- From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 15:09:34 +0100
- To: Public DWBP WG <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
Dear all,
The minutes of today's meeting are at
https://www.w3.org/2016/10/28-dwbp-minutes with a text snapshot below.
Main topic of conversation was what different forms of evidence are
appropriate for the BP doc, especially where direct evidence may be hard
to point to. End result, blog posts about what people have done, showing
that they followed BP, are fine, as are other people's guides that say
consistent things.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't also look for direct URLs of things that
follow individual BPs as well where possible.
We have until 10 Nov to gather all the evidence. Time is tight and the
editors are carrying a heavy load right now. All help appreciated.
Cheers
Phil
Data on the Web Best Practices Working Group Teleconference
28 Oct 2016
[2]Agenda
[2] https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20161028
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2016/10/28-dwbp-irc
Attendees
Present
Caroline_, BernadetteLoscio, annette_g, Phil, newton,
hadleybeeman, riccardoAlbertoni
Regrets
Chair
hadleybeeman
Scribe
phila
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]Minutes from previous call
2. [6]BP Status
3. [7]Can we include a data portal as an evidence or we
should include a specific dataset from the portal? For
example: worldbank, open data portal nasa.
4. [8]Next meeting
* [9]Summary of Action Items
* [10]Summary of Resolutions
__________________________________________________________
<scribe> scribe: phila
<scribe> scribeNick: phila
Minutes from previous call
<Caroline_> Hello! Newton and I are together and he just
connected WebEx :)
-> [11]https://www.w3.org/2016/09/30-dwbp-minutes Minutes from
30 Sept
[11] https://www.w3.org/2016/09/30-dwbp-minutes
NOTUC
RESOLUTION: Accept minutes of 30 September
BP Status
BernadetteLoscio: We have included some topics on the agenda...
<Caroline_>
[12]https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20161028#
Main_agenda
[12]
https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20161028#Main_agenda
Can we include a data portal as an evidence or we should include a
specific dataset from the portal? For example: worldbank, open data
portal nasa.
<BernadetteLoscio>
[13]https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1RhMGyG0ZYb73RkteYr3
9Xqt7f5xi0BUQmSiDqjkHOSA/edit#gid=853876221
[13]
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1RhMGyG0ZYb73RkteYr39Xqt7f5xi0BUQmSiDqjkHOSA/edit#gid=853876221
BernadetteLoscio: Everyone can take a look at the current
status ^^
... We organised the evidence we have so far, counting evidence
for each BP.
... Some more critical than others. These are the ones listed
on the agenda.
... As it's more difficult to get implementations.
... Because these BPs are not used in the real world.
... What I see is that we have BPs, eg ones related to
Metadata, having an API. These are easier to find evidence for
- everyone does it.
... But it's more difficult becausae people don't implement and
also because it's hard to see if they have implemented it or
not.
... eg BP 26 avoid breaking changes to your API. How can we
assess that?
<PWinstanley> +q
BernadetteLoscio: Same for data preservation.
... For example, data quality info. Everyone knows it's
important, but finding it for humans and machines can be hard.
usually find publisher but rare to find more
... So this is one of the questions.
... So should we implement our own datasets as evidence?
... I couldn't find evidence for this BP. But it's possible to
implement them.
... We are trying to collect evidence from datasets already
available.
... We're asking people to evaluation their datasets against
the BPs. But we don't have a new dataset created to show that
it's possible to implement.
... So should we do it ourselves?
PWinstanley: One of the things that might be helpful for BP26,
for things like the 6Aika openAPI recommendations for cities.
We could use the evidence of their recommendation around
management of APIs.
... Also, Michael Stowe's publication from Mulesoft (?) guide
to developing rest interfaces and APIs, he addresses the issue
of stability cf. agile development processes.
... Maybe we could ask him directly for illustrations?
<PWinstanley> 6Aika
<PWinstanley> Vipuvoimaa
<hadleybeeman> [14]https://www.w3.org/TR/prov-implementations/
[14] https://www.w3.org/TR/prov-implementations/
hadleybeeman: On provenance... the implementations from when
PROV was put through Rec, that might provide some useful
evidence.
