Data on the Web Best Practices Working Group Teleconference

26 Aug 2016

See also: IRC log


annette_g, yaso, hadleybeeman, phila, antoine, ericstephan, riccardoAlbertoni, laufer, BernadetteLoscio, PWinstanley



<hadleybeeman> https://www.w3.org/2016/07/29-dwbp-minutes

Old meeting minutes

<hadleybeeman> http://www.w3.org/2016/08/05-dwbp-minutes

<hadleybeeman> https://www.w3.org/2016/08/12-dwbp-minutes

PROPOSED: To accept the last 4 weeks' meetings minutes

<hadleybeeman> last week: https://www.w3.org/2016/08/19-dwbp-minutes

PROPOSED: To accept last week's minutes

<ericstephan> +1

<BernadetteLoscio> +1


<hadleybeeman> +0 (wasn't here)

<annette_g> +1

<riccardoAlbertoni> +1 (to the first two, i was not present in the last)

RESOLUTION: To accept last week's minutes

<laufer> +1

Data Quality Vocabulary

hadleybeeman: Do the editors want to say anything?

antoine: We have continued on the editorial actions that we had

<antoine> https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Data_quality_draft_actions

antoine: We got a lot of them done.
... Still a few things that we could work on
... On the mailing list, it was suggested that there might be another version published
... but then there was the idea that this would be the last one

hadleybeeman: Sorry for the mixed messages
... What I was trying to say is that we're not planning to continue to meet as a WG talking about changes to the docs.
... From the perspective of the WG, this is the last main meeting
... But if you want to carry on and then come back to the WG and ask for a review and a vote then that can happen

antoine: Do we need to set the formal status of the doc?

<riccardoAlbertoni> very good ..

hadleybeeman: Nope, we can publush as many version s of a note as we like

antoine: We'll do some more polishing but these things we're changing are about the wording

<Zakim> phila, you wanted to ask about those little things

phila: What kind of issues are you dealing with?

antoine: Things like consistent capitalisation, we added one arrow to the diagram
... Two more important things - flagging items that could constitute future work (the wish list)
... but I think we've done that already
... another one ... not about the doc, but the turtle files. Do we need to create a namespace doc separate from the spec
... we can do it easily

<hadleybeeman> phila: First, the minimum we need is just a turtle file. in w3.org/NS/dqv

<hadleybeeman> ...Ideally, you have multiple versions of that. A ttl, and RDF XML, and a JSON-LD one. And set up conneg between them

<hadleybeeman> ...We need at least one deferenceable one

<hadleybeeman> ...There already, no?

<hadleybeeman> antoine: yes

-> https://www.w3.org/ns/dqv the namespace file exists

<hadleybeeman> riccardoAlbertoni: Yes, it's there but needs updating

<hadleybeeman> phila: as part of the publication process, we need an updated version of https://www.w3.org/ns/dqv

<hadleybeeman> ...and if you have time later to do other serialisations, including ideally an HTML one, we can do that.

-> https://www.w3.org/2016/11/sdsvoc/ SDSVoc

<hadleybeeman> ...Also, re future work:

<hadleybeeman> ...I'm hoping you can present this vocabulary at this workshop in the end of Nov.

<hadleybeeman> ...There should be a new working group in the new year which should (among other things) review and update DCAT. And it would be good if it looked at this group's vocabularies too.

<hadleybeeman> antoine: this is on my agenda.


hadleybeeman: Anything else tyo ask?


<antoine> http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/vocab-dqg.html

PROPOSED: That the current editor's draft of the data Quality Vocabulary, http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/vocab-dqg.html, be published as an updated NOTE

<annette_g> why is that dqg?

<annette_g> +1

<ericstephan> +1

<BernadetteLoscio> +1

<laufer> +1

<hadleybeeman> +1

<riccardoAlbertoni> +1

<antoine> +1

<yaso> +1

RESOLUTION: That the current editor's draft of the data Quality Vocabulary, http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/vocab-dqg.html, be published as an updated NOTE

<ericstephan> yeah congrats data quality editors

<hadleybeeman> phila: we need to clarify the status of the document

phila: currently it says: his document presents the most mature version of the Data Quality Vocabulary that could be produced in the lifespan of the Data on the Web Best Practices Working Group. At time of publication, its main components have remained stable for several months, even after receiving feedback and suggestions from the community. We expect however that further refinements and extensions of this model may be carried out by future working groups,

considering requirements from specific domains or applications.

