See also: IRC log
<deirdrelee> trackbot, start meeting
<trackbot> Meeting: Data on the Web Best Practices Working Group Teleconference
<trackbot> Date: 10 June 2016
<phila> chair: Deirdre
<phila> agenda: https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20160610
<hadleybeeman> I'm sending regrets; am caught in meetingsā¦ sorry all! Miss you!
<deirdrelee> PROPOSED Approve last week's minutes https://www.w3.org/2016/06/03-dwbp-minutes
<newton> +1
<deirdrelee> 0
<antoine> +1
<annette_g> +1
<riccardoalbertoni> 0
<Caroline_> 0
<phila> +0 WASN'T THERE
RESOLUTION: Approve last week's minutes https://www.w3.org/2016/06/03-dwbp-minutes
<deirdrelee> agenda: https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20160610
<phila> scribe: PWinstanley
<phila> scribeNick: PWinstanley
<annette_g> is anyone talking?
<Caroline_> now deirdrelee is talking it is much better :)
<annette_g> better!
each of the editors to comment on the feedback they have received already as we're coming to the end of the timeperiod
<Caroline_> https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Status_of_comments_about_the_last_call_working_draft
Caroline_: main thing about the comments is the status wiki - started discussing #6 on the last call. and today we'd like to cover #7 and #8
The overall level of comments is good, but there are not many - hope that there will be more in the final few days
There are still some comments received that have to be added to the wiki
<newton> this week we delivered a presentation about DWBP and we invited a lot of people to give feedback
ericstephan: A colleague was interested in providing comments - I will follow up to ensure that they are received in time
Caroline_: deadline is Sunday at 12:00
ericstephan: No comments on DUV. I have been trying to respond to comments I mentioned last week
antoine: we received internal comments from Jeremie and Makx. we are still discussing them. there are no comments from outside -
deirdrelee: should we be tracking the internal ones?
phila: doesn't do any harm - if possible do it, but it is not mandatory
antoine: do comments from the group need to be formally handled?
phila: it needs to be recorded
antoine: can editors raise issues using the issue tracker?
phila: yes
... Makx's comment - that both vocabs have contributed to the
open annotation work, is needing work to ensure that the
references are still valid
riccardoalbertoni: my understanding is that we are referring to the right docs of the open annotation group, but the namespace is the old one - and I think they are going to use this for the new work. This is a reasonable assumption because the new doc doesn't refer to any change of namespace
<newton> q
newton: re: JSON/LD BP - based on a comment that came in.
the comment is not on the table - but to a message I got a couple of weeks ago
<annette_g> it's not a comment about one of our docs, right?
<Caroline_> We will forward to the public list and include it on the Wiki table https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Status_of_comments_about_the_last_call_working_draft
<phila> This documnet
newton: the message came directly, not on the public list. the message asked if it was appropriate for the group to publish bp about json-ld APIs
deirdrelee: It seems a bit inappropriate because we have not had time to consider it within the BP work
phila: we have less than 2 months to go before the charter expires
<Zakim> phila, you wanted to say no
phila: this group has too much work to include this work by Greg. he can make a member submission. There may be a home in future
<Caroline_> I forward Greg's message to the group
<ericstephan> There seem to be a general need for best practices like this in the W3C its beyond the scope of the group
annette_g: I agree with phila . We could have a list of work to take forward, but if we were to take it on we would need to add expertise to the group
<Caroline_> +1 to Annette's suggestion to put it on the whish list
newton: bernadette, Caroline_ and
I agree that although we like the approach we cannot take this
on and will write to Greg to tell him this
... there will be a group starting if people want to join
<ericstephan> +1 to newton
Caroline_: the data access (#6) - has been discussed a little already but we don't have a resolution yet
<Caroline_> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-comments/2016May/0027.html
Caroline_: the discussion was only preliminary
phila: ... looking at andrea's
email - he makes a valid point and gives us an easy method to
work with this. People wanting registration just want to track
usage. Andrea's extension to the existing BP looks manageable
to me, it is something that we've not covered
... providing a mechanism to collect data using the DUV is an
alternative/better solution
... so we can act on what Andrea is saying
<phila> issue-153?
<trackbot> issue-153 -- Should open/closed data be addressed in the Data Usage Vocabulary? -- open
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/153
ericstephan: I agree with phila / looking again at the open/closed data issue, whatever we do needs to be coordinated - there needs to be just one message
<ericstephan> Privacy interest group report "Do not track"... https://www.w3.org/2012/dnt-ws/report.html
<ericstephan> I'm hearing wind or breathing
<annette_g> could somebody mute? I hear breathing
<laufer> the important thing is to say in our document that a publisher has to say to the user what she will do will data that is collected
<laufer> thing*
newton: this week we talked with Dr ??? from RJ who works for a Swedish co. that made a portal of data collected from public orgs
<annette_g> +1 to Laufer
newton: there is data enrichments and then made available via APIs that need registration.
<Caroline_> s/thing*
newton: it is not a good thing for open data, but it is how the world is
<laufer> I suggest to put a paragrah in the data access introduction
<ericstephan> +1 deirdrelee
deirdrelee: we agree with Andrea's comment - we should acknowledge it and provide some guidance - a few sentences in BP #23 should be sufficient
<annette_g> +1 deirdrelee
<laufer> Ok
<laufer> I prefer a paragraph in the introduction and not in the BP
Caroline_: maybe we can make a proposal following laufer suggestion (which we couldn't hear clearly enough to scribe, so laufer is going to write it)
<laufer> what do you think about?
<ericstephan> +1 deirdrelee in the bp
<laufer> because the BP is about an explanation of data that it is not avaiable...
