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

[Minutes] 2016-02-05

From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2016 15:06:57 +0000
To: Public DWBP WG <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <56B4BA91.4040208@w3.org>
As I mentioned in the call today, I plan to start doing for this WG what 
I do for SDW (and we do routinely for our internal meetings) which is to 
circulate the minutes on this list which I hope, makes it easier to rack 
what we're doing if you can't make the call.

Today's minutes are at https://www.w3.org/2016/02/05-dwbp-minutes

And a text snapshot is provided below.

       Data on the Web Best Practices Working Group Teleconference

05 Feb 2016


       [2] https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20160205

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2016/02/05-dwbp-irc


           phila, PWinstanley, yaso, antoine, newton, Caroline_,
           ericstephan, annette_g, laufer, hadleybeeman,
           RiccardoAlbertoni, deirdrelee




      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]Dataset usage Vocabulary
          2. [6]Best Practices, table of issue
      * [7]Summary of Action Items
      * [8]Summary of Resolutions

    .present+ PWinstanley

    password for webex?

    <Yaso> is xGbzp445, PWinstanley

    :-) thanks

    <Yaso> no problem :-)

    <phila> Yaso: Any volunteer to scribe this week?

    <phila> scribe: PWinstanley

    <annette_g> *waves back*

    <Yaso> PROPOSED: Accept last week's minutes

    <annette_g> Yaso, you are very quiet

    <annette_g> better

    <Yaso> [9]https://www.w3.org/2016/01/29-dwbp-minutes

       [9] https://www.w3.org/2016/01/29-dwbp-minutes

    <phila> PROPOSED: Accept

      [10] https://www.w3.org/2016/01/29-dwbp-minutes

    <ericstephan> it may be your firewall PWinstanley

    <annette_g> +1

    <Yaso> +1

    <Caroline_> +1

    <phila> +1

    <ericstephan> 0 (was absent)

    <newton> +1

    RESOLUTION: Accept

      [11] https://www.w3.org/2016/01/29-dwbp-minutes

    <PWinstanley_> phila: will start emailing minutes each week

Dataset usage Vocabulary

    <PWinstanley_> Yaso: DUV

    <Yaso> [12]http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/vocab-du.html

      [12] http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/vocab-du.html

    <phila> [13]latest published version

      [13] https://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-duv

    <ericstephan> [14]https://www.w3.org/TR/dwbp/#DataIdentifiers

      [14] https://www.w3.org/TR/dwbp/#DataIdentifiers

    <ericstephan> [15]https://www.w3.org/TR/dwbp/#feedbacksection

      [15] https://www.w3.org/TR/dwbp/#feedbacksection

    <PWinstanley_> ericstephan: We haven't made links between DUV
    and the best practices

    <PWinstanley_> ...in the glossary there is mention of a
    citation, but we don't describe a reference

    <PWinstanley_> ...separation of these is important and needs to
    be done

    <ericstephan> [16]https://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-duv/

      [16] https://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-duv/

    <PWinstanley_> ericstephan: we have been very busy the past 2
    weeks trying to get comments (comments from Robin haven't been
    responded to yet)

    <PWinstanley_> .... trying to write in a collaboration journal

    <PWinstanley_> ....opportunity to present a poster too

    <PWinstanley_> ...these are good opportunities to publicise the

    <ericstephan> [17]https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/235

      [17] https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/235

    <PWinstanley_> ...Bernadette will be publishing it at meetings

    <phila> [18]FORCE 11 Event, April - DUV has a poster session

      [18] https://www.force11.org/article/force2016-april-17-19-2016

    <ericstephan> [19]https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/234

      [19] https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/234

    <PWinstanley_> ...issue 235, a note back to the editors to make
    sure we are finding the right namespaces

    <phila> I'm planning to offer help with Issue-235

    <PWinstanley_> .... JP had questions about the role of the
    usage tool. We are going to be routing ideas through to
    communities that have an interest in usage vocabularies

    <PWinstanley_> ...questions on 235?

    <phila> issue-234?

    <trackbot> issue-234 -- Role of Usage Tool -- open

    <trackbot> [20]http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/234

      [20] http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/234

    <phila> issue-235

    <trackbot> issue-235 -- Namespaces in DUV -- open

    <trackbot> [21]http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/235

      [21] http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/235

    <PWinstanley_> phila: I am offereing to help (235 - namespaces)
    . when I was getting doc ready for publication I needed to look
    through but was careful not to tidy up what I found. However,
    probably not this month

    <ericstephan> [22]https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/236

      [22] https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/236

    <Yaso> issue-236

    <trackbot> issue-236 -- agentClassification,
    usageClassification, skos:Concept -- open

    <trackbot> [23]http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/236

      [23] http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/236

    <PWinstanley_> ericstephan: 236 was more a general question
    abobut SKOS and usage classification.

