Data on the Web Best Practices Working Group Teleconference -- 15 Jan 2016

<deirdrelee> trackbot, start meeting

<trackbot> Meeting: Data on the Web Best Practices Working Group Teleconference

<trackbot> Date: 15 January 2016

<phila> chair: Dee

<JoaoPauloAlmeida> I am getting a "The meeting password in incorrect" in webex

I can scribe

<deirdrelee> scribe: annette_g

<JoaoPauloAlmeida> thanks phill

<deirdrelee> PROPOSED: Approve last week's minutes https://www.w3.org/2016/01/08-dwbp-minutes

<deirdrelee> +1

<phila> +1

<newton> +1

<EricKauz> +1

<riccardoAlbertoni> 0 ( i was not there)

RESOLUTION: Approve last week's minutes https://www.w3.org/2016/01/08-dwbp-minutes

<ericstephan> +1

deirdrelee: next steps: next drafts of our docs

next f2f will be in Zagreb, 14-15 March

for BP doc, we are getting it to candidate rec

deirdrelee: for DQV and DUV, we bring them to final stages to be notes. We all need to know what's expected of us.

Update on republication of BP doc from Phil

deirdrelee: first up: update of the BP doc. Based on a couple of changes, latest draft will be republished.

<phila> https://www.w3.org/TR/dwbp

phila: It was very straighforward. We added in that note about the one BP that wasn't quite finalized. It was publihsed on Tuesday, exactly as it was before Xmas except for that one change.

DUV Publication Vote

deirdrelee: DUV is next. We discussed voting on publication today, but we decided to discuss this week.

<JoaoPauloAlmeida> you're welcome Eric

ericstephan: we got some additional feedback from Silvio Peroni, who's been very helpful. We're making additional tweaks to the model. Thanks to JoaoPauloAlmeida for comments, especially on synchronization of everything with examples.
... would like editors to have the weekend to incorporate comments

<JoaoPauloAlmeida> +1 to taking our time until next week to sort out some details

deirdrelee: would you be at a stage where you could draw a line under it on Monday?
... would like to freeze on Monday

ericstephan: wants to hear from JoaoPauloAlmeida first

<JoaoPauloAlmeida> +1 I'm ok with publication if the issues are recorded in the document

<ericstephan> +1 phila

phila: it's been a long time since this was published. Better to highlight the issues and get it published rather than spend time trying to resolve everything.

ericstephan: I like the idea of just putting issues into the document

<deirdrelee> PROPOSED: Focus on documenting open issues of DUV between now and Monday, freeze the document on Monday next, and vote on publication on Friday next

<phila> I should record that I really like the shape the doc is taking. I think it's going to be an important vocab. Good to see the traction and interaction with SPAR, Force11 etc.

<phila> +1 to the proposal

<ericstephan> Monday Hawaii time right? ;-)

<laufer> +1

<antoine> +1

<JoaoPauloAlmeida> +1

<ericstephan> +1

<riccardoAlbertoni> +1

<yaso> +1

<newton> +1

<phila> Auckland!

<JoaoPauloAlmeida> Monday anywhere on Earth

<JoaoPauloAlmeida> :-)

<deirdrelee> +1

RESOLUTION: Focus on documenting open issues of DUV between now and Monday, freeze the document on Monday next, and vote on publication on Friday next

<laufer> may I talk

deirdrelee: next item: F2F in Zagreb

Final F2F Meeting in Zagreb, Croatia

laufer: thanks to Eric for the changes to the doc. I think there are some minor errors where the document isn't reflecting all the changes. I can send an email with details.
... also, 2 properties were changed with respect to properties with multiple ranges.

ericstephan: thanks for checking through those. Please send out an email with the details.

laufer: okay

<phila> Wiki Page emerging

phila: F2F will be our final F2F as a WG. There's a wiki page for it.
... why Zagreb? Tied in with SharePSI. (People across Europe working on a directive for the European Commission that says you need to open up your government data.)
... they can provide evidence of implementation for our product. By then, we hope the BP doc will be in candidate rec.
... that project needs to have a final meeting. They have ideas about nontechnical BPs, so they want validation of their work, too.

