13:57:12 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #dwbp
13:57:12 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/01/08-dwbp-irc
13:57:14 <newtoncalegari> newtoncalegari has joined #dwbp
13:57:14 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs 351
13:57:14 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #dwbp
13:57:16 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be DWBP
13:57:16 <Zakim> I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot
13:57:17 <trackbot> Meeting: Data on the Web Best Practices Working Group Teleconference
13:57:17 <trackbot> Date: 08 January 2016
13:57:25 <phila> RRSAgent, make logs public
13:57:59 <phila> agenda: https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20160108
13:58:06 <phila> chair: Hadley
13:58:56 <phila> regrets+ PeterW
13:59:14 <phila> present+ phila
13:59:36 <phila> present+ Newton, Yaso
14:01:17 <erickauz> erickauz has joined #DWBP
14:01:37 <yaso_> Hi all, happy new year!
14:01:51 <antoine> antoine has joined #dwbp
14:01:57 <phila> Hey yaso_, hope you're enjoying the sun. Sorry to interrupt summer
14:03:01 <yaso_> Hi Phil! I'm back to Sao Paolo, and the sun is indeed something to enjoy :-) I'm looking for the passwd of the meeting...
14:03:44 <newton> can hear everbody, but phill
14:03:45 <BernadetteLoscio> BernadetteLoscio has joined #dwbp
14:03:52 <annette_g> annette_g has joined #dwbp
14:04:00 <newton> s/phila, I can't hear you//
14:04:15 <erikstephan> erikstephan has joined #dwbp
14:04:19 <deirdrelee> deirdrelee has joined #dwbp
14:04:22 <newton> s/can hear everbody, but phill//
14:04:25 <newton> present+ newton
14:04:49 <yaso_> phila: I'm sorry to ask you the passwd of the meeting... (again, I know)
14:05:00 <BernadetteLoscio> present+ BernadetteLoscio
14:05:06 <hadleybeeman> present+ hadleybeeman
14:05:15 <erikstephan> present+ erikstephan
14:05:17 <antoine> present+ antoine
14:05:42 <yaso_> O.o
14:06:06 <laufer> laufer has joined #dwbp
14:06:39 <deirdrelee> present+ deirdrelee
14:06:45 <erickauz> present+ erickauz
14:07:02 <hadleybeeman> zakim, who is here?
14:07:02 <Zakim> Present: phila, Newton, Yaso, BernadetteLoscio, hadleybeeman, erikstephan, antoine, deirdrelee, erickauz
14:07:04 <annette_g> present+ annette_g
14:07:05 <Zakim> On IRC I see laufer, deirdrelee, erikstephan, annette_g, BernadetteLoscio, antoine, erickauz, Zakim, newton, RRSAgent, yaso_, phila, hadleybeeman, trackbot
14:07:07 <phila> Good to see comment on the DQV antoine https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-comments/2016Jan/0056.html
14:07:23 <yaso_>  newton web irc is weird, sorry
14:07:54 <laufer> present+ laufer
14:08:11 <hadleybeeman> zakim, pick a victim
14:08:11 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose deirdrelee
14:08:25 <deirdrelee> scribe: deirdrelee
14:08:34 <hadleybeeman> http://www.w3.org/2015/12/18-dwbp-minutes
14:08:36 <deirdrelee> topic: minutes
14:08:51 <deirdrelee> PROPOSED: Resolve minutes of last meeting http://www.w3.org/2015/12/18-dwbp-minutes
14:08:57 <erikstephan> +1
14:09:01 <BernadetteLoscio> +1
14:09:01 <hadleybeeman> +0 (wasn't there)
14:09:03 <yaso_> +1
14:09:06 <deirdrelee> +1
14:09:07 <laufer> +1
14:09:10 <newton> +1
14:09:10 <phila> +1
14:09:15 <deirdrelee> RESOLVED: Resolve minutes of last meeting http://www.w3.org/2015/12/18-dwbp-minutes
14:09:16 <erickauz> +1
14:09:46 <deirdrelee> topic: BP Publication practices
14:10:18 <deirdrelee> hadley: let's start with annette's email comments on publication practices, can editors talk us through what's been happening in past week?