    <Yaso> ericstephan: almost can't hear you

    <ericstephan> I have bad reception

    <Caroline_> it is better now! :)

    <PWinstanley_> ... 236 - JP had some concerns about the use of
    SKO Concept. The rationale was to be able to describe something
    beyond what was described for e.g. a Person (including type of
    Person etc)

    <PWinstanley_> phila: the org ontonlogy has concepts of
    classification and purpose. I worry about type of person, we
    all fulfill multiple roles and ascribing a type to a person
    might be problematic

    <PWinstanley_> ericstephan: we did have a usage role but were
    pushed into the FOAF corner.

    <PWinstanley_> antoine: I have reservation about introducing
    new properties. It is the design principle I don't like.

    <PWinstanley_> ...if there was a way to reuse from other vocabs
    I think that would be better

    <PWinstanley_> ...we could recommend using vocabs from another

    <PWinstanley_> ericstephan: sounds like a pattern of
    recommendation rather than formal inclusion

    <PWinstanley_> antoine: yes

    <PWinstanley_> ericstephan: it sounds like we are trying to
    address corner cases, and that might be confusing to people. In
    order to be inclusive we could show patterns

    <phila> +1 to limiting the scope

    <PWinstanley_> antoine: it is a matter of determing core usage
    vs occasional use where the authoratative version lies

    <PWinstanley_> ericstephan: there could be an appendix to
    address these things

    <ericstephan> [24]https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/237

      [24] https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/237

    <PWinstanley_> ...237: there was a question about the use of a
    term that we found for feedback.

    <PWinstanley_> ...we found this class (recommended from a
    social networking vocab) and inserted this into the model. JP's
    concern is that this introduces another obscure concept to the
    model.. So, do we just creata a DUV term rather than importing
    only one term from this other vocab

    <annette_g> +1 for keeping the number of referred vocabs lower

    <PWinstanley_> phila: if it is just one term then minting is OK

    <PWinstanley_> ericstephan: we can put a comment to refer it to
    the other

    <PWinstanley_> hadleybeeman: +1 to phil's comment. the fewer
    references to other normative standards the better,

    <PWinstanley_> ...for the sake of stability caution is better

    <PWinstanley_> antoine: I agree

    <PWinstanley_> ericstephan: do we need a vote?

    <phila> close issue-237

    <trackbot> Closed issue-237.

    <PWinstanley_> Yaso: no, it's OK

    <PWinstanley_> ericstephan: I think there might be an
    opportunity to write some notes about vocab reuse in builfding
    the DUV - some best practice notes illustrating how to reuse

    <PWinstanley_> ...I think it is an interesting journy we are on

    <Yaso> akc antoine

    <PWinstanley_> antoine: I am involved in other groups keen on
    identify these guidelines, so we don't want too many developing
    BPs. This though might be brought into our own Best Practices

    <PWinstanley_> ericstephan: I would like that - to document
    things and show the evolution of the vocabulary. I think it is
    something many go through when building vocabs

    <PWinstanley_> antoine: can an action be recorded

    <phila> ACTION: antoine to work with eric S on writing section
    on evolution of DUV wrt reuse of namespaces etc. [recorded in

      [25] http://www.w3.org/2016/02/05-dwbp-minutes.html#action01]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-227 - Work with eric s on writing
    section on evolution of duv wrt reuse of namespaces etc. [on
    Antoine Isaac - due 2016-02-12].

    <ericstephan> [26]https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/238

      [26] https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/238

    <Yaso> tks phila!

    <phila> issue-238

    <trackbot> issue-238 -- Should some of our properties be sub
    properties of a parent property? -- open

    <trackbot> [27]http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/238

      [27] http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/238

    <PWinstanley_> ericstephan: 238 - Carlos (not on the call) - in
    some cases we decided that instead of having 2 domains for
    dataset and distribution we break out the properties


      [28] https://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-duv/#Vocab_Overview

    <PWinstanley_> ...looking at the centre of the model I think
    that this concern about properties we have broken out - are
    they subproperties, or not

    <PWinstanley_> laufer: in the way that was defined before, we
    have a conjunction of 2 domains. when someone defines a
    property there will be a distribution defined at the same time
    as a dataset.

    <PWinstanley_> ...the solution implemneted was 2 properties,
    each with one domain. but we need another so that the
    vocabulary can describe things that are not dcat:dataset or

    <laufer> I can hear

    <phila> acl p

    <laufer> I think thta we have different definitions of dataset

    <laufer> data cube, for example... or a datacube slice...

    <PWinstanley_> phila: while Laufer is writing, I understood him
    to ask if we need to put domain and range restrictions
    everywhere. This ties people down to using the vocab in a
    narrowly specified way

    <laufer> so, it will be interesting to have these propertises,
    like refersTo, with no ranges, for example

    <ericstephan> I would prefer a simpler view with no domains or

    <laufer> so duv could be reused...

    <antoine> +1

    <PWinstanley_> ...where the vocab defines a dataset and a
    distribution, where it doesn't damage the vocab, I would
    support Laufer in not referring to domain & range

    <PWinstanley_> ericstephan: I totally agree with simplifying. I
    think we were trying to mimic other vocabs that mentioned these
    things, but I would prefer not to specify domain & range

    <laufer> we can, in our examples, show the use for a dcat
    dataset or distribution... but others used could be nice too...