That group is quite large, ~40 people. Univ. of Zagreb is a member and is hosting. Croatian government also wants to meet us.

Monday, 14 March, we meet for a regular F2F meeting, continuing through lunchtime on the 15th. The afternoon of the 15th is when we'll have half a day to spend with SharePSI people. Sometime during that afternoon, the Croatian gov't folks will be there. We need to have our work pretty much done by then.

phila: SharePSI people will do their work on Wednesday. We hope to have a nice party together on Tuesday

yaso: is the meeting with SharePSI open?

phila: yes, it's open to members of this group

<phila> Share-PSI Best practices, note links with us

deirdrelee: next step is to figure out who will be there in person or dialing in. There was a question about whether remote access is available.

phila: yes, it will be

<phila> We can't expect the kind of Rolls Royce treatment that we got in Sao Paulo!

deirdrelee: but please do try to be there, as it's our last F2F

BP Document - Plan for Candidate Rec

deirdrelee: let's move to the documents to see if it's feasible to meet the schedule for the F2F.

BP editors?

<newton> it's cutting

<riccardoAlbertoni> @antoine Ok ..

I can't hear enough of that last bit

phila: process of candidate rec. If you think for a minute that we're producing a specification, it's when the WG says "we think we're finished. Please now write some software to implement this thing."
... it requires a phone call with the director (usually Phillippe LeHegaret)
... The editors present the doc and say what they are going to prove to demonstrate implementation. We can point to two so far. You have to show practicality.
... final stage, meet again with the director and say, here we have the following implementations.
... I think we should be at that candidate stage no later than when we meet in Zagreb

newton: can the implementations start now?

phila: yes

sharePSI is in the same boat

deirdrelee: seems not to be connected anymore :(

phila: newton, do you think the doc will be ready?

newton: I think a lot of the BP won't change at all, but a couple are still not so defined. 6 or 7 of them have issues, 5 have notes. next week, the editors will meet to discuss the next steps and how to close those issues.

phila: yes, that's what needs to get done.
... there is a W3C process that can help. If there are one or two things that are a little too speculative, you can mark them as a "feature at risk"

that means you know it might now survive candidate rec. Otherwise, if something doesn't get implemented and isn't marked as FatR, the doc goes back to working draft.

ericstephan: question about implementations. Is it too early for external efforts?

phila: not at all. We do need to start. I'll share the one from mobile web.

<phila> Implementation report

phila: this is an example of an implementation report that shows the status of every BP and links to the reports that we got.

<ericstephan> wind energy archive https://a2e.pnnl.gov

ericstephan: this is something that we set up for wind energy

newton: how do we record the external projects?

phila: you're looking for an email that's in the public domain

newton: one concern about tests is that they may not be good enough to offer. We'd like the whole group to help improve the tests.

phila: yes, assessing whether the tests are actually deterministic is important, aiming for a yes/no answer

newton: okay, we'll put that topic into the next editor's meeting

<deirdrelee_> https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/open

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

deirdrelee: from a practical level, when we go to candidate rec, all issues, comments, actions on the tracker have to be completely empty.

phila: we haven't talked yet about the two vocabularies

DQV & DUV - Plan for Final Publication

we don't have to do the same rigmarole for those, but I think we want to anyway.

phila: the charter for the group sets the bar lower for those

ericstephan: at this point, I think it's realistic to think of DUV as a note.
... because RDF is such a glue vocab, I keep going back to what RDF data shapes is doing. I don't know if this is going to turn into a rec, but it seems like the vocabs need something like shapes. I'm interested in Phil's thoughts.

phila: Immediately before xmas, they made a big step forward. The group has had a lot of internal division, but they seem like in the next month or two we should have something usable.

