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

[Minutes] 2016-02-26

From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2016 14:17:17 +0000
To: Public DWBP WG <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <56D998ED.5090708@w3.org>
A little late, sorry. Last week's minutes are at 
https://www.w3.org/2016/02/26-dwbp-minutes with a snapshot below.

       Data on the Web Best Practices Working Group Teleconference

26 Feb 2016

    See also: [2]IRC log

       [2] http://www.w3.org/2016/02/26-dwbp-irc


           annette_g, newton, antoine, deirdrelee, Riccardo,
           Caroline, laufer BernadetteLoscio





      * [3]Topics
          1. [4]BP-review status update
      * [5]Summary of Action Items
      * [6]Summary of Resolutions

    <hadleybeeman> present annette_g

    <hadleybeeman> [7]https://www.w3.org/2016/02/19-dwbp-minutes

       [7] https://www.w3.org/2016/02/19-dwbp-minutes

    <scribe> scribenick: antoine

    <scribe> scribe: antoine

    PROPOSED: to accept

       [8] https://www.w3.org/2016/02/19-dwbp-minutes

    <annette_g> +1

    <deirdrelee> +1

    <Caroline> +1


    <laufer> +1

    <riccardoAlbertoni> +1

    <BernadetteLoscio> +1

    <hadleybeeman> +1

    <newton> +1

    RESOLUTION: accept

       [9] https://www.w3.org/2016/02/19-dwbp-minutes

    <hadleybeeman> [10]http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp-status.html

      [10] http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp-status.html

BP-review status update

    BernadetteLoscio: annette made some updates
    ... and we have aproposal for organizing the API section

    hadleybeeman: first update on the table?

    <annette_g> I did make changes to versioning, too

    newton: we haven't updated the table much
    ... updated peter and riccardo's BP

    <Caroline> [11]http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp-status.html

      [11] http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp-status.html

    Caroline: this is the link that has not been updated
    ... even though some of the BPs might have been updated

    riccardoAlbertoni: I have pushed a revised version of the DQV

    <Caroline> :)

    riccardoAlbertoni: and the BP table for my part

    <Caroline> thank you riccardoAlbertoni

    riccardoAlbertoni: please merge my pull request!
    ... (that's about BP7)

    <BernadetteLoscio> thanks a lot!

    riccardoAlbertoni: in the DQV section, we're refering to DQV
    ... the example BP is complete but depending on DQV issues we
    may have to update it.
    ... I promise I will maintain the two docs in synch.

    BP1: providing metadata

    <Caroline> but BernadetteLoscio worked a lot in DWBP during her
    vacation :)

    BernadetteLoscio: will work on it asap. Really soon

    hadleybeeman: how much work?

    BernadetteLoscio: not a lot.
    ... especially as I have worked on examples for the following

    <riccardoAlbertoni> Just for the record, the revision on bp7
    were suggested by antoine, Sorry for not giving the proper
    credit ;)

    hadleybeeman: need help?

    <Caroline> thank you antoine :)

    <newton> action to newton to check if the turtle and RDFa
    examples are validated

    <trackbot> Error finding 'to'. You can review and register
    nicknames at <[12]http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/users>.

      [12] http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/users

    <hadleybeeman> action newton to check if the turtle and RDFa
    examples are validated

    <newton> action newton to check if the turtle and RDFa examples
    are validated

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-233 - Check if the turtle and rdfa
    examples are validated [on Newton Calegari - due 2016-03-04].

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-234 - Check if the turtle and rdfa
    examples are validated [on Newton Calegari - due 2016-03-04].

    BernadetteLoscio: no need for help for now. I'm going to write
    example and then ask feedback.

    hadleybeeman: before next week?

    BernadetteLoscio: yes

    hadleybeeman: are we in trouble because the things in this
    table is late?

    BernadetteLoscio: beginning of next week we can have a general
    view about the document

    BP 2: Provide descriptive metadata

    hadleybeeman: do you need someone to help you review this?

    newton: I can work with BernadetteLoscio
    ... get it done asap

    BP 3: Provide locale parameters metadata

    newton: same

    BP 4: Provide structural metadata

    <BernadetteLoscio> I'm gonna try to connect again

    newton: we're ok with both examples
    ... the test will have to be changed

    <BernadetteLoscio> I have connection probelms

    BP 5: Provide data license information

    newton: same. need to work on test and intented outcome

    BP 6: Provide data provenance information

    deirdrelee: issue was whether it needs a more detailed example
    ... I am considering extending the example early next week
    ... for the text I think what's there should be sufficient

    newton: if it's necessary to change the intend outcome please
    let us know!
    ... the editors will work on this!

    hadleybeeman: on all intended outcomes or only BP6?

