W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-dwbp-wg@w3.org > December 2016

Re: [Minutes] 2016 11 25

From: yaso <who@yaso.is>
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2016 10:09:43 -0500
To: public-dwbp-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <e622b8ed-9509-535d-bebb-44cbba5930d9@yaso.is>
Hello all dwbp people!

Unfortunately, I've been a little away from the
group in the last moments, because pursuing dreams,
trying to change the world and etcetera, but I wish to
thank you all with enthusiasm! Special thanks to Phil,
whose work was a key to the delivery of all the things.


Congratulations to all!


yaso



-- 
∞ yaso.is <http://yaso.is>
∞ Fellow of the Berkman Klein Center at Harvard



On 11/25/2016 02:38 PM, Hadley Beeman wrote:
> Lovely summary. Thanks Phil!
>
> -H
>
> Le Fri, 25 Nov 2016 à 15:40, Phil Archer <phila@w3.org> a écrit :
>
>> The minutes of today's auspicious meeting are at
>> https://www.w3.org/2016/11/25-dwbp-minutes with a snapshot below.
>>
>> We have resolved to publish new versions of both vocabularies and seek
>> transition to PR for the BP doc, having collected substantial evidence
>> of implementation and relevant documentation. Eric is checking his
>> resolution to 2 final issues and, assuming that goes to plan, the DUV is
>> complete. If further work is necessary, we'll hold a call just on that
>> topic.
>>
>> Everyone expressed heartfelt thanks to everyone concerned, especially
>> the editors, for putting in so much work.
>>
>>
>>         Data on the Web Best Practices Working Group Teleconference
>>
>> 25 Nov 2016
>>
>>      [2]Agenda
>>
>>         [2] https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20161125
>>
>>      See also: [3]IRC log
>>
>>         [3] http://www.w3.org/2016/11/25-dwbp-irc
>>
>> Attendees
>>
>>      Present
>>             ericstephan, hadleybeeman, riccardoAlbertoni, PhilA,
>>             newton, Caroline_, BernadetteLoscio, annette_g, Makx,
>>             deirdrelee
>>
>>      Regrets
>>             Laufer
>>
>>      Chair
>>             Hadley
>>
>>      Scribe
>>             PhilA
>>
>> Contents
>>
>>        * [4]Topics
>>            1. [5]Precious call minutes
>>            2. [6]BP Transition
>>            3. [7]Data Quality vocabulary
>>            4. [8]Dataset usage Vocabulary
>>        * [9]Summary of Action Items
>>        * [10]Summary of Resolutions
>>        __________________________________________________________
>>
>>      <scribe> scribe: PhilA
>>
>>      <scribe> scribeNick: phila
>>
>>      <hadleybeeman> Phila is a bit early :)
>>
>>      [Discussion of the wish list]
>>      [11]https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Main_Page#Wish_List
>>
>>        [11] https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Main_Page#Wish_List
>>
>> Precious call minutes
>>
>>      <hadleybeeman> s/precious/previous
>>
>>      -> [12]https://www.w3.org/2016/11/11-dwbp-minutes Minutes from
>>      11/11/16
>>
>>        [12] https://www.w3.org/2016/11/11-dwbp-minutes
>>
>>      NOTUC on previous minutes?
>>
>>      RESOLUTION: Accept previous meeting minutes
>>
>> BP Transition
>>
>>      BernadetteLoscio: I think we're ready and I think Carol and
>>      Newton agree
>>
>>      <BernadetteLoscio>
>>      [13]http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/dwbp-implementation-report.html
>>
>>        [13] http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/dwbp-implementation-report.html
>>
>>      ->
>>      [14]http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/dwbp-implementation-report.html
>>      Implementation report
>>
>>        [14] http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/dwbp-implementation-report.html
>>
>>      BernadetteLoscio: We tried to explain the methodology and the
>>      kinds of evidence that we collected
>>      ... In 2.1 we show the relation between BP and evidence
>>      ... considering datasets, guidelines and docs
>>      ... for some BPs it's easy to show, Others are more difficult
>>      ... BP28 is the most difficult on ewhich is about assessing
>>      datasets coverage as it's hard to find real implementation for
>>      this as it's very specific.
