DWBP Face to Face, Zagreb, Day 1

<annette_g> all the sound from zagreb went out

<ericstephan> yes same for me

<annette_g> *hi, Hadley and everybody!*

<ericstephan> Hello

<hadleybeeman> 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? :)

<Ig_Bittencourt> Hi hadleybeeman

<hadleybeeman> hi Ig_Bittencourt !

<Ig_Bittencourt> They are make some adjusts...

<hadleybeeman> yeah, it does look like they are getting settled

<ericstephan> yes

<laufer> hi hadley

<annette_g> *is Phil showing slides?*

<annette_g> * hi Deirdre! *

<deirdrelee> hi annette_g !

<annette_g> * hi Newton! *

<hadleybeeman> morning, laufer :)

<annette_g> *01:00*

<ericstephan> daylight's savings time started yesterday (an hour ahead)

<hadleybeeman> wow -- to both of you

<deirdrelee> chair: deirdrelee

<annette_g> *yeah, that helps. My body thinks it's only midnight.*

<deirdrelee> agenda: https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/ZagrebF2F

<ericstephan> Hello Berna!

<annette_g> *Hi Berna!

<PWinstanley> Introductions fro Share-PSI and DWBP

bp doc

<deirdrelee> http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html

<ericstephan> could you hear me?

<annette_g> *I think I am hooked up. could you not hear me?*

<ericstephan> did you hear my intro? Eric Stephan Pacific Northwest National Labs USA Washington State

<PWinstanley> deirdrelee: link to BP doc - we use github to track changes. last published version was 1 onth ago

<PWinstanley> ...tackle today the ost difficult issue

<PWinstanley> ...editors have created a teable of current issues and status

<PWinstanley> ...we need to complete these

<hadleybeeman> https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/F2F_Zagreb_-_Agenda_Proposal_DWBP

<annette_g> *dunno what the problem is. I tried reconnecting, too.*

<PWinstanley> subsetting data and api have a couple of issues each, so skip these till later

<PWinstanley> ...let's deal with simpler issues first

<annette_g> somebody needs to mute

<PWinstanley> BernadetteLoscio: first issues #246

<phila> issue-246?

<trackbot> issue-246 -- Find an alternative to make the Challenges' diagram bigger -- raised

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/246

<PWinstanley> ...challenges diagram

<deirdrelee> w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#challenges

<PWinstanley> ...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

<PWinstanley> phila: answer is redesign and make more linear

<PWinstanley> BernadetteLoscio: let's do ... create action

<annette_g> I was wondering if anyone other than me felt the diagram wasn't very helpful

<PWinstanley> BernadetteLoscio: it should be SVG

<phila> ACTION: burle to arrange redseign of the challenges diagram [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/03/14-dwbp-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-243 - Arrange redseign of the challenges diagram [on Caroline Burle - due 2016-03-21].

<annette_g> I typed it

<annette_g> I can hear you

<Caroline_> thank you! :)

<ericstephan> audio is working fine

<annette_g> I wondered if anyone other than me felt the diagram didn't add much

<phila> deirdrelee: I think it is helpful

<Caroline_> +1 to deirdrelee

<deirdrelee> anyone else have an issue with it?

<Ig_Bittencourt> I also think it is useful. It is easy to navigate through challenges.

<Ig_Bittencourt> +1 to deirdrelee

<annette_g> It repeats the index mostly

<PWinstanley> 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

<PWinstanley> deirdrelee: I think it is a small issue

<annette_g> If nobody else is bothered, I'm fine with it.

<annette_g> +1 to yaso

<PWinstanley> yaso: I think it is useful but should be in the use cases doc rather than the BP doc, and should have links

<PWinstanley> ...because it is redundant as an index in the BP doc

<PWinstanley> 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

<Caroline_> +1 to laufer

<deirdrelee> axk phila

<BernadetteLoscio> +1 to laufer

<Zakim> phila, you wanted to talk about process and resources for a change

<PWinstanley> 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

<annette_g> no no, it's fine

<annette_g> I can't hear anything now. :(

<Caroline_> we hear a lot of sounds

<Caroline_> now it is mute :) tks phila

<annette_g> *better now*

<phila> PROPOSED: Leave the Challenges diagram where is it, but redesign it

<Caroline_> annette_g: can you hear us?

<newton> +1

<laufer> +1

<Caroline_> +1

<PWinstanley> +1

<annette_g> +1

<deirdrelee> +1

<Ig_Bittencourt> +1

<BernadetteLoscio> +1

<ericstephan> +1

<hadleybeeman> +0

<yaso> 0

<yaso> +0

RESOLUTION: Leave the Challenges diagram where is it, but redesign it

<PWinstanley> deirdrelee: next issue: #245

<newton> close ISSUE-246

<trackbot> Closed ISSUE-246.

<PWinstanley> BernadetteLoscio: we were discussing about having a filter that could be used to select BP by benefit or by challenge

<PWinstanley> ...so a facet filtering would make it easier to find a BP

<annette_g> cool idea as long as it doesn't add length to the doc.

<PWinstanley> ...we could use these for key word filtering

<PWinstanley> ...just a usability improvement for navigation

<PWinstanley> deirdrelee: I think there is enough structure at the moment,

<PWinstanley> 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

<PWinstanley> yaso: I agree with hadleybeeman

<PWinstanley> deirdrelee: proposal not to filter

<phila> PROPOSED: Not to filter BPs by challenges and benefits

<Ig_Bittencourt> +1

<yaso> +1

<laufer> +1

<PWinstanley> +1

<deirdrelee> +1

<annette_g> 0

<annette_g> just in the sidebar

<newton> +0

<PWinstanley> 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

<BernadetteLoscio> +0

<PWinstanley> deirdrelee: can we complete the earler issue

<annette_g> The zero was for the filter

<annette_g> I don't care if we have it or not

<newton> @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

<phila> issue-245?

<trackbot> issue-245 -- To include filters in the summary to sort BPs according to Benefits or Challenges -- raised

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/245

<annette_g> I would like to see the BPs in the sidebar, so you can navigate to them easily

<PWinstanley> 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

<ericstephan> +1 to Laufer

<PWinstanley> ...I think that we have a format problem around the numbering,

<PWinstanley> deirdrelee: we will come back to that

<hadleybeeman> @phila, will ReSpec let us do what annette_g is suggesting?

<annette_g> no, I don't want the filter

<Caroline_> +0

RESOLUTION: Not to filter BPs by challenges and benefits

<newton> close ISSUE-245

<trackbot> Closed ISSUE-245.

<yaso> I think it will be bad for the UX. Some of the BPs has huge names like " Use persistent URIs as identifiers of datasets"

<PWinstanley> deirdrelee: can we close that issue

<yaso> The list will take almost half of the screen horizontally...

<PWinstanley> 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

<Caroline_> thank you for this explanation phila

<PWinstanley> deirdrelee: issue #247

<phila> issue-247?

<trackbot> issue-247 -- How to test dataset discoverability? -- raised

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/247

<PWinstanley> newton: there is a test 'how to test the automatic discoverability' . we don't know how to test

<yaso> sure, deirdrelee

<PWinstanley> BernadetteLoscio: we say that user agents shoul dbe able to automatically discover the dataset. How do we test?

<PWinstanley> ...this is BP #2

<deirdrelee> http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#metadata

<PWinstanley> 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'?

<yaso> +q

<PWinstanley> BernadetteLoscio: I think the idea is synonymous in this case

<annette_g> We're asking ourselves the wrong question. The BP is not about discoverability; it's about metadata. That's what you need to test.

<PWinstanley> ...testing is not clear ....

<ericstephan> 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

<newton> We need to test if the machine-readable metadata is there. Is that right, @annette_g?

<annette_g> "check that metadata is included with the dataset"

<PWinstanley> deirdrelee: from what annette_g says, the test is to see if descriptive metadata is provided or not

<ericstephan> that makes more sense annette_g

<annette_g> discoverability is a "benefit", not a BP

<ericstephan> using schema.org and publishing metadata to commericial search engines is an example of discoverable metadata to me

<deirdrelee> +1 to annette_g

<annette_g> we could identify some descriptive metadata fields that all datasets should have and tell people to grep for them.

<PWinstanley> 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

<newton> @annette_g did you see the test of BP1? I think it would be quite the same for the BP2...

<ericstephan> 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

<annette_g> @newton, it's just more specific

<PWinstanley> laufer: I agree with annette_g that the BP is about provoiding descriptive metadata. If we have a standard way to describe then we have an approach to metadata

<PWinstanley> hadleybeeman: I don't think data catalogues are scalable. This is imortant to help us get away from data catalogues

<PWinstanley> ...i think it is useful for people using our spec to think about this

<PWinstanley> ...it might be an area to focus on, this metadata might be a way of helping people move away from discoverability portals

<PWinstanley> ...I think discoverability should be part of the description, but the test should be on the metadata

<yaso> * The scribes list is open * https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/ZagrebF2F#Scribing

<annette_g> Just tell people to do: cat mydataset | grep "title"

<PWinstanley> 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.

<PWinstanley> hadleybeeman: add search engines as I see them as proxy for users

<deirdrelee> PWinstanley: is there anything that we can pick up from the VID vocabulary,

<hadleybeeman> 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

<deirdrelee> ... important thing is not just the discoverability of the datasets, but the relationships as well

<Zakim> phila, you wanted to talk about merged tests

<annette_g> 2 is more specific, has to be discovery metadata

<yaso> +1 to phila

<PWinstanley> 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 BPs then we just do that

<PWinstanley> laufer: I think the answer to phila is to provide metadata for people and machines.

<newton> 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."