    <phila> PROPOSED: Do not include domains and ranges on
    properties unless it genuinely adds to the semantics

    <laufer> If duv want to define subproperties for specific uses,
    I think is ok too...

    <PWinstanley_> Yaso: next item is BP doc, the table of issues

    <Caroline_> +1

    <RiccardoAlbertoni> +1

    <Yaso> +1

    <phila> +1

    <PWinstanley_> +1

    <ericstephan> +1

    <laufer> +1

    RESOLUTION: Do not include domains and ranges on properties
    unless it genuinely adds to the semantics

    <hadleybeeman> +1

    <newton> +1

    <annette_g> +1

Best Practices, table of issue

    <Yaso> [29]http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp-status.html

      [29] http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp-status.html

    <PWinstanley_> Yaso: next agenda item is the table of issues
    that the editors sent recently

    <PWinstanley_> Caroline_: Newton prepared a table to visualise
    what needs to be done for each BP


      [30] https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/BP_Plan_for_CR

    <PWinstanley_> ...we have prepared target dates as per last

    <PWinstanley_> ...we can allocate work from this

    <PWinstanley_> ...so take a look

    <phila> Just to record, looking at the table, I am feeling smug

    <PWinstanley_> ...most important thing is to get people

    <PWinstanley_> ...some names have been added, but change/add as
    you think appropriate. There are still some empty places in the

    <PWinstanley_> ...we put Feb 19 as a date

    <PWinstanley_> antoine: put me on 16 & 17

    <phila> [31]Table of duties

      [31] http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp-status.html

    <hadleybeeman> Ah, thanks phila! I was on the BP_plan_for_CR

    <PWinstanley_> ... and a question about 18. JP is there. Is
    there scope for distinguishing between tentative and confirmed

    <PWinstanley_> newton: we just made some suggestions. if you
    are ok then we keep

    <PWinstanley_> antoine: but how do we distinguish between
    proposed and confirmed assignments?

    <PWinstanley_> Caroline_: please can people confirm their

    <annette_g> I'm happy to help where my name shows up

    <RiccardoAlbertoni> let's put in green the people who has
    confirmed ..

    <phila> Like annette_g, I'm happy with my assignments

    <ericstephan> oops I am very delinquent looking at the
    table...my apologies...I am happy with my assignments

    <PWinstanley_> antoine: I have a quesiton about assignment, did
    you use the table prepared some weeks ago?



    <PWinstanley_> Caroline_: we created another table - it is
    easier to see things

    <PWinstanley_> ...newton used the one on the wiki as the basis
    to make this more detailed version of the table

    <PWinstanley_> ...we are focusing on the examples, we used that
    table as a basis for assignment

    <PWinstanley_> ...but things are not fixed - you can choose to
    work on other things

    <newton> who is not comfortable to contribute in one specific
    BP, we can change it...

    <RiccardoAlbertoni> I confirm my contribution in Bp 7

    <PWinstanley_> Caroline_: can people on this call attend to
    confirming, or altering their assignment

    <newton> thanks RiccardoAlbertoni

    <RiccardoAlbertoni> yes.. i can

    <RiccardoAlbertoni> whatever i will start

    <PWinstanley_> phila: I am happy with the assignments - and
    unusually I have lots of green on my assignments

    <PWinstanley_> Yaso: Newton sent an email a few days ago - we
    could use the github assignment

    <annette_g> does needs review mean review by editors?

    <newton> @annette_g, not only by the editors, but from the
    group, because we need to make sure that the tests are

    <PWinstanley_> ericstephan: I am on the opposite end of the
    spectrum - lots of red - but am comfortable with my
    assignments. I think it is OK as it is, but will think about
    versioning with Phil

    <PWinstanley_> phila: send me an email

    <newton> @annette_g and the editors could help with who was
    assigned to the tasks in what is necessary

    <annette_g> yes

    <PWinstanley_> Caroline_: maybe annette could confirm her

    <annette_g> yes

    <annette_g> I think I could help with versioning

    <PWinstanley_> I could help with 16 & 17

    <laufer> yes

    <newton> @PWinstanley_ would you like to contribute in another
    one, this way we can replace the "?" :-)

    <laufer> I think it is ok... my timetable is full...

    <PWinstanley_> ok .... let me know another

    <phila> I can ping Christophe who wrote those BPs

    <phila> He's still reachable

    <ericstephan> bp 6 is pretty easy

    <PWinstanley_> I will take 28 and 29

    <ericstephan> someone should be able to pick that up

    <PWinstanley_> antoine: question about contribution - what has
    happened to the contributor listing?

    <PWinstanley_> ...the previous version had a list of

    <PWinstanley_> Caroline_: there is a coding issue that Phil is
    sorting out

    <PWinstanley_> ...the generation of the first page has a
    problem that is being resolved in due course

    <phila> ACTION: phila to fix bpconfig.js to restore
    contributors to BP doc [recorded in

      [33] http://www.w3.org/2016/02/05-dwbp-minutes.html#action02]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-228 - Fix bpconfig.js to restore
    contributors to bp doc [on Phil Archer - due 2016-02-12].

    <phila> Good to see such focussed progress!

    <PWinstanley_> Yaso: all covered. