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

[Minutes] 2016-05-13

From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
Date: Sat, 14 May 2016 07:33:11 +0100
To: Public DWBP WG <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <edc5a9ee-9f44-8823-4aff-2d530fd2a236@w3.org>
The minutes of yesterday's landmark meeting are at 
https://www.w3.org/2016/05/13-dwbp-minutes and copied as text below.

Grumble: did *non one* think to generate the minutes, after 2.5 years of 
doing this !! Thankfully there was a full IRC log on the server and I 
was able to construct things.

Moan over - congratulations to the WG on reaching this consensus. Really 
sorry I couldn't be there.

I'll get the docs ready for formal publication for Thursday and plan to 
set Sunday 12 June as the deadline for comments. We'll need to address 
all those comments before we can move the BP doc to Candidate Rec.


       Data on the Web Best Practices Working Group Teleconference

13 May 2016

    See also: [2]IRC log

       [2] http://www.w3.org/2016/05/13-dwbp-irc

Attendees

    Present
           Bernadette Loscio, Laufer, gatemezi, Eric Stephan,
           Annette, Riccardo Albertoni, Yaso, Newton, EricKauz,
           Hadley

    Regrets
           PhilA, Deirdre (see [3]voting intentions), Antoine (see
           [4]voting intentions), Peter W

       [3] 
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-wg/2016May/0056.html
       [4] 
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-wg/2016May/0053.html

    Chair
           Yaso, Hadley

    Scribe
           Annette

Contents

      * [5]Topics
          1. [6]data quality vocab
          2. [7]Dataset Usage Vocabulary
      * [8]Summary of Action Items
      * [9]Summary of Resolutions
      __________________________________________________________

    <yaso>
    [10]https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20160513

      [10] https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20160513

    PROPOSED: Approve last week's minutes

    <yaso> [11]https://www.w3.org/2016/05/06-dwbp-minutes

      [11] https://www.w3.org/2016/05/06-dwbp-minutes

    <yaso> +1

    <ericstephan> +1

    <Caroline> +0 I wasn't in the meeting

    +1

    <riccardoAlbertoni_> +0 (I was not present)

    <BernadetteLoscio> +1

    <newton> +1

    RESOLUTION: Approve last week's minutes

    <BernadetteLoscio>
    [12]https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Main_Page

      [12] https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Main_Page

    <laufer> hi yaso, all

    BernadetteLoscio: yes, we've been through the document and have
    been making all the changes

    <gatemezi> hi all

    <BernadetteLoscio>
    [13]https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Comments_to_be_considered
    _in_the_last_call_working_draft

      [13] 
https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Comments_to_be_considered_in_the_last_call_working_draft

    <yaso> Hi gatemezi

    <gatemezi> Hi yaso

    BernadetteLoscio: I think we are really near to the final
    version of the document, and it's time to get feedback from the
    community.
    ... thanks to Annette for finding a lot of little things.
    ... special thanks to Phil for work in correcting the English
    and improving the text.

    <yaso> annette_g: there are still few small thing to fix,

    <yaso> ... the email from yesterday, talking w/eric

    <ericstephan> real time access

    <yaso> ... real time access

    <yaso> BernadetteLoscio: they are in the docs already

    annette_g: there are still a few small things.

    BernadetteLoscio: what?

    annette_g: real-time stuff with Eric

    ericstephan: sorry for getting in my change late. It was
    changing the implementation text. I used the language Annette
    provided, and some of the examples in the article you provided.

    BernadetteLoscio: anything else to fix?

    <yaso> scribe: annette_g

    <gatemezi> Annette maybe in PR #396
    [14]https://github.com/w3c/dwbp/pull/396/files#diff-0

      [14] https://github.com/w3c/dwbp/pull/396/files#diff-0

    <BernadetteLoscio>
    [15]http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#challenges

      [15] http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#challenges

    <newton> maybe it's cache

    annette_g: sorry, I was looking at an older version

    BernadetteLoscio: do you want to review the real-time
    implementation?

    annette_g: no, at this point we should just move forward

    PROPOSED: to publish the Best Practices document

    <gatemezi> +1 to annette_g

    <yaso> +1

    <BernadetteLoscio> +1

    +1

    <riccardoAlbertoni_> +1

    <laufer> +1

    <gatemezi> +1

    <Caroline> +1

    <newton> +1

    <ericstephan> +1

    <EricKauz> +1

    RESOLUTION: to publish the Best Practices document

    <yaso> o?

