00:56:29 <phila> phila has joined #dwbp
11:11:39 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #dwbp
11:11:39 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/09/25-dwbp-irc
11:11:41 <Caroline_> Caroline_ has joined #DWBP
11:11:41 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs 351
11:11:41 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #dwbp
11:11:43 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be DWBP
11:11:43 <Zakim> I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot
11:11:44 <trackbot> Meeting: Data on the Web Best Practices Working Group Teleconference
11:11:44 <trackbot> Date: 25 September 2015
11:11:49 <deirdrelee> rrsagent, make logs public
11:11:52 <Caroline_> Present+ Caroline_
11:12:17 <deirdrelee> present+ deirdrelee
11:12:30 <laufer> present+ laufer
11:13:21 <RiccardoAlbertoni> present+ RiccardoAlbertoni
11:14:25 <antoine> antoine has joined #dwbp
11:15:09 <antoine> present+ antoine
11:16:23 <phila> phila has joined #dwbp
11:16:47 <phila> Meeting: DWBP F2F day 2
11:16:53 <Makx> present+ makx
11:16:54 <phila> Chair: Deirdre
11:17:03 <deirdrelee> scribe: laufer
11:17:20 <jerdeb> present+ jerdeb
11:17:27 <phila> present+ phila
11:17:40 <laufer> deirdrelee: welcome to the participants
11:17:46 <newtoncalegari> newtoncalegari has joined #dwbp
11:17:58 <deirdrelee> agenda: https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/F2F_S%C3%A3o_Paulo_-_Agenda_Proposal_DWBP
11:18:04 <newtoncalegari> present+ newtoncalegari
11:18:06 <Gisele> Gisele has joined #dwbp
11:18:07 <Giancarlo_Guizzardi> Giancarlo_Guizzardi has joined #DWBP
11:18:12 <adrianov> present+ adrianov
11:18:16 <laufer> ... continuing Best practices session
11:18:20 <nandana> present+ nandana
11:18:23 <AdrianoC-InWeb> AdrianoC-InWeb has joined #dwbp
11:18:23 <Gisele> present+ gisele
11:18:25 <antoine> q+ to ask about some removed BP
11:18:29 <BernadetteLoscio> BernadetteLoscio has joined #dwbp
11:18:37 <laufer> ... phil update the data identification session in the document
11:18:53 <deirdrelee> ack antoine
11:18:53 <Zakim> antoine, you wanted to ask about some removed BP
11:19:05 <BernadetteLoscio> present+ BernadetteLoscio
11:19:08 <WagnerMeiraJr> WagnerMeiraJr has joined #dwbp
11:19:19 <antoine> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-wg/2015Sep/0090.html
11:19:20 <Vagner_Br> Vagner_Br has joined #dwbp
11:19:26 <laufer> antoine: asking about a question sent by e-mail
11:19:42 <laufer> ... a question about the vocabulary issues
11:20:05 <yaso> yaso has joined #dwbp
11:20:13 <laufer> ... I see not a great problem but want to discuss some requirements
11:20:24 <phila> q+
11:20:50 <laufer> BernadetteLoscio: we need to make a list of the requirements and maybe we need a section in the end of the documento to define waht requirements are necessary or not
11:21:02 <deirdrelee> q+
11:21:09 <deirdrelee> ack phila
11:21:11 <laufer> ... to define what requirements are out of scope of the group
11:21:37 <antoine> q+
11:21:37 <laufer> phila: what we did is to point to other groups
11:22:04 <laufer> BernadetteLoscio: we have to review the list but if we find a req that is not there what we have to do
11:22:31 <deirdrelee> ack deirdrelee
11:22:34 <deirdrelee> ack antoine
11:22:44 <laufer> deirdrelee: we can maybe just identify what best practices point to the requirements
11:23:25 <laufer> antoine: maybe what we have to do in some cases is just to put some explanation in the document
11:23:51 <laufer> BernadetteLoscio: what is the best way to do this: a section or a text in the intro
11:24:54 <antoine> q+
11:24:56 <laufer> deirdrelee: creating a specific action to that
11:25:04 <phila> action: Bernadette to tabulate requirements against the BPs that address them
11:25:04 <trackbot> Created ACTION-205 - Tabulate requirements against the bps that address them [on Bernadette Farias Loscio - due 2015-10-02].
11:25:40 <laufer> antoine: a comment to the editor that the text was not completely removed form the doc
11:26:04 <laufer> deirdrelee: http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/146
11:26:04 <phila> topic: Maturity Levels in the BP Doc
11:26:07 <phila> scribe: laufer
11:26:45 <laufer> BernadetteLoscio: talking a bout the maturity level to replace or not the use of the RFC words
11:27:23 <laufer> ... for the maturity model we do not have yet a real proposal but we have some ideas
11:27:46 <laufer> ... laufer send an initial list of the groups of bps using the words
11:28:04 <laufer> ... then an idea was raise to define levls for the bps
11:28:28 <BernadetteLoscio> https://docs.google.com/a/cin.ufpe.br/spreadsheets/d/1IT6IEeyGUY9crIYY9hDQLgdVx4XVzzKYf21N7YQrO5s/edit?usp=sharing
11:28:30 <laufer> ... I have a other proposal and will put soon a link to that
11:28:55 <RiccardoAlbertoni> s/levls/levels
11:29:14 <laufer> ... the idea was to identify the main aspects of a dataset
11:29:30 <laufer> ... if the bps are really used what be the result
11:29:46 <laufer> ... I tried to idetify some of these characteristics
11:30:07 <laufer> ... bernadette is describing the document
11:30:28 <laufer> there is a link between the chatacteristic and the BP
11:30:33 <deirdrelee> q?
11:30:46 <laufer> ... agregating some meaning to the BP
11:30:48 <deirdrelee> ack antoine
11:31:20 <laufer> if we have levls we do not need to say if one BP is better than othe... r
11:31:56 <laufer> if I aplly some BP I have for example a level for a characteristic of acessibility
11:31:58 <phila> q+ to ask whether a BP can be associated with more than one aspect? And to ask if Nic.br has a designer
11:32:14 <laufer> ... one BP coul be associated to more that one characteristic
11:32:32 <laufer> ... I want to have a feedback about this first idea
11:33:03 <deirdrelee> ack phila
11:33:03 <Zakim> phila, you wanted to ask whether a BP can be associated with more than one aspect? And to ask if Nic.br has a designer
11:33:07 <laufer> ... the second thing is to decide if this enough to evaluate the BP, if this is suficient to replace the RFC keywords
11:33:19 <laufer> phila: I like the idea of aspects
11:34:22 <laufer> ... phil asked vagner if he has a designer and vagner aswered yes
11:34:40 <deirdrelee> q?
11:34:50 <laufer> phila: not sure if this idea coul replace the RFC keywords
11:34:53 <antoine> q+
11:35:01 <deirdrelee> ack antoine
11:35:04 <laufer> deirdrelee: asking if there are other opinios
11:35:13 <deirdrelee> q+
11:35:34 <laufer> antoine: I this is interesting and I am curious of the comparison with the ideas of the quality dimensions
11:35:48 <laufer> BernadetteLoscio: I was tinking about this yesterday
11:36:09 <laufer> ... I think there is a reelation, I do not know if it is a one to one relation
11:36:21 <newtoncalegari> s/reelation/relation
11:36:29 <laufer> ... but if I understood correctly we do not have a fixed list of dimension
11:36:36 <phila> The dimensions from DQV are 7.1 Statistics
11:36:36 <phila> 7.2 Availability
11:36:36 <phila> 7.3 Processability
11:36:37 <phila> 7.4 Accuracy
11:36:37 <phila> 7.5 Consistency
11:36:37 <phila> 7.6 Relevance
11:36:39 <phila> 7.7 Completeness
11:36:41 <phila> 7.8 Conformance
11:36:44 <phila> 7.9 Credibility
11:36:46 <phila> 7.10 Timeliness
11:36:58 <laufer> ... we can do the exercise to see the relations between the aspects of quality and the aspects of the BPs
11:37:09 <deirdrelee> q?
11:37:11 <laufer> q+
11:37:36 <antoine> q+
11:37:37 <laufer> ... I think woul be great to evaluate the BPs
11:37:51 <laufer> ... I think it is interesting
11:38:14 <laufer> deirdrelee: in general I think it is a very good idea to make the document understandable
11:38:34 <laufer> ... it will be a nice way to transmit the idea of what the document is
11:38:51 <deirdrelee> ack deirdrelee
11:38:52 <deirdrelee> ack laufer
11:39:23 <BernadetteLoscio> q+
11:39:35 <deirdrelee> laufer: i think it's a good idea, it isn't an instance of a document for the dqv, but what we are defining here is a way to define the quality of publishing, we are defining the dimensions and the things we have in dqv. w
11:39:51 <deirdrelee> ack antoine
11:40:04 <laufer> antoine: reaction to one thing bernadette said
11:40:24 <laufer> ... dimension mayve to annotations too,
11:40:25 <nandana> +q to ask if the dimensions can be matched to the ones in http://iso25000.com/index.php/en/iso-25000-standards/iso-25012
11:40:25 <deirdrelee> ack BernadetteLoscio
11:40:50 <deirdrelee> ack nandana
11:40:50 <Zakim> nandana, you wanted to ask if the dimensions can be matched to the ones in http://iso25000.com/index.php/en/iso-25000-standards/iso-25012
11:41:07 <laufer> BernadetteLoscio: just completing what laufer said, is more to evaluate the dataset itself instead of the publishing
11:41:25 <antoine> q+
11:41:30 <deirdrelee> ack antoine
11:41:36 <laufer> nandana: to make a list of comprehensive dimensions
11:41:40 <phila> q+ to talk about ODI Certs
11:41:54 <deirdrelee> ack phila
11:41:54 <Zakim> phila, you wanted to talk about ODI Certs
11:42:02 <phila> -> https://certificates.theodi.org/overview ODI Certs
11:42:07 <laufer> phila: this discussion make me to remeber ODI certificates
11:42:31 <laufer> ... ODI refers more to the publisher
11:42:41 <deirdrelee> q?
11:42:45 <antoine> phila+1
11:42:45 <laufer> we have to look to ODI to complete the list of aspects
11:43:02 <phila> I don't think we need to try and match our dimensions to the ODI Certs as they measure the publishing process, not the dataset
11:43:04 <Caroline_> s/we have/ we don't have
11:43:16 <laufer> deirdrelee: making a specific proposal to this idea
11:43:17 <Caroline_> +1 to phil
11:43:58 <deirdrelee> draft proposal: Add aspects to the BP document to describe the benefit of each BP
11:44:05 <laufer> q+
11:44:11 <deirdrelee> ack laufer
11:45:14 <deirdrelee> laufer: for BernadetteLoscio, I agree that quality is about the dataset, but if we say that having a good level of accessibility you need metadata, you're not talking about the dataset, but the publisher
11:45:26 <deirdrelee> .. it's talking aboutthe way it is being published
11:45:32 <deirdrelee> q+
11:45:52 <deirdrelee> BernadetteLoscio: i understand, but i think in the end what we are going to evaluate is the dataset itself
11:46:15 <deirdrelee> laufer: but the aspects are related to publishing process
11:46:25 <deirdrelee> ... its the quality of the publishing
11:46:59 <RiccardoAlbertoni> q+
11:46:59 <deirdrelee> ... it's the information that can help users to understand the datsaet, parse the datset, etc.
11:47:20 <Giancarlo_Guizzardi> Giancarlo_Guizzardi has joined #DWBP
11:47:25 <Giancarlo_Guizzardi> q+
11:48:02 <deirdrelee> deirdrelee: the distiction doesn't really matter
11:48:17 <deirdrelee> laufer: a lot of things we don't have to worry about this
11:48:18 <deirdrelee> ack me
11:48:48 <deirdrelee> BernadetteLoscio: it's not just the quality, it's more than the dataset itself
11:49:05 <deirdrelee> ack RiccardoAlbertoni
11:49:06 <laufer> BernadetteLoscio: what we expect of the dataset and the things are connected
11:49:22 <laufer> RiccardoAlbertoni: just to say that I agree with laufer
11:50:13 <laufer> ... in the BPs we are talking abou the publishing but I also agrre with antoin that probably this metadat information maybe relate dto annotations or other metrics
11:50:34 <laufer> ...we have to identify this distictions
11:50:44 <deirdrelee> ack Giancarlo_Guizzardi
11:50:49 <laufer> s/this/these/
11:50:57 <laufer> Giancarlo_Guizzardi: some comments
11:51:38 <laufer> ... if we asy that you are talking about the metadata about the dataset we have to establish a connection between the metadata and the dataset
11:52:05 <deirdrelee> draft proposal: Add aspects to the BP document to describe the benefit of each BP
11:52:10 <laufer> ... I annot see how to avoid the rlation between the metadata and the dtaset itself
11:52:23 <deirdrelee> PROPOSED: Add aspects to the BP document to describe the benefit of each BP
11:52:42 <yaso> -1
11:52:49 <Makx> -1
11:53:10 <deirdrelee> q?
