12:55:54 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #dwbp
12:55:54 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/06/17-dwbp-irc
12:55:56 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs 351
12:55:56 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #dwbp
12:55:58 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be DWBP
12:55:58 <Zakim> ok, trackbot
12:55:59 <trackbot> Meeting: Data on the Web Best Practices Working Group Teleconference
12:55:59 <trackbot> Date: 17 June 2016
12:56:11 <deirdrelee> RRSAgent, make logs public
13:02:19 <BernadetteLoscio> BernadetteLoscio has joined #dwbp
13:02:52 <RiccardoAlbertoni> RiccardoAlbertoni has joined #DWBP
13:02:52 <annette_g> annette_g has joined #dwbp
13:03:15 <newton> newton has joined #dwbp
13:03:31 <newton> present+ newton
13:03:49 <annette_g> present+ annette_g
13:03:59 <BernadetteLoscio> present+ BernadetteLoscio
13:04:07 <hadleybeeman> present+ hadleybeeman
13:04:16 <hadleybeeman> hadleybeeman has changed the topic to: agenda: https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20160617
13:04:45 <phila> regrets+ PeterW
13:05:05 <deirdrelee> scribe: deirdrelee
13:05:12 <deirdrelee> chair: hadleybeeman
13:05:49 <deirdrelee> PROPOSED: Approve last week's minutes https://www.w3.org/2016/06/10-dwbp-minutes
13:05:56 <deirdrelee> +1
13:06:03 <annette_g> +1
13:06:11 <newton> +1
13:06:20 <RiccardoAlbertoni> +1
13:06:22 <phila> +1
13:06:32 <deirdrelee> RESOLVED: Approve last week's minutes https://www.w3.org/2016/06/10-dwbp-minutes
13:07:06 <hadleybeeman> https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Status_of_comments_about_the_last_call_working_draft
13:07:08 <deirdrelee> TOPIC: Public comments on docs
13:07:35 <RiccardoAlbertoni> present+ RiccardoAlbertoni
13:07:44 <deirdrelee> present+ deirdrelee
13:07:53 <deirdrelee> BernadetteLoscio: we didn't receive any new comments this week
13:08:09 <deirdrelee> ... but we tried to address all the comments we received until now
13:08:30 <deirdrelee> .. we updated the table and have a response and correspondance for each comment on the table
13:08:30 <Caroline_> Caroline_ has joined #DWBP
13:09:03 <deirdrelee> ... comment 8, annette_g responded, made the change in the doc, and the commenter agreed, so we can consider this as resolved
13:09:12 <antoine> antoine has joined #dwbp
13:09:15 <Caroline_> Present+ Caroline_
13:09:19 <antoine> present+ antoine
13:09:29 <deirdrelee> ... for comment 7 we have reached a response, but need to email Franz, but we can consider this resolved
13:09:50 <deirdrelee> ... for the others, we have proposed resolutions, and if the group agrees we'll email the commenters
13:10:10 <laufer> laufer has joined #dwbp
13:10:28 <deirdrelee> ... there is a comment from Adam on how to include gis in the bp doc. i looked at the sdwg doc, but can't see a resolution
13:10:32 <laufer> present+
13:10:40 <laufer> present+ laufer
13:11:54 <phila> s/Adam/Ivan/
13:11:56 <BernadetteLoscio> Ivan Herman
13:12:04 <BernadetteLoscio> comment 2
13:12:31 <deirdrelee> .. for comment 6, the group agreed to include a paragraph on BP22, but i made another proposal to add a paragraph to BP on access, as I think it's more suitable to access
13:12:37 <deirdrelee> .. just a proposal
13:12:56 <deirdrelee> hadleybeeman: do we need any more comments? is this enough
13:13:38 <deirdrelee> phila: we should also show comments that we've received and addressed previously, in order to satisfy directors' need that doc has had widespread review
13:14:05 <deirdrelee> ... issue is that comments mainly come from inside the group, we haven't necessary shown that we've had widespread review
13:14:07 <deirdrelee> q+
13:14:22 <hadleybeeman> ack deirdrelee
13:14:36 <hadleybeeman> deirdrelee: Maybe we haven't received comments from it, but we can
13:14:45 <hadleybeeman> ...demonstrate we've disseminated widely.
