- From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2016 16:04:35 +0100
- To: Public DWBP WG <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
The minutes of today's meeting are at
https://www.w3.org/2016/04/22-dwbp-minutes and in text form below.
The BP editors are working through the comments received and are likely
to need to have Skype calls with individual commentators in the coming
days. There is a lot of work to be done but there is consensus that the
quality of the document is high and getting higher all the time.
Data on the Web Best Practices Working Group Teleconference
22 Apr 2016
[2]Agenda
[2] https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20160422
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2016/04/22-dwbp-irc
Attendees
Present
PWinstanley, newton, Caroline_, BernadetteLoscio,
laufer, deirdrelee, phila
Regrets
Hadley, Yaso, Antoine, Riccardo, Eric
Chair
deirdrelee
Scribe
Caroline_
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]issues from recent comments
* [6]Summary of Action Items
* [7]Summary of Resolutions
__________________________________________________________
<newton> Good morning
<deirdrelee> hi
<scribe> scribe: Caroline_
<phila> scribe: Caroline_
<phila> scribeNick: Caroline_
<phila> PROPOSED: Accept last week's minutes
[8]https://www.w3.org/2016/04/15-dwbp-minutes
https://www.w3.org/2016/04/15-dwbp-minutes
+1
<BernadetteLoscio> +1
<PWinstanley_> +1
<newton> +1
<deirdrelee> 0
<annette_g> +1
<laufer> +1
<phila> +1
RESOLUTION: Accept last week's minutes
[9]https://www.w3.org/2016/04/15-dwbp-minutes
[9] https://www.w3.org/2016/04/15-dwbp-minutes
deirdrelee: we will focus on BP document this week
issues from recent comments
<phila> [10]Issue list
[10]
https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Comments_to_be_considered_before_publishing_the_last_working_draft
BernadetteLoscio: we would like to thank everyone for the
feedback and detailed review
... thank you a lot!
... w the editors discussed the comments and we created this
table to track the comments and have proposals and resolutions
for each comment
[11]https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Comments_to_be_considered
_before_publishing_the_last_working_draft
... some of the comments have a resolution and the
corresponding commits are there
... we still have a lot of comments we need to address
... we have some questions for the group that will help us to
continue updating it
[11]
https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Comments_to_be_considered_before_publishing_the_last_working_draft
deirdrelee: there were discussions around timeframe last week
... the idea is when these comments are closed we can freeze
the document?
<Zakim> phila, you wanted to talk about CR/LC
BernadetteLoscio: yes, because we had the document frozen until
Wednesday night
phila: we will vote on a last draft
... we should resolve our comments internally before publishing
it
BernadetteLoscio: Carol and Newton if want to add something
just interrupt me :)
<BernadetteLoscio> Should we write subtitles using the
imperative mode?
BernadetteLoscio: our first comment is a question: Should we
write subtitles using the imperative mode?
<BernadetteLoscio>
[12]https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1eSTt3A6kTfXYTcVMt5V
GDardLIk8b7FnsgENpCuNRBA/edit#gid=0
[12]
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1eSTt3A6kTfXYTcVMt5VGDardLIk8b7FnsgENpCuNRBA/edit#gid=0
[13]https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1eSTt3A6kTfXYTcVMt5V
GDardLIk8b7FnsgENpCuNRBA/edit#gid=0
[13]
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1eSTt3A6kTfXYTcVMt5VGDardLIk8b7FnsgENpCuNRBA/edit#gid=0
scribe: this table has all the BPs and their subtitles
... if we have to change the subtitles using the imperative
mode we will need help from the Native Speakers to review all
of them
<Zakim> phila, you wanted to ask what "Metadata must be
provided for both human users and computer applications"
becomes
<phila> Metadata must be provided for both human users and
computer applications.
phila: regarding this example above
... if you take out the word must
<annette_g> yes, that's correct
<phila> SO it becomes Provide metadata for both human users and
computer applications.
BernadetteLoscio: it would be "provide metadata for both human
users and computer applications
... some BPs will need to have something added so won't be the
same as the title
phila: if that is the case my suggestion might be that if the
title itself is already nice and short don't bother with the
subtitle at all
BernadetteLoscio: or we could say provide data provenance for
both humand and computer applications
annette_g: there is probably something we can say for each BP
that will be useful for the users
BernadetteLoscio: I think the subtitles should be short
... because if it is long it would be almost as the "Why"
deirdrelee: all subtitles will be reviewd but they will be capt
short
BernadetteLoscio: we need to have a Native Speaker review again
... before puting in the document
<annette_g> +1 for native speaker review. I'm willing to help.
<phila> annette_g - how about you and me split the doc and we
do the new subtitles?
<annette_g> sure
BernadetteLoscio: please help us changin this table
[14]https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1eSTt3A6kTfXYTcVMt5V
GDardLIk8b7FnsgENpCuNRBA/edit#gid=0
[14]
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1eSTt3A6kTfXYTcVMt5VGDardLIk8b7FnsgENpCuNRBA/edit#gid=0
thank you annette_g :)
BernadetteLoscio: let's use this table and then when it is
finished we put on the document
phila: annette_g and I will do it
thank you phila and annette_g :)
<BernadetteLoscio>
[15]http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/dwbp-example.html
[15] http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/dwbp-example.html
BernadetteLoscio: about the human-readable example (should we
include the example in the doc or keep it as a separate file?)
