phila]
- zakim, open queue
- 15:46:18 [Zakim]
- ok, phila, the speaker queue is open
- 15:46:27 [phila]
- ack Caroline
- 15:47:06 [BernadetteLoscio_]
- http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/BP_Document_Schedule
- 15:48:40 [Caroline]
- Caroline: asks to everyone to read the proposed schedule so we can discuss it in 2min from now
- 15:49:20 [Caroline]
- ... it is important to have an agreement on this so the editors can make decisions regarding the discussions/actions/issues and edit the document
- 15:49:42 [Caroline]
- ... also, if people can contribute direct on github it would very much help the editors
- 15:49:51 [NewtonCalegari]
- q+ to ask about memento and versioning (yesterday topic)
- 15:50:10 [yaso]
- phila: would you reconsider opening issues on github for the second round on community feedback?
- 15:50:21 [BernadetteLoscio_]
- yes
- 15:52:04 [deirdrelee]
- ACK NewtonCalegari
- 15:52:04 [Zakim]
- NewtonCalegari, you wanted to ask about memento and versioning (yesterday topic)
- 15:52:10 [Caroline]
- NewtonCalegari: about the memento and versioning
- 15:52:36 [Caroline]
- ... we must creat an action about it
- 15:52:43 [Caroline]
- deirdrelee: go ahead and creat it, NewtonCalegari
- 15:52:46 [Caroline]
- NewtonCalegari: ok
- 15:52:55 [yaso]
- q?
- 15:52:59 [Caroline]
- scribre: yaso
- 15:53:14 [yaso]
- phila: to the BP doc editors
- 15:53:22 [BernadetteLoscio_]
- q+
- 15:53:37 [phila]
- ack b
- 15:53:39 [yaso]
- ... in there's anything you need to discuss today, say it
- 15:54:08 [yaso]
- BernadetteLoscio_: I think that for the proposed scheduled there are 3 improtant things:
- 15:54:11 [phila]
- phila: Is there anything stopping the BP editors meeting the 18 May target as described in https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/BP_Document_Schedule
- 15:54:18 [NewtonCalegari]
- action newton create a "Possible Approach to Implementation" showing Memento examples
- 15:54:19 [trackbot_]
- Created ACTION-169 - Create a "possible approach to implementation" showing memento examples [on Newton Calegari - due 2015-04-21].
- 15:54:19 [trackbot]
- Created ACTION-170 - Create a "possible approach to implementation" showing memento examples [on Newton Calegari - due 2015-04-21].
- 15:54:31 [yaso]
- ... 1: we are going to try to include the resolutions on the doc, but there are other comments that we need to discuss
- 15:54:35 [Zakim]
- -Ipswich
- 15:54:46 [yaso]
- ... so I suggest that in the next meeting we discuss this issues
- 15:54:51 [yaso]
- ... and comments
- 15:54:57 [yaso]
- Ahá, the wine!
- 15:54:59 [deirdrelee]
- which comments BernadetteLoscio_ ?
- 15:55:06 [ericstephan]
- you didn't want us to hear you eating the chocolate
- 15:55:08 [Zakim]
- +??P0
- 15:55:16 [yaso]
- lol
- 15:55:43 [yaso]
- BernadetteLoscio_: about the comments
- 15:55:53 [yaso]
- ... there are comments that are still in discussion
- 15:56:10 [yaso]
- ... the second thing is about this examples, it is really important to show
- 15:56:18 [yaso]
- ... because people want to see how to do this
- 15:56:21 [yaso]
- q+
- 15:56:24 [phila]
- q+ to ask what comments?
- 15:56:43 [yaso]
- BernadetteLoscio_: for the next version we would like to see some examples
- 15:57:33 [yaso]
- BernadetteLoscio_: I think if we are going thru this is a great improvement for the doc
- 15:58:06 [yaso]
- BernadetteLoscio_: for the next version, I think that there is not enough resources to build tests
- 15:58:07 [ericstephan]
- q+
- 15:58:50 [yaso]
- ... for the next draft I think we should consider the comments, the examples and also to consider the things that we discussed during this f2f. The action that we can use to improve this version of the doc
- 15:58:51 [ericstephan]
- +1 BernadetteLoscio_
- 15:59:03 [yaso]
- ... the tests I think we should leave for the next version
- 15:59:05 [yaso]
- -q
- 15:59:30 [yaso]
- deirdre: I think that having a couple of examples is the right way to keep going forward
- 16:00:05 [BernadetteLoscio_]
- q+
- 16:00:21 [yaso]
- deirdre: is a lot easier to get feedback on content that is example
- 16:00:54 [phila]
- ack me
- 16:00:54 [Zakim]
- phila, you wanted to ask what comments?
- 16:01:07 [yaso]
- phila: BernadetteLoscio_ what comments are you talking about?
- 16:01:17 [yaso]
- phila: we have resolved them
- 16:01:33 [yaso]
- ... so what are the comments that you need we to look at?
- 16:01:39 [phila]
- This is the only open comment in the tracker https://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/68239/WD-dwbp-20150224/3008 And we have talked about Memento already
- 16:01:48 [yaso]
- Caroline: I think we have to create an action to put that on the tracker
- 16:02:16 [yaso]
- deirdre feedback from the public we should discuss
- 16:02:39 [phila]
- acke
- 16:02:41 [phila]
- ack e
- 16:02:52 [yaso]
- ericstephan: this examples can be developed while we go with the work
- 16:02:54 [Caroline]
- ack ericstephan
- 16:02:59 [deirdrelee]
- ACTION: BernadetteLoscio_ to add all public comments to comment tracker
- 16:02:59 [trackbot]
- Error finding 'BernadetteLoscio_'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/users>.