They just got some input from an implementer that's been helpful.

hang in there.

deirdrelee_: DQV?

lots of noise on the line

<antoine> +1 to riccardoAlbertoni

<riccardoAlbertoni> https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/index.php?title=Data_quality_schedule&oldid=3078

sorry, I missed riccardoAlbertoni's statement due to noise

riccardoAlbertoni: we are not planning to have a note for the F2F. We thought we'd go there with a few things open.
... It's not clear to me why we need the working note by the F2F.

<ericstephan> sorry I thought I was on mute, dogs at home are getting hungry.

<phila> Charter

<ericstephan> oooo they should have been finished this month? No warm fuzzies this meeting :-0

phila: if you look at the charter, the 2 vocabs should have been finished this month, so I get pressue from my boss asking why it isn't done yet.
... by this point, we would normally be in the phase of just gathering implementation evidence.

riccardoAlbertoni: so, we should anticipate to publish a working note, if not before the F2F then just after.

phila: If you have open issues when you go to Zagreb, they should all be closed by the time you leave.

<antoine> this seems reasonable

phila: things that can be resolved easily should be resolved in advance. We should be sure there will be sufficient time to deal with open issues at that point.

deirdrelee_: could all the editors by next week have a schedule of their remaining tasks, milestones. Especially in the case of the BP doc.

ericstephan: I know we're behind schedule, but are there opportunities to extend what we're doing if we're making good progress?

phila: yes, that's true.

But both vocabs will need at least one more iteration.

phila: we have to allow time for the unexpected. Evidence gathering will take some time as well.

<riccardoAlbertoni> ok

deirdrelee_: ericstephan, any issues you want to discuss for DUV?

ericstephan: not at this time. I think it's mostly in the email.
... the SPAR ontology authors have been awesome, and we're getting good guidance from them about data citation on the web.
... we're just using a property for usage, citation, or feedback. does that make sense, JoaoPauloAlmeida?

JoaoPauloAlmeida: these properties can be used with any kind of resource, so this is not really anything else that we're doing by making this document. What kind of addition are we making by mentioning these properties from other ontologies?
... we can say we recommend this or that, but it should be very explicit what kind of relationship we intend between DUV and the other ontology. It looks as if there is a dependency, which makes it seem hard to use.

ericstephan: you raise a really good point. In some ways, I wonder whether we have a vocab for data usage, or do we have an RDF data shape?
... I think we need to explain better in the document why we are defining theses things that look like a mixture of all these other vocabularies. I think it's part of the finesse about how we communicate this.

<phila> How DCAT talks about other vocabularies

<Zakim> phila, you wanted to disagree with JoaoPauloAlmeida

<laufer> Vivo ontology has this approach too...

phila: this link points to a specific part of the DCAT vocab, which has a bunch of things from Dublin Core. It explains the model, showing how the pieces fit together. You need to include that description.

<laufer> https://wiki.duraspace.org/display/VIVO/VIVO-ISF+Ontology

JoaoPauloAlmeida: I have no problem with this example, which is very stable and very well known. The problem with DUV is that there are so many that are less well known.

<laufer> the option would be to redefine terms that are already defined by other vocabularies. I agree that we have to use stable vocabularies

phila: we do have to be careful about stability. It's hard to say what is stable enough and what isn't. I haven't seen anything in our vocabs that is terribly unstable. I have confidence enough for a note.

ericstephan: In going to a note, I'd be interested to know what things might be less stable.

phila: I havne't seen anything that causes me worry re persistence

deirdrelee_: next Friday, we vote on publication of next BP draft. Editors, please put in your schedules

<laufer> bye all... wonderful weekend for all...

<JoaoPauloAlmeida> bye

<riccardoAlbertoni> bye, have a good weekend!

<yaso> Bye!

bye all!

- DRAFT -

Data on the Web Best Practices Working Group Teleconference

15 Jan 2016

Attendees

Contents

Update on republication of BP doc from Phil

DUV Publication Vote

Final F2F Meeting in Zagreb, Croatia

BP Document - Plan for Candidate Rec

DQV & DUV - Plan for Final Publication

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

Scribe.perl diagnostic output