12:59:18 RRSAgent has joined #dwbp 12:59:18 logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/05/22-dwbp-irc 12:59:19 Understandably. Tom went last year — sounded like great fun. 12:59:20 RRSAgent, make logs 351 12:59:20 Zakim has joined #dwbp 12:59:22 Zakim, this will be DWBP 12:59:22 ok, trackbot, I see DATA_DWBP()9:00AM already started 12:59:23 Meeting: Data on the Web Best Practices Working Group Teleconference 12:59:23 Date: 22 May 2015 12:59:30 zakim, who is here? 12:59:30 On the phone I see [IPcaller], [IPcaller.a] 12:59:32 On IRC I see RRSAgent, deirdrelee, Caroline, BernadetteLoscio, antoine, phila, rhiaro, hadleybeeman, trackbot 12:59:41 -[IPcaller] 12:59:46 + +1.509.554.aaaa 12:59:46 zakim, [ipcaller.a] is me 12:59:48 +deirdrelee; got it 12:59:53 zakim, who is here? 12:59:53 On the phone I see deirdrelee, +1.509.554.aaaa 12:59:54 On IRC I see RRSAgent, deirdrelee, Caroline, BernadetteLoscio, antoine, phila, rhiaro, hadleybeeman, trackbot 13:00:12 +[IPcaller] 13:00:13 +HadleyBeeman 13:00:22 zakim, IPcaller is me 13:00:22 +antoine; got it 13:00:54 zakim, who is noisy? 13:01:00 ericstephan has joined #dwbp 13:01:08 antoine, listening for 13 seconds I heard sound from the following: +1.509.554.aaaa (19%) 13:01:12 riccardoAlbertoni has joined #DWBP 13:01:30 zakim, aaaa is ericstephan 13:01:30 +ericstephan; got it 13:01:31 chair: https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20150522 13:01:42 chair: deirdrelee 13:01:43 :) 13:01:44 + +1.617.646.aabb 13:01:45 agendat: https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20150522 13:01:49 thank you hadleybeeman 13:01:54 zakim, who is here? 13:01:54 On the phone I see deirdrelee, ericstephan, antoine, HadleyBeeman, +1.617.646.aabb 13:01:55 no problem! 13:01:57 On IRC I see riccardoAlbertoni, ericstephan, Zakim, RRSAgent, deirdrelee, Caroline, BernadetteLoscio, antoine, phila, rhiaro, hadleybeeman, trackbot 13:01:57 + +39.349.096.aacc 13:02:10 ô chairs, I have a question: is it possible to have the DQV part before the DUV one? 13:02:16 I have to leave early 13:02:18 SumitPurohit has joined #DWBP 13:02:36 +Caroline 13:02:57 zakim, +39.349.096.aacc is me 13:02:57 +riccardoAlbertoni; got it 13:03:10 zakim, who is here? 13:03:10 On the phone I see deirdrelee, ericstephan, antoine, HadleyBeeman, +1.617.646.aabb, riccardoAlbertoni, Caroline 13:03:12 On IRC I see SumitPurohit, riccardoAlbertoni, ericstephan, Zakim, RRSAgent, deirdrelee, Caroline, BernadetteLoscio, antoine, phila, rhiaro, hadleybeeman, trackbot 13:03:41 zakim, aabb is sumit 13:03:42 +sumit; got it 13:03:47 + +1.510.384.aadd 13:04:04 zakim, pick a victim 13:04:04 Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose sumit 13:04:04 zakim, pick a victim 13:04:05 Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose sumit 13:04:32 annette_g has joined #dwbp 13:04:43 I can scribe 13:04:52 scribe: Caroline 13:05:03 Its been a lot of late nights for the DUV team this week :-) 13:05:17 agenda: https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20150522 13:05:31 laufer has joined #dwbp 13:05:31 who is noisy? 13:05:32 same for DQV team :-) 13:05:39 :-) antoine 13:05:43 PROPOSED: Approve last week's minutes http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/dwbp/2015-05-15 13:05:45 +0 (wasn't here last week) 13:05:48 +1 13:05:49 +0 13:05:49 +1 13:05:52 +0 13:05:58 +1 13:06:01 +1 13:06:12 +0 (wans't here last week) 13:06:14 +1 13:06:16 +[IPcaller] 13:06:22 APPROVED: last week's minutes http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/dwbp/2015-05-15 13:06:30 Zakim, IPcaller is me 13:06:30 +laufer; got it 13:06:37 zakim, mute me 13:06:37 laufer should now be muted 13:06:58 newton has joined #dwbp 13:07:01 Topic: DQV 13:07:07 http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/vocab-dqg.html 13:07:07 deirdrelee: we will have the update from antoine about data quality vocabulary 13:07:17 antoine: we put together the first version 13:07:26 ... it is on this link http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/vocab-dqg.html 13:07:36 ... our focus has been mostly on ?? 13:07:58 ... we propose that the group have a look at it 13:08:01 s/??/the model 13:08:17 ... some names and properties are still being developed 13:08:21 s/??