- 16:02:59 [trackbot_]
- Error finding 'BernadetteLoscio_'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/users>.
- 16:03:02 [yaso]
- ... we are looking for implementations
- 16:03:06 [deirdrelee]
- ACTION: Bernadette to add all public comments to comment tracker
- 16:03:07 [trackbot_]
- Created ACTION-171 - to add all public comments to comment tracker [on Bernadette Farias Loscio - due 2015-04-21].
- 16:03:07 [trackbot]
- Created ACTION-172 - to add all public comments to comment tracker [on Bernadette Farias Loscio - due 2015-04-21].
- 16:03:16 [yaso]
- ... why are people publishing or using this best practices
- 16:03:27 [deirdrelee]
- q?
- 16:03:31 [Caroline]
- Caroline and NewtonCalegari will help BernadetteLoscio_ with ACTION-171
- 16:03:52 [yaso]
- BernadetteLoscio_: I'd like that a small group could work in the examples
- 16:03:52 [ericstephan]
- q+
- 16:04:06 [yaso]
- a task force?
- 16:04:14 [yaso]
- agree
- 16:04:17 [yaso]
- +1 to BernadetteLoscio_
- 16:04:26 [deirdrelee]
- ack ericstephan
- 16:04:33 [deirdrelee]
- ack BernadetteLoscio_
- 16:04:35 [phila]
- q+ to talk about examples
- 16:04:56 [yaso]
- ericstephan: at the dinner we had a good conversation about expertise
- 16:04:56 [deirdrelee]
- q+
- 16:05:01 [phila]
- ack me
- 16:05:03 [Zakim]
- phila, you wanted to talk about examples
- 16:05:08 [yaso]
- ericstephan: mentioned annette_g as a good example of expertise
- 16:05:20 [annette_g]
- I can help
- 16:05:23 [BernadetteLoscio_]
- q+
- 16:05:26 [deirdrelee]
- ack me
- 16:05:26 [ericstephan]
- good point phila +1
- 16:05:53 [ericstephan]
- May 18th, Mount Saint Helens (Washington state USA) eruption 35th anniversary for those interested.
- 16:06:14 [ericstephan]
- another example of a deliverable
- 16:06:36 [annette_g]
- * I wish we could deliver on such short notice
- 16:06:42 [ericstephan]
- lol
- 16:07:13 [Caroline]
- we will change the schedule according to this discussion
- 16:07:21 [deirdrelee]
- q?
- 16:07:27 [deirdrelee]
- ack BernadetteLoscio_
- 16:07:51 [ericstephan]
- unfortunately I was in high school at that time phila (still have a jar of ash) :-)
- 16:08:11 [deirdrelee]
- PROPOSED: The BP schedule is https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/BP_Document_Schedule
- 16:08:14 [annette_g]
- q+
- 16:08:40 [yaso]
- BernadetteLoscio_: we did not worked on the how to test section
- 16:08:47 [yaso]
- Caroline: maybe we can update this now
- 16:08:51 [yaso]
- q?
- 16:09:01 [phila]
- When my manager looks at this group he sees: a UCR, an FPWD of the BP doc and no sign of the two vocabs. We need to prove the (substantial) progress we've made in this meeting.
- 16:09:04 [yaso]
- people here wants to keep working
- 16:09:10 [ericstephan]
- dissension
- 16:09:16 [yaso]
- And work till lunch
- 16:09:18 [phila]
- Not lunch yet!
- 16:09:30 [phila]
- Just a 10 min break
- 16:09:41 [ericstephan]
- only whiskey in texas
- 16:09:51 [phila]
- Propose lunch at 12:30 Austin time
- 16:09:58 [yaso]
- +1 to phila
- 16:10:01 [ericstephan]
- +1
- 16:10:07 [Caroline]
- ok! We will change the schedule in 10min
- 16:10:10 [Caroline]
- so we can vote it
- 16:10:12 [Caroline]
- :)
- 16:10:35 [deirdrelee]
- PROPOSED: The BP next PWD to be published on May 18th
- 16:10:48 [Caroline]
- no!!!
- 16:10:53 [Caroline]
- that is not the proposal!
- 16:10:57 [yaso]
- Caroline: strongly disagrees
- 16:11:06 [Caroline]
- yes! Thks
- 16:11:11 [NewtonCalegari]
- 22 May 2015 Group voting
- 16:11:29 [Caroline]
- PROPOSED : Last review of document before publishing it on May 18th
- 16:11:33 [yaso]
- +1
- 16:11:37 [ericstephan]
- +1
- 16:11:42 [annette_g]
- +1
- 16:11:57 [deirdrelee]
- +1
- 16:12:10 [Caroline]
- rephrasing it
- 16:12:58 [Caroline]
- PROPOSED : on May 18th is the deadline for the Last review of document before publishing it. 22th May Group voting the document to be published
- 16:13:06 [deirdrelee]
- +1
- 16:13:46 [phila]
- PROPOSED : May 18th is the deadline for the Last review of the BP document before publishing it. 22th May Group voting the document to be published
- 16:14:30 [ericstephan]
- <whispers>
- 16:14:42 [flavio_]
- not yet
- 16:14:44 [yaso]
- Because people are confabulating on something.