13:14:57 <hadleybeeman> ...There is only so much we can do about getting comments
13:15:12 <Caroline_> q+
13:15:24 <deirdrelee> phila: the wiki page is good, and we can point to tweets and reaction, etc
13:15:33 <deirdrelee> ... we can certainly say we've actively been disseminating
13:15:37 <Caroline_> q-
13:16:03 <Caroline_> we also disseminated a lot in Portuguese, specially to the Brazilian community https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Dwbp-LC-campaign.PT
13:16:10 <deirdrelee> ... we could receive comment that we've done this dissemination, but received hardly any comments?
13:16:11 <deirdrelee> q+
13:16:55 <deirdrelee> ... i wrote an email to members of the WG who haven't been active, asking for input/comments
13:17:02 <deirdrelee> ... but received zero respone
13:18:01 <deirdrelee> hadleybeeman: have we received comments from brazilian community?
13:18:18 <hadleybeeman> q?
13:18:31 <deirdrelee> Caroline_: not on the bps, but we have received feedback that they will participate in implementation report
13:18:42 <BernadetteLoscio> q+
13:18:46 <deirdrelee> ... there are three orgs that aren't nicbr
13:18:48 <hadleybeeman> ack deirdrelee
13:18:52 <phila> q+ to talk about who can test
13:19:05 <hadleybeeman> deirdrelee: Phila described the situation... how unusual/usual are we in having so few comments?
13:20:00 <deirdrelee> phila: I'll talk to Ralph and ask him if I came to you with this level of comments, is that sufficient?
13:20:28 <deirdrelee> ... to see if we're ready for CR from official side
13:20:31 <hadleybeeman> ack BernadetteLoscio
13:21:27 <deirdrelee> BernadetteLoscio: because this is the last draft, perhaps we shouldn't have a lot of comments. We've also received a lot of comments saying that the doc looks good and is easy to read, etc.
13:21:32 <newton> this comment from @csarven https://twitter.com/csarven/status/741363851933974529 is really nice :-)
13:21:40 <annette_g> maybe we need a table of positive-only comments
13:22:08 <yaso> yaso has joined #dwbp
13:22:21 <Caroline_> we also have some of that in Portuguese that were sent to our emails :)
13:22:21 <hadleybeeman> https://twitter.com/RichCarne/status/732147503253065728
13:22:22 <deirdrelee> ... this is feedback too, not that we have something to change, but that it's great
13:22:22 <laufer> maybe will be interesting to append this "good "comments in the table
13:23:03 <hadleybeeman> q?
13:23:16 <Caroline_> :)
13:23:43 <deirdrelee> hadleybeeman: we should add the positive comments to the table...marked as resolved :)
13:23:56 <hadleybeeman> ack phila
13:23:56 <Zakim> phila, you wanted to talk about who can test
13:23:57 <phila> ack me
13:24:23 <Caroline_> q+
13:24:28 <deirdrelee> phila: For CR, implementaion experience/tests matter just as much as anyone else
13:24:31 <hadleybeeman> ack caroline_
13:24:42 <deirdrelee> Caroline_: so testing from nicbr and other members matter?
13:24:47 <deirdrelee> phila: crikey yes
13:25:21 <deirdrelee> ... if you think of it as a technical spec, then we need code, so this is usually writeen by WG members
13:25:27 <laufer> q+
13:26:02 <deirdrelee> hadleybeeman: i may have confused in the past by saying 1) it works in pracice, not just theory, and 2) that this works in the wild
13:26:18 <hadleybeeman> q?
13:26:25 <deirdrelee> ... so even if the implemenation is by wg member, it still demonstrates value
13:26:27 <hadleybeeman> ack laufer
13:26:35 <yaso> present +yaso
13:26:47 <deirdrelee> laufer: who determines if the implementation is correct?
13:26:50 <deirdrelee> q+
13:27:09 <deirdrelee> phila: i keep referring to tech specs, as that's what process was designed for
13:27:19 <deirdrelee> ... e.g. csv on the web has a test suite
13:27:34 <jtandy> jtandy has joined #dwbp
13:27:41 <deirdrelee> ... we have written tests for BPs, we don't have to verify them independently
13:27:48 <deirdrelee> ... we take them on their word
13:28:37 <deirdrelee> laufer: if WG members have provided the implementation is that okay?
13:28:51 <hadleybeeman> q?