... BP5
BernadetteLoscio: OK, matbe I need to think differently. I
thought we had to show a dataset or portal that offers data
provenance info both in human and machine readable way, the
latter might use prov.
hadleybeeman: All of the implementations in the Prov
implementation report might provide pointers.
<PWinstanley> [15]https://github.com/6aika ,
[16]https://www.avoindata.fi/data/fi/dataset/open-api-recommend
ations-for-cities
[15] https://github.com/6aika
[16]
https://www.avoindata.fi/data/fi/dataset/open-api-recommendations-for-cities
annette_g: For prov, I'd suggest looking at scientific
datasets, it's important in this field. But they may not use
Prov.
... As for putting up our own, that prob won't be seen as
legitimate, so I'd caution against that. But I like Peter's
suggestion for looking for other guides.
<PWinstanley>
[17]https://www.amazon.co.uk/Undisturbed-Rest-Guide-Designing-P
erfect/dp/1329115945
[17]
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Undisturbed-Rest-Guide-Designing-Perfect/dp/1329115945
BernadetteLoscio: In this case, we need help. For BPs related
to APIs, we don't feel comfortable making this evaluation.
<PWinstanley>
[18]https://www.mulesoft.com/lp/ebook/api/restbook
[18] https://www.mulesoft.com/lp/ebook/api/restbook
BernadetteLoscio: I don't know how to show that the BP was
implemented by someone else.
... Also wrote to annette_g as she knows this field well.
annette_g: I'll do what I can.
... I worked on the building of APIs where we made sure we
didn't break it but I'm not sure that we recorded it.
... There are lots of instances of people writing about API
development. I'd say pointing to other people's BPs makes
sense.
hadleybeeman: Thinking back to our first F2F and saying that
each BP needs to be testable.
... It is a BP doc, not a spec.
... Unless we had a before and after to point to...
annette_g: You might find a an API that pinted to a previous
version.
hadleybeeman: is there a way to tighten up the language in the
BP to make it easier to test.
<Zakim> phila, you wanted to mention DBpedia
<hadleybeeman> phila: pointing to other people's
recommendations and guidelines is fine, especially for
something like this.
<hadleybeeman> ...That's one way to do it.
<hadleybeeman> ...Then — we just got some evidence from
Annette_g but we didn't record it . She just said we're careful
not to break stuff.
<hadleybeeman> ...We can use that as evidence
<BernadetteLoscio> +q
<hadleybeeman> ...You don't have to necessarily think of "here
is an example of API v 2. And here is v1. And look! they're
backwards compatible". Thats more than you need to do.
<hadleybeeman> ...Evidence for machine readable provenance info
could be harder. dbPedia's provenance is all wikipedia. Is that
enough? not sure.
<hadleybeeman> ...Annette_g has some scientific examples.
<hadleybeeman> ...That's the kind of approach we can use.
annette_g: I don't have much difficulty finding blog examples
for API not breaking.
... Get blog posts about twitter API for example
BernadetteLoscio: What we discussed before was that we'd have a
link to a dataset or a data portal to show as evidence
... So that's what we looked for.
... Makx suggested that we used Share-PSI as evidence
... because they use our BPs.
<annette_g> this is cool:
[19]https://blog.twitter.com/2016/versioning-is-coming-to-twitt
er-s-ads-apis
[19]
https://blog.twitter.com/2016/versioning-is-coming-to-twitter-s-ads-apis
<hadleybeeman> phila: It depends on which BP we're talking
about .
<hadleybeeman> ...The reason Makx brings it up is that he wrote
things for the European Commission, citing our best practices.
Those have become official EC publications.
<hadleybeeman> ...If we can present the director with a
mixture: direct evidence for some, indirect evidence for
others, and for those that are harder we have people saying
they've done it.
<hadleybeeman> ...Finding blog posts describing what people did
is also helpful there.
<hadleybeeman> ...What you're trying to present to the
director: a body of evidence that supports each of the BPs.
<hadleybeeman> ...Some of the BPs around data enrichment will
be hard. The only way will be to write to Ghisele and ask for
examples.