<BernadetteLoscio>
[16]http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#DataLicense
[16] http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#DataLicense
BernadetteLoscio: when there is human readable example, for
example in BP 5 we link to the example
[17]http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/dwbp-example.html
[17] http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/dwbp-example.html
<phila> ACTION: phila to provide imperative subtitles for BPs
1-19 [recorded in
[18]http://www.w3.org/2016/04/22-dwbp-minutes.html#action01]
[18] http://www.w3.org/2016/04/22-dwbp-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-273 - Provide imperative subtitles
for bps 1-19 [on Phil Archer - due 2016-04-29].
BernadetteLoscio: it was not clear that we were showing data
license, or the information about location parameters
<phila> ACTION: annette to provide imperative subtitles for BPs
20-37 [recorded in
[19]http://www.w3.org/2016/04/22-dwbp-minutes.html#action02]
[19] http://www.w3.org/2016/04/22-dwbp-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-274 - Provide imperative subtitles
for bps 20-37 [on Annette Greiner - due 2016-04-29].
BernadetteLoscio: the suggestion was to include the human
readable directly in the document
... I am not sure it is a good idea
... newton put links to each fragment
... if you want to see the structural metadata the link we will
take you there
... we would split the HTML if we put them in the document
... do you the ink we should put just the HTML text in the doc?
annette_g: I like the metadata document
... there are a few lines that you can't find
... I would suggest that ??
... maybe put something bold in the BP doc itself
<newton> 1+
BernadetteLoscio: for the structure metadata we could keep in
the HTML, for example
annette_g: when it is a bigger text you can keep the HTML
<Zakim> phila, you wanted to make a slightly diff suggestion
phila: I am happy with the HTML
... another alternative would be to have a table
... which BP is relevant in the HTML example
... that would be more work
... I am happy with your suggestion
BernadetteLoscio: the idea is to show how it would look after
you finished
newton: I like phila suggestion
phila: newton if you want to try it you could do annotation,
light box, etc
... it would take more time
... you would enjoy doing but it would take time
newton: I will try doing it and I will share with you
... we could point to the URL fragment the specifc texts
phila: sometimes that doesn't work
newton: I will try to change
annette_g: you can refer the link
... it might be more geek
BernadetteLoscio: talking about the description of the example
... Discuss basic example. Should we change to include other
transito modes?
... we have to be careful
... I don't know how to rewrite it in a way that is short
... that we would have example considering the transit mode
annette_g: we just have to not limite it when we first describe
it
BernadetteLoscio: are you talking about the description of the
example?
annette_g: if the description is only abobut buses we will
limit it
BernadetteLoscio: we will change the first line than
... instead of buses stops what do you suggest?
annette_g: we can say transit stops instead of bus stops
BernadetteLoscio: when you go to the example it is only for bus
stops
<phila> make it 'Transit stops' not just 'bus stops' (all bus
stops are transit stops)
BernadetteLoscio: the example for everything
annette_g: some examples need to be more general
... I would say "he is in charge of publishing data about the
transit system"
<newton> yep
BernadetteLoscio: the editors will discuss that and see if
could be more general
... What should we do with the BP about Content Negotiation?
Shoul we keep it or move to BP 14?
... about providing multiple formats
... we think we should keep the BP about content negotiation
annette_g: as a BP I don't think it is clearly a BP to always
use content negotiation
<newton> we could link them, instead of merging them
annette_g: among developers it is not at all
phila: what are the main objections?
annette_g: the main one is that it doesn't allow someone to
share the link
... you have to tell them taht you use content negotiation
phila: you give people a directly serialization
... if you take of the file extension
<laufer> +1 to annette claim that it is an implementation issue
annette_g: if people want to do content negotiation let them
avoid poiting URI
... can you point to any place that is actually doing that?
phila: yes, we do all the time
... our namespace doc will do it
newton: is very useful when you are requestiong the specific
resource
<phila> -> [20]https://www.w3.org/ns/org, also available
[21]https://www.w3.org/ns/org.rdf,
[22]https://www.w3.org/ns/org.ttl
[20] https://www.w3.org/ns/org,
[21] https://www.w3.org/ns/org.rdf,
[22] https://www.w3.org/ns/org.ttl
newton: we can likn the BPs and put in the content negotiation
... if you can provide the specifc URL
<phila> And [23]https://www.w3.org/ns/org.n3 if you want the
triples
[23] https://www.w3.org/ns/org.n3
annette_g: my reading on the subject has not came up yet
<BernadetteLoscio> maybe we can do the other way around in BP14
we make a link to BP21
deirdrelee: annette_g do you want to complete remove the BP?
