07:57:00 RRSAgent has joined #dwbp 07:57:00 logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/03/14-dwbp-irc 07:57:05 Zakim has joined #dwbp 07:57:26 meeting: DWBP Face to Face, Zagreb, Day 1 07:57:37 chair: Yaso & Deirdre 07:58:03 agenda: https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/ZagrebF2F 07:58:13 RRSAgent, make logs public 08:02:59 annette_g has joined #dwbp 08:03:32 ericstephan has joined #dwbp 08:06:52 Ig_Bittencourt has joined #DWBP 08:09:47 present+ ericstephan 08:09:56 present+ annette_g 08:10:05 present+ hadleybeeman 08:11:04 laufer has joined #dwbp 08:11:20 all the sound from zagreb went out 08:11:28 yes same for me 08:12:43 zagreb has joined #dwbp 08:12:45 *hi, Hadley and everybody!* 08:12:50 Hello 08:13:52 hmm... I wonder at what point we'll get someone's attention in the room. They'll have to look at IRC sooner or later, right? :) 08:15:01 Hi hadleybeeman 08:15:19 hi Ig_Bittencourt ! 08:15:36 They are make some adjusts... 08:15:53 yeah, it does look like they are getting settled 08:16:13 yes 08:16:30 present+ laufer 08:16:50 present+ Ig_Bittencourt 08:17:03 hi hadley 08:18:57 *is Phil showing slides?* 08:19:52 deirdrelee has joined #dwbp 08:20:02 * hi Deirdre! * 08:20:32 hi annette_g ! 08:21:37 newton has joined #dwbp 08:22:05 * hi Newton! * 08:22:27 PWinstanley has joined #dwbp 08:22:30 morning, laufer :) 08:22:35 BernadetteLoscio has joined #dwbp 08:22:37 present+ PWinstanley 08:22:57 present+ BernadetteLoscio 08:23:04 yaso has joined #dwbp 08:23:10 hannes has joined #dwbp 08:23:37 *01:00* 08:23:59 daylight's savings time started yesterday (an hour ahead) 08:24:13 wow -- to both of you 08:24:15 chair: deirdrelee 08:24:16 *yeah, that helps. My body thinks it's only midnight.* 08:24:25 andras has joined #dwbp 08:24:28 agenda: https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/ZagrebF2F 08:24:40 cjh has joined #dwbp 08:24:49 Hello Berna! 08:25:30 *Hi Berna! 08:26:55 Laci has joined #Dwbp 08:27:17 Introductions fro Share-PSI and DWBP 08:27:40 diana has joined #dwbp 08:28:41 topic: bp doc 08:28:44 http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html 08:29:01 could you hear me? 08:29:12 *I think I am hooked up. could you not hear me?* 08:29:31 Caroline_ has joined #DWBP 08:30:12 pekka has joined #dwbp 08:30:13 did you hear my intro? Eric Stephan Pacific Northwest National Labs USA Washington State 08:30:47 deirdrelee: link to BP doc - we use github to track changes. last published version was 1 onth ago 08:30:55 ...tackle today the ost difficult issue 08:31:08 ...editors have created a teable of current issues and status 08:31:28 ...we need to complete these 08:31:35 https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/F2F_Zagreb_-_Agenda_Proposal_DWBP 08:32:00 *dunno what the problem is. I tried reconnecting, too.* 08:32:06 subsetting data and api have a couple of issues each, so skip these till later 08:32:17 ...let's deal with simpler issues first 08:32:24 somebody needs to mute 08:33:20 miskaknapek has joined #dwbp 08:33:27 BernadetteLoscio: first issues #246 08:33:31 issue-246? 08:33:32 issue-246 -- Find an alternative to make the Challenges' diagram bigger -- raised 08:33:32 http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/246 08:33:35 ...challenges diagram 08:33:48 w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#challenges 08:33:54 q? 08:34:14 ...after chnging the aspect the diagram is difficult to read, can we make it more readable. Think we should keep, but it is not right size for reading at the moment 08:34:17 davide_ has joined #dwbp 08:34:47 phila: answer is redesign and make more linear 08:34:52 q+ 08:34:57 BernadetteLoscio: let's do ... create action 08:36:04 I was wondering if anyone other than me felt the diagram wasn't very helpful 08:36:06 BernadetteLoscio: it should be SVG 08:36:11 q? 08:36:13 action: burle to arrange redseign of the challenges diagram 08:36:13 Created ACTION-243 - Arrange redseign of the challenges diagram [on Caroline Burle - due 2016-03-21]. 08:36:23 I typed it 08:36:29 I can hear you 08:36:33 thank you! :) 08:36:38 audio is working fine 08:36:44 I wondered if anyone other than me felt the diagram didn't add much 08:36:48 deirdrelee: I think it is helpful 08:37:08 +1 to deirdrelee 08:37:24 q+ 08:37:26 anyone else have an issue with it? 08:37:28 I also think it is useful. It is easy to navigate through challenges. 08:37:29 ack annette_g 08:37:32 +1 to deirdrelee 08:37:44 It repeats the index mostly 08:37:48 BernadetteLoscio: we had discussion recently about the document structure. we changed the place of the challenges and the benefits, we made links from challenges and benefits and I think the diagram is helpful as an index and to chunk information to assist understanding 08:38:05 deirdrelee: I think it is a small issue 08:38:07 If nobody else is bothered, I'm fine with it. 08:38:34 +1 to yaso 08:38:35 yaso: I think it is useful but should be in the use cases doc rather than the BP doc, and should have links 08:38:47 q? 08:38:51 ...because it is redundant as an index in the BP doc 08:38:54 ack yaso 08:39:11 q+ 08:39:14 ack yaso 08:39:17 q+ to talk about process and resources for a change 08:39:26 ack yaso 08:39:28 laufer: I prefer to keep it in the BP because the first doc was challenges and the link should be back from last doc to first 08:39:44 +1 to laufer 08:39:45 axk phila 08:39:55 +1 to laufer 08:39:57 ack me 08:39:57 phila, you wanted to talk about process and resources for a change 08:40:06 phila: if we move to the use case doc we can, but we need to repeat the publication cycle and this might be more administrative activity than people want 08:40:18 no no, it's fine 08:40:47 I can't hear anything now. :( 08:40:51 we hear a lot of sounds 08:41:10 now it is mute :) tks phila 08:41:11 *better now* 08:41:17 PROPOSED: Leave the Challenges diagram where is it, but redesign it 08:41:20 annette_g: can you hear us? 08:41:21 +1 08:41:22 +1 08:41:25 +1 08:41:26 +1 08:41:28 +1 08:41:28 +1 08:41:28 +1 08:41:30 +1 08:41:32 +1 08:41:34 +0 08:41:34 0 08:41:51 +0 08:41:58 RESOLVED: Leave the Challenges diagram where is it, but redesign it 08:42:24 deirdrelee: next issue: #245 08:42:25 present+ phila 08:42:41 close ISSUE-246 08:42:41 Closed ISSUE-246. 08:42:57 q? 08:43:09 q+ 08:43:13 q+ 08:43:16 BernadetteLoscio: we were discussing about having a filter that could be used to select BP by benefit or by challenge 08:43:20 diana has joined #dwbp 08:43:43 ...so a facet filtering would make it easier to find a BP 08:43:44 cool idea as long as it doesn't add length to the doc. 08:44:00 ...we could use these for key word filtering 08:44:11 ...just a usability improvement for navigation 08:44:41 deirdrelee: I think there is enough structure at the moment, 08:44:49 ack deirdrelee 08:44:52 ack hadleybeeman 08:45:22 LivarB has joined #dwbp 08:45:42 q+ 08:45:45 hadleybeeman: I second that. I think the users of specs being developers in a hurry. rarely do people read from beginning to end, but if filtering makes it more simple then I'm in favour but otherwise I think it should be left 08:45:55 q? 08:45:56 ack yaso 08:45:57 yaso: I agree with hadleybeeman 08:46:08 present+ Chris_Harding_(The_Open_Group), Davide_Allavena_(POLITO), Diana_Šimić_(Uni_Zagreb), Hannes_Kiivet_(Estonia), miskaknapek_(Peter_Krantz), LivarB_(Difi), Pekka_Koponen_(Helsinki) 08:46:16 deirdrelee: proposal not to filter 08:46:25 Present+ Caroline_ 08:46:28 PROPOSED: Not to filter BPs by challenges and benefits 08:46:36 +1 08:46:38 +1 08:46:39 +1 08:46:40 +1 08:46:41 +1 08:46:42 0 08:46:54 just in the sidebar 08:47:11 +0 08:47:14 present+ Joseph_Azzopardi_(Malta) 08:47:24 present+ deirdrelee 08:47:32 q? 08:47:36 BernadetteLoscio: annette_g made a proposal to include in the proposal to improve the indexing, but this increases the complexity of numbering of the BPs 08:48:02 +0 08:48:04 q+ 08:48:07 deirdrelee: can we complete the earler issue 08:48:09 The zero was for the filter 08:48:15 I don't care if we have it or not 08:48:22 @annette_g, we tried it, but it hasn't worked as we expected, because the respec has created a new level of numbering for each BP... for instance, in the 7.2 section, we had the 7.2.1 BP 08:48:29 issue-245? 08:48:29 issue-245 -- To include filters in the summary to sort BPs according to Benefits or Challenges -- raised 08:48:29 http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/245 08:48:38 ack laufer 08:48:40 I would like to see the BPs in the sidebar, so you can navigate to them easily 08:48:54 laufer: i understand that we have a format problem, but we need a list of the BPs, we have the groups of the BP but we need a list of the names as they act as a key for the search 08:49:06 +1 to Laufer 08:49:15 ...I think that we have a format problem around the numbering, 08:49:21 deirdrelee: we will come back to that 08:49:27 @phila, will respect let us do what annette_g is suggesting? 08:49:36 s/respect/ReSpec 08:49:36 no, I don't want the filter 08:49:42 +0 08:49:43 RESOLVED: Not to filter BPs by challenges and benefits 08:49:49 q+ 08:49:58 close ISSUE-245 08:49:58 Closed ISSUE-245. 08:50:02 I think it will be bad for the UX. Some of the BPs has huge names like " Use persistent URIs as identifiers of datasets" 08:50:06 deirdrelee: can we close that issue 08:50:12 ack me 08:50:22 The list will take almost half of the screen horizontally... 08:50:45 phila: ReSpec assumes that it is organised by section, so if a BP is a section then it is numbered. ReSpec is there to help, not to contstrain 08:50:55 thank you for this explanation phila 08:50:56 deirdrelee: issue #247 08:51:02 issue-247? 08:51:02 issue-247 -- How to test dataset discoverability? -- raised 08:51:02 http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/247 08:51:32 newton: there is a test 'how to test the automatic discoverability' . we don't know how to test 08:51:46 sure, deirdrelee 08:51:58 BernadetteLoscio: we say that user agents shoul dbe able to automatically discover the dataset. How do we test? 08:52:00 q+ 08:52:03 q+ 08:52:14 ...this is BP #2 08:52:16 http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#metadata 08:52:17 ack e 08:52:31 ack ericstephan 08:53:07 ericstephan: what is the definition of 'discover'? sometimes search and discovery can be synonymous, but to me they can also be different. What do we mean by 'discovery'? 08:53:14 q+ 08:53:16 +q 08:53:20 q+ 08:53:39 BernadetteLoscio: I think the idea is synonymous in this case 08:54:17 q? 08:54:41 We're asking ourselves the wrong question. The BP is not about discoverability; it's about metadata. That's what you need to test. 08:54:42 ...testing is not clear .... 08:54:44 A search to me means, finding something over a known inventory of something. Discovery to me means I was looking for something and found this 08:55:15 We need to test if the machine-readable metadata is there. Is that right, @annette_g? 08:55:19 "check that metadata is included with the dataset" 08:55:22 q+ 08:55:23 deirdrelee: from what annette_g says, the test is to see if descriptive metadata is provided or not 08:55:23 that makes more sense annette_g 08:55:45 discoverability is a "benefit", not a BP 08:56:18 ack annette_g 08:56:22 ack deirdrelee 08:56:23 using schema.org and publishing metadata to commericial search engines is an example of discoverable metadata to me 08:56:41 +1 to annette_g 08:56:47 ack yaso 08:56:51 q+ 08:57:04 q- 08:57:07 q+ 08:57:22 we could identify some descriptive metadata fields that all datasets should have and tell people to grep for them. 08:57:25 yaso: i would be looking to read documentation or use a crawler to look for semantic references if I was looking for datasetts. this is linked to the enrichment BP. enrichment can improve discoverability 08:57:35 q+ 08:57:41 ack laufer 08:57:44 @annette_g did you see the test of BP1? I think it would be quite the same for the BP2... 08:58:24 rdesc one of our use cases shows an example of discoverable metadata as provided in rdfa embedded in a html doc https://rdesc.org/metadata.php?uri=http://rdesc.org/arm/datastream/sgpswatsE25.b1 08:58:46 @newton, it's just more specific 08:58:51 q+ PWinstanley 08:59:17 laufer: I agree with annette_g that the BP is about providing descriptive metadata. If we have a standard way to describe then we have an approach to metadata 08:59:51 hadleybeeman: I don't think data catalogues are scalable. This is imortant to help us get away from data catalogues 09:00:09 ...i think it is useful for people using our spec to think about this 09:00:44 ...it might be an area to focus on, this metadata might be a way of helping people move away from discoverability portals 09:01:00 q+ to talk about merged tests 09:01:05 q? 09:01:06 ack h 09:01:06 ...I think discoverability should be part of the description, but the test should be on the metadata 09:01:14 * The scribes list is open * https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/ZagrebF2F#Scribing 09:01:36 Just tell people to do: cat mydataset | grep "title" 09:01:58 BernadetteLoscio: maybe what we can do is to say that humans and user agents shouldbe able to find the datasets, but in the test we remove the machine discoverability test. 09:02:16 diana has joined #dwbp 09:02:21 hadleybeeman: add search engines as I see them as prozy for users 09:02:32 s/prozy/proxy/ 09:02:53 PWinstanley: is there anything that we can pick up from the VID vocabulary, 09:03:08 q? 09:03:09 s/search engines as I see them as a proxy for users/search engines as I don't think of them as user agents. I generally think of browsers as user agents 09:03:15 ... important thing is not just the discoverability of the datasets, but the relationships as well 09:03:19 s/vid/void 09:03:28 q? 09:03:33 ack BernadetteLoscio 09:03:35 ack deirdrelee 09:03:37 ack PWinstanley 09:03:39 ack phila 09:03:39 phila, you wanted to talk about merged tests 09:03:40 2 is more specific, has to be discovery metadata 09:03:43 q+ 09:04:01 +1 to phila 09:04:02 q+ 09:04:04 q+ 09:04:12 ack laufer 09:04:13 phila: I was looking at the tests for 1st and 2nd, and they are the same, so why don't we just say see above or see below. If we need to merge tests for multiple Ps then we just do that 09:04:32 s/Ps/BPs 09:04:42 q- 09:04:45 laufer: I think the answer to phila is to provide metadata for people and machines. 09:05:03 maybe the test section could be "Check that the metadata, both human-readable and machine-readable, for the dataset itself includes the overall features of the dataset." 