14:10:45 <annette_g> q+
14:10:47 <deirdrelee> BernadetteLoscio: annette_g was not happy with bp on APIs. what happened was that changes were made before the voting, not after voting
14:11:06 <deirdrelee> the changes that were made after voting were on the html that phil suggested and newton made
14:11:25 <deirdrelee> ... the doc was frozen on monday/tuesday and that editors were waiting for review
14:11:45 <deirdrelee> ... during the week of the voting, there was discussion on the api, yaso was working on this
14:12:12 <deirdrelee> ... on thurs yaso's changes were merged. so maybe the issues that the changes were made after frozen
14:12:29 <deirdrelee> ... just want to make clear that no changes on text were made after voting, just on html
14:12:56 <hadleybeeman> ack annette_g
14:13:29 <deirdrelee> annette_g: the main idea of what went into rest api was fine, annette_g wrote it together with yaso
14:13:33 <yaso_> q+
14:13:49 <jtandy> jtandy has joined #dwbp
14:13:55 <deirdrelee> ... frustrating that it happened after doc was frozen, but that is a separate issue
14:14:17 <deirdrelee> ... didn't see this change when reviewing the doc, not sure of exact time
14:14:37 <deirdrelee> ... maybe changes shouldn't have been added when the doc is frozen
14:14:51 <deirdrelee> ... yaso sent an email around the actual text, this was very useful,
14:15:05 <hadleybeeman> q?
14:15:36 <deirdrelee> ... as soon as the google doc text was added to the actual doc, the text was changed. probably by an editor who might not have been aware of all the issues
14:16:16 <deirdrelee> ... this was not necessarily inline with the final google doc text, and actually annette_g strongly disagrees with some of the tex
14:17:12 <hadleybeeman> ack yaso
14:17:13 <deirdrelee> ... there are different interpretations of REST, so it's difficult to write this text and may not have been clear to the editors that an effort to address both REST camps, both approaches was being made
14:17:27 <deirdrelee> ... and the final text looks like we're only addressing one REST approach
14:17:49 <deirdrelee> yaso_: annette_g is right, it is difficult to write bps on this topic as there are lots of different opinions.
14:18:00 <annette_g> q+
14:18:03 <deirdrelee> ... 4 bps were added at this time, spread across the document
14:18:21 <BernadetteLoscio> q+
14:19:09 <deirdrelee> ... challenges and bps have to be added too. but i'd like to separate parts of the document in the bp, and not spread the bps from the google doc across the bp doc. but this is difficult
14:19:40 <deirdrelee> ... suggest that we read the modifications and try to address them with annette_g's suggestions on the text
14:20:04 <deirdrelee> ... keeping it as simple as possible, because there's so much that could be said around REST
14:20:15 <hadleybeeman> ack annette_g
14:20:50 <hadleybeeman> ack BernadetteLoscio
14:20:58 <yaso_> got it, annette_g !
14:21:06 <deirdrelee> annette_g: to respond to yaso_, the multiple places where apis are mentioned, that's fine with me. the part that i've a problem with, where two paragraphs were collapsed into one, is in one place in the REST API BP
14:21:34 <yaso_> q+
14:21:39 <annette_g> q+
14:21:39 <deirdrelee> BernadetteLoscio: when we were making the modifications, we were talking ot yaso, and we thought there was agreement on the modificaitons, that's why we made the merge
14:21:41 <hadleybeeman> ack yaso
14:21:56 <annette_g> right
14:22:02 <annette_g> q-
14:22:02 <deirdrelee> yaso_: there was an agreement on the text that was in the google docs, but the text is not exactly as it was in the google doc
14:22:20 <laufer> q+
14:22:27 <hadleybeeman> ack laufer
14:23:26 <deirdrelee> laufer: we are talking a lot about API style in the document, but this is one of the ways we can access data, but there are other ways we can access datas, like URI doc or Linked Data Documents, we don't talk about these in the BP
14:23:34 <annette_g> q+
14:23:48 <deirdrelee> ... it's good to talk about APIs, but we are going too deep into this discussion
14:24:04 <hadleybeeman> ack annette_g
14:24:12 <laufer> q+
14:24:18 <hadleybeeman> ack laufer
14:24:20 <deirdrelee> annette_g: not sure why laufer sees a disconnect. why would a REST API not be compatible with Linked Data?