>>      ... But it is relevant and we showed that it is possible to do
>>      and we have agreement that it's important
>>      ... We have the lost of evidence, a link for each one
>>      ... That section 2.2 - 2.4
>>      ... Also have guidelines from Share-PSI etc.
>>      ... Included a section with some graphics to show which BPs
>>      have more evidence. Also tried to show that we have...
>>      ... First graph shows all evidence, 2nd for datasets and
>>      portals, 3rd for..
>>      ... Also made a cross ref between BPs and challenges
>>      ... After the graphics we tried to analyse the evidence that we
>>      collected. We want to show that preservation is not difficult
>>      to implement, just hard to find evidence of implementation.
>>      ... This section needs to be finished.
>>      ... We evaluated data catalogue solutions - CKAN and Socrata -
>>      you can see...
>>
>>      <BernadetteLoscio>
>>      [15]https://docs.google.com/a/cin.ufpe.br/spreadsheets/d/18Gz0n
>>      9HOmeSPjo6qChhXdtPeOBf9kl1mFlA-KkqxP24/edit?usp=sharing
>>
>>        [15]
>>
>> https://docs.google.com/a/cin.ufpe.br/spreadsheets/d/18Gz0n9HOmeSPjo6qChhXdtPeOBf9kl1mFlA-KkqxP24/edit?usp=sharing
>>
>>      BernadetteLoscio: Plan is to convert the Google doc into an
>>      HTML table
>>      ... We wanted to show that CKAN and Socrata supports BPs even
>>      if a specific publishers doesn't follow them.
>>      ... We wanted to end with a summary of how to implement each BP
>>      and proof that we've done it.
>>      ... We're working on this implementation to show a step by step
>>      guide of how we implemented each BP.
>>      ... We can therefore show that each BP is implementable
>>
>>      newton: We are making subtle changes like swapping Google Docs
>>      for HTML but that's cosmetic
>>
>>      hadleybeeman: Thank you. This is a huge amount of work. The
>>      most thorough I've seen.
>>      ... The table at section 2.1 is what the Director will focus
>>      on.
>>      ... There may be questions like why does BP28 only have 3 when
>>      others have more - but you can answer that verbally.
>>      ... The last thing you said - about BPs being implementable -
>>      by showing that others have done it, we've already proved that.
>>
>>      BernadetteLoscio: It's because I'm worried about BP28 where we
>>      only have 1 evidence from a dataset and 2 from documents/blogs
>>      ... it's a site
>>      ... This implementation was made by someone else (not us)
>>      ... So we thought that it would be nice to show that someone
>>      else has done everything.
>>
>>      hadleybeeman: I think that's a user. Someone has used it -
>>      good. But you've already proved that it's implementable.
>>
>>      BernadetteLoscio: Can we stillwork on the implementation report
>>      up until the Director meeting?
>>
>>      <annette_g> Does anyone else see "The DocumentView interface is
>>      not supported
>>
>>      <annette_g> Non-W3C methods of obtaining "window" also failed"
>>      when they open the editor's draft?
>>
>>      BernadetteLoscio: We can probably add more evidence. I;ve
>>      written to Christophe, for example
>>
>>      hadleybeeman: The IR can be edited up until the Director's
>>      call, it's not a formal document.
>>      ... That said, we need to vote on the BPs based on what we have
>>      at the time of the vote
>>      ... I would also recommend... assuming we go ahead, as you
>>      prepare for the Director's call, be ready for questions you can
>>      predict you're going to get.
>>      ... You can put info in the doc if you want to but it may not
>>      be read.
>>
>>      BernadetteLoscio: It's not a Note, but we can still make it
>>      available, no?
>>
>>      phila: Yes, I'll put it in /2016/11/{blah}
>>
>>      <newton> +1 phil :-)
>>
>>      BernadetteLoscio: Do you think its worth including the data
>>      catalogues evaluation?
>>      ... IU think it shows that they're available in the solutions
>>      that are widely used. They're not currently in the evidence
>>      table.
>>      ... It's another level
>>
>>      hadleybeeman: Phil said it can be on the Web, so it's out
>>      there. You can do what you like with it.
>>      ... If you want to add, close off etc. you can
>>
>>      BernadetteLoscio: But for Director's call, it's the table in
>>      section 2.1 that's most important
>>
>>      hadleybeeman: Yep, and 2.2 explains 2.1
>>      ... It's a very good doc and very thorough
>>
>>      <Zakim> antoine, you wanted to discuss nitpicking
>>
>>      antoine: It's a very good doc.