09:05:05 q+ 09:05:11 Grep can do exactly what we need. cat mydataset | grep "keywords"; cat mydataset | grep "description" 09:05:17 laufer: The secomnd is a specialisation of the first, so it inherits the tests 09:05:28 ...so the 1st BP you have to test that all metadata is provided both for humans and machines 09:05:31 s/secomnd/second 09:05:33 very similar of the BP1 09:05:41 ...the second is a specialisation 09:06:41 deirdrelee: the tests that are there are fine, the text of the BP might be updated - hadleybeeman - 09:07:10 q+ 09:07:11 BernadetteLoscio:i think we should remove the second test, because it is not clear how to do 09:07:20 ack deirdrelee 09:07:22 ...so the proposal is to remove the second test 09:07:22 ack BernadetteLoscio 09:07:37 ...and should we change the intended outcome to remove the second part 09:07:39 PROPOSED: Remove second line in BP How to Test which currently says: "Check that the metadata for the dataset itself includes the overall features of the dataset. 09:07:39 Check if a user agent can automatically discover the dataset." 09:08:04 ....We need to test if the intended outcome can be reached, because if we need to test it needs to be removed from the intended outcome 09:08:19 q+ 09:08:20 All the metadata BPs will have the same issue unless we come up with specific tests for each type of metadata. It can be done with grep or some other search utility 09:08:25 q- 09:09:00 q+ 09:09:16 I don't understand the proposal to remove a line 09:09:19 sorry 09:09:47 ah, yes, that makes sense 09:09:50 ack l 09:09:52 @phila, could you rewrite the proposal? 09:09:53 ack a 09:10:00 deirdrelee: BernadetteLoscio is suggesting that we only keep that the metadata includes the overall features of the dataset 09:10:07 we could add a machine test, though, if we wanted. 09:10:49 +1 to laufer 09:10:53 we suggest the test become only one: “Check if the metadata, both human and machine-readable, for the dataset itself includes the overall features of the dataset.” 09:11:08 I see what you mean, annette_g 09:11:13 laufer: if we remove then we need to change the intended outcome. We cannot guarantee human interpretation, we cannot say that 'humans should be able', agents should receive enough information to be able to . 09:11:15 "automatic discoverability should be available"? 09:11:15 PROPOSED: Remove the line "Check if a user agent can automatically discover the dataset." from the How to Test section of BP 09:11:27 deirdrelee: propsal to remove the second line of the test 09:11:32 PROPOSED: Remove the line "Check if a user agent can automatically discover the dataset." from the How to Test section of BP and update the Intended Outcome section to match 09:11:35 q? 09:11:50 PROPOSED: Remove the line "Check if a user agent can automatically discover the dataset." from the How to Test section of BP 2 and update the Intended Outcome section to match 09:11:58 +1 09:11:59 +1 09:12:00 +1 09:12:00 +1 09:12:01 +1 09:12:01 +1 09:12:01 +1 09:12:02 q+ 09:12:02 +1 09:12:04 +1 09:12:05 +1 09:12:07 ack h 09:12:39 q+ 09:12:40 q+ 09:12:48 hadleybeeman: I can see wbout the testable / not testable, but removing checking the outcome have we not just removed the BP 09:13:08 q+ to talk about user agent abilities 09:13:10 deirdrelee: it will still be included, but not tied so closely to the user agent 09:13:14 +1 09:13:17 hadleybeeman: ok, I'm happy 09:13:21 q- 09:13:22 q- 09:13:35 close ISSUE-247 09:13:35 Closed ISSUE-247. 09:13:35 deirdrelee: close issue and create action 09:13:39 ack deirdrelee 09:13:58 issue-161? 09:13:58 issue-161 -- Whether we should recommend https by default, rather than http -- open 09:13:58 http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/161 09:13:59 deirdrelee: issue #161 09:14:09 q+ 09:14:20 BernadetteLoscio: this is not in the document, it's an old one 09:14:23 q+ 09:14:26 I am totally on board with "http everywhere", but it's not specific to data 09:14:29 action newton to remove the 2nd line of test section and rewrite the intended outcome of the BP2 Provide Descriptive Metadata 09:14:29 Created ACTION-244 - Remove the 2nd line of test section and rewrite the intended outcome of the bp2 provide descriptive metadata [on Newton Calegari - due 2016-03-21]. 09:14:54 ack annette_g 09:15:21 hadleybeeman: I think this is out of scope - it is being dealt with elsewhere --- see these two docs from the TAG 09:15:24 https://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/encryption-finding/ https://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/web-https 09:15:25 RESOLVED: Remove the line "Check if a user agent can automatically discover the dataset." from the How to Test section of BP 2 and update the Intended Outcome section to match 09:15:30 it will happen anyway, because of http2, IMO 09:15:41 +1 to Hadley - thank you 09:16:01 close issue-161 09:16:01 Closed issue-161. 09:16:05 issue-167? 09:16:05 issue-167 -- DCAT lacking in date, time and number formats -- open 09:16:05 http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/167 09:16:08 deirdrelee: #167 09:16:13 q+ 09:16:17 ack me 09:16:17 DCAT lacking in datetime formats 09:16:20 q+ 09:16:31 q+ 09:16:37 ack phila 09:17:03 davide__ has joined #dwbp 09:17:11 q? 09:17:13 phila: DCAT lacks a lot of things and I am hopeful that there will be a new WG to review. Workshop in Ghent later this year? 09:17:19 ...it should happen soon 09:17:49 ack newton 09:18:01 q+ 09:18:11 newton: What should we suggest to describe date / time 09:18:39 q- 09:19:00 davide__ has left #dwbp 09:19:01 q+ to talk about date/time formats 09:19:05 https://www.w3.org/TR/NOTE-datetime 09:19:21 q+ 09:19:27 BernadetteLoscio: we have the machine readable descrption of the dataset and the date format - we can use DCT but we don't know a vocabulary that has formats for date and time 09:19:55 ack d 09:20:02 q- 09:20:09 +1 to Dee 09:20:22 ack Ig_Bittencourt 09:20:32 deirdrelee: are we talking about a data dictionary? DCAT has scope for useing 8601, we can just use this for the time being and await the output of the DCAT review group 09:20:45 q? 09:21:19 q+ 09:21:30 BernadetteLoscio: it is ok for BP 3 if we don't show the other properties, just the language. On the intended outcome we talk about date, time, numbers 09:21:32 q+ 09:21:37 q? 09:22:16 phila: it is all about the standard that the content conforms to 09:22:19 I agree it looks a bit awkward to not have date, etc in the example 09:22:27 q- 09:22:31 q+ 09:22:40 This seems very parallel to the locale parameters, which we felt was wroth its own BP. I feel like we might as well add one for datatime. DCAT is too many hops away. 09:22:53 yes 09:22:59 sure 09:23:03 what the heck 09:23:12 exactly 09:23:21 I'm confused... why? 09:23:27 Use ISO-8639 for data and time values 09:24:28 In this case, I'm not sure flexibility is helpful. 09:25:05 q+ 09:25:06 I don't think a sepcific new BP is necessary - a tightened up version of what we have seems right to me 09:25:07 With all due respect, I'm not sure specificity is helpful either. We want dates to be discoverable and comparable; we don't need them to be conformant to ISO-8639 09:25:36 deirdrelee: proposal is not to be specific about date time etc, as it will be resolved with the DCAT review. use conformsTo to link to other standards 09:25:40 q? 09:25:40 is you try to compare with another standard, you get errors 09:25:48 ack annette_g 09:25:49 s/is/if 09:25:52 ack PWinstanley 09:25:59 ack ericstephan 09:25:59 q+ 09:26:10 Right, annette_g, but if both datasets use another standard... then they're consistent with each other. 09:26:22 what other standard is there??? 09:26:35 ericstephan: a way around this is that data publishers can insist on a data format that they choose. Date times might be published in epoch format, other times in other formats 09:26:36 acl laufer 09:26:51 q? 09:26:54 ack laufer 09:27:03 issue-167 09:27:03 issue-167 -- DCAT lacking in date, time and number formats -- open 09:27:03 http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/167 09:27:05 q+ 09:27:24 laufer: do we need a new BP? we don't need to recommend any standard, we need to talk about standards later. recommending standards is a rule-of-thumb, we don't need to be specific 09:27:26 its not about standards, its more about micro format consistency to me 09:27:30 ack newton 09:27:34 There's that horrible month/day/year thing, annette_g ;-) Joking aside, it's obviously common in datasets 09:27:34 https://www.w3.org/TR/NOTE-datetime 09:27:44 newton: we are not recommending a standard, we are looking for a term 09:28:16 q+ 09:28:28 laufer: this is an example, in future someone could define some new useful vocabulary. we are not describing how to define the standard, just recommending that a standard be used 09:28:37 https://xkcd.com/1179/ 09:28:50 (Amused to note that we've been arguing about ISO 8639:2000 - Glass-reinforced thermosetting plastics :) I think we meant ISO 8601) 09:28:53 ack phila 09:28:57 phila: I think we are talking about being able to handle nuancesof the formats that are used for data formats 09:29:19 close ISSUE-167 09:29:19 Closed ISSUE-167. 09:29:21 deirdrelee: proposal to use 'conforms to' 09:29:22 q+ 09:29:24 no vote?? 09:29:26 PROPOSED: For BP3, just use conformsTo and leave it at that. Close issue 167 09:29:30 +1 09:29:42 ack laufer 09:29:44 +1 09:29:55 +1 09:30:05 is this vote about the datetime format? 09:30:16 s/conformsTo/dcterms:conformsTo/ 09:30:32 This is about how we say which date time format has been used 09:30:41 laufer: a general comment: i think we are recommending things here where we don't have vocabularies. some terms that we don't have vocabularies to describe, it's just a placemarker for vocabulaires that might need to be developed 09:30:48 +1 09:30:49 -1 09:30:52 +1 09:30:55 +1 09:30:56 -0 09:31:08 it's not the format of the value itsel, it's about the specific property 09:31:32 q+ 09:31:45 s/itsel/itself 09:31:49 +1 09:31:51 +1 09:31:54 I think data and time are an exception to the typical case. 09:31:55 +1 09:32:06 PWinstanley: I'm happy if the example shows how to use dcterms:conformsTo (for e.g. to point to ISO8601) 09:32:20 +1 09:32:20 There is an agreed-upon standard with virtually no competition. 09:32:31 yes Peter! that's the idea 09:32:36 Yes, annette_g, that's not the issue. It's how we show that it has been used 09:32:38 It's important enough for xkcd comics 09:32:46 !! 09:32:59 XKCD927 is scorsched on my mind 09:33:14 yes 09:33:24 hey, I"m getting fast at it 09:34:34 scribe: yaso 09:34:36 q+ 09:34:39 phila: if we are creating datasets like annette_g works with the ISO8601 then that's clear, but if local authorities are using their own format, how do they tell people the format that they are using? 09:34:41 q+ 09:35:00 ...there isn't a vocab for anything other than 8601 09:35:04 Annette_g, I don't doubt your capacity to write this. :) But I'm not convinced we've done the use case research to be sure that EVERY LAST instance of publication of data on the Web -- should use ISO 8601 09:35:09 ...we need a way to describe this 09:35:11 Hm, that makes sense. So, maybe you figure that saying to use 8601 is out of scope because it's about building the original dataset, not publishing it. 09:35:30 I'm okay with leaving a new BP out now. Thanks Phil! 09:35:33 I guess so annette_g, yes 09:36:17 +1 to Laufer, it is not a metadata issue 09:36:33 laufer: if we assume that everyone is using the same standard, we need to talk about the metadata. If all people use, is not a standard anymore, we don't need to talk about this 09:36:36 1457948104 is epoch, I want a way to tell people this number means something. Julian date is another example meteorologists use 09:37:06 PROPOSED: For BP3, just use conformsTo and leave it at that. Close issue 167 09:37:11 +1 09:37:12 +1 09:37:13 +1 09:37:13 +1 09:37:14 +1 09:37:15 +1 09:37:18 +1 09:37:18 +1 09:37:18 +1 09:37:19 +1 09:37:23 I am just illustrating. I think we have to tell what standard is being used 09:37:31 +1 09:37:35 RESOLVED: For BP3, just use conformsTo and leave it at that. Close issue 167 09:37:40 close issue-167 09:37:40 Closed issue-167. 09:37:54 issue-195? 09:37:54 issue-195 -- Provide data up to date -- open 09:37:54 http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/195 09:37:54 deirdrelee: so, next is issue-195 09:37:59 RRSAgent, draft minutes 09:37:59 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/03/14-dwbp-minutes.html phila 09:38:10 BernadetteLoscio: it's about BP 24, raised by annette_g 09:38:22 RRSAgent, make logs public 09:38:26 RRSAgent, draft minutes 09:38:26 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/03/14-dwbp-minutes.html phila 09:38:27 so old, I don't remember what the issue was 09:38:31 ... from june 2015 09:38:32 q? 09:38:36 ack annette_g 09:38:42 q- 09:38:42 ack laufer 09:38:47 ack deirdrelee 09:39:03 yes 09:39:15 issue-203 09:39:15 issue-203 -- Status of UK URI design guidelines -- open 09:39:15 http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/203 09:39:36 Here's my original note: Provide data up to date 09:39:36 * I think this needs editing. It’s difficult to understand the actual requirement. At times it sounds like we are saying all data should be published immediately, which is impractical for many publishers. I think the goal should be to adhere to a published schedule for updates. 09:39:50 It may have been rewritten since then 09:40:10 phila: BP 11 09:40:56 q+ 09:41:07 ... years ago, (?) wrote a pdf about URI design, very useful. there's another version of the doc, on a github repo 09:41:19 I think BP24 is okay now, that can be closed. 09:41:25 ... github repo is not persistent necessarily 09:41:38 ... so I don't know how to solve that 09:41:51 .. temptation to leave it as it is, but I don't know 09:42:04 hadleybeeman: I'm looking at the BP now, don't see any references 09:42:07 It's in the table above the issue 09:42:30 ... i think that there's some useful stuff in that guide but is not persistent 09:42:46 ... this doc should be economical on references 09:43:11 deirdrelee: could we invite them to add a note? 09:43:45 ack deirdrelee 09:44:21 *lol* 09:44:28 phila: unofficially, is a doc at my website. There's 2 places on the web that has the doc on persistence, one is w3.org, other is my personal website 09:44:42 ... is the heritage that I'll leave for my son 09:44:48 *this is all so ironic* 09:45:26 ... so hadleybeeman how about we link to Github doc and say at the doc that is not normative 09:46:01 deirdrelee: so the proposal is to link to the doc at github 09:46:02 PROPOSED: To link to the PDF (as now) and provide a link to the GH repo in BP11 09:46:07 +1 09:46:08 +1 09:46:11 +1 09:46:13 +1 09:46:14 +1 09:46:14 +1 09:46:16 +1 09:46:16 +1 09:46:24 +1 09:46:32 +0 09:46:35 RESOLVED: To link to the PDF (as now) and provide a link to the GH repo in BP11 09:47:38 hadleybeeman: we don need to care about intellectual property here, right? 09:47:52 phila: is not a normative thing. 09:48:26 phila: we are not, in any way, affecting the BP pointing to that 09:48:47 q? 09:49:07 ... I think we can link to that pdf because it is to what people point, it's well done, on github, perfectly readable 09:49:17 diana has joined #dwbp 09:49:44 action: phila to update BP 11 table to link to the PDF and the GH update. 09:49:44 Created ACTION-245 - Update bp 11 table to link to the pdf and the gh update. [on Phil Archer - due 2016-03-21]. 