13:49:56 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #dwbp
13:49:57 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/01/29-dwbp-irc
13:49:58 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs 351
13:49:59 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #dwbp
13:50:00 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be DWBP
13:50:01 <Zakim> I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot
13:50:02 <trackbot> Meeting: Data on the Web Best Practices Working Group Teleconference
13:50:02 <trackbot> Date: 29 January 2016
13:50:22 <phila> chair: Yaso
13:50:33 <phila> regrets+ Bernadette
13:51:29 <phila> agenda: https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20160129
13:51:35 <phila> RRSAgent, make logs public
13:51:58 <RiccardoAlbertoni> RiccardoAlbertoni has joined #DWBP
13:56:55 <newtoncalegari> newtoncalegari has joined #dwbp
13:57:45 <antoine> antoine has joined #dwbp
13:57:53 <antoine> present +antoine
13:58:03 <newton> present+ newton
13:58:24 <RiccardoAlbertoni> present+ RiccardoAlbertoni
13:59:15 <phila> present+ phila
14:01:23 <EricKauz> EricKauz has joined #DWBP
14:01:25 <PWinstanley> PWinstanley has joined #dwbp
14:01:39 <Caroline> Caroline has joined #DWBP
14:01:40 <Yaso> Yaso has joined #dwbp
14:01:45 <PWinstanley> present+ PWinstanley
14:02:18 <Yaso> OMG
14:02:36 <Yaso> Ok, just give me 3 min to webex + firefox setup :-)
14:02:47 <Caroline> Present+ Caroline
14:03:04 <phila> -> http://www.w3.org/2016/01/22-dwbp-minutes last week's minutes
14:03:49 <phila> PROPOSED: Accept last week's minutes http://www.w3.org/2016/01/22-dwbp-minutes
14:04:13 <newton> +1
14:04:21 <phila> +0 (absent)
14:04:26 <annette_g> annette_g has joined #dwbp
14:04:33 <Caroline> +1
14:04:35 <antoine> +1
14:04:38 <annette_g> +1
14:04:42 <RiccardoAlbertoni> +1
14:04:50 <annette_g> present+ annette_g
14:04:58 <PWinstanley> what is the password for webex
14:05:06 <phila> RESOLVED: Accept last week's minutes http://www.w3.org/2016/01/22-dwbp-minutes
14:05:41 <Yaso> Present+ yaso
14:07:04 <EricKauz> present+ EricKauz
14:07:26 <phila> scribe: PWinstanley
14:07:31 <laufer> laufer has joined #dwbp
14:07:52 <Yaso> https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20160129
14:08:04 <PWinstanley> Yaso: Agend for today is:
14:08:11 <PWinstanley> ...issues for DQV
14:08:30 <RiccardoAlbertoni> yes,
14:08:59 <phila> Topic: DQV Issues
14:09:01 <PWinstanley> ...ricacardo is talkingabout
14:09:02 <phila> issue-190?
14:09:02 <trackbot> issue-190 -- "official" DQV reqs vs the implementation of our best practices (cf. the "5 stars" thread). -- open
14:09:02 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/190
14:09:14 <PWinstanley> RiccardoAlbertoni: issue 190
14:09:40 <PWinstanley> ...talking about requirements for DQV, issues which are not technical and of interest to the whole group
14:10:03 <antoine> https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Data_quality_schedule
14:10:14 <PWinstanley> antoine: we can start with 190 and kill 179 once oand for all, then talk about the data quality schedule
14:10:23 <PWinstanley> RiccardoAlbertoni: starting with 190
14:10:38 <antoine> s/data quality schedule/issues as ordered on the data quality schedule
14:11:14 <PWinstanley> ... the point of 190 is trying to understand the requirements we should consider in the data quality model; should we limit the property of data that are intrinsic, or extrinsic
14:11:20 <laufer> present+ laufer
14:11:32 <PWinstanley> ...we are already considering extrinsic (e,g, accessibility)
14:11:47 <gatemezi> gatemezi has joined #dwbp
14:12:08 <PWinstanley> ...and also there is an example of DQV in which we state the standards compliance of the metadata
14:12:40 <PWinstanley> ... if we include all the dimensions then they are extendible.
14:12:51 <Yaso> q?
14:12:54 <PWinstanley> ...Is there anything missing, or can we close 190?