- 16:14:53 [Caroline]
- let's rephrase it. Sorry!
- 16:14:57 [Caroline]
- Just 2min
- 16:15:15 [yaso]
- deirdre: we ARE going to breake
- 16:15:18 [Caroline]
- we need 5min
- 16:15:19 [ericstephan]
- eleven thirtyish
- 16:15:34 [Caroline]
- ok
- 16:15:38 [ericstephan]
- okay
- 16:16:08 [Zakim]
- -Austin
- 16:17:52 [Zakim]
- -makx
- 16:22:06 [NewtonCalegari]
- NewtonCalegari has joined #dwbp
- 16:31:30 [yaso]
- everybody ready to get back?
- 16:33:48 [Zakim]
- +[IPcaller]
- 16:34:42 [ericstephan]
- re-docking to the mothership roger
- 16:34:52 [yaso]
- Caroline: Just one more minute
- 16:35:03 [phila]
- zakim, [ is Austin
- 16:35:05 [Zakim]
- +Austin; got it
- 16:35:06 [Caroline]
- The schedule is updated https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/BP_Document_Schedule. We will put the tests on the next schedule.
- 16:35:10 [NewtonCalegari]
- NewtonCalegari has joined #dwbp
- 16:35:10 [phila]
- RRSAgent, draft minutes
- 16:35:10 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/04/14-dwbp-minutes.html phila
- 16:35:22 [Caroline]
- The schedule is updated https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/BP_Document_Schedule. We will put the tests on the next schedule.
- 16:35:53 [yaso]
- I think is too far away
- 16:37:25 [yaso]
- Caroline: can you hear us?
- 16:38:47 [phila]
- When do you plan to publish the FPWD of the glossary?
- 16:38:56 [BernadetteLoscio_]
- q+
- 16:39:01 [annette_g]
- q-
- 16:39:05 [phila]
- All we hear is background hubub, nothing we can actually follow
- 16:39:41 [yaso]
- deirdre: this is the proposal?
- 16:39:41 [yaso]
- BernadetteLoscio_: yes]
- 16:39:42 [yaso]
- PROPOSED: to change the schedule to d https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/BP_Document_Schedule
- 16:39:43 [yaso]
- sorry guys
- 16:39:50 [ericstephan]
- +1
- 16:39:59 [yaso]
- PROPOSED: to change the schedule to https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/BP_Document_Schedule
- 16:40:19 [yaso]
- BernadetteLoscio_: the glossary is going to be a note, but published together
- 16:40:27 [yaso]
- _1 to BernadetteLoscio_
- 16:40:33 [annette_g]
- +1 to BernadetteLoscio_
- 16:40:34 [yaso]
- I think is a separate document
- 16:40:39 [laufer]
- +1
- 16:40:42 [yaso]
- _1
- 16:40:47 [yaso]
- +q
- 16:40:50 [Sumit_Purohit]
- +1 BernadetteLoscio_
- 16:41:04 [ericstephan]
- +1 glossary, its information on the web
- 16:41:13 [phila]
- PROPOSED: That the Glossary is a separate document (a WG NOTE)
- 16:41:18 [Caroline]
- +1
- 16:41:19 [yaso]
- deirdre: is the glossary a separate note or it will be published with the BP doc
- 16:41:21 [yaso]
- ?
- 16:41:21 [annette_g]
- -1
- 16:41:24 [yaso]
- +1
- 16:41:33 [phila]
- ack annette_g
- 16:41:34 [Sumit_Purohit]
- -1
- 16:41:40 [yaso]
- q-
- 16:41:59 [yaso]
- annette_g: I put -1 because I think that it should be part of the document
- 16:42:04 [laufer]
- q+
- 16:42:13 [deirdrelee]
- q+ to say it applies to all documents in dwbp wg
- 16:42:14 [ericstephan]
- q+
- 16:42:17 [phila]
- annette_g: I think it should be part of the document that it's about. If separate, the BO should make sense without it and the glossary should make sense on its own
- 16:42:19 [yaso]
- ... if it is a separate document I think it should make sense on it's own
- 16:42:20 [phila]
- ack BernadetteLoscio_
- 16:42:28 [BernadetteLoscio_]
- http://www.w3.org/TR/ld-glossary/
- 16:42:33 [yaso]
- BernadetteLoscio_: It is not clear to me what the glossary will be
- 16:42:35 [yaso]
- +1
- 16:42:51 [yaso]
- BernadetteLoscio_: the idea of the glossary is for us to have an agreement of the terms
- 16:42:56 [deirdrelee]
- q?