09:50:01 hadleybeeman: I think we should explain more clearly that is not normative 09:50:12 deirdrelee: can we just use them as references? 09:50:59 q? 09:51:45 phila: I don't think that I could make it any more suscint 09:51:49 close ISSUE-203 09:51:49 Closed ISSUE-203. 09:53:26 sping newton 09:53:52 (sorry newton, hexchat problems) 09:54:09 I think Hadley is making sense 09:54:12 deirdrelee: any comments? 09:54:39 phila: i can do it, bu need examples 09:54:51 deirdrelee: hadleybeeman would you do that? 09:54:53 close action-245 09:54:53 Closed action-245. 09:55:22 action: hadley to rewrite BP11, in particular the way the external refs are included 09:55:22 Created ACTION-246 - Rewrite bp11, in particular the way the external refs are included [on Hadley Beeman - due 2016-03-21]. 09:55:38 issue-226? 09:55:38 issue-226 -- Should we remove the Reuse benefit? -- open 09:55:38 http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/226 09:56:05 deirdrelee: reuse is all of them, should we just remove? 09:56:28 ... maybe we can just update the diagram to reuse in the green box 09:56:29 q? 09:56:42 +1 to deirdrelee 09:56:57 http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#bp-benefit 09:57:02 http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#bp-benefits 09:57:11 q+ 09:57:26 q+ 09:57:45 ack phila 09:58:15 phila: what concerns me is that if we follow Dee's suggestion, we will repeat what is already there 09:58:19 q+ 09:58:30 ... if the groups wants me to do it, I'm happy to do that 09:58:39 q- 09:59:07 BernadetteLoscio: it's just one update in the diagram 09:59:14 ack Ig_Bittencourt 09:59:24 q+ 09:59:30 deirdrelee: I suggest not removing it 10:00:06 Caroline_: we will keep the table, so the simple will be there, but we will keep it in the general table 10:00:19 PROPOSED: The Green reuse box will simply say: "All BPs" (and not include the list). This will be above the other smaller boxes/lists. (and close issue226) 10:00:24 +1 10:00:26 +1 10:00:32 +1 10:00:37 q? 10:00:43 ack Caroline_ 10:01:12 laufer: I agree that all the things provide a kind of reason to be reused, but I think that we can remove the reuse from the list 10:01:19 q+ 10:01:38 ... maybe one will reuse because trusts the data, because is readable, etc 10:01:46 ... so reuse its a consequence 10:02:06 Caroline_: for example, for same BP the only benefit is reuse 10:02:39 laufer: reuse is in all of our best practices 10:02:42 q? 10:02:45 ack Caroline_ 10:02:46 Caroline_: yes, that's the point 10:02:55 q? 10:02:56 ... you'll see that all of them have reuse 10:03:03 ... but some of them only have reuse 10:03:06 q+ 10:03:17 Is there an *ility that applies to the ones that only list reuse? 10:03:25 laufer: I think that where there's only reuse, it because something is missing 10:03:48 q? 10:03:59 ... when you only have the reuse, the reason is missing 10:04:14 +1 to laufer about something is missing 10:04:16 +1 to Deirdre 10:04:32 deirdrelee: I think that for a BP doc there is no problem to be redundant 10:04:37 PROPOSED: The Green reuse box will simply say: "All BPs" (and not include the list). This will be above the other smaller boxes/lists. (and close issue226) 10:04:43 +1 10:04:46 +1 10:04:47 +1 10:04:48 +1 10:04:48 +1 10:04:48 +1 10:04:50 +1 10:04:51 +1 10:04:53 +1 10:04:59 +1 10:04:59 +1 10:05:04 +1 but with laufer's observations that those BPs that has only reuse should be carefully reviewed 10:05:07 RESOLVED: The Green reuse box will simply say: "All BPs" (and not include the list). This will be above the other smaller boxes/lists. (and close issue226) 10:05:14 close issue-226 10:05:14 Closed issue-226. 10:05:20 I have to go to sleep 10:05:29 sleep well, annette_g :) 10:05:42 dream new bps 10:05:50 ok 10:05:54 did people see that the issue on real-time access can be closed? 10:05:57 :-) 10:06:29 I should say "data up-to-date" 10:06:37 night! 10:06:45 :) 10:06:55 3 10:07:25 I have to sleep now, can discuss tomorrow 10:07:31 have a good night! 10:07:34 great 10:07:50 the linkk for the scribe list https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/ZagrebF2F#Scribing 10:07:52 Thank you annette_g for sticking with us so late tonight 10:08:02 np 10:08:06 RRSAgent, draft minutes 10:08:06 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/03/14-dwbp-minutes.html phila 10:24:34 newton has joined #dwbp 10:35:07 are you having nice weather there? 10:35:25 yes 10:35:42 yes, that is correct 10:35:44 :-) 10:36:10 yaso has joined #dwbp 10:36:15 livarb has joined #dwbp 10:36:30 we're back 10:37:02 present+ yaso 10:37:07 miskaknapek has joined #dwbp 10:37:20 Caroline_ has joined #DWBP 10:37:24 Issue 229 10:37:25 issue-229 10:37:25 issue-229 -- Review requirements x BP -- open 10:37:25 http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/229 10:37:39 PWinstanley has joined #dwbp 10:37:44 q? 10:37:48 Not all Reqs are matched to BPs 10:37:55 riccardoAlbertoni has joined #DWBP 10:38:05 deirdrelee: review the use case requirements 10:38:17 ... and see if they match the BPs 10:38:48 bernadette: we have requirements that there are no BPs for them 10:39:16 ... we removed the BP about creating vocabularies 10:39:19 q+ 10:39:56 ... in this case we have a requirement without a BP, but that is because we realized it would be out of scope 10:40:19 deirdrelee: we dont'have to address all requirements 10:40:43 ... I will go to trough the requirements and check if there is some that we nedd to address 10:40:48 ack deirdrelee 10:40:49 ack phila 10:41:05 phila: you could add a section to the Use Cases Documents 10:41:11 ... and link to the BP 10:41:37 q- 10:41:49 Issue-229 closed 10:41:49 Closed Issue-229. 10:42:12 action: deirdrelee to fill in the blanks in table at http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#requirements 10:42:12 Error finding 'deirdrelee'. You can review and register nicknames at . 10:42:20 issue-239 10:42:20 issue-239 -- machine-readable standardized data formats - serialization data formats - dataset formats -- open 10:42:20 http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/239 10:42:25 action: lee to fill in the blanks in table at http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#requirements 10:42:25 'lee' is an ambiguous username. Please try a different identifier, such as family name or username (e.g., dlee8, klee5). 10:42:36 diana has joined #dwbp 10:42:37 action: deirdre to fill in the blanks in table at http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#requirements 10:42:37 Created ACTION-247 - Fill in the blanks in table at http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#requirements [on Deirdre Lee - due 2016-03-21]. 10:42:45 laufer: I was reviewing the data format BP 10:42:49 q? 10:43:00 ... there is a BP to provide the dataset in a standardized data format 10:43:11 Best Practice 14: Use machine-readable standardized data formats 10:43:18 diana has left #dwbp 10:43:19 ... we use the term standards and formats as if would be only one level of standard 10:43:27 pekka has joined #dwbp 10:43:29 ... we could call serialization standard data format 10:43:48 ... we are not talking about a dataset of schema 10:43:54 hannes has joined #dwbp 10:43:58 q+ to talk about profiles 10:43:58 ... we have another level of format in this document 10:44:06 ... I think this not appear only in this BP 10:44:15 BernadetteLoscio has joined #dwbp 10:44:20 ... it is a thing that cross all the documents 10:44:28 present+ BernadetteLoscio 10:44:47 ... I talked with the editors and we decided to include a paragraph in the introduction 10:45:12 ... the 1st phrase is "A general best practice to publish Data on the Web is to use standards." 10:45:24 http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#intro (5th paragraph) 10:45:27 ... the following phrases are in the introduction 10:45:53 paragraph included in introduction: http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#intro 10:45:55 ... this paragraph says that we are talking about standards 10:46:02 q+ 10:46:09 q- 10:46:22 q? 10:46:26 ack phila 10:46:26 phila, you wanted to talk about profiles 10:46:29 diana has joined #dwbp 10:46:43 phila: the idea of it is not a XML it is a XML schema 10:47:12 q+ 10:47:15 ... ??? phila please help to complete what you said 10:47:35 laufer: phila could you add that in the paragraph that I wrote? 10:47:55 phila: we think this other level will be there 10:48:15 scribe: Caroline_ 10:48:40 BernadetteLoscio: laufer was talking about the libary standard 10:48:56 phila: we don't have yet 10:49:03 ack ericstephan 10:49:17 http://www.unidata.ucar.edu/software/netcdf/conventions.html 10:49:34 ericstephan: the unidata use a convention 10:49:53 ... you hace a lot of different people with different approaches 10:50:00 ... just to let you know 10:50:02 q? 10:50:19 deirdrelee: should we accept the paragraph or not 10:50:26 ... it is in the current version 10:50:40 laufer: it is to accept the idea in the paragraph 10:50:54 this is the paragraph: A general best practice to publish Data on the Web is to use standards. Different types of organizations specify standards that are specific to the publishing of datasets related to particular domains/applications, involving communities of users interested in that data. These standards define a common way of communicating information among the users of these communities. For example, publishing of timetables have two standards, the[CUT] 10:51:35 Caroline_: it's the 5th paragraph in the introduction 10:51:47 deirdrelee: can we close this issue? 10:53:23 close issue-239 10:53:23 Closed issue-239. 10:53:38 issue-240? 10:53:38 issue-240 -- To consider a new bp around numeric accuracy. comes from sdw's concern about useless extra decmimal places -- open 10:53:38 http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/240 10:53:39 issue-240 10:53:39 issue-240 -- To consider a new bp around numeric accuracy. comes from sdw's concern about useless extra decmimal places -- open 10:53:39 http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/240 10:54:01 laufer: I think this is in the paragraph that I wrote 10:54:21 q? 10:54:22 phila: the issue came up in the spacial data on the web WG 10:54:41 ... one of their issues is the size o data 10:54:42 +1 phila 10:55:18 ... the diference betweeen precision and accuracy 10:55:46 ... if it says I was born on 19 February 10:55:51 ... it is accuracy 10:56:14 ... if it says I was born on 19 February of 1963 at 12pm it is precise 10:56:22 q+ 10:56:27 +1 to phila: This is a useful distinction 10:56:36 q+ 10:56:49 ack Caroline_ 10:57:06 Caroline_: if you @phil could do that BP would be nice. 10:57:23 ... yestarday we reviewed some BPs and this subject came up in our discussion 10:57:25 ack laufer 10:57:36 laufer: I don't agree with this new BP 10:57:41 s/yestarday/yesterday/g 10:57:44 action: phila to write a BP around accuracy and precision, the pitfalls of false accuracy etc. 10:57:45 Created ACTION-248 - Write a bp around accuracy and precision, the pitfalls of false accuracy etc. [on Phil Archer - due 2016-03-21]. 10:57:51 q+ 10:57:52 q+ 10:57:53 ... I think this is an especialization 10:57:59 ... I think it is important 10:58:26 Apologies, but I need to step away for a short time 10:58:36 ... my example of a standar was to show that if someone use a standard he/she might say that the information is a standard 10:58:48 ... this procedure might be external 10:59:14 BernadetteLoscio: I agree with laufer because it is a specific domain 10:59:25 q+ 10:59:47 deirdrelee: maybe it could go to data quality 10:59:49 q- 10:59:57 phila: I will try that 11:00:32 q+ 11:00:44 ack BernadetteLoscio 11:00:45 ack deirdrelee 11:00:47 ack Caroline_ 11:01:00 q+ 11:01:34 Which BP? 11:02:29 I am talking 11:02:36 We can't hear you 11:02:37 Hi Eric, are you in the line 11:02:50 I can hear Eric 11:02:55 Is your speaker working? 11:03:17 we cannot hear hadleybeeman 11:03:20 I'm talking :) 11:03:21 we cannot hear ericstephan 11:03:23 :( 11:03:27 Our mics aren't working 11:03:28 We can hear each other, eric and I 11:03:32 we lost the soud 11:03:38 s/sou/sound 11:03:38 I can hear Hadley and she can hear me 11:03:47 I think you might have lost your speaker, in Zagreb 11:03:47 we cannot hear neither of you 11:03:54 now we hear 11:03:56 :) 11:03:58 thank you! :) 11:04:14 :) 11:04:25 ericstephan: my question is that if it is only mentioned in the data wuality vocabulary 11:04:26 q+ 11:04:30 ack ericstephan 11:04:36 s/wuality/quality 11:04:39 s/wuality/quality/g 11:04:40 q+ 11:04:42 ... I am not sure how that would be conveyd 11:04:54 deirdrelee: my suggestion is to include in the data quality BP 11:04:59 ... ot in the vocabulary 11:05:08 I'm sorry I didn't hear correctly 11:05:11 ... in the example section of the data quality in the BP document 11:05:29 ack deirdrelee 11:05:31 ack laufer 11:05:41 q+ 11:05:46 laufer: you need to put it in somewhere 11:05:56 ... I just think it shouldn't be put in our document 11:06:04 I am on mute, I hear the same thing hadleybeeman 11:06:11 ... I think it is out of socpe 11:06:24 s/socpe/scope 11:06:43 hmm, no 11:06:43 BernadetteLoscio: on thing is to specify 11:07:04 ... another is to use the data quality vocabulary to have a dimension to talk about the accuracy 11:07:05 i increased sound here 11:07:23 now? 11:07:23 q+ 11:07:25 q? 11:07:29 ack BernadetteLoscio 11:08:15 ack BernadetteLoscio 11:08:21 ack ericstephan 11:08:21 ericstephan: I think of what phila said is that the RFC you only share what your data can describe 11:08:45 q? 11:08:53 ... if you are trying to look between 2 cities and you have to go down on google maps for accuracy 11:09:12 ... I think you can't stand behind accuracy 11:09:19 deirdrelee: can we close this issue 11:09:20 could we vote? 11:09:35 on something? 11:09:37 ... should we include a new BP or not? 11:09:46 yes! 11:09:55 ... the proposal would be not to include a new BP 11:09:58 q? 11:10:14 ack laufer 11:10:21 laufer: we have to things: one is to have a new BP to say that we need precision 11:10:28 ... this would be a new BP 11:10:39 q? 11:10:43 ... deirdrelee suggested to put this in the example of the data quality BP 11:10:53 PROPOSED: Not to include a new BP on numeric accuracy, but instead to add it as an example in Data Quality BP 11:10:54 and now, hadleybeeman ? 11:10:57 ... I was saying that put this in an example would not be a solution 11:11:05 q+ 11:11:05 ... this should be a BP, but not in our group 11:11:15 ... it should be in the SDW BPs 11:11:25 ... it is too specifc 11:11:30 ack laufer 11:11:43 ack PWinstanley 11:11:50 PWinstanley: it also aplyes for.. 11:11:53 q 11:11:59 q+ 11:12:29 I'm trying to fix the input manually, hadleybeeman 11:12:32 ,,, we need to have this idea of what point the data is stupid or relevant 11:12:53 Yes PWinstanley I agree 11:13:26 diana: when you are providing data you have no idea of the precision 11:13:29 let me know if it gets any better, please, hadleybeeman 11:13:30 ... accuracy it is no precision 11:13:39 q? 11:13:45 ack diana 11:13:46 ... if you have a data with 10cm you should provide it because someone might use it 11:14:01 laufer: this is a problem of data on the web? 11:14:05 q+ 11:14:09 ... I think it is a specific domain 11:15:04 q? 11:15:09 ack BernadetteLoscio 11:15:23 BernadetteLoscio: maybe this type of information (cm, mm, parameters in genereal) it is for the publisher to say 11:15:37 q? 11:15:40 ... the data format, the numerical former, is it part of the locale parameters? 