Data on the Web Best Practices Working Group Teleconference -- 22 May 2015

<hadleybeeman> Understandably. Tom went last year — sounded like great fun.

<trackbot> Date: 22 May 2015

<deirdrelee> chair: deirdrelee

<hadleybeeman> :)

<deirdrelee> agendat: https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20150522

<ericstephan> thank you hadleybeeman

<hadleybeeman> no problem!

<antoine> ô chairs, I have a question: is it possible to have the DQV part before the DUV one?

<antoine> I have to leave early

I can scribe

<scribe> scribe: Caroline

<ericstephan> Its been a lot of late nights for the DUV team this week :-)

<riccardoAlbertoni> who is noisy?

<antoine> same for DQV team :-)

<ericstephan> :-) antoine

<deirdrelee> PROPOSED: Approve last week's minutes http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/dwbp/2015-05-15

<hadleybeeman> +0 (wasn't here last week)

<ericstephan> +1

<antoine> +0

<SumitPurohit> +1

<deirdrelee> +0

<laufer> +1

<annette_g> +1

+0 (wans't here last week)

<riccardoAlbertoni> +1

APPROVED: last week's minutes http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/dwbp/2015-05-15

DQV

<antoine> http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/vocab-dqg.html

deirdrelee: we will have the update from antoine about data quality vocabulary

antoine: we put together the first version
... it is on this link http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/vocab-dqg.html
... our focus has been mostly on the model
... we propose that the group have a look at it
... some names and properties are still being developed

<riccardoAlbertoni> s/??/Concept Graph

antoine: we would like the group put attention on this
... please let me know if you have any question

deirdrelee: we can go into the details next week

antoine: if someone has any comments about the model

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

antoine: the discussion on the issues would be better to have it on the mailing list or next week
... we will be working a lot on the following week
... we are keeping the originally schedule
... the question about the schedule would be when the group would like to have the first published working draft
... I understood that the group wants to have a first public working draft next week. Is that correct?

deirdrelee: from my side the schedule is realistic, we shouldn't try to have anything before that
... let's keep this shedule

antoine: I think we are going on the right direction, but it would be great to have some feedback
... I think we may release something before june

annette_g: are you breaking it or is it one thing?

antoine: I don't know about breaking it
... it was not meant to be a sub-heading
... that kind of feedback would be relevant and would help us to mature to a first public working draft
... and the group could help us to decide how to split it

deirdrelee: the last final version should be available for a week for the group before publishing the first public working draft

<riccardoAlbertoni> +1 to keep the current schedule if it is no vital to rush

ericstephan: antoine it looks a gret job!
... both vocabularies are in development
... are you planning in putting any effort to the data usage vocabulary?
... I want to make sure we are complementing each other's document

<riccardoAlbertoni> What is the relation between duv:Feedback and dqv:Feedback? (Issue-165).

antoine: maybe we should have a general issue in both documents
... saying that we prefere first adress our own requirements

ericstephan: I think this would work

Review of open external comments

<deirdrelee> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/68239/WD-dwbp-20150224/?status=open

deirdrelee: during f2f we closed some of them and there are a couple of them that are still open
... would be great to try to close some of them

<deirdrelee> Caroline: we have beenworking on the external comments, we closed some on the tracker that have been resolved

<deirdrelee> ...and we also added some more

<deirdrelee> ...there are 4 or 5 from Maurino, but we haven't had a chance to look at them yet

<deirdrelee> ...should we look at them now?

antoine: that makes me think about a general process question

<deirdrelee> antoine: you said you have started to close commnets, makes me think about the process

antoine: are we closing comments without asking the commenters?

<phila> Well,

<deirdrelee> ack about, process,

<antoine> are we closing comments without asking commenters if they're happy with the resolution

<phila> You need to reply to each comment

<antoine> (that's the question, Phil)

<phila> And then see if the commenter is happy

<phila> If so, then you can close

<phila> Otehrwise it's pending

<phila> But...

<phila> if you don't get a reply at all after a while, then you close

<deirdrelee> 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

<deirdrelee> ...after changing it we responded to the commenter

we are actually interacting with the commenters :)

yes!

we are copying the mailing list

<antoine> ok great!