<annette_g> Grep can do exactly what we need. cat mydataset | grep "keywords"; cat mydataset | grep "description"

<phila> laufer: The second is a specialisation of the first, so it inherits the tests

<PWinstanley> ...so the 1st BP you have to test that all metadata is provided both for humans and machines

<newton> very similar of the BP1

<PWinstanley> ...the second is a specialisation

<PWinstanley> deirdrelee: the tests that are there are fine, the text of the BP might be updated - hadleybeeman -

<PWinstanley> BernadetteLoscio:i think we should remove the second test, because it is not clear how to do

<PWinstanley> ...so the proposal is to remove the second test

<PWinstanley> ...and should we change the intended outcome to remove the second part

<phila> 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.

<phila> Check if a user agent can automatically discover the dataset."

<PWinstanley> ....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

<annette_g> 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

<annette_g> I don't understand the proposal to remove a line

<annette_g> sorry

<annette_g> ah, yes, that makes sense

<newton> @phila, could you rewrite the proposal?

<PWinstanley> deirdrelee: BernadetteLoscio is suggesting that we only keep that the metadata includes the overall features of the dataset

<annette_g> we could add a machine test, though, if we wanted.

<phila> +1 to laufer

<newton> 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.”

<phila> I see what you mean, annette_g

<PWinstanley> 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 .

<yaso> "automatic discoverability should be available"?

<phila> PROPOSED: Remove the line "Check if a user agent can automatically discover the dataset." from the How to Test section of BP

<PWinstanley> deirdrelee: propsal to remove the second line of the test

<phila> 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

<phila> 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

<newton> +1

<deirdrelee> +1

<PWinstanley> +1

<phila> +1

<BernadetteLoscio> +1

<Caroline_> +1

<laufer> +1

<ericstephan> +1

<annette_g> +1

<Ig_Bittencourt> +1

<PWinstanley> hadleybeeman: I can see wbout the testable / not testable, but removing checking the outcome have we not just removed the BP

<PWinstanley> deirdrelee: it will still be included, but not tied so closely to the user agent

<hadleybeeman> +1

<PWinstanley> hadleybeeman: ok, I'm happy

<newton> close ISSUE-247

<trackbot> Closed ISSUE-247.

<PWinstanley> deirdrelee: close issue and create action

<phila> issue-161?

<trackbot> issue-161 -- Whether we should recommend https by default, rather than http -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/161

<PWinstanley> deirdrelee: issue #161

<PWinstanley> BernadetteLoscio: this is not in the document, it's an old one

<annette_g> I am totally on board with "http everywhere", but it's not specific to data

<newton> action newton to remove the 2nd line of test section and rewrite the intended outcome of the BP2 Provide Descriptive Metadata

<trackbot> 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].

<PWinstanley> hadleybeeman: I think this is out of scope - it is being dealt with elsewhere --- see these two docs from the TAG

<hadleybeeman> https://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/encryption-finding/ https://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/web-https

RESOLUTION: 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

<annette_g> it will happen anyway, because of http2, IMO

<phila> +1 to Hadley - thank you

<phila> close issue-161

<trackbot> Closed issue-161.

<phila> issue-167?

<trackbot> issue-167 -- DCAT lacking in date, time and number formats -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/167

<PWinstanley> deirdrelee: #167

<PWinstanley> DCAT lacking in datetime formats

<PWinstanley> 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?

<PWinstanley> ...it should happen soon

<PWinstanley> newton: What should we suggest to describe date / time

<ericstephan> https://www.w3.org/TR/NOTE-datetime

<PWinstanley> 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

<phila> +1 to Dee

<PWinstanley> 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

<PWinstanley> 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

<PWinstanley> phila: it is all about the standard that the content conforms to

<hadleybeeman> I agree it looks a bit awkward to not have date, etc in the example

<annette_g> 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.

<annette_g> yes

<annette_g> sure

<annette_g> what the heck

<annette_g> exactly

<hadleybeeman> I'm confused... why?

<annette_g> Use ISO-8639 for data and time values

<annette_g> In this case, I'm not sure flexibility is helpful.

<phila> I don't think a sepcific new BP is necessary - a tightened up version of what we have seems right to me

<hadleybeeman> 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

<PWinstanley> 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

<annette_g> if you try to compare with another standard, you get errors

<hadleybeeman> Right, annette_g, but if both datasets use another standard... then they're consistent with each other.

<annette_g> what other standard is there???

<PWinstanley> 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

<deirdrelee> acl laufer

<deirdrelee> issue-167

<trackbot> issue-167 -- DCAT lacking in date, time and number formats -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/167

<PWinstanley> 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

<ericstephan> its not about standards, its more about micro format consistency to me

<phila> There's that horrible month/day/year thing, annette_g ;-) Joking aside, it's obviously common in datasets

<annette_g> https://www.w3.org/TR/NOTE-datetime

<PWinstanley> newton: we are not recommending a standard, we are looking for a term

<PWinstanley> 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

<annette_g> https://xkcd.com/1179/

<hadleybeeman> (Amused to note that we've been arguing about ISO 8639:2000 - Glass-reinforced thermosetting plastics :) I think we meant ISO 8601)

<PWinstanley> phila: I think we are talking about being able to handle nuancesof the formats that are used for data formats

<newton> close ISSUE-167

<trackbot> Closed ISSUE-167.

<PWinstanley> deirdrelee: proposal to use 'conforms to'

<annette_g> no vote??

<phila> PROPOSED: For BP3, just use dcterms:conformsTo and leave it at that. Close issue 167

<hadleybeeman> +1

<newton> +1

<Caroline_> +1

<annette_g> is this vote about the datetime format?

<phila> This is about how we say which date time format has been used

<PWinstanley> 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

<yaso> +1

<annette_g> -1

<deirdrelee> +1

<Ig_Bittencourt> +1

<PWinstanley> -0

<newton> it's not the format of the value itself, it's about the specific property

<laufer> +1

<PWinstanley> +1

<annette_g> I think data and time are an exception to the typical case.

<BernadetteLoscio> +1

<phila> PWinstanley: I'm happy if the example shows how to use dcterms:conformsTo (for e.g. to point to ISO8601)

<ericstephan> +1

<annette_g> There is an agreed-upon standard with virtually no competition.

<BernadetteLoscio> yes Peter! that's the idea

<phila> Yes, annette_g, that's not the issue. It's how we show that it has been used

<annette_g> It's important enough for xkcd comics

<annette_g> !!

<phila> XKCD927 is scorsched on my mind

<annette_g> yes

<annette_g> hey, I"m getting fast at it

<yaso> scribe: yaso

<PWinstanley> 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?

<PWinstanley> ...there isn't a vocab for anything other than 8601

<hadleybeeman> 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

<PWinstanley> ...we need a way to describe this

<annette_g> 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.

<annette_g> I'm okay with leaving a new BP out now. Thanks Phil!

<phila> I guess so annette_g, yes

<annette_g> +1 to Laufer, it is not a metadata issue

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

<ericstephan> 1457948104 is epoch, I want a way to tell people this number means something. Julian date is another example meteorologists use

<phila> PROPOSED: For BP3, just use conformsTo and leave it at that. Close issue 167

<annette_g> +1

+1

<newton> +1

<ericstephan> +1

<deirdrelee> +1

<hadleybeeman> +1

<phila> +1

<BernadetteLoscio> +1

<Ig_Bittencourt> +1

<PWinstanley> +1

<laufer> I am just illustrating. I think we have to tell what standard is being used

<laufer> +1

RESOLUTION: For BP3, just use conformsTo and leave it at that. Close issue 167

<phila> close issue-167

<trackbot> Closed issue-167.

<phila> issue-195?

<trackbot> issue-195 -- Provide data up to date -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/195

deirdrelee: so, next is issue-195

BernadetteLoscio: it's about BP 24, raised by annette_g

<annette_g> so old, I don't remember what the issue was

BernadetteLoscio: from june 2015

<annette_g> yes

issue-203

<trackbot> issue-203 -- Status of UK URI design guidelines -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/203

<annette_g> Here's my original note: Provide data up to date

<annette_g> * 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.

<annette_g> It may have been rewritten since then

phila: BP 11
... years ago, (?) wrote a pdf about URI design, very useful. there's another version of the doc, on a github repo

<annette_g> I think BP24 is okay now, that can be closed.

phila: github repo is not persistent necessarily
... so I don't know how to solve that
... temptation to leave it as it is, but I don't know

hadleybeeman: I'm looking at the BP now, don't see any references

<phila> It's in the table above the issue

hadleybeeman: i think that there's some useful stuff in that guide but is not persistent
... this doc should be economical on references

deirdrelee: could we invite them to add a note?

<annette_g> *lol*

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
... is the heritage that I'll leave for my son

<annette_g> *this is all so ironic*

phila: so hadleybeeman how about we link to Github doc and say at the doc that is not normative

deirdrelee: so the proposal is to link to the doc at github

<phila> PROPOSED: To link to the PDF (as now) and provide a link to the GH repo in BP11

+1

<deirdrelee> +1

<BernadetteLoscio> +1

<ericstephan> +1

<Ig_Bittencourt> +1

<Caroline_> +1

<laufer> +1

<phila> +1

<annette_g> +1

<hadleybeeman> +0

RESOLUTION: To link to the PDF (as now) and provide a link to the GH repo in BP11

hadleybeeman: we don need to care about intellectual property here, right?

phila: is not a normative thing.
... we are not, in any way, affecting the BP pointing to that
... I think we can link to that pdf because it is to what people point, it's well done, on github, perfectly readable

<phila> ACTION: phila to update BP 11 table to link to the PDF and the GH update. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/03/14-dwbp-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-245 - Update bp 11 table to link to the pdf and the gh update. [on Phil Archer - due 2016-03-21].

hadleybeeman: I think we should explain more clearly that is not normative

deirdrelee: can we just use them as references?

phila: I don't think that I could make it any more suscint

<newton> close ISSUE-203

<trackbot> Closed ISSUE-203.

sping newton

(sorry newton, hexchat problems)

<annette_g> I think Hadley is making sense

deirdrelee: any comments?

phila: i can do it, bu need examples

deirdrelee: hadleybeeman would you do that?