>>      ... Just one comment - on the graphics in section 3
>>      ... I'm not sure why the no. evidences is in a differnet
>>      diagram
>>      ... It's because not all docs have references
>>      ... It looks a bit different from the other one which makes it
>>      look as if there's a difference in the methodology.
>>      ... It looks as if you're trying to hid something when in fact
>>      you're trying to explain.
>>
>>      BernadetteLoscio: Is it a problem that we don't havea docs and
>>      ref for each BP?
>>
>>      antoine: No, as long as there's another kind of evidence
>>
>>      BernadetteLoscio: This type of evidence is a kind of support.
>>      ... Our main concern was to have datasets and data portals for
>>      each BP
>>
>>      antoine: I'm already convinced.
>>      ... On the number of evidence per challenge
>>      ... I'm concerned that this diagram over emphasises the smaller
>>      level of evidence for BP28
>>      ... It highlights data preservation prob even more
>>
>>      BernadetteLoscio: I agree. I had similar thoughts when I saw
>>      it.
>>
>>      antoine: In 2.3 there's a really weird link for ???
>>
>>      <hadleybeeman> q/
>>
>>      [Discussion - the hash bang URL is fine]
>>
>>      <hadleybeeman> phila: This document... we can put it on the
>>      web. It is linked from the PR and the actual recommendation. It
>>      is part of the documentation.
>>
>>      <Makx> q
>>
>>      hadleybeeman: have all comments received been addressed? Is
>>      there a disposition of comments?
>>
>>      BernadetteLoscio: We received some comments but they were not
>>      to change the content
>>      ... We had a message from Christophe but he was thinking that
>>      we were still in the previous phase, but he made some commetns
>>      adn suggestions for fixing some minor mistakes
>>
>>      hadleybeeman: And do we have a message from the commenters that
>>      they're happy with our response.
>>
>>      BernadetteLoscio: They were about fixing a word or two
>>      ... I answered saying that we're going to fix it, it's not
>>      about making a proposal.
>>
>>      annette_g: I wanted to point out the restrictions on the Google
>>      doc prevent us getting in
>>
>>      <Caroline_>
>>      [16]http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/dwbp-implementation-report.html
>>
>>        [16] http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/dwbp-implementation-report.html
>>
>>      annette_g: Can it be linked from the regular WG homepage so we
>>      can get to it.
>>      ... There's a link to the IR but it goes to the Google doc
>>      ... Oh, no, it goes somewhere else
>>
>>      hadleybeeman: So we need a message from Christophe confirming
>>      that he's happy
>>
>>      BernadetteLoscio: I'll collect the messages
>>      ... I'll do it the same way as last time on a wiki page
>>
>>      <Zakim> phila, you wanted to talk about Wendy Carrera
>>      [17]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-comments/2
>>      016Nov/0001.html
>>
>>        [17]
>> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-comments/2016Nov/0001.html
>>
>>      <hadleybeeman> phila: Wendy's comments are more than editorial.
>>      She runs the European Data Portal.
>>
>>      On Wendy's mail, yes, we can point to
>>      [18]https://www.w3.org/TR/dwbp/#LocaleParametersMetadata about
>>      locale-neutral data. We could talk about her comment on
>>      multilingualism. I don't think that we can add in a line about
>>      multilingual labels in data at this stage but I'm not sure this
>>      is where that belongs anyway - I'd say that's in vocabulary
>>      development. I'd be happy to amend this sentence in BP 15:
>>
>>        [18] https://www.w3.org/TR/dwbp/#LocaleParametersMetadata
>>
>>      " In the context of the Web, using unambiguous, Web-based
>>      identifiers (URIs) for standardized vocabulary resources is an
>>      efficient way to do this."
>>
>>      to say
>>
>>      " In the context of the Web, using unambiguous, Web-based
>>      identifiers (URIs) for standardized vocabulary resources is an
>>      efficient way to do this, noting that the same URI may have
>>      multilingaul labels attached for greater cross-border
>>      interoperability."
>>
>>      (Or some such small addition in that general area of the doc).