11:15:51 PROPOSED: Not to include a new BP on numeric accuracy, but instead to add it as an example in Data Quality BP 11:15:51 ... it is similar with the discussion we had before 11:16:07 -1 11:16:16 and now? 11:16:27 +1 btw happy Pi day 11:16:43 -1 11:16:54 no, sorry just a lot of noise 11:17:07 now? 11:17:25 laufer: I think this is an important BP, but not for our document 11:17:38 okay... Maybe I'll drop off for now and just watch on IRC. 11:17:48 ... if we have this in the data quality is okay, but it is out of scope 11:17:58 ... to have a BP for that 11:18:12 we can hear you! 11:18:49 PROPOSED: Not to include a new BP on numeric accuracy in our document, because is out of the scope and add it as an example in Data Quality BP 11:19:03 +1 11:19:05 +1 11:19:13 sound guy in 11:19:23 +1 11:19:25 +1 11:19:30 +1 11:19:31 +1 11:19:31 thank you for the help! 11:19:33 +1 11:19:45 hadleybeeman ericstephan do you agree with proposal? 11:19:57 I'm really not sure. Probably...? :) 11:20:09 +0 11:20:10 RESOLVED: Not to include a new BP on numeric accuracy in our document, because is out of the scope and add it as an example in Data Quality BP 11:20:11 I'm not against it. So do carry on. 11:20:22 I think that is okay +0.5 11:20:41 (I'll leave the sound with "the guy") 11:20:43 It will be sufficient 11:21:19 newton: it is a issue and we need a answer and provide a guidance about it 11:21:29 q+ 11:21:34 cjh has joined #dwbp 11:21:40 deirdrelee: we can add a comment in the issue and leave it open for now 11:21:42 ack BernadetteLoscio 11:21:50 BernadetteLoscio: how can we provide a general guideline for this 11:22:14 ... we could say something about it in another place of the document, specifizing that it is domain specific 11:22:21 issue-160 11:22:21 issue-160 -- Should we add at BP about subsetting data? -- open 11:22:21 http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/160 11:22:42 BernadetteLoscio: we don't have a BP related with subsetting data 11:22:49 ... we had a lot of discussion by email 11:22:59 ... some BPs of SDW are related to it 11:23:11 ... the issue is if should we add a BP about it or not 11:23:24 I thought we decided to not pursue that 11:23:32 in the last meeting 11:23:57 hadley, eric can u hear us? 11:24:06 can you tal 11:24:12 ywez 11:24:13 YES 11:24:39 let us know if you can hear testing :) 11:24:47 ok 11:24:53 or tapping 11:25:05 no sounds at all at this point 11:25:26 tee hee 11:25:35 :-) 11:25:56 we are not saying anything right now. Everyone is waiting to fix the mic 11:26:10 pause! 11:26:10 can you hear beats on the mic? 11:26:14 no 11:26:15 no 11:26:52 newton: I don't remember what we decided about subsetting data 11:27:11 hearing static 11:27:11 ... does anyone remember? 11:27:39 ericstephan and hadleybeeman we are trying to remember what was discussed about subsetting data 11:27:44 mintues re subsetting: https://www.w3.org/2016/03/11-dwbp-minutes 11:27:45 do you remember? 11:27:49 thank you hadleybeeman 11:27:52 hadleybeeman: was there decisions in last friday's meeting abut subsetting? 11:27:53 I think annette_g was going to write something for the group to review? 11:27:59 we should approve this minutes 11:28:16 But she had the weekend in which to do it. 11:28:28 in the last meeting I believe phila mentioned the sdw was pursuing this and that it was such a vast topic, it would be difficult to put together a BP. 11:28:32 Because we knew there wasn't much time left for additions 11:28:55 laufer: we have a section about data access 11:29:11 Hope I'm remembering that correctly, as I recall the idea was to at least look at domain specific examples and maybe do something more generic at some point 11:29:35 ... we have a BP that says taht you have a link to provide all the data 11:29:40 I think so, ericstephan. And annette_g was reluctant to let it go.... she really wanted to try. 11:29:50 ... we do not say what API should provide 11:29:51 that's right 11:29:53 q+ 11:30:02 she did want to try to put something together 11:30:03 ... it is out of our scope to say what is the group of data 11:30:27 Oh no wait, she was more excited about the other topic on Friday. But she offered to try subsetting too. 11:31:03 ... you need to provide access to all data and you have an API 11:31:31 Is this something we can table until Annette can join again? 11:31:43 BernadetteLoscio: I think it is worth reading the minutes of last minutes 11:32:01 ... if I understood correctly the idea it is not go deeper on this discussion 11:32:07 q+ 11:32:35 deirdrelee: we will talk about it tomorrow morning 11:32:44 ... when annette is there 11:32:52 ... let's read the minutes to prepare for it 11:33:16 ... befor lunch let's see the comment tracker 11:33:25 s/befor/before/g 11:33:36 ... in order to go to candidate recommendation we must answer the comments 11:33:40 ... try to close them 11:33:53 q- 11:34:11 ack BernadetteLoscio 11:34:25 hadleybeeman and ericstephan are you following the IRC? 11:34:43 pretty much, caroline_ 11:34:50 thanks :) 11:34:52 https://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/68239/WD-dwbp-20150625/ 11:34:53 we will talk about subsetting tomorrow morning 11:35:03 now we will discuss the comment tracker 11:35:32 you hear us now, hadleybeeman ? 11:35:40 no, nothing yaso 11:35:41 beatings 11:35:53 We can still see you all though. :) WebEx is working 11:36:08 great! :) 11:36:14 I think they are fixing the mic 11:36:21 ok, thanks hadleybeeman, the guy will try another solution 11:36:30 we are deciding about what comment to start discussing 11:36:31 ok 11:36:51 https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Comment_tracker_status 11:37:22 I think I am hearing moving around 11:38:34 we will use the link BernadetteLoscio put https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Comment_tracker_status 11:39:01 Do carry on with the discussion though -- kind of silly to wait for the microphone, when we don't know how long it will take. 11:39:41 okay 11:40:05 we will talk about the comments that have a proposed resolution already 11:40:05 agreed, thank goodness for irc 11:40:10 :) 11:40:28 https://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/68239/WD-dwbp-20150625/3057 11:40:32 deirdrelee: we will start with https://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/68239/WD-dwbp-20150224/3051 11:41:00 antoine has joined #dwbp 11:41:06 present+ antoine 11:41:12 Caroline_: the comment is about the difference between the BP8 and BP18 11:41:32 present+ Caroline_ 11:41:38 ... Erik, says that they are very similar 11:41:41 we can hear something!!! 11:41:42 Yeah I can hear 11:42:03 BernadetteLoscio: the BP about vocabuaries we don't have anymore 11:42:17 ... that is why we proposed resolution: Best Practice 18 Vocabulary versioning was removed from the document. The current version of the document doesn't deal with vocabulary versioning. 11:42:18 wait -- the sound is gone. :( We could hear bernadette 11:42:18 BernadetteLoscio: just to let you know, this comment is about "an older" version of the document, so the numbers don't correspond to the BPs on the current document 11:42:28 q+ 11:42:28 it is gone hadleybeeman 11:42:31 hadleybeeman, are hearing us now? 11:42:39 that is why we proposed to say the problem is solved 11:42:40 rats, it was great for a couple of minutes 11:42:43 no 11:42:56 q- 11:43:09 we are back 11:43:18 hearing now, ericstephan ? 11:43:21 yes 11:43:30 no static, hadleybeeman 11:43:31 ? 11:43:47 no... Phila has just joined webex, and we could hear him 11:43:53 phila effect: he is back, the sound is back 11:44:00 much better 11:44:08 diana has joined #dwbp 11:44:08 Next comment https://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/68239/WD-dwbp-20150625/3062 11:44:11 action to Caroline_ to answer comment 3051 from Eric Wilde (https://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/68239/WD-dwbp-20150224/3051) 11:44:11 Error finding 'to'. You can review and register nicknames at . 11:44:16 action Caroline_ to answer comment 3051 from Eric Wilde (https://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/68239/WD-dwbp-20150224/3051) 11:44:16 Error finding 'Caroline_'. You can review and register nicknames at . 11:44:20 action Caroline to answer comment 3051 from Eric Wilde (https://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/68239/WD-dwbp-20150224/3051) 11:44:21 Created ACTION-249 - Answer comment 3051 from eric wilde (https://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/68239/wd-dwbp-20150224/3051) [on Caroline Burle - due 2016-03-21]. 11:45:20 Proposed resolution: To update the text on the DWBP document to replace public-dwbp-wg@w3.orhttps://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/68239/WD-dwbp-20150224/3034g by public-dwbp-comments@w3.org. 11:45:28 hadleybeeman and ericstephan, tell me if you are hearing beats 11:46:16 RRSAgent, draft minutes 11:46:16 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/03/14-dwbp-minutes.html phila 11:46:40 and now do you hear deirdrelee speaking? 11:46:42 no 11:46:46 action newton to update the config on respec with the public mailing address and answer comment LC-3062 (https://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/68239/WD-dwbp-20150625/3062) 11:46:47 Created ACTION-250 - Update the config on respec with the public mailing address and answer comment lc-3062 (https://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/68239/wd-dwbp-20150625/3062) [on Newton Calegari - due 2016-03-21]. 11:47:10 hmmmm I can hear phila 11:47:47 phila: is trying to fix the mic issue 11:49:21 one more comment: https://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/68239/WD-dwbp-20150224/3038 11:49:27 See: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-wg/2015Jun/0084.html. This comment should be discussed with Eric Stephan. 11:49:40 ericstephan: could you read it there and comment on IRC? 11:50:11 Caroline_: the comment is about feedback and data preservation 11:50:53 yes 11:51:00 ... the proposal is to move this discussion to the DUV 11:51:13 ... it's a comment from Andrea Perego, from SDW 11:51:15 Sorry let me look at what you mentioned Caroline_ 11:52:32 thank you ericstephan 11:52:37 we think it is resolved 11:52:48 but if you may take a look just to make sure! :) 11:52:57 deirdrelee: is proposing to have a lunch break now 11:53:07 are you going to be here and hour from now? 11:53:18 so they guys are trying to fix the mic 11:55:02 ericstephan: we will answer the comments, so if you could check this and send us an email about it saying if you agree that it is resolved (or not) would be great 11:55:15 RRSAgent, draft minutes 11:55:15 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/03/14-dwbp-minutes.html phila 11:55:33 ericstephan: would that be okay? 11:58:04 we are having a pause for lunch :) 11:58:55 ericstephan: 11:59:13 what time suits you for DUV? 12:00:22 ericstephan, are you there? 12:20:50 hadleybeeman, ericstephan you there to test sound? 12:20:53 we think it's fixed? 12:21:16 deirdrelee, I'm here 12:21:21 I think ericstephan went to bed 12:21:24 on webex 12:21:29 dialing in 12:21:29 ok :) 12:22:49 can you hear anything? 12:22:50 I can hear echoey background noises 12:23:12 I can see you talking, deirdrelee -- but can't hear anything from you 12:23:26 are you talking? 12:23:31 From WebEx, it looks like all the sound is coming in through phila's computer 12:27:59 ok :) 12:30:24 I can hear the test test test 12:30:30 Not sure if he can hear me? 12:30:56 ok, last time, say sth? 12:32:02 I can still hear you... crystal clear 13:01:45 yaso has joined #dwbp 13:02:19 BernadetteLoscio has joined #dwbp 13:04:31 LivarB has joined #dwbp 13:05:02 we're back 13:05:20 miskaknapek has joined #dwbp 13:05:30 topic: open actions 13:05:30 https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/open 13:06:19 present+ BernadetteLoscio 13:06:53 newton has joined #dwbp 13:06:59 action-121? 13:06:59 action-121 -- Ig Ibert Bittencourt Santana Pinto to Look at linked data bp at http://www.w3.org/tr/ld-bp/#vocabularies and to talk with mark h and antoine to see if the controlled vocab section fits with the data vocabs -- due 2014-11-07 -- OPEN 13:06:59 http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/121 13:07:18 Caroline_ has joined #DWBP 13:07:33 PWinstanley has joined #dwbp 13:07:46 close action-121 13:07:46 Closed action-121. 13:07:52 "overtaken by the events" is the phrase. 13:08:02 action-141 13:08:02 action-141 -- Deirdre Lee to Coordinate with chairs to establish timetable for f2f meeting -- due 2015-02-27 -- CLOSED 13:08:02 http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/141 13:08:12 action-144 13:08:12 action-144 -- Bernadette Farias Loscio to Work with newton and carol to include multilingualism in the best practice document as per resolution of issue-142 -- due 2015-03-20 -- OPEN 13:08:12 http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/144 13:09:47 scribe: laufer 13:10:40 action-146 13:10:40 action-146 -- Sumit Purohit to Examine Different Aspects of Feedback -- due 2015-04-17 -- OPEN 13:10:40 http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/146 13:10:43 action-146? 13:10:43 action-146 -- Sumit Purohit to Examine Different Aspects of Feedback -- due 2015-04-17 -- OPEN 13:10:43 http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/146 13:10:44 pekka has joined #dwbp 13:10:44 BernadetteLoscio: we can close 144 because in already talk about dct:language and we do not need to talk more about this 13:10:50 close action-144 13:10:50 Closed action-144. 13:10:52 present+ riccardoAlbertoni 13:11:22 BernadetteLoscio: we can also close this issue because we have already talk a lot about feedback 13:11:28 hannes has joined #dwbp 13:11:29 present+ Caroline_ 13:11:37 close action-146 13:11:37 Closed action-146. 13:11:42 action-147 13:11:42 action-147 -- Bernadette Farias Loscio to to add a bp for structural metadata -- due 2015-04-20 -- OPEN 13:11:42 http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/147 13:11:48 BernadetteLoscio: we can close 146 13:11:52 close action-147 13:11:52 Closed action-147. 13:12:12 BernadetteLoscio: we have a bp for the issue 147. we can close it 13:12:19 action-148 ? 