- From: yaso <who@yaso.is>
- Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2016 10:09:43 -0500
- To: public-dwbp-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <e622b8ed-9509-535d-bebb-44cbba5930d9@yaso.is>
Hello all dwbp people!
Unfortunately, I've been a little away from the
group in the last moments, because pursuing dreams,
trying to change the world and etcetera, but I wish to
thank you all with enthusiasm! Special thanks to Phil,
whose work was a key to the delivery of all the things.
Congratulations to all!
yaso
--
∞ yaso.is <http://yaso.is>
∞ Fellow of the Berkman Klein Center at Harvard
On 11/25/2016 02:38 PM, Hadley Beeman wrote:
> 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 Thursday, 15 December 2016 15:08:20 UTC