13:02:52 RRSAgent has joined #dwbp 13:02:52 logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/06/24-dwbp-irc 13:02:54 RRSAgent, make logs 351 13:02:54 Zakim has joined #dwbp 13:02:56 Zakim, this will be DWBP 13:02:56 ok, trackbot 13:02:57 Meeting: Data on the Web Best Practices Working Group Teleconference 13:02:57 Date: 24 June 2016 13:03:04 riccardoAlbertoni has joined #DWBP 13:03:27 deirdrelee has joined #dwbp 13:03:31 Present+ Caroline 13:03:55 I'm having issues to connect to webex 13:07:00 gatemezi has joined #dwbp 13:08:32 present+ riccardoAlbertoni 13:08:39 Hi gatemezi 13:09:02 newton_ has joined #dwbp 13:09:05 Hi yaso_ and all.. 13:09:13 present+ gatemezi 13:09:52 scribe? 13:10:01 scribe: Annete 13:10:08 scribe: annette_g 13:10:09 laufer has joined #dwbp 13:10:19 scribe: annette_g 13:10:27 PROPOSED: approve last week's minutes 13:10:40 hadleybeeman has changed the topic to: agenda https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20160624 13:10:42 +1 13:11:02 +1 13:11:04 +1 13:11:04 http://www.w3.org/2016/06/17-dwbp-minutes 13:11:16 +1 13:11:19 +0 13:11:21 +1 13:11:22 present+ laufer 13:11:27 +1 13:11:40 present+ hadleybeeman 13:11:45 ACCEPTED: approve last week's minutes 13:12:01 RESOLVED: approve last week's minutes 13:12:14 q+ 13:12:22 ack riccardoAlbertoni 13:12:33 present+ deirdrelee 13:12:44 yaso_: is concerned about the low number of participants 13:13:04 hadleybeeman: points out that timing means we probably need to do some voting today anyway 13:13:13 I muted myself 13:13:38 q? 13:13:58 riccardoAlbertoni: have the editors identified any of the best practices as being at risk? 13:14:32 riccardoAlbertoni: it's fine if not, I just want to be sure that we have addressed the point. 13:14:37 q+ 13:14:45 ack Caroline 13:15:18 Caroline: thanks for raising that issue. We haven't flagged any of the best practices, and we haven't seen any comments, internal or external, about it. 13:15:43 riccardoAlbertoni: so we're confident we can find an implementation for all the BPs? 13:16:17 No, deirdrelee :-/ 13:16:27 q+ 13:16:32 Caroline: well, we certainly hope so. we have implementations lining up. 13:16:52 q? 13:16:59 ack newton_ 13:17:22 the meeting was with Cetic.br :) 13:17:41 BernadetteLoscio has joined #dwbp 13:17:41 newton_: we have a lot of data published on the web at nic.br, and it seems they can implement a lot of our BPs. We didn't identify any at risk. 13:17:49 q? 13:18:02 present+ BernadetteLoscio 13:18:07 yaso_: any comment on the BP doc before we vote? 13:18:07 Hi BernadetteLoscio 13:18:16 Hello! 13:18:17 Makx has joined #dwbp 13:18:18 none from me. I'm happy 13:18:57 q+ 13:19:05 ack newton_ 13:19:10 hadleybeeman: I think it's been through an enormous amount of polish and review. If we look at it again very closely, we might find something, but it's probably the right time. 13:19:17 newton_: do we have enough people to vote? 13:19:43 no problem, Makx, you're in time to vote :-) 13:19:47 q+ to ask if we've given members enough notice to vote 13:19:48 yaso_: yes. (Hadley explained that it's okay as long as the agenda went out) 13:19:52 Great work indeed! 13:19:56 ack deirdrelee 13:19:56 deirdrelee, you wanted to ask if we've given members enough notice to vote 13:20:31 even it it's in the agenda, do we have enough time? 13:20:32 yes 13:20:39 deirdrelee: was voting on the agenda and sent out 24 hours in advance? 13:20:47 is only 24 hrs needed? 13:20:52 thought more 13:21:14 sorry :( 13:21:16 :(((( 13:21:21 yaso_: It was sent yesterday, but less than 24 hours, so we can't vote today. 13:21:26 :( 13:21:34 :( 13:21:54 yaso_: Riccardo, can you talk about the vocabulary doc? 13:22:05 http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/vocab-dqg.html 13:22:16 riccardoAlbertoni: That is a link to the latest version 13:22:20 Can't we vote anyway and then see how this could be made valid? 