<deirdrelee> https://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/68239/WD-dwbp-20150224/3034

<BernadetteLoscio> +q

<BernadetteLoscio> to talk about the documents

<BernadetteLoscio> ops

<BernadetteLoscio> comments

<BernadetteLoscio> please.. let me talk :)

Discussion on Data Vocabularies section

<deirdrelee> https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/166

BernadetteLoscio: I think the vocabulary section could stay on the document, but we should talk about the scope of it

<deirdrelee> http://www.w3.org/TR/dwbp/#dataVocabularies

BernadetteLoscio: the data vocabulary section is updated on github

<deirdrelee> http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#dataVocabularies

BernadetteLoscio: it is with BPs from using vocabularies, not for creating them

<BernadetteLoscio> yes

BernadetteLoscio: I removed the BPs that had data voncabulary creation

antoine: I would like to have a disclaimer with my envolvment with this discussion
... when it started I wasn't convinced to write a lot of things, but then I was convinced to write them
... that being said, about creation
... when I have to choose vocabularies to reuse is the same process to create vocabulary
... I use the same criteria
... I find a litle bit dificult to separate it
... I am wondering because our audience include dataset publishers
... I agree that BPs on reusing vocabularies should be first and foremost
... I would be keen on adding vocabularies for creating if we decide so

deirdrelee: I understand that the general quesiton would be reusing Vs creating it

BernadetteLoscio: I can try
... we have a BP that says the vocabulary should be clearly documented
... another that vocabulary should be open
... and another one about vocabulary versioning
... this last one is similar of dataset versioning
... I think it is weird if we duplicate them
... I am not sure if the versioning process is different or it is the same
... sharing vocabularies in an open way is more specific to vocabularies
... In my opinion, this is not enough to say how to create a vocabulary
... because creating a vocabulary, ontology, is a very complex task
... I think this is not enough to say how to create a vocabulary
... in the end is missing a lot. If we are going to write BPs to create vocabularies, we need to detail it
... we must go deeper if we are doing it

antoine: I would favor breaking down the discussions on each BP
... I will just reaction on the last one
... the BP shouldn't say how to do things
... what the last BP was trying to say is that people don't need to come with complex vocabularies
... for example the BP on licensing data, it says that there should be a license and not gives the detail on representing every possible contract
... I will not try to have this kind of approach for vocabularies as well

deirdrelee: I agree with antoine that it might be useful to talk about each BP
... on the mailing list
... to focus on each BP
... what BernadetteLoscio said reminds me on the discussion that we had ealier about data and metadata
... if we look at vocabularies, the discussion is similar

<antoine> 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

BernadetteLoscio: we can continue this discussion by email

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
... we would have to have an agreement

BernadetteLoscio: we are working on the version on the github, we would not remove the BP without the agreement of the group
... we will keep the discussion and make a decision together

Use of normative statements and rating system

BernadetteLoscio: about the RFCs, I agree with annette_g that we could remove it
... other BPs don't use this kind of terms
... my concern is if we are using it in a proper way

deirdrelee: what do other people think?

laufer: I have mixing feelings about this
... if we don't use the RFC we must have a rating system

<annette_g> +1 to laufer

<riccardoAlbertoni> +1 to laufer

<BernadetteLoscio> +1

<yaso> +1 to laufer

<yaso> agree w/newton

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

<yaso> Maybe we could focus on the rating system at F2F

laufer: I think we can publish without the rating system and put a note that it would be done

deirdrelee: do we agree that our rating system is better than using RFC?

<annette_g> * resolution?

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

<SumitPurohit> +q

yaso: we could call volunteers to make this proposal

SumitPurohit: so far I am still not getting
... I don't think we have to make a decision right now

deirdrelee: If the task force for the rating system we would have to do something before the face to face
... we can discuss it in 2 weeks and work from there

<yaso> agree

<riccardoAlbertoni> +1 to deirdrelee and SumitPurohit's proposal

BernadetteLoscio: I think it is great to think about but I think 2 weeks are not enough
... we can have a initial proposal, but something that will be good to publish will take more time

<laufer> maybe we could put a note reporting that this thing will be done ,,,

<ericstephan> 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

<annette_g> * when are we switching conferencing systems?

deirdrelee: for the next version BPs will mature and for the next stage we will be looking on the rating

<newton> 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?

thank you!

<yaso> tks

<laufer> bye all, nice weekend

<riccardoAlbertoni> bye , thanks

<annette_g> bye all!

<deirdrelee> 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.

<deirdrelee> but this won't be for this version, as we are still finalising the BPs, will ensure they are stable for this version first

<deirdrelee> Thanks Caroline for scribing!

<phila> chair: Dee

<phila> Agenda: https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20150522#

- DRAFT -

Data on the Web Best Practices Working Group Teleconference

22 May 2015

Attendees

Contents

DQV

Review of open external comments

Discussion on Data Vocabularies section

Use of normative statements and rating system

Summary of Action Items

Scribe.perl diagnostic output