<riccardoAlbertoni> yes!!

<hadleybeeman> phila: 'extensions' are easy. 'Refinement' sounds like it might change, which is more problematic

antoine: By refinement, I think we expect mostly more guidelines on usage
... I can't guarantee against future changes

phila: How about clarifications cf. refinements?

antoine: I;m OK if riccardoAlbertoni is.

<annette_g> do the refinements need clarifying?

riccardoAlbertoni: In future, someone could try to implement and suggest some changes, but that's not going to happen in this group. If DQV were a Rec, then refinement might considder this
... but clarification seems better

antoine: The URL for this doc - Annette made the point about the URL. Maybe we can drop the G from any URL we'll think of?

<hadleybeeman> phila: okay, except that it's not there for the document. It only appears on our github URL

<hadleybeeman> ...Our published version is at /dqv

phila: The g doesn't appear in TR space, only in GitHub

riccardoAlbertoni: I've explained my POV so, OK..

hadleybeeman: So doies that wind up this discussion?

Dataset Usage Vocabulary

hadleybeeman: Anything to talk about, editors?

<PWinstanley> +q

<ericstephan> • The DUV editors have fixed pictures and discussions: http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/vocab-du.html#Vocab_Overview , http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/vocab-du.html#Citation_Model including identifying gaps in the DCAT 1.0 and made a number of clarifications about citation….

ericstephan: Bernadette and I have been busy trying to do some refinement on some of the pictures, examples etc
... One of the things we've done is to change the colours on the overview to point out what is DUV and what parts are third party vocabs
... In the citation model we have gone to greater lengths to clarify what our changes are and how DCAT 1.0 has been extended by DUV
... in order to make both datasets and distriubutions citable
... and then we've gone into how you can create electronic citations from the fields within that.
... So we hope we've cleared up any murkiness

<ericstephan> • Expanded on the http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/vocab-du.html#relationship_vocabularies

ericstephan: Based on the comments from OKFN in July we updated a new section talking about alternate approaches to other vocabs
... one of them was the review vocab
... At the time when we were asked to think about that and other vocabs in LOV, I was asked to provide some text about that so we added that, and relationship to schema.org and the review vocabulary

PWinstanley: I wanted to apologise for being late and leaving early

<BernadetteLoscio> thanks!

laufer: My question is not directly about the things that Eric talked about. I want to congratulate Eric, Bernadette and Sumit for the work.
... I did a review. I notice that some of the properties in the diagram are not listed in the text. So I think that we can vote on this doc but I think that there's some tidying up to be done

<ericstephan> Removed properties that were deprecated and clarified conflicting or vague definitions of properties….

ericstephan: Thanks for pointing that out. That's part of the final scrubbing that we're doing.
... I was going to bring up that were in the doc that were deprecated, so we've removed those
... But anything in the diagram does need to be in the doc. So we'll need to add that to our to Do list.
... We've also been updating our examples

<ericstephan> • We still need to: Update the vocabulary, update the JSON examples, add the three properties, add one more example, follow up with Joao Paulo and OKFN

<BernadetteLoscio> w3c.github.io/dwbp/vocab-du.html#examples

ericstephan: And so I think that we st ill have a little bit of work to do, so we're showing how a person can use the DUV
... So our To Do includes updating the Turtle, the JSON examples, amnd we have 3 properties that we're missing. And the last piece is following up with Joaoa Paulo on the usage tool.
... We think we have that resolved. I also need to follow up with Pierre YV

<laufer> ok. thank you, eric

<hadleybeeman> phila: You've given us a finite list of things you want to do. Would another week or two make a difference?

<hadleybeeman> ...I'm concerned... we're expecting not to have weekly hour-long calls after this. Plan is to have a 15-min call every other week.

<hadleybeeman> ...Human nature is such that it may be harder to keep it a priority.