<phila> And elsewhere
data.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/doc/postcodeunit/IP83PX (add .ttl,
xml, .json)
annette_g: I think we could leave it there, I just want to know
if there are people doing it
deirdrelee: maybe puting more examples
<laufer> it is a way of providing multiple formats
newton: a lot of RDF stars like virtuoso and Jena Fusek use
content negotiation
deirdrelee: even the extension for DCAT
<PWinstanley>
[24]http://statistics.gov.scot/data/social-work-staffing.ttl
[24] http://statistics.gov.scot/data/social-work-staffing.ttl
newton: I think it is a good practice for the machine
<laufer> it is an implementation issue...
deirdrelee: the human readble it is also used
annette_g: let's go then
BernadetteLoscio: we will keep the BP then
... we will make a link from BP 14 to BP 21
... then I have two questions related
... should we say the multiple access should be availvabe..
annette_g: no
BernadetteLoscio: in our BPs we say that we should have bulk
donwload and APIs
... aren't they multiple access mechanisms?
... when I have a dataset I will have just one way to access
the dataset?
<laufer> we have two things here... what and how
annette_g: I need to be convinced that I need to take to
trouble to do both ways
<laufer> what to get... and how to get...
annette_g: the reason to do multiple formats is that people
will have more than one format
... you have that trhough the API
BernadetteLoscio: I am not saying this is a BP
... it is just the description
annette_g: then you don't have to use the word should
BernadetteLoscio: the problem is with should?
<BernadetteLoscio> multiple dataset access mechanisms can be
available
BernadetteLoscio: if we say datasets and mechanisms "can" be
available
laufer: I think we are talking about 2 things
... how to get and what
... when we have bulk donwload someone has to give some time of
data
... or how will you provide this?
... 2 things: what to get and how to get
<Zakim> phila, you wanted to talk about timing
deirdrelee: are you satisfied with annette_g's proposal sayhing
that the word will change for can instead of should?
<laufer> i a having problems with audio... sorry
<laufer> its ok for me
phila: we just began the few questions
... how are we going to handle the other discussions?
... because we are having a great discussion
deirdrelee: if we continue the discussion next week we might
have infinite looping
... we should make a timeframe to address them
BernadetteLoscio: we have several questions to annette_g so
maybe we can have a chat with her today or monday to clarify
these questions
... also we need help to rewrite some BPs
... and maybe this is a task to annette_g because a lot of
questions were from her about data access
... since annette_g is the one who really knows about data
access I would like to know if she is okay with dealing with
her comments on that
... it would be more usefull if you may change
annette_g: I gave you some comments, do you want to talk on
skype?
BernadetteLoscio: yes, thank you
... some comments we can do the update
... but for the data access would be more productive if you
could work on your comments since you know that subject better
... we will talk later then :)
... What should we do with the BP Use Standardized Terms and
Reuse Vocabularies? Should we merge? (see Antoine's message)
... Antoine mentioned we could merge these BPs
... I am not sure if would be clear if we keep as it is
... if we decide to merge them we would have to rewrite
<deirdrelee>
[25]http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#MetadataStandardized
[25] http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#MetadataStandardized
BernadetteLoscio: BPs 15 and 16
<deirdrelee>
[26]http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#ReuseVocabularies
[26] http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#ReuseVocabularies
<BernadetteLoscio>
[27]http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#MetadataStandardized
[27] http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#MetadataStandardized
BernadetteLoscio: that we are talking about
... we need Antoine's feedback to know if he agrees with the
BPs
... I am affraid that this might not be enough to clarify the
difference between the 2 BPs
... instead of writing a new BP
annette_g: mostly keeping BP 15 and adding BP 16 to be part of
that
phila: it makes sense to me
<laufer> +1
phila: maybe Antoine has something else to say
annette_g: the sense I get from reading Antoine's email is taht
he agrees we could merge them
BernadetteLoscio: we need his feedback
phila: if you are editors able to spend time with annette_g and
Antoine I might join and we see how far we can get before next
week
BernadetteLoscio: we will work on this BP and try to talk with
Antoine as well
phila: this discussion is very important
... we are having a detail discussion
<annette_g> +1 to phila, I'm really excited to see things
shaping up1
BernadetteLoscio: the group is very mature and it is easier to
talk about these things
... deirdrelee, for us editors is really hard to give you a
dealine before talking with annette_g and doing more things
deirdrelee: we can have another talk next week
... I will be more available this week as well to help with the
native English
BernadetteLoscio: we will try to finish everything before
Wednsday
<annette_g> many thanks to the editors for all their hard
work!!!
<BernadetteLoscio> :):):)
<laufer> bye all...
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: annette to provide imperative subtitles for BPs
20-37 [recorded in
[28]http://www.w3.org/2016/04/22-dwbp-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: phila to provide imperative subtitles for BPs
1-19 [recorded in
[29]http://www.w3.org/2016/04/22-dwbp-minutes.html#action01]
[28] http://www.w3.org/2016/04/22-dwbp-minutes.html#action02
[29] http://www.w3.org/2016/04/22-dwbp-minutes.html#action01
Summary of Resolutions
1. [30]Accept last week's minutes
https://www.w3.org/2016/04/15-dwbp-minutes
[End of minutes]
__________________________________________________________
Received on Friday, 22 April 2016 15:04:41 UTC