11:53:20 <Giancarlo_Guizzardi> Yes. the quality of the metadata influences our appreciation of the quality of the data (e.g., the dataset should be described using SHAREABLE metadata)
11:53:37 <Makx> I had the same question as Phil
11:53:56 <Makx> Benefit is in the why
11:54:14 <laufer> yaso: I think that finding a benefit is very personal, could be money you do not waste
11:54:30 <laufer> how we can identify that
11:54:38 <newtoncalegari> newtoncalegari has joined #dwbp
11:54:51 <laufer> ... I do not think is necessary
11:54:58 <laufer> q+
11:55:03 <yaso> q+
11:55:05 <phila> q+ to propose that the Why section of each BP be augmented with an aspect - some sort of icon
11:55:24 <deirdrelee> q+
11:55:47 <laufer> deirdrelee: phil said the why section is pointing the reason
11:56:21 <laufer> BernadetteLoscio: I think why is more descriptive and is different
11:56:54 <laufer> BernadetteLoscio: I think is more general
11:57:04 <Caroline_> scribe: Caroline_
11:57:19 <Caroline_> laufer: we can list some of the reasons to use the BPs
11:57:31 <Caroline_> ... some aspects are technical
11:58:25 <Caroline_> ... we can list the tech aspects
11:58:36 <deirdrelee> ack laufer
11:58:38 <Caroline_> ... it is parcible
11:58:41 <Caroline_> scribe: laufer
11:58:42 <deirdrelee> ack yaso
11:58:51 <phila> s/parcible/parsable/
11:58:56 <laufer> q+
11:58:57 <BernadetteLoscio> q+
11:59:04 <Giancarlo_Guizzardi> q+
11:59:09 <deirdrelee> ack phila
11:59:09 <Zakim> phila, you wanted to propose that the Why section of each BP be augmented with an aspect - some sort of icon
11:59:39 <laufer> phila: Why I think is not right, we have the why section and the inteded outcome
12:00:10 <laufer> ... I do not want to change that, I think is useful to read the document
12:00:31 <laufer> my problem with the proposal is in how it was written
12:00:40 <BernadetteLoscio> q-
12:01:20 <phila> ack de
12:01:33 <yaso> q+
12:02:23 <laufer> deirdrelee: if we add this idea, to be careful to not exclude other things
12:02:25 <deirdrelee> ack laufer
12:03:11 <BernadetteLoscio> q+
12:04:43 <laufer> Giancarlo_Guizzardi: it is not the case that all tjhe people will address all the bps all the time
12:05:09 <laufer> is a way to a criteria to use the bps
12:05:33 <deirdrelee> ack Giancarlo_Guizzardi
12:05:37 <deirdrelee> ack yaso
12:06:07 <laufer> yaso: whan I said the document is huge, I do not nedd a benefict section
12:06:31 <laufer> ...I like to first read the exmapls and then read the text
12:06:57 <laufer> so just to say that sometimes is better to be simple
12:07:31 <laufer> ... I thinks we have examples in the document that can clarify these same idea of the aspects
12:07:51 <deirdrelee> q?
12:08:17 <laufer> BernadetteLoscio: we are aware that we need more examples
12:08:32 <newtoncalegari> s/tjhe/the
12:08:34 <laufer> ... phil said what I was in my mind
12:09:13 <laufer> I think for now we shoul keep the why and have a proposal for the classification and we see that this thins is a complementary thing or if it is redundanct
12:09:14 <deirdrelee> q?
12:09:23 <deirdrelee> ack BernadetteLoscio
12:09:36 <newtoncalegari> s/shoul keep/should keep
12:09:44 <laufer> deirdrelee: le´s go back to the proposal
12:10:00 <newtoncalegari> s/thins/thing
12:10:15 <phila> PROPOSED: That icons be added to each BP indicating the relevant aspect(s)
12:11:10 <phila> +1
12:11:14 <Giancarlo_Guizzardi> +1
12:11:19 <antoine> +1
12:11:20 <laufer> +1
12:11:21 <deirdrelee> +1
12:11:22 <Caroline_> +1
12:11:25 <Gisele> +1
12:11:29 <jerdeb> +1
12:11:30 <yaso> +1
12:11:34 <nandana> +1
12:11:44 <RiccardoAlbertoni> +1
12:11:53 <deirdrelee> q?
12:12:07 <antoine> laufer: not sure the proposal is clear about the icons
12:12:13 <Makx> +1
12:12:13 <antoine> scribenick: antoine
12:12:37 <antoine> +1
12:12:38 <BernadetteLoscio> +1
12:12:45 <deirdrelee> q?
12:12:46 <newtoncalegari> +1
12:12:46 <deirdrelee> q+
12:12:48 <phila> RESOLVED: That icons be added to each BP indicating the relevant aspect(s)
12:12:55 <phila> RESOLUTION: That icons be added to each BP indicating the relevant aspect(s)
12:13:18 <antoine> deirdrelee: in the past months we've talked about maturity level
12:13:20 <phila> RRSAgent, draft minutes
12:13:20 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/09/25-dwbp-minutes.html phila
12:13:27 <antoine> ... do the aspects replace the maturity levels?
12:13:37 <antoine> ... or are we keeping them as a separate idea?
12:13:57 <antoine> BernadetteLoscio: annette has seen the discussion
12:14:10 <yaso> q+
12:14:15 <deirdrelee> ack deirdrelee
12:14:15 <antoine> ... we were not clear how to describe the maturity levels
12:14:26 <antoine> ... levels for publisher, dataset, process...
12:14:38 <Giancarlo_Guizzardi> q+
12:14:49 <antoine> ... there's a bit about it in the proposal above
12:14:54 <antoine> ... but it's not clear to me
12:14:55 <antoine> yaso
12:15:03 <deirdrelee> ack Giancarlo_Guizzardi
12:15:29 <antoine> Giancarlo_Guizzardi: if you think of quality measure the name should be different (?)
12:15:45 <antoine> ... maturity gives the idea of something one can always do
12:15:48 <deirdrelee> ack yaso
12:15:51 <yaso> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-wg/2015Sep/0037.html
12:16:20 <antoine> yaso: I was reading the thread
12:16:33 <antoine> ... with laufer's proposal on MUST/SHOULD
12:16:41 <antoine> ... we have to find some way to stick to this
12:16:47 <antoine> ... to substitute the RFC
12:16:51 <antoine> ... keywords
12:16:55 <Giancarlo_Guizzardi> Ontologically Speaking, maturity sounds to me like a disposition to behave producing something with a certain quality. It does not make much sense to use to refer to an intrinsic characteristic of a product (the dataset)
12:17:03 <antoine> ... It's becoming bigger than it needs to be
12:17:15 <antoine> deirdrelee: does the thread address this?
12:17:37 <deirdrelee> issue-146
12:17:37 <trackbot> issue-146 -- Which section of a BP should be normative? -- open
12:17:37 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/146
12:17:55 <antoine> BernadetteLoscio: we agree to use RFC keywords
12:18:13 <antoine> ... but I'm afraid we are not using it in the proper way
12:18:48 <antoine> ... I'd like to know if the way we currently use them is ok
12:18:54 <antoine> ... or if we need to change
12:19:03 <antoine> ... (about the titles of BPs)
12:19:24 <antoine> ... Annette doesn't agree with the use of keywords
12:19:28 <antoine> ... they are for systems
12:19:46 <phila> q+ to express ambivalence
12:19:59 <antoine> ... We need a resolution
12:20:07 <antoine> ... from the group
12:21:12 <deirdrelee> http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/dwbp/2015-09-04
12:21:52 <phila> -> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-wg/2015May/0119.html Annette's e-mail on this topic
12:22:04 <antoine> deirdrelee: the discussion was on SHOULD and MUST but there are other keywords (MAY etc)
12:22:06 <BernadetteLoscio> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-wg/2015May/0077.html
12:22:10 <antoine> ... laufer wanted to check this
12:22:22 <deirdrelee> q?
12:22:54 <antoine> phila: I don't entirely mind
12:23:08 <antoine> ... looking at other W3C BPs, none of them use RFC keywords
12:23:29 <antoine> ... we would be unusual
12:23:39 <antoine> ... Hadley would probably want to keep them
12:23:46 <antoine> ... because it's a recommendation
12:23:56 <antoine> ... it's supposed to make statements about what to do
12:24:05 <deirdrelee> q+
12:24:09 <deirdrelee> ack phila
12:24:09 <Zakim> phila, you wanted to express ambivalence
12:24:14 <antoine> ... Maybe introducing the aspects would alleviate her concerns
12:24:25 <newtoncalegari> q+ to ask the difference between spec and rec?
12:24:36 <antoine> deirdrelee: noone else does it for BP but they do it for other docs
12:24:48 <antoine> phila: yes as annette says it happens for specifying software
12:25:00 <antoine> ... But we don't have stric PASS/FAIL tests
12:25:06 <antoine> s/tric/strict
12:25:27 <antoine> ... NobileWeb lists all kind of machine tests
12:25:28 <deirdrelee> Remove the RFC2119 normative terms from the BP Document and instead will create our own levels/maturity-model
12:25:36 <newtoncalegari> q-
12:25:36 <antoine> s/NobileWeb/MobileWeb
12:25:56 <antoine> phila: but even MobileWeb don't have RDF keywords
12:26:20 <deirdrelee> ack deirdrelee
12:26:24 <antoine> deirdrelee: is it ok if we replace 'levels' by 'aspects' in the proposal?
12:26:43 <antoine> BernadetteLoscio: we will work on the aspects and hope they can be used with the same results
12:26:44 <antoine> q+
12:26:51 <deirdrelee> Remove the RFC2119 normative terms from the BP Document and instead use aspects icons
12:27:51 <deirdrelee> ack antoine
12:28:48 <phila> q+
12:28:49 <nandana> +1 to antoine. I think they cover two different things.
12:29:08 <laufer> q+
12:29:38 <phila> q-
12:29:51 <phila> +1 to Antoine
12:30:25 <nandana> +q to say within the dimension there could be levels
12:30:49 <deirdrelee> q?
12:30:49 <nandana> antoine++
12:31:46 <laufer> q-
12:31:55 <phila> +1 to antoine (again)
12:31:59 <antoine> antoine: levels have the same function as keywords
12:32:07 <antoine> ... aspects have a different function
12:32:25 <deirdrelee> q?
12:32:28 <antoine> ... working on aspects is good (probably better) but it won't replace the levels/keywords
12:32:29 <deirdrelee> ack nandana
12:32:29 <Zakim> nandana, you wanted to say within the dimension there could be levels
12:32:33 <antoine> BernadetteLoscio: agree
12:32:37 <antoine> nandana: same thing
12:32:50 <laufer> q+
12:33:01 <deirdrelee> ack laufer
12:33:07 <antoine> laufer: the question was about how to use MUST
12:33:27 <antoine> ... if we have a recommendation with a list of MUST
12:33:34 <nandana> antoine, no probs. You said everything I wanted to say already.
12:33:41 <antoine> ... and someone publsihes data that doesn't conform to one
12:33:47 <antoine> ... what does it mean?
12:33:58 <antoine> ... It's a same as the ODI certificated
12:34:19 <antoine> s/certificated/certificates
12:34:21 <antoine> q+
12:34:23 <newtoncalegari> q+
12:34:24 <Giancarlo_Guizzardi> q+
12:34:37 <deirdrelee> ack antoine
12:34:50 <newtoncalegari> q-
12:34:59 <deirdrelee> ack Giancarlo_Guizzardi
12:35:14 <antoine> laufer: we can't forbid data to be published that doesn't comply with the practice
12:35:30 <antoine> antoine: RFC gives a clear compliance criteron
12:35:50 <antoine> Giancarlo_Guizzardi: recommendations would carry different weight
12:35:59 <antoine> ... maybe in relation to the aspects.
12:36:16 <antoine> ... oOne BP has a MUST for one aspect and a SHOULD for another aspect
12:36:23 <antoine> s/oOne/One
12:36:33 <antoine> ... I like the idea of design space
12:36:43 <antoine> ... things are not one-dimensional
12:36:54 <antoine> ... people could comply to one aspect and not another
12:37:06 <antoine> ... so we'd have to relate the sue of keywords to aspects
12:37:09 <phila> PROPOSED: That RFC2119 keywords should be removed from the BP doc
12:37:11 <antoine> ... and that's complicated
12:37:13 <Giancarlo_Guizzardi> +1
12:37:15 <yaso> ]+1
12:37:17 <Makx> +1
12:37:20 <deirdrelee> +1
12:37:20 <phila> +1
12:37:21 <Gisele> +1
12:37:21 <newtoncalegari> +1
12:37:21 <antoine> +1
12:37:30 <adrianov> +1
12:37:32 <Caroline_> +1
12:37:34 <nandana> +1
12:37:38 <BernadetteLoscio> +1
12:37:38 <laufer> +1
12:37:39 <jerdeb> +1
12:37:40 <phila> Mr Bradner is upset
12:37:52 <phila> RESOLVED: That RFC2119 keywords should be removed from the BP doc
12:38:00 <PeterWinstsanley> PeterWinstsanley has joined #dwbp
12:38:06 <phila> RESOLUTION: That RFC2119 keywords should be removed from the BP doc
12:38:23 <newtoncalegari> q+
12:38:31 <phila> close issue-146
12:38:31 <trackbot> Closed issue-146.
12:38:38 <phila> close action-197
12:38:38 <trackbot> Closed action-197.
12:39:02 <deirdrelee> ack newtoncalegari
12:39:29 <antoine> newtoncalegari: should we remove the words altogether?
12:39:40 <antoine> deirdrelee: it's not the word just the capitalization
12:39:48 <antoine> phila: be careful with what reSpec does
12:40:01 <deirdrelee> topic: Discuss the inclusion of a context section (20 min.)
12:40:28 <antoine> BernadetteLoscio: there was a lot of discussion about data formats
12:40:59 <Caroline_> http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#dataVersioning
12:41:06 <deirdrelee> http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#context
12:41:21 <antoine> BernadetteLoscio: I have tried to explain what is a dataset
12:41:50 <antoine> ... yaso says the doc is huge: is it a good idea to include more?
12:42:05 <Caroline_> s/http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#dataVersioning/http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#context
12:42:07 <antoine> ... it seemed a good idea to make it more precise what our context is
12:42:20 <antoine> ... i.e what we mean when we put data on the web.
12:42:30 <antoine> ... there are additional things - metadata.
12:42:44 <antoine> ... We have values, and a set of metadata
12:43:07 <deirdrelee> q?
12:43:15 <antoine> ... we are based on web principles
12:43:46 <antoine> deirdrelee: you're asking feedback on the text or diagram?
12:43:58 <antoine> BernadetteLoscio: ont he text, maybe there is redundance with the intro
12:44:05 <antoine> ... it needs to be reviewed
12:44:16 <antoine> ... Steve gave feedback.
12:44:37 <antoine> ... Most important point: do we agree about giving meaning to what we talk about?
12:44:56 <antoine> ... cf comments on the web principles by eric XX
12:45:30 <antoine> deirdrelee: anything visual is helpful
12:45:41 <phila> s/xx/Wilde/
12:46:01 <antoine> ... we have to be careful about the meaning of things in the diagram
12:46:09 <antoine> ... the general idea about giving context is nice
12:46:26 <antoine> ... I had specific concerns abou the distinctions between metadata, info etc
12:46:32 <deirdrelee> q?
12:46:46 <antoine> phila: I'm happy
12:46:56 <antoine> ... this document makes a big effort on readability
12:47:02 <antoine> ... diagrams are useful
12:47:38 <antoine> deirdrelee: we can review it in the next week, once we agree with the general idea.