>>
>>      On DCAT-AP, I thought we'd mentioned it somewhere but a quick
>>      search shows me to be mistaken. We could perhaps amend BP 1 so
>>      that the current:
>>
>>      <hadleybeeman> Phila: She made a couple of comments on her
>>      email. I have a few suggestions on how to reply. But we do need
>>      her to then say, "that helps"
>>
>>      "when defining machine-readable metadata, reusing existing
>>      standard terms and popular vocabularies are strongly
>>      recommended. For example, Dublin Core Metadata (DCMI) terms
>>      DCTERMS] and Data Catalog Vocabulary [VOCAB-DCAT] can be used
>>      to provide descriptive metadata."
>>
>>      becomes
>>
>>      "when defining machine-readable metadata, reusing existing
>>      standard terms and popular vocabularies are strongly
>>      recommended. For example, Dublin Core Metadata (DCMI) terms
>>      DCTERMS] and Data Catalog Vocabulary [VOCAB-DCAT] can be used
>>      to provide descriptive metadata. Such vocabularies are designed
>>      to be very flexible so it is often helpful to use a specific
>>      /profile/ of a vocabulary such as the European Commission's
>>      DCAT-AP (link)."
>>
>>      <hadleybeeman> ...Her second comment was to comment DCAT-AP.
>>      Which we haven't yet.
>>
>>      <hadleybeeman> ...I think that's as far as we can go to address
>>      those at this point.
>>
>>      <hadleybeeman> BernadetteLoscio: I thought her comment meant
>>      changes to the implementation report
>>
>>      <hadleybeeman> phila: I think we can get away with these minor
>>      changes to the BP doc.
>>
>>      <hadleybeeman> BernadetteLoscio: So you can help us to answer
>>      her message?
>>
>>      <hadleybeeman> phila: I'll make those changes to the doc and
>>      confirm them with Wendy
>>
>>      <scribe> ACTION: phila to act on Wendy Carrera's comments
>>      suggested and write to her [recorded in
>>      [19]http://www.w3.org/2016/11/25-dwbp-minutes.html#action01]
>>
>>        [19] http://www.w3.org/2016/11/25-dwbp-minutes.html#action01]
>>
>>      <trackbot> Created ACTION-303 - Act on wendy carrera's comments
>>      suggested and write to her [on Phil Archer - due 2016-12-02].
>>
>>      BernadetteLoscio: I'll take another look at the mailing list.
>>
>>      <Caroline_> [20]https://github.com/w3c/dwbp/pull/473
>>
>>        [20] https://github.com/w3c/dwbp/pull/473
>>
>>      newton: We had pull requests from Andrew Kirkpatrick, from
>>      Adobe that changed a link. Do we include that as a comment
>>
>>      hadleybeeman: I'd point to that and say that we accepted their
>>      proposal
>>
>>      Makx: Just one comment on section 4 of the implementation
>>      report. You're making statements about a product that might not
>>      be in line with their view. If you publish without asking them,
>>      you might get into trouble.
>>      ... You're matching a BP against a product - the vendor might
>>      object to that.
>>
>>      BernadetteLoscio: I see that. We've finished this evaluation
>>      yesterday. We're going to contact the vendors and see if they
>>      agree with this.
>>      ... If not, we won't include it.
>>
>>      <riccardoAlbertoni> just delete the column about fail
>>
>>      hadleybeeman: A suggestion - we need to show evidence - not all
>>      evidence will be relevant.
>>
>>      <ericstephan> +1 hadleybeeman
>>
>>      <Makx> +1 to hadley
>>
>>      hadleybeeman: You could remove the fail column
>>
>>      <riccardoAlbertoni> +1
>>
>>      <Caroline_> +1 :)
>>
>>      hadleybeeman: Just keep provides evidence, provides partial
>>      evidence instead of "pass" and "partial pass"
>>      ... That's less confrontational
>>
>>      BernadetteLoscio: Instead of pass/fail, we can just say which
>>      solutions implement which BPs
>>      ... Like in 2.2
>>
>>      <Makx> that's OK
>>
>>      hadleybeeman: That would work too.
>>
>>      <riccardoAlbertoni> \me the same here
>>
>>      annette_g: One little thing that I think we can take care of.
>>      The editor's draft in Safari I get javascript errors. But it
>>      works in Chrome and FF
>>
>>      phila: I believe that problem will disappear in the published
>>      version in which ReSpec disappears
>>
>>      <newton> @annette_g, would you mind chatting a little on skype
>>      to show me those errors?