- 16:43:02 [yaso]
- BernadetteLoscio_: that is why Im surprised
- 16:43:07 [yaso]
- q+
- 16:43:12 [deirdrelee]
- ack laufer
- 16:43:28 [yaso]
- laufer: we will publish this agreement because the audience has to understand our agreement
- 16:43:42 [Sumit_Purohit]
- +1 for annette_g and BernadetteLoscio_
- 16:43:51 [yaso]
- ... I think the glossary is not only for terms that we use at the BP doc, in the other docs of the group we will use the same content
- 16:43:54 [phila]
- ack next
- 16:43:55 [Zakim]
- deirdrelee, you wanted to say it applies to all documents in dwbp wg
- 16:44:02 [yaso]
- deirdre: I agree with laufer
- 16:44:16 [phila]
- deirdrelee: I think the doc should be independent as it applies to all the docs we create
- 16:44:24 [deirdrelee]
- http://htmlpreview.github.io/?https://github.com/w3c/dwbp/blob/gh-pages/glossary.html
- 16:44:28 [phila]
- ... what should it be - it's a list if terms
- 16:44:29 [yaso]
- ... the document should be independent because I think that the document applies to all the deliverables
- 16:44:39 [phila]
- q+
- 16:44:40 [deirdrelee]
- ack ericstephan
- 16:44:58 [yaso]
- ericstephan: I'm looking at what yaso has untill now
- 16:45:30 [yaso]
- ... if it something like what I'm looking at know, then is just something that people should point or read
- 16:45:33 [phila]
- q+ to make a suggestion (we could do both)
- 16:45:49 [annette_g]
- q+
- 16:46:01 [deirdrelee]
- zakim, close queue
- 16:46:01 [Zakim]
- ok, deirdrelee, the speaker queue is closed
- 16:47:05 [ericstephan]
- yes we did talk about this yaso, adding mental models as examples in the glossary.
- 16:47:24 [phila]
- ack me
- 16:47:24 [Zakim]
- phila, you wanted to make a suggestion (we could do both)
- 16:47:30 [deirdrelee]
- zakim, open queue
- 16:47:30 [Zakim]
- ok, deirdrelee, the speaker queue is open
- 16:47:31 [ericstephan]
- OPEN THE QUEUE
- 16:47:34 [ericstephan]
- :-)
- 16:47:37 [yaso]
- BernadetteLoscio_: feels trapped by the closed queue
- 16:47:43 [BernadetteLoscio_]
- ==
- 16:47:58 [ericstephan]
- queue-straphobic
- 16:48:00 [BernadetteLoscio_]
- http://www.w3.org/TR/ld-glossary/
- 16:48:02 [yaso]
- phila: q-
- 16:48:06 [yaso]
- sorry
- 16:48:06 [BernadetteLoscio_]
- example of glossary!
- 16:48:07 [yaso]
- q-
- 16:48:11 [deirdrelee]
- q?
- 16:48:49 [yaso]
- annette_g: I think we need to consider what is the audience of the glossary
- 16:49:07 [ericstephan]
- initially its for us, to keep us in line for what we decide as a definition... :-)
- 16:49:10 [Sumit_Purohit]
- q+
- 16:49:13 [yaso]
- ... if it's made for the people who are reading the document so I think that it should be separated
- 16:49:15 [deirdrelee]
- ack annette_g
- 16:49:19 [deirdrelee]
- q+
- 16:49:23 [deirdrelee]
- ack Sumit_Purohit
- 16:49:36 [yaso]
- Sumit_Purohit: I think the glossary is a separated material
- 16:49:44 [yaso]
- ..I'm
- 16:49:47 [yaso]
- trying to
- 16:49:57 [ericstephan]
- q+
- 16:50:09 [yaso]
- Ok, thanks, phila!
- 16:50:47 [ericstephan]
- q-
- 16:50:48 [yaso]
- deirdre: when we have the 1st version
- 16:50:55 [yaso]
- ... then we can decide
- 16:51:00 [yaso]
- .. if it is ok or not
- 16:51:08 [yaso]
- q?
- 16:51:09 [Ig_Bittencourt]
- Ig_Bittencourt has joined #dwbp
- 16:51:12 [deirdrelee]
- ack deirdrelee
- 16:51:35 [NewtonCalegari]
- if the glossary is a separate doc, should we remove it from BP Schedule and deal with it in a separate schedule as well?
- 16:51:48 [BernadetteLoscio_]
- +1 to Newton
- 16:51:49 [yaso]
- ok
- 16:51:49 [deirdrelee]
- PROPOSED: Glossary should be separate doc from the bp doc
- 16:51:52 [yaso]
- +1
- 16:51:53 [phila]
- I'd say it can be FPWD when the BP doc is updated
- 16:51:56 [annette_g]
- -1 to separate schedule
- 16:51:57 [phila]
- +1
- 16:52:03 [riccardoAlbertoni]
- +1
- 16:52:05 [annette_g]
- we need to publish together
- 16:52:07 [GiselePappa]
- +1
- 16:52:11 [ericstephan]
- +1
- 16:52:12 [BernadetteLoscio_]
- +1
- 16:52:13 [Caroline]
- +1
- 16:52:16 [Ig_Bittencourt]
- +1
- 16:52:16 [deirdrelee]
- +1
- 16:52:16 [flavio_]
- 0
- 16:52:18 [Sumit_Purohit]
- -1
- 16:52:32 [BernadetteLoscio_]
- q+
- 16:52:41 [laufer]
- +1
- 16:52:49 [Ig_Bittencourt]
- and +1 to annette_g comments to do not have separate schedule.