<phila> close action-245

<trackbot> Closed action-245.

<phila> ACTION: hadley to rewrite BP11, in particular the way the external refs are included [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/03/14-dwbp-minutes.html#action03]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-246 - Rewrite bp11, in particular the way the external refs are included [on Hadley Beeman - due 2016-03-21].

<phila> issue-226?

<trackbot> issue-226 -- Should we remove the Reuse benefit? -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/226

deirdrelee: reuse is all of them, should we just remove?
... maybe we can just update the diagram to reuse in the green box

<annette_g> +1 to deirdrelee

<phila> http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#bp-benefit

<phila> http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#bp-benefits

phila: what concerns me is that if we follow Dee's suggestion, we will repeat what is already there
... if the groups wants me to do it, I'm happy to do that

BernadetteLoscio: it's just one update in the diagram

deirdrelee: I suggest not removing it

Caroline_: we will keep the table, so the simple will be there, but we will keep it in the general table

<phila> 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)

<annette_g> +1

+1

<Caroline_> +1

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
... maybe one will reuse because trusts the data, because is readable, etc
... so reuse its a consequence

Caroline_: for example, for same BP the only benefit is reuse

laufer: reuse is in all of our best practices

Caroline_: yes, that's the point
... you'll see that all of them have reuse
... but some of them only have reuse

<annette_g> Is there an *ility that applies to the ones that only list reuse?

laufer: I think that where there's only reuse, it because something is missing
... when you only have the reuse, the reason is missing

+1 to laufer about something is missing

<BernadetteLoscio> +1 to Deirdre

deirdrelee: I think that for a BP doc there is no problem to be redundant

<phila> 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)

<deirdrelee> +1

<annette_g> +1

<hadleybeeman> +1

<laufer> +1

<phila> +1

<Caroline_> +1

<PWinstanley> +1

<newton> +1

<ericstephan> +1

<Ig_Bittencourt> +1

<BernadetteLoscio> +1

+1 but with laufer's observations that those BPs that has only reuse should be carefully reviewed

RESOLUTION: 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)

<newton> close issue-226

<trackbot> Closed issue-226.

<annette_g> I have to go to sleep

<hadleybeeman> sleep well, annette_g :)

<ericstephan> dream new bps

<ericstephan> ok

<annette_g> did people see that the issue on real-time access can be closed?

<ericstephan> :-)

<annette_g> I should say "data up-to-date"

<annette_g> night!

<hadleybeeman> :)

<annette_g> 3

<annette_g> I have to sleep now, can discuss tomorrow

<Caroline_> have a good night!

<annette_g> great

the linkk for the scribe list https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/ZagrebF2F#Scribing

<phila> Thank you annette_g for sticking with us so late tonight

<annette_g> np

<ericstephan> are you having nice weather there?

<ericstephan> yes

<ericstephan> yes, that is correct

<ericstephan> :-)

<deirdrelee> we're back

<Caroline_> Issue 229

<phila> issue-229

<trackbot> issue-229 -- Review requirements x BP -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/229

<phila> Not all Reqs are matched to BPs

<Caroline_> deirdrelee: review the use case requirements

<Caroline_> ... and see if they match the BPs

<Caroline_> bernadette: we have requirements that there are no BPs for them

<Caroline_> ... we removed the BP about creating vocabularies

<Caroline_> ... in this case we have a requirement without a BP, but that is because we realized it would be out of scope

<Caroline_> deirdrelee: we dont'have to address all requirements

<Caroline_> ... I will go to trough the requirements and check if there is some that we nedd to address

<Caroline_> phila: you could add a section to the Use Cases Documents

<Caroline_> ... and link to the BP

<Caroline_> Issue-229 closed

<trackbot> Closed Issue-229.

<phila> ACTION: deirdrelee to fill in the blanks in table at http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#requirements [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/03/14-dwbp-minutes.html#action04]

<trackbot> Error finding 'deirdrelee'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/users>.

<Caroline_> issue-239

<trackbot> issue-239 -- machine-readable standardized data formats - serialization data formats - dataset formats -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/239

<phila> ACTION: lee to fill in the blanks in table at http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#requirements [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/03/14-dwbp-minutes.html#action05]

<trackbot> 'lee' is an ambiguous username. Please try a different identifier, such as family name or username (e.g., dlee8, klee5).

<phila> ACTION: deirdre to fill in the blanks in table at http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#requirements [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/03/14-dwbp-minutes.html#action06]

<trackbot> 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].

<Caroline_> laufer: I was reviewing the data format BP

<Caroline_> ... there is a BP to provide the dataset in a standardized data format

<deirdrelee> Best Practice 14: Use machine-readable standardized data formats

<Caroline_> ... we use the term standards and formats as if would be only one level of standard

<Caroline_> ... we could call serialization standard data format

<Caroline_> ... we are not talking about a dataset of schema

<Caroline_> ... we have another level of format in this document

<Caroline_> ... I think this not appear only in this BP

<Caroline_> ... it is a thing that cross all the documents

<Caroline_> ... I talked with the editors and we decided to include a paragraph in the introduction

<Caroline_> ... the 1st phrase is "A general best practice to publish Data on the Web is to use standards."

<newton> http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#intro (5th paragraph)

<Caroline_> ... the following phrases are in the introduction

<deirdrelee> paragraph included in introduction: http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#intro

<Caroline_> ... this paragraph says that we are talking about standards

<Zakim> phila, you wanted to talk about profiles

<Caroline_> phila: the idea of it is not a XML it is a XML schema

<Caroline_> ... ??? phila please help to complete what you said

<Caroline_> laufer: phila could you add that in the paragraph that I wrote?

<Caroline_> phila: we think this other level will be there

<phila> scribe: Caroline_

BernadetteLoscio: laufer was talking about the libary standard

phila: we don't have yet

<ericstephan> http://www.unidata.ucar.edu/software/netcdf/conventions.html

ericstephan: the unidata use a convention
... you hace a lot of different people with different approaches
... just to let you know

deirdrelee: should we accept the paragraph or not
... it is in the current version

laufer: it is to accept the idea in the paragraph

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]

<newton> Caroline_: it's the 5th paragraph in the introduction

deirdrelee: can we close this issue?

close issue-239

<trackbot> Closed issue-239.

<phila> issue-240?

<trackbot> issue-240 -- To consider a new bp around numeric accuracy. comes from sdw's concern about useless extra decmimal places -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/240

issue-240

<trackbot> issue-240 -- To consider a new bp around numeric accuracy. comes from sdw's concern about useless extra decmimal places -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/240

laufer: I think this is in the paragraph that I wrote

phila: the issue came up in the spacial data on the web WG
... one of their issues is the size o data

<ericstephan> +1 phila

phila: the diference betweeen precision and accuracy
... if it says I was born on 19 February
... it is accuracy
... if it says I was born on 19 February of 1963 at 12pm it is precise

<hadleybeeman> +1 to phila: This is a useful distinction

<newton> Caroline_: if you @phil could do that BP would be nice.

<newton> ... yesterday we reviewed some BPs and this subject came up in our discussion

laufer: I don't agree with this new BP

<phila> ACTION: phila to write a BP around accuracy and precision, the pitfalls of false accuracy etc. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/03/14-dwbp-minutes.html#action07]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-248 - Write a bp around accuracy and precision, the pitfalls of false accuracy etc. [on Phil Archer - due 2016-03-21].

laufer: I think this is an especialization
... I think it is important

<phila> Apologies, but I need to step away for a short time

laufer: my example of a standar was to show that if someone use a standard he/she might say that the information is a standard
... this procedure might be external

BernadetteLoscio: I agree with laufer because it is a specific domain

deirdrelee: maybe it could go to data quality

phila: I will try that

<Ig_Bittencourt> Which BP?

<ericstephan> I am talking

<newton> We can't hear you

<laufer> Hi Eric, are you in the line

<hadleybeeman> I can hear Eric

<hadleybeeman> Is your speaker working?

we cannot hear hadleybeeman

<hadleybeeman> I'm talking :)

we cannot hear ericstephan

:(

<ericstephan> Our mics aren't working

<hadleybeeman> We can hear each other, eric and I

we lost the soundd

<ericstephan> I can hear Hadley and she can hear me

<hadleybeeman> I think you might have lost your speaker, in Zagreb

we cannot hear neither of you

now we hear

:)

thank you! :)

<hadleybeeman> :)

ericstephan: my question is that if it is only mentioned in the data quality vocabulary

<newton> s/wuality/quality/g

ericstephan: I am not sure how that would be conveyd

deirdrelee: my suggestion is to include in the data quality BP
... ot in the vocabulary

<ericstephan> I'm sorry I didn't hear correctly

deirdrelee: in the example section of the data quality in the BP document

laufer: you need to put it in somewhere
... I just think it shouldn't be put in our document

<ericstephan> I am on mute, I hear the same thing hadleybeeman

laufer: I think it is out of scope

<deirdrelee> hmm, no

BernadetteLoscio: on thing is to specify
... another is to use the data quality vocabulary to have a dimension to talk about the accuracy

<deirdrelee> i increased sound here

<deirdrelee> now?

ericstephan: I think of what phila said is that the RFC you only share what your data can describe
... if you are trying to look between 2 cities and you have to go down on google maps for accuracy
... I think you can't stand behind accuracy

deirdrelee: can we close this issue

<ericstephan> could we vote?

<ericstephan> on something?

deirdrelee: should we include a new BP or not?

<ericstephan> yes!

deirdrelee: the proposal would be not to include a new BP

laufer: we have to things: one is to have a new BP to say that we need precision
... this would be a new BP
... deirdrelee suggested to put this in the example of the data quality BP

<Ig_Bittencourt> PROPOSED: Not to include a new BP on numeric accuracy, but instead to add it as an example in Data Quality BP

<yaso> and now, hadleybeeman ?

laufer: I was saying that put this in an example would not be a solution
... this should be a BP, but not in our group
... it should be in the SDW BPs
... it is too specifc

PWinstanley: it also aplyes for..