13:12:19 action-148 -- Yaso Córdova to Include a definition of 'a standard' in the glossary -- due 2015-04-20 -- OPEN 13:12:19 http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/148 13:12:38 RRSAgent, draft minutes 13:12:38 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/03/14-dwbp-minutes.html phila 13:12:41 BernadetteLoscio: action-147 is addressed by bp 4 13:13:54 BernadetteLoscio: we do not have the definition of standard in the glossary and yaso will answer about this later 13:14:05 deirdrelee: skip action-148 for now 13:14:13 BernadetteLoscio: I solve this issue. Is done. 13:14:23 BernadetteLoscio: I wrote to Andrea, action-150 cna be closed 13:14:26 BernadetteLoscio: Wrote to Andrea, so close 148 13:14:27 close action-150 13:14:27 Closed action-150. 13:14:48 s/so close 148/so close 150/g 13:14:52 action-155 13:14:52 action-155 -- Phil Archer to Write to danbri in response to comment 3006 -- due 2015-04-21 -- OPEN 13:14:52 http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/155 13:15:27 act.ion: phila to explicitly invite danbri to review the doc when next published 13:15:35 action-156 13:15:35 action-156 -- Deirdre Lee to Change should to must in http://www.w3.org/tr/dwbp-ucr/#r-sensitiveprivacy -- due 2015-04-21 -- OPEN 13:15:35 http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/156 13:15:36 close action-155 13:15:36 Closed action-155. 13:15:54 close action-156 13:15:54 Closed action-156. 13:16:09 deirdrelee: we decided to don't have the RCF terms anymore 13:16:15 BernadetteLoscio: we decided not to use SHOULD, MUST etc... 13:16:24 s/RCF/RFC 2119/ 13:16:27 action-173 13:16:27 action-173 -- Gisele Pappa to Create bp for data enrichment -- due 2015-04-21 -- OPEN 13:16:27 http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/173 13:16:34 action-171 13:16:34 action-171 -- Bernadette Farias Loscio to to add all public comments to comment tracker -- due 2015-04-21 -- OPEN 13:16:34 http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/171 13:16:44 BernadetteLoscio I did 171 13:16:46 BernadetteLoscio: I did it. It's done. 13:16:49 close action-171 13:16:49 Closed action-171. 13:16:54 BernadetteLoscio: 171 is done 13:16:54 action-173 13:16:54 action-173 -- Gisele Pappa to Create bp for data enrichment -- due 2015-04-21 -- OPEN 13:16:54 http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/173 13:17:02 BernadetteLoscio: Gisele did this. Can close the action. 13:17:05 close action-173 13:17:05 Closed action-173. 13:17:09 BernadetteLoscio: 173 is done too. 13:17:12 action-176 13:17:12 action-176 -- Phil Archer to Incorporating citations in Dataset Usage Vocabulary -- due 2015-05-01 -- OPEN 13:17:12 http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/176 13:17:40 phila: that was done by DUV editors. 13:17:40 DUV already includes citations now so we can close 176 13:17:42 phila: this has been done by DUV team (citations) 13:17:48 close action-176 13:17:48 Closed action-176. 13:17:51 action-177 13:17:51 action-177 -- Bernadette Farias Loscio to Putting Dataset Usage Vocabulary in Github -- due 2015-04-24 -- OPEN 13:17:51 http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/177 13:17:57 close action-177 13:17:57 Closed action-177. 13:18:11 action-179 13:18:11 action-179 -- Sumit Purohit to Identifying Mechanisms Dataset Usage Vocabulary -- due 2015-05-01 -- OPEN 13:18:11 http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/179 13:18:39 BernadetteLoscio: I think he didn't do that. We don't have this on the vocabulary yet. 13:18:53 ... we have some examples, but this is something else 13:19:01 BernadetteLoscio: We have some examples but I think we need something else 13:19:13 deirdrelee: is Sumit still envolved in DUV? 13:19:19 BernadetteLoscio: should ask Eric, I'm not sure 13:19:24 s/envolved/involved/ 13:19:26 action-181 13:19:26 action-181 -- Yaso Córdova to Review csv spec -- due 2015-05-15 -- OPEN 13:19:26 http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/181 13:19:54 close action-181 13:19:54 Closed action-181. 13:19:57 close action-182 13:19:57 Closed action-182. 13:20:18 laufer: I reviewed but i did not publish anything 13:20:35 action-185 13:20:35 action-185 -- Eric Stephan to Create template for feedback on dqv and duv together with all editors -- due 2015-07-24 -- OPEN 13:20:35 http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/185 13:20:59 I did not strong objections to teh csv documents 13:21:34 BernadetteLoscio: It's about how to get feedback about our vocabularies 13:21:40 Glad to hear it laufer! 13:21:40 BernadetteLoscio: the idea is to have templates for feedbacks 13:21:51 ... so he was planning to do a template to send to everybody in order to get feedbacks 13:22:06 deirdrelee: this action is overtaken by events 13:22:11 close action-185 13:22:11 Closed action-185. 13:22:24 action-186 13:22:24 action-186 -- Eric Stephan to Target specific groups to ask for feedback on duv -- due 2015-07-24 -- OPEN 13:22:24 http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/186 13:22:32 deirdrelee: he did it 13:22:35 BernadetteLoscio: yes, he did it 13:22:40 close action-186 13:22:40 Closed action-186. 13:22:40 eric did the action 13:22:44 action-189 13:22:44 action-189 -- Eric Stephan to Update to Data Vocabulary document required based on resolved issues 169, 170, 171, 172 -- due 2015-07-31 -- OPEN 13:22:44 http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/189 13:22:52 issue-169? 13:22:52 issue-169 -- Should usage be specified at the Dataset or Distribution level? -- closed 13:22:52 http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/169 13:22:59 deirdrelee: close because it is done 13:23:02 issue-170? 13:23:02 issue-170 -- Should we use Software or earl:Software instead of duv:Application? -- closed 13:23:02 http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/170 13:23:05 close action-189 13:23:05 Closed action-189. 13:23:06 issue-171 13:23:06 issue-171 -- Should dct:creator or doap:developer be used instead of duv:developedBy? -- closed 13:23:06 http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/171 13:23:14 action-184 13:23:14 action-184 -- Peter Winstanley to Review the existing template and identify any additional fields that could be added to improve the bp -- due 2015-07-17 -- CLOSED 13:23:14 http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/184 13:23:41 action-191 13:23:41 action-191 -- Peter Winstanley to Create examples following his suggestions on action 184 -- due 2015-08-14 -- OPEN 13:23:41 http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/191 13:23:50 deirdrelee: it's done. can close. 13:23:54 close action-191 13:23:54 Closed action-191. 13:23:57 action-193 13:23:57 action-193 -- Caroline Burle to Send draft agenda ideas to the chairs -- due 2015-08-21 -- CLOSED 13:23:57 http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/193 13:24:08 action-148 13:24:08 action-148 -- Yaso Córdova to Include a definition of 'a standard' in the glossary -- due 2015-04-20 -- OPEN 13:24:08 http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/148 13:24:59 BernadetteLoscio: we have the glossary in the document, but we don't have the 'standard' definition in it 13:25:34 q+ 13:26:02 ack me 13:26:41 q+ 13:27:01 phila: it's not a simple thing to have... the uk gov has been working on a definition of standard for two years 13:27:36 BernadetteLoscio: if there is a definition, we can use, but not to define it 13:28:08 phila: if there isn't a definition, we won't define it 13:28:30 deirdrelee: leave this action-148 open for now 13:28:40 ... yaso will make it and mail the group 13:28:51 action-196 13:28:51 action-196 -- Eric Stephan to Create updated timetable for duv in wiki -- due 2015-08-28 -- OPEN 13:28:51 http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/196 13:28:55 BernadetteLoscio: it's done. 13:28:57 clsoe action-196 13:28:58 http://dublincore.org/documents/2012/06/14/dcmi-terms/?v=terms#Standard definition for standard at dublincore 13:29:10 action-198 13:29:10 action-198 -- Deirdre Lee to To reassign products on open issue list https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/open -- due 2015-09-11 -- OPEN 13:29:10 http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/198 13:29:26 BernadetteLoscio: the tracker was messed up 13:29:29 198 was done 13:29:29 deirdrelee: it's done 13:29:33 close action-198 13:29:33 Closed action-198. 13:29:41 action-200? 13:29:41 action-200 -- Wagner Meira Jr. to Collect examples of qualitative feedback and send them to the group, including 5 star scales -- due 2015-10-01 -- OPEN 13:29:41 http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/200 13:30:02 deirdrelee: close action 200, overtaken by events 13:30:06 close action-200 13:30:06 Closed action-200. 13:30:24 action-202 13:30:24 action-202 -- Giancarlo Guizzardi to Share examples around service level agreement activity -- due 2015-10-01 -- OPEN 13:30:24 http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/202 13:30:57 scribe: Caroline_ 13:31:22 antoine: João Paulo should had get a reminder, but we don't need it anymore 13:31:25 deirdrelee: there's another example in the document 13:31:27 ... there is another example in the document 13:31:31 close action-202 13:31:31 Closed action-202. 13:31:33 action-203 13:31:33 action-203 -- Nandana Mihindukulasooriya to Add an example with an sla as quality policy, trying to use the same dimensions as metrics and annotations -- due 2015-12-05 -- OPEN 13:31:33 http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/203 13:31:43 scribe: newton 13:31:50 deirdrelee: action 203 is done 13:31:54 close action-203 13:31:54 Closed action-203. 13:31:55 s/ ... there is another example in the document/ 13:31:56 action-205 13:31:56 action-205 -- Bernadette Farias Loscio to Tabulate requirements against the bps that address them -- due 2015-10-02 -- OPEN 13:31:56 http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/205 13:31:59 BernadetteLoscio: it's done 13:32:04 close action-205 13:32:04 Closed action-205. 13:32:09 action-207 13:32:10 action-207 -- Gisele Pappa to Modify the data enrichment best practice to cover data as well as metadata -- due 2015-10-02 -- OPEN 13:32:10 http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/207 13:32:20 BernadetteLoscio: I think she did it. 13:32:28 deirdrelee: overtaken by events 13:32:30 ... or done 13:32:33 close action-207 13:32:33 Closed action-207. 13:32:38 Hi 13:32:51 we can hear you ericstephan :) 13:32:59 can you hear us? 13:32:59 action-196 13:32:59 action-196 -- Eric Stephan to Create updated timetable for duv in wiki -- due 2015-08-28 -- OPEN 13:32:59 http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/196 13:33:02 Yeah I can hear everyone again! 13:33:08 great! :) 13:33:13 deirdrelee: close action 196 because it's done 13:33:17 close action-196 13:33:17 Closed action-196. 13:33:23 action-208 13:33:23 action-208 -- Antoine Isaac to Contact oa wg to see whether they would consider adding dqv motivation -- due 2016-04-01 -- OPEN 13:33:23 http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/208 13:33:40 thank you thank you! 13:34:15 antoine: let's keep it, because it's another iteration 13:34:20 ... leave it open for now 13:34:30 action-209 13:34:30 action-209 -- Eric Stephan to Contact oa wg to see whether they would consider adding duv motivation -- due 2015-10-16 -- OPEN 13:34:30 http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/209 13:34:47 deirdrelee: we can close this? 13:35:09 scribe: Caroline_ 13:35:10 scribe: Caroline_ 13:35:22 antoine: is it a general question? 13:35:30 ericstephan: it is more than a general question 13:35:38 ... it would be good to keep it 13:35:44 scribe: newton 13:35:57 deirdrelee: action 209, keep it open for now 13:36:12 ... the due date is April 1st 13:36:36 Please see for help. 13:37:00 action-210 13:37:00 action-210 -- Sumit Purohit to Investigate the relationship between dqv and duv wrt citations that can be considered as a quality annotation -- due 2015-10-02 -- OPEN 13:37:00 http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/210 13:37:18 deirdrelee: ericstephan, bernadette, do you know if it has been done? 13:37:32 trackbot, issue-209 due 2016-04-01 13:37:32 Sorry, but issues don't support set_due changes. 13:37:35 ericstephan: I don't think if it's done 13:37:42 trackbot, action-209 due 2016-04-01 13:37:42 Set action-209 Contact oa wg to see whether they would consider adding duv motivation due date to 2016-04-01. 13:38:02 deirdrelee: Sumit is still working on the doc? Could assign this action to him? Is it relevant? 13:38:16 deirdrelee: Is Sumit still involved? We're looking at 210 13:38:23 ericstephan: Pls reassign it to me 13:39:00 trackbot, action-210 due in 3 weeks 13:39:00 Set action-210 Investigate the relationship between dqv and duv wrt citations that can be considered as a quality annotation due date to 2016-04-04. 13:39:26 deirdrelee: ericstephan, there's another action assigned to sumit 13:39:36 ... do you know if it's done or isn't relevant anymore? 13:39:54 ericstephan: it's not relevant anymore 13:40:03 deirdrelee: we can close it. overtaken by events. 13:40:09 close action-179 13:40:09 Closed action-179. 13:40:12 action-212 13:40:12 action-212 -- Deirdre Lee to Follow up on issue-94 with comsode project -- due 2015-10-16 -- OPEN 13:40:12 http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/212 13:40:12 action-212? 13:40:12 action-212 -- Deirdre Lee to Follow up on issue-94 with comsode project -- due 2015-10-16 -- OPEN 13:40:12 http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/212 13:40:41 BernadetteLoscio: the issue-94 is closed, and we have the link to the minutes when it was closed 13:40:51 deirdrelee: so the action can be closed 13:40:54 close action-212 13:40:54 Closed action-212. 13:41:00 action-213 13:41:00 action-213 -- Eric Stephan to Look into issue 148 and restart the conversion or close the issue -- due 2015-10-16 -- OPEN 13:41:00 http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/213 13:41:10 BernadetteLoscio: the issue is closed 13:41:22 deirdrelee: close the action-203 13:41:26 action-214? 13:41:26 action-214 -- Newton Calegari to Create the assignment table for relate people to work on examples -- due 2015-10-16 -- OPEN 13:41:26 http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/214 13:41:33 214 was done 13:41:37 newton: was done 13:41:38 action-216? 13:41:38 action-216 -- Bernadette Farias Loscio to Add note to the bp doc that we are discussing the issue of subsetting data, and identifying those subsets. and that we're talking to the sdw wg about this issue too -- due 2015-11-13 -- OPEN 13:41:38 http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/216 13:41:43 close action-214 13:41:43 Closed action-214. 13:41:55 s/close the action-203/close the action-213/g 13:42:01 close action-213 13:42:01 Closed action-213. 13:42:25 action 216 overtaken by events 13:42:25 Error finding '216'. You can review and register nicknames at . 13:42:34 deirdrelee: close action-216, overtaken by events 13:42:38 close action-216 13:42:38 Closed action-216. 13:42:38 close action-216 13:42:38 Closed action-216. 13:42:43 action-218 13:42:43 action-218 -- Phil Archer to Add the example for the data identifiers section -- due 2015-11-13 -- OPEN 13:42:43 http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/218 13:42:46 phila: did that 13:42:49 That was done 13:42:51 close action-218 13:42:51 Closed action-218. 13:42:58 action-220 13:42:58 action-220 -- Yaso Córdova to Reach out with giancarlo about the http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/202 -- due 2015-12-11 -- CLOSED 13:42:58 http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/220 13:43:08 close action-220 13:43:08 Closed action-220. 13:43:14 action-224 13:43:14 action-224 -- Carlos Laufer to Send a list of things to be added to/addressed in the duv document -- due 2015-12-18 -- OPEN 13:43:14 http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/224 13:43:18 deirdrelee: it's done 13:43:22 close action-224 13:43:22 Closed action-224. 13:43:28 action-227 13:43:28 action-227 -- Antoine Isaac to Work with eric s on writing section on evolution of duv wrt reuse of namespaces etc. -- due 2016-02-12 -- OPEN 13:43:28 http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/227 13:43:46 antoine: cof cof 13:43:50 trackbot, 229 due 2016-03-15 13:43:50 Sorry, phila, I don't understand 'trackbot, 229 due 2016-03-15'. Please refer to for help. 13:43:53 scribe: Caroline_ 13:43:59 trackbot, action-229 due 2016-03-15 13:43:59 Set action-229 Send bp editors implementation-questionaire template due date to 2016-03-15. 13:44:05 antoine: don't close action-227 13:44:18 ... I can continue the action 13:44:23 trackbot, action-230 due 2016-03-15 13:44:23 Set action-230 Create process for gathering evidence of implementations, e.g. wiki, google form due date to 2016-03-15. 13:44:25 ... change one example in BP 17 13:45:02 deirdrelee: action-227 leave it open 13:45:06 scribe: newton 13:45:09 trackbot, action-227 due 2016-04-01 13:45:09 Set action-227 Work with eric s on writing section on evolution of duv wrt reuse of namespaces etc. due date to 2016-04-01. 13:45:11 action-229 13:45:11 action-229 -- Phil Archer to Send bp editors implementation-questionaire template -- due 2016-03-15 -- OPEN 13:45:11 http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/229 13:45:26 phila: the due date for that is tomorrow 13:45:30 ... tomorrow afternoon 13:45:44 ... the two groups will be together 13:46:31 deirdrelee: leave action-229 open, because will be done and discussed in the 2nd F2F 13:46:47 action-230 13:46:47 action-230 -- Caroline Burle to Create process for gathering evidence of implementations, e.g. wiki, google form -- due 2016-03-15 -- OPEN 13:46:47 http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/230 13:47:04 deirdrelee: it's related to the previous one. leave it open. 13:47:05 phila: The aim of tomorrow afternoon is to define the set of questions to be used by both DWBP and Share-PSi to gather evidence of implementation of our BPs 13:47:11 action-231 13:47:11 action-231 -- Annette Greiner to Talk to eric wilde about open comments and reach resolution -- due 2016-02-19 -- OPEN 13:47:11 http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/231 13:47:33 BernadetteLoscio: she sent a message about this. 13:47:43 ... I updated the comments on the table 13:47:57 ... and Annette saw that and left some comments on that table 13:48:02 ... maybe is better to ask her tomorrow 13:48:11 action-233 13:48:11 action-233 -- Newton Calegari to Check if the turtle and rdfa examples are validated -- due 2016-03-04 -- OPEN 13:48:11 http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/233 13:48:44 action-234 13:48:44 action-234 -- Newton Calegari to Check if the turtle and rdfa examples are validated -- due 2016-03-04 -- OPEN 13:48:44 http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/234 13:49:06 close-234 13:49:08 -> http://rdf-translator.appspot.com/ RDF translator might be useful newton 13:49:13 close action-234 13:49:13 Closed action-234. 13:49:23 deirdrelee: action-234 is duplicated to 233 13:49:36 action-235 13:49:36 action-235 -- Newton Calegari to Review annette's test for bp8 -- due 2016-03-04 -- OPEN 13:49:36 http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/235 13:50:20 -> http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#VersioningInfo BP8 Provide a version indicator 13:51:11 antoine: I reviewed the vocabulary aspects of it and sent a message 13:51:32 ... but it needs a complete review 13:52:15 deirdrelee: action-235 and action-236 can be closed, it's done. 13:52:33 Caroline_: we gonna review all the BPs again 13:52:37 close action-235 13:52:37 Closed action-235. 13:52:38 close action-236 13:52:38 Closed action-236. 13:52:43 action-237 13:52:43 action-237 -- Annette Greiner to Email sdw (and dwbp) to ask about their api work (with regard to examples for bp 10) -- due 2016-03-04 -- OPEN 13:52:43 http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/237 13:53:00 action-238 13:53:00 action-238 -- Newton Calegari to Include rdfa to the human-readable example of strucutral metadata (dwbp-example.html) -- due 2016-03-11 -- OPEN 13:53:00 http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/238 13:53:10 newton: it's done 13:53:11 trackbot, action-233 due 2016-04-01 13:53:11 Set action-233 Check if the turtle and rdfa examples are validated due date to 2016-04-01. 13:53:17 close action-238 13:53:17 Closed action-238. 13:53:22 action-239 13:53:22 action-239 -- Peter Winstanley to Check on using an example about real-time data for bp23 -- due 2016-03-18 -- OPEN 13:53:22 http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/239 13:53:32 ongoing 13:54:40 trackbot, action-239 due 2016-03-25 13:54:40 Set action-239 Check on using an example about real-time data for bp23 due date to 2016-03-25. 13:54:45 action-240 13:54:45 action-240 -- Annette Greiner to Work on the bp for enriching data before the f2f -- due 2016-03-18 -- OPEN 13:54:45 http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/240 13:54:50 -> http://agreiner.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#EnrichData Annette's work on enrichment 13:54:51 deirdrelee: it's done 13:54:54 close action-240 13:54:54 Closed action-240. 13:54:57 action-241 13:54:57 action-241 -- Hadley Beeman to Review bp 22 -- due 2016-03-18 -- OPEN 13:54:57 http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/241 13:55:19 action-242 13:55:19 action-242 -- Newton Calegari to Follow up on issue 220 -- due 2016-03-18 -- OPEN 13:55:19 http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/242 13:55:25 issue-220? 13:55:25 issue-220 -- Should we include a more complexe example to illustrate provenance? -- closed 13:55:25 http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/220 13:55:49 newton: not done yet. I need to put the examples 13:56:27 action-243 13:56:27 action-243 -- Caroline Burle to Arrange redseign of the challenges diagram -- due 2016-03-21 -- OPEN 13:56:27 http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/243 13:57:00 deirdrelee: yaso, any update on action-148? 13:57:12 Yaso proposes to use the Dublin Core definition of a standard 13:57:14 https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/open 13:57:19 http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/#terms-Standard 13:57:32 yaso: proposing the Dublin Core definition of standard 13:57:43 It defines standards as "A basis for comparison; a reference point against which other things can be evaluated." 13:57:54 action-148 ? 13:57:54 action-148 -- Yaso Córdova to Include a definition of 'a standard' in the glossary -- due 2015-04-20 -- OPEN 13:57:54 http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/148 13:58:15 trackbot, action-148 due 2016-04-01 13:58:15 Set action-148 Include a definition of 'a standard' in the glossary due date to 2016-04-01. 13:58:41 deirdrelee: we can move to the DQV 13:58:51 ... ericstephan, are you ok? 13:59:03 ericstephan: is ok with that 13:59:06 Topic: Dataset Usage Vocabulary 13:59:40 http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/vocab-du.html 13:59:53 ericstephan: Thanks Uni Zagreb for fixing the audio feed 14:00:16 q? 14:00:27 ack BernadetteLoscio 14:00:36 eric talking about the open issues 14:00:40 • Remove requirements section, parts of it is out of date and inaccurate: https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/219 14:00:49 issue-219? 14:00:49 issue-219 -- Tying DUV to Use Case requirements. -- open 14:00:49 http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/219 14:01:02 issue 219 14:01:08 iisue-219 14:01:13 issue-219 14:01:13 issue-219 -- Tying DUV to Use Case requirements. -- open 14:01:13 http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/219 14:01:15 ericstephan: Purpose was to do more with the UCR section. It's at the bottom of the doc 14:01:20 ... section 9 14:01:21 http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/vocab-du.html#duvrequirements 14:01:25 scribe: laufer 14:02:00 we are working on that now 14:02:21 ericstephan: to remove that section and actually go to the vocabulary overview section 14:02:27 http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/vocab-du.html#Vocab_Overview 14:03:04 ericstephan: to write how we describe our models 14:04:07 ericstephan: Section 6.1 talks about which terms are relevant to which use of the DUV http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/vocab-du.html#Citation_Model 14:04:13 ericstephan: describing how the duv model is exposed in duv document 14:04:35 ... our aproach to handling this issue is remove the req section and move some of that documentation into the intro section. 14:04:47 q? 14:04:54 feedback of the group about this way of describing duv model 14:04:57 ack phila 14:06:39 eric: the list of requirements and the list of use cases were updated in the document 14:07:32 ericstephan: we are missing in the duv model to track metrics 14:07:33 • We are missing tracking usage counts. Can we use the data quality metrics in the data usage vocabulary? 14:07:59 q+ 14:08:02 ericstephan: we need to work with dqv team to talk about these kind of things 14:08:12 q+ 14:08:15 ack r 14:08:27 riccardoAlbertoni: I can support eric in that issue 14:09:05 action: riccardoAlbertoni to work with ericstephan on creating examples of dataset usage counts in the DQV 14:09:05 Created ACTION-251 - Work with ericstephan on creating examples of dataset usage counts in the dqv [on Riccardo Albertoni - due 2016-03-21]. 14:09:12 riccardoAlbertoni: I will talk to eric asking the type of examples he want 14:09:16 ack me 14:10:02 o Should the examples in the DUV align with examples provided in the BP document for better readability? 14:10:11 phila: the people want to have a feedback abou who is using the dataset 14:10:18 phila: I don't think it's up to the DUV to count uses. The suer only uses it once 14:10:26 s/suer/user/ 14:10:37 • Citation: 1) Basic Criteria for a reference, 2) Approach to associate an article or reference to a dataset. 3) Rationale for use of citation. 14:10:50 • Data Usage: 1) Data usage instructions, 2) Data Usage with Tool, 3) Counting Data Usage with DQ Metrics 14:11:04 feedback 14:11:11 q? 14:11:32 eric we need more examples of data citations 14:12:02 ericstephan: I'm proposing that we write different examples, which won't take long. 2nd - after working on the BP Feedback doc, should we have our examples aligned with the bus schedule example? 14:12:14 ericstephan: in bp about feedback we need also more examples 14:12:26 ... Would it be helpful to use the same running example as the BP doc? 14:13:02 i think its good! 14:13:22 BernadetteLoscio: agrees with aligning the running examples of the documents 14:13:54 +1 14:14:06 phila: I'd say it's better of the DUV examples were aligned with BP but not essential. 14:14:07 phila: it is not essencial to aling the duv running example to the bp running example 14:14:25 q/ 14:14:27 q? 14:14:30 phila: but it will be nice to do it 14:14:39 o The vocabulary overview section should reference examples. 14:15:17 ericstephan: Another thing... elaborating on the examples also gives us a place to reference those examples. If we're talking about... connecting them better with the vocab overview. 14:15:22 http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/vocab-du.html#Vocab_Overview 14:15:28 ericstephan: we give ways to link directly to the examples of the duv document 14:16:14 duv.ttl file, are we declaring any third party vocabularies in our duv.ttl file? 14:16:42 q+ to say it's OK to add vann:usageNotes 14:17:15 ericstephan: I think it would be nice to have the vocab in multiple languages 14:17:19 ack me 14:17:19 phila, you wanted to say it's OK to add vann:usageNotes 14:17:42 lol 14:17:43 scribe: PWinstanley 14:17:51 phila: the turtle, having labels in multiple languages: it's nice. We need translators 14:18:24 I think we might be able to get support for mandarin and japanese 14:19:07 phila: the more difficult qestion is about terms in other peoples' vocabularies; my normal reply is go and do it. My personal view is that it makes sense to write usage notes, but not to add anything else 14:19:27 ericstephan: BernadetteLoscio is there anything else? 14:19:34 BernadetteLoscio: no, you did great! 14:19:38 RRSAgent, draft minutes 14:19:38 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/03/14-dwbp-minutes.html phila 14:19:38 thanks a lot ;) 14:19:39 q+ 14:19:42 q+ 14:19:43 ericstephan: ok, thank you 14:19:47 ack phila 14:20:06 ... onsumers. In addition to supporting duv:Feedback, because the Web Annotation vocabulary provides a generic way of annotating any Web resource, it is recommended that Web Annotation vocabulary be used to annotate the duv:Dataset for uses beyond the scope of the DUV. 14:20:10 phila: I read through the doc. there's a sentence in the intro that includes .... 14:20:24 ...and I wonder whether you mean DUV? 14:20:30 ericstephan: I mean DCAT 14:20:56 phila: you use PRISM publication date. What is your reason for this over 14:21:03 Why prism:publicationdate not dcterms:issued? 14:21:09 ericstephan: it comes from the SPAR ontology 14:21:14 ericstephan: Recommendation from SPAR 14:21:24 ...i don't think it would break things to use dcterms:issue 14:21:43 q? 14:21:45 phila: dcterms:issue is what DCAT uses, but using prism just looks odd 14:22:07 ericstephan: it was the first time I came across prism, and I've only seen it in PDF files 14:22:31 phila: personally I 'd use dcterms:issue 14:22:53 s/dcterms:issue/dcterms:issued/ 14:22:58 ...when you use rdfs:comment for the usage tool, did you consider *** 14:23:32 ericstephan: we are looking for something aligned with DCAT - I would rather use that if it was available 14:23:46 phila: how would you specify the name of the usage tool? 14:24:34 ericstephan: right now we have a URI, but I am looking for something human readable. At one point we had more of a description of the application, but that dropped out 14:25:30 ...it's a balance between a text file giving a description or an existing RDF term 14:26:02 ...I looked at various applications, other public domain applications, and all of them had their own format. 