/Concept Graph 13:08:34 ... we would like the group put attention on this 13:08:57 q? 13:09:07 ... please let me know if you have any question 13:09:34 deirdrelee: we can go into the details next week 13:09:48 antoine: if someone has any comments about the model 13:10:00 https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Data_quality_schedule 13:10:05 ... the discussion on the issues would be better to have it on the mailing list or next week 13:10:16 ... we will be working a lot on the following week 13:10:40 ... we are keeping the originally schedule 13:11:04 ... the question about the schedule would be when the group would like to have the first published working draft 13:11:35 ... I understood that the group wants to have a first public working draft next week. Is that correct? 13:12:03 deirdrelee: from my side the schedule is realistic, we shouldn't try to have anything before that 13:12:06 q+ 13:12:12 ... let's keep this shedule 13:12:35 q+ 13:12:47 antoine: I think we are going on the right direction, but it would be great to have some feedback 13:13:09 antoine: I think we may release something before june 13:13:13 ack annette_g 13:13:41 annette_g: are you breaking it or is it one thing? 13:13:48 antoine: I don't know about breaking it 13:14:01 ... it was not meant to be a ?? 13:14:55 ... that kind of feedback would be relevant and would help us to mature to a first public working draft 13:15:02 q+ 13:15:12 ... and the group could help us to decide how to split it 13:15:22 s/??/sub-heading 13:16:20 deirdrelee: the last final version should be available for a week for the group before publishing the first public working draft 13:16:29 ack me 13:16:32 ack ericstephan 13:16:33 +1 to keep the current schedule if it is no vital to rush 13:16:41 ericstephan: antoine it looks a gret job! 13:16:56 ... both vocabularies are in development 13:17:12 ... are you planning in putting any effort to the data usage vocabulary? 13:17:32 ... I want to make sure we are complementing each other's documetn 13:17:43 s/documetn/document 13:18:07 What is the relation between duv:Feedback and dqv:Feedback? (Issue-165). 13:18:20 antoine: maybe we should have a general issue in both documents 13:18:37 ... saying that we prefere first adress our own requirements 13:18:45 ericstephan: I think this would workd 13:18:51 s/workd/work 13:19:11 Topic: Review of open external comments 13:19:18 http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/68239/WD-dwbp-20150224/?status=open 13:19:40 deirdrelee: during f2f we closed some of them and there are a couple of them that are still open 13:19:57 ... would be great to try to close some of them 13:19:57 q+ 13:20:23 ack Caroline 13:20:52 Caroline: we have beenworking on the external comments, we closed some on the tracker that have been resolved 13:20:58 ...and we also added some more 13:21:18 q+ about process 13:21:44 ...there are 4 or 5 from Maurino, but we haven't had a chance to look at them yet 13:21:49 ...should we look at them now? 13:22:04 antoine: that makes me think about a general process question 13:22:10 antoine: you said you have started to close commnets, makes me think about the process 13:22:18 ... are we closing comments without asking the commenters? 13:22:37 q? 13:22:59 q+ 13:23:06 Well, 13:23:07 ack about, process, 13:23:11 are we closing comments without asking commenters if they're happy with the resolution 13:23:17 You need to reply to each comment 13:23:22 (that's the question, Phil) 13:23:23 And then see if the commenter is happy 13:23:32 q- about 13:23:32 If so, then you can close 13:23:36 q- process 13:23:37 Otehrwise it's pending 13:23:43 But... 13:23:51 q+ antoine to talk about process 13:23:54 if you don't get a reply at all after a while, then you close 13:23:57 Caroline: this is what we've been doing until now. we change according to the comment. if we didn't know about how to address comment, we wrote to group 13:24:12 ...after changing it we responded to the commenter 13:24:31 BernadetteLoscio has joined #dwbp 13:24:37 -antoine 13:25:35 +[IPcaller] 13:25:38 zakim, ipcaller is BernadetteLoscio 13:25:38 +BernadetteLoscio; got it 13:25:39 +[IPcaller] 13:25:47 zakim, IPcaller is me 13:25:47 +antoine; got it 13:26:22 we are actually interacting with the commenters :) 13:26:37 yes! 13:26:43 we are copying the mailing list 13:26:55 ok great! 