<diana> q

<yaso> I'm trying to fix the input manually, hadleybeeman

,,, we need to have this idea of what point the data is stupid or relevant

<ericstephan> Yes PWinstanley I agree

diana: when you are providing data you have no idea of the precision

<yaso> let me know if it gets any better, please, hadleybeeman

diana: accuracy it is no precision
... if you have a data with 10cm you should provide it because someone might use it

laufer: this is a problem of data on the web?
... I think it is a specific domain

BernadetteLoscio: maybe this type of information (cm, mm, parameters in genereal) it is for the publisher to say
... the data format, the numerical former, is it part of the locale parameters?

<Ig_Bittencourt> PROPOSED: Not to include a new BP on numeric accuracy, but instead to add it as an example in Data Quality BP

BernadetteLoscio: it is similar with the discussion we had beforee

<laufer> -1

<yaso> and now?

<ericstephan> +1 btw happy Pi day

<laufer> -1

<ericstephan> no, sorry just a lot of noise

<yaso> now?

laufer: I think this is an important BP, but not for our document

<hadleybeeman> okay... Maybe I'll drop off for now and just watch on IRC.

laufer: if we have this in the data quality is okay, but it is out of scope
... to have a BP for that

<BernadetteLoscio> we can hear you!

<Ig_Bittencourt> 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

<deirdrelee> +1

<laufer> +1

<deirdrelee> sound guy in

<BernadetteLoscio> +1

<PWinstanley> +1

<Ig_Bittencourt> +1

<yaso> +1

<ericstephan> thank you for the help!

+1

<deirdrelee> hadleybeeman ericstephan do you agree with proposal?

<hadleybeeman> I'm really not sure. Probably...? :)

<newton> +0

RESOLUTION: 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

<hadleybeeman> I'm not against it. So do carry on.

<ericstephan> I think that is okay +0.5

<yaso> (I'll leave the sound with "the guy")

<ericstephan> It will be sufficient

newton: it is a issue and we need a answer and provide a guidance about it

deirdrelee: we can add a comment in the issue and leave it open for now

BernadetteLoscio: how can we provide a general guideline for this
... we could say something about it in another place of the document, specifizing that it is domain specific

issue-160

<trackbot> issue-160 -- Should we add at BP about subsetting data? -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/160

BernadetteLoscio: we don't have a BP related with subsetting data
... we had a lot of discussion by email
... some BPs of SDW are related to it
... the issue is if should we add a BP about it or not

<ericstephan> I thought we decided to not pursue that

<ericstephan> in the last meeting

<deirdrelee> hadley, eric can u hear us?

<deirdrelee> can you tal

<deirdrelee> ywez

<Ig_Bittencourt> YES

<deirdrelee> let us know if you can hear testing :)

<ericstephan> ok

<deirdrelee> or tapping

<ericstephan> no sounds at all at this point

<deirdrelee> tee hee

<ericstephan> :-)

we are not saying anything right now. Everyone is waiting to fix the mic

pause!

<yaso> can you hear beats on the mic?

<hadleybeeman> no

<ericstephan> no

newton: I don't remember what we decided about subsetting data

<ericstephan> hearing static

newton: does anyone remember?

ericstephan and hadleybeeman we are trying to remember what was discussed about subsetting data

<hadleybeeman> mintues re subsetting: https://www.w3.org/2016/03/11-dwbp-minutes

do you remember?

thank you hadleybeeman

<deirdrelee> hadleybeeman: was there decisions in last friday's meeting abut subsetting?

<hadleybeeman> I think annette_g was going to write something for the group to review?

we should approve this minutes

<hadleybeeman> But she had the weekend in which to do it.

<ericstephan> 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.

<hadleybeeman> Because we knew there wasn't much time left for additions

laufer: we have a section about data access

<ericstephan> 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

laufer: we have a BP that says taht you have a link to provide all the data

<hadleybeeman> I think so, ericstephan. And annette_g was reluctant to let it go.... she really wanted to try.

laufer: we do not say what API should provide

<ericstephan> that's right

<ericstephan> she did want to try to put something together

laufer: it is out of our scope to say what is the group of data

<hadleybeeman> Oh no wait, she was more excited about the other topic on Friday. But she offered to try subsetting too.

laufer: you need to provide access to all data and you have an API

<ericstephan> Is this something we can table until Annette can join again?

BernadetteLoscio: I think it is worth reading the minutes of last minutes
... if I understood correctly the idea it is not go deeper on this discussion

deirdrelee: we will talk about it tomorrow morning
... when annette is there
... let's read the minutes to prepare for it
... before lunch let's see the comment tracker
... in order to go to candidate recommendation we must answer the comments
... try to close them

hadleybeeman and ericstephan are you following the IRC?

<hadleybeeman> pretty much, caroline_

<hadleybeeman> thanks :)

<newton> https://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/68239/WD-dwbp-20150625/

we will talk about subsetting tomorrow morning

now we will discuss the comment tracker

<yaso> you hear us now, hadleybeeman ?

<hadleybeeman> no, nothing yaso

<yaso> beatings

<hadleybeeman> We can still see you all though. :) WebEx is working

great! :)

I think they are fixing the mic

<yaso> ok, thanks hadleybeeman, the guy will try another solution

we are deciding about what comment to start discussing

<hadleybeeman> ok

<BernadetteLoscio> https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Comment_tracker_status

<ericstephan> I think I am hearing moving around

we will use the link BernadetteLoscio put https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Comment_tracker_status

<hadleybeeman> 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.

okay

we will talk about the comments that have a proposed resolution already

<ericstephan> agreed, thank goodness for irc

:)

<deirdrelee> https://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/68239/WD-dwbp-20150625/3057

deirdrelee: we will start with https://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/68239/WD-dwbp-20150224/3051

<newton> Caroline_: the comment is about the difference between the BP8 and BP18

<newton> ... Erik, says that they are very similar

<hadleybeeman> we can hear something!!!

<ericstephan> Yeah I can hear

BernadetteLoscio: the BP about vocabuaries we don't have anymore
... 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.

<hadleybeeman> wait -- the sound is gone. :( We could hear bernadette

<newton> 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

it is gone hadleybeeman

<yaso> hadleybeeman, are hearing us now?

that is why we proposed to say the problem is solved

<ericstephan> rats, it was great for a couple of minutes

no

<ericstephan> we are back

<yaso> hearing now, ericstephan ?

<ericstephan> yes

<yaso> no static, hadleybeeman

<yaso> ?

<hadleybeeman> no... Phila has just joined webex, and we could hear him

<yaso> phila effect: he is back, the sound is back

<ericstephan> much better

Next comment https://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/68239/WD-dwbp-20150625/3062

<newton> action to Caroline_ to answer comment 3051 from Eric Wilde (https://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/68239/WD-dwbp-20150224/3051)

<trackbot> Error finding 'to'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/users>.

<newton> action Caroline_ to answer comment 3051 from Eric Wilde (https://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/68239/WD-dwbp-20150224/3051)

<trackbot> Error finding 'Caroline_'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/users>.

<newton> action Caroline to answer comment 3051 from Eric Wilde (https://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/68239/WD-dwbp-20150224/3051)

<trackbot> 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].

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.

<yaso> hadleybeeman and ericstephan, tell me if you are hearing beats

<yaso> and now do you hear deirdrelee speaking?

<hadleybeeman> no

<newton> 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)

<trackbot> 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].

<ericstephan> hmmmm I can hear phila

phila: is trying to fix the mic issue

one more comment: https://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/68239/WD-dwbp-20150224/3038

See: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-wg/2015Jun/0084.html. This comment should be discussed with Eric Stephan.

ericstephan: could you read it there and comment on IRC?

<newton> Caroline_: the comment is about feedback and data preservation

<ericstephan> yes

<newton> ... the proposal is to move this discussion to the DUV

<newton> ... it's a comment from Andrea Perego, from SDW

<ericstephan> Sorry let me look at what you mentioned Caroline_

thank you ericstephan

we think it is resolved

but if you may take a look just to make sure! :)

deirdrelee: is proposing to have a lunch break now

are you going to be here and hour from now?

so they guys are trying to fix the mic

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
... would that be okay?

we are having a pause for lunch :)

<deirdrelee> ericstephan:

<deirdrelee> what time suits you for DUV?

<deirdrelee> ericstephan, are you there?

<deirdrelee> hadleybeeman, ericstephan you there to test sound?

<deirdrelee> we think it's fixed?

<hadleybeeman> deirdrelee, I'm here

<hadleybeeman> I think ericstephan went to bed

<deirdrelee> on webex

<hadleybeeman> dialing in

<deirdrelee> ok :)

<deirdrelee> can you hear anything?

<hadleybeeman> I can hear echoey background noises

<hadleybeeman> I can see you talking, deirdrelee -- but can't hear anything from you

<deirdrelee> are you talking?

<hadleybeeman> From WebEx, it looks like all the sound is coming in through phila's computer

<deirdrelee> ok :)

<hadleybeeman> I can hear the test test test

<hadleybeeman> Not sure if he can hear me?

<deirdrelee> ok, last time, say sth?

<hadleybeeman> I can still hear you... crystal clear

<deirdrelee> we're back

open actions

<deirdrelee> https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/open

<phila> action-121?

<trackbot> 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

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/121

<newton> close action-121

<trackbot> Closed action-121.

<yaso> "overtaken by the events" is the phrase.

<deirdrelee> action-141

<trackbot> action-141 -- Deirdre Lee to Coordinate with chairs to establish timetable for f2f meeting -- due 2015-02-27 -- CLOSED

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/141

<deirdrelee> action-144

<trackbot> 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

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/144

<phila> scribe: laufer

<deirdrelee> action-146

<trackbot> action-146 -- Sumit Purohit to Examine Different Aspects of Feedback -- due 2015-04-17 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/146

<phila> action-146?