13:29:06 <deirdrelee> phila: we need people to respond, and have 2 independent implementations of each BP
13:29:27 <deirdrelee> ... but every instance doesn't have to implement ALL BPs
13:29:30 <hadleybeeman> ack deirdrelee
13:30:34 <deirdrelee> deirdrelee: will talk about implemenation form later
13:30:58 <phila> q+ to male a comment about #2
13:31:15 <deirdrelee> hadleybeeman: you need the entire WG to sign-off on entire doc, but we don't need to point to a resolution in meeting minutes for every comment/change
13:31:33 <RiccardoAlbertoni> larsen effect..
13:31:43 <deirdrelee> phila: we just have to show that the group has received, reacted to, and responded to comments
13:31:57 <annette_g> mute everyone for a sec?
13:32:05 <RiccardoAlbertoni> lets mute all the mics
13:32:15 <annette_g> sounds indicates its from yaso
13:32:38 <Makx> Makx has joined #dwbp
13:32:40 <yaso> I disconnected
13:32:49 <hadleybeeman> I have too.  Perhaps the problem is with webex
13:32:56 <annette_g> yaso is not it, clearly
13:32:58 <hadleybeeman> Okay — let's carry on by IRC
13:33:12 <laufer> I am muted
13:33:17 <phila> I'll end the meeting and ask you al to redial
13:33:21 <deirdrelee> yip
13:33:25 <yaso> Ok
13:33:26 <Caroline_> may we disconnect webex and connect it again?
13:33:52 <phila> OK, I;ve restarted the meeting
13:33:57 <hadleybeeman> @bernadette, what do you think we need to discuss (because it will cause problems with the group if we don't)?
13:35:23 <phila> ack me
13:35:23 <Zakim> phila, you wanted to male a comment about #2
13:35:43 <phila> phila: For comment 2, it needs just a little prose as well as the refernce. I'm happy to offer the prose
13:36:30 <deirdrelee> BernadetteLoscio: we need someone to review all the comments and all the changes,to make sure it's okay
13:36:46 <deirdrelee> ... other question is about comment 6
13:37:42 <deirdrelee> ... i've included paragraph at introduction of Data Access section, not BP22
13:38:17 <deirdrelee> phila: we did say that this was a good opportunity to link to data usage vocabulary
13:38:40 <deirdrelee> BernadetteLoscio: not sure how we can refer to DUV, because we don't mention it, not sure how to make link
13:38:45 <phila> action: phila to offer text for comments 2 and 6
13:38:45 <trackbot> Created ACTION-285 - Offer text for comments 2 and 6 [on Phil Archer - due 2016-06-24].
13:38:47 <deirdrelee> phila: let me have a go
13:39:05 <annette_g> bernadette did already write up some nice text for 6
13:39:20 <deirdrelee> BernadetteLoscio: maybe we can have both,text in the intro and in the BP
13:39:25 <laufer> q+
13:39:40 <phila> Yes, I saw that, I juest want to add in the DUV ref annette_g
13:39:47 <hadleybeeman> ack laufer
13:39:49 <phila> s/juest/just
13:40:06 <deirdrelee> laufer: the comment from andrea was about different uses of data,e.g. feedback.
13:40:36 <deirdrelee> ... it would be intereesting to have this also in the feedback section,as they have examples of lots of different types of data they have
13:41:06 <deirdrelee> .. maybe in the second part of the intro fo the feedback section
13:41:53 <deirdrelee> BernadetteLoscio: can someone check the commits to make sure they're ok?
13:42:25 <deirdrelee> ... we could also just send a message to commenters to see if its ok
13:42:32 <deirdrelee> +1 if they're not controversial
13:42:47 <newton> q+ to talk about evidences form
13:43:42 <BernadetteLoscio> http://www.iso.org/iso/home/standards/iso8601.htm
13:43:55 <deirdrelee> BernadetteLoscio: for example, for comment 3, the commenter says we should use id for iso, but not sure if this is correct
13:44:11 <deirdrelee> hadleybeeman: better to check with commenter,
13:44:25 <deirdrelee> BernadetteLoscio: i'll send email to commenters to see if resolution is okay
13:44:40 <hadleybeeman> ack newton
13:44:40 <Zakim> newton, you wanted to talk about evidences form
13:44:45 <deirdrelee> q+
13:44:58 <deirdrelee> TOPIC: Implementation Form
13:45:20 <deirdrelee> newton: thought it might be difficult to fill out form on google form, usability not great
13:45:38 <deirdrelee> ... we're creating a new form (html of course :) ), hosted by nicbr
13:45:46 <deirdrelee> ... we won't use google forms any more
13:45:48 <hadleybeeman> ack dei
13:45:57 <hadleybeeman> deirdrelee: Will the structure and questions be the same?