14:13:01 <Yaso> q?
14:13:06 <antoine> q+
14:13:13 <Yaso> ack antoine
14:13:59 <phila> q+
14:14:07 <Yaso> ack phila
14:14:14 <PWinstanley> antoine: I would like to add - would people expect DQV to be comprehensive?
14:15:00 <PWinstanley> phila: when reading the tracker I understood it as saying can we include features not demanded by the requirements.  I think this is OK,  there are obvious assumptions that people make
14:15:23 <PWinstanley> ...sticking only to requirements would be unnessarily restrictive
14:16:11 <Yaso> q?
14:16:13 <PWinstanley> ...In addition, would the DQV as it stands be sufficient to describe the dataset as an official dataset
14:16:30 <PWinstanley> RiccardoAlbertoni: I need clarification
14:16:52 <annette_g> what is a "company register"?
14:17:31 <phila> SEC register annette_g
14:17:35 <PWinstanley> phila: in a company register, an official dataset, then there are elements that can be aliased, but underlying that alias is an authoritative source that might be a legal name
14:18:00 <PWinstanley> RiccardoAlbertoni: I think this is more connected with the authority of the dataset
14:18:50 <Yaso> q?
14:19:08 <laufer> Are you talking about things like certificates, phil?
14:19:40 <antoine> q+
14:19:47 <phila> No, authoritative datasets, like a land registry (who owns what), citizens register, social security numbers etc.
14:20:41 <phila> ack annette_g
14:20:41 <Yaso> q?
14:20:44 <Yaso> ack antoine
14:20:46 <phila> ack antoine
14:21:46 <annette_g> q+
14:22:04 <laufer> I think that dqv is not a certificate...  It can append certificates but dqv itself is not a certificate...
14:22:24 <RiccardoAlbertoni> +1 antoine
14:22:29 <Yaso> q?
14:22:45 <phila> ack a
14:22:47 <Yaso> ack annette_g
14:23:10 <Yaso> q?
14:23:23 <antoine> Antoine said that if someone expresses the authority aspects as a sort of certificate then it is possible to express it in DQV
14:23:30 <phila> scribe: phila
14:23:38 <phila> annette_g: I think it's about the source
14:23:55 <antoine> phila: one org could produce datasets of different kinds
14:24:08 <antoine> ... no all datasets are authoritative
14:24:15 <antoine> annette: good point
14:24:47 <Yaso> q?
14:24:50 <antoine> phila: the fact that we don't have a specific requirement doesn't mean we can't do more
14:24:50 <RiccardoAlbertoni> q+
14:24:55 <Yaso> ack RiccardoAlbertoni
14:25:46 <laufer> I think that dqv cannot transform the semantic of what is being described...
14:26:02 <Yaso> q?
14:26:31 <Yaso> q?
14:26:59 <phila> scribe: phila
14:27:08 <phila> PROPOSED: Close Issue-190
14:27:18 <phila> RiccardoAlbertoni: If Antoine agrees?
14:27:26 <phila> ... No new use cases that we haven't considered yet
14:27:41 <phila> antoine: I think the resolution coujld be that we have new use cases but we';re not forced to do it
14:27:56 <newton> s/coujld/could
14:27:56 <phila> PROPSOED: We can handle new use cases but we're not forced to (for DQV)
14:28:06 <phila> PROPOSED: We can handle new use cases but we're not forced to (for DQV)
14:28:09 <phila> +1
14:28:11 <antoine> +1
14:28:12 <annette_g> +1
14:28:13 <Yaso> +1
14:28:13 <RiccardoAlbertoni> +1
14:28:17 <laufer> +1
14:28:17 <newton> +1
14:28:20 <phila> RESOLUTION: We can handle new use cases but we're not forced to (for DQV)
14:28:26 <phila> close issue-190
14:28:26 <trackbot> Closed issue-190.
14:28:35 <EricKauz> +1
14:28:42 <Caroline> +1
14:29:00 <phila> issue-179?