13:22:24 Topic: Data Quality Vocabulary http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/vocab-dqg.html 13:22:40 riccardoAlbertoni: you can see that we had a couple of appendices. 13:23:22 Makx I'll return to this topic after vocabs :-) 13:23:29 riccardoAlbertoni: this is to address compatibility with the DCAT vocabulary and to address modeling matrix parameters 13:23:46 s/DCAT/RDF Data Cube/ 13:23:49 antoine has joined #dwbp 13:24:15 Zakim, who is noisy? 13:24:15 I am sorry, hadleybeeman; I don't have the necessary resources to track talkers right now 13:24:18 Oh my webex crashed 13:24:29 s/matrix parameters/parameters for metrics/ 13:24:55 riccardoAlbertoni: we have two options for issue 223 13:25:27 q? 13:26:25 riccardoAlbertoni: we can discuss or mark as postponed 13:26:38 q? 13:26:59 issue-223? 13:26:59 issue-223 -- Parameters for metrics -- open 13:26:59 http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/223 13:28:18 riccardoAlbertoni: if you consider parameters in quality metrics, we provide examples and some modeling. We can try to do some kind of metamodel, but it's very technical. We could be more formal, but probably it's not worth going into that detail in our doc. 13:28:37 yaso_: anyone have comments? 13:28:38 q+ 13:28:52 Just to point out that it might be helpful to add a dct:modified date 13:28:53 ack hadleybeeman 13:28:54 riccardoAlbertoni: does anyone know if we can vote on the final version of the DQV even if we postpone the issue? 13:29:29 hadleybeeman: The answer is no. We need to have all the issues closed and all the actions finished and then be able to take that table with us along with the meeting minutes with us when we meet with the director. 13:30:11 webex doesn't work with debian os 13:30:16 hadleybeeman: what do you recommend we do? 13:30:39 :-/ 13:30:59 riccardoAlbertoni: For me it's the same. It's just a matter of the procedure, whether we need to formally close the issue. 13:31:13 hadleybeeman: I'm a little unclear on what closing means in this case. 13:31:20 q+ to ask hadleybeeman about the deadline for report implementation 13:31:37 riccardoAlbertoni: Antoine has sent out an email asking for feedback, and basically the issue was addressed. 13:31:42 ack Caroline 13:31:42 Caroline, you wanted to ask hadleybeeman about the deadline for report implementation 13:31:58 present+ antoine 13:32:26 q? 13:32:26 Caroline: the BP editors are in doubt about whether the vocabularies must be ready before we meet with the directory 13:32:47 Caroline: we're also not sure whether the deadline is extendable 13:33:19 hadleybeeman: we only need a director's meeting for the BP doc, because the vocabs are not rec track 13:33:26 http://www.w3.org/2015/Process-20150901/#candidate-rec 13:33:45 hadleybeeman: For the BP doc, I'm pasting in the process rules link. That is what we need to show at the director's meeting. 13:34:05 Aren't the vocabs not on rec track? I would hope they are! 13:34:48 I am using parts of DQV in some other work, and having them as Recommendations will certainly help. 13:34:56 hadleybeeman: For candidate rece, we have to explain how we will gather implementations. Then we need to gather them. I think we can take as much time as we need. if we're ready, we can basically fly through that. 13:36:09 hadleybeeman: at proposed rec, the doc goes to the advisory committee. The AC reps kick up a fuss if there's anything to complain about (usually they don't). At that stage we do nothing unless there are problems identified. 13:36:17 Makx: then let's work on having it as cad rec in the next working group.. :) 13:36:28 Apologies, I see in the charter the vocabls are supposed to be Working Group notes. Missed that. 13:36:29 Caroline: should we put a deadline for our implementation reports? 13:36:37 hadleybeeman: I susppose we should 13:36:57 Caroline: so we can start right away gathering? 