13:46:20 <hadleybeeman> newton: more or less. We'll have an index of BPs, and when you click on one it will show a form with the same questions. Pass/fail, and a field for comments.
13:46:30 <hadleybeeman> ...Main difference is structure.
13:47:00 <hadleybeeman> deirdrelee: I think that makes sense. The google form feels like one big long thing, and is a bit difficult to navigate. For people whose datasets don't meet all...
13:47:04 <hadleybeeman> ...General comments on the form:
13:47:24 <hadleybeeman> ...For each of the tests. A person will nominate a dataset, and for that dataset they'll answer all of the tests (pass/fail)
13:47:27 <BernadetteLoscio> q+
13:47:33 <hadleybeeman> ...I think it would be good to give them the option for comments there tool
13:47:36 <hadleybeeman> s/tool/too
13:47:53 <hadleybeeman> ...We still have pass/fail, so can analyse that way.  But without it, we'd be missing out.
13:47:57 <hadleybeeman> newton: We are doing that
13:48:01 <phila> +1 to deirdrelee on adding a comment field
13:48:28 <hadleybeeman> ...For the evidence URL  or dataset URL, instead of using one for the whole form, we're putting fields on every part of the form (per BP)
13:48:43 <hadleybeeman> ...So people who are testing don't have to go again and again to test different datasets.
13:48:53 <hadleybeeman> deirdrelee: And people might want to test multiple datasets for one bp.
13:49:14 <annette_g> q+
13:49:18 <hadleybeeman> ...And we say: minimum of 2.  For example, "must have metadata", we could have hundreds of thousands of them.  Does 2 make sense?
13:49:32 <hadleybeeman> deirdrelee: I was looking for things that were high risk
13:49:33 <BernadetteLoscio> q-
13:49:50 <hadleybeeman> ...For some of the tests, especially the later ones, the phrasing isn't dataset specific anymore.
13:50:00 <hadleybeeman> ...It's focused on the publisher or the user instead of the dataset.
13:50:07 <hadleybeeman> ...The tests are written differently.
13:50:27 <hadleybeeman> ...I think we'll have to update the text of the tests.
13:50:46 <hadleybeeman> ...In its current form, it might not make sense.  "For this dataset, did you provide feedback."
13:50:48 <Caroline_> deirdrelee: could you help us changing that on this table, please https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1a9cOGzWJTIhh2OrAemvWBR8f0rv5xqvL03pJeMrotCo/edit#gid=0
13:51:03 <hadleybeeman> ...But then you might have different roles in relationship to one dataset.
13:51:06 <Caroline_> q+
13:51:17 <hadleybeeman> ack annette_g
13:51:21 <annette_g> q-
13:51:23 <hadleybeeman> ack caro
13:51:55 <hadleybeeman> deirdrelee: Yes I can help, Caro, but I'm aware that changing the text of the test means changing the document.
13:51:58 <hadleybeeman> ...Is that okay?
13:52:05 <hadleybeeman> ...Or maybe a tool tip or explanation?
13:52:16 <hadleybeeman> Caroline_: I thought you were looking at line 55 or line ## in the table
13:52:21 <hadleybeeman> ...but you were talking about the BP?
13:52:27 <hadleybeeman> deirdrelee: No, it's more the BPs.
13:52:43 <BernadetteLoscio> +1 to add an explanation!
13:52:44 <hadleybeeman> ...But I think what Newton has described will help this.  But putting it in as a tool tip will help.
13:53:08 <hadleybeeman> hadleybeeman: Okay, but if the document doesn't make sense...?
13:53:21 <hadleybeeman> deirdrelee: OkAY. Let's see what Newton does.
13:53:34 <hadleybeeman> ...And I guess we're not going to vote to CR next week?
13:53:50 <hadleybeeman> newton: we'll send a version to you this weekend or Monday. deirdrelee, if you can suggest changes on the form, that would be good.