14:25:14 <deirdrelee> laufer: i'm not saying that it's not compatible, but we have a Linked Data API, like to  a URI template, there are different ways to access data
14:25:31 <deirdrelee> ... if someone wants to access a web service using soap it's okay too
14:25:38 <newton> q+
14:25:42 <yaso_> agree
14:25:48 <hadleybeeman> ack newton
14:25:49 <newton> https://github.com/w3c/dwbp/commit/d2ebb31e76cbd229f40c0997d622c3155de27911#diff-254f5ec59d472481acca325d6bec2b42R3055
14:25:56 <phila> I only hear bad things about SOAP (not RESTful and all that). People do get very upset about these things
14:25:57 <deirdrelee> annette_g: my opinoin is that most developers nowadays would feel that soap/rpc is not bp
14:26:07 <hadleybeeman> +1 to phila
14:26:34 <phila> q+
14:26:40 <hadleybeeman> ack phila
14:26:45 <deirdrelee> newton: annette_g, are you referring to this commit? this was only to fit the content with the RFC keywords. the only change we made. the content was too long, so we adapted it to fit the bp
14:26:49 <yaso_> + 1 t phila
14:27:10 <newton> s/with the RFC keywords/without the RFC keywords/
14:27:41 <newton> s/the content was too long/the description was too long/
14:27:44 <annette_g> I don't see the change where the two paragraphs became one
14:27:50 <deirdrelee> phila: there is a lot to discuss, which is great. concern that a member of group is not happy with content in latest publication, that's not good, should be resolved
14:28:09 <phila> -> http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/publishing-snapshots/WD-dwbp-20160112/Overview.html#APIHttpVerbs
14:28:11 <deirdrelee> ... suggest to take immediate remedial action and then ensure that this situation doesn't happen againg.
14:29:00 <deirdrelee> ... talked to ralph, he suggested we immediately publish a new version of the doc, with the following update - added an issue that says that this bp is subject to a lot of debate and points to annette_g's email
14:29:11 <deirdrelee> ... annette_g is this okay with you?
14:29:18 <annette_g> yes
14:29:24 <deirdrelee> ... I am seeking agreement from the group
14:29:35 <deirdrelee> ... next publication date on Tuesday
14:29:36 <yaso_> +1
14:29:49 <deirdrelee> ... is the group happy with this suggestion?
14:30:24 <deirdrelee> hadleybeeman: wants to make this work for everything and that everything we publish and put our name on reflects the opinions of the groups. therefore i am behind publishing this
14:31:01 <deirdrelee> ... however also want to ensure we're abiding by procedure. in the agenda, we didn't mention that we would take a vote today on publication
14:31:28 <deirdrelee> phila: technically it is in the agenda because link to phila's email
14:31:44 <hadleybeeman> s/email/email which proposes publishing this new draft
14:31:46 <deirdrelee> ... right ot raise it, but think it's procedurally fine
14:32:14 <phila> http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/publishing-snapshots/WD-dwbp-20160112/Overview.html#APIHttpVerbs
14:32:18 <deirdrelee> ... the doc is exactly the same except for the addition of the issue
14:32:39 <deirdrelee> PROPOSED: to publish a new version of BP doc based on http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/publishing-snapshots/WD-dwbp-20160112/Overview.html#APIHttpVerbs
14:32:48 <hadleybeeman> +1
14:32:52 <BernadetteLoscio> +1
14:32:55 <yaso_> +1
14:32:58 <annette_g> +1
14:32:58 <antoine> +1
14:33:00 <newton> +1
14:33:00 <erikstephan> +1
14:33:02 <phila> +1
14:33:02 <erickauz> +1
14:33:03 <laufer> +1
14:33:05 <deirdrelee> +1
14:33:13 <deirdrelee> RESOLVED: to publish a new version of BP doc based on http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/publishing-snapshots/WD-dwbp-20160112/Overview.html#APIHttpVerbs
14:33:15 <BernadetteLoscio> +q
14:33:28 <annette_g> thank you for taking my concerns seriously
14:33:34 <deirdrelee> phila: we need to be cogniscent about this so it doesn't happen again
14:34:08 <deirdrelee> hadleybeeman: we do have to be very careful about what version of text we're approving and content changing after freezing
14:34:16 <hadleybeeman> ack BernadetteLoscio
14:34:28 <deirdrelee> ... also our fault as chairs, that we encourage iteration as there is plenty of discussion :)
14:34:51 <deirdrelee> BernadetteLoscio: as editors, we are trying to be very careful and follow procedures. we have learned a lot
14:35:26 <deirdrelee> ... in this case we opened the doc after freezing, because we thought there was agreement, but maybe we shouldn't do this again
14:35:30 <annette_g> looking at the google doc, I think it was just the collapsing of the two paragraphs into one that changed the sense of it.