- 16:52:52 [phila]
- PROPOSED: That the glossary is published simultaneously with the next version of the BP doc, with deep links from the BP doc to the relevant terms in the glossary
- 16:52:54 [yaso]
- BernadetteLoscio_: we are discussing here that if there are 2 docs, we should have separated schedules
- 16:53:07 [annette_g]
- +1 to phil
- 16:53:12 [phila]
- q+ to say you can't publish a doc with broken links
- 16:53:14 [yaso]
- ... this doesn't mean they should not be published together
- 16:53:17 [phila]
- ack BernadetteLoscio_
- 16:53:31 [flavio_]
- -1
- 16:53:44 [phila]
- ack me
- 16:53:44 [Zakim]
- phila, you wanted to say you can't publish a doc with broken links
- 16:53:52 [yaso]
- ... it can be synchronized but I think that is another doc, that has another editor, then it should have a separated schedule
- 16:54:03 [Sumit_Purohit]
- http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/glossary
- 16:54:03 [deirdrelee]
- q+
- 16:54:21 [yaso]
- phila: you cannot publish document in w3c without proper links
- 16:54:45 [annette_g]
- you're breaking up
- 16:54:47 [phila]
- s/without proper links/with broken links/
- 16:54:57 [yaso]
- tks phila
- 16:55:15 [yaso]
- Can't hear
- 16:55:17 [yaso]
- ops
- 16:55:29 [phila]
- deirdrelee: We can have separate dates but they can be published together
- 16:55:33 [deirdrelee]
- ack me
- 16:55:40 [flavio_]
- when you publish a thesis, the glossary comes togheter
- 16:55:41 [BernadetteLoscio_]
- i agree!
- 16:55:44 [ericstephan]
- can we make that a proposal?
- 16:55:49 [Caroline]
- ok
- 16:55:55 [phila]
- We're actually creating a dependency for the BP doc on the glossary - but that's OK (and quite common)
- 16:56:09 [ericstephan]
- ok
- 16:56:11 [phila]
- deirdrelee: We have a date in the schedule... let's get the revised version of the glossary completed
- 16:56:26 [phila]
- phila: I would urge Yaso to include ids for every term in the glossary
- 16:56:54 [yaso]
- yes!
- 16:57:04 [yaso]
- No problem
- 16:57:08 [phila]
- deirdrelee: Are you OK, yaso, with the date of 23 April for the updated glossary?
- 16:57:29 [yaso]
- Yes
- 16:57:40 [phila]
- phila: And I'll try and get that para about the mental models done by then ;-)
- 16:57:59 [deirdrelee]
- PROPOSED : May 18th is the deadline for the Last review of the BP document before publishing it. 22th May Group voting the document to be published
- 16:58:04 [yaso]
- Yes yes, I have full days vacation at NY to do that :-D
- 16:58:09 [yaso]
- +1
- 16:58:09 [GiselePappa]
- q+
- 16:58:17 [deirdrelee]
- +1
- 16:58:38 [ericstephan]
- +1
- 16:58:52 [laufer]
- +1
- 16:58:54 [flavio_]
- +1
- 16:59:01 [phila]
- +1
- 16:59:02 [Sumit_Purohit]
- +1
- 16:59:03 [annette_g]
- +1
- 16:59:06 [Caroline]
- +1
- 16:59:07 [NewtonCalegari]
- +1
- 16:59:11 [BernadetteLoscio_]
- +1
- 16:59:13 [GiselePappa]
- +1
- 16:59:16 [phila]
- ack GiselePappa
- 16:59:24 [deirdrelee]
- RESOLVED: May 18th is the deadline for the Last review of the BP document before publishing it. 22th May Group voting the document to be published
- 16:59:29 [Caroline]
- ops
- 16:59:34 [Caroline]
- the dates are wrong!
- 16:59:42 [BernadetteLoscio_]
- 29 May 2015
- 16:59:51 [Caroline]
- Second Draft of DWBP Document 18 May 2015 Freeze the document to be reviewed by the group before publishing it Second Draft of DWBP Document 22 May 2015 Last feedback from the group before publishing it Second Draft of DWBP Document 29 May 2015 Group voting the document
- 17:00:28 [phila]
- s/22 May/29 May/
- 17:00:46 [annette_g]
- draft proposal: adopt the schedule on the wiki
- 17:00:57 [Caroline]
- https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/BP_Document_Schedule
- 17:01:01 [yaso]
- I quit from scribbing
- 17:01:11 [phila]
- CHAIR INTERRUPT - It was just a typo in the resolution - now fixed
- 17:01:20 [phila]
- Topic: Data Usage Vocabulary
- 17:01:28 [phila]
- deirdrelee: We have 3 hours left including lunch/dinner
- 17:01:41 [phila]
- deirdrelee: Goals - address as many issues as we can
- 17:01:45 [BernadetteLoscio_]
- q+
- 17:01:49 [phila]
- deirdrelee: Build the DUV team
- 17:01:55 [phila]
- ... look at the schedule
- 17:01:55 [yaso]
- q+
- 17:01:56 [ericstephan]
- sounds like a plan!
- 17:02:20 [phila]
- deirdrelee: Yesterday we had 90 min lunch - we can't afford that. 40 mins max today
- 17:02:24 [BernadetteLoscio_]
- q-
- 17:02:33 [ericstephan]
- we are kind of stuck with the accommodations here
- 17:02:47 [yaso]
- q-
- 17:03:09 [yaso]
- Agrees with deirdre that we have to stick with the agenda
- 17:04:21 [yaso]
- I propose that we go for lunch now
- 17:04:33 [yaso]
- And then go back to the data enrichment topic
- 17:04:34 [Caroline]
- +1 to yaso proposal
- 17:04:44 [Caroline]
- +10 to yaso proposal
- 17:04:45 [Ig_Bittencourt]
- 0
- 17:05:19 [yaso]
- phila: you are scribing?