13:53:57 <hadleybeeman> newton: I think it's okay to vote next friday
13:54:09 <hadleybeeman> BernadetteLoscio: What needs to be done for the voting?
13:54:23 <hadleybeeman> phila: Just needs a resolution in the minutes to say "We resolve to send this to CR"
13:54:34 <hadleybeeman> ...From this conversation — we could possibly do it next week.
13:54:46 <hadleybeeman> ...Given that we want to do it ASAP, we could test the water.  Try it.
13:54:53 <hadleybeeman> BernadetteLoscio: When is the meeting with the director?
13:54:56 <RiccardoAlbertoni> q+
13:55:00 <hadleybeeman> ...Now or when we have the implementations?
13:55:03 <hadleybeeman> phila: Both
13:55:20 <hadleybeeman> ...To go into CR and to go from CR to PR. And then the group's work is largely done.
13:55:34 <hadleybeeman> ...First: widespread comments and review, addressed all issues and actions, any formal objections?
13:55:42 <hadleybeeman> ...Second:  implémentation évidence.
13:56:12 <deirdrelee> RiccardoAlbertoni: before we go to CR, we have to decide which BP are at risk
13:56:22 <deirdrelee> .. how will we do this?
13:56:51 <BernadetteLoscio> q+
13:56:52 <hadleybeeman> deirdrelee: We have no record of any BPs being at risk
13:56:55 <hadleybeeman> ack ricc
13:57:03 <hadleybeeman> ack bern
13:57:19 <deirdrelee> BernadetteLoscio: I was talking to Caroline_ and newton, we should try to get evidence
13:57:21 <deirdrelee> q+
13:57:40 <deirdrelee> .. if we do this it will be nice way to check it bp is at risk
13:57:42 <hadleybeeman> ack deirdrelee
13:58:00 <BernadetteLoscio> q+
13:58:06 <hadleybeeman> deirdrelee: The process is so that we go to CR, and before then, we have to flag if anything is at risk.  Then we gather evidence, the implementations.
13:58:14 <jtandy> jtandy has joined #dwbp
13:58:16 <hadleybeeman> ...If we have problems with any, we have to go back to working draft.
13:58:34 <hadleybeeman> BernadetteLoscio: I meant that we, editors, would do this right now.
13:58:53 <deirdrelee> q+
13:58:56 <hadleybeeman> ...If the group also does this exercise, it can be nice.
13:58:57 <hadleybeeman> ack ber
13:59:05 <hadleybeeman> ack deirdrelee
13:59:39 <hadleybeeman> deirdrelee: That makes sense, but as a chair I'd be worried about timing. you're talking about gathering evidence. If we start that process, then we delay going to CR. We don't have time to delay.
13:59:58 <hadleybeeman> ...So if you want to do it in a day ,for yourselves, that's fine. But I wouldn't be in favour of making this a wide activity.
14:00:03 <BernadetteLoscio> q+
14:00:23 <phila> +1 to what Dee is saying
14:00:25 <hadleybeeman> ...Maybe before Friday, go through each test, take 5 minutes, and ask "can I think of a dataset that will satisfy it, and won't satisfy it?"
14:00:47 <hadleybeeman> ...There are a couple that are obvious.  But there are others that are hard in some fields.  But other fields might cover it.
14:00:54 <hadleybeeman> ack ber
14:01:05 <hadleybeeman> zakim, close the queue
14:01:05 <Zakim> ok, hadleybeeman, the speaker queue is closed
14:01:25 <hadleybeeman> BernadetteLoscio: I agree. I'll do this now.
14:01:25 <annette_g> what's to stop us from just using our use cases as evidence?
14:02:07 <laufer> bye all... nice wknd
14:02:12 <RiccardoAlbertoni> bye..
14:02:20 <annette_g> bye all!
14:02:25 <annette_g> annette_g has left #dwbp
14:02:26 <yaso> Bye!!
14:02:41 <Caroline_> annette_g: I think it is a good idea using our use cases as evidence
14:03:41 <deirdrelee> RRSAgent, create minutes
14:03:41 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/06/17-dwbp-minutes.html deirdrelee
14:03:48 <newton> :-)
14:28:01 <newton> newton has joined #dwbp
14:50:04 <newton> newton has joined #dwbp
16:02:04 <Zakim> Zakim has left #dwbp