14:26:14 q+ 14:26:27 ...so we might just let people define it as they feels is right, rather than being prescriptive 14:26:36 phila: I would prefer you to choose one 14:27:01 ...rdfs label & comment is normal, 14:27:07 ack laufer 14:27:50 laufer: this is not a vocabulary problem. rdfs:label doesn't make sense as the way we explain things to humans, so perhaps we need an ontology for how we descrieb. 14:28:30 ...we need to define how to make a human comment. 14:28:51 q+ 14:29:00 q- deirdrelee 14:29:11 ack antoine 14:29:18 antoine: I don't know if we should enforce consistency 14:29:50 ...we have strong reason in skos as they are skos concepts, even though using them doesn't require that they are skos concepts. 14:29:56 ...maybe something to consider 14:30:17 i think we can consider using skos 14:30:24 phila: We'll leave it to the editors to decide/explain thinking 14:30:29 ericstephan: it's something we canexplain as part of the vocabulary 14:30:31 q? 14:30:54 yaso: I think its a decision the editors can make 14:31:07 q+ 14:31:13 ack d 14:31:24 deirdrelee: is this a DUV? 14:31:35 deirdrelee: In terms of next steps, deadlines etc. 14:31:52 ...next steps.... the goal is to have a version that the board can decide on 14:31:54 ... Our goal here is that by the time we finish here in Zagreb, we should be pretty much finished 14:32:14 ericstephan: I think we're talking about finalising examples, making some corrections in the text. 14:32:18 ... Model is now stable 14:32:24 ericstephan: what we're talking about here is finalising examples. I see the models staying as they are - they are in final form 14:32:25 ... in final form now. 14:32:47 deirdrelee: So maybe we have 2 weeks to finish off. 14:33:10 deirdrelee: our end date is July. 14:33:25 ... Do we say this is the last version from us? No more comments etc.? 14:33:33 q+ 14:33:42 ack ericstephan 14:34:01 ericstephan: One of the things I'm doing is getting with some people at FORECE2015 in April, Datacite efforts on Portland 14:34:18 ... Also meeting with another person lookingn at how you apply metrics to citations to show value. 14:34:43 ... So I wouldn't like to say we're completely done, but I'd like to put thinks in a ready state, but with some of ther workshops comign up, I'd like opportunities to iterate. 14:34:46 q+ 14:34:47 q+ 14:34:52 q- later 14:34:57 q- 14:35:15 deirdrelee: I'd be included to put a final deadline on this. Maybe end of March? 14:35:22 yes! 14:35:33 ericstephan: I guess an action is to put together/update the timetable 14:36:01 action: stephan to create time table for DUV progress/iterations 14:36:01 Created ACTION-252 - Create time table for duv progress/iterations [on Eric Stephan - due 2016-03-21]. 14:36:54 riccardoAlbertoni: We'd like anotehr round of feedback. We need to be careful that this feedback doesn't change the example in the BP doc 14:37:15 ... but the DQV is pretty stable 14:37:25 ... So the next round of comments may affect the BP doc 14:37:57 deirdrelee: If that's happening, and if you're going to workshoips, Eric... we shoud put out both vocabs in a couple of weeks 14:37:58 q- 14:38:01 This sounds great 14:38:12 deirdrelee: So the feedback at those events is part of final feedback 14:38:23 deirdrelee: Anything else on DUV? 14:38:29 ericstephan: It's done and I'm done 14:38:33 thanks a lot Eric!!! 14:38:41 PROPOSED: Vote of thanks to Eric for being awake 14:38:43 +1 14:38:48 bye 14:38:49 +1 14:38:55 +1 14:38:55 +1! 14:39:07 bye take care! Talk to you tomorrow 14:39:09 RESOLVED: Vote of thanks to Eric for being awake 14:39:24 RRSAgent, draft minutes 14:39:24 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/03/14-dwbp-minutes.html phila 14:47:12 JoaoPauloAlmeida has joined #dwbp 14:55:37 is IRC being used for the Zagreb meeting? 14:57:30 newton has joined #dwbp 15:00:15 yaso has joined #dwbp 15:00:28 Details at https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/ZagrebF2F#Dial_in_Details JoaoPauloAlmeida 15:00:28 PWinstanley has joined #dwbp 15:00:48 topic: Data Quality Vocabulary 15:00:52 scribe: phila 15:00:59 davide_ has joined #dwbp 15:01:06 we're back 15:02:20 present+JoaoPauloAlmeida 15:02:46 pekka has joined #dwbp 15:02:47 topic: DQV 15:02:53 miskaknapek has joined #dwbp 15:03:02 antoine: Before we start... maybe a reminder of the ,ain building blocks 15:03:24 ... At the root there is either a Dataset or Distribution 15:03:38 I can hear perfectly, Deirdre and Phil, thanks 15:03:47 antoine: First one if the idea of a quality measure 15:03:48 to people on irc we are using the diagram at http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/images/DataQuality0.2.8.svg 15:04:03 I thought the session would be about DUV. Have the plans changed? 15:04:17 ... measurement is based on a metric, based on a dimension like the rpecision or the accuracy, using a category of some kind from the ISO spec. 15:04:44 ... Secone one is not so much about numbers, more subjective. Use web annotation model. Used OA to express quality feedback 15:04:50 ... This is where we connect with DUV 15:04:58 ... Also more formal certificates 15:05:20 ... Fimnally we have the notionof standard, saying that a dataset conforms to a dcterms:Standard 15:05:30 ... especially the notion fo a quality policy. 15:05:39 ... this is an issue to talk about later. 15:06:11 deirdrelee: So does this address things like how to represnet how the dataset represents time 15:06:33 ... Can you say that the values of a property use ISO8601 for example 15:06:59 antoine: That's the example we use for this. But the problem is the granularity - it's at the level of the dataset, not individual values 15:07:26 deirdrelee: I think that overlaps with what we were saying about BP, locale parameters 15:07:49 antoine: The example we have is from geoDCAT-AP, saying that the dataset is copmatible with @@@ spec 15:07:58 antoine: So we need to go through the issues that we have. 15:08:21 ... Issues were noted in the doc so we're more or less going through the issues as they appear in the doc. 15:08:32 -> http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/vocab-dqg.html DQV doc 15:08:33 http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/vocab-dqg.html 15:08:43 issue-181? 15:08:44 issue-181 -- Should we have only the existing class dqv:QualityMeasureDataset (formerly known as daq:QualityGraph) or keep the new class dqv:QualityMetadata? -- open 15:08:44 http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/181 15:09:00 riccardoAlbertoni: These 2 classes are called different things 15:09:43 ... Quality Graph is about RDF, Quality Metadata is all the things you can say in the DQV (scribe unsure if this is accurate) 15:10:28 laufer: here we have this discussion in DUV too. Here we are saying things about dcat:Dataset or Distribution. This is a formal thing in RDF 15:10:49 ... The dataset is defined as a dact:Dataset - or can we have another kind of dataset? 15:11:11 ... Maybe Data Cube is not a dcat:Dataset? 15:11:23 ... You have a formal constraint in the RDF? 15:11:33 antoine: We have a couple of domain and ranges 15:12:06 ... but if you apply a property and if the consequence is that the class is inferred to be a dcatDataset or dcat:Distribution - they won't care 15:12:12 laufer: I'm not so sure. 15:12:37 antoine: We try to avoid making unnecessary inferences 15:13:12 riccardoAlbertoni: We decided to leave open whether you're talking about a Dataset or a Distro - no formal constraint. 15:13:38 antoine: I can't find any domain or range for Distribution or dataset in the RDF 15:14:28 Adding a note saying that qualityMetadata graph not necessary contains all of quality statements DQV is supporting and it is left to implementers decide the granularity of containement. Moreover If they want not use graph containement they can consider to use their own property to link instances of quality metadata with instances of other DQV classes. For example using (a subproperty of) dcterms:hasPart. 15:15:21 q? 15:15:39 riccardoAlbertoni: Talks through the proposed text 15:16:57 action: riccardoAlbertoni to add proposed text above in the minutes on 2016-03-14 and close issue 181 15:16:57 Created ACTION-253 - Add proposed text above in the minutes on 2016-03-14 and close issue 181 [on Riccardo Albertoni - due 2016-03-21]. 15:17:04 RRSAgent, pointer 15:17:04 See http://www.w3.org/2016/03/14-dwbp-irc#T15-17-04 15:17:16 close issue-181 15:17:16 Closed issue-181. 15:17:34 Issue-199? 15:17:34 Issue-199 -- Is dqv:QualityPolicy a subclass of dcterms:Standard? -- open 15:17:34 http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/199 15:18:32 antoine: This was related to the action on nandana. We have produced an example that reuses @@@ for ODRL. Want to use offer or agreement from ODRL 15:19:26 ... Cost us some time talking to ODRL. Ended up with something that looks a little strange but we've added it to the doc. But end result is that dqv:QualityPolicy no longer needs to be a subclass of dcterms:Standard 15:19:35 ... You may not want to call a policy a standard. 15:19:54 ... That's why I don't like the dcterms defn of standard as it's too loose. 15:20:10 deirdrelee: You're implying that a quality policy could be a standard, but not necessarily 15:21:18 laufer: Maybe we can have a direct link from the Dataset to the Quality policy? 15:21:33 antoine: Shows updated disgram with odrl:target from a quality policy and the dataset 15:21:34 q+ 15:21:40 q+ to talk about ODRL 15:21:57 laufer: If one decides that his policy is a standard, he will make the link 15:22:19 ack phila 15:22:19 phila, you wanted to talk about ODRL 15:23:48 phila: You know that ODRL is being put through the rec Track now? Would that affect DQV? 15:24:06 antoine: I think we were going to highlight that. It's only in an example here so we'll be OK. 15:24:14 ... It won't change anything in the DQV itself 15:24:39 riccardoAlbertoni: So we can close this issue 15:24:44 close issue-199 15:24:44 Closed issue-199. 15:25:09 deirdrelee: The decision is that it's not a sub class 15:25:24 RRSAgent, pointer? 15:25:24 See http://www.w3.org/2016/03/14-dwbp-irc#T15-25-24 15:26:24 action: antoine To turn the text of issue 11 into a Note in the doc 15:26:24 Created ACTION-254 - Turn the text of issue 11 into a note in the doc [on Antoine Isaac - due 2016-03-21]. 15:27:51 issue-222? 15:27:51 issue-222 -- Multiple/Derived values of a metric -- open 15:27:51 http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/222 15:28:10 riccardoAlbertoni: We decided not to represent multiple values of a metric 15:28:24 ... because of the way QB works. 15:28:55 q? 15:29:08 ...QB has 2 patterns. One relies on 1 value for any observation, the other for multiple values fo an observation. We're following the first 15:29:31 ... We think it's still possible to represent the metric that has a value connecting... @@@ ?? 15:30:20 ... We have an issue with 2 sub issues. The first is about mutliple values. We're not considering this because we'e not allowing ,multiple values for a qualuty measurement. 15:30:47 riccardoAlbertoni: ... we are able to supplor metircs that add multiple values. 15:31:05 antoine: Most of the cases we have seen in the comments asking for multiple values, we can represent as derived values. 15:32:04 ... all the aggregate stuff. You have all the values and you want the average. They wanted both on the same class. WE think it's 2 seperate metrics 15:32:37 deirdrelee: So you haven't seen any cases where there's a need for independent measures of the same metrics. 15:33:06 riccardoAlbertoni: If you have 2 metrics about tghe same dimension, you can record that. The problem is where you want to have single metric with multiplevalues. 15:33:39 laufer: If we are talking here about relations between metrics. A relation |-| 2 metrics 15:33:46 ... We can make relations between metrics. 15:34:15 ... Here we are saying that 2 metrics have a relation. How can we group related metrics. I think this is bigger ... can we group metrics? 15:36:46 JoaoPauloAlmeida has joined #dwbp 15:36:54 antoine: AS part of the resolution for this issue is to rese the generic relation prov dervied from 15:37:31 ... If we have identified that one metric can be derived from another, quality annotation can be derived from a metric etc. 15:37:43 ... So we're thinking about a general derivation framework 15:37:55 ... People can use it as they see fit. 15:38:28 ... Can't predict all the scenarios 15:39:01 riccardoAlbertoni: So by having this property, we propose to close 222 and have an action for riccardoAlbertoni to add an example of using prov:derivedFrom 15:39:44 action: riccardoAlbertoni to create an example using prov:wasDerivedFrom in the DQV, close issue-222 15:39:45 Created ACTION-255 - Create an example using prov:wasderivedfrom in the dqv, close issue-222 [on Riccardo Albertoni - due 2016-03-21]. 15:39:55 antoine: We have already gone back to the commenters (A week ago) 15:40:10 ... The mail has been sent, they can complain of course and we can reopen the issue if needs be. 15:40:24 ... That was Werner and Andrea p 15:40:45 RRSAgent, draft minutes 15:40:45 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/03/14-dwbp-minutes.html phila 15:40:48 issue-201? 15:40:48 issue-201 -- Should we exploit predefined instances of oa:Motivation to further characterize the UserQualityFeedback purposes? -- open 15:40:48 http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/201 15:40:52 diana has joined #dwbp 15:41:17 riccardoAlbertoni: We had quality annotations and quality annotations are one kind of annotation 15:41:23 deirdrelee: We're skipping 223? 15:41:30 riccardoAlbertoni: We're skipping some 15:41:35 deirdrelee: Will we come back to it? 15:41:55 riccardoAlbertoni: We have some solutions but we're not sure yet. We want to focus on the issues for which we have proposals. 15:42:54 riccardoAlbertoni: So quality annotation can be user feedback or a certificate. 15:43:04 ... We were thinking of specialising the user feedback. 15:43:25 ... It could in interesting to distinguish between questions about the data and classifications of it 15:43:36 ... To solve this issue, we're going to add an example 15:43:45 ... we have differnet actions to consider. 15:44:10 ... First is to add a nite to say to the suer that they can, if need to, add their own motivations 15:44:29 ... Any annotation is connected to a motivation. In DQV we add a specific motication of quality assessment 15:44:50 ... We plan to use oa:motivatedBy -> dqv:QualityAssessment 15:45:24 ... But we still want to provide more flexibility. We are adding a note to say that they can add a new motiviation but they should follow the OA guidelines. 15:45:52 action: riccardoAlbertoni To add a Note saying that new motivations can be defined but that this should be done following the Open Annotation guidelines 15:45:52 Created ACTION-256 - Add a note saying that new motivations can be defined but that this should be done following the open annotation guidelines [on Riccardo Albertoni - due 2016-03-21]. 