    BP 7: Provide data quality information

    riccardoAlbertoni: example is finished
    ... for the test I didn't change, I wanted to see the other BP
    ... for now it seems aligned
    ... the question is whether we need to be more specific
    ... but that's a question for all BPs no ontoly this one!
    ... As soon as other BP's testing section are refined I could
    check and review

    hadleybeeman: that's something to do for evey BP!

    riccardoAlbertoni: we have to be careful: test mentions
    datasets, intended outcome mentions also distribution.
    ... I can try to align

    BP 8: Provide versioning information

    annette_g: there was already a good example

    <Caroline> thank you annette_g for improving the English :)

    annette_g: I think the test is ok.
    ... I've reviewed it but I may have written it too ;-)

    hadleybeeman: who'd be a good person?

    annette_g: I don't know

    newton: I've not merged the pull request now

    hadleybeeman: let's go BP by BP not step by step

    annette_g: I've looked at the content, my PR also makes
    suggestions for the intro

    newton: I will review the test

    <scribe> ACTION: newton to review annette's test for BP8
    [recorded in

      [13] http://www.w3.org/2016/02/26-dwbp-minutes.html#action01]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-235 - Review annette's test for bp8
    [on Newton Calegari - due 2016-03-04].

    BP 9: Provide version history

    annette_g: I think it's fine
    ... maybe need review from a vocabulary person

    <scribe> ACTION: antoine to review the voc aspect of BP9
    [recorded in

      [14] http://www.w3.org/2016/02/26-dwbp-minutes.html#action02]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-236 - Review the voc aspect of bp9
    [on Antoine Isaac - due 2016-03-04].

    BP 10: Avoid Breaking Changes to Your API, Communicate Changes
    to Developers

    annette_g: I did a lot of re-write, but let's discuss it later
    ... I need opinions on how to test
    ... sthg like 'send email to developers' would be really
    ... maybe scribe the actions one should take
    ... a notice on the API homepage

    riccardoAlbertoni: is DUV keeping a list of users adopting a
    dataset or distribution?
    ... perhaps the BP example could re-use part of that info in

    hadleybeeman: finding your name in somebody else's metadata is
    a bit strange

    BernadetteLoscio: we don't have a proeprty to capture this in
    ... it shouldn't be mandatory

    newton: annette_g maybe we can talk with SDW
    ... they have issues about APIs and examples
    ... we meet them next wednesday

    annette_g: the issue here is really how one can write a BP for
    noticing users
    ... is it covered by SDW?

    newton: not sure

    hadleybeeman: I could imagine situations like this
    ... it might as well be solved the same way as everyone else
    ... there's nothing special about spatial data.
    ... Why don't you send an email to their list and our list?

    BernadetteLoscio: examples says [cites the BP]

    <hadleybeeman> action annette to email SDW (and DWBP) to ask
    about their API work (with regard to examples for BP 10)

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-237 - Email sdw (and dwbp) to ask
    about their api work (with regard to examples for bp 10) [on
    Annette Greiner - due 2016-03-04].

    BernadetteLoscio: maybe we can use an API as example and show
    waht should be done with that API.

    annette_g: like, saying what change would break the API?

    BernadetteLoscio: yes

    annette_g: it's a great thought
    ... I was not sure we should have an example of a maintained

    BernadetteLoscio: we could have a documentation page for the

    annette_g: a fake documentation page?

    BernadetteLoscio: yes

    annette_g: who would build and maintain it?

    BernadetteLoscio: I don't know, but if we have real data, we
    could have a real or fake API.

    hadleybeeman: we need to show that it is practical
    ... other groups need implementations in the wild
    ... but we don't need to rely on sthg that needs to be
    ... we just need enough code to show what we mean
    ... so that devlopers can adapt it to their case.

    BernadetteLoscio: yes

    annette_g: what can we put? An API is a system

    hadleybeeman: we're not telling people how to build their APIs,
    aren't we?

    annette_g: no, but we give ideas.

    hadleybeeman: so we're pointing to other APIs?
    ... examples on how to use this in the context of data on the
    ... We need to provide examples of the parts we're describing,
    not what others are describing

    annette_g: there is no spec

    hadleybeeman: is there any normative references to REST work?

    annette_g: ref to functioning APIs or work about how to create

    hadleybeeman: looking at BP21
    ... it's becoming complicated now.