<PWinstanley> illustration of discussion about API change;
[20]https://www.troyhunt.com/your-api-versioning-is-wrong-which
-is/
[20] https://www.troyhunt.com/your-api-versioning-is-wrong-which-is/
BernadetteLoscio: It's clear, it's more flexible also, thanks
... We'll use other strategies to get more evidence
... We were evaluating the OD portal for NASA, Lewis hasn't
answered yet
... We really need help, giving us ideas, also doing the
evaluations
... I evaluated the World Bank data portal. Should we have a
2nd review of that portal of that?
<PWinstanley> another useful one to triangulate BP 26:
[21]http://www.ben-morris.com/rest-apis-dont-need-a-versioning-
strategy-they-need-a-change-strategy/
[21]
http://www.ben-morris.com/rest-apis-dont-need-a-versioning-strategy-they-need-a-change-strategy/
BernadetteLoscio: Do we truist people who make the evaluation.
If it's just the editors doing this? It would be nice to have
other people doing this.
... For example, I evaluated ....
<BernadetteLoscio> [22]http://labs.europeana.eu/api
[22] http://labs.europeana.eu/api
BernadetteLoscio: I evaluated that, and I filled in the
spreadsheet on Drive and write to Antoine
... I did the same on Open data impact map
... I asked Lewis for feedback on NASA, but if no feedback from
him we'll just use ours.
<Zakim> phila, you wanted to talk about NASA
<hadleybeeman> phila: Although there is nothing wrong with
checking your evaluation, or sending the team whose data it is
your evaluation — but i wouldn't worry if you don't get a
response.
<hadleybeeman> ...We will trust whoever does the evaluation.
<hadleybeeman> ...And for NASA, perhaps Jeanne Holm? She
chaired the W3C eGov interest group and used to be involved
with the US Data.Gov.
<hadleybeeman> ...She'll know who to contact.
<hadleybeeman> PWinstanley: I spoke to her recently. If you
send me an email, bernadette, I'll forward it to her.
<hadleybeeman> phila: But those confirmations are "nice to
have". Your evaluation is fine.
<hadleybeeman> ...You don't have to get your evaluation checked
by someone else.
BernadetteLoscio: Thanks to Peter as he's helping a lot
... putting us in contact with a lot of people
PWinstanley: pleasure
BernadetteLoscio: When we are evaluating an OD portal, for
example the World Bank, what's better to include the URL of the
WB portal or the specific dataset?
hadleybeeman: That surely depends on the BP in question
BernadetteLoscio: Some of the datasets are in more than one
format
hadleybeeman: I think it depends on which BP you're looking at.
This is our internal record for W3C, no one's going to go into
detailed checks.
BernadetteLoscio: So I think we answered most of my Qs
riccardoAlbertoni: I have a similar problem when I post my
evaluation of ?? which is a collection of datasets. Only some
of the datasets follow specific BPs
... So I indicated which dataset
<Zakim> phila, you wanted to talk about the form anad
spreadsheet
<hadleybeeman> phila: I think this conversation points to why
the spreadsheet is easier to use than the form.
<hadleybeeman> ...I tried filling in the form. I picked a
dataset at random from data.io. I spend 1.5 hours and got less
than half way through the form.
<hadleybeeman> ...It was time consuming, and frustrating
because I wanted to explain my responses.
<hadleybeeman> ...Because this is a best practices document,
it's useful to have the flexibility.
<hadleybeeman> ...I will fill it in, because I want to
contribute to this — but I find the "pass/fail/partial pass" is
good, but you need a text field too'
Caroline_: We also developed the Google doc sheet which is much
easier. We're aware of the complexity of the form which is why
it took so long to prepare. Hence the index on the left.
... But we understand the complexity.
... How can we approach other W3C members?
... I know Karen said she'd help
<BernadetteLoscio> this is the template:
[23]https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1JE5pDy9YCu9eafQv50J
J3SauK4Jq1QmagV-GCDNY24E/edit
[23]
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1JE5pDy9YCu9eafQv50JJ3SauK4Jq1QmagV-GCDNY24E/edit
Caroline_: And I wanted to talk about the deadline. We thought
we have until Nov 10 to get this done, so we've been sending
more and more e-mails, but we have 10/11 as the deadline
<hadleybeeman> phila: Re contacting w3c members: we can go
through the AC list (if you are a member). otherwise you write
to individual AC reps for companies.