14:29:00 <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. -- closed
14:29:00 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/179
14:29:41 <phila> antoine: We agreed that we can put all our new classes and properties in our own (dqv) namespace, not use dcat namespace
14:29:42 <PWinstanley> PWinstanley has joined #dwbp
14:29:56 <PWinstanley> present+ PWinstanley
14:30:15 <phila> antoine: Eric S pointed to previous discussion. So I think the matter for today is to keep Issue-179 closed but say that the resolution is that we have separate namespaces for DUV and DQV
14:30:31 <phila> Yaso: So we're just re-enforcing what we agreed at the SP F2F
14:30:45 <antoine> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-wg/2016Jan/0055.html
14:31:02 <phila> PROPOSED: That we have agreed that DUV and DQV will use their own namespaces, not using each other's or DCAT
14:31:15 <phila> Yaso: We don't need to vote
14:31:26 <phila> ... we have already agreed it and the mailing list shows this.
14:31:34 <Yaso> q?
14:31:50 <phila> No one makes any noise - taken as consensus
14:32:10 <phila> RiccardoAlbertoni: Other 2 issues are issue-204 and issue-205
14:32:16 <phila> ... They are a little technical
14:32:22 <Yaso> https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/205
14:32:25 <Yaso> https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/204
14:32:29 <phila> issue-2014?
14:32:30 <trackbot> Sorry, but issue-2014 does not exist.
14:32:32 <phila> issue-205?
14:32:32 <trackbot> issue-205 -- Representing dimensions and categories SKOS Concepts -- open
14:32:32 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/205
14:32:40 <phila> phila: I went through the mails
14:32:43 <Yaso> q?
14:33:25 <phila> RiccardoAlbertoni: It seems there are no objections for the solution C that tries to move the heirarchy of the dimension and category classes made as sub classes of skos:Concept
14:33:56 <phila> RiccardoAlbertoni: Jeremy D wrote to the list just before this meeting but it seems he's open to adding the classesd category and dimension and metrics as sub classes of skos:Concept.
14:34:00 <phila> ... So we havea some buy in.
14:34:16 <Yaso> q?
14:34:23 <phila> RiccardoAlbertoni: What do you think Antoine. Can we close at least one of the two?
14:34:39 <phila> antoine: not right now. We probably need to get back to Jeremy and discuss a little further.
14:34:55 <phila> RiccardoAlbertoni: I don't think Jeremy is available for the next two weeks at least and we need to makae progress.
14:35:07 <phila> antoine: I'd prefer to close the issue with a clear suggestion of wording.
14:35:36 <phila> RiccardoAlbertoni: So we go on writing the section and show the relationships, in the way we have agreed and then close the issue once JD has provided his feedback
14:35:42 <phila> phila: +1 to RiccardoAlbertoni
14:35:51 <laufer> q+
14:36:15 <gatemezi> +1 to RiccardoAlbertoni
14:36:26 <phila> ack laufer
14:36:26 <Yaso> ack laufer
14:36:49 <phila> laufer: The DAQ vocab - will our DQV have an alignment with respect to this issue?
14:36:54 <phila> ... of the Category class
14:37:19 <phila> RiccardoAlbertoni: I;m not sure I understand. Are you asking about other vocabs that are asking this way of using SKOS?
14:37:43 <phila> laufer: I think we have some influence of the other vocab that is DAQ. The problem with the abstract class like category - they use that. What will be the alignment?
14:38:16 <phila> RiccardoAlbertoni: My impression is that... what I was trying to discuss in the e-mail is that basically if we go for solution C, we have no incompatibility with the DAQ
14:38:30 <phila> ... or at least the heirarchy descibed by Jeremy can be included.
14:38:39 <phila> q+ to ask about SPARQL CONSTRUCT
14:39:03 <phila> RiccardoAlbertoni: The only way that we can have a clear statement is to implement and see if any incompatibilities arise.
14:39:09 <Yaso> q?
14:39:12 <phila> ... it's not really clear if I;m wrong or niot
14:39:15 <Yaso> ack phila
14:39:15 <Zakim> phila, you wanted to ask about SPARQL CONSTRUCT
14:40:09 <phila> phila: Can you write a SPARQL CONSTRUCT from DAQ to DQV for this?
14:40:12 <phila> RiccardoAlbertoni: Yes.
14:40:16 <Yaso> q?
14:40:21 <phila> phila: Then I suggest you include that query in the document
14:41:33 <phila> RiccardoAlbertoni: It can probably be done without SPARQL but if we need it, we'll add it
14:41:40 <phila> Topic: Best practices doc
14:41:47 <newton> q+
14:41:58 <phila> Yaso: So I ask Newton or Carol is they have any specific issues to raise?