13:27:04 :) 13:27:50 https://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/68239/WD-dwbp-20150224/3034 13:28:12 +q 13:28:35 q- 13:29:28 to talk about the documents 13:29:30 ops 13:29:32 comments 13:29:43 please.. let me talk :) 13:29:59 ack Caroline 13:30:07 ack BernadetteLoscio 13:30:55 Topic: Discussion on Data Vocabularies section 13:31:11 https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/166 13:32:12 BernadetteLoscio: I think the vocabulary section could stay on the document, but we should talk about the scope of it 13:32:35 http://www.w3.org/TR/dwbp/#dataVocabularies 13:32:48 ... the data vocabulary section is updated on github 13:33:21 http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#dataVocabularies 13:33:29 ... it is with BPs from using vocabularies, not for creating them 13:33:31 yaso has joined #dwbp 13:33:31 yes 13:33:44 q? 13:33:53 zakim, Caroline has yaso 13:33:53 +yaso; got it 13:34:08 ... I removed the BPs that had data voncabulary creation 13:34:13 q+ 13:34:22 ack antoine 13:34:43 antoine: I would like to have a disclaimer with my envolvment with this discussion 13:35:11 ... when it started I wasn't convinced to write a lot of things, but then I was convinced to write them 13:35:36 ... that being said, about creation 13:35:53 q+ 13:36:07 ... when I have to choose vocabularies to reuse is the same process to create vocabulary 13:36:16 ... I use the same criteria 13:36:27 ... I find a litle bit dificult to separate it 13:36:43 ... I am wondering because our audience include dataset publishers 13:37:00 ... I agree that BPs on reusing vocabularies should be ?? 13:37:11 s/??/first and foremost 13:37:20 ... I would be keen on adding vocabularies for creating if we decide so 13:37:43 deirdrelee: I understand that the general quesiton would be reusing Vs creating it 13:38:21 BernadetteLoscio: I can try 13:38:29 ack me 13:38:42 q+ 13:38:42 ... we have a BP that says the vocabulary should be clearly documented 13:38:55 ... another that vocabulary should be open 13:39:05 ... and another one about vocabulary versioning 13:39:18 ... this last one is similar of dataset versioning 13:39:28 ... I think it is weird if we duplicate it 13:39:32 s/it/them 13:39:51 ... I am not sure if the versioning process is different or it is the same 13:40:16 q+ 13:40:17 ... sharing vocabularies in an open way is more specific to vocabularies 13:40:33 ... In my opinion, this is not enough to say how to create a vocabulary 13:40:52 ... because creating a vocabulary, ontology, is a very complex task 13:41:12 ... I think this is not enough to say how to create a vocabulary 13:41:38 ... in the end is missing a lot. If we are going to write BPs to create vocabularies, we need to detail it 13:41:47 ... we must go deeper if we are doing it 13:41:49 ack antoine 13:42:16 antoine: I would favor breaking down the discussions on each BP 13:42:26 ... I will just reaction on the last one 13:42:37 ... the BP shouldn't say how to do things 13:42:59 ... what the last BP was trying to say is that people don't need to come with complex vocabularies 13:43:18 ... for example the BP on licensing data, it says ?? 13:43:34 ... I will not try to have this kind of approach for vocabularies as well 13:43:50 deirdrelee: I agree with antoine that it might be useful to talk about each BP 13:43:55 ... on the mailing list 13:43:58 s/??/that there should be a license and not gives the detail on representing every possible contract 13:44:06 ... to focus on each BP 13:44:29 ... what BernadetteLoscio said reminds me on the discussion that we had ealier about data and metadata 13:44:46 ... if we look at vocabularies, the discussion is similar 13:45:08 deirdrelee++ yes it is the same discussion that we had about requirements. I'm not agains revisting it, but we need serious arguments to change the position we took then 13:45:35 -HadleyBeeman 13:45:36 BernadetteLoscio: we can continue this discussion by email 13:46:31 +HadleyBeeman 13:46:42 q+ 13:46:50 ack deirdrelee 13:46:50 deirdrelee: because of the BP document is in a mature stage, should make more sense that we remove it? removing a BP at this stage is a major thing 13:46:59 ... we would have to have an agreement 13:47:11 ack BernadetteLoscio 13:47:28 BernadetteLoscio: we are working on the version on the github, we would not remove the BP without the agreement of the group 13:47:46 ... we will keep the discussion and make a decision together 13:47:47 Topic: Use of normative statements and rating system 13:48:31 -antoine 13:48:35 q? 13:49:20 BernadetteLoscio: about the RFCs, I agree with annette_g that we could remove it 13:49:34 ... other BPs don't use this kind of terms 13:49:45 ... my concern is if we are using it in a proper way 13:50:17 q? 13:50:36 deirdrelee: what do other people think? 