Data on the Web Best Practices Working Group Teleconference

<ericstephan> I apologize being late

<yaso_> no probem, eric

<yaso_> Scribe?

<yaso_> Sorry, I'll have to dial again

<yaso_> +1

<yaso_> https://www.w3.org/2016/06/10-dwbp-minutes

<RiccardoAlbertoni> propose approve the last meeting minutes https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20160715

http://www.w3.org/2016/07/08-dwbp-minutes

<phila> PROPOSED: Accept last week's minutes http://www.w3.org/2016/07/08-dwbp-minutes

+1

<yaso_> +1

<annette_g> +1

<newton> +1

<Caroline_> +1

<ericstephan> +1

<phila> +1

<SumitPurohit> 0

<RiccardoAlbertoni> 0 ( i was not there)

<phila> REOLUTION: Accept last week's minutes http://www.w3.org/2016/07/08-dwbp-minutes

RESOLUTION: Accept last week's minutes http://www.w3.org/2016/07/08-dwbp-minutes

<deirdrelee> +1

CR delay

<phila> http://www.w3.org/2016/07/08-dwbp-minutes

<phila> I18N Objection

<RiccardoAlbertoni> phila: you suppose to ask review to the I18N, but they did not get the time to reply

<RiccardoAlbertoni> phil is not sure to be in the next call with the director , which will be delayed,

<RiccardoAlbertoni> .. we are not going to have the CR before the middle of august, as we have to wait for I18N and other stuff

<RiccardoAlbertoni> Caroline_: so we do not know when the call wth director will be reschedule.

<RiccardoAlbertoni> phila: yes,

<RiccardoAlbertoni> yaso: what about the summer vacation?

<RiccardoAlbertoni> phil: we will possibly have to have the call before september but we will find out

<RiccardoAlbertoni> phil: we will ask for an extension for covering the delay

<ericstephan> +1 yes extra time is useful to DUV

<RiccardoAlbertoni> and that will give also some extra time for the vocabularies

<antoine> +1

<phila> reuse vocabs

<RiccardoAlbertoni> ericstephan: i cannot imagine the kind of feedback from i18n, could you provide an example..

<RiccardoAlbertoni> phil:probably issues about multilingualism, url etc

<RiccardoAlbertoni> hadleybeeman: all the things they care about we care too

<RiccardoAlbertoni> since we are people from different part of the world

<RiccardoAlbertoni> hadleybeeman: but we need to see what they have to say ..

<RiccardoAlbertoni> yaso: other questions about the process ?

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

DQV

Open issues on vocabularies

RiccardoAlbertoni: About the open issue re DQV, we have already discussed this.

<phila> issue-221?

<trackbot> issue-221 -- What is the importance of the alignment between hcls-dataset and dqv/duv? -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/221

<phila> issue-223?

<trackbot> issue-223 -- Parameters for metrics -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/223

RiccardoAlbertoni: re issue 223, we have added a section explaining how parameters can be addressed with DQV.
... but we haven't found a solution, and it's probably out of scope for our work.
... So Antoine and I have decided to mark this as 'postponed'.
... Hopefully the commenter will find that okay.
... The same approach is followed for issue 221.

<antoine> I'd want to create two issues

<antoine> ... from 223

<antoine> ... one we close, and one we postponed

RiccardoAlbertoni: in the future, we'd have to target specialised profiles of dcat according to special domains. But we think that is out of scope for this group.
... I know Antoine wants to wait to the end, to mark this issue as 'postponed' — maybe the people from stanford who raised this issue will have an update.
... The point is, we have plenty of feedback from some people outside of the group. We are trying to address these comments. We welcome the idea of an extension for the group.
... In the email, the commenters have sent a pull request on github, and we're not sure that a PR from someone outside the group can be merged.
... From a procedural point of view, is that acceptable?

phila: Yes, as long as the group approves. If they write the text, we have to worry that it comes with their intellectual property.
... If they are endorsing or creating an opportunity for their technologies, we are in trouble.

RiccardoAlbertoni: No, I think they are just pointing out a simple fix. I don't see the problem you are mentioning here.

<antoine> it's mostly editorial changes, I think

phila: If I understand correctly, I think we can safely close issue 223?

RiccardoAlbertoni: We'd like to mark them as 'postponed'
... In another group's CR, they had marked a pending issue as 'postponed' because it was out of scope.

phila: 223 is postponed to a group that doesn't exist and isn't planned to exist.
... the other one... We can mark it as 'postponed' and point specifically to the Vocabularies workshop in Amsterdam at the end of the year.

<phila> Postpone 221 to that workshop

RiccardoAlbertoni: Okay.
... 223 is postponed in principle? In the future when someone modifies DCAT might come up...

phila: if you think the DCAT workshop can handle it as well, we can pass a resolution here to say that both these issues are closed for this workshop but may be useful in future work.
... I'm trying to tidy things up.

hadleybeeman: Does 'postponed' not mean it's still open?

phila: I think it means 'postponed within the lifetime of the working group'

RiccardoAlbertoni: Antoine is not on the phone.

