Data on the Web Best Practices Working Group Teleconference

<deirdrelee> trackbot, start meeting

<newton> hello!

<deirdrelee> hi

<deirdrelee> does anyone know the webex link we should be using?

<newton> I don't know, the link I tried to access is not available

<deirdrelee> me too, there are so many of them at this stage

<newton> Dee

<newton> try this one:

<newton> Access code: 647 415 866

<newton> I'm gonna edit the agenda on the wiki and put this link I

<deirdrelee> cool

<newton> Webex:

<newton> Access code: 647 415 866

<SumitPurohit> Hello Everyone. Sorry for joining the meeting after

<phila> Hi Sumit, good to see you here

<SumitPurohit> Thanks

<Caroline_> Hello SumitPurohit!

<scribe> scribe: hadleybeeman

<phila> chair; deirdrelee

<phila> chair: deirdrelee

deirdrelee: Let's kick off by approving last week's

<deirdrelee> PROPOSED: Approve the minute's of last week's call

<annette_g> hm, the room isn't accepting the room ids I have

<BernadetteLoscio> +1

<Caroline_> +0 I wasn't there

<newton> +1

+1

<PWinstanley> +1

<gatemezi> +0 I wasn't there as well

<SumitPurohit> +0 I was not there

<phila> +1

<annette_g> +1

<deirdrelee> ACCEPTED: Approve the minute's of last week's call

RESOLUTION: Approve the minute's of last week's call

last call for comments of BP Doc & CR

deirdrelee: first, the proposal from my email. During
... While the BP is pretty much complete, we had some
... 1) Issues and actions, though they are reducing and

<laufer> hi all... could someone, please, print the webex link... I

deirdrelee: 2) This version of the BP has changed a lot since
... To get to CR, we have to demonstrate that we have
... Because a lot of the content is new, we weren't
... Phila proposed that, since there used to be a stage
... We thought it would be appropriate now
...Pros: We are being thorough, and give people chance
... Danger of not doing it: if we go straight to CR,
... Not too much feedback on the mailing list

<phila>
...Pros: So we want to discuss this now, and make a plan

<annette_g> +1 for doing last call
...Pros: Editors? Thoughts?

<laufer> please...

BernadetteLoscio: We are okay with this. We discussed
... We are working on the doc. We still have open

deirdrelee: Okay

<gatemezi> +1 for last call

deirdrelee: So today, let's try to close all issues
... Then we can give three weeks of community feedback.
... That's already moving forward, so we need to be

BernadetteLoscio: I think it will be possible. But we

<BernadetteLoscio> +q

deirdrelee: Okay.
... The point then of going to Last Call for 3 weeks

<PWinstanley> I still have to be able to add material on the rivers

deirdrelee: So we have to invite lots of people to review the

BernadetteLoscio: So we will do Last Call, and then we
... During this period, we will address the comments

deirdrelee: Yes

BernadetteLoscio: And we need to freeze the document

deirdrelee: Yes

BernadetteLoscio: So in this period, it's actually two

deirdrelee: If that's realistic?

<gatemezi> I was wondering how are ranked the issues...important to

deirdrelee: phila or hadley?

hadleybeeman: I think that's not enough time for

newton: If we keep it open for three weeks of review,

deirdrelee: That makes sense.

<phila> Then I'll type

<Zakim> phila, you wanted to see if I can make myself heard

<phila> Yes I hear you well

<phila> Grr

<phila> It used to be 3 weeks min for Last Call

<phila> You can put a deadline darte in the status section of the doc

<phila> So you say "Please respond by ??? Date

deirdrelee: Okay, so we'll do three weeks of community

Open issues

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

BernadetteLoscio: I have two important issues to
... The isse about the data reuse section, Issue 248

issue-248?

BernadetteLoscio: [reviews the issue]
... We spoke with Annette about putting the topic in
... And instead of calling it 'Data reuse', we agreed
... We have two issues left. Annette thinks it should
... And laufer says he doesn't agree with the creation
... So that's the first important issue we should solve.

deirdrelee: What do you think should happen?

BernadetteLoscio: As the editors, we think it should

<phila> Here

deirdrelee: And that's in the latest version of the

BernadetteLoscio: We have the three best practices,
... The focus should be Data Usage, as we define in our
... Maybe needs some rewriting, but not a lot.

deirdrelee: So the three points of view: 1) from
... Is that right?