13:50:42 q+ 13:50:44 q+ 13:51:01 ack Caroline 13:51:45 zakim, unmute me 13:51:45 laufer should no longer be muted 13:51:49 ack laufer 13:52:00 laufer: I have mixing feelings about this 13:52:19 ... if we don't use the RFC we must have a written system 13:52:38 +1 to laufer 13:52:40 +1 to laufer 13:52:42 +1 13:52:43 q+ 13:52:53 zakim, mute me 13:52:53 laufer should now be muted 13:53:00 +1 to laufer 13:53:14 s/written/rating 13:53:26 agree w/newton 13:53:29 q+ 13:53:33 q- 13:53:34 newton: if we remove this normative terms on this verision should we have the rating system now? I think we don't have time for it before next publishing 13:53:49 ack newton 13:53:49 q+ 13:53:56 Maybe we could focus on the rating system at F2F 13:53:57 zakim, unmute me 13:53:57 laufer should no longer be muted 13:54:05 q+ 13:54:11 ack laufer 13:54:11 q+ 13:54:28 laufer: I think we can publish without the rating system and put a note that it would be done 13:54:29 zakim, mute me 13:54:29 laufer should now be muted 13:54:45 q+ 13:54:56 deirdrelee: do we agree that our rating system is better than using RFC? 13:54:58 * resolution? 13:55:19 ack me 13:55:21 ack yaso 13:55:53 yaso: can we form a task force to make a proposal of the rating system before the f2f and make a simple proposal to the wg 13:56:01 +q 13:56:06 ... we could call volunteers to make this proposal 13:56:19 q+ 13:56:36 ack SumitPurohit 13:56:48 SumitPurohit: so far I am still not getting 13:56:58 ... I don't think we have to make a decision right now 13:57:57 deirdrelee: If the task force for the rating system we would have to do something before the face to face 13:58:05 q+ 13:58:09 ... we can discuss it in 2 weeks and work from there 13:58:13 agree 13:58:16 +1 to deirdrelee and SumitPurohit's proposal 13:58:38 ack deirdrelee 13:59:00 Zakim, who is scribing? 13:59:00 I don't understand your question, yaso. 14:00:06 BernadetteLoscio: I think it is great to think about but I think 2 weeks are not enough 14:00:25 ... we can have a initial proposal, but something that will be good to publish will take more time 14:00:51 maybe we could put a note reporting that this thing will be done ,,, 14:00:53 Data Usage Vocab: I will send a request out to the group for feedback today in the mailing list to keep on schedule . http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/vocab-du.html 14:00:54 * when are we switching conferencing systems? 14:01:01 deirdrelee: for the next version BPs will mature and for the next stage we will be looking on the rating 14:01:04 Just to emphasize, are we going to keep de RFC on the next version (which is going to be published soon), and after that we will have the rating system. Is it right? 14:01:28 -ericstephan 14:02:05 thank you! 14:02:08 tks 14:02:10 bye all, nice weekend 14:02:10 -Caroline 14:02:11 -deirdrelee 14:02:13 -HadleyBeeman 14:02:14 bye , thanks 14:02:14 -sumit 14:02:16 bye all! 14:02:16 -BernadetteLoscio 14:02:18 -laufer 14:02:23 -riccardoAlbertoni 14:02:23 - +1.510.384.aadd 14:02:23 DATA_DWBP()9:00AM has ended 14:02:24 Attendees were +1.509.554.aaaa, deirdrelee, HadleyBeeman, antoine, ericstephan, +1.617.646.aabb, riccardoAlbertoni, sumit, +1.510.384.aadd, laufer, BernadetteLoscio, yaso 14:02:24 yaso has left #dwbp 14:03:01 RRSAgent, make logs public 14:03:18 to update on Newton's comment, after the next version we will explore in more detail whether we will replace the normative statements with a rating system, whether we will have a rating system as well as normative statements, or not use the rating system. 14:03:40 but this won't be for this version, as we are still finalising the BPs, will ensure they are stable for this version first 14:03:54 Thanks Caroline for scribing! 14:04:44 newton has joined #dwbp 14:04:44 RRSAgent, draft minutes 14:04:44 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/05/22-dwbp-minutes.html phila 14:05:16 regrets+ Makx, PhilA 14:05:22 RRSAgent, draft minutes 14:05:22 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/05/22-dwbp-minutes.html phila 14:05:37 chair: Dee 14:05:47 Agenda: https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20150522# 14:05:51 RRSAgent, draft minutes 14:05:51 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/05/22-dwbp-minutes.html phila 14:05:55 newton_ has joined #dwbp 14:06:00 newton_ has joined #dwbp 14:09:30 RRSAgent, bye 14:09:30 I see no action items