12:47:40 <phila> PROPOSED: To retain the context section (which, like all of the doc, is open to review)
12:47:47 <deirdrelee> +1
12:47:49 <antoine> +1
12:47:49 <RiccardoAlbertoni> +1
12:47:50 <phila> +1
12:47:55 <adrianov> +1
12:48:00 <laufer> +1
12:48:00 <newtoncalegari> +1
12:48:09 <Caroline_> +1
12:48:10 <BernadetteLoscio> +1
12:48:32 <Giancarlo_Guizzardi> Giancarlo_Guizzardi has joined #DWBP
12:48:44 <phila> RESOLVED: To retain the context section (which, like all of the doc, is open to review)
12:48:48 <deirdrelee> q+
12:48:53 <phila> RESOLUTION: To retain the context section (which, like all of the doc, is open to review)
12:48:59 <antoine> Giancarlo_Guizzardi: 'Aspect' is a bad word
12:49:05 <deirdrelee> q-
12:49:09 <deirdrelee> +1 to Gisele
12:49:19 <antoine> ... I would use either quality dimension or crtieria
12:49:22 <deirdrelee> s/gisele/giancarlo
12:50:08 <antoine> deirdrelee: maybe we don't have to use the word at all
12:50:17 <antoine> phila: we are using many words
12:50:24 <RiccardoAlbertoni> +1 to don't use the word at all .. :)
12:50:36 <antoine> deirdrelee: if we keep a connection with DQV then it makes sense to use dimension
12:50:40 <deirdrelee> https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/F2F_S%C3%A3o_Paulo_-_Agenda_Proposal_DWBP
12:50:55 <vagner> vagner has joined #dwbp
12:50:56 <deirdrelee> topic: Discuss the glossary creation (should be a section or another document) and resolve open issues/actions (20 min.)
12:51:02 <phila> Topic: The Glossary
12:51:11 <phila> action-148?
12:51:11 <trackbot> action-148 -- Yaso Córdova to Include a definition of 'a standard' in the glossary -- due 2015-04-20 -- OPEN
12:51:11 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/148
12:51:24 <phila> action-154?
12:51:25 <trackbot> action-154 -- Yaso Córdova to Add the definitions of dataset, vocabulary and metadata in the glossary, noting that the boundaries are not always distinct (or helpful). -- due 2015-04-20 -- OPEN
12:51:25 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/154
12:51:32 <phila> action-159?
12:51:32 <trackbot> action-159 -- Christophe Gueret to Write a definition of archiving (and preservation) in the glossary (again!) -- due 2015-04-21 -- OPEN
12:51:32 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/159
12:51:39 <antoine> BernadetteLoscio: is it going to be a separate doc? A note?
12:51:43 <phila> action-174?
12:51:43 <trackbot> action-174 -- Ig Ibert Bittencourt Santana Pinto to Make update to glossary for new data usage terms: citations, data producer, consumer, publisher etc -- due 2015-04-24 -- OPEN
12:51:43 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/174
12:51:57 <antoine> ... we have a lot of stuff
12:52:04 <antoine> ... we need to check how we are going to do this
12:52:29 <RiccardoAlbertoni> Could you provide a link to the glossary ?
12:52:30 <antoine> yaso: we already decided it was going to be a separate doc
12:52:53 <antoine> yaso: it's on github
12:53:13 <deirdrelee> q?
12:53:18 <yaso> https://w3c.github.io/dwbp/glossary.html
12:53:34 <yaso> https://github.com/w3c/dwbp
12:53:52 <antoine> ... I have 2/3 actions on adding definitions there
12:53:59 <antoine> ... standard, dataset, vocabulary, metadata
12:54:13 <antoine> ... Ig also had an action to define citation, data producer, publisher...
12:54:28 <antoine> ... christophe already made his changes
12:54:51 <antoine> BernadetteLoscio: it should be published next to the next BP draft
12:54:54 <phila> q+
12:54:56 <newtoncalegari> q+
12:55:00 <antoine> yaso: yes
12:55:17 <antoine> ... but I can't find the decision
12:55:24 <antoine> ... these actions should be closed
12:55:41 <antoine> ... we have to review the definitions
12:55:42 <deirdrelee> q+
12:55:46 <phila> Notes that action-174 has been completed
12:55:59 <phila> Also action 159 has been completed
12:56:02 <antoine> BernadetteLoscio: the work on glossary needs to be done in parallel with the BP doc
12:56:18 <antoine> q+
12:56:33 <deirdrelee> ack phila
12:56:43 <antoine> phila: how many more defintions are expected to be added?
12:56:54 <antoine> ... Not very many, probably
12:57:05 <yaso> +1 to phila
12:57:05 <antoine> ... If it's nearly complete, it can be an annex of the BP doc
12:57:17 <deirdrelee> q-
12:57:29 <deirdrelee> ack newtoncalegari
12:57:31 <antoine> ... this would make it easy
12:57:48 <antoine> newtoncalegari: if it's a separate we'll have the same problem as the enrichment doc
12:58:01 <antoine> phila: if there's a lot of terms then it makes sense to be separate
12:58:27 <antoine> ... yaso said we decided to publish separately
12:58:32 <deirdrelee> ack antoine
12:58:37 <yaso> I agree that it can be with the document
12:59:06 <phila> antoine: If the glossary exists, we can move some of the text from the main document
12:59:37 <antoine> phila: but I don't think we need to publish separately
12:59:50 <laufer> q+
12:59:55 <antoine> BernadetteLoscio: we can check if there are definitions that are in both glossary and main text
13:00:12 <antoine> ... For the next draft we can move the definitions in the main draft and then review.
13:00:30 <antoine> ... Also judge (seeing the size) if it needs to be a separate note
13:00:46 <antoine> laufer: has the glossary got terms from the BP doc or the vocs as well?
13:01:02 <antoine> ... if we have terms from DUV/DQV then we need separate docs
13:01:09 <antoine> BernadetteLoscio: it's just for the BP
13:01:31 <antoine> yaso: it's small
13:01:59 <antoine> q+
13:02:04 <deirdrelee> ack laufer
13:02:06 <newtoncalegari> s/yaso: it's small/Caroline_: it's small
13:02:15 <phila> PROPOSAL: The the terms defined at https://w3c.github.io/dwbp/glossary.html be incorporated into the BP document as an annex
13:02:24 <antoine> +1
13:02:26 <yaso> +1
13:02:29 <newtoncalegari> +1
13:02:31 <laufer> +1
13:02:31 <deirdrelee> +1
13:02:33 <Gisele> +1
13:02:35 <phila> antoine: I can easily point from the DQV to the BP doc terms if needed
13:02:37 <phila> +1
13:02:44 <PeterWinstanley> PeterWinstanley has joined #dwbp
13:02:45 <BernadetteLoscio> +1
13:02:46 <RiccardoAlbertoni> +1
13:03:08 <phila> action: calegari to incorporate the glossary in the BP document
13:03:08 <trackbot> Created ACTION-206 - Incorporate the glossary in the bp document [on Newton Calegari - due 2015-10-02].
13:03:12 <deirdrelee> RESOLVED: The the terms defined at https://w3c.github.io/dwbp/glossary.html be incorporated into the BP document as an annex
13:03:24 <Sumit_Purohit_> Sumit_Purohit_ has joined #DWBP
13:03:35 <newtoncalegari> q+
13:03:35 <antoine> phila: yaso have you used specific markup?
13:03:36 <deirdrelee> q?
13:03:38 <deirdrelee> ack antoine
13:03:39 <antoine> yaso: I did
13:03:41 <antoine> q-
13:03:45 <deirdrelee> ack newtoncalegari
13:04:06 <PeterWinstanley> q+
13:04:27 <newtoncalegari> http://philarcher1.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#DataIdentifiers
13:04:32 <antoine> newtoncalegari: I;ve merged a few changed int he data identification section.
13:05:13 <deirdrelee> ack PeterWinstanley
13:05:42 <antoine> phila: action 148 is not clear
13:05:54 <newtoncalegari> action-148
13:05:54 <trackbot> action-148 -- Yaso Córdova to Include a definition of 'a standard' in the glossary -- due 2015-04-20 -- OPEN
13:05:54 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/148
13:05:54 <antoine> s/clear/done
13:05:59 <phila> close action-154
13:05:59 <trackbot> Closed action-154.
13:06:06 <phila> close action-159
13:06:06 <trackbot> Closed action-159.
13:06:11 <phila> close action-174
13:06:11 <trackbot> Closed action-174.
13:06:32 <cgueret> cgueret has joined #dwbp
13:06:41 <yaso> q+
13:06:41 <antoine> BernadetteLoscio: I'd like to discuss the previous topic (?)
13:06:54 <antoine> ... related to Eric Wilde's message - hyperlinks etc
13:07:06 <deirdrelee> q?
13:07:12 <antoine> ... I've answered his message and we had a lot of discussion
13:07:19 <antoine> ... but I don't know how to handle this
13:07:27 <antoine> ... should we had a best practice on this?
13:07:38 <antoine> ... (ie on links between resources and datasets)
13:08:13 <adrianov> scribe: adrianov
13:08:16 <antoine> scribenick: adrianov
13:08:45 <adrianov> yaso: should wait for annette for discussing other BP issues
13:09:02 <adrianov> BernadetteLoscio: I am not thinking about the APIs
13:09:45 <yaso> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-comments/2015Aug/0003.html
13:09:57 <adrianov> BernadetteLoscio: It is just to have an idea on how to handle this (API discussion)
13:10:03 <phila> q+ to make a proposal
13:10:11 <deirdrelee> ACK yaso
13:10:13 <deirdrelee> ack phila
13:10:13 <Zakim> phila, you wanted to make a proposal
13:10:17 <adrianov> yaso: this is not a simple issue, and demands more time for discussion
13:11:54 <adrianov> phila: a possible proposal is considering changing the name of the document
13:12:08 <adrianov> ... publishing data on the web
13:12:34 <adrianov> phila: we need someway to be confortable on not talking about some things
13:13:03 <phila> RRSAgent, draft minutes
13:13:03 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/09/25-dwbp-minutes.html phila
13:14:14 <phila> present+ PeterWinstanley
13:15:46 <newtoncalegari> newtoncalegari has joined #dwbp
13:16:04 <Sumit_Purohit_> present+ Sumit_Purohit_
13:16:59 <newtonca_> newtonca_ has joined #dwbp
13:17:55 <newtoncalegari> newtoncalegari has joined #dwbp
13:19:00 <newtonca_> newtonca_ has joined #dwbp
13:20:11 <Sumit_Purohit_> someone has to use photoshop and add me in that pic :-)
13:20:16 <annette_g> annette_g has joined #dwbp
13:20:37 <newtoncalegari> newtoncalegari has joined #dwbp
13:20:41 <newtoncalegari> newtoncalegari has joined #dwbp
13:22:24 <annette_g> annette_g has joined #dwbp
13:24:56 <newtoncalegari> newtoncalegari has joined #dwbp
13:26:10 <vagner> q?
13:26:36 <vagner> d:)
13:27:38 <annette_g> annette_g has joined #dwbp
13:30:00 <deirdrelee> q?
13:30:20 <annette_g> present+ annette_g
13:31:36 <Caroline_> Caroline_ has joined #DWBP
13:31:54 <adrianov> BernadetteLoscio: the last topic is timetable and there is one open issue which is data enrichment
13:32:06 <adrianov> ... there is an open issue raised by annette
13:32:10 <Giancarlo_Guizzardi> Giancarlo_Guizzardi has joined #DWBP
13:32:20 <adrianov> ... then we can move to timetable and next steps
13:32:52 <deirdrelee> issue-196
13:32:52 <trackbot> issue-196 -- Data enrichment -- open
13:32:52 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/196
13:33:02 <adrianov> BernadetteLoscio: issue to be discussed now is 196
13:33:33 <adrianov> ... it is important to remember that data enrichment is gonna to be in a separate note, as a member submission
13:34:00 <Caroline_> q+
13:34:11 <yaso> q+
13:34:12 <deirdrelee> ack Caroline_
13:34:15 <phila> -> http://www.w3.org/Submission/ W3C Member Submissions
13:34:30 <adrianov> Caroline_: will we keep this on the BP?
13:34:30 <deirdrelee> ack yaso
13:34:50 <Gisele> q+
13:35:00 <adrianov> yaso: write some use cases about data enrichment, and separate two challenges to be also discussed
13:35:01 <Caroline_> ack Caroline_
13:35:07 <Caroline_> ack yaso
13:35:28 <adrianov> ... data enrichment is a common procedure which also appears in Web data
13:35:32 <deirdrelee> ack Gisele
13:35:39 <annette_g> q+
13:35:56 <adrianov> Gisele: we looked at the document and we have five challenges and use cases
13:36:11 <deirdrelee> ack annette_g
13:36:36 <adrianov> annette_g: data enrichment is not only on data but also on metadata
13:36:59 <adrianov> phila: close the issue and open an action
13:37:04 <phila> close issue-196
13:37:04 <trackbot> Closed issue-196.
13:37:12 <adrianov> ... action for gisele
13:37:36 <phila> action: Gisele to modify the Data Enrichment Best Practice to cover data as well as metadata
13:37:36 <trackbot> Created ACTION-207 - Modify the data enrichment best practice to cover data as well as metadata [on Gisele Pappa - due 2015-10-02].
13:37:41 <adrianov> BernadetteLoscio: we should start the discussion about the next steps and timetable
13:37:44 <phila> q+
13:37:45 <Caroline_> Discuss the DWBP timetable and the next steps
13:37:53 <Caroline_> What should be done to improve the document?
13:37:54 <adrianov> ... we are unsure about the dates
13:38:03 <Caroline_> Get ideas for the implementation phase
13:38:12 <adrianov> ... a first draft should be finished about the next month
13:38:20 <deirdrelee> ack phila
13:38:31 <annette_g> q+
13:39:01 <deirdrelee> bp timetable: https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/BP_Document_3rd_Draft
13:39:21 <deirdrelee> ack annette_g
13:39:37 <adrianov> annette_g: I have a proposal for erick raised by issues
13:40:12 <yaso> +1 to annette_g
13:40:35 <adrianov> BernadetteLoscio: could you right or send message about your proposal?
13:40:38 <adrianov> annette_g: sure
13:40:39 <Caroline_> Long term timetable https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/BP_timetable#Overview
13:40:42 <phila> annette_g: I've written some draft BPs on linkable data that I hope address some of what Erik Wilde was raising and I'll discuss them with him
13:41:32 <adrianov> BernadetteLoscio: we would like to review dates and procedures
13:41:55 <adrianov> ... discuss next steps and how to get feedback
13:42:14 <newtoncalegari> newtoncalegari has joined #dwbp
13:42:26 <adrianov> deirdrelee: lets look to timetable now
13:42:46 <adrianov> BernadetteLoscio: our proposal is to publish the next draft around 25th october
13:43:07 <deirdrelee> q?