<hadleybeeman> ...I might be able to help you choose companies.
<hadleybeeman> ...In terms of deadlines: The Working group had
to be formally extended until the end of December. That's a
formal process. A note went out to the membership saying that
had happened.
<hadleybeeman> ...We will not get an extension beyond 31
December. So we have to get to PR by the end of November.
<scribe> ACTION: phila to contact friendly AC reps to ask for
help [recorded in
[24]http://www.w3.org/2016/10/28-dwbp-minutes.html#action01]
[24] http://www.w3.org/2016/10/28-dwbp-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-297 - Contact friendly ac reps to ask
for help [on Phil Archer - due 2016-11-04].
Caroline_: OK, we'll keep working hard and are grateful for the
help.
... We need more robust evidence
hadleybeeman: You asked me to ask the group for more help. Can
i paste the list from today's agenda?
BernadetteLoscio: Sure
hadleybeeman: Anything else to cover today?
<Zakim> hadleybeeman, you wanted to ask Bernadette about the
email she wants me to send
BernadetteLoscio: We need suggestions for sci data portals
<newton> ACTION: newton to update form with new possibilities
of answering (partial fail and partial pass) [recorded in
[25]http://www.w3.org/2016/10/28-dwbp-minutes.html#action02]
[25] http://www.w3.org/2016/10/28-dwbp-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-298 - Update form with new
possibilities of answering (partial fail and partial pass) [on
Newton Calegari - due 2016-11-04].
BernadetteLoscio: Feel free to send us a message with possible
evidence, a dataset, a portal etc.
riccardoAlbertoni: If I understand, we're also looking for
references to other BP docs etc. Are we going to use the same
form to collect this evidence?
BernadetteLoscio: What's easier?
riccardoAlbertoni: if the doc counts as much as a dataset for
our purposes, then ...
BernadetteLoscio: We can make this distinction when compiling
the report
riccardoAlbertoni: OK, we'll use the same form and the editors
will make the distinction.
BernadetteLoscio: ANd if we have Qs we'll contact you.
-> [26]https://www.w3.org/2013/share-psi/lg/CzechRepublic/
Share-PSI example
[26] https://www.w3.org/2013/share-psi/lg/CzechRepublic/
<hadleybeeman> phila: This may be relevant... This is an
example from Share-PSI
<hadleybeeman> ...That is a local guide, from the Czech
Republic.
<hadleybeeman> ...It tells you exactly which of the best
practices that Share-PSI adopted, that are recommended by the
Czech government.
<hadleybeeman> ...There are 39 of them, one for each country .
-> [27]https://www.w3.org/2013/share-psi/bp/ BP page
[27] https://www.w3.org/2013/share-psi/bp/
<PWinstanley> +q
[28]https://www.w3.org/2013/share-psi/lg/
[28] https://www.w3.org/2013/share-psi/lg/
PWinstanley: Are we going to be sending this request to
Share-PSI
... Some targeted e-mails would be helpful
Next meeting
<PWinstanley> hadley I can't hear you
hadleybeeman: Let's set our next call now. If our deadline for
evidence is 10 Nov, that's almost 2 weeks. Do we need a call
next Friday?
BernadetteLoscio: For me I don't think we need next week
hadleybeeman: So our next call is 11/11 (a date that works on
both sides of t he Atlantic)
So DNM is 11/11
<riccardoAlbertoni> good weekend!
<PWinstanley> bye!
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: newton to update form with new possibilities of
answering (partial fail and partial pass) [recorded in
[29]http://www.w3.org/2016/10/28-dwbp-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: phila to contact friendly AC reps to ask for help
[recorded in
[30]http://www.w3.org/2016/10/28-dwbp-minutes.html#action01]
[29] http://www.w3.org/2016/10/28-dwbp-minutes.html#action02
[30] http://www.w3.org/2016/10/28-dwbp-minutes.html#action01
Summary of Resolutions
1. [31]Accept minutes of 30 September
[End of minutes]
__________________________________________________________
Received on Friday, 28 October 2016 14:09:40 UTC