<annette_g> +1 to having it in the BP
<phila> ACTION: caroline to reply to Andrea to say that we'll include his suggestion to talk about registration and will refer to the DUV as an alternative route. Always important to say what will be done with the registration data [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/06/10-dwbp-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-284 - Reply to andrea to say that we'll include his suggestion to talk about registration and will refer to the duv as an alternative route. always important to say what will be done with the registration data [on Caroline Burle - due 2016-06-17].
deirdrelee: people will dip in and out of the document, so guidance should be in the BP rather than the introduction
newton: in the BP
<laufer> But this is not data that is not available
<phila> +1 to putting it in a BP
<annette_g> well, it's not available to unregistered people
<laufer> I do not know why to include in this bp
<laufer> I think that if it is not a BP we did not to test this
deirdrelee: the DUV describes this very well, so we don't want to repeat
Caroline_: we could link to the DUV
<ericstephan> That would be great Caroline_
<laufer> This could be a kind of politics of the publisher...
<laufer> I thisk is more linked to a kind of license
deirdrelee: laufer will write a para that will go into the BP
<laufer> think*
<laufer> I will write the paragraph
<annette_g> It is BP22, not 23
<laufer> then we decide where to put it
<laufer> ok
Caroline_: comment #7 about numerical data
<Caroline_> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-comments/2016May/0022.html
<laufer> I will write the paragraph and send by email to the editors
Caroline_: it is to do with inappropriate precision
phila: we have talked about this some times previously.
<laufer> yes, phil... it is not data on the web specific
annette_g: I had thought of this early on, but it is not specific to the web, so I think it is out of scope
BartvanLeeuwen: I know we talked about it previously and thought it was resolved as being out of scope
deirdrelee: we will review earlier meetings, find the resolution agreed and respond to Frans
<Caroline_> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-comments/2016Jun/0000.html
Caroline_: #8, enrichment
... from David.
<Zakim> BartvanLeeuwen, you wanted to pronounce name correctly
annette_g: the best way to think
about this is David's example of precalculated data, accepting
requests to do calculations. The requests are quantifiable. The
data set accretes as missing values are added after people
reaslise that they are missing.
... David recognises that the addition is driven by user
need
phila: seems to me that the key thing is provenance, but it looks as though David is extending this a bit
deirdrelee: we should update the BP?
annette_g: seems reasonable to add a sentence about it
Caroline_: I think it is OK
... we can do that. annette_g to write, or me?
annette_g: if you are clear about it then just go ahead
Caroline_: could you do it annette_g
<deirdrelee> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1a9cOGzWJTIhh2OrAemvWBR8f0rv5xqvL03pJeMrotCo/edit#gid=0
Caroline_: I included a link for the implementation grid.
<phila> Agenda
<newton> https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1YS-rBihjb_mOuTLVxptWuiejDLxd-L4WwK8hXsaSbEM/edit
Caroline_: we started the form to have a better idea about what we are going to do with the questionnaire for the implementation report. We want to make it easy for those testing the BP. We talked last time about who would be the implementers
<newton> We transposed the table into this form in order to make easier for implementors to answer
Caroline_: the test area would be a portal. we would appreciate feedback from the group on the form - is it easy to use?
deirdrelee: reference to evidence is only a dataset or portal, not a policy or guideline?
<annette_g> don't forget to replace the X with a number in the intro
newton: policy is a good thing, but not evidence of implemtation
<newton> we'll annette_g :-)
<laufer> it is an evidence om implementation of our document...
<newton> if you have sofe time, could you give a feedback about the form or suggest modifications if you think it's necessary
deirdrelee: timeframe - what dates are we working to for this? we are only operating until the end of July
phila: do we have a sense of who
we think will be able to provide evidence of implementation? if
we do that's good. Can we in advance identify any BP that we
feel/know we are not going to get >=2 implementations for.
The chances of us finishing CR by end July are tiny
... we need to push for more reviews. We need to arrange a
transition call with the Director (will take 2/52) We need to
show we're making progress. We need to move before the summer
break
<annette_g> summer is already in effect in Berkeley
phila: in reality we're not going to finish CR untill September. We need to have evidence of progress to take to the Director and ask for an extension
<Zakim> Caroline_, you wanted to talk about candidates to implementation
Caroline_: we have been talking
to many people in Brasil - I feel that if we finish the form we
can do a lot of work next week
... do we have to have the implementation period completed
before we go to CR?
phila: CR is when there is proof
of implementation. If we can identify the problem areas then we
mark 'at risk' - if we don't then if we get to CR without the 2
pieces of proof then we are back to working draft
... but if we mark 'at risk' then we can still proceed
Caroline_: each BP has to be tested by 2 organisations or 2 data sets?
phila: we need 2 independent organisations to have proof
ericstephan: I was at Provenance Week last week and I think I can find potential implementers from that. When we are going through it is yes/no or some qualitative estimation of how well it was done?
phila: newton has a yes/no approach but some qualitative comment would be a good addition
deirdrelee: I think this is
do-able before July. All issues and actions closed by next
Friday. Review the form and the BPs for any "at risk". Next
friday we vote to go into transition
... vote to CR on 24th and we have a month to gather
implementations. Discuss/resolve issues on the mailing list
<ericstephan> go deirdrelee go!
Caroline_: any news about IODC?
<annette_g> the form will need to offer a N/A option, in case someone says false by accident and then can't change back to neutral
deirdrelee: nothing official.
<phila> the next WG starts here
deirdrelee: I will write to the list the actions
phila: link to a workshop at the end of November - opportunity to start a new working group
<ericstephan> wow that looks really great
phila: research data is very much in the frame
<annette_g> science!!
<ericstephan> I will start swimming now!
phila: let me konw if you're interested in joining the PC
<riccardoalbertoni> count on me too
<laufer> bye all
deirdrelee: thanks - end of meeting