BernadetteLoscio: Yes

deirdrelee: let's hear from annette_g and laufer, and

laufer: To clarify: I think the focus of our best
... So all of our BPs are related to this dataset. Even
... When we talk about reuse, we are taking the focus
... I don't think we need to talk about this new
... It will follow all the best practices.
... Even when we talk about data as feedback, we are
... I think this new proposed section is about the new
... We don't do that in any other bp. We just talk
... To think about this, we have to collect a lot of
... I don't agree with these three BPs. We have BPs in
... We are already providing BPs about data usage.

deirdrelee: Fair point

BernadetteLoscio: I agree with laufer that talking
... but we editors think it's important that we talk
... Over there, the idea is that info about dataset
... We have use cases in our document that show that
... The feedback on our BPs is completely different
... I think it's missing a link with the DUV, which we

<laufer> “Gather feedback from data consumers” and “Provide

laufer: Again, we have 2 BPs to gather information
... These two responsibilites of the publisher — I
... The new section is talking about BPs for the
... I don't agree with doing this.

<ericstephan> Laufer is saying the same thing as Bernadette imo.

<laufer> I am not, eric

newton: For the new BPs, we want to talk not to the
... A publisher who is a consumer as well.

<ericstephan> I think so Laufer, when I am listening to Berna she is

<Zakim> phila, you wanted to ask whether it would work for laufer if

deirdrelee: So maybe rewriting the introduction will

phila: it would work for laufer if the section were

<phila> ie turn it around so it's about what publishers get in return

<phila> see it from publishers' POV

<phila> Keep BPs more or less the same

<BernadetteLoscio> exactly!

<phila> ANd maybe therefore what publishers can *encourage*

<laufer> I we want to expect what to expect from uses we have to

deirdrelee: Apart from laufer, I'm not hearing other
... If the majority feel these should be included, then
... First, does anyone agree with laufer that these are

[silence]

<annette_g> Laufer, have you seen the latest version of the

<phila> Sorry I can't speak. IMO, BPs shoujld be kept (with direct

deirdrelee: So I'm assuming everyone agrees they

<laufer> how about making the negative question

deirdrelee: So, we need to figure out how to make it

<gatemezi> +1 to deirdrelee proposal

annette_g: I'm interpreting what Laufer said... Tell
... And I think it's in scope because of that.
... And not all the BPs are like that. These are a few
... And it'simportant for us to point those out. We
... Big reasons publishers won't trust is that they
... And this will help them on that.

laufer: I think they are publishers. I think in this
... It's not what we have done in other BPs.
... It's different to BPs on publishing.

<riccardoAlbertoni> +1 to consider them in scope even if i see the

annette_g: My attempt in writing these was not to
... I'm not sure what makes it feel like the former?

deirdrelee: We do need to wrap this up.
... laufer, how do you propose to resolve this issue?

<Caroline_> https://www.w3.org/TR/dwbp-ucr/#h4_can-req-usage

Caroline_: As editors, we think we could use the title

<laufer> i am alone... my way of resolving is not what the group

Caroline_: You can see in the Use Cases document, we have what
... So we think it's important to keep them in the

<phila> +1 to Caroline

<laufer> We do not have use cases that talk about issues of reusing...

<newton> +1 to Caroline_

<ericstephan> +1 to Caroline_

deirdrelee: I have an action around mapping use cases

<ericstephan> I'll reuse my +1 once Caroline_ writes the proposal

<laufer> the requirement of reuse derived form the use cases is as a

hadleybeeman: while we're filling time, I will say I

<Caroline_> PRPOSED: to keep the Section Data Usage instead of Reuse

PROPOSED: to keep the Section Data Usage instead of

<BernadetteLoscio> yes...

<annette_g> I did rewrite the intro...

<Caroline_> PROPOSED: to keep the Section Data Usage instead of Reuse

deirdrelee: And add "rewrite the introductory section
... If you agree, please vote

<BernadetteLoscio> +1

<ericstephan> +1

<deirdrelee> +1

<newton> +1

<riccardoAlbertoni> +1

<Caroline_> +1

<gatemezi> +1

<SumitPurohit> +1

<annette_g> -1 to rewrite

<laufer> If I vote -1 what will happen

deirdrelee: Annette_g?

<newton> mabye to write a new paragraph instead of rewriting ?

<Makx> +1

<gatemezi> * laufer nothing

<annette_g> Reusing data is another way of publishing data. It can

annette_g: I think I've already rewritten the intro.

<phila> Test says "Reusing data is another way of publishing data. It

<laufer> -1

@laufer: we can't go ahead without concensus

@laufer, so we'd need to keep talking until we could

<laufer> so I have to vote ) against my will

<laufer> 0

<laufer> It is not what I think

<phila> Sorry but consensus is not the same as unanimity

<phila> In otehr words, no -1s is OK

<phila> Lots of +1s

<annette_g> we have more than one -1 on this

<phila> Consensus breaks when you have strong objections

BernadetteLoscio: We don't want to rewrite the whole
... To align this with the other document.

deirdrelee: @annette_g, would that be satisfactory?