13:43:19 <adrianov> BernadetteLoscio: one of the phase was removed
13:44:47 <adrianov> phila: we are expected to have one more f2f meeting
13:45:16 <adrianov> ... tell us about implementation experiences
13:45:21 <phila> -> https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1I-pGDOotOR4adCHwnayX6qYqme1K-UUHQgxuADNPQA0/viewform?c=0&w=1 Share-PSI implementayion
13:45:40 <adrianov> ... not suggesting this is what we have to do, it is just a suggestion
13:46:36 <adrianov> ... whether the guidelines they offer are consistent with us
13:46:48 <adrianov> ... we need to have some evidence of implementation
13:46:57 <adrianov> ... experiences of implementation
13:47:02 <vagner> vagner has joined #dwbp
13:47:14 <newtoncalegari> newtoncalegari has joined #dwbp
13:47:36 <adrianov> ... have to specify all the criteria
13:48:08 <adrianov> ... have to prove that we did all we have said that would be done
13:48:49 <Sumit_Purohit_> +q
13:49:27 <adrianov> BernadetteLoscio: candidate document on beginning of december
13:49:52 <adrianov> phila: december or january does not make much difference
13:50:10 <BernadetteLoscio> https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/BP_timetable#Overview
13:50:48 <nandana> annette_g, I think you need to give access to the doc.
13:51:52 <Giancarlo_Guizzardi> Giancarlo_Guizzardi has joined #DWBP
13:51:53 <adrianov> phila: end of candidate recommendation should be march
13:53:17 <newtoncalegari> newtoncalegari has joined #dwbp
13:53:40 <deirdrelee> ack Sumit_Purohit_
13:53:45 <adrianov> BernadetteLoscio: if we go for a candidate recommendation on december we will have another document in the begging of next year
13:54:26 <adrianov> phila: not expecting an organization to implement or follow all BPs
13:54:35 <Caroline_> q+
13:54:46 <adrianov> ... next version is due to next month some time
13:55:18 <adrianov> BernadetteLoscio: I think we will still have a lot of open issues, and also a lot to write and review
13:55:38 <adrianov> ... examples to be included, and quality dimensions, classification, context section, glossary etc.
13:55:46 <adrianov> ... review BPs and tests
13:56:44 <adrianov> phila: deadline for the last cool version of the document is middle november
13:56:54 <adrianov> ... last week of november
13:57:09 <phila> s/cool/call/
13:58:13 <adrianov> phila: will update the timetable
14:00:11 <annette_g> * all the versions are cool *
14:02:00 <ericstephan> ericstephan has joined #dwbp
14:02:56 <ericstephan> ericstephan present+
14:03:19 <Makx> Makx has joined #dwbp
14:04:02 <BernadetteLoscio> q+
14:04:07 <Caroline_> https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/BP_timetable#Overview
14:04:15 <deirdrelee> ack Caroline_
14:04:39 <adrianov> Caroline_: phila, when should we have to prove that the test was done, a document?
14:05:22 <adrianov> phila: must provide details on how BPs were implemented
14:06:02 <adrianov> ... prove everything is done, and show evidence about the implementation
14:06:24 <adrianov> ... some changes is usually required at this point
14:07:14 <deirdrelee> ack BernadetteLoscio
14:07:14 <adrianov> BernadetteLoscio: what happens during candidate recommendation period?
14:07:30 <adrianov> phila: it is important that you get feedback from the group
14:07:42 <adrianov> phila: feedback about BP implementations
14:08:29 <adrianov> BernadetteLoscio: imlementations should be done bettwen november and march
14:08:49 <Caroline_> q+
14:09:01 <deirdrelee> ack Caroline_
14:09:17 <adrianov> Caroline_: phila could you include that officialy?
14:10:56 <adrianov> phila: meet in Zagreb for checking BP implementations
14:11:40 <yaso> seems ok
14:12:21 <adrianov> BernadetteLoscio: happy with the result of the F2F
14:12:23 <phila> q?
14:12:54 <Caroline_> https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/F2F_S%C3%A3o_Paulo_-_Agenda_Proposal_DWBP
14:13:13 <Caroline_> Please take a look at Other Open Issues - To be discussed/closed before the F2F or if we have time during the F2F
14:13:18 <adrianov> BernadetteLoscio: we have some open issues. reponsibles should take a look and check for necessary discussions.
14:14:09 <Giancarlo_Guizzardi_> Giancarlo_Guizzardi_ has joined #DWBP
14:15:12 <laufer> bye all
14:15:14 <RiccardoAlbertoni> goodbye laufer ..
14:15:15 <nandana> bye laufer !!
14:15:22 <adrianov> deirdrelee: end of the BP session
14:15:32 <adrianov> ... moving to DUV
14:15:40 <phila> Topic: Dataset Usage Vocabulary
14:15:47 <phila> RRSAgent, draft minutes
14:15:47 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/09/25-dwbp-minutes.html phila
14:16:58 <deirdrelee> https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/F2F_S%C3%A3o_Paulo_-_Agenda_Proposal_DUV
14:17:04 <PeterWinstanley> PeterWinstanley has joined #dwbp
14:17:16 <phila> present+ ericstephan
14:17:18 <ericstephan> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1QaLn70KSJ2cBvTsiS3_H59gUq9XHuDe-oDtoViC37Iw/edit?usp=sharing
14:17:34 <deirdrelee> BernadetteLoscio: let's start with slides
14:17:42 <deirdrelee> scribe: PeterWinstsanley
14:18:00 <Sumit_Purohit_> present+ Sumit_Purohit_
14:18:07 <PeterWinstanley> ericstephan: one of the challenges with DUV is thinking about data usage
14:19:24 <deirdrelee> q?
14:19:47 <PeterWinstanley> ...DUV has changed a lot since last F2F
14:19:53 <newtoncalegari> A short URL in case you're going to type https://goo.gl/2lJXaj
14:19:57 <PeterWinstanley> Slide #2 shows the eveolved DUV model
14:20:09 <PeterWinstanley> slide '3 has the major components
14:20:38 <PeterWinstanley> ...core was DCAT :Dataset - when thinking about usage we're thinking about the dataset or distribution
14:20:49 <PeterWinstanley> ...what can operate on the dataset
14:20:59 <PeterWinstanley> ...feedback is looking at community responses
14:21:12 <PeterWinstanley> ...citation is looking at references to the dataset - formal or informal
14:22:52 <PeterWinstanley> ...slide #4 - is how a digital citizen examines a dataset and perhaps collaborates with others using tools that are readily available.  This would use something that Sumit_Purohit_  developed to help scientists discover datasets they might not be aware of
14:23:14 <PeterWinstanley> ...I might want to look at particular types of datasets that I want to examine with this tool
14:23:30 <PeterWinstanley> ...http://rdesc.org provides illustrations
14:24:02 <PeterWinstanley> ...the distribution is the actual file that I'm interested in
14:25:11 <PeterWinstanley> ...from a DUV perspective the first thought is describing the dataset (breaking some BP rules, but for the point of illustration) I'm calling the dataset directly (slide#7) but it would be better to have a list of search results (slide#6)
14:25:52 <PeterWinstanley> ... the actual data file, in the case of the DUV, would be described in terms of dataset and distribution.
14:26:55 <PeterWinstanley> ...slide#9 The DUV allows me to describe a file that I can use to manipulate the dataset
14:27:34 <PeterWinstanley> ...slide#10 shows a blank screen and provides a dead end (typical when deling with arbitrary data on the web) so
14:28:30 <PeterWinstanley> ...slide#11 shows the ability to provide feedback giving narrative about what I did and what I needed to note in terms of important info
14:29:12 <PeterWinstanley> ...slide#12  I need to know the credibility of the resource (readme files, technical publications, references etc)
14:29:30 <PeterWinstanley> ...slide#13 shows the use of DUV to reference these materials
14:30:24 <PeterWinstanley> ...slide#14 shows the DUV is able to hold all this background information that I currently keep in my head or a notebook, so it provides a mechanism for enriching search resources
14:31:12 <ericstephan> http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/vocab-du.html
14:32:09 <PeterWinstanley> BernadetteLoscio: There are only a few issues, but we can discuss the model
14:33:29 <PeterWinstanley> ericstephan: walking through the document from top to bottom:  one aspect is the use of code from existing application to provide a simple way of showing different RDF serialisations: t=turtle, j=json-ld etc
14:33:42 <phila> The j/t switch appeals to my inner geek
14:34:55 <nandana> +1. it is quite nice. Having example in JSON-LD would be quite appealing to some readers.
14:35:03 <deirdrelee> q?
14:35:11 <PeterWinstanley> ericstephan: the one thing that concerns me is that we need to ensure that blank nodes etc are fixed and to ensure that we provide a good json-ld rendering
14:36:42 <PeterWinstanley> phila: querying the blank node in prov:association
14:36:50 <PeterWinstanley> ericstephan: something we need to check on
14:37:14 <PeterWinstanley> ...i think it is a reflection of the turtle
14:37:55 <annette_g> q+
14:38:05 <deirdrelee> ack annette_g
14:38:37 <Giancarlo_Guizzardi> Giancarlo_Guizzardi has joined #DWBP
14:38:43 <Sumit_Purohit_> +q
14:38:52 <PeterWinstanley> annette_g: wondering - it's possible to return information back to the dataset owner, but by what mechanism?  there's a value in annotations, but that depends on an ecosystem that provides a route back to the published
14:39:00 <Giancarlo_Guizzardi> Giancarlo_Guizzardi has joined #DWBP
14:39:04 <ericstephan> Mozilla Science Lab, Share PSI, US Department of Energy Advanced Scientific Computing Research (ASRC), Force 11 Citations Implementations, Provenance (IPAW), PROV, Open Annotation vocabulary, Research Data Alliance
14:39:08 <PeterWinstanley> ericstephan: that's an area that needs different communities to input on
14:39:29 <BernadetteLoscio> q+
14:39:30 <Giancarlo_Guizzardi> q+
14:39:47 <PeterWinstanley> ...we might get input from the communities mentioned
14:40:40 <phila> q+ to talk about notifications
14:41:46 <deirdrelee> ack Sumit_Purohit_
14:41:52 <PeterWinstanley> annette_g: as the job is to develop the vocab we don't need to consider how it might be used, but it is worth considering so that we don't do anything incompatible with future generations
14:42:10 <Makx> Makx has joined #dwbp
14:42:36 <annette_g> q+
14:43:05 <PeterWinstanley> Sumit_Purohit_: to answer your question: we do expect the publisher to provide some mechanism.  in the early days of rdesc we thought about semantic mediawiki pages linked off the dataset info.  it goes back to the implementation part.  perhaps at the time of candidate phase we'll be able to come up with an implementation
14:43:10 <deirdrelee> ack BernadetteLoscio
14:43:18 <PeterWinstanley> BernadetteLoscio: we have 2 BP related to feedback
14:43:36 <deirdrelee> ack Giancarlo_Guizzardi
14:44:36 <PeterWinstanley> Giancarlo_Guizzardi: still on feedback, and recalling yesterday's discusision on feedback as quality statements, it would be good to include these.  Sometimes it is not too realistic (we can't oblige people) but it would be useful to specify some terms
14:45:29 <PeterWinstanley> ...another point: related to activity and the relation to resource and agent. the idea is to reuse as much as possible, but rfom a modeliing perspective we are looking to reify an agent with the resource used
14:46:03 <Sumit_Purohit_> +q
14:46:25 <PeterWinstanley> ...this is a 1:1 relation so the the activity is the event of usage and this event could be looked at from the agent perspective or from the resouce perspective
14:46:38 <PeterWinstanley> ...it's an overkill to reify all of these
14:46:55 <PeterWinstanley> ericstephan: do you have a recommendataion?
14:47:12 <PeterWinstanley> Giancarlo_Guizzardi: is my assumption of 1:1 relation correct?
14:47:24 <PeterWinstanley> ericstephan: that's right
14:47:42 <BernadetteLoscio> q+
14:47:53 <PeterWinstanley> Giancarlo_Guizzardi: I would fuse activity, association and usage into a single concept
14:48:03 <ericstephan_> ericstephan_ has joined #dwbp
14:48:16 <PeterWinstanley> ...from a modelling point of view we have made it more complex than it need be
14:48:49 <PeterWinstanley> BernadetteLoscio: the main motivation for this is prov reuse; usage is prov:activity
14:48:56 <PeterWinstanley> ...but this is another option
14:49:17 <PeterWinstanley> Giancarlo_Guizzardi: I am just showing the trade off.  re-using prov provides more tuples
14:49:20 <deirdrelee> q?
14:50:07 <PeterWinstanley> ericstephan: hand crafting examples was not easy. there were pieces I needed to put to gether to provide roles.  we didn't want to reinvent, we wanted to reuse.
14:50:24 <PeterWinstanley> ...this is the results of working through that
14:50:36 <deirdrelee> ack PeterWinstanley
14:50:37 <nandana> +q to remind about the discussion yesterday about renaming Feedback to UserFeedback to keep DQV and DUV consistent http://www.w3.org/2015/09/24-dwbp-irc#T13-54-45
14:50:37 <PeterWinstanley> ...wokring with prov required extra thinking to use
14:50:38 <deirdrelee> ack phila
14:50:38 <Zakim> phila, you wanted to talk about notifications
14:50:55 <PeterWinstanley> phila: practicality/usage: any vocab is requiring tooling
14:51:02 <phila> http://www.w3.org/TR/2015/PR-notifications-20150910/
14:51:07 <phila> http://www.w3.org/TR/activitystreams-core/
14:51:46 <PeterWinstanley> ...possible routes: "notifications" and "activity streams" - tool chains to cover things like 'like' in twitter/facebook
14:52:16 <PeterWinstanley> ...the tool could alert the owner of the data when usage/feedback info is created by a user
14:52:22 <deirdrelee> q?
14:52:36 <deirdrelee> ack annette_g
14:53:36 <PeterWinstanley> annette_g: Sumit_Purohit_ mentioned the idea of a publisher wanting to gather usage and they would create a wiki:  probably not practical; plain text might be more practical.
14:54:13 <PeterWinstanley> ...a better way to get detailed description is where data is re-used to make part of the re-usage do the reporting back.