<hadleybeeman> ...At some point, the group will have to consider wither the BP doc has met its exit criteria. That could be a panic deadline for you.

<hadleybeeman> ...It is not a requirement that both vocabularies are published on Tuesday. It only makes sense if they're ready.

<hadleybeeman> ...At the same time, you CAN publish them on Tuesday, and fix those little things in the following weeks if you wish.

<hadleybeeman> ...I don't want you to feel bulldozed.

ericstephan: Thanks. One of the things... one you have momentum, my preference is to carry on
... So it's easier to carry on. Berna and I are close to accomplishing what we want to accomplish.

<BernadetteLoscio> +1

ericstephan: I> think we can be done over the weekend

BernadetteLoscio: I agree
... Do we have time to make these changes?

<hadleybeeman> phila: The timing... I need to get the documents in place over the weekend. I'll be doing it on Sunday.

<hadleybeeman> ...Everything published on Tuesday has to be fully ready by Monday.

<hadleybeeman> ...If you can have the minor things done... Also, don't forget my Sunday AM is Saturday night, in reality.

<hadleybeeman> BernadetteLoscio: we can do this. The changes are things we know exactly how to fix

<ericstephan> we've only just begun (pacific time)

<hadleybeeman> phila: If you can, realistically, get it done today (Friday) — and have it ready by the end of Saturday (Americas time) — that's fine.

<hadleybeeman> ...Assuming it's just little, editorial and formatting changes.

<hadleybeeman> BernadetteLoscio: Okay. I think we can do this.

BernadetteLoscio: I think we can - do you agree Eric?

ericstephan: Yes, but..
... worst case, we make our changes and it won't be until next week that we hear back from Joao-Paolo and OKFN
... and they don't like our changes, then that would mean that there would be at least 2 refinement activities
... It's just to be completely fair. is that something we can still consider being done on Tuesday with a definition of the usage tool.
... We;re talking about the human definition of a usage tool
... The risk is that we get unfavourable feedback

BernadetteLoscio: These are not big changes.
... Can we make changes after the publication?

<hadleybeeman> phila: Yes, if you wanted to. We could publish a version on Tuesday, and then liaise with the chairs — depending on when the next meeting is — talk to them about setting up a meeting with the working group to vote to publish another draft.

<hadleybeeman> ...A working group could publish a draft every week, if they chose.

hadleybeeman: So do you want top publish now or not?

ericstephan: I think so

BernadetteLoscio: Yes, the changes are not so big

PROPOSED: That the latest editors draft of the DUV at http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/vocab-du.html be published as a NOTE, allowing for the editors to make final minor tweaks after the meeting
... That the editors are asked to make final tweaks to the draft of the DUV at http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/vocab-du.html for it to be published as a NOTE on Tuesday 30th

<hadleybeeman> +1

<BernadetteLoscio> +1

<ericstephan> +1

<annette_g> +1

<laufer> +1

<riccardoAlbertoni> +1

<ericstephan> no no I liked the first opinion :-)

<yaso> +1

<antoine> +1 and this is not influenced by the chair ;-)

RESOLUTION: That the editors are asked to make final tweaks to the draft of the DUV at http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/vocab-du.html for it to be published as a NOTE on Tuesday 30th

<BernadetteLoscio> ;)

<ericstephan> wooot wooot

<antoine> hurray!

<annette_g> woohoo!!!

PROPOSED: Vote of thanks to Vocab editors

<riccardoAlbertoni> congrats to all!


<hadleybeeman> +1

<BernadetteLoscio> thank you all!

<annette_g> +1

RESOLUTION: Vote of thanks to Vocab editors

<yaso> haha fair! +1

<laufer> +1

Best practices doc

hadleybeeman: Can the editors summarise what happened at the Director's call?

BernadetteLoscio: During the meeting, the Director asked about we had addressed the requirements, feedback from the commenters etc.
... We showed what we havae done in the last 2 years. At the end he asked about the implementations
... He suggested that we analyse one or more well known datasets to see whether they do follow the BPs. He suggested that just 2 evidences per BP would be pretty weak
... It's i.mportant to show that our BPs really are BPs
... I was thinking that now we have 2 types of evidence.