    <yaso> o/

    <BernadetteLoscio> great! thanks!

    <ericstephan> good point laufer

    laufer: we should note that Antoine
    , [16]Deirdre.

      [16] 
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-wg/2016May/0056.html

    BernadetteLoscio: the turtle file needs to be updated

    <riccardoAlbertoni_> Congrats ! and thanks for all the work Bp
    editors have done ..

    <gatemezi> Big thanks to the editors and reviewers

    BernadetteLoscio: Is it okay that we make the changes and send
    to the group?

    <riccardoAlbertoni_> yes, ok for me

    <BernadetteLoscio> ok! thanks!!!

    yaso: I think it's okay. any concerns?
    ... any concerns about the BP document?

    <yaso> [17]http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/vocab-dqg.html

      [17] http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/vocab-dqg.html

data quality vocab

    <riccardoAlbertoni_>
    [18]http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/vocab-dqg.html

      [18] http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/vocab-dqg.html

    yaso: Riccardo?

    <ericstephan> yes

    riccardoAlbertoni_: Antoine and I have changed a lot of the
    draft since the last draft was published of DQV. We have some
    new contributors.
    ... main changes: we had a review of the model. quality
    certificate, quality policy are new.

    We borrowed the property wasDerivedFrom from Prov-O

    how to express questions about dataset quality, how to express
    that the dataset is given a quality rating, these kinds of
    examples were added.

    It was reviewed by Andrea Perego.

    The section about dimensions was changed to refer to
    classifications that were normal.

    Anyone can invent their own or refer to existing quality
    dimensions.

    We refer to classifications in the quality dimensions, updated
    the RDF file for the vocab. The only remaining issue needs the
    BP doc to be final.

    yaso: any other thoughts?

    silence ensues

    <yaso> [19]http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/vocab-dqg.html

      [19] http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/vocab-dqg.html

    yaso: thanks Riccardo and contributors!

    PROPOSED: to publish the Data Quality Vocabulary

    <ericstephan> +1

    +1

    <BernadetteLoscio> +1

    <riccardoAlbertoni_> +1

    <laufer> +1

    <EricKauz> +1

    <yaso> +1

    <newton> +1

    <Caroline> +1

    RESOLUTION: to publish the Data Quality Vocabulary

    <newton> congratulations Riccardo and Antoine :-)

    <yaso> o/

    BernadetteLoscio: I'd like to ask Annette to take a look at the
    html page for the API documentation. I changed it based on your
    suggestions, just to check that it's alright.

    <gatemezi> +1

    annette_g: Sure, thanks!

    BernadetteLoscio: thank you!

    <BernadetteLoscio> congratulations!!!!

Dataset Usage Vocabulary

    yaso: next up, DUV

    <ericstephan> [20]http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/vocab-du.html

      [20] http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/vocab-du.html

    <BernadetteLoscio> its ok ;)

    ericstephan: the changes have been thoroughly minor. Most were
    made and completed in March. One of the things we did in the
    turtle file was to redefine some third-party classes, so we
    removed those from the ttl tile. We removed domain and range
    constraints and added usage recommendations to show how
    properties might be used instead. The examples all were
    changed, and they were aligned with the examples in the BP doc.
    BernadetteLoscio had made some suggesti[CUT]
    ... we also have some input from the Force11 conference.

    <yaso> Hi hadleybeeman

    <yaso> !

    annette_g: can you give detail on the Force11 input.

    <yaso> hadleybeeman, I'll be glad to share the task :-)

    ericstephan: it was more questions about how they could use it
    in their own applications. There was some concern about reusing
    vocabularies and that the model was complex.

    <hadleybeeman> sounds good, yaso!