15:46:24 antoine: The issue is whether we're going to subclass ?? rather than oa:Motivation 15:46:57 ... We're suggesting to add guidelines to show how to add finer-grained motivations, rather than defineing sub classes of annotation. 15:47:15 s/??/annotation/ 15:47:35 laufer: So Motivation is for humans. here you are adding something for machines - classification of the text that is in the annotation. 15:47:56 laufer: A motivation is a kind of commenet for humans. 15:48:28 laufer: You can tell that the annotation expresses a question. Maybe we can represent this thread - all the things related to the request for modification, for example 15:48:41 riccardoAlbertoni: You are thinking about represneting the whole thread? 15:48:56 riccardoAlbertoni: I think the OA work already handles tracking threads. 15:49:04 ... So we can rely on OA for that. 15:49:42 antoine: DQV is a framework for making quality metadata more interoperable. It's going to be hard to share across all applications. 15:49:59 ... They'd have differnet properties in differnet contexts I think. 15:50:13 ... We don't want to tell people how to build their application. 15:50:42 ... You can imagine a very complex sutuation that ultimately comes down to an annotation on quality. 15:50:53 ... This seems to match what the OA group did. 15:51:03 laufer: yes, but this is the beginning of the track. 15:51:20 laufer: We're not continuing the track - so why begin it? 15:52:44 q+ 15:52:55 antoine: Some people will be frustrated that we're not providing all the metrics, but we realise that we can't - which is frustrating to us 15:55:14 ack deirdrelee 15:55:52 antoine: In the comments we got about dimensions, we realsied thast dimensions and categories are crucial. We're suggesting applying diments to standards and quality annotations so that every statement can be applied in an existing frameowrk such as the ISO one. 15:55:59 deirdrelee: is this a differnet issue? 15:56:09 antoine: No, it's a side issue for the current one. 15:56:47 antoine: We were afraid that if we didn't do this, people would associate oa:Motivation with category 15:57:02 deirdrelee: The DQV quality assessment... 15:57:24 antoine: It's still not in the diagram, but it's in the model as an instance of oa:Motivation. 15:57:33 ... It appears in the spec but we haven't created a table for it 15:57:43 deirdrelee: So it shoujld be described somewhere. 15:57:53 antoine: There's a passing reference in the text 15:58:32 deirdrelee: Do you see it as part of the model or an example of how to use it? 15:58:34 antoine: The model 15:59:20 action: antoine to add a table describing the resource dqv:QualutyAssessment 15:59:21 Created ACTION-257 - Add a table describing the resource dqv:qualutyassessment [on Antoine Isaac - due 2016-03-21]. 15:59:23 q+ 15:59:42 ack me 15:59:55 phila: if it's a term in the vocab, it should have a table 16:00:14 antoine: But it's an instance, not a class. You can data without it. 16:00:26 ... Hmm... maybe we can. OK. 16:00:50 ... We'll make it more explicit. 16:01:13 newton has joined #dwbp 16:01:16 q- 16:01:28 RRSAgent, draft minutes 16:01:28 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/03/14-dwbp-minutes.html phila 16:02:13 remove the domain from dqv:inDimension, move it from section measurement and add it in the DQV Diagram and send a email to Jeremy. With the new definition of dqv:inDimension, where dqv:inDimension is a super-property of the inverse of daq:hasMetric, 16:02:38 action: riccardoAlbertoni to remove the domain from dqv:inDimension, move it from section measurement and add it in the DQV Diagram and send a email to Jeremy. With the new definition of dqv:inDimension, where dqv:inDimension is a super-property of the inverse of daq:hasMetric 16:02:39 Created ACTION-258 - Remove the domain from dqv:indimension, move it from section measurement and add it in the dqv diagram and send a email to jeremy. with the new definition of dqv:indimension, where dqv:indimension is a super-property of the inverse of daq:hasmetric [on Riccardo Albertoni - due 2016-03-21]. 16:03:06 action: riccardoAlbertoni to add examples showing user feedback for questioning and classification. 16:03:07 Created ACTION-259 - Add examples showing user feedback for questioning and classification. [on Riccardo Albertoni - due 2016-03-21]. 16:03:19 close issue-201 16:03:19 Closed issue-201. 16:03:35 issue-205? 16:03:35 issue-205 -- Representing dimensions and categories SKOS Concepts -- open 16:03:35 http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/205 16:04:24 riccardoAlbertoni: We have already use skos:Concepts in the examples, so... the only thing we have to do to close this is to write down that dimensions and categories are defined as skos:Concepts 16:04:41 +1 16:04:51 action: to ensure text makes clear that dimensions anad categories are defined as subclasses of skos:Concept 16:04:51 Error finding 'to'. You can review and register nicknames at . 16:04:58 action: riccardoAlbertoni to ensure text makes clear that dimensions anad categories are defined as subclasses of skos:Concept 16:04:58 Created ACTION-260 - to ensure text makes clear that dimensions anad categories are defined as subclasses of skos:concept [on Riccardo Albertoni - due 2016-03-21]. 16:05:07 close issue-205 16:05:07 Closed issue-205. 16:05:12 issue-204? 16:05:12 issue-204 -- Introducing abstract classes and properties -- open 16:05:12 http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/204 16:05:40 antoine: This is the most difficult issue so far 16:06:24 antoine: This is about keeping dimension, categories etc. as abstarct classes that should never be instantiated. Sub classes should be crreated that are instantiated. 16:06:51 ... They are two abstract to be useful. Also, subclasses can define what the mertics are 16:07:04 antoine: Proposal is 16:07:17 we acknowledge the abstractness of dqv:Dimension and dqv:Category. We believe that defining them as classes is not optimal in terms of complexity of representation and interoperability. Looking at daQ we also think there is no fundamental feature of daQ that it lost in DQV if we represent instances dqv:Dimension and dqv:Category as skos:Concepts (as suggested for Issue-205), which is a way to express that they are abstract entities. Matt[CUT] 16:08:38 daQ uses classes and subclasses to represent constraints on specific measurement (e.g. type of values). However, this is rather a modeling “trick” (and a requirements for having subclasses of daq:Metric) rather than a real requirement for abstract classes. We also have doubts that with the (open world) RDFS/OWL semantics of classes, these axioms can really enforce constraints on metrics and measurements. With new languages being cur[CUT] 16:08:44 JoaoPauloAlmeida has joined #dwbp 16:09:11 ent constraints (SHACL) we think it is more appropriate not to recommend anything now about treating metrics as subclasses of dqv:Metric, and thus to postpone discussion on this part of the issue. We could add an editor’s note about this (daQ subclass trick, and SHACL for constraints), referring implementers to future progress on SHACL and related technology. 16:10:38 antoine: Our objection is that we're not sure this this modelling trick works. The OWA messes it up. 16:10:55 ... So for constraints, we'd rather postpone and see what SHACL comes up with. 16:11:32 ... So we'd like to capture constraints but we're not sure that the daQ is the right way 16:11:53 RSSAgent, pointer 16:11:54 antoine: So we intend to havae a Note to point people to SHACL 16:12:04 RRSAgent, pointer? 16:12:04 See http://www.w3.org/2016/03/14-dwbp-irc#T16-12-04 16:12:26 thanks, phila 16:13:24 action: riccardoAlbertoni to add a Note to the effect of the decision about using SHACL rather than abstract and sub classes. 16:13:24 Created ACTION-261 - Add a note to the effect of the decision about using shacl rather than abstract and sub classes. [on Riccardo Albertoni - due 2016-03-21]. 16:13:28 close issue-204 16:13:28 Closed issue-204. 16:13:36 issue-202? 16:13:36 issue-202 -- Relation between dqv, iso 19115/19157 and geodcat-ap -- open 16:13:36 http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/202 16:14:05 riccardoAlbertoni: We had somments from Andrea Perego about the expression of a dataset is following DCAT-AP standard etc. 16:14:30 ... We addressed part of that. Then there's the part about if we have to include specific non-conformant stuff to be compliant with INSPIRE 16:14:53 ... Idea is not to include this is DQV but to refer to GeoDCAT-AP as an example 16:15:29 q+ 16:15:38 riccardoAlbertoni: So we suggest the issue can be closed and have an action to add editorial note in which we suggest to refer to geoDCAT-AP solution in order to represent not-conformant... 16:16:26 ack d 16:16:46 deirdrelee: Not sure I'm understanding this - we're talking about metadata conformance, or data? 16:16:55 ... Why is the distinction being made? 16:19:32 action: riccardoAlbertoni to turn an existing paragraph on representing conformance and non-conformance into the Note pointing to GeoDCAT-AP 16:19:33 Created ACTION-262 - Turn an existing paragraph on representing conformance and non-conformance into the note pointing to geodcat-ap [on Riccardo Albertoni - due 2016-03-21]. 16:19:40 close issue-202 16:19:41 Closed issue-202. 16:20:35 issue-225? 16:20:35 issue-225 -- Levels of granularity for dimensions and categories -- open 16:20:35 http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/225 16:21:09 antoine: Comments we got were remarking that our classification in dimensions and categories as there were only 2 levels with no way to group them together 16:21:35 ... We said that by using skos:Concepts, we allow specialisation by broader/narrower 16:22:29 riccardoAlbertoni: We can't use concept for metrics though because... 16:23:32 More discussion of broader/narrower but not for metrics 16:23:57 antoine: So we've e-mailed the commenter explaining our plan so we plan to close the issue and re-open if we get an objection. 16:24:11 antoine: Mail was sent a week ago. 16:24:17 close issue-225 16:24:18 Closed issue-225. 16:24:38 yaso has joined #dwbp 16:24:44 issue-191? 16:24:44 issue-191 -- Backward compatibility with DAQ and Data Cube -- open 16:24:44 http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/191 16:25:04 riccardoAlbertoni: Propose to postpone 16:25:48 antoine: It's a bit of back burner issue. It's been raised as a reminder that we should try to remain compatible. We think we have done our best 16:26:09 deirdrelee: We could make it an action to do the comparison 16:26:59 action: antoine to assess compatibility of DqV with Data Cube by 2016-04-15 16:26:59 Created ACTION-263 - Assess compatibility of dqv with data cube by 2016-04-15 [on Antoine Isaac - due 2016-03-21]. 16:27:09 close issue-191 16:27:09 Closed issue-191. 16:27:24 trackbot, action-262 by 2016-04-15 16:27:24 Sorry, phila, I don't understand 'trackbot, action-262 by 2016-04-15'. Please refer to for help. 16:27:35 trackbot, action-262 due by 2016-04-15 16:27:35 Set action-262 Turn an existing paragraph on representing conformance and non-conformance into the note pointing to geodcat-ap due date to 2016-03-21. 16:27:47 issue-243? 16:27:47 issue-243 -- Representing precision and accuracy -- open 16:27:47 http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/243 16:28:45 antoine: This issue is ensuring that we can say something about this in DQV. We plan to add a BP about this to the BP doc 16:29:00 action-248? 16:29:00 action-248 -- Phil Archer to Write a bp around accuracy and precision, the pitfalls of false accuracy etc. -- due 2016-03-21 -- OPEN 16:29:00 http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/248 16:29:23 antoine: So we suggest we create an example showing precision and accuracy based on Andrea's e-mail 16:29:57 ... We also plan to use a special instance of dqv:Dimension to represent precision, based on the ISo categories 16:30:33 ... That would be a resource to be used in the example. We don't know whether we chould create a URI for this in the DQV namespace 16:31:04 ... The comes back to the very first thing about the DQV which was meant to be quality and granularity 16:31:10 deirdrelee: That makes it more special 16:31:21 annette_g has joined #dwbp 16:34:38 antoine: So do we want to create a URI for the dimension of precision in the DQV namespace? 16:35:41 PROPOSED: That we will add a spedcific dimension of precision to the DQV namespace 16:35:52 PROPOSED: That we will add a specific dimension of precision to the DQV namespace 16:36:08 +1 (for now) 16:36:14 antoine: We can check when we create the example 16:36:20 +1 for now 16:36:43 laufer: I havea a comment about dqv:QualityAssessment is an instance of oa:Motivation 16:36:56 ... so you have rdfs:type oa:Motivation? 16:37:24 antoine: we have the action to create a table about that 16:37:48 +1 16:37:50 ... So we'll create two classes there, or maybe roll back to 1 depending on feedback 16:37:53 +1 for now 16:37:53 0 16:38:19 +1 16:38:29 Ig_Bittencourt: I'm not sure why need that, I'd need to look back at the thread. 16:38:35 RESOLVED: That we will add a specific dimension of precision to the DQV namespace 16:39:18 antoine: So we can close issue243 16:39:24 close issue-243 16:39:24 Closed issue-243. 16:39:42 close action-248 16:39:42 Closed action-248. 16:40:04 action: phila to ensure that the BP doc refers to the example for representing precision and accuracy in the DQV 16:40:05 Created ACTION-264 - Ensure that the bp doc refers to the example for representing precision and accuracy in the dqv [on Phil Archer - due 2016-03-21]. 16:40:35 RRSAgent, draft minutes 16:40:35 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/03/14-dwbp-minutes.html phila 16:40:54 deirdrelee: Wraps up the meeting for the day 16:41:10 deirdrelee: Offers some of tomorrow's time to DQV 16:42:14 ... First thing we'll do APIs etc with Annette, maybe before lunch we can regroup around DQV and BP 16:42:40 deirdrelee: So time line is to close off DQV by end of April. 16:43:00 ... Still lots of strands to pull in. 16:43:14 newton: We have a couple of new ussues for BP but we should be able to resolve them tomorrow 16:43:24 s/ussues/issues/ 16:44:17 Dinner this evening is at 19:00 Žlica i Vilica, Kneza Mislava 13 16:44:27 See https://www.google.hr/maps/place/%C5%BDlica+I+Vilica/@45.809031,15.9769658,15z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x4765d655ce0eb7ef:0x49f04319f72721b0 16:45:15 deirdrelee: Thanks the scribes, thanks to editors. Thanks to Share-PSI 16:45:24 Adjourned 16:45:34 RRSAgent, generate minutes 16:45:34 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/03/14-dwbp-minutes.html phila 18:00:15 newton has joined #dwbp 18:20:23 Zakim has left #dwbp 20:51:50 newton has joined #dwbp 20:53:29 newton_ has joined #dwbp 21:16:48 newton has joined #dwbp 21:51:03 newton has joined #dwbp 22:20:28 yaso has joined #dwbp 22:35:00 ericstephan has joined #dwbp 22:49:54 newton has joined #dwbp