<annette_g> nondatasets = other best practices lists?

BernadetteLoscio: One is to show that it is possible to implement a BP and the other is to show that it really is a BP as it has been implemented

<laufer> known

BernadetteLoscio: In this case, I understood that the Share-PSI evidence can also be listed in our implementation report
... We also asked about the WG's extension
... I said that it will take a long time if it's just the editors doing everything, but if other members of the WG can help then we can make this by end October.
... I think it would be good if individuals c an focus on specific BPs

hadleybeeman: Thanks Bernadette and huge congratulations

<ericstephan> I have an archive that can be listed as well...the archive manager will be working with me

hadleybeeman: So that leads slowly into what's next. This is our last weekly hour long meeting...

BernadetteLoscio: We still have one little issue open
... I'd like to ask Annete if she saw my last message and if she agrees with just including a short sentence on the example, as I think we need to close this today

annette_g: I replied yesterday...

<hadleybeeman> s/annete/Annette

BernadetteLoscio: About the example...
... We can talk by Skype if needs be

annette_g: You want to say that the data is already in a locale-specific format so the parameters are necessary
... I would take out the word 'already'
... Did you see my little suggestion about adding to the sentence there? SO we point out that the date in the metadata is locale-neutral

BernadetteLoscio: You have time to discuss this after the meeting
... We really need to finish this today

hadleybeeman: Yes.
... But I want to cheer you both on to get it sorted.

The future

<laufer> :(

<BernadetteLoscio> i'm gonna miss our calls

hadleybeeman: The chairs felt that as the vocabs are done unless the editors say otherwise. The chairs thought it would be useful for the BP editors to check in every 2 weeks or so
... But we'll talk before the meeting. It's your time to use as you wish. But we're nearly there. We're going into implementations as soon as the CR is published.
... Editors, it's your job to drive this it's all our jobs to help
... We need you to tell us what you need.
... We're here to help

BernadetteLoscio: We'll certainly send messages
... and we'll need help with the implemenbtation report.

hadleybeeman: So we'll next meet on 9 September for a 15 minute check in.

<laufer> It was a great pleasure to work with all of you! Thank you all!

hadleybeeman: You are all phenominal
... Thank you

<antoine> and the chairs have done a fantastic job too, thanks!

<yaso> Thanks, hadleybeeman!

phila: Thinks Hadley's pretty phenomenal too

<ericstephan> Thank you Hadley and the chairs! You have made this hard work a lot of fun!

<annette_g> Thanks to everyone! It's been great to work with you all. I learned a ton.

<antoine> and our W3C team contact :-)

<annette_g> vote of thanks to Phl!

<yaso> Yes! Thanks to phila !! o/

<laufer> thank you phil

<riccardoAlbertoni> thanks !!

BernadetteLoscio: I've enkjyed it - it's been a whole learning curve. Thank you

<ericstephan> Thank you Phil just a better time for DCAT 2.0

<BernadetteLoscio> Thank you Phil!!!!

<hadleybeeman> phila: Karen Myers will be asking some of you for testimonials ,to say in the press about this.

<hadleybeeman> ...You may be hearing from her.

<hadleybeeman> ...Also — we've reached CR, and we have 2 vocabs that are pretty stable -- but we do have to get these implementations.

<hadleybeeman> ...It's been a huge effort to get from the enormously underspecified scope of the work, to where we are — but there is that final stage to go.

<hadleybeeman> ...It will get us to where this is a quoted and used standard.

<hadleybeeman> ...So whilst I agree with all the congratulations — we're not done yet.

<yaso> Bye all!!!

<laufer> bye all

<BernadetteLoscio> bye!

<BernadetteLoscio> yes :)

<BernadetteLoscio> im already there!

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

  1. To accept last week's minutes
  2. That the current editor's draft of the data Quality Vocabulary, http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/vocab-dqg.html, be published as an updated NOTE
  3. That the editors are asked to make final tweaks to the draft of the DUV at http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/vocab-du.html for it to be published as a NOTE on Tuesday 30th
  4. Vote of thanks to Vocab editors
[End of minutes]