>>
>>      PROPOSED: Accept comments from Christophe G and Wendy C that
>>      will lead to very minor tweaks to the BP doc
>>
>>      <annette_g> what if commenters aren't happy with our changes?
>>
>>      <annette_g> :)
>>
>>      +1
>>
>>      <ericstephan> +1
>>
>>      <riccardoAlbertoni> +1
>>
>>      <newton> +1
>>
>>      <hadleybeeman> +1
>>
>>      <annette_g> +1
>>
>>      <deirdrelee> +1
>>
>>      RESOLUTION: Accept comments from Christophe G and Wendy C that
>>      will lead to very minor tweaks to the BP doc
>>
>>      <Makx> +1
>>
>>      <BernadetteLoscio> +1
>>
>>      <Caroline_> +1
>>
>>      <annette_g> but Wendy may be trying to get us to add a BP about
>>      multilingual publishing
>>
>>      <hadleybeeman> @annette_g, in which case we'd have to back and
>>      do CR again.
>>
>>      PROPOSED: That subject to positive replies from Wendy C and
>>      Christophe G, the WG will seek transition of the BP doc to
>>      Proposed Recommendation, noting the extensive evidence of
>>      implementation that has been gathered
>>
>>      <hadleybeeman> +1
>>
>>      <annette_g> +1
>>
>>      <ericstephan> +1 in the season of hope
>>
>>      <Caroline_> +1
>>
>>      <riccardoAlbertoni> +1
>>
>>      <newton> +1
>>
>>      <Makx> +1
>>
>>      <BernadetteLoscio> +1
>>
>>      <antoine> +1
>>
>>      <deirdrelee> +1
>>
>>      RESOLUTION: That subject to positive replies from Wendy C and
>>      Christophe G, the WG will seek transition of the BP doc to
>>      Proposed Recommendation, noting the extensive evidence of
>>      implementation that has been gathered
>>
>>      <BernadetteLoscio> uhhuhuhuuhuhuhuhuhu
>>
>>      <riccardoAlbertoni> congrats!!!!
>>
>>      <ericstephan> woot woot
>>
>>      <newton> :-) :-)
>>
>>      <annette_g> PROPOSED: A vote of thanks to editors for putting
>>      together a fantastic implementation report!
>>
>>      <hadleybeeman> +1
>>
>>      <riccardoAlbertoni> +1
>>
>>      <annette_g> +1
>>
>>      +1
>>
>>      <ericstephan> +1
>>
>>      <Makx> +1
>>
>>      <deirdrelee> +1 :)
>>
>>      <antoine> +1 :-)
>>
>>      <newton> thanks! :-)
>>
>>      RESOLUTION: A vote of thanks to editors for putting together a
>>      fantastic implementation report!
>>
>> Data Quality vocabulary
>>
>>      <BernadetteLoscio> thanks a lot everybody!
>>
>>      <Caroline_> Thank you! Great job all members of the WG :))))))
>>
>>      hadleybeeman: DQV editors, would you like to publish a new
>>      verrsion of DQV?
>>
>>      antoine: Yes
>>      ... All we changed was a couple of mappings in mapping to the
>>      ISO quality dimensions
>>
>>      riccardoAlbertoni: And we changed data usage to dataset usage
>>
>>      hadleybeeman: Are there any other changes?
>>      ... Are there any other comments?
>>
>>      riccardoAlbertoni: We collected some new implementations in the
>>      wiki
>>
>>      antoine: There are some old comments for which we didn't
>>      receive precise feedback to your replies, but we're thinking of
>>      adding to the WG's wishlist
>>
>>      hadleybeeman: So you're saying that even though you don't have
>>      confirmation from the commenters, after allowing good time, you
>>      want to go ahead
>>
>>      PROPOSED: That the current Editor's Draft of the Data Quality
>>      Vocabulary be published as an updated Note
>>
>>      <hadleybeeman> +1
>>
>>      <deirdrelee> +1
>>
>>      <Makx> +1
>>
>>      <annette_g> +1
>>
>>      <antoine> +1
>>
>>      <newton> +1
>>
>>      <riccardoAlbertoni> +1
>>
>>      <BernadetteLoscio> +1
>>
>>      <ericstephan> +1
>>
>>      <Caroline_> +1
>>
>>      RESOLUTION: That the current Editor's Draft of the Data Quality
>>      Vocabulary be published as an updated Note
>>
>> Dataset usage Vocabulary
>>
>>      <annette_g> yay!
>>
>>      ericstephan: I'd like to mention the ongoing discussion with
>>      Andrea P
>>      ... Andrea has been excellent at providing feedback on the DUV
>>      ... He pointed out an inconsistency in data usage and dataset
>>      usage
>>      ... He was asking about the relationship with DQV
>>      ... I was thinking these might be good topics for a summary
>>      document that we could publish cf. putting in the doc.
>>      ... Andrea has also pointed out some errors in usage of
>>      dct:identifier
>>      ... So I'd like permission to check with the SPARK ontology
>>      editors
>>      ... We have a stable version of the doc, it's been stable since
>>      August. What I'd like is permission to publish with the
>>      examples fixed.
>>
>>      hadleybeeman: Typos, yes. What's the discussion with SPARK
>>      ontology editors. How different could that make the doc?
>>
>>      ericstephan: Our team has been working with SPARK for a while.
>>      ... It's just making sure that we use the correct property in
>>      the way that SPARK would like to use it
>>      ... If it's not something that we can verify, I'd just take the
>>      property out of the example.
>>
>>      <hadleybeeman> phila: is this dcterms:identifier?
>>
>>      <hadleybeeman> eric: no
>>
>>      <hadleybeeman> phila: In the resolution, we can note tis is an
>>      ongoing discussion. Subject to simple resolution of the issue
>>      with vero:isReferencedby, and the one on dcterms:identifier,
>>      the group is happy.
>>
>>      <hadleybeeman> ...If that isn't simply resolved, we could
>>      reconvene just before the end of Dec.
>>
>>      Makx: I read Andrea's comment, I think biro is an indirection
>>      (pointing to a record)
>>
>>      ericstephan: That's what I think we're doing
>>      ... I just want to double check
>>      ... Worst case, we go back and use dct:isReferencedBy but I
>>      don't think that's correct
>>
>>      hadleybeeman: We could resolve to publish now and come back if
>>      we have to
>>
>>      phila: True
>>
>>      <hadleybeeman> phila: Eric, if you make a snapshot copy before
>>      you make any changes, I'll use that one.
>>
>>      <hadleybeeman> ...But you're hoping not to make changes, right?
>>
>>      <hadleybeeman> ericstephan: Right
>>
>>      <Makx> Eric, I think you do use biro:isReferencedBy
>>      incorrectly; your object is a fabio:InstructionalWork not a
>>      bibliographic record
>>
>>      hadleybeeman: We could vote on what there is, and come back for
>>      another meeting is we have to
>>
>>      ericstephan: Makx also provided some guidance in IRC
>>      ... If it blows up, we'd just remove anything that seems to be
>>      controversial, that's how I'd contain it
>>
>>      hadleybeeman: Are you talking about removing a term, that's
>>      substantial.
>>
>>      ericstephan: I want to do the right thing but I also want to
>>      respect the timing
>>
>>      Makx: Just to say to Eric, it's not a question of changing the
>>      vocab, it's just changing the example
>>      ... I was looking at the diagram - that is correct. The example
>>      is in conflict with the diagram
>>      ... The diagram references a biro prop, in the example, you
>>      make a reference to a ?? work
>>      ... The consequence is for the example
>>
>>      ericstephan: That gives me hope.
>>
>>      <BernadetteLoscio> +1
>>
>>      PROPOSED: To publish the editor's draft of the Dataset Usage
>>      Vocabulary, pending the fixing of typos
>>
>>      <Caroline_> +1
>>
>>      <hadleybeeman> +1
>>
>>      <ericstephan> +1
>>
>>      hadleybeeman: Please, ericstephan, get back to us by Wednesday
>>      (Europe) if you need a meting next Friday.
>>
>>      <BernadetteLoscio> +1
>>
>>      <annette_g> +1
>>
>>      <Makx> +1
>>
>>      phila: Either way, we're only going to publish one new version,
>>      not two.
>>
>>      <ericstephan> [21]https://lov.okfn.org/dataset/lov/vocabs/duv
>>
>>        [21] https://lov.okfn.org/dataset/lov/vocabs/duv
>>
>>      RESOLUTION: To publish the editor's draft of the Dataset Usage
>>      Vocabulary, pending the fixing of typos
>>
>>      <hadleybeeman> yeay!!!