13:37:06 The form for evidences -> http://w3c.br/form-dwbp/ 13:37:17 hadleybeeman: it's possible the director would say our methodology isn't sufficient, but that's very unlikely 13:37:32 Caroline: so should we schedule a meeting with the director for next week? 13:37:40 hadleybeeman: sure, but we need to have voted first. 13:37:56 I need to finish the back-end part (configure the database). so that's only the front-end interface of the form. 13:38:09 yaso_: maybe we can vote today because we have more people now. there is a quorum. 13:38:27 yaso_: what do you think deirdrelee or hadleybeeman? 13:39:06 http://www.w3.org/2015/Process-20150901/#Meetings 13:39:08 q+ to ask about an extra meeting 13:39:17 hadleybeeman: I'm looking at the process document…in section 3.2. 13:39:26 q- 13:39:28 I will not be here next week. 13:39:29 newton_: that is definitely an option 13:39:41 tuesday 13:40:00 hadleybeeman: newton, that is definitely an option 13:40:29 Proposed time to extra meeting to vote: Monday 1pm boston time 13:40:31 not good for me 13:40:52 hadleybeeman: we could do it with a doodle poll 13:41:03 yaso_: yes, let's do a doodle poll 13:41:10 let's decide now, please 13:41:30 I think yes 13:41:35 we need to allow time for people to see that there's a meeting and plan for it, too 13:41:56 hadleybeeman: I suggest we pick a time on Tuesday, because of what annette_g just wrote 13:41:57 +1 annette_g and hadleybeeman :) 13:42:12 we could have indicative vote now to see if anyone has problems? 13:42:18 9am in Boston, on Tuesday is it too early annette_g ? 13:42:24 let´s do the poll here now 13:42:24 so our vote meeting can be quick :) 13:42:44 anyway 13:42:49 yeah, I would keep it as 15 minute to vote 13:42:53 so let's bring up issues now 13:43:02 will anyone vote -1 today? 13:43:10 hadleybeeman: the other possibility is to vote by email 13:43:23 but it's fairly awkward to make it binding 13:43:32 E-mail would work for me. 13:43:37 if it,s possible +1 to vote by email 13:44:01 q+ to talk about evidence form 13:44:09 ack newton_ 13:44:09 newton_, you wanted to talk about evidence form 13:44:12 yaso_: we can send a closing date by email, we'll finish the voting by x time 13:44:32 for Newtonm Berna and I from 9am until until 4pm Boston time on Tuesday we can be on the call :) 13:44:46 there is the 24 hours restriction to the vote by e-mail? how much time it is necessary for closing the vote by e-mail? 13:44:47 s/for 13:44:50 yaso_: let's do the voting by email, and let's close the voting at a specific time. 13:44:52 voting my email will work if we foresee no issues...... 13:45:01 otherwise, okay for email 13:45:20 hadleybeeman: we should probably give people warning before the voting period 13:45:28 yaso_: okay, that's what we'll do. 13:45:32 http://w3c.br/form-dwbp/ 13:45:50 hadleybeeman, yes, after the meeting :-) 13:45:54 newton_: I want to talk about the implementation form. it's had to make one that is usable. 13:46:15 looks cool! 13:46:24 newton_: if you have suggestions, it would be nice to get your feedback 13:46:47 hadleybeeman: yaso_, I'm creating an action for you for the voting. 13:46:58 action: yaso to send out an email calling for an email vote to transition the BP doc to CR. Voting will be by email and will close on 12pm Boston on Tuesday the 28th. 13:46:58 Created ACTION-286 - Send out an email calling for an email vote to transition the bp doc to cr. voting will be by email and will close on 12pm boston on tuesday the 28th. [on Yaso Córdova - due 2016-07-01]. 13:47:02 thanks! 13:47:22 q+ 13:47:41 ack newton_ 13:47:42 How can action be due 1 July if voting supposed to close on 28 June? 13:47:45 ack annette_g 13:49:10 q+ 13:49:25 No problem, hadleybeeman 13:49:35 Don't know why it's happening 13:49:42 Yeay for testing :) 13:49:44 annette_g: the links on the left don't do anything 13:49:46 ack Caroline 13:49:52 newton_: I'll fix and get back to the group 13:50:10 nandana has joined #dwbp 13:50:17 Caroline: should we organize the form by evidence or by BP? 13:50:31 @annette_g as soon as I fix it I'll ask for your feedback again 13:50:33 I think it is working, Newton. It is a matter of giving info of how it works. 