    <laufer> I cannot hear anybody now...

    <annette_g> me neither

    <BernadetteLoscio> me neither

    <annette_g> restart the call?

    <deirdrelee> sound gone, i'm talking away

    <hadleybeeman> Maybe WebEx has crashed? I can't seem to rejoin
    the call

    <Caroline> me neither

    <hadleybeeman> Wait, now I'm back in.

    <laufer> neither me

    <annette_g> just finally got audio connected

    hadleybeeman: I'm suggesting that Annette has a go at putting
    down what a developer should have in mind as a bare minimum
    ... when they're implementing this
    ... instinctively
    ... (that's about the BP for making changes)

    annette_g: I really like BernadetteLoscio 's suggestion

    hadleybeeman: as you wish

    <laufer> again...

    <riccardoAlbertoni> no sound again..

    <annette_g> no

    <laufer> it is a ghost...

    <Caroline> no audio :(

    <hadleybeeman> Right. Well, I was saying — we have 8 mins left.

    <annette_g> *holy cow, tempus fugit

    <newton> @annette_g we're thinking in put all BPs related to
    APIs into a subsection under Data Access.

    <hadleybeeman> I suggest we leave the BP table for now — but it
    would be great if everyone working on the rest of the BPs make
    an effort to complete the table by next week

    <hadleybeeman> (since we're already a week overdue)

    <annette_g> yes, I want to see them all together, with the one
    about having an API in the first place coming first

    newton: can we avoid huge changes in the document at this

    <newton> @annette_g the APIs BP will be "Data Access API"

    <laufer> I have raised an issue about the BPs I am reviewing

    sorry I meant @newton

    <hadleybeeman> okay ———— hang on please

    <hadleybeeman> Let's finish this meeting here on IRC

    <hadleybeeman> a) as above: I suggest we leave the BP table for
    now — but it would be great if everyone working on the rest of
    the BPs make an effort to complete the table by next week

    <hadleybeeman> (since we're already a week overdue)

    <annette_g> Could we have a section called "Data APIs"? I think
    people will want to search for that.

    <newton> @antoine we would only replace them into a subsection
    into Data Access. Won't create new ones.

    <laufer> +1 to annette

    <newton> Under Data Access section, to have a "Data Section
    API" as a subsection

    <BernadetteLoscio> yes! that's our idea!

    <newton> It will not reflect into a huge change, I would be a
    structural change

    antoine seriously object to structure change and any
    re-shuffling at the time you're asking text to 10 contributors

    <annette_g> Maybe make the change and then send around an email
    telling us you're done

    <annette_g> so we can do a pull

    <hadleybeeman> antoine, what are your concerns?

    <laufer> We have the problem of the BPs numbers...

    I'm afraid that we lose time figuring out what the impact of
    the changes are on the individual BPs

    I won't have time to figure this out

    so I won't work on my BPs

    <BernadetteLoscio> but the Data Access section needed to be

    <hadleybeeman> Aren't we only talking about the API BPs?

    <BernadetteLoscio> its just on the Data Access section

    <BernadetteLoscio> yes!

    review doesn't imply changes while everyone else is working on
    the doc

    <BernadetteLoscio> its just the Data Access section

    <riccardoAlbertoni> +1 to antoine, laufer ..

    <BernadetteLoscio> Data vocabularies section wont be affected

    <hadleybeeman> antoine, if their changes won't affect the areas
    you're looking at... Does it matter?

    At a minimum *Zero* BP numbers should change

    <annette_g> things are going to be changing if multiple people
    are editing anyway

    <Caroline> @antoine, I don't think this would stop you working
    in your BPs, it would be only putting APIs' together

    <BernadetteLoscio> we're gonna make the merge

    <BernadetteLoscio> on github

    <annette_g> I still think APIs deserve their own section

    <hadleybeeman> Re BP numbers, I'd suggest putting a temporary
    header on any merged ones that say, for example, "BP 10 and

    <BernadetteLoscio> we're gonna review the numbers when

    <hadleybeeman> we can renumber at the very end

    <BernadetteLoscio> yes

    <newton> +1 to hadleybeeman suggestion

    <hadleybeeman> antoine, does that work for you?

    <annette_g> All the static, unwebby stuff in our doc gets so
    much text and multiple sections; I think we need to give the
    dynamic stuff fair treatment

    I'm ok with renumbering at the very end. Just please don't pull
    the carpet under our feets while we're working.