>>
>>      ericstephan: LOV did publish our vocab but since we didn't
>>      publish the other vocabs, it looks tiny. Can we improve that
>>
>>      <Zakim> newton, you wanted to discuss the last and very quick
>>      question - can we add more evidence for Data Preservation BPs?
>>
>>      <Zakim> phila, you wanted to talk LOV
>>
>>      <hadleybeeman> phila: sure
>>
>>      <hadleybeeman> phila: I see what ericstephan means. The number
>>      of terms DUV defines is small.
>>
>>      -> [22]https://www.w3.org/ns/duv Namespace
>>
>>        [22] https://www.w3.org/ns/duv
>>
>>      <hadleybeeman> ...Therefore, your namespace file — that's what
>>      they look at.
>>
>>      <hadleybeeman> ...They don't look at the TR space document.
>>
>>      <hadleybeeman> ...There's got to be a way to do something bout
>>      that.
>>
>>      <hadleybeeman> ericstephan: I can go back to them and see what
>>      we might do. I'll copy phila
>>
>>      <hadleybeeman> phila: I can easily ad to the NS document at any
>>      time. IT's not locked down.
>>
>>      antoine: I suspect that we might be able to use a specific
>>      field in the metadata to force the links to be recognised
>>
>>      <ericstephan> yes will do!
>>
>>      hadleybeeman: The queue is empty...
>>      ... Eric, you mentioned...
>>      ... Topics for a summary document
>>      ... You can write a doc like an implementation report, i.e. not
>>      a formal doc
>>
>>      ericstephan: Its just a web page about the relationships or
>>      background info
>>      ... You can put it in the wiki etc.
>>
>>      <BernadetteLoscio> I can help you Eric ;)
>>
>>      hadleybeeman: The wiki is frozen when the WG closes
>>
>>      <BernadetteLoscio> ok ;) thanks!
>>
>>      hadleybeeman: We're 30 mins over...
>>      ... Thank you to editors, contributors, participants
>>
>>      <BernadetteLoscio> sure!!!
>>
>>      hadleybeeman: We'll work on other stuff coming up
>>
>>      <ericstephan> Take care and thank you all for everything!
>>
>>      <deirdrelee> yay! Great work
>>
>>      <Makx> OK bye bye!
>>
>>      Caroline_: Thank you the chairs, Obrigado
>>
>>      <Makx> Hope to see some of you next week
>>
>>      <deirdrelee> see some of you next week!
>>
>>      <annette_g> bye folks!
>>
>>      <deirdrelee> Thanks for chairing hadleybeeman
>>
>>      <hadleybeeman> bye all :)
>>
>>      <hadleybeeman> thanks for co-chairing, deirdrelee and yaso!
>>
>>      <hadleybeeman> :)
>>
>>      <Makx> Bye
>>
>>      <newton> bye and thank you all!
>>
>> Summary of Action Items
>>
>>      [NEW] ACTION: phila to act on Wendy Carrera's comments
>>      suggested and write to her [recorded in
>>      [23]http://www.w3.org/2016/11/25-dwbp-minutes.html#action01]
>>
>>        [23] http://www.w3.org/2016/11/25-dwbp-minutes.html#action01
>>
>> Summary of Resolutions
>>
>>       1. [24]Accept previous meeting minutes
>>       2. [25]Accept comments from Christophe G and Wendy C that will
>>          lead to very minor tweaks to the BP doc
>>       3. [26]That subject to positive replies from Wendy C and
>>          Christophe G, the WG will seek transition of the BP doc to
>>          Proposed Recommendation, noting the extensive evidence of
>>          implementation that has been gathered
>>       4. [27]A vote of thanks to editors for putting together a
>>          fantastic implementation report!
>>       5. [28]That the current Editor's Draft of the Data Quality
>>          Vocabulary be published as an updated Note
>>       6. [29]To publish the editor's draft of the Dataset Usage
>>          Vocabulary, pending the fixing of typos
>>
>>      [End of minutes]
>>        __________________________________________________________
>>
>>


Received on Thursday, 15 December 2016 15:08:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 15 December 2016 15:08:20 UTC