14:54:29 <PeterWinstanley> ...difference between looking and re-using
14:54:47 <deirdrelee> q?
14:54:52 <PeterWinstanley> ...counting hits on a dataset is different from determining re-use/re-purposing
14:54:53 <BernadetteLoscio> q-
14:55:42 <PeterWinstanley> annette_g: all the pieces we have available in DUV should be available for usage as annotations.  at present they are restricted to fedeback, but they should also be used with e.g. citation
14:55:49 <deirdrelee> ack u
14:55:51 <deirdrelee> ack Sumit_Purohit_
14:56:14 <PeterWinstanley> Sumit_Purohit_: annette_g point is valid:  3 of us from the vocab team will reply collectively
14:56:43 <PeterWinstanley> ...giancarlo's point about feedback, we've thought about it using citation characterisaiotn features
14:56:51 <ericstephan_> q+
14:56:58 <PeterWinstanley> ... BernadetteLoscio:  can explain
14:57:25 <PeterWinstanley> BernadetteLoscio: this is related to yesterdau's discussion on user feedback in the DQV
14:57:44 <Giancarlo_Guizzardi> Giancarlo_Guizzardi has joined #DWBP
14:57:51 <Giancarlo_Guizzardi> q+
14:58:01 <nandana> -q
14:58:04 <PeterWinstanley> ...it should be a subclass of DUV:Feedback, but today we should discuss - is this a single class, or are there different types of feedback
14:58:26 <PeterWinstanley> Giancarlo_Guizzardi: we cannot have feedback as a subclass of quality statement
14:58:38 <antoine> +1
14:58:56 <PeterWinstanley> ...it would be useful to refine a typology of feedback, even it we don't oblige people to use it we give them some optional guids
14:59:17 <deirdrelee> ack ericstephan_
14:59:20 <Giancarlo_Guizzardi> A reference that might be useful in that regard is: http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-319-12206-9_25#page-1
14:59:28 <Giancarlo_Guizzardi> q-
15:00:30 <PeterWinstanley> ericstephan_: one of the things I mentioned to annette - a powerful concept of hte semantic web is the ability transform graphs in any way we need to :  annotations could be developed from anything I mentioned in my presentation; I could also translate anything done in DUV into annotations
15:00:32 <annette_g> :)
15:00:54 <PeterWinstanley> ...the things being asked for could be provided by the open annotations model
15:02:08 <PeterWinstanley> ericstephan_: responding to giancarlo; one powerful thing in the open annotation model is the types of interaction.  the editors are open to additions to these properties, so we could develop some complementary effort
15:03:00 <PeterWinstanley> Giancarlo_Guizzardi: this was captured in email in the last few days, but we're still left with working with quality feedback ....(?)
15:03:27 <ericstephan_> Annette can I call you?
15:03:43 <annette_g> okay, 510-384-6794
15:03:46 <ericstephan_> no feedback
15:03:50 <RiccardoAlbertoni> i will be here after the lunch
15:03:58 <phila> s/510-384-6794//
15:04:05 <ericstephan_> great, I'd like to touch base with you
15:04:16 <annette_g> * thanks, Phil *
15:04:46 <annette_g> I need to take off, will catch up in a few hours.
15:05:11 <annette_g> bye for now!
15:05:16 <PeterWinstanley> BernadetteLoscio: I know that we need to have feedback, community discussion; it's needed for recomendataion.  after the 2nd draft we didn't have much feedback.  maybe we didn't search for feedback.  what can be done to improve?
15:05:25 <Caroline> Caroline has joined #DWBP
15:05:55 <deirdrelee> q?
15:06:04 <PeterWinstanley> ...this goes for the 3 docs, but specifically for the BP we need implementations and I'd like to discuss how we are going to find/realise these implementations
15:06:26 <PeterWinstanley> ...for feedback, eric can provide a template for this
15:06:51 <PeterWinstanley> phila: talk, conference, tweet, write to other groups, just work on it
15:06:56 <ericstephan_> I think we need to help imagine people how to use it, would be most helpful.
15:07:18 <PeterWinstanley> BernadetteLoscio: other groups:  we need help in identifying them
15:07:19 <antoine> This is what I've done last time for DQV: http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/187
15:07:46 <deirdrelee> q+
15:08:29 <antoine> in fact it's this: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-wg/2015Aug/0069.html
15:08:31 <PeterWinstanley> phila: the obvious ones: annotation, geospatial, csv, internationalisation, privacy,... we need to write formally to those we said we'd discuss with
15:08:45 <PeterWinstanley> deirdrelee: not only W3C, but *all* groups
15:08:57 <antoine> but the feedback resulting from my action was not huge :-(
15:09:09 <PeterWinstanley> ...also through work at a national level through our own work
15:09:15 <ericstephan_> The SIOC is  another example of who we are working with http://rdfs.org/sioc/spec/
15:10:13 <PeterWinstanley> ericstephan_: i was surprised/delighted by feedback from the SIOC group - but they were asking for an update.  we need to branch out into other groups
15:10:34 <BernadetteLoscio> Thanks Antoine!
15:10:38 <PeterWinstanley> deirdrelee: I'll be in Galway in 2-3/52 so will be in contact wiht John Breslin etc
15:10:56 <PeterWinstanley> ericstephan_: it would be good to have a telecon to get their thoughts
15:11:05 <PeterWinstanley> deirdrelee: also check forthcoming conferences
15:12:14 <Sumit_Purohit_> +q
15:12:28 <deirdrelee> ack deirdrelee
15:12:50 <PeterWinstanley> ericstephan_: sumit and I put in a proposal re: data usage.  in the rdesc project, in the DoE advanced computing, rdesc was the only 'semantic web' one, but recently I was in Rockville MD where there were more projects being mentioned but there is a lack of awareness of wider vocabs and a hunger to find out more info
15:13:01 <deirdrelee> ack Sumit_Purohit_
15:13:14 <deirdrelee> q+
15:13:23 <phila> q+ to ask about Notes and Recs
15:13:31 <PeterWinstanley> Sumit_Purohit_: eric and I are proposing one implementation - rdesc is close to what the group has been working on
15:14:08 <PeterWinstanley> deirdrelee: at the stage that editors want feedback if they can create a template email then it will make it easier for mailing list recipients
15:14:09 <deirdrelee> ack deirdrelee
15:14:11 <ericstephan_> q+
15:14:19 <deirdrelee> ack phila
15:14:19 <Zakim> phila, you wanted to ask about Notes and Recs
15:14:29 <PeterWinstanley> phila: we should send emails, but only after the next formal WDs are pblished
15:15:13 <PeterWinstanley> ...getting one ref implemtation is fantastic, but are we putting them on the REC track?  if there are implementiaot reports then it makes the work more credible
15:15:31 <deirdrelee> ack ericstephan_
15:15:34 <PeterWinstanley> ...can the high bar be met?
15:16:39 <antoine> q+
15:16:49 <PeterWinstanley> ericstephan_: right now I'm thinking 'notes' but we could show / promote a cohesive standpoint of dwbp group;  our work on the 2 vocabs made sense, but we need to review our group cohesion and this will strengthen the 2 vocabs
15:16:59 <deirdrelee> ack antoine
15:17:14 <ericstephan_> q+
15:17:16 <PeterWinstanley> antoine: we have to be realistic
15:17:26 <deirdrelee> ack ericstephan_
15:17:46 <RiccardoAlbertoni> I agree with antoine  we have to  stay realistic..
15:18:43 <PeterWinstanley> ericstephan_: we've been looking at DUV and I feel good about feedback and citation.  DUV was always a little controversial, but at what point is the WG likely to say that we focus more on feedback etc.  How can we get confirmation at this point of the groups backing for DUV?
15:18:46 <phila> q+
15:18:58 <newtoncalegari> q?
15:19:09 <deirdrelee> ack phila
15:19:41 <PeterWinstanley> phila: I have no doubt it is important, not just annotations and citations;  I heard giancarlo discussing the problems in incorporating PROV, but essentially I want to see this embedded into CKAN etc
15:20:20 <PeterWinstanley> ...to me the DUV looks on track; the vocabs are late according to the charter, but hopefully after today all 3 vocabs will be on track
15:20:31 <ericstephan_> thank you phil :-)
15:20:37 <phila> RRSAgent, draft minutes
15:20:37 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/09/25-dwbp-minutes.html phila
15:20:51 <phila> == Lunch ==
15:21:28 <jerdeb> i need to leave as well guys
15:21:29 <nandana> bye Makx !!
15:21:44 <jerdeb> have a nice weekend
15:21:51 <ericstephan_> on mute standby music playing in office
15:22:36 <phila> RRSAgent, draft minutes
15:22:36 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/09/25-dwbp-minutes.html phila
15:24:18 <phila> RRSAgent, present?
15:24:18 <RRSAgent> I'm logging.  Sorry, nothing found for 'present'
15:24:55 <phila> phila has joined #dwbp
15:25:30 <phila> RRSAgent, draft minutes
15:25:30 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/09/25-dwbp-minutes.html phila
15:58:37 <yaso> yaso has joined #dwbp
16:01:00 <newtoncalegari> newtoncalegari has joined #dwbp
16:07:30 <ericstephan> ericstephan has joined #dwbp
16:10:22 <Gisele> Gisele has joined #dwbp
16:11:41 <newtoncalegari> newtoncalegari has joined #dwbp
16:12:36 <deirdrelee> let's get started!
16:13:23 <ericstephan> I'm here and I think on mute :-)
16:13:37 <deirdrelee> great
16:13:42 <ericstephan> Is anyone speaking?
16:14:28 <phila> q+ to give dates for Zagreb
16:14:44 <Giancarlo_Guizzardi> Giancarlo_Guizzardi has joined #DWBP
16:15:17 <Caroline> Caroline has joined #DWBP
16:15:19 <newtoncalegari> newtoncalegari has joined #dwbp
16:16:03 <deirdrelee> phila: heard back from host in croatia, said it's fine to host us there on March 14th
16:16:34 <phila> q-
16:16:36 <deirdrelee> ack phila
16:16:58 <deirdrelee> Caroline: is the date definitie?
16:17:20 <deirdrelee> phila: it would be difficult as this is the date that share-psi group have already agreed on
16:17:27 <deirdrelee> ... it would be difficult to change
16:17:44 <deirdrelee> chair: yaso
16:17:47 <yaso> https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/F2F_S%C3%A3o_Paulo_-_Agenda_Proposal_DUV
16:17:47 <deirdrelee> scribe: deirdrelee
16:18:00 <yaso> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1QaLn70KSJ2cBvTsiS3_H59gUq9XHuDe-oDtoViC37Iw/edit#slide=id.p16
16:18:01 <deirdrelee> yaso: we were discussing duv, at the feedback part
16:18:03 <SumitPurohit> SumitPurohit has joined #DWBP
16:18:14 <SumitPurohit> present+ SumitPurohit
16:18:21 <Caroline> Present+ Caroline
16:18:26 <deirdrelee> BernadetteLoscio: eric, what should we do now?
16:18:42 <deirdrelee> ... should we continue with document or go to model and open issues
16:18:46 <yaso> present+ yaso
16:18:50 <WagnerMeiraJr> WagnerMeiraJr has joined #dwbp
16:18:57 <deirdrelee> ericstephan: since we discussedthe model, maybe we should go to open issues
16:19:01 <deirdrelee> ... we only have a few
16:19:07 <deirdrelee> issue-178
16:19:07 <trackbot> issue-178 -- The definition of duv:Feedback needs to be reviewed because it is not clear if it should be a subclass of oa:Annotation or just an instance of oa:Motivation. -- open
16:19:07 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/178
16:19:23 <deirdrelee> BernadetteLoscio: issue related to feedback
16:19:36 <BernadetteLoscio> ISSUE-173: The use of cito:CitationAct and duv:Citation should be reviewed.
16:19:36 <trackbot> Notes added to ISSUE-173 The use of cito:CitationAct and duv:Citation should be reviewed..
16:19:58 <deirdrelee> ... there are other issues opened by Giancarlo_Guizzardi, they are not on agenda, but they are open issues
16:20:00 <BernadetteLoscio> ISSUE-176: Should prov:SoftwareAgent be used instead of Application/WebOfThing?
16:20:00 <trackbot> Notes added to ISSUE-176 Should prov:SoftwareAgent be used instead of Application/WebOfThing?.
16:20:04 <deirdrelee> ... comments about the last version of the model
16:20:26 <Giancarlo_Guizzardi_> Giancarlo_Guizzardi_ has joined #DWBP
16:20:34 <BernadetteLoscio> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/177
16:20:37 <deirdrelee> ... issue-173
16:20:42 <deirdrelee> issue-73
16:20:42 <trackbot> issue-73 -- What exactly is the audience for the bp doc? -- closed
16:20:42 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/73
16:20:58 <deirdrelee> .. confusion about citation act and citantion
16:21:07 <deirdrelee> ... property cite was removed
16:21:25 <deirdrelee> ... i'm not saying the version we have now is the best, but i think this issue can be closed
16:21:25 <yaso> close issue-173
16:21:25 <trackbot> Closed issue-173.
16:21:30 <deirdrelee> issue-76
16:21:30 <trackbot> issue-76 -- What advice do we give about publishing metadata so that we identify the intended outcome without making assumptions that maybe false? -- closed
16:21:30 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/76
16:21:38 <deirdrelee> issue-176
16:21:38 <trackbot> issue-176 -- Should prov:SoftwareAgent be used instead of Application/WebOfThing? -- open
16:21:38 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/176
16:22:13 <yaso> close issue-176
16:22:13 <trackbot> Closed issue-176.
16:22:15 <deirdrelee> ... classweb of things was removed from the model
16:22:22 <deirdrelee> issue-177
16:22:22 <trackbot> issue-177 -- Should duv:consumes be used instead of duv:consumed? Should we be able to reify Consumption? -- open
16:22:22 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/177
16:22:39 <deirdrelee> ... there was a property consumes, but this was removed
16:22:42 <ericstephan> q+
16:22:51 <deirdrelee> Giancarlo_Guizzardi_: this is now addressed by the reificaiton of usage
16:23:00 <yaso> ack ericstephan
16:23:41 <deirdrelee> ericstephan: on issue-177, this is where we were considering reusing prov, so i think we can close it, as we've moved on
16:24:14 <yaso> close issue-177
16:24:14 <deirdrelee> ... i'm comfortable with closing it, but maybe something that we revisit. maybe to simplify what we're doing, along the lines we were discussing earlier on
16:24:14 <trackbot> Closed issue-177.