    <laufer> I agree that APIs deserve a section but we have to be
    careful in changing the BPs order now...

    <hadleybeeman> Totally fair.

    <hadleybeeman> Okay — we're out of time.

    <newton> We can track every change and show which BP Numbers
    has changed

    <hadleybeeman> You all are champions for continuing this
    without sound!!

    I don't have the time to follow your tracking

    <BernadetteLoscio> we wont change the structure of the
    document, its just the Data Access section

    <annette_g> when moving things around, that is the time to
    re-order API BPs

    <BernadetteLoscio> mainly API BP

    <Caroline> thank you @antoine and @laufer for this concern, we
    will work on it

    <laufer> Well, in this way we do not need a scribe... it is an

    <hadleybeeman> @newton, I think it might keep everything more
    sensible now to keep all the numbers as they are, even if they
    end up in the wrong order or multiple numbers for one BP.

    <hadleybeeman> True, laufer :)

    <laufer> bye antoine...

    <BernadetteLoscio> we dont refer to numbers in our document

    <hadleybeeman> We will, I promise, make sure it's all lovely
    and pretty (with numbers in order!) before it goes out to the

    <BernadetteLoscio> we always refer to the title of the BP

    <BernadetteLoscio> to the identifier

    <annette_g> I find it awkward that the idea of having a API at
    all comes so late. It seems strange to start telling people how
    to make an API first and then come back to that fundamental

    <hadleybeeman> True, BernadetteLoscio — but we do in our
    actions/issues and notes.

    <newton> We will do it in a different branch or repository, and
    if the group agrees, we will merge it to the main document

    <BernadetteLoscio> the number is created automatically

    <hadleybeeman> that's frustrating. :(

    <BernadetteLoscio> if we also use the title, then it wont be a

    <hadleybeeman> We haven't always thus far, which is part of the

    <hadleybeeman> I think we need to keep them for the moment, if
    we can -- even if it ends up being an extra bit of text

    <BernadetteLoscio> but just BP abou Data Access and APIs will

    <Caroline> we will do our best to not get in the way of what
    authors have been working on

    <BernadetteLoscio> others will keep the same

    <BernadetteLoscio> the order of the rest wont change

    <hadleybeeman> That sounds great, Caroline. Please do that, for

    <annette_g> others will be renumbered, though

    <annette_g> because BP 10 has to move

    <BernadetteLoscio> ah ok

    <Caroline> if we see that this change may get in someone's way,
    we will wait to do it at the end. Would that be okay @annette?

    <annette_g> sure, as long as we do it

    <Caroline> great! Thank you! :)

    <hadleybeeman> Brilliant. I'm sorry we have to end this

    <BernadetteLoscio> ok! thanks!

    <BernadetteLoscio> thanks a lot!

    <hadleybeeman> Have a wonderful weekend, all. And thank you
    again for switching to text!

    <laufer> I will send and e-mail about the issue I raised...

    <newton> @annette_g I have some other issues to talk to you,
    may we have a call early next week to talk about it?

    <hadleybeeman> Talk next week.

    <Caroline> thank you all!!

    <hadleybeeman> thanks, laufer.

    <hadleybeeman> bye for now :)

    <newton> @annette_g it's about the Content Negotiation issue

    <annette_g> @Newton, sure, want to use Skype?

    <riccardoAlbertoni> good weekend !!

    <newton> @annette_g yes, Skype :-)

    <annette_g> yay!

    <Caroline> :))))

    <annette_g> @newton, let's exchange email to coordinate

    <newton> @annette_g ok, thanks :)

    <annette_g> okay, bye!

    <hadleybeeman> trackbot, end meeting

Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: antoine to review the voc aspect of BP9 [recorded
    in [15]http://www.w3.org/2016/02/26-dwbp-minutes.html#action02]
    [NEW] ACTION: newton to review annette's test for BP8 [recorded
    in [16]http://www.w3.org/2016/02/26-dwbp-minutes.html#action01]

      [15] http://www.w3.org/2016/02/26-dwbp-minutes.html#action02
      [16] http://www.w3.org/2016/02/26-dwbp-minutes.html#action01

Summary of Resolutions

     1. [17]accept https://www.w3.org/2016/02/19-dwbp-minutes

    [End of minutes]
Received on Friday, 4 March 2016 14:17:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 4 March 2016 14:17:22 UTC