- 17:05:22 [ericstephan]
- https://docs.google.com/document/d/17Wqrh4SKhFcHPykGPyXlljNNw8WJgMnpwzinvvGXn0o/edit?usp=sharing
- 17:06:08 [phila]
- ericstephan: I wanted to go over some of the issues that Dee and I have been talking about
- 17:06:12 [phila]
- scribe: phila
- 17:06:32 [phila]
- ericstephan: Some of the notes are not up to date but it shows the kind of thing we've been looking at
- 17:07:29 [phila]
- ericstephan: First thing I wanted to mention... we need another editor - Sumit
- 17:07:38 [phila]
- ... Is this OK with the team?
- 17:07:52 [deirdrelee]
- +1 :)
- 17:07:55 [phila]
- ... Sumit is a good fit for this team as he and I are working on the same schedule
- 17:08:01 [Caroline]
- +1 to Sumit_Purohit as a editor of the data usage vocabulary document
- 17:08:09 [phila]
- ... so there's joint motivation, and offers a pair of fresh eyes
- 17:08:33 [phila]
- ... in order to make him editor, do we need to make a proposal?
- 17:08:38 [phila]
- phila: No - go for it
- 17:09:02 [phila]
- ericstephan: So I'd like Berna, Sumit and I to walk through https://docs.google.com/document/d/17Wqrh4SKhFcHPykGPyXlljNNw8WJgMnpwzinvvGXn0o/edit#
- 17:09:53 [phila]
- ericstephan: We've been talking about data, datasets... it hit me that we're talking about ??
- 17:10:35 [phila]
- ericstephan: So I edited the first two paras to talk about datasets, not data
- 17:10:44 [phila]
- s/??/dataset usage//
- 17:10:46 [phila]
- s/??/dataset usage/
- 17:10:50 [annette_g]
- +1 to Eric
- 17:11:41 [phila]
- PROPOSED: That the 'Data Usage Vocaulary' be renamed the 'Dataset Usage Vocabulary'
- 17:11:47 [ericstephan]
- +1
- 17:11:48 [Ig_Bittencourt]
- +1 to ericstephan about talk about datasets.
- 17:11:51 [phila]
- +1
- 17:11:52 [NewtonCalegari]
- +1
- 17:11:54 [Sumit_Purohit]
- +1
- 17:11:54 [BernadetteLoscio_]
- +1
- 17:12:01 [yaso]
- +1
- 17:12:03 [Ig_Bittencourt]
- +1
- 17:12:04 [deirdrelee]
- +1
- 17:12:06 [makx]
- +1
- 17:12:09 [deirdrelee]
- q?
- 17:12:11 [phila]
- RESOLVED: That the 'Data Usage Vocaulary' be renamed the 'Dataset Usage Vocabulary'
- 17:12:22 [phila]
- BernadetteLoscio_: If we keep this in mind, it can help the BP doc
- 17:12:37 [phila]
- ... it will be more concrete to apply the BPs
- 17:12:46 [Zakim]
- +[IPcaller]
- 17:12:52 [makx]
- zakim, ipcaller is me
- 17:12:52 [Zakim]
- +makx; got it
- 17:13:21 [phila]
- ericstephan: What occurred to me was that we can talk about datasets in the abstract, as a logical unit
- 17:13:34 [phila]
- q+ to make a slightly different proposal on the name
- 17:13:43 [annette_g]
- lots of nodding going on here
- 17:13:49 [phila]
- ack me
- 17:13:49 [Zakim]
- phila, you wanted to make a slightly different proposal on the name
- 17:14:20 [phila]
- my proposal - the Dataset Usage and Citation Vocabulary
- 17:15:18 [yaso]
- think it needs more reading on that so we can vote
- 17:15:21 [phila]
- phila: Talks about sci data publishing
- 17:15:38 [phila]
- ericstephan: Can we defer that discission until we've been through the model
- 17:15:42 [phila]
- phila: Of course
- 17:15:49 [yaso]
- q?
- 17:16:04 [phila]
- ericstephan: One of the things at the top of the doc - a bunch of observations
- 17:16:08 [Ig_Bittencourt]
- I could not understand phil's proposal.
- 17:16:27 [Ig_Bittencourt]
- But OK to skip this discussion to later on.
- 17:16:39 [phila]
- This is hte doc that has Turtle/JSON-LD switch http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/data-shapes-primer/
- 17:17:01 [phila]
- ericstephan: I like that because it gives the impression that it's not all about Sem Web
- 17:17:13 [ericstephan]
- http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/153
- 17:17:18 [phila]
- ericstephan: I'd like to also raise the issue of open and closed data - does the vocab change depending on that?
- 17:17:43 [yaso]
- q?
- 17:17:49 [deirdrelee]
- q+
- 17:17:52 [Ig_Bittencourt]
- Thanks deirdrelee.
- 17:17:54 [phila]
- q+
- 17:17:54 [ericstephan]
- ack deirdrelee
- 17:18:07 [Ig_Bittencourt]
- Thanks Caroline. I am happy to be with you all, even by distance.
- 17:18:14 [Caroline]
- thank you ericstephan, great explanation!
- 17:18:34 [phila]
- deirdrelee: So you mean closed because it's behind a firewall, or legally encumbered or whatever
- 17:18:37 [annette_g]
- * waves at Ig
- 17:18:56 [phila]
- ericstephan: Phil crafted a short section about closed data in the UCR
- 17:19:03 [Ig_Bittencourt]
- :)
- 17:19:20 [phila]
- ... one of the things in the DUV - some things in the BP talk about when data isn't available
- 17:19:22 [deirdrelee]
- http://www.w3.org/TR/dwbp-ucr/#a-word-on-open-and-closed-data
- 17:19:24 [phila]
- q-
- 17:19:30 [annette_g]
- q+
- 17:19:33 [laufer]
- q+
- 17:19:40 [phila]
- ack annette_g
- 17:19:41 [ericstephan]
- ack annette_g
- 17:19:42 [Caroline]
- ericstephan: would be the difference between open data regarding the concept of the 5 stars and closed data as data that are not inclued on this concept?