14:35:53 <deirdrelee> ... next time, the document will not be changed after being frozen
14:36:14 <deirdrelee> hadleybeeman: sounds sensible, and I hope you don't feel attacked, this isn't personal
14:36:31 <deirdrelee> BernadetteLoscio: no, we are trying to follow procedure
14:36:51 <deirdrelee> ... for this case we created an exception, but we won't do this in future
14:37:11 <deirdrelee> ... if there is similar big issues, then we won't publish and continue devleopment
14:37:39 <erikstephan> http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/vocab-du.html   I have three parts to discuss: 1) December meeting follow up comments about the vocabulary 2) Public comments on the citation model 3) Vote recommendation
14:37:42 <deirdrelee> topic: Data Usage Vocabulary
14:38:19 <deirdrelee> erikstephan: lot of things to share :)
14:39:07 <deirdrelee> erikstephan: there were comments from group, specific comments from laufer,then discussion on citation
14:39:11 <erikstephan> ) December meeting follow up comments There were concerns expressed in the last meeting about releasing the vocabulary with some of the existing domain and range constraints we originally set as well as follow on discussion in email with Laufer: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-wg/2015Dec/0137.html  These changes have been made to existing draft including adding vann:Usage statements and I believe we have satisfied these concerns.
14:40:35 <deirdrelee> ... one of the reasons for not publishing was that we had domains and ranges on third-party classes. we agreed in the meeting to remove these as they may cause problems with inference, and instead would provide guidance
14:40:45 <laufer> q+
14:40:47 <deirdrelee> ... these should satisfy laufer's comments. laufer/
14:40:50 <hadleybeeman> ack laufer
14:40:54 <deirdrelee> s///?
14:41:16 <antoine> q+
14:41:27 <phila> -> http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/vocab-du.html#h4property:creator Example of vann:Usage
14:41:35 <deirdrelee> laufer: i have two main concerns. the first is about the use of domains and ranges, and this has been replaced by guidance
14:42:42 <deirdrelee> ... but there is another issue, the properties of the duv vocab, there are three properties that have the definition of two domains and two ranges
14:43:24 <deirdrelee> ... dcat:dataset and d cat:distribution
14:43:37 <deirdrelee> ... would like to create two properties
14:43:49 <laufer> dcat:Dataser and dcat:Distribution
14:44:18 <laufer> dcat:Dataset and dcat:Distribution
14:44:19 <deirdrelee> erikstephan: so we would have to be more explicit with the properties or remove domain/range
14:44:33 <deirdrelee> ... would have to discuss with BernadetteLoscio  and Sumit
14:44:39 <hadleybeeman> ack antoine
14:45:48 <deirdrelee> antoine: what is the semantics of the comma between dataset and distribtion? I assumed it was a disjunction, so was less concerned than laufer
14:46:13 <antoine> q+
14:46:38 <phila> q+ to talk about dact:Dataset/Distribtuon disjunction
14:46:39 <hadleybeeman> ack antoine
14:46:44 <deirdrelee> erikstephan: if the representation is causing confusion, AND vs OR, then I'd rather remove the confusion. we could also provide description
14:47:04 <BernadetteLoscio> q+
14:47:11 <hadleybeeman> ack phila
14:47:11 <Zakim> phila, you wanted to talk about dact:Dataset/Distribtuon disjunction
14:47:17 <BernadetteLoscio> q-
14:47:17 <antoine> q+ about vann
14:47:21 <deirdrelee> antoine: I would strongly advise not using the comma and instead using formal owl representation to avoid confusion
14:47:34 <hadleybeeman> q?
14:47:37 <deirdrelee> ... if it was AND and not OR, I would share laufer's concerns
14:47:42 <hadleybeeman> q- about
14:47:42 <laufer> if one defines triple "s duv:refersTo o", a reasoner will enfere that o is a dcat:Dataset and a dcat:Distribution
14:47:44 <hadleybeeman> q- vann
14:47:51 <laufer> infere
14:47:51 <hadleybeeman> ack antoine
14:48:30 <phila> phila: I just said that dcat:Distribution and dcat:Dataset are not disjoint (one thing can be both)
14:48:41 <phila> antoine: said that didn't make any difference to his comment
14:48:46 <deirdrelee> antoine: question about the vann:usagenote property - is it actaully property with lowercase
14:48:59 <antoine> http://vocab.org/vann/#usageNote
14:49:05 <deirdrelee> ... and i can't actually fine the vann:usagenote in the vann namespace
14:49:24 <deirdrelee> erikstephan: i'll have to look at that
14:49:29 <phila> It's usageNote, not usage, so it's a typo
14:49:33 <hadleybeeman> q?
14:49:45 <erikstephan> 2) Public comments on the vocabulary
14:49:51 <deirdrelee> erikstephan: thanks for all the comments!
