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

Re: [Minutes] 2016 11 25

From: Hadley Beeman <hadley@linkedgov.org>
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2016 19:38:08 +0000
Message-ID: <CAKK2BTtiAMGq7VC0cLXk7dS+gXsD7mWnzuqRjXBoSbphVehBog@mail.gmail.com>
To: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>, Public DWBP WG <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
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 Friday, 25 November 2016 19:38:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 25 November 2016 19:38:55 UTC