14:42:04 <phila> ack n
14:42:17 <phila> newton: We have these 2 issues we want to atlk about today.
14:42:18 <newton> issue-227?
14:42:18 <trackbot> issue-227 -- The document has three different indexes for the BP: by challenges, by benefits and the summary. Should we keep the three of them? -- open
14:42:18 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/227
14:42:20 <phila> issue-227?
14:42:20 <trackbot> issue-227 -- The document has three different indexes for the BP: by challenges, by benefits and the summary. Should we keep the three of them? -- open
14:42:20 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/227
14:42:57 <phila> newton: I think this was raised just before the publication of the last draft. Can we decide whether to keep one, 2 or three indexes
14:43:04 <Yaso> q?
14:43:08 <annette_g> q+
14:43:13 <phila> ack annette_g
14:43:47 <phila> annette_g: I think it's fine to have multiple indexes, but I don't want them in the front. I'd vote for chosing one for the top, the shortest one, and put the otyhers ones at the bottom.
14:44:05 <phila> newton: Which one would you keep at the top? The BP Summary (auto generated list)
14:44:19 <phila> phila: +1 to annette_g
14:44:32 <Yaso> q?
14:44:36 <phila> phila: Which ones do people find most useful?
14:44:52 <phila> newton: Actually, we don't have this feedback
14:44:58 <laufer> q+
14:45:08 <phila> newton: Does the group have suggestions. For me, the challenges are useful.
14:45:11 <annette_g> q+
14:45:12 <phila> Ack l
14:45:15 <Yaso> ack laufer
14:45:48 <phila> laufer: I think the first one is the one that lists all the BPs like an index. I think it's important for the next iteration is to clarify that we have multiple indexes and say what is the difference between them
14:45:56 <Caroline> +1 to laufer suggestion
14:45:58 <phila> ... then the use can choose which one they want to use.
14:46:06 <phila> ... What os the funstion of each index.
14:46:10 <phila> s/os/is/
14:46:20 <phila> ack annette_g
14:46:33 <phila> annette_g: Persoally I know I ue the summary one the most.
14:46:53 <gatemezi> I also like the challenges view
14:46:54 <Yaso> +1 to newton
14:46:59 <phila> Yaso: The summary is useful - the auto generated list. maybe we put the other two at the bottom.
14:47:03 <Yaso> q?
14:47:06 <phila> Yaso: I think I agree with you.
14:47:12 <Caroline> +1 to newton's suggestion
14:47:35 <phila> laufer: I think that we have differnet levels of users. Even within us, the 1st time you use the doc you do it one way. Come back and you see it a different way.
14:47:57 <Caroline> q+
14:47:58 <phila> ... The first time user might use a more visual method. Second time, it's the list
14:48:24 <annette_g> +1 to Laufer
14:48:27 <Yaso> q?
14:48:27 <RiccardoAlbertoni> I agree with laufer
14:48:28 <phila> laufer: I think we have the summary, and the corss refers. I think the latter go at the bottom
14:48:32 <phila> ack Caroline
14:48:41 <newton> q+
14:48:45 <phila> Caroline: I was going to ask whether Annette agrees - and she does.
14:48:49 <phila> Ack newton
14:48:55 <Yaso> +1
14:49:07 <phila> newton: So should those otehr indexes go after the glossary? Before?
14:49:12 <phila> Yaso: I'd say after
14:49:21 <Yaso> q?
14:49:22 <annette_g> +1 for after the glossary
14:49:23 <phila> phila: Up to the editors I think on that one
14:49:31 <Caroline> ok
14:49:36 <phila> newton: OK, thank you.
14:49:42 <Caroline> q+
14:50:03 <Yaso> q?
14:50:08 <Yaso> ack Caroline
14:50:10 <Yaso> q?
14:50:13 <phila> PROPOSED: keep the auto generated summary where it is, but explain the other two indices and move them to lower down the doc, after the glossary
14:50:23 <Yaso> +1
14:50:26 <gatemezi> +1
14:50:29 <newton> +1
14:50:29 <Caroline> +1
14:50:36 <RiccardoAlbertoni> +1
14:50:39 <laufer> +1
14:50:46 <phila> RESOLVED: keep the auto generated summary where it is, but explain the other two indices and move them to lower down the doc, after the glossary
14:50:50 <annette_g> +1
14:50:59 <phila> close issue-227
14:50:59 <trackbot> Closed issue-227.