- 17:19:42 [deirdrelee]
- +1 for including closed data
- 17:20:02 [phila]
- annette_g: Just to clarify - do you mean datasets that may or may not be open?
- 17:20:22 [phila]
- ericstephan: We might have been working on proprietary projects behind the firewall
- 17:20:33 [deirdrelee]
- q+
- 17:20:46 [phila]
- ericstephan: One of the first use cases in the doc was about different jurisdictions having different levels of sharing
- 17:21:27 [phila]
- ericstephan: I don't think this is sophisticated, just a couple of classes to formalise it
- 17:21:29 [deirdrelee]
- q+ to say that closed data should be specifically mentioned in scope
- 17:21:29 [phila]
- q?
- 17:21:32 [ericstephan]
- ack
- 17:21:38 [Caroline]
- +q
- 17:21:38 [deirdrelee]
- ack laufer
- 17:21:39 [phila]
- ack l
- 17:21:41 [Caroline]
- q+
- 17:22:32 [Ig_Bittencourt]
- According to the concept of closed data in de ucr doc, it is also related to the concept of deep web - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Web
- 17:22:44 [phila]
- ericstephan: The DUV is more about capturing feedback, providing info to publishers, not so much for machines
- 17:22:53 [annette_g]
- q+
- 17:22:57 [deirdrelee]
- q-
- 17:23:10 [Sumit_Purohit]
- +q
- 17:23:19 [Caroline]
- q-
- 17:23:48 [ericstephan]
- ack
- 17:23:57 [deirdrelee]
- ack annette_g
- 17:24:11 [phila]
- annette_g: It's important where I work to be able to say that some work you have dine has been cited by other researchers
- 17:24:21 [phila]
- ... by the DoE or whoever
- 17:25:05 [phila]
- ... you may do things at your end to make it easy to use but without a way to report back you won't know
- 17:25:23 [ericstephan]
- ack
- 17:25:24 [phila]
- ... as the person publishing the original work, I don't know whether you have used my data or not
- 17:25:28 [phila]
- ack Sumit_Purohit
- 17:26:10 [phila]
- Sumit_Purohit: I want to capture what the use is. We staretd with the UCR, if it's BP for publishing, then how many times it has been used is not part of the publisher's BP
- 17:26:44 [phila]
- Sumit_Purohit: Publishgers don't just vocabs, they provide a feedback mechanism, even if it's just a natural language field
- 17:26:46 [BernadetteLoscio_]
- q+
- 17:27:14 [ericstephan]
- ack BernadetteLoscio_
- 17:27:29 [phila]
- Sorry, Sumit, I lost that
- 17:27:31 [ericstephan]
- sorry BernadetteLoscio you are next
- 17:27:42 [phila]
- annette_g: Publishers wnat to know that fact that their data has been used at all
- 17:28:05 [phila]
- Sumit_Purohit: If you know the exact usage then you can create a template
- 17:28:12 [riccardoAlbertoni]
- s/wnat/want
- 17:28:36 [phila]
- annette_g: If you're the original publisher... how do they find out that it's been used
- 17:29:01 [laufer]
- q+
- 17:29:03 [phila]
- ericstephan: I think we're going as far as making it possible
- 17:29:25 [deirdrelee]
- q+
- 17:29:37 [phila]
- Sumit_Purohit: If you share someething on G+ or facebook, you get feedback - you know if it's shared
- 17:29:55 [phila]
- Sumit_Purohit: That kind of mechanism would be good
- 17:30:03 [phila]
- ... it requires that every usage has its own identifier
- 17:30:46 [phila]
- BernadetteLoscio: The BP in the doc we say that the publisher should provide a feedback mechanism so we'll link to the DUV
- 17:30:59 [Ig_Bittencourt]
- I remember a discussion in this way, related to pingbak (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pingback) and semantic pingbak (http://aksw.org/Projects/SemanticPingback.html)
- 17:31:18 [ericstephan]
- ack laufer
- 17:31:27 [deirdrelee]
- q-
- 17:31:30 [ericstephan]
- phila: ok
- 17:31:43 [Ig_Bittencourt]
- Perhap a BP could be to apply some pingback mecanism.
- 17:31:51 [ericstephan]
- can we propose something briefly? attempt?
- 17:31:51 [Ig_Bittencourt]
- s/perhap/perhaps
- 17:32:15 [phila]
- ericstephan: I'd like to resolve the open/closed data issue
- 17:32:16 [Ig_Bittencourt]
- s/pingbak/pingback
- 17:32:17 [ericstephan]
- PROPOSED: Explore the inclusion of open/closed data indicators in the data usage vocabulary.
- 17:32:23 [annette_g]
- +1
- 17:32:26 [Ig_Bittencourt]
- +1
- 17:32:27 [BernadetteLoscio]
- +1
- 17:32:28 [GiselePappa]
- +1
- 17:32:31 [flavio_]
- +1
- 17:32:31 [ericstephan]
- +1
- 17:32:32 [Sumit_Purohit]
- +1
- 17:32:33 [NewtonCalegari]
- +1
- 17:32:37 [laufer]
- phil, I am saying that for open data is difficult to have a way to identify the usage
- 17:33:00 [annette_g]
- gee, I wish there were a vocabulary for that
- 17:33:19 [laufer]
- when we have ids for users, or controlled data provided by apis we can control this... but with open data is difficult...