<trackbot> action-146 -- Sumit Purohit to Examine Different Aspects of Feedback -- due 2015-04-17 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/146

BernadetteLoscio: we can close 144 because in already talk about dct:language and we do not need to talk more about this

<newton> close action-144

<trackbot> Closed action-144.

BernadetteLoscio: we can also close this issue because we have already talk a lot about feedback

<newton> close action-146

<trackbot> Closed action-146.

<newton> action-147

<trackbot> action-147 -- Bernadette Farias Loscio to to add a bp for structural metadata -- due 2015-04-20 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/147

BernadetteLoscio: we can close 146

<newton> close action-147

<trackbot> Closed action-147.

BernadetteLoscio: we have a bp for the issue 147. we can close it

<newton> action-148 ?

<trackbot> action-148 -- Yaso Córdova to Include a definition of 'a standard' in the glossary -- due 2015-04-20 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/148

<deirdrelee> BernadetteLoscio: action-147 is addressed by bp 4

BernadetteLoscio: we do not have the definition of standard in the glossary and yaso will answer about this later

<newton> deirdrelee: skip action-148 for now

BernadetteLoscio: I solve this issue. Is done.

<newton> BernadetteLoscio: I wrote to Andrea, action-150 cna be closed

<phila> BernadetteLoscio: Wrote to Andrea, so close 150

<newton> close action-150

<trackbot> Closed action-150.

<newton> action-155

<trackbot> action-155 -- Phil Archer to Write to danbri in response to comment 3006 -- due 2015-04-21 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/155

<phila> act.ion: phila to explicitly invite danbri to review the doc when next published

<newton> action-156

<trackbot> action-156 -- Deirdre Lee to Change should to must in http://www.w3.org/tr/dwbp-ucr/#r-sensitiveprivacy -- due 2015-04-21 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/156

<phila> close action-155

<trackbot> Closed action-155.

<newton> close action-156

<trackbot> Closed action-156.

<newton> deirdrelee: we decided to don't have the RFC 2119 terms anymore

BernadetteLoscio: we decided not to use SHOULD, MUST etc...

<newton> action-173

<trackbot> action-173 -- Gisele Pappa to Create bp for data enrichment -- due 2015-04-21 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/173

<newton> action-171

<trackbot> action-171 -- Bernadette Farias Loscio to to add all public comments to comment tracker -- due 2015-04-21 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/171

<phila> BernadetteLoscio I did 171

<newton> BernadetteLoscio: I did it. It's done.

<newton> close action-171

<trackbot> Closed action-171.

BernadetteLoscio: 171 is done

<newton> action-173

<trackbot> action-173 -- Gisele Pappa to Create bp for data enrichment -- due 2015-04-21 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/173

<newton> BernadetteLoscio: Gisele did this. Can close the action.

<newton> close action-173

<trackbot> Closed action-173.

BernadetteLoscio: 173 is done too.

<newton> action-176

<trackbot> action-176 -- Phil Archer to Incorporating citations in Dataset Usage Vocabulary -- due 2015-05-01 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/176

<newton> phila: that was done by DUV editors.

<phila> DUV already includes citations now so we can close 176

phila: this has been done by DUV team (citations)

<newton> close action-176

<trackbot> Closed action-176.

<newton> action-177

<trackbot> action-177 -- Bernadette Farias Loscio to Putting Dataset Usage Vocabulary in Github -- due 2015-04-24 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/177

<newton> close action-177

<trackbot> Closed action-177.

<newton> action-179

<trackbot> action-179 -- Sumit Purohit to Identifying Mechanisms Dataset Usage Vocabulary -- due 2015-05-01 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/179

<newton> BernadetteLoscio: I think he didn't do that. We don't have this on the vocabulary yet.

<newton> ... we have some examples, but this is something else

BernadetteLoscio: We have some examples but I think we need something else

<newton> deirdrelee: is Sumit still involved in DUV?

<newton> BernadetteLoscio: should ask Eric, I'm not sure

<newton> action-181

<trackbot> action-181 -- Yaso Córdova to Review csv spec -- due 2015-05-15 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/181

<newton> close action-181

<trackbot> Closed action-181.

<newton> close action-182

<trackbot> Closed action-182.

<Ig_Bittencourt> laufer: I reviewed but i did not publish anything

<newton> action-185

<trackbot> action-185 -- Eric Stephan to Create template for feedback on dqv and duv together with all editors -- due 2015-07-24 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/185

I did not strong objections to teh csv documents

<newton> BernadetteLoscio: It's about how to get feedback about our vocabularies

<phila> Glad to hear it laufer!

BernadetteLoscio: the idea is to have templates for feedbacks

<newton> ... so he was planning to do a template to send to everybody in order to get feedbacks

<newton> deirdrelee: this action is overtaken by events

<newton> close action-185

<trackbot> Closed action-185.

<newton> action-186

<trackbot> action-186 -- Eric Stephan to Target specific groups to ask for feedback on duv -- due 2015-07-24 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/186

<newton> deirdrelee: he did it

<newton> BernadetteLoscio: yes, he did it

<newton> close action-186

<trackbot> Closed action-186.

eric did the action

<newton> action-189

<trackbot> action-189 -- Eric Stephan to Update to Data Vocabulary document required based on resolved issues 169, 170, 171, 172 -- due 2015-07-31 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/189

<phila> issue-169?

<trackbot> issue-169 -- Should usage be specified at the Dataset or Distribution level? -- closed

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/169

<newton> deirdrelee: close because it is done

<phila> issue-170?

<trackbot> issue-170 -- Should we use Software or earl:Software instead of duv:Application? -- closed

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/170

<newton> close action-189

<trackbot> Closed action-189.

<phila> issue-171

<trackbot> issue-171 -- Should dct:creator or doap:developer be used instead of duv:developedBy? -- closed

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/171

<newton> action-184

<trackbot> 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

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/184

<newton> action-191

<trackbot> action-191 -- Peter Winstanley to Create examples following his suggestions on action 184 -- due 2015-08-14 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/191

<newton> deirdrelee: it's done. can close.

<newton> close action-191

<trackbot> Closed action-191.

<newton> action-193

<trackbot> action-193 -- Caroline Burle to Send draft agenda ideas to the chairs -- due 2015-08-21 -- CLOSED

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/193

<newton> action-148

<trackbot> action-148 -- Yaso Córdova to Include a definition of 'a standard' in the glossary -- due 2015-04-20 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/148

<newton> BernadetteLoscio: we have the glossary in the document, but we don't have the 'standard' definition in it

<newton> phila: it's not a simple thing to have... the uk gov has been working on a definition of standard for two years

<newton> BernadetteLoscio: if there is a definition, we can use, but not to define it

<newton> phila: if there isn't a definition, we won't define it

<newton> deirdrelee: leave this action-148 open for now

<newton> ... yaso will make it and mail the group

<newton> action-196

<trackbot> action-196 -- Eric Stephan to Create updated timetable for duv in wiki -- due 2015-08-28 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/196

<newton> BernadetteLoscio: it's done.

<newton> clsoe action-196

<yaso> http://dublincore.org/documents/2012/06/14/dcmi-terms/?v=terms#Standard definition for standard at dublincore

<newton> action-198

<trackbot> 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

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/198

<newton> BernadetteLoscio: the tracker was messed up

<phila> 198 was done

<newton> deirdrelee: it's done

<newton> close action-198

<trackbot> Closed action-198.

<phila> action-200?

<trackbot> 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

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/200

<newton> deirdrelee: close action 200, overtaken by events

<newton> close action-200

<trackbot> Closed action-200.

<newton> action-202

<trackbot> action-202 -- Giancarlo Guizzardi to Share examples around service level agreement activity -- due 2015-10-01 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/202

<Caroline_> scribe: Caroline_

antoine: João Paulo should had get a reminder, but we don't need it anymore

<newton> deirdrelee: there's another example in the document

<newton> close action-202

<trackbot> Closed action-202.

<newton> action-203

<trackbot> 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

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/203

<scribe> scribe: newton

deirdrelee: action 203 is done

close action-203

<trackbot> Closed action-203.

action-205

<trackbot> action-205 -- Bernadette Farias Loscio to Tabulate requirements against the bps that address them -- due 2015-10-02 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/205

BernadetteLoscio: it's done

close action-205

<trackbot> Closed action-205.

action-207

<trackbot> action-207 -- Gisele Pappa to Modify the data enrichment best practice to cover data as well as metadata -- due 2015-10-02 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/207

BernadetteLoscio: I think she did it.

deirdrelee: overtaken by events
... or done

close action-207

<trackbot> Closed action-207.

<ericstephan> Hi

<Caroline_> we can hear you ericstephan :)

<Caroline_> can you hear us?

action-196

<trackbot> action-196 -- Eric Stephan to Create updated timetable for duv in wiki -- due 2015-08-28 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/196

<ericstephan> Yeah I can hear everyone again!

<Caroline_> great! :)

deirdrelee: close action 196 because it's done

close action-196

<trackbot> Closed action-196.

action-208

<trackbot> action-208 -- Antoine Isaac to Contact oa wg to see whether they would consider adding dqv motivation -- due 2016-04-01 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/208

<ericstephan> thank you thank you!

antoine: let's keep it, because it's another iteration
... leave it open for now

action-209

<trackbot> action-209 -- Eric Stephan to Contact oa wg to see whether they would consider adding duv motivation -- due 2015-10-16 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/209

deirdrelee: we can close this?

<Caroline_> scribe: Caroline_

<scribe> scribe: Caroline_

antoine: is it a general question?

ericstephan: it is more than a general question
... it would be good to keep it

<newton> scribe: newton

deirdrelee: action 209, keep it open for now
... the due date is April 1st

<trackbot> Please see <http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc> for help.

action-210

<trackbot> 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

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/210

deirdrelee: ericstephan, bernadette, do you know if it has been done?