16:24:36 <deirdrelee> BernadetteLoscio: there was another issue related to feedback, which is still open.
16:24:53 <deirdrelee> ... as ericstephan presented, there are 3 parts in the model: usage, feedback and citation
16:25:00 <phila> issue-178?
16:25:00 <trackbot> issue-178 -- The definition of duv:Feedback needs to be reviewed because it is not clear if it should be a subclass of oa:Annotation or just an instance of oa:Motivation. -- open
16:25:00 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/178
16:25:39 <deirdrelee> ... we have to decide what we're going to do, this relates to yesterday's discussion on feedback property that's common with th edqv
16:25:45 <yaso> q?
16:25:48 <ericstephan> q+
16:25:58 <nandana> +q to remind about the discussion yesterday about renaming Feedback to UserFeedback to keep DQV and DUV consistent http://www.w3.org/2015/09/24-dwbp-irc#T13-54-45
16:26:07 <deirdrelee> ... i'd like to discuss all parts of the model, because we have some doubts about the general model, especially the feedback section
16:26:38 <deirdrelee> ... if we have a specific class for feedback, then therre will be a specific class for quality
16:26:39 <phila> RRSAgent, draft minutes
16:26:39 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/09/25-dwbp-minutes.html phila
16:26:40 <Giancarlo_Guizzardi_> q+
16:26:48 <yaso> ack ericstephan
16:26:57 <deirdrelee> ... should we just have one class for feedback and properties to describe the differnet types of feedback
16:27:24 <deirdrelee> ericstephan: i liked the discussion on dqv about looking for examples, from the external community
16:27:36 <deirdrelee> ... these things are difficult to do if we don't have examples
16:28:07 <deirdrelee> BernadetteLoscio: that would be nice,
16:28:07 <yaso> ack nandana
16:28:07 <Zakim> nandana, you wanted to remind about the discussion yesterday about renaming Feedback to UserFeedback to keep DQV and DUV consistent http://www.w3.org/2015/09/24-dwbp-irc#T13-54-45
16:28:29 <deirdrelee> SumitPurohit: yesterday we had a resolution to have a feedback a subclass of userfeedback
16:28:40 <deirdrelee> ... i'd like to know if this was  a good proposal or not
16:28:53 <yaso> q?
16:29:01 <phila> Yesterday's resolution was  rename DQV:UserFeedback with dqv:QualityUserFeedback making it as duv:Feedback subclass
16:29:06 <ericstephan> +1 nandana
16:29:07 <deirdrelee> BernadetteLoscio: yesterday we had a discusssion whether to create a subcalss or not, today we should come back and see if thist fits for both vocabulaires
16:29:25 <RiccardoAlbertoni> q+ to complent the nandana question questions and speak about the  modelling
16:29:28 <ericstephan> I like the UserFeedback
16:29:42 <nandana> also to see if it makes to rename the Feedback to UserFeedback (without changing the semantics) in DUV
16:29:43 <deirdrelee> ... we need to decide if we're going to have qualityuserfeedback as subclass of duv:feedbavck
16:29:44 <deirdrelee> q_
16:29:45 <yaso> ack Giancarlo_Guizzardi_
16:29:46 <deirdrelee> q+
16:29:51 <SumitPurohit> +1 phil
16:29:53 <deirdrelee> phila: yesterday, we agreed we would
16:30:22 <deirdrelee> Giancarlo_Guizzardi_: there are 2 issues here
16:30:41 <deirdrelee> ... there is annotation that has 2 possible values that can be assigned to motivation
16:30:52 <deirdrelee> ... we might want to extend this as properties for motivation
16:31:34 <deirdrelee> ... every time we have a type that is restricted to one type of property. from a modelling point of view, there are subtypes that are already there
16:32:19 <deirdrelee> ... this would be a nice way if we want to restrict a subtype of properties that are a subtypes of motivation that refer to quality statements
16:32:33 <deirdrelee> ... from a modelling point of view i don't see any issue wiht this
16:33:12 <deirdrelee> ... we have to check if the values for motivation are enough, if yes
16:33:17 <yaso> q?
16:33:47 <deirdrelee> ... i think we could have everything. we could specialise user feedback for all of the use cases that are applicable for us
16:34:03 <nandana> +1 to Giancarlo_Guizzardi_
16:34:08 <ericstephan> http://www.w3.org/ns/oa#d4e555 link to motivation
16:34:16 <deirdrelee> BernadetteLoscio: looking at instance of motivation
16:34:18 <BernadetteLoscio> http://www.openannotation.org/spec/core/core.html#Motivations
16:34:51 <phila> q+ to talk about the Annotations WG http://www.w3.org/TR/annotation-model/#motivations
16:35:09 <deirdrelee> ... it would be possible if you could send us a model with your suggestion, cos you were in the discussion yesterday too
16:35:09 <antoine> For the record it's better to look at the work in progress at http://www.w3.org/TR/annotation-model/#motivations not the old OA drafts
16:35:11 <SumitPurohit> +1
16:35:19 <ericstephan> +1
16:35:23 <deirdrelee> ... ericstephan, what do you think?
16:35:44 <antoine> q+
16:35:50 <deirdrelee> ... Giancarlo_Guizzardi_ has an idea to model the specialisation of feedback that will help link the two types of feedback
16:35:54 <yaso> q?
16:36:09 <yaso> ack RiccardoAlbertoni
16:36:09 <Zakim> RiccardoAlbertoni, you wanted to complent the nandana question questions and speak about the  modelling
16:36:51 <newtoncalegari> wonders if the work of web annotation wg could help in the issue of annotation: http://www.w3.org/annotation/  http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/WD-annotation-model-20141211/
16:36:52 <deirdrelee> RiccardoAlbertoni: coming back to nandana's comment, it's not clear whether feedback is just human feedback of also machine feedback
16:36:54 <yaso> q?
16:37:42 <deirdrelee> ... we might need a new definiton
16:37:43 <yaso> ack deirdrelee
16:37:58 <deirdrelee> phila: the annotation group is open to comments
16:38:00 <phila> -> http://www.w3.org/TR/annotation-model/#motivations Motivations
16:38:22 <deirdrelee> ... there's a list of motivations
16:38:28 <deirdrelee> ... phila lists all
16:38:49 <yaso> +1 to phila
16:38:55 <ericstephan> I had
16:38:57 <ericstephan> ....
16:39:06 <ericstephan> Yes they seemed to be open to it
16:39:15 <deirdrelee> ... antoine said we could define one more, quality user feedback
16:39:15 <yaso> q?
16:39:23 <deirdrelee> ... or ask them to add one more
16:39:25 <deirdrelee> ..
16:39:39 <deirdrelee> ... we could add them to create a new motivation for us, and what would they be?/
16:39:43 <yaso> ack phila
16:39:43 <Zakim> phila, you wanted to talk about the Annotations WG http://www.w3.org/TR/annotation-model/#motivations
16:39:53 <nandana> RiccardoAlbertoni, I guess in that case we will have the same issue in DQV (dqv:QualityUserFeedback). If they are machines (or any agent), we can't call them users?
16:39:59 <ericstephan> I see significant reuse
16:40:18 <yaso> q?
16:40:21 <deirdrelee> ... providing quality feedback is one, is usage feedback another? is is significantly different to what they have?
16:40:28 <yaso> ack antoine
16:41:02 <deirdrelee> anitoine: i am familiar with this work and see a can of worms with asking them to add a new motivation
16:41:21 <deirdrelee> ... it is quite unclear that providing qulity feedback will fall into one of their categories
16:41:34 <Giancarlo_Guizzardi_> q+
16:41:49 <deirdrelee> ... what they've tried wiht their current spec is different, more a cross-domain goal
16:42:10 <yaso> ack Giancarlo_Guizzardi_
16:42:10 <deirdrelee> ... this might be tricky. however we may still contact them and let them know we want to create a motivation of our own
16:42:18 <deirdrelee> ... but wouldn't push them too much
16:42:38 <ericstephan> q+
16:42:39 <antoine> q+
16:42:43 <deirdrelee> Giancarlo_Guiz zardi_: agree with antoine, doesn't seem to be relatedto what we define as feedback, completely differnet
16:42:46 <yaso> ack ericstephan
16:42:59 <deirdrelee> ... which begs the quesiton if feedback should be an annotation at all
16:43:06 <newtoncalegari> s/relatedto/related to
16:43:10 <RiccardoAlbertoni> q+ to say that you might associate more than one motivation to an annotation ...
16:43:51 <yaso> ack antoine
16:44:00 <deirdrelee> ericstephan: found that their model is very thorough, annotation seemed to be closesfeedback. to be able to add a comment and reeply back, it seemed like it was applicable from a data usage perspective. maybe not from data quality?t to
16:44:31 <RiccardoAlbertoni> that was my point :)
16:44:32 <deirdrelee> antoine: agree with ericstephan, from our perspective annotation is important to include. no problem with adding multple annotations on one motivation
16:44:44 <yaso> ack RiccardoAlbertoni
16:44:44 <Zakim> RiccardoAlbertoni, you wanted to say that you might associate more than one motivation to an annotation ...
16:44:46 <yaso> q?
16:45:13 <ericstephan> q+
16:45:21 <antoine> q+
16:45:22 <deirdrelee> yaso: should we try and reach out to the annotation group still?
16:45:29 <yaso> ack ericstephan
16:46:01 <phila> q+ to suggest that we define first and seek inclusion second
16:46:09 <deirdrelee> ericstephan: before contacting the annotation group, we should have some suggetions. that we have a united front as a WG, for issues that overlap with DQV and DUV
16:46:20 <yaso> ack antoine
16:46:48 <deirdrelee> antoine: it's better to clean our act and clarify our relationship between vocabularies, see if we only need one motivation, not so sure
16:46:59 <deirdrelee> ... and then contact annoation working group
16:47:32 <deirdrelee> ... it would be  agreat opportunity to get feedback on our vocabs, especially if we give them an excuse by using some of their motivations
16:47:41 <yaso> q?
16:47:45 <yaso> ack phila
16:47:45 <Zakim> phila, you wanted to suggest that we define first and seek inclusion second
16:47:49 <deirdrelee> ... just a matter of timing. once we have made progress and are in a position to get feedback
16:48:02 <antoine> q+
16:48:04 <deirdrelee> phila: +1 to antoine I suggest that each/one vocab defines these things
16:48:21 <yaso> q?
16:48:27 <yaso> ack antoine
16:48:37 <deirdrelee> ... in the document i suggest we add text to flag that this ns might be moving to another ns
16:48:43 <ericstephan> two action items perhaps for each working group to come up with motivations to discuss internally?
16:48:50 <yaso> q?
16:48:59 <deirdrelee> antoine: write an action that takes effect in a couple of weeks, for the editors to contact annotation wg
16:49:18 <deirdrelee> BernadetteLoscio: i agree with proposal of Giancarlo_Guizzardi_ Let's see what will happen
16:49:31 <ericstephan> q+
16:49:41 <yaso> ack ericstephan
16:50:08 <deirdrelee> ericstephan: should we create an action for each vocab
16:50:21 <deirdrelee> ... it can be two actions
16:51:17 <deirdrelee> phila: when should the action be for?
16:51:24 <deirdrelee> antoine: second week in october?
16:51:27 <phila> action: antoine to contact OA WG to see whether they would consider adding DQV motivation - due 16 October
16:51:28 <trackbot> Created ACTION-208 - Contact oa wg to see whether they would consider adding dqv motivation [on Antoine Isaac - due 2015-10-16].
16:51:30 <yaso> q?
16:51:49 <phila> action: ericstephan to contact OA WG to see whether they would consider adding DUV motivation - due 16 October
16:51:49 <trackbot> Created ACTION-209 - Contact oa wg to see whether they would consider adding duv motivation [on Eric Stephan - due 2015-10-16].
16:51:53 <antoine> q+ to say that I'm leaving
16:52:03 <yaso> ack antoine
16:52:03 <Zakim> antoine, you wanted to say that I'm leaving
16:52:16 <BernadetteLoscio> thanks a lot!
16:52:20 <RiccardoAlbertoni> bye antoine !
16:52:23 <nandana> bye antoine !!
16:52:28 <yaso> bye, thank you antoine :-)
16:52:39 <phila> issue-178?
16:52:39 <yaso> ISSUE-178
16:52:39 <trackbot> issue-178 -- The definition of duv:Feedback needs to be reviewed because it is not clear if it should be a subclass of oa:Annotation or just an instance of oa:Motivation. -- open
16:52:39 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/178
16:52:39 <trackbot> ISSUE-178 -- The definition of duv:Feedback needs to be reviewed because it is not clear if it should be a subclass of oa:Annotation or just an instance of oa:Motivation. -- open
16:52:41 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/178
16:52:54 <deirdrelee> BernadetteLoscio: I think we can close issue, because now we have an action
16:53:09 <deirdrelee> yaso: we can close it? because the definition still has to be reviewed
16:53:09 <yaso> close ISSUE-178
16:53:09 <trackbot> Closed ISSUE-178.
16:53:19 <deirdrelee> phila: action items arising from it,so it's not being lost
16:53:26 <yaso> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/179
16:53:36 <yaso> issue-179
16:53:36 <trackbot> issue-179 -- The Working Group is considering to put all new classes and properties (together with the ones of the Data Usage Vocabulary) in the DCAT namespace. -- open
16:53:36 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/179
16:54:23 <deirdrelee> phila: i have a view, i think we should put them inthe dcat ns
16:54:35 <deirdrelee> ... dqv starts by saying 'we are extending dcat'
16:54:37 <ericstephan> q+
16:54:43 <deirdrelee> ... duv refers to dcat in the intro
16:54:53 <deirdrelee> ... would like to see it in the dcat ns, but open
16:55:09 <deirdrelee> BernadetteLoscio: both models have dcat,for duv it is core
16:55:20 <deirdrelee> ... how does this happen, we just use dcat?
16:55:32 <Caroline> Caroline has joined #DWBP
16:55:43 <deirdrelee> phila: yes, as long as we don't edit anything that's there
16:55:53 <Caroline> Present+ Caroline
16:56:03 <deirdrelee> ... there is no such thing as the dcat wg, f there is a successor to dcat wg it's this wg
16:56:24 <BernadetteLoscio> q?
16:56:24 <yaso> q?