- 17:33:30 [phila]
- PROPOSED: Include open/closed data indicators in the data usage vocabulary.
- 17:33:34 [yaso]
- +1
- 17:33:34 [Caroline]
- +1
- 17:33:36 [ericstephan]
- +1
- 17:33:37 [annette_g]
- +1
- 17:33:38 [riccardoAlbertoni]
- +1
- 17:33:44 [flavio_]
- +1
- 17:33:45 [ericstephan]
- thank you :-)
- 17:33:45 [GiselePappa]
- +1
- 17:33:47 [phila]
- q+
- 17:33:48 [laufer]
- +a
- 17:33:49 [Sumit_Purohit]
- +1
- 17:33:54 [BernadetteLoscio]
- +1
- 17:33:55 [ericstephan]
- ack phila
- 17:34:12 [Ig_Bittencourt_]
- Ig_Bittencourt_ has joined #dwbp
- 17:36:13 [deirdrelee]
- q+
- 17:36:29 [Sumit_Purohit]
- +1 for Phil's point.....we need to look into this
- 17:36:42 [ericstephan]
- +1
- 17:36:47 [phila]
- phila: I undertsand now - it's whether the feedback that the data has been used is public or not
- 17:36:59 [deirdrelee]
- q-
- 17:37:07 [phila]
- phila: That makes sense.
- 17:37:20 [phila]
- PROPOSED: Include open/closed indicators for feedback/usage info in the data usage vocabulary.
- 17:37:32 [ericstephan]
- +1
- 17:37:42 [annette_g]
- +1
- 17:37:43 [Ig_Bittencourt_]
- 0
- 17:38:05 [ericstephan]
- protecting feedback and constraining usage information
- 17:38:10 [phila]
- +1
- 17:38:20 [deirdrelee]
- +1
- 17:39:02 [laufer]
- +1
- 17:39:36 [Caroline]
- +1
- 17:39:54 [phila]
- RESOLVED: Include open/closed indicators for feedback/usage info in the data usage vocabulary.
- 17:39:57 [makx]
- some feedback serives ask you two questions: 1. do you want your feedback to be visible and 2. do you want your name to be visible or make the feedback anonymously
- 17:40:07 [phila]
- RRSAgent, draft minutes
- 17:40:07 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/04/14-dwbp-minutes.html phila
- 17:40:12 [yaso]
- 40 minutes
- 17:40:14 [yaso]
- ?
- 17:40:21 [yaso]
- 1h?
- 17:40:33 [phila]
- deirdrelee: We'll break for lunch. We will finsih at 15:00 Austin (21:00 Ipswich, 22:00 Barcelona)
- 17:40:50 [phila]
- We'll try and rush lunch
- 17:40:57 [phila]
- deirdrelee: So we'll aim for 20 past the hour
- 17:41:02 [phila]
- to reconvene
- 17:41:06 [phila]
- ==LUNCH==
- 17:41:06 [Caroline]
- thank you!
- 17:41:07 [Sumit_Purohit]
- +1 laufer . consumer knowing feedback is open/close also affects the feedback level
- 17:41:08 [Zakim]
- -makx
- 17:41:11 [Zakim]
- -??P0
- 17:41:11 [Ig_Bittencourt_]
- by
- 17:41:12 [Ig_Bittencourt_]
- bye
- 17:41:13 [phila]
- RRSAgent, draft minutes
- 17:41:13 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/04/14-dwbp-minutes.html phila
- 17:41:31 [NewtonCalegari]
- NewtonCalegari has joined #dwbp
- 17:45:42 [Zakim]
- -Austin
- 17:45:43 [Zakim]
- DATA_DWBP()8:00AM has ended
- 17:45:43 [Zakim]
- Attendees were HadleyBeeman, phila, deirdrelee, riccardoalbertoni, makx, cgueret, cgueret_, Bernadette, Caroline, Eric, S, Flavio, Gisele, Laufer, Newton, Sumit, Yaso, Annette,
- 17:45:43 [Zakim]
- ... EricS, Austin
- 17:47:27 [giancarlo_guizzardi]
- giancarlo_guizzardi has joined #DWBP
- 17:47:56 [Zakim]
- DATA_DWBP()8:00AM has now started
- 17:48:03 [Zakim]
- +[IPcaller]
- 17:50:37 [Zakim]
- -[IPcaller]
- 17:50:38 [Zakim]
- DATA_DWBP()8:00AM has ended
- 17:50:38 [Zakim]
- Attendees were [IPcaller]
- 18:08:28 [riccardoAlbertoni]
- riccardoAlbertoni has joined #DWBP
- 18:20:30 [flavio]
- flavio has joined #dwbp
- 18:27:19 [Zakim]
- DATA_DWBP()8:00AM has now started
- 18:27:26 [Zakim]
- +[IPcaller]
- 18:27:37 [phila]
- zakim, [ is Ipswich
- 18:27:37 [Zakim]
- +Ipswich; got it
- 18:28:05 [phila]
- zakim, Ipswich has deirdrelee, riccardoAlbertoni, phila
- 18:28:05 [Zakim]
- +deirdrelee, riccardoAlbertoni, phila; got it