<phila> trackbot, issue-209 due 2016-04-01

<trackbot> Sorry, but issues don't support set_due changes.

ericstephan: I don't think if it's done

<phila> trackbot, action-209 due 2016-04-01

<trackbot> Set action-209 Contact oa wg to see whether they would consider adding duv motivation due date to 2016-04-01.

deirdrelee: Sumit is still working on the doc? Could assign this action to him? Is it relevant?

<phila> deirdrelee: Is Sumit still involved? We're looking at 210

<phila> ericstephan: Pls reassign it to me

<phila> trackbot, action-210 due in 3 weeks

<trackbot> 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.

deirdrelee: ericstephan, there's another action assigned to sumit
... do you know if it's done or isn't relevant anymore?

ericstephan: it's not relevant anymore

deirdrelee: we can close it. overtaken by events.

close action-179

<trackbot> Closed action-179.

action-212

<trackbot> action-212 -- Deirdre Lee to Follow up on issue-94 with comsode project -- due 2015-10-16 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/212

<phila> action-212?

<trackbot> action-212 -- Deirdre Lee to Follow up on issue-94 with comsode project -- due 2015-10-16 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/212

BernadetteLoscio: the issue-94 is closed, and we have the link to the minutes when it was closed

deirdrelee: so the action can be closed

close action-212

<trackbot> Closed action-212.

action-213

<trackbot> action-213 -- Eric Stephan to Look into issue 148 and restart the conversion or close the issue -- due 2015-10-16 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/213

BernadetteLoscio: the issue is closed

deirdrelee: close the action-213

<phila> action-214?

<trackbot> action-214 -- Newton Calegari to Create the assignment table for relate people to work on examples -- due 2015-10-16 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/214

<phila> 214 was done

newton: was done

<phila> action-216?

<trackbot> 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

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/216

close action-214

<trackbot> Closed action-214.

close action-213

<trackbot> Closed action-213.

<phila> action 216 overtaken by events

<trackbot> Error finding '216'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/users>.

deirdrelee: close action-216, overtaken by events

<phila> close action-216

<trackbot> Closed action-216.

close action-216

<trackbot> Closed action-216.

action-218

<trackbot> action-218 -- Phil Archer to Add the example for the data identifiers section -- due 2015-11-13 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/218

phila: did that

<phila> That was done

close action-218

<trackbot> Closed action-218.

action-220

<trackbot> 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

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/220

close action-220

<trackbot> Closed action-220.

action-224

<trackbot> action-224 -- Carlos Laufer to Send a list of things to be added to/addressed in the duv document -- due 2015-12-18 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/224

deirdrelee: it's done

close action-224

<trackbot> Closed action-224.

action-227

<trackbot> 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

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/227

antoine: cof cof

<phila> trackbot, 229 due 2016-03-15

<trackbot> Sorry, phila, I don't understand 'trackbot, 229 due 2016-03-15'. Please refer to <http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc> for help.

<Caroline_> scribe: Caroline_

<phila> trackbot, action-229 due 2016-03-15

<trackbot> Set action-229 Send bp editors implementation-questionaire template due date to 2016-03-15.

antoine: don't close action-227
... I can continue the action

<phila> trackbot, action-230 due 2016-03-15

<trackbot> Set action-230 Create process for gathering evidence of implementations, e.g. wiki, google form due date to 2016-03-15.

antoine: change one example in BP 17

deirdrelee: action-227 leave it open

<scribe> scribe: newton

<phila> trackbot, action-227 due 2016-04-01

<trackbot> 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.

action-229

<trackbot> action-229 -- Phil Archer to Send bp editors implementation-questionaire template -- due 2016-03-15 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/229

phila: the due date for that is tomorrow
... tomorrow afternoon
... the two groups will be together

deirdrelee: leave action-229 open, because will be done and discussed in the 2nd F2F

action-230

<trackbot> action-230 -- Caroline Burle to Create process for gathering evidence of implementations, e.g. wiki, google form -- due 2016-03-15 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/230

deirdrelee: it's related to the previous one. leave it open.

<phila> 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

action-231

<trackbot> action-231 -- Annette Greiner to Talk to eric wilde about open comments and reach resolution -- due 2016-02-19 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/231

BernadetteLoscio: she sent a message about this.
... I updated the comments on the table
... and Annette saw that and left some comments on that table
... maybe is better to ask her tomorrow

action-233

<trackbot> action-233 -- Newton Calegari to Check if the turtle and rdfa examples are validated -- due 2016-03-04 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/233

action-234

<trackbot> action-234 -- Newton Calegari to Check if the turtle and rdfa examples are validated -- due 2016-03-04 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/234

close-234

<phila> RDF translator might be useful newton

close action-234

<trackbot> Closed action-234.

deirdrelee: action-234 is duplicated to 233

action-235

<trackbot> action-235 -- Newton Calegari to Review annette's test for bp8 -- due 2016-03-04 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/235

<phila> BP8 Provide a version indicator

antoine: I reviewed the vocabulary aspects of it and sent a message
... but it needs a complete review

deirdrelee: action-235 and action-236 can be closed, it's done.

Caroline_: we gonna review all the BPs again

close action-235

<trackbot> Closed action-235.

close action-236

<trackbot> Closed action-236.

action-237

<trackbot> 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

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/237

action-238

<trackbot> action-238 -- Newton Calegari to Include rdfa to the human-readable example of strucutral metadata (dwbp-example.html) -- due 2016-03-11 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/238

newton: it's done

<phila> trackbot, action-233 due 2016-04-01

<trackbot> Set action-233 Check if the turtle and rdfa examples are validated due date to 2016-04-01.

close action-238

<trackbot> Closed action-238.

action-239

<trackbot> action-239 -- Peter Winstanley to Check on using an example about real-time data for bp23 -- due 2016-03-18 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/239

<phila> ongoing

<phila> trackbot, action-239 due 2016-03-25

<trackbot> Set action-239 Check on using an example about real-time data for bp23 due date to 2016-03-25.

action-240

<trackbot> action-240 -- Annette Greiner to Work on the bp for enriching data before the f2f -- due 2016-03-18 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/240

<phila> Annette's work on enrichment

deirdrelee: it's done

close action-240

<trackbot> Closed action-240.

action-241

<trackbot> action-241 -- Hadley Beeman to Review bp 22 -- due 2016-03-18 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/241

action-242

<trackbot> action-242 -- Newton Calegari to Follow up on issue 220 -- due 2016-03-18 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/242

<phila> issue-220?

<trackbot> issue-220 -- Should we include a more complexe example to illustrate provenance? -- closed

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/220

newton: not done yet. I need to put the examples

action-243

<trackbot> action-243 -- Caroline Burle to Arrange redseign of the challenges diagram -- due 2016-03-21 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/243

deirdrelee: yaso, any update on action-148?

<phila> Yaso proposes to use the Dublin Core definition of a standard

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

<phila> http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/#terms-Standard

yaso: proposing the Dublin Core definition of standard

<phila> It defines standards as "A basis for comparison; a reference point against which other things can be evaluated."

action-148 ?

<trackbot> action-148 -- Yaso Córdova to Include a definition of 'a standard' in the glossary -- due 2015-04-20 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/148

<phila> trackbot, action-148 due 2016-04-01

<trackbot> Set action-148 Include a definition of 'a standard' in the glossary due date to 2016-04-01.

deirdrelee: we can move to the DQV
... ericstephan, are you ok?

ericstephan: is ok with that

Dataset Usage Vocabulary

<ericstephan> http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/vocab-du.html

<phila> ericstephan: Thanks Uni Zagreb for fixing the audio feed

<laufer> eric talking about the open issues

<ericstephan> • Remove requirements section, parts of it is out of date and inaccurate: https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/219

<phila> issue-219?

<trackbot> issue-219 -- Tying DUV to Use Case requirements. -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/219

<laufer> issue 219

<deirdrelee> iisue-219

<deirdrelee> issue-219

<trackbot> issue-219 -- Tying DUV to Use Case requirements. -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/219

<phila> ericstephan: Purpose was to do more with the UCR section. It's at the bottom of the doc

<phila> ... section 9

<ericstephan> http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/vocab-du.html#duvrequirements

<phila> scribe: laufer

we are working on that now

ericstephan: to remove that section and actually go to the vocabulary overview section

<ericstephan> http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/vocab-du.html#Vocab_Overview

ericstephan: to write how we describe our models

<phila> 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

ericstephan: describing how the duv model is exposed in duv document

<phila> ... our aproach to handling this issue is remove the req section and move some of that documentation into the intro section.

feedback of the group about this way of describing duv model

eric: the list of requirements and the list of use cases were updated in the document

ericstephan: we are missing in the duv model to track metrics

<ericstephan> • We are missing tracking usage counts. Can we use the data quality metrics in the data usage vocabulary?

ericstephan: we need to work with dqv team to talk about these kind of things

riccardoAlbertoni: I can support eric in that issue

<phila> ACTION: riccardoAlbertoni to work with ericstephan on creating examples of dataset usage counts in the DQV [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/03/14-dwbp-minutes.html#action08]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-251 - Work with ericstephan on creating examples of dataset usage counts in the dqv [on Riccardo Albertoni - due 2016-03-21].

riccardoAlbertoni: I will talk to eric asking the type of examples he want

<ericstephan> o Should the examples in the DUV align with examples provided in the BP document for better readability?

phila: the people want to have a feedback abou who is using the dataset

<phila> phila: I don't think it's up to the DUV to count uses. The user only uses it once

<ericstephan> • Citation: 1) Basic Criteria for a reference, 2) Approach to associate an article or reference to a dataset. 3) Rationale for use of citation.