14:50:08 <erikstephan> Before Christmas, we had an unexpected contact from Silvio Peroni author of the SPAR ontologies http://www.sparontologies.net/ about proper usage of their classes and properties in the context of creating references and citations for FaBIO  https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-comments/2015Dec/0003.html  http://www.essepuntato.it/lode/http://purl.org/spar/fabio  and CiTO http://www.essepuntato.it/lode/http://purl.org/spar/cito  as well a[CUT]
14:50:35 <deirdrelee> ... I wanted to provide a summary of what we discussed for the record
14:51:06 <erikstephan> Fabio is based on the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) Established In 1998 by the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) an organization that was itself established in 1927. Dr Peroni had some questions about our duv:DataCitation class and offered some insights to using their classes and properties.  http://bibliontology.com/  FaBIO expanded upon bibo by taking the relatively flat structure a[CUT]
14:51:07 <deirdrelee> ... one of the things he talked about was proper usage of SPAR ontology and FaBIO, and he had some questions around this
14:51:53 <deirdrelee> ... we may be getting rid of the data citation class
14:52:27 <deirdrelee> ... have some feedback, but still need to discuss with BernadetteLoscio and Sumit.
14:53:01 <hadleybeeman> q?
14:53:30 <deirdrelee> ... an example of using vann:usage to provide references that describe a dataset, instead of introducing another concept called dataset that isn't dcat:dataset
14:53:31 <erikstephan> 3) Recommendations on vote status
14:53:40 <erikstephan> Based on these conversations, adjustments are being made to the DUV  such as replacing the duv:DataCitation class with classes and properties recommended by SPAR.  and because of the importance of  I feel reluctant about asking for a vote for additional public comments until we have incorporated these changes.  I’ll need to meet with Berna and Sumit , but I believe we can provide these changes by next week.
14:54:47 <deirdrelee> ... since we've gotten feedback from SPAR group, it's imperative that we take these on board and work with them (they're enthusiasic) before going out for further public comment
14:55:11 <deirdrelee> ... i think we should make corrections based on SPAR feedback, and have a vote next week
14:55:16 <deirdrelee> q+
14:55:17 <phila> q+
14:55:43 <hadleybeeman> deirdrelee: That all sounds great, Erik.
14:55:51 <phila> q-
14:55:55 <phila> ack d
14:56:05 <phila> (Dee is saying what I was going to say)
14:56:05 <hadleybeeman> ...In context of the other conversation we've had in this meeting, maybe we should take a bit of caution with the timing.
14:56:23 <hadleybeeman> ...Specifically freeze the text after next week's meeting, and then have the group review it.
14:56:31 <phila> Robin Berjon no less!
14:56:45 <hadleybeeman> erikstephan: Sure. Now that we're picking up a bit of feedback, it's a priority getting things published, but --
14:57:01 <deirdrelee> erikstephan: agree
14:57:35 <deirdrelee> phila: agree, sounds like erikstephan you're working through comments, sounds on track
14:57:37 <deirdrelee> q+
14:57:54 <hadleybeeman> Topic: Next f2f
14:58:08 <hadleybeeman> deirdrelee: Where are we on the planning, phila?
14:58:31 <deirdrelee> phila: we discussed in SP a f2f between 14-20 march in zagreb
14:58:50 <deirdrelee> ... we've had various conversations with zagreb, but still ongoing
14:59:15 <deirdrelee> ... aim is to those who can get to zagreb would do so on sunday 13th march
14:59:22 <deirdrelee> ... dwbp would meet on monday and tue morn
14:59:39 <deirdrelee> ... on tue afternoon we'd be joined by share-psi for group meeting
14:59:46 <antoine> for the minutes: it's 14-16 march not 14-20 march isn't it?
15:00:10 <hadleybeeman> s/between 14-20/between14-16
15:00:11 <deirdrelee> ... tue evening a nice meal (last f2f )
15:00:24 <deirdrelee> ... and wed share-pse meeting
15:00:30 <deirdrelee> s/pse/psi
15:00:54 <BernadetteLoscio> thank you!!!
15:00:55 <erikstephan> :-) We "chair"ish you hadleybeeman
15:01:09 <annette_g> :)
15:01:12 <annette_g> bye all!
15:01:16 <phila> RRSAgent, draft minutes
15:01:16 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/01/08-dwbp-minutes.html phila
15:01:22 <yaso_> bye ! :-D
15:01:45 <phila> RRSAgent, draft minutes
15:01:45 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/01/08-dwbp-minutes.html phila
15:01:51 <yaso_> yaso_ has left #dwbp