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

[Minutes] 2016 11 25

From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2016 15:39:34 +0000
To: Public DWBP WG <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <bc36ec7e-d858-4fca-6b98-1c26855ebff2@w3.org>
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 Friday, 25 November 2016 15:39:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 25 November 2016 15:39:53 UTC