<ericstephan> • Data Usage: 1) Data usage instructions, 2) Data Usage with Tool, 3) Counting Data Usage with DQ Metrics

<ericstephan> feedback

eric we need more examples of data citations

<phila> 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?

ericstephan: in bp about feedback we need also more examples

<phila> ... Would it be helpful to use the same running example as the BP doc?

<BernadetteLoscio> i think its good!

BernadetteLoscio: agrees with aligning the running examples of the documents

<deirdrelee> +1

<phila> phila: I'd say it's better of the DUV examples were aligned with BP but not essential.

phila: it is not essencial to aling the duv running example to the bp running example

<deirdrelee> q/

phila: but it will be nice to do it

<ericstephan> o The vocabulary overview section should reference examples.

<phila> 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.

<yaso> http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/vocab-du.html#Vocab_Overview

ericstephan: we give ways to link directly to the examples of the duv document

<ericstephan> duv.ttl file, are we declaring any third party vocabularies in our duv.ttl file?

<phila> ericstephan: I think it would be nice to have the vocab in multiple languages

<Zakim> phila, you wanted to say it's OK to add vann:usageNotes

<ericstephan> lol

<scribe> scribe: PWinstanley

<yaso> phila: the turtle, having labels in multiple languages: it's nice. We need translators

<ericstephan> I think we might be able to get support for mandarin and japanese

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

ericstephan: BernadetteLoscio is there anything else?

BernadetteLoscio: no, you did great!

<BernadetteLoscio> thanks a lot ;)

ericstephan: ok, thank you

<phila> ... 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.

phila: I read through the doc. there's a sentence in the intro that includes ....
... and I wonder whether you mean DUV?

ericstephan: I mean DCAT

phila: you use PRISM publication date. What is your reason for this over

<phila> Why prism:publicationdate not dcterms:issued?

ericstephan: it comes from the SPAR ontology

<phila> ericstephan: Recommendation from SPAR

ericstephan: i don't think it would break things to use dcterms:issue

phila: dcterms:issue is what DCAT uses, but using prism just looks odd

ericstephan: it was the first time I came across prism, and I've only seen it in PDF files

phila: personally I 'd use dcterms:issued
... when you use rdfs:comment for the usage tool, did you consider ***

ericstephan: we are looking for something aligned with DCAT - I would rather use that if it was available

phila: how would you specify the name of the usage tool?

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
... it's a balance between a text file giving a description or an existing RDF term
... I looked at various applications, other public domain applications, and all of them had their own format.
... so we might just let people define it as they feels is right, rather than being prescriptive

phila: I would prefer you to choose one
... rdfs label & comment is normal,

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.
... we need to define how to make a human comment.

antoine: I don't know if we should enforce consistency
... we have strong reason in skos as they are skos concepts, even though using them doesn't require that they are skos concepts.
... maybe something to consider

<BernadetteLoscio> i think we can consider using skos

<phila> phila: We'll leave it to the editors to decide/explain thinking

ericstephan: it's something we canexplain as part of the vocabulary

yaso: I think its a decision the editors can make

deirdrelee: is this a DUV?

<phila> deirdrelee: In terms of next steps, deadlines etc.

deirdrelee: next steps.... the goal is to have a version that the board can decide on

<phila> ... Our goal here is that by the time we finish here in Zagreb, we should be pretty much finished

<phila> ericstephan: I think we're talking about finalising examples, making some corrections in the text.

<phila> ... Model is now stable

ericstephan: what we're talking about here is finalising examples. I see the models staying as they are - they are in final form

<phila> ... in final form now.

<phila> deirdrelee: So maybe we have 2 weeks to finish off.

<phila> deirdrelee: our end date is July.

<phila> ... Do we say this is the last version from us? No more comments etc.?

<phila> ericstephan: One of the things I'm doing is getting with some people at FORECE2015 in April, Datacite efforts on Portland

<phila> ... Also meeting with another person lookingn at how you apply metrics to citations to show value.

<phila> ... 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.

<phila> deirdrelee: I'd be included to put a final deadline on this. Maybe end of March?

<BernadetteLoscio> yes!

<phila> ericstephan: I guess an action is to put together/update the timetable

<phila> ACTION: stephan to create time table for DUV progress/iterations [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/03/14-dwbp-minutes.html#action09]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-252 - Create time table for duv progress/iterations [on Eric Stephan - due 2016-03-21].

<phila> 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

<phila> ... but the DQV is pretty stable

<phila> ... So the next round of comments may affect the BP doc

<phila> deirdrelee: If that's happening, and if you're going to workshoips, Eric... we shoud put out both vocabs in a couple of weeks

<ericstephan> This sounds great

<phila> deirdrelee: So the feedback at those events is part of final feedback

<phila> deirdrelee: Anything else on DUV?

<phila> ericstephan: It's done and I'm done

<BernadetteLoscio> thanks a lot Eric!!!

<phila> PROPOSED: Vote of thanks to Eric for being awake

<phila> +1

<riccardoAlbertoni> bye

<BernadetteLoscio> +1

<Ig_Bittencourt> +1

<yaso> +1!

<ericstephan> bye take care! Talk to you tomorrow

RESOLUTION: Vote of thanks to Eric for being awake

<JoaoPauloAlmeida> is IRC being used for the Zagreb meeting?

<phila> Details at https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/ZagrebF2F#Dial_in_Details JoaoPauloAlmeida

Data Quality Vocabulary

<phila> scribe: phila

<deirdrelee> we're back

DQV

antoine: Before we start... maybe a reminder of the ,ain building blocks
... At the root there is either a Dataset or Distribution

<JoaoPauloAlmeida> I can hear perfectly, Deirdre and Phil, thanks

antoine: First one if the idea of a quality measure

<riccardoAlbertoni> to people on irc we are using the diagram at http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/images/DataQuality0.2.8.svg

<JoaoPauloAlmeida> I thought the session would be about DUV. Have the plans changed?

antoine: 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.
... Secone one is not so much about numbers, more subjective. Use web annotation model. Used OA to express quality feedback
... This is where we connect with DUV
... Also more formal certificates
... Fimnally we have the notionof standard, saying that a dataset conforms to a dcterms:Standard
... especially the notion fo a quality policy.
... this is an issue to talk about later.

deirdrelee: So does this address things like how to represnet how the dataset represents time
... Can you say that the values of a property use ISO8601 for example

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

deirdrelee: I think that overlaps with what we were saying about BP, locale parameters

antoine: The example we have is from geoDCAT-AP, saying that the dataset is copmatible with @@@ spec
... So we need to go through the issues that we have.
... Issues were noted in the doc so we're more or less going through the issues as they appear in the doc.

-> http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/vocab-dqg.html DQV doc

<deirdrelee> http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/vocab-dqg.html

issue-181?

<trackbot> issue-181 -- Should we have only the existing class dqv:QualityMeasureDataset (formerly known as daq:QualityGraph) or keep the new class dqv:QualityMetadata? -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/181

riccardoAlbertoni: These 2 classes are called different things
... Quality Graph is about RDF, Quality Metadata is all the things you can say in the DQV (scribe unsure if this is accurate)

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
... The dataset is defined as a dact:Dataset - or can we have another kind of dataset?
... Maybe Data Cube is not a dcat:Dataset?
... You have a formal constraint in the RDF?

antoine: We have a couple of domain and ranges
... 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

laufer: I'm not so sure.

antoine: We try to avoid making unnecessary inferences

riccardoAlbertoni: We decided to leave open whether you're talking about a Dataset or a Distro - no formal constraint.

antoine: I can't find any domain or range for Distribution or dataset in the RDF

<riccardoAlbertoni> 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.

riccardoAlbertoni: Talks through the proposed text

<scribe> ACTION: riccardoAlbertoni to add proposed text above in the minutes on 2016-03-14 and close issue 181 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/03/14-dwbp-minutes.html#action10]

<trackbot> 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].

close issue-181

<trackbot> Closed issue-181.

Issue-199?

<trackbot> Issue-199 -- Is dqv:QualityPolicy a subclass of dcterms:Standard? -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/199

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
... 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
... You may not want to call a policy a standard.
... That's why I don't like the dcterms defn of standard as it's too loose.

deirdrelee: You're implying that a quality policy could be a standard, but not necessarily

laufer: Maybe we can have a direct link from the Dataset to the Quality policy?

antoine: Shows updated disgram with odrl:target from a quality policy and the dataset

laufer: If one decides that his policy is a standard, he will make the link

<Zakim> phila, you wanted to talk about ODRL

phila: You know that ODRL is being put through the rec Track now? Would that affect DQV?

antoine: I think we were going to highlight that. It's only in an example here so we'll be OK.
... It won't change anything in the DQV itself

riccardoAlbertoni: So we can close this issue

close issue-199

<trackbot> Closed issue-199.

deirdrelee: The decision is that it's not a sub class

<scribe> ACTION: antoine To turn the text of issue 11 into a Note in the doc [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/03/14-dwbp-minutes.html#action11]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-254 - Turn the text of issue 11 into a note in the doc [on Antoine Isaac - due 2016-03-21].

issue-222?

<trackbot> issue-222 -- Multiple/Derived values of a metric -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/222

riccardoAlbertoni: We decided not to represent multiple values of a metric
... because of the way QB works.
... 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
... We think it's still possible to represent the metric that has a value connecting... @@@ ??
... 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.
... ... we are able to supplor metircs that add multiple values.

antoine: Most of the cases we have seen in the comments asking for multiple values, we can represent as derived values.
... 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

deirdrelee: So you haven't seen any cases where there's a need for independent measures of the same metrics.