<newton> It's to adjust the Data Usage term in the introduction, not

annette_g: I don't feel like it makes sense to use the
... My thought on titling sections should be more on

q_

BernadetteLoscio: Data Usage in the vocab means what

<Zakim> phila, you wanted to say I think the currente text is right.

<laufer> Usage as a whole is a very huge world

<phila> I think the currente text is right. It explains why we're

BernadetteLoscio: If we use another term, it will be weird with what

<phila> Yes, the intro is what I'm talking about

<phila> Since this is a 'last call', not a CR, issue is OK

<laufer> Best Prcatices for usage is much more difficult than the BPS

<phila> 'AT Risk' not appropriate for this version

hadleybeeman: When we have this kind of disagreement
... We could ask the community for feedback on it. An

<yaso> +1 To deirdrelee

<ericstephan> or rename DUV to DRV jk

deirdrelee: Okay. If we keep the section in, keep the

<newton> me data "reusage"

<newton> \me data "reusage"

<annette_g> works for me

<ericstephan> It is April Fools Day

deirdrelee: would that be an okay resolution?
... Does anyone disagree with that? If not, we'll vote

PROPOSED: we keep the section in, keep the 3 BPs in,

<BernadetteLoscio> +1

<yaso> +1

<riccardoAlbertoni> +1

+1

<annette_g> +1

<Makx> +1

<Caroline_> +1

<phila> +1

<deirdrelee> +1

<laufer> 0

<ericstephan> +1

<newton> +1

<SumitPurohit> +1

RESOLUTION: we keep the section in, keep the 3 BPs in,

deirdrelee: Thanks, Laufer. We acknowledge that you
... Okay. That was issue no 1. What was issue 2?

<BernadetteLoscio> https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/251

BernadetteLoscio: This is an important issue for us

issue-251?

<laufer> Maybe we can ask Mark Harrison to help

BernadetteLoscio: If someone who knows about Data
... and discuss this issue with her and propose a

<BernadetteLoscio> +q

deirdrelee: annette_g, do you want to introduce this

annette_g: This is a topic from 6 months ago.
... I thought we talked about this and decided that the
... and I thought someone was going to rewrite this
... But no one has.

deirdrelee: So are you wondering whether these BPs

annette_g: No, my points are more detailed.
... I thought it was appropriate to keep the one on

deirdrelee: So you're proposing to get rid of the

annette_g: Yes

BernadetteLoscio: I think it's better to get more
... Before making change, it's better to talk about

deirdrelee: It is a pretty major move to delete BPs
... We could propose to create an issue for each of the
... I don't think we can do much else in one week.

annette_g: I'd also be fine if someone wants to

deirdrelee: Any other thoughts?

<phila> I'd need to review

[silence]

<phila> But I worked on them

<phila> with Christophe

ericstephan: Would it be helpful if I asked a few

<annette_g> wrong people

deirdrelee: I suppose so... but a week before we go to

ericstephan: Right. Maybe to put a note in there, in

<BernadetteLoscio> +1 to deirdre

<Zakim> Caroline_, you wanted to talk about the table validating

@ericstephan, it might also be good to specifically

Caroline_: Ig did a great job, reviewing the intended
... And we want to include his revisions.
... He's still working on things we haven't sorted,
... Just to tell everyone we are working on that. And

<annette_g> We aren't writing this for archivists. We should be

<ericstephan> I thought this was for data publishers

deirdrelee: Okay. Only concern is that if people have

<yaso> Guys, I have to go, running out of time for another meeting.

<yaso> Bye all

<ericstephan> bye

BernadetteLoscio: It's important that everyone looks

<annette_g> @ericstephan, right, preservation is not publishing, so I

Caroline_: Other than that, In the table in the google

<ericstephan> annette_g: I guess I need to look at it again...

Caroline_: Is everyone okay finding old versions in a google

deirdrelee: Final issue on the Preservation section —

<annette_g> adding an issue is fine with me

deirdrelee: I just wanted to highlight the link for the
... It would be great if everyone/anyone wants to come.
... Any other business?

<ericstephan> bye all

<phila> Thanks everyone, bye

<BernadetteLoscio> thanks!!!

<gatemezi> bye all

<phila> Busy week ahead...

<phila> Bye

<BernadetteLoscio> ok

<Caroline_> bye! Thank you!

deirdrelee: Let's get all issues and actions closed during this

<annette_g> bye!

<riccardoAlbertoni> bye all !

<laufer> bye all...

<phila> Thanks. My HexChat exports the text but I'm missing some of

<phila> But not while family is waiting to get back on the M62...

<phila> Haver a good weekend

no, of course! Have a wonderful trip!