<antoine> I have to do it by typing

<antoine> we did partly fix 223

yaso: Antoine, if you can type,..

<yaso_> ok

<antoine> the solution was to split 223 in two issues

<antoine> one that we close, one that we postpone

<antoine> we postpone like other WGs postponed, like OWL

<antoine> I've sent an email about it.

@antoine, what are the two issues you proposed?

<antoine> I can do the splitting, once the WG tells it's ok in principle

<phila> PROPOSAL: Noting the partial fix for Issue-223 and the forthcoming SDSVoc workshop that will tackle both Issue 221 and 223, the WG should close those two issues, noting these on the WG homepage for future reference

<antoine> sounds good

phila: That's my understanding of how you postpone something

hadleybeeman: Sounds good to me

<phila> Wish list

+1

<RiccardoAlbertoni> +1

<EricKauz> +1

<yaso_> +1

<annette_g> +1

<newton> +1

<antoine> +1

<ericstephan> +1

<phila> +1

<laufer> +1

RESOLUTION: Noting the partial fix for Issue-223 and the forthcoming SDSVoc workshop that will tackle both Issue 221 and 223, the WG should close those two issues, noting these on the WG homepage for future reference

phila: We're not burying it or pretending it doesn't exist; we're putting it somewhere we can come back to it.

<annette_g> I think it needs to say PROPOSED and RESOLVED, though, no?

<phila> close issue-221

<trackbot> Closed issue-221.

<phila> close issue-223

<trackbot> Closed issue-223.

<ericstephan> Correct annette_g

<antoine> can't we postpone 223?

<antoine> I can do it using the web interface

<RiccardoAlbertoni> yes

@antoine, we think we can only use that 'postpone' within the lifetime of this working group. We need to close our issues to transition further.

<antoine> hadleybeeman: I think we can postpone indefinitely: some OWL issues have been postponed for ages

<antoine> see https://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/webont-issues.html

@antoine, phila is going to check... but that seems a bit out-of-process in my opinion (and his). We'll find out.

phila: Good to see comments coming in.

<antoine> @hadleybeeman: ok. I don't want to put a lot of more work on the WG. To me it seemed like a simple proposal that I could have implemented myself.

RiccardoAlbertoni: We were ready to close everything by next week, but extra time lets us face the things in a positive way.

phila: Yes, we'll have the extension, I think. But I think the purpose of these weekly calls is now to finish these vocabularies. Chairs, stop me if I'm wrong.
... Once we're into CR for the BP doc, we probably don't need these calls anymore. We won't need them much longer.
... The last weekly call could be next week? It's up to the chairs.
... I suspect it won't be that soon. But fairly soon they'll come to an end, when we run out of things to talk about.
... When you've closed all the issues, and you're resolving the issues, and we're in CR for the other thing — these calls are here to discuss comments and actions.
... Dn't see an extension til the end of Nov as meaning we can carry on postponing things till then. We can't. We have to finish this.

RiccardoAlbertoni: Okay; sooner is better. But we need a little time and this is a busy period

phila: I'm not at all criticising.

RiccardoAlbertoni: Depends on Antoine's schedule, but we can maybe close in the beginning of August?

phila: thanks

yaso: So extending the group doesn't mean we still have meetings?

phila: All we should be doing now is handling the comments. We'll get some new ones from I18N, and Open Annotation group commented today, so there is a bit of editing to do on the BP doc --
... and I hope we'll have time to hear about the DUV. But I imagine all this will be sorted quickly.
... At the latest by September -- we'll have resolved everything.

yaso: And if the problems are all sorted before September, and the BP doc goes to CR, then the group is done with the work?

phila: apart from gathering implementation experience.
... When we're doing that, and the vocabs are done, we don't need to meet every week. Maybe every other week, or every four weeks? We don't need to talk every Friday.
... Given the state of the docs right now... this is what happens.

yaso_: comments?

<ericstephan> Nope

<ericstephan> :-)

DUV

<ericstephan> http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/vocab-du.html

<ericstephan> https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/153

<RiccardoAlbertoni> ericstephan: there are two issues

<RiccardoAlbertoni> one is around from quite a while

<RiccardoAlbertoni> ericstephan: 153... i do not think it is in the scope of the dub

<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

<RiccardoAlbertoni> If anyone have a specific comment or opinion on that ?

<phila> How should feedback and usage instructions be handled that are either in themselves sensitive or discussing details about data that is closed. How should the model handle personally identifiable information (PII) in feedback. We should also take into account the privacy interest group, are there aspects of usage http://www.w3.org/2012/dnt-ws/report.