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.

laufer: If we are talking here about relations between metrics. A relation |-| 2 metrics
... We can make relations between metrics.
... 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?

antoine: AS part of the resolution for this issue is to rese the generic relation prov dervied from
... If we have identified that one metric can be derived from another, quality annotation can be derived from a metric etc.
... So we're thinking about a general derivation framework
... People can use it as they see fit.
... Can't predict all the scenarios

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

<scribe> ACTION: riccardoAlbertoni to create an example using prov:wasDerivedFrom in the DQV, close issue-222 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/03/14-dwbp-minutes.html#action12]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-255 - Create an example using prov:wasderivedfrom in the dqv, close issue-222 [on Riccardo Albertoni - due 2016-03-21].

antoine: We have already gone back to the commenters (A week ago)
... The mail has been sent, they can complain of course and we can reopen the issue if needs be.
... That was Werner and Andrea p

issue-201?

<trackbot> issue-201 -- Should we exploit predefined instances of oa:Motivation to further characterize the UserQualityFeedback purposes? -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/201

riccardoAlbertoni: We had quality annotations and quality annotations are one kind of annotation

deirdrelee: We're skipping 223?

riccardoAlbertoni: We're skipping some

deirdrelee: Will we come back to it?

riccardoAlbertoni: We have some solutions but we're not sure yet. We want to focus on the issues for which we have proposals.
... So quality annotation can be user feedback or a certificate.
... We were thinking of specialising the user feedback.
... It could in interesting to distinguish between questions about the data and classifications of it
... To solve this issue, we're going to add an example
... we have differnet actions to consider.
... First is to add a nite to say to the suer that they can, if need to, add their own motivations
... Any annotation is connected to a motivation. In DQV we add a specific motication of quality assessment
... We plan to use oa:motivatedBy -> dqv:QualityAssessment
... 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.

<scribe> ACTION: riccardoAlbertoni To add a Note saying that new motivations can be defined but that this should be done following the Open Annotation guidelines [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/03/14-dwbp-minutes.html#action13]

<trackbot> 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].

antoine: The issue is whether we're going to subclass annotation rather than oa:Motivation
... We're suggesting to add guidelines to show how to add finer-grained motivations, rather than defineing sub classes of annotation.

laufer: So Motivation is for humans. here you are adding something for machines - classification of the text that is in the annotation.
... A motivation is a kind of commenet for humans.
... 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

riccardoAlbertoni: You are thinking about represneting the whole thread?
... I think the OA work already handles tracking threads.
... So we can rely on OA for that.

antoine: DQV is a framework for making quality metadata more interoperable. It's going to be hard to share across all applications.
... They'd have differnet properties in differnet contexts I think.
... We don't want to tell people how to build their application.
... You can imagine a very complex sutuation that ultimately comes down to an annotation on quality.
... This seems to match what the OA group did.

laufer: yes, but this is the beginning of the track.
... We're not continuing the track - so why begin it?

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
... 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.

deirdrelee: is this a differnet issue?

antoine: No, it's a side issue for the current one.
... We were afraid that if we didn't do this, people would associate oa:Motivation with category

deirdrelee: The DQV quality assessment...

antoine: It's still not in the diagram, but it's in the model as an instance of oa:Motivation.
... It appears in the spec but we haven't created a table for it

deirdrelee: So it shoujld be described somewhere.

antoine: There's a passing reference in the text

deirdrelee: Do you see it as part of the model or an example of how to use it?

antoine: The model

<scribe> ACTION: antoine to add a table describing the resource dqv:QualutyAssessment [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/03/14-dwbp-minutes.html#action14]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-257 - Add a table describing the resource dqv:qualutyassessment [on Antoine Isaac - due 2016-03-21].

phila: if it's a term in the vocab, it should have a table

antoine: But it's an instance, not a class. You can data without it.
... Hmm... maybe we can. OK.
... We'll make it more explicit.

<riccardoAlbertoni> 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,

<scribe> 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 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/03/14-dwbp-minutes.html#action15]

<trackbot> 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].

<scribe> ACTION: riccardoAlbertoni to add examples showing user feedback for questioning and classification. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/03/14-dwbp-minutes.html#action16]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-259 - Add examples showing user feedback for questioning and classification. [on Riccardo Albertoni - due 2016-03-21].

close issue-201

<trackbot> Closed issue-201.

issue-205?

<trackbot> issue-205 -- Representing dimensions and categories SKOS Concepts -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/205

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

<deirdrelee> +1

<scribe> ACTION: to ensure text makes clear that dimensions anad categories are defined as subclasses of skos:Concept [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/03/14-dwbp-minutes.html#action17]

<trackbot> Error finding 'to'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/users>.

<scribe> ACTION: riccardoAlbertoni to ensure text makes clear that dimensions anad categories are defined as subclasses of skos:Concept [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/03/14-dwbp-minutes.html#action18]

<trackbot> 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].

close issue-205

<trackbot> Closed issue-205.

issue-204?

<trackbot> issue-204 -- Introducing abstract classes and properties -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/204

antoine: This is the most difficult issue so far
... This is about keeping dimension, categories etc. as abstarct classes that should never be instantiated. Sub classes should be crreated that are instantiated.
... They are two abstract to be useful. Also, subclasses can define what the mertics are
... Proposal is

<riccardoAlbertoni> 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]

<riccardoAlbertoni> 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]

<riccardoAlbertoni> 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.

antoine: Our objection is that we're not sure this this modelling trick works. The OWA messes it up.
... So for constraints, we'd rather postpone and see what SHACL comes up with.
... So we'd like to capture constraints but we're not sure that the daQ is the right way

<JoaoPauloAlmeida> RSSAgent, pointer

antoine: So we intend to havae a Note to point people to SHACL

<JoaoPauloAlmeida> thanks, phila

<scribe> ACTION: riccardoAlbertoni to add a Note to the effect of the decision about using SHACL rather than abstract and sub classes. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/03/14-dwbp-minutes.html#action19]

<trackbot> 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].

close issue-204

<trackbot> Closed issue-204.

issue-202?

<trackbot> issue-202 -- Relation between dqv, iso 19115/19157 and geodcat-ap -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/202

riccardoAlbertoni: We had somments from Andrea Perego about the expression of a dataset is following DCAT-AP standard etc.
... 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
... Idea is not to include this is DQV but to refer to GeoDCAT-AP as an example
... 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...

deirdrelee: Not sure I'm understanding this - we're talking about metadata conformance, or data?
... Why is the distinction being made?

<scribe> ACTION: riccardoAlbertoni to turn an existing paragraph on representing conformance and non-conformance into the Note pointing to GeoDCAT-AP [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/03/14-dwbp-minutes.html#action20]

<trackbot> 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].

close issue-202

<trackbot> Closed issue-202.

issue-225?

<trackbot> issue-225 -- Levels of granularity for dimensions and categories -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/225

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
... We said that by using skos:Concepts, we allow specialisation by broader/narrower

riccardoAlbertoni: We can't use concept for metrics though because...

More discussion of broader/narrower but not for metrics

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.
... Mail was sent a week ago.

close issue-225

<trackbot> Closed issue-225.

issue-191?

<trackbot> issue-191 -- Backward compatibility with DAQ and Data Cube -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/191

riccardoAlbertoni: Propose to postpone

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

deirdrelee: We could make it an action to do the comparison

<scribe> ACTION: antoine to assess compatibility of DqV with Data Cube by 2016-04-15 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/03/14-dwbp-minutes.html#action21]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-263 - Assess compatibility of dqv with data cube by 2016-04-15 [on Antoine Isaac - due 2016-03-21].

close issue-191

<trackbot> Closed issue-191.

trackbot, action-262 by 2016-04-15

<trackbot> Sorry, phila, I don't understand 'trackbot, action-262 by 2016-04-15'. Please refer to <http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc> for help.

trackbot, action-262 due by 2016-04-15

<trackbot> 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.

issue-243?

<trackbot> issue-243 -- Representing precision and accuracy -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/243

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

action-248?

<trackbot> action-248 -- Phil Archer to Write a bp around accuracy and precision, the pitfalls of false accuracy etc. -- due 2016-03-21 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/248

antoine: So we suggest we create an example showing precision and accuracy based on Andrea's e-mail
... We also plan to use a special instance of dqv:Dimension to represent precision, based on the ISo categories
... 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
... The comes back to the very first thing about the DQV which was meant to be quality and granularity

deirdrelee: That makes it more special

antoine: So do we want to create a URI for the dimension of precision in the DQV namespace?

PROPOSED: That we will add a spedcific dimension of precision to the DQV namespace
... That we will add a specific dimension of precision to the DQV namespace

<deirdrelee> +1 (for now)

antoine: We can check when we create the example

+1 for now

laufer: I havea a comment about dqv:QualityAssessment is an instance of oa:Motivation
... so you have rdfs:type oa:Motivation?

antoine: we have the action to create a table about that

<laufer> +1

antoine: So we'll create two classes there, or maybe roll back to 1 depending on feedback

<riccardoAlbertoni> +1 for now

<Ig_Bittencourt> 0

<PWinstanley> +1

Ig_Bittencourt: I'm not sure why need that, I'd need to look back at the thread.

RESOLUTION: That we will add a specific dimension of precision to the DQV namespace

antoine: So we can close issue243

close issue-243

<trackbot> Closed issue-243.

close action-248

<trackbot> Closed action-248.

<scribe> ACTION: phila to ensure that the BP doc refers to the example for representing precision and accuracy in the DQV [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/03/14-dwbp-minutes.html#action22]

<trackbot> 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].

deirdrelee: Wraps up the meeting for the day
... Offers some of tomorrow's time to DQV
... First thing we'll do APIs etc with Annette, maybe before lunch we can regroup around DQV and BP
... So time line is to close off DQV by end of April.
... Still lots of strands to pull in.

newton: We have a couple of new issues for BP but we should be able to resolve them tomorrow

Dinner this evening is at 19:00 Žlica i Vilica, Kneza Mislava 13

See https://www.google.hr/maps/place/%C5%BDlica+I+Vilica/@45.809031,15.9769658,15z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x4765d655ce0eb7ef:0x49f04319f72721b0

deirdrelee: Thanks the scribes, thanks to editors. Thanks to Share-PSI

Adjourned