14:51:14 <newton> ISSUE-20
14:51:14 <trackbot> ISSUE-20 -- Review use cases organization - change the order -- closed
14:51:14 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/20
14:51:20 <newton> 220
14:51:23 <phila> issue-220
14:51:23 <trackbot> issue-220 -- Should we include a more complexe example to illustrate provenance? -- open
14:51:23 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/220
14:51:55 <phila> newton: With the help of the group... we use a very basic example of provenance for that BP. Does the WG have a suggestion for a more complex example?
14:51:56 <gatemezi> I'd say there are more complex examples in the PROV Rec docs
14:52:10 <Yaso> q?
14:52:27 <phila> newton: And should we include those complex examples? OR point to PROV?
14:52:59 <phila> phila: The DUV has some provenance examples.
14:53:04 <gatemezi> I'd suggest to put some basic examples and point to PROV for more complicated one
14:53:04 <laufer> I prefer simple examples and pointers to PROV
14:53:08 <phila> newton: OK, we'll keep this open for now
14:53:15 <phila> q+
14:53:16 <Yaso> q?
14:53:20 <Yaso> ack phila
14:54:48 <Caroline> q+
14:55:16 <Yaso> ack Caroline
14:55:46 <phila> Caroline: Yes, we do need a lot of help. WE're planning to give people specific tasks, e-mailing people and making a tablke with the tasks so that we can follow up
14:56:04 <phila> ... We'll try and do that by next week. If someone sees something they can help with before then, so much the better.
14:56:05 <newton> q+
14:56:12 <Yaso> ack newton
14:56:19 <phila> (this after phila going on about 6 weeks to Zagreb and deadlines)
14:56:48 <phila> newton: We have the open issues around APIs and all that ;-)
14:56:56 <Yaso> q?
14:56:59 <phila> ... It would be good to close that discussion.
14:57:14 <phila> Yaso: I think we should takae the suggestion of addressing named individuals on that one.
14:57:23 <phila> ... So I expect an e-mail from you.
14:57:31 <phila> Topic: Zagreb F2F
14:57:34 <Yaso> https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/ZagrebF2F
14:57:40 <phila> Yaso: Please update the info whetehr you're attending
14:58:04 <Yaso> q?
14:58:08 <phila> Yaso: Phil made this page. We need info about participation, how, whether you can get to Zagreb, can you attend remotely if not
14:58:22 <phila> Yaso: So I think we're done for the meeting today
14:58:29 <phila> ... thank you for calling in.
14:58:33 <laufer> bye all...  nice wknd...
14:58:34 <phila> ... Bye all
14:58:38 <RiccardoAlbertoni> thanks all  Bye
14:58:40 <Yaso> Bye!
14:58:40 <annette_g> bye!
14:58:44 <phila> RRSAgent, draft minutes
14:58:44 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/01/29-dwbp-minutes.html phila
14:58:48 <gatemezi> Bye!
14:59:42 <phila> regrets+ Hadley, Dee
14:59:52 <phila> RRSAgent, draft minutes
14:59:52 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/01/29-dwbp-minutes.html phila
15:10:24 <trackbot> trackbot has joined #dwbp
15:34:12 <newton> newton has joined #dwbp
15:56:25 <newton> newton has joined #dwbp
16:50:50 <Yaso> Yaso has joined #dwbp
17:02:19 <newton> newton has joined #dwbp
17:02:23 <Yaso> Yaso has joined #dwbp
17:09:33 <Zakim> Zakim has left #dwbp
17:14:50 <newton> newton has joined #dwbp
17:17:06 <newton> newton has joined #dwbp
17:17:30 <annette_g> annette_g has joined #dwbp
17:18:25 <annette_g> annette_g has joined #dwbp
17:20:42 <Yaso> Yaso has joined #dwbp
17:24:44 <newton> newton has joined #dwbp
17:57:58 <annette_g> annette_g has joined #dwbp
19:22:42 <Yaso> Yaso has joined #dwbp
19:42:08 <annette_g> annette_g has joined #dwbp
19:42:30 <annette_g> annette_g has left #dwbp