13:50:41 yaso_: what's the difference? 13:50:57 newton_, the idea is great anyway - you just need to brush some javascript lol 13:51:16 now, you choose a BP and indicate the evidences 13:51:18 Caroline: we don't see a big difference between the two 13:51:19 \me hi nandana, good to see you :) 13:51:29 q? 13:51:42 q? 13:51:46 the oyher way is to give an evidence firts and then select the BPs 13:51:47 annette_g: It's not clear to me how it would be different 13:51:56 Caroline: let's keep it like it is, then 13:51:59 ack BernadetteLoscio 13:52:03 s/firts/first 13:52:19 q? 13:52:21 +1 13:52:32 +1 keep it like it is 13:52:35 +1 13:52:39 +1 13:53:07 q? 13:53:11 yaso_: it's up to the editors 13:53:16 any more comments? 13:53:26 if not, I'll end the meeting and send the voting email 13:54:02 hadleybeeman: informally, do we think the doc is ready to go? 13:54:22 if someone will vote -1 in the e-mail, it is interesting to say now 13:54:23 yes 13:54:28 yaso_: I think the people in this meeting are happy with it, but people might think of things with the email. 13:54:33 Yes, if not now, then when? 13:54:44 a -1 discussion by e-mail will not work... 13:54:47 q+ 13:54:47 hadleybeeman: we might have to resolve new issues that come up in the emails. 13:54:53 q+ 13:55:16 Caroline: I'm wondering now whether we should actually do this via email, since on a call we can discuss and resolve an issue right away. 13:55:25 +1 to caroline 13:55:27 +1 13:55:46 yaso_: I think we could try to vote by email 13:55:48 I toought it was an email asking to vote.. 13:55:51 q+ 13:56:06 s/thought/tought 13:56:16 ack annette_g 13:56:18 ops 13:56:22 ack antoine 13:56:24 ...as-it-is 13:56:27 s/toought/thought/ 13:56:31 ack Caroline 13:57:03 I ma a bit annoyed about all this procedureal stuff. Why can't we vote now and get it over with? 13:57:05 I also prefer the vote at a meeting 13:57:07 Caroline: I really think we should have a meeting on tuesday, because if issues arise over email, I don't think it's a good idea. 13:57:09 (also worth mentioning that the Process document — since it's open in front of me — says we officially need one week's warning to schedule a meeting/call. UNLESS there are no objections from the group. 13:57:29 So yaso, I would include the words in your email "unless there are no objections from the group". 13:58:20 Is there no clause in the 24-hours rule that says "unless the group agrees"? 13:58:21 Ok. 13:58:27 we can hear you even with noise 13:58:43 there is no noise for me 13:58:48 me neither 13:58:50 I'll write. 13:58:52 Okay 13:58:58 Let's finish this by IRC. 13:59:05 yaso, you're just muted, I think 13:59:10 I'd rather send the voting e-mail that a call for a meeting 14:00:04 s/that/than 14:00:07 yaso: but if the editors would rather another call, then that's okay. 14:00:30 yaso_: I just feel that calling a meeting on such short notice is as difficult as voting without 24 hours notice. 14:00:37 q+ 14:00:54 ack newton_ 14:00:58 yaso_: I think we can take the chance of voting by mail. 14:01:09 +1 14:01:23 +1 to yaso 14:01:27 +1 to vote by email.. 14:01:44 +1 e-mail. Please let's be practical. 14:01:52 Let's fo it by e-maill. 14:01:54 yaso_: other groups vote by email, we can try it 14:02:24 yaso_: let's vote by email 14:02:25 Bye all! 14:02:27 bye all! 14:02:31 RRSAgent, make logs public 14:02:33 bye all! 14:02:45 bye 14:02:50 bye 14:02:54 bye all 14:03:05 bye 14:04:51 Thanks riccardoAlbertoni :-) for making the request for the minutes 14:05:37 your welcome! 16:26:12 Zakim has left #dwbp 16:46:03 annette_g has joined #dwbp 17:40:58 yaso_ has joined #dwbp 18:40:24 yaso_ has joined #dwbp