See also: IRC log
PROPOSED: Approve last week's minutes
<Caroline> +0 I wasn't in the meeting
<riccardoAlbertoni_> +0 (I was not present)
RESOLUTION: Approve last week's minutes
<laufer> hi yaso, all
BernadetteLoscio: yes, we've been through the document and have been making all the changes
<gatemezi> hi all
<yaso> Hi gatemezi
<gatemezi> Hi yaso
BernadetteLoscio: I think we are really near to the final version of the document, and it's time to get feedback from the community.
... thanks to Annette for finding a lot of little things.
... special thanks to Phil for work in correcting the English and improving the text.
<yaso> annette_g: there are still few small thing to fix,
<yaso> ... the email from yesterday, talking w/eric
<ericstephan> real time access
<yaso> ... real time access
<yaso> BernadetteLoscio: they are in the docs already
annette_g: there are still a few small things.
annette_g: real-time stuff with Eric
ericstephan: sorry for getting in my change late. It was changing the implementation text. I used the language Annette provided, and some of the examples in the article you provided.
BernadetteLoscio: anything else to fix?
<yaso> scribe: annette_g
<gatemezi> Annette maybe in PR #396 https://github.com/w3c/dwbp/pull/396/files#diff-0
<newton> maybe it's cache
annette_g: sorry, I was looking at an older version
BernadetteLoscio: do you want to review the real-time implementation?
annette_g: no, at this point we should just move forward
PROPOSED: to publish the Best Practices document
<gatemezi> +1 to annette_g
RESOLUTION: to publish the Best Practices document
<BernadetteLoscio> great! thanks!
<ericstephan> good point laufer
laufer: we should note that
BernadetteLoscio: the turtle file needs to be updated
<riccardoAlbertoni_> Congrats ! and thanks for all the work Bp editors have done ..
<gatemezi> Big thanks to the editors and reviewers
BernadetteLoscio: Is it okay that we make the changes and send to the group?
<riccardoAlbertoni_> yes, ok for me
<BernadetteLoscio> ok! thanks!!!
yaso: I think it's okay. any concerns?
... any concerns about the BP document?
riccardoAlbertoni_: Antoine and I have changed a lot of the draft since the last draft was published of DQV. We have some new contributors.
... main changes: we had a review of the model. quality certificate, quality policy are new.
We borrowed the property wasDerivedFrom from Prov-O
how to express questions about dataset quality, how to express that the dataset is given a quality rating, these kinds of examples were added.
It was reviewed by Andrea Perego.
The section about dimensions was changed to refer to classifications that were normal.
Anyone can invent their own or refer to existing quality dimensions.
We refer to classifications in the quality dimensions, updated the RDF file for the vocab. The only remaining issue needs the BP doc to be final.
yaso: any other thoughts?
yaso: thanks Riccardo and contributors!
PROPOSED: to publish the Data Quality Vocabulary
RESOLUTION: to publish the Data Quality Vocabulary
<newton> congratulations Riccardo and Antoine :-)
BernadetteLoscio: I'd like to ask Annette to take a look at the html page for the API documentation. I changed it based on your suggestions, just to check that it's alright.
annette_g: Sure, thanks!
BernadetteLoscio: thank you!
yaso: next up, DUV
<BernadetteLoscio> its ok ;)
ericstephan: the changes have been thoroughly minor. Most were made and completed in March. One of the things we did in the turtle file was to redefine some third-party classes, so we removed those from the ttl tile. We removed domain and range constraints and added usage recommendations to show how properties might be used instead. The examples all were changed, and they were aligned with the examples in the BP doc. BernadetteLoscio had made some suggesti[CUT]
... we also have some input from the Force11 conference.
<yaso> Hi hadleybeeman
annette_g: can you give detail on the Force11 input.
<yaso> hadleybeeman, I'll be glad to share the task :-)
ericstephan: it was more questions about how they could use it in their own applications. There was some concern about reusing vocabularies and that the model was complex.
<hadleybeeman> sounds good, yaso!
<yaso> great then, go ahead :-D
<yaso> chair: hadleybeeman
<yaso> (muted me so we don't have echo)
ericstephan: I don't know how to deal with a challenge like that. Maybe it's a matter of describing the concepts thoroughly. I contacted Sylvio Peroni, author of the SPAR ontologies. He said he really supported what we did. I think it's a challenge that we're always going to have with regard to adoption.
<yaso> gatemezi, :-) it's the good part on having 3 chairs
<riccardoAlbertoni_> hi hadleybeeman ..
<yaso> poor Zakim :-/
hadleybeeman: sorry, my previous meeting ran over. well done!
... how much more discussion do we need before we vote?
yaso: we were just hearing Eric's explanation about the DUV changes.
hadleybeeman: does anyone have any concerns?
<ericstephan> Great thanks gatemezi
hadleybeeman: Is everyone happy with DUV?
ericstephan: one thing I would like to do but haven't been able to do is show how DUV tracks the BP doc, show the rationale behind what we did.
hadleybeeman: as a separate note or in DUV?
ericstephan: it might be nice to have it in the DUV as a way to cite why we did what we did.
is that odd?
hadleybeeman: personally, if it's something an implementer needs to know to use the vocab or understand it, it goes in the doc. If it's meta-information, it's more useful and clearer in a separate document.
ericstephan: I was thinking of just doing our due diligence to coordinate with our entire effort.
hadleybeeman: I think it depends how thorough you want to be.
... If it's paragraphs per section, that's a separate doc.
ericstephan: it's kind of a table of contents for the overall activity.
hadleybeeman: that's certainly something we can do.
ericstephan: I'd like to show that somewhere
hadleybeeman: yes, we just need to make sure it's addressing needs, doesn't compromise people's ability to use the doc
hadleybeeman: any other comments about this doc?
PROPOSED: to publish the Data Usage Vocabulary
<ericstephan_> zakim isn't sure about me now there is another version of me without the underscore
RESOLUTION: to publish the Data Usage Vocabulary
<newton> ops, :-)
<newton> I'm happy!
<laufer> congrats all, and thanks too. it is a very happy day
hadleybeeman: congratulations to all the contributors!
<ericstephan_> This is a first 3 in one meeting
<BernadetteLoscio> congratulations all!!!
<ericstephan_> close early
hadleybeeman: do we want to work through issues or close early?
<riccardoAlbertoni_> huge victory
yaso: close early
<Caroline> congratulations!!! Great job all!!!
<ericstephan_> thank you!
<yaso> thank you all! Congrats! all voted :-D
<ericstephan_> congratulations and have a good weekend
<yaso> bye all
<riccardoAlbertoni_> thanks all .. have a nice week end
hadleybeeman: everyone's been working really hard. You earned your 12 minutes!
<laufer> bye all
<gatemezi> Thanks chairs hadleybeeman and others
<gatemezi> bye all