    <yaso> great then, go ahead :-D

    <yaso> oops

    <yaso> chair: hadleybeeman

    <yaso> (muted me so we don't have echo)

    ericstephan: I don't know how to deal with a challenge like
    that. Maybe it's a matter of describing the concepts
    thoroughly. I contacted Sylvio Peroni, author of the SPAR
    ontologies. He said he really supported what we did. I think
    it's a challenge that we're always going to have with regard to
    adoption.

    <yaso> gatemezi, :-) it's the good part on having 3 chairs

    <riccardoAlbertoni_> hi hadleybeeman ..

    <yaso> poor Zakim :-/

    hadleybeeman: sorry, my previous meeting ran over. well done!
    ... how much more discussion do we need before we vote?

    yaso: we were just hearing Eric's explanation about the DUV
    changes.

    <ericstephan> :-)

    hadleybeeman: does anyone have any concerns?

    <ericstephan> Great thanks gatemezi

    <ericstephan> ;-)

    hadleybeeman: Is everyone happy with DUV?

    annette_g: :)

    <gatemezi> yes

    ericstephan: one thing I would like to do but haven't been able
    to do is show how DUV tracks the BP doc, show the rationale
    behind what we did.

    hadleybeeman: as a separate note or in DUV?

    ericstephan: it might be nice to have it in the DUV as a way to
    cite why we did what we did.

    is that odd?

    hadleybeeman: personally, if it's something an implementer
    needs to know to use the vocab or understand it, it goes in the
    doc. If it's meta-information, it's more useful and clearer in
    a separate document.

    ericstephan: I was thinking of just doing our due diligence to
    coordinate with our entire effort.

    hadleybeeman: I think it depends how thorough you want to be.
    ... If it's paragraphs per section, that's a separate doc.

    ericstephan: it's kind of a table of contents for the overall
    activity.

    hadleybeeman: that's certainly something we can do.

    ericstephan: I'd like to show that somewhere

    hadleybeeman: yes, we just need to make sure it's addressing
    needs, doesn't compromise people's ability to use the doc

    <ericstephan_> wow

    hadleybeeman: any other comments about this doc?

    silence ensues

    <yaso> great!

    PROPOSED: to publish the Data Usage Vocabulary

    <hadleybeeman> +1

    <BernadetteLoscio> +1

    <ericstephan_> +1

    <laufer> +1

    <riccardoAlbertoni_> +1

    <EricKauz> +1

    +1

    <newton> +1

    <gatemezi> +1

    <Caroline> +1

    <yaso> +1

    <ericstephan_> zakim isn't sure about me now there is another
    version of me without the underscore

    RESOLUTION: to publish the Data Usage Vocabulary

    <BernadetteLoscio> :)

    <yaso> o/

    <newton> :-(

    <BernadetteLoscio> great!!!!

    :)

    <newton> ops, :-)

    <ericstephan_> :-)

    <newton> I'm happy!

    <laufer> congrats all, and thanks too. it is a very happy day

    <yaso> lol

    hadleybeeman: congratulations to all the contributors!

    <ericstephan_> This is a first 3 in one meeting

    <BernadetteLoscio> congratulations all!!!

    <ericstephan_> close early

    <yaso> true!

    hadleybeeman: do we want to work through issues or close early?

    <riccardoAlbertoni_> huge victory

    yaso: close early

    <Caroline> congratulations!!! Great job all!!!

    <ericstephan_> thank you!

    <yaso> thank you all! Congrats! all voted :-D

    <ericstephan_> congratulations and have a good weekend

    <yaso> bye all

    <riccardoAlbertoni_> thanks all .. have a nice week end

    hadleybeeman: everyone's been working really hard. You earned
    your 12 minutes!

    <laufer> bye all

    bye all!

    <gatemezi> Thanks chairs hadleybeeman and others

    <gatemezi> bye all

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

     1. [21]Approve last week's minutes
     2. [22]to publish the Best Practices document
     3. [23]to publish the Data Quality Vocabulary
     4. [24]to publish the Data Usage Vocabulary

    [End of minutes]
      __________________________________________________________
Received on Saturday, 14 May 2016 06:33:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Saturday, 14 May 2016 06:33:33 UTC