<RiccardoAlbertoni> phila: i agree I think it is conveniently out of scope

<RiccardoAlbertoni> phila: it is not more or less relevant to anything for the web, so i think i agree

<RiccardoAlbertoni> ericstephan: can we put a proposal to close it?

<phila> PROPOSED: To close issue-153 as this is out of scope for the DUV

+1

<annette_g> +1

<ericstephan> +1

<yaso_> +1

<phila> +1

<RiccardoAlbertoni> +1

<newton> +1

<laufer> +1

<SumitPurohit> +1

RESOLUTION: To close issue-153 as this is out of scope for the DUV

<phila> close issue-153

<trackbot> Closed issue-153.

<ericstephan> https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/234

<phila> issue-234

<trackbot> issue-234 -- Role of Usage Tool -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/234

<Caroline_> +1

<RiccardoAlbertoni> ericstephan: the other issue 234, it is around for a while as well

<ericstephan> http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/vocab-du.html#class-usageTool

<RiccardoAlbertoni> ericstephan: that was soothing joão paulo pointed out ..

<RiccardoAlbertoni> ..

<RiccardoAlbertoni> .. considering the time extension, we can try to address this..

<ericstephan> Made considerable editorial alterations (approximately 60 minor edits) to the DUV, clarifying use of language, using code styles to depict classes and property references in code format when mentioned in the text.

<RiccardoAlbertoni> ericstephan: we are doing some editorial changes, I wonder how the group must be involved in that

<ericstephan> Based on the DQV we expanded discussion of the motivation of the DUV to reference work in the DWBP and introduce the concept that the DUV is largely a composition of 4 submodels. http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/vocab-du.html#intro

<RiccardoAlbertoni> ericstephan: working with antoine we are revising the introduction tiding the intro to vocabulary test practice the

<ericstephan> In section 2 we discuss why extensive use of other vocabularies was necessary due to the vocabularies inheriitd by other reused vocabularies. http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/vocab-du.html#namespaces-1

<ericstephan> Section 5 A new section was added and is still a work in progress to discuss Alternative Vocabulary Considerations. The intent here is that part of the purpose of the DUV is to provide guidance on how to depict usage, citation, and feedback on the web, and in the depiction there are certain parts that are open to different kinds of representation. http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/vocab-du.html#relationship_vocabularies

<RiccardoAlbertoni> ericstephan: .. in section 5 we talked about a introductory section

<RiccardoAlbertoni> ericstephan: providing some guidance as result of feedback from the Open knowledge foundation..

<ericstephan> Section 6 pictures of the submodels were added to help people look at what parts of the model apply to what submodel. http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/vocab-du.html#Vocab_Overview

<RiccardoAlbertoni> ericstephan: we needed some pictures, broken down the model to make it clearer

<RiccardoAlbertoni> phila: breaking the diagram, is a very good idea but please created three distinct things ..

<RiccardoAlbertoni> as in this way I can click on each and see them

<ericstephan> We did receive feedback from Pierre-Yves Vandenbussche who is interested in including the DUV in the OKFN Linked Open Vocabulary. Which has to do with the motivation of expanding section 5. http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/vocab-du.html#relationship_vocabularies

<RiccardoAlbertoni> ericstephan: we get some contact with the open knowledge foundation, they want to use DUV for feedback, so we that is why are making the changes ..

<newton> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-wg/2016Jul/0022.html

<Zakim> newton, you wanted to ask very quickly about the evidences object

<RiccardoAlbertoni> newton: my question is to phil.. about the message from max , I can't recall what we decided about

<RiccardoAlbertoni> .. the adoption of BP from other recommendation

+1 to phila.

<phila> Localised Guides

<laufer> +1 (the director will accept this as an evidence?)

<annette_g> personally, I think being listed in a guide is stronger evidence that something is a real best practice than that someone is doing it.

<RiccardoAlbertoni> phila: they are important, if they are for example from government ..

@laufer -- I think it will help build the case, but I don't think the director will accept them as implementations

<RiccardoAlbertoni> phila: they have to show evidence of endorsement ..

<Caroline_> +1 to phila

<deirdrelee> https://www.w3.org/2016/06/10-dwbp-minutes

<RiccardoAlbertoni> deirdrelee: the group decided to not include them..

<annette_g> maybe we can do both

<deirdrelee> https://www.w3.org/2016/06/03-dwbp-minutes

<RiccardoAlbertoni> Caroline_: i remember the resolution we take but i think they should be used as well

<newton> @phila would you mind answering Makx's message?

<laufer> maybe in our report we could separate these two types of evidences... implementations and endorsments...

<RiccardoAlbertoni> Caroline_: the form for feedbacks is ready .. can we keep going with implementation or we have to wait for I18n

<RiccardoAlbertoni> phila: keep going

<RiccardoAlbertoni> hadleybeeman: to my mind, the main reason to show implementation is give evidence that they are not rubbish and can be implemented..

<RiccardoAlbertoni> bye to all !

<laufer> bye all