16:56:30 <yaso> ack ericstephan
16:56:58 <deirdrelee> ericstephan: i'm looking at duvmodel, we have things like duv:entity,inherited from prov:entity
16:57:27 <deirdrelee> ... what i like with using dcat ns is that we can guard against overlapping terms in differnet namespaces
16:57:36 <deirdrelee> ... i would be for using dcat ns
16:57:44 <yaso> q?
16:57:47 <deirdrelee> ... could we make decision just for duv
16:58:56 <ericstephan> it actually makes more sense to have dcat:Entity in a sense.
16:58:59 <nandana> phila, is it possible to edit the text in http://www.w3.org/ns/dcat# to add a link to the DUV document? I guess, yes, right?
16:59:01 <deirdrelee> BernadetteLoscio: should usage apply to both duv and dqv. but this term is modelled differently in 2 vocabs
16:59:23 <deirdrelee> ... the two vocabs should be consistent in how they model classes, especially if we are going for a common ns
16:59:35 <phila> Yes, nandana, we can edit the /ns doc (but not /TR/vocab-dcat/)
16:59:50 <deirdrelee> ... don't know if this is the best way to model, because in dcat there is only concept of dataset and distribution
16:59:51 <RiccardoAlbertoni> q+ to not sure to understand why to reuse the dcat namespace is such a good idea..
17:00:01 <yaso> ack RiccardoAlbertoni
17:00:01 <Zakim> RiccardoAlbertoni, you wanted to not sure to understand why to reuse the dcat namespace is such a good idea..
17:00:18 <deirdrelee> ... they don't have a supercall,but in duv we need it, because i don't know how you're going to give properties on both
17:00:26 <nandana> phila, thanks.
17:00:29 <deirdrelee> RiccardoAlbertoni: what is the justification that using dcat ns is a good idea?
17:00:41 <ericstephan> q+
17:01:03 <deirdrelee> phila: it's one less ns to have to remember. it also makes it more explicit that we're extending dcat for the vocabs, and if feels more coordinated
17:01:28 <deirdrelee> RiccardoAlbertoni: but in the end we are not going to change the documentation at the ns
17:01:37 <yaso> q?
17:02:05 <deirdrelee> phila: right now there is no documentation at the ns, just a link to the ttl file. the definition documnet is separate from the ns doc
17:02:27 <deirdrelee> ... we're talking about adding two new documentation files, not editing the ns doc
17:02:36 <deirdrelee> RiccardoAlbertoni: as a linked data person, i don't like this
17:03:00 <deirdrelee> ... are we not causing confusion over what part of the model is standard,and what is defined by our group
17:03:18 <deirdrelee> ... dcat is a rec, how will people know what the split is
17:03:21 <BernadetteLoscio> q?
17:03:22 <deirdrelee> +1 to RiccardoAlbertoni
17:03:47 <nandana> +1 RiccardoAlbertoni. May be mixing the Rec with Notes might not be a good idea.
17:03:55 <deirdrelee> ... confusing about what terms are the rec standard, and what one are coming from us
17:04:33 <BernadetteLoscio> q?
17:04:40 <phila> ack e
17:04:44 <deirdrelee> ericstephan: if there are no rules in place for reusing an existing ns, and we have a close association with the dcat vocabulary,i don'tsee a problem iwth applying open world asumption to namespaces and using them
17:04:47 <BernadetteLoscio> ack ericstephan
17:05:13 <deirdrelee> ... if it will make the vocabs closer to the core
17:05:27 <deirdrelee> ... seems like there's a proprietary nature to namespaces
17:05:44 <deirdrelee> BernadetteLoscio: i like the idea, but not sure if we can do this now
17:05:47 <ericstephan> q+
17:05:59 <BernadetteLoscio> ack ericstephan
17:06:03 <deirdrelee> ... see if there is more a maturity model, not sure if we're mature enough to decide this
17:06:13 <BernadetteLoscio> q?
17:06:22 <deirdrelee> ericstephan: why don't we do this, and get feedback - myabe we'll get more feedback then
17:06:24 <RiccardoAlbertoni> q+
17:06:27 <SumitPurohit> +1
17:06:33 <SumitPurohit> +1 eric
17:06:36 <deirdrelee> ... it would be interesting to see how external revieweres would feel about this
17:07:01 <deirdrelee> BernadetteLoscio: yes, for next draft, we'll say it's an extension of dcat and get feedback
17:07:03 <phila> PROPOSED: That both DQV and DUV documents seek specific feedback on whether or not the terms should be defined in the DCAT namespace
17:07:07 <Giancarlo_Guizzardi> Giancarlo_Guizzardi has joined #DWBP
17:07:09 <deirdrelee> ericstephan: people might get offended :)
17:07:13 <ericstephan> +1
17:07:41 <Giancarlo_Guizzardi> q+
17:07:42 <ericstephan> but is it fair that Antoine is not here?  Should the proposal just be for DUV?
17:07:46 <deirdrelee> q+
17:07:52 <RiccardoAlbertoni> first to have the feedback and than move the namespace
17:07:56 <phila> ack r
17:07:57 <nandana> +1 for seeking specific feedback
17:08:22 <BernadetteLoscio> q?
17:08:29 <deirdrelee> RiccardoAlbertoni: first ask for feedback, then movens
17:08:30 <RiccardoAlbertoni> +1
17:08:37 <phila> ack g
17:08:51 <WagnerMeiraJr> Bye guys. I learned a lot in this F2F.
17:09:09 <deirdrelee> Giancarlo_Guizzardi: side issue, just produced model he was discussing, how to send
17:09:19 <deirdrelee> deirdrelee: put it on the wiki, that's what it's for!
17:09:42 <BernadetteLoscio> q?
17:09:45 <deirdrelee> Giancarlo_Guizzardi: idea is that everyone can have a look at it and discuss today
17:09:51 <Gisele> the InWeb team is  leaving
17:09:56 <phila> ack d
17:10:15 <Gisele> thanks for the productive meeting, see u next time
17:10:49 <SumitPurohit> Need to leave for a short meeting.....Will join in half hour (hopefully)
17:11:02 <ericstephan> +1 Deirdre
17:11:14 <ericstephan> No tomatoes
17:11:16 <nandana> +1 deirdre
17:11:27 <BernadetteLoscio> q?
17:11:45 <Giancarlo_Guizzardi> Here is sketchy visual representation of what I was talking about: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/14917034/DUV.png
17:12:07 <Giancarlo_Guizzardi> if people can take a look just to check if I got the message across, that would be very nice
17:12:39 <nandana> bye InWeb team !!
17:13:00 <BernadetteLoscio> q?
17:13:15 <deirdrelee> phila: feels messy
17:13:24 <RiccardoAlbertoni> q+
17:13:24 <ericstephan> q+
17:13:31 <deirdrelee> deirdrelee: it's a/b testing
17:13:39 <deirdrelee> RiccardoAlbertoni: for sure doing this will have some reaction
17:13:51 <deirdrelee> ... feels it is a bit messy, possible way to go
17:13:52 <BernadetteLoscio> ack r
17:14:12 <BernadetteLoscio> q?
17:14:14 <deirdrelee> ericstephan: i like the idea ofcharging ahead a little bit
17:14:45 <BernadetteLoscio> ack ericstephan
17:14:45 <deirdrelee> ... unless we try something out and get people's reaction, it will be hard to get people's reaction
17:14:47 <deirdrelee> q+
17:15:08 <deirdrelee> ... right now we do have two distinct vocabs,
17:15:24 <BernadetteLoscio> q?
17:15:28 <deirdrelee> ... does anyone know of precedant where a third-party vocab uses dcat
17:15:52 <deirdrelee> phila: depends if we see our vocabs as addition to dcat, or if it's aligned to dcat
17:16:09 <RiccardoAlbertoni> no.. I don't know an example of vocabulary doing this.. we have the chance to be the first..:)
17:16:25 <BernadetteLoscio> ack deirdrelee
17:17:13 <ericstephan> +1
17:17:16 <phila> PROPOSED: That DUV begins to use the DCAT namespace, that DQV does not, but that both highlight this as an open issue that will lead to a common way forward in future.
17:17:26 <BernadetteLoscio> +1
17:17:28 <deirdrelee> deirdrelee: it will def be a way to get feedback from dcat contributors, which is good
17:17:35 <deirdrelee> +1
17:17:36 <nandana> +1
17:17:38 <phila> +1 expecting some fireworks
17:17:50 <phila> RESOLVED: That DUV begins to use the DCAT namespace, that DQV does not, but that both highlight this as an open issue that will lead to a common way forward in future.
17:18:18 <phila> RESOLUTION: That DUV begins to use the DCAT namespace, that DQV does not, but that both highlight this as an open issue that will lead to a common way forward in future.
17:18:24 <BernadetteLoscio> q?
17:18:25 <deirdrelee> ... think it's a good idea to go ahead for this draft, but overall not sure if it's a good idea to adopt dcat ns because of rec vs. note issue highlighted by RiccardoAlbertoni
17:18:49 <phila> close issue-179
17:18:49 <trackbot> Closed issue-179.
17:19:51 <phila> scribe: nandada
17:20:08 <phila> scribeNick: nandana
17:20:57 <nandana> BernadetteLoscio: I would like to discuss each part of the DUV model
17:21:56 <nandana> ... it is good to have a super class for Dataset and Distribution
17:22:15 <ericstephan> q+
17:22:28 <yaso> Thank you for participating, RiccardoAlbertoni :-)
17:22:31 <yaso> ack ericstephan
17:23:11 <phila> q+
17:23:12 <nandana> ericstephan: I like the idea of reusing DCAT namespace because it relates the vocabs better to their purpose
17:23:18 <yaso> ack phila
17:23:22 <ericstephan> q+
17:23:29 <yaso> ack ericstephan
17:23:39 <nandana> phila: can we just use prov:Entity instead of duv:Entity?
17:24:08 <nandana> ericstephan: prov:Entity is too general. That was the motivation to define duv:Entity
17:25:18 <nandana> BernadetteLoscio: we are proposing to reuse provenance and model as things as activities
17:25:35 <yaso> q?
17:25:52 <phila> -> https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/14917034/DUV.png Giancarlo's proposed model for usage
17:25:54 <Giancarlo_Guizzardi> q+
17:26:02 <yaso> ack Giancarlo_Guizzardi
17:26:05 <vagner> vagner has joined #dwbp
17:26:06 <nandana> BernadetteLoscio: it's good to use prov and have activity descriptions or should we define our own simpler model?
17:26:22 <nandana> BernadetteLoscio: what are the motivations for each approach?
17:27:25 <ericstephan> q+
17:27:26 <yaso> q?
17:27:36 <yaso> ack ericstephan
17:27:50 <nandana> Giancarlo_Guizzardi: Using the Usage and Activity as the same might lead to inconsistencies
17:28:18 <nandana> ... in addition to the additional complexity
17:29:04 <yaso> q?
17:29:08 <phila> q+
17:29:11 <nandana> ericstephan, can you please put that in the chat
17:29:13 <yaso> ack phila
17:29:17 <nandana> ericstephan, I missed it
17:29:53 <nandana> phila: DQV and DUV looks very similar
17:30:24 <yaso> q?
17:30:53 <nandana> phila: main difference of the new diagram is getting rid of the prov classes
17:31:53 <nandana> Giancarlo_Guizzardi: describes the proposed vocabulary diagram of DUV
17:32:39 <nandana> ... if QualityUserFeedback belongs to DUV, all types of Feedback should belong to DUV
17:33:01 <ericstephan> q+
17:33:09 <RiccardoAlbertoni> q+
17:33:37 <nandana> ... we can define subtypes of QualityUserFeedback by defining them using onProperty
17:34:31 <nandana> BernadetteLoscio: dqv:QualityAnnotation is a subclass of oa:Annotation
17:35:09 <nandana> Giancarlo_Guizzardi: we are not saying all quality annotation is UserFeedback
17:35:47 <yaso> ack ericstephan
17:35:55 <nandana> BernadetteLoscio: when we see two vocabs are connected, it makes sense to have them in the same namespace
17:38:03 <nandana> ericstephan: I only have problem with the UserRequestClarification and UserSugestionForCorrection
17:38:05 <yaso> ack RiccardoAlbertoni
17:38:24 <nandana> Giancarlo_Guizzardi: I don't have any problem removing them
17:38:37 <BartvanLeeuwen> BartvanLeeuwen has joined #dwbp
17:39:16 <ericstephan> (have to step away for a moment...will be back in two minutes)
17:39:18 <nandana> RiccardoAlbertoni: does dqv:DataUserRating belong to DUV?
17:39:29 <nandana> ... it was deleted from DQV
17:39:59 <nandana> Giancarlo_Guizzardi: it naturally belongs to DQV
17:40:13 <yaso> q?
17:40:28 <nandana> RiccardoAlbertoni: these deleted classes are present in DUV examples
17:40:58 <Giancarlo_Guizzardi> Just to correct one of Phil's previous statements: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/14917034/DUV.png Giancarlo's proposed model for usage
17:40:58 <nandana> BernadetteLoscio: this was an initial proposal. we need to work on this.
17:41:15 <phila> q+
17:41:17 <nandana> ... connecting to the two vocabularies seems a good idea
17:41:24 <Giancarlo_Guizzardi> it should be read as Giancarlo's (sketchy) model for Feedback
17:41:43 <nandana> BernadetteLoscio: should we specialize the Feedback class?
17:42:17 <ericstephan> +1 phila not enumerating all the types of feedback.
17:42:21 <SumitPurohit> SumitPurohit has joined #DWBP
17:42:39 <nandana> phila: we can't enumerate all the possibilities of feedback
17:42:43 <ericstephan> Sumit could you look at https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/14917034/DUV.png and give your reaction?
17:43:04 <nandana> ... i don't see the value of classifying feedback.
17:43:10 <Giancarlo_Guizzardi> q+
17:43:11 <yaso> q?
17:43:16 <yaso> ack phila
17:43:17 <phila> q-
17:43:23 <yaso> ack Giancarlo_Guizzardi
17:43:41 <nandana> Giancarlo_Guizzardi: these subclasses don't have to be disjoint
17:44:13 <nandana> ... we can classify ones that are directly related to quality
17:44:54 <nandana> phila: what about the way Github handles the classification? using crowdsouring?
17:45:34 <nandana> ... we can use tags to classify
17:46:03 <nandana> ... some predefined classifications don't work well with some cases
17:46:10 <ericstephan> is this a real world example of terminology reuse?
17:46:14 <yaso> q?
17:46:25 <nandana> Giancarlo_Guizzardi: is it useful to differentiate the feedback on quality?
17:46:49 <RiccardoAlbertoni> +1 to Giancarlo_Guizzardi  yes we have to distingush at least quality feedback
17:46:53 <nandana> phila: if it is useful, yes.
17:47:47 <nandana> phila: do we have two types of Feedback or more types?
17:47:53 <ericstephan> q+
17:48:10 <Giancarlo_Guizzardi> q+
17:48:30 <nandana> phila: we need need a diagram with classes and properties of both vocabs in one
17:49:18 <nandana> BernadetteLoscio: we should keep the QualityFeedback to glue with DQV and investigate other types of feedback
17:49:43 <RiccardoAlbertoni> q+
17:49:53 <ericstephan> +1 phila!
17:50:07 <nandana> ... there is a difference in the way the two vocabs use the dcat:dataset and dcat:distribution
17:50:30 <RiccardoAlbertoni> q-
17:50:32 <yaso> ack ericstephan
17:50:32 <nandana> phila: I can create the combined diagram now
17:50:36 <SumitPurohit> i am here
17:50:58 <nandana> BernadetteLoscio: we can talk about the Citation part
17:51:39 <yaso> q?
17:51:51 <yaso> ack Giancarlo_Guizzardi
17:51:52 <nandana> ericstephan: in the next release of DUV, we should mention things about quality
17:52:38 <nandana> Giancarlo_Guizzardi: we should go ahead with what Bernadette proposed but we can give a thought to other types
17:52:55 <yaso> q?
17:52:57 <nandana> ... same applies for motivation
17:53:26 <RiccardoAlbertoni> +1 to Giancarlo_Guizzardi  and BernadetteLoscio  proposal, do not enumerate all the classes
17:53:28 <ericstephan> +1 Giancarlo_Guizzardi
17:54:04 <SumitPurohit> yes
17:54:15 <yaso> ==15 min break==
17:54:38 <ericstephan> My stomach just growled
17:54:45 <ericstephan> at the mention of brownies :-)
18:05:37 <newtoncalegari> newtoncalegari has joined #dwbp
18:07:58 <newtonca_> newtonca_ has joined #dwbp
18:09:08 <vagner> vagner has joined #dwbp
18:09:23 <newtoncalegari> newtoncalegari has joined #dwbp
18:10:56 <phila> OK, combined model is at https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Dataset_usage_vocab_workspace#Sao_Paulo_Meeting
18:13:13 <newtonca_> newtonca_ has joined #dwbp
18:14:38 <ericstephan> thank you nandana
18:14:47 <RiccardoAlbertoni> good weekend nandana ..
18:14:53 <ericstephan> I like your combined model phila!
18:15:29 <annette_g> annette_g has joined #dwbp
18:15:33 <yaso> thanks nandana
18:15:52 <yaso> next session: BernadetteLoscio will chair and I'll scribe
18:17:41 <ericstephan> Berna and Sumit - I really think we need to refine duv:Usage a bit
18:18:21 <BernadetteLoscio> Thanks Nandana!
18:18:27 <ericstephan> I don't think we need prov:Activity, prov:Association to do what we need to do.
18:19:12 <ericstephan> do we have time?
18:19:54 <Giancarlo_Guizzardi> Giancarlo_Guizzardi has joined #DWBP
18:20:22 <BernadetteLoscio> :)
18:20:35 <ericstephan> Giancarlo_Guizzardi if we removed prov:Activity and prov:Association between duv:Usage and prov:Agent would that make sense to you?
18:20:51 <yaso> chair: BernadetteLoscio
18:20:54 <yaso> scribe: yaso
18:21:01 <yaso> scribeNicK: yaso
18:21:14 <yaso> BernadetteLoscio: ericstephan can you describe your proposal?
18:21:49 <yaso> ericstephan: I'm thinking if it in someways we created our own duv usage
18:21:59 <BernadetteLoscio> q?
18:22:17 <Giancarlo_Guizzardi> q+
18:22:26 <yaso> ericstephan: i'm curious if anybody has reactions
18:22:30 <BernadetteLoscio> ack Giancarlo_Guizzardi
18:22:41 <yaso> Giancarlo_Guizzardi: it makes sense to me to have a usage that represents itself
18:22:59 <yaso> ... if we specialize, if we have our own DUV usage class
18:23:12 <yaso> ... and I think that it would be all we need
18:23:22 <BernadetteLoscio> q?
18:23:39 <yaso> BernadetteLoscio: phil made a proposal to connect the 2 vocabularies
18:23:47 <yaso> phila: it's not complete
18:23:51 <phila> https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Dataset_usage_vocab_workspace#Sao_Paulo_Meeting
18:23:51 <ericstephan> https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Dataset_usage_vocab_workspace#Sao_Paulo_Meeting
18:24:54 <BernadetteLoscio> q?
18:25:06 <BernadetteLoscio> q+
18:25:19 <Giancarlo_Guizzardi> q+
18:25:55 <yaso> BernadetteLoscio: the quality annotation is missing
18:26:11 <RiccardoAlbertoni> q+
18:26:35 <deirdrelee> deirdrelee has joined #dwbp
18:27:07 <Giancarlo_Guizzardi> q-
18:27:17 <BernadetteLoscio> ack BernadetteLoscio
18:27:27 <BernadetteLoscio> ack Giancarlo_Guizzardi
18:29:03 <BernadetteLoscio> q?
18:29:12 <BernadetteLoscio> ack RiccardoAlbertoni
18:30:29 <BernadetteLoscio> q?
18:31:18 <yaso> RiccardoAlbertoni: actually its like if we had it
18:31:32 <ericstephan> q+
18:31:53 <yaso> ... that's why I'm saying that in terms of incompatibility i don't see many issues
18:32:21 <yaso> ... we selected some different (?) but this is not an issue, I think
18:33:23 <BernadetteLoscio> ack eric
18:34:20 <BernadetteLoscio> q?
18:34:41 <phila> -> https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Dataset_usage_vocab_workspace#Sao_Paulo_Meeting Updated diagram
18:34:43 <phila> q+
18:35:38 <Giancarlo_Guizzardi> q+
18:35:53 <BernadetteLoscio> ack phil
18:36:53 <Giancarlo_Guizzardi> q-
18:38:25 <phila> OK, try this https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/File:Bothvocabs.png
18:39:10 <ericstephan> Very nice phila !
18:39:12 <RiccardoAlbertoni> Ok, thanks phil the exercise is actually useful :)
18:39:18 <BernadetteLoscio> q?
18:42:01 <BernadetteLoscio> q?
18:42:17 <yaso> SumitPurohit: before we explain more about it, has anyone any comment about it?
18:42:42 <Giancarlo_Guizzardi> Giancarlo_Guizzardi has joined #DWBP
18:42:44 <yaso> BernadetteLoscio: we are reusing something, I'm not sure if CITO is a standard, if we should reuse
18:42:47 <yaso> BernadetteLoscio,
18:42:59 <ericstephan> q+
18:43:01 <BernadetteLoscio> q?
18:43:03 <yaso> BernadetteLoscio: because we can define our own class for citation
18:43:07 <yaso> ack ericstephan
18:43:22 <ericstephan> http://sempublishing.sourceforge.net
18:43:42 <yaso> ericstephan: I don't know if people are familiar with
18:44:07 <yaso> ericstephan: I think CITO is sufficient
18:44:14 <SumitPurohit> +q
18:44:20 <Giancarlo_Guizzardi> CITO has an object property called "cites as data source"
18:44:23 <phila> q+
18:45:06 <yaso> SumitPurohit: in my head, the 1st question is:can we loose something using CITO?
18:45:09 <BernadetteLoscio> ack SumitPurohit
18:45:19 <BernadetteLoscio> ack phila
18:45:23 <yaso> phila: if we know this is widely used and the field is very good
18:45:35 <Giancarlo_Guizzardi> q+
18:46:14 <Caroline> Caroline has joined #DWBP
18:46:21 <Caroline> Present+ Caroline
18:46:39 <BernadetteLoscio> ack Giancarlo_Guizzardi
18:47:06 <yaso> Giancarlo_Guizzardi: i did know CiOT and there's interesting things here
18:47:16 <ericstephan> q+
18:47:30 <yaso> ... i'm sure that you already mentioned this, bit the relation between
18:48:00 <yaso> ... citation act is a per-formative act, which is quite general
18:48:02 <annette_g> present + annette_g
18:48:15 <yaso> ... maybe this is a way to represent by feedback
18:48:31 <BernadetteLoscio> q?
18:48:33 <yaso> ... and more suitable to do what we what that it does
18:48:43 <phila> -> http://search.crossref.org/?q=10.1103%2FPhysRevD.89.032002 CrossRef search based on a DOI
18:48:51 <phila> RRSAgent, draft minutes
18:48:51 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/09/25-dwbp-minutes.html phila
18:50:20 <BernadetteLoscio> q?
18:50:29 <BernadetteLoscio> ack ericstephan
18:51:57 <ericstephan> +1 I agree
18:52:00 <ericstephan> q+
18:53:28 <BernadetteLoscio> q?
18:53:33 <BernadetteLoscio> ack eric
18:53:47 <BernadetteLoscio> ack ericstephan
18:54:11 <SumitPurohit> +q
18:54:40 <BernadetteLoscio> thanks Bart!
18:55:07 <phila> q+
18:55:08 <ericstephan> +1 Sumit to not going too generalized
18:55:11 <phila> ack s
18:56:07 <BernadetteLoscio> ack phila
18:56:20 <nandana> nandana has joined #dwbp
18:57:44 <phila> :thisCitation
18:57:44 <phila>     a duv:Citation;
18:57:44 <phila>     cito:hasCitingEntity :dataset-03312004;
18:57:44 <phila>     cito:hasCitedEntity :paperA;
18:57:44 <phila> .
18:57:50 <SumitPurohit> +q
18:58:03 <phila> ack s
18:58:19 <Giancarlo_Guizzardi_> Giancarlo_Guizzardi_ has joined #DWBP
18:58:46 <ericstephan> http://www.essepuntato.it/lode/http://purl.org/spar/cito#objectproperties
18:58:49 <ericstephan> q+
18:58:58 <SumitPurohit> +1
18:59:02 <SumitPurohit> +1 to phil
18:59:18 <Caroline> 04578-000
18:59:31 <Caroline> s/04578-000/+1 to phil
19:00:21 <BernadetteLoscio> q?
19:00:37 <SumitPurohit> +q
19:00:44 <yaso> q+
19:01:26 <BernadetteLoscio> q+
19:01:46 <RiccardoAlbertoni> q+
19:02:20 <yaso> -q
19:02:24 <Giancarlo_Guizzardi> Giancarlo_Guizzardi has joined #DWBP
19:02:33 <ericstephan> http://www.essepuntato.it/lode/http://purl.org/spar/cito#objectproperties
19:03:34 <BernadetteLoscio> q-
19:05:10 <phila> action: sumit to investigate the relationship between DQV and DUV wrt citations that can be considered as a quality annotation
19:05:10 <trackbot> Created ACTION-210 - Investigate the relationship between dqv and duv wrt citations that can be considered as a quality annotation [on Sumit Purohit - due 2015-10-02].
19:05:15 <BernadetteLoscio> ack ericstephan
19:05:34 <newtonca_> q+ to close action-204
19:05:51 <BernadetteLoscio> ack SumitPurohit
19:06:01 <phila> ack r
19:06:18 <BernadetteLoscio> ack RiccardoAlbertoni
19:06:22 <BernadetteLoscio> q?
19:06:50 <newtonca_> q-
19:07:03 <newtonca_> q+ to ask to close action-206
19:08:07 <ericstephan> +1
19:08:17 <nandana> +1 to RiccardoAlbertoni. It seems citations are a bit similar to incoming and outgoing links in data. At least we measure those a lot for quality.
19:08:34 <phila> Topic: HCLS Dataset Description
19:08:35 <phila> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/hcls/notes/hcls-dataset/
19:09:24 <ericstephan> it uses cito
19:09:44 <phila> Yes, it uses CiTO, PAV, DCAT etc.
19:09:50 <phila> And it covers versioning etc.
19:10:08 <phila> Topic: Wrapping Up
19:10:30 <phila> ericstephan: We need to incorporate all the comments and get a new version out of the door as soon as we can.
19:10:40 <phila> BernadetteLoscio: We're planning a new draft of the docs in early November
19:10:45 <ericstephan> perhaps even before tpac?
19:10:55 <phila> BernadetteLoscio: Thanks everyone!
19:11:05 <newtonca_> may we close action-204 and action-206 ?
19:11:12 <ericstephan> Great job everyone and safe travels!
19:11:14 <yaso> thanks phila and phila for coming!
19:11:16 <phila> deirdrelee: Thanks everyone for joining in over the last two days. We have got through a lot, closed a lot of issues etc.
19:11:26 <phila> ... Not it's the home stretch
19:11:35 <Giancarlo_Guizzardi> Thanks, Eric. This was very productive and fun
19:11:36 <phila> ... need to get the next drafts out. CR etc.
19:11:40 <yaso> and thanks for those who attended remotely :-D
19:11:50 <ericstephan> Thank you Giancarlo_Guizzardi wow loved your insights!
19:12:12 <RiccardoAlbertoni> Thank guys. it is always very interesting discuss with the group :)  Enjoy drinks and sao paolo
19:12:20 <annette_g> thanks, guys!
19:12:32 <Giancarlo_Guizzardi> Great! I appreciate that. Looking forward to interact more with you guys in the future
19:12:35 <nandana> Thanks and bye all !!
19:12:49 <Giancarlo_Guizzardi> Bye!
19:12:49 <phila> RRSAgent, generate minutes
19:12:49 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/09/25-dwbp-minutes.html phila
19:12:55 <annette_g> bye!
19:12:58 <RiccardoAlbertoni> bye!
19:13:05 <newtonca_> close action-204
19:13:05 <trackbot> Closed action-204.
19:13:09 <newtonca_> close action-206
19:13:09 <trackbot> Closed action-206.
19:14:32 <phila> regrets+ Steve, Hadley
19:14:43 <phila> RRSAgent, generate minutes
19:14:43 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/09/25-dwbp-minutes.html phila
19:39:00 <yaso> yaso has joined #dwbp
20:00:24 <annette_g> annette_g has joined #dwbp
21:10:03 <Zakim> Zakim has left #dwbp
22:02:19 <annette_g> annette_g has left #dwbp
22:19:27 <vagner> vagner has joined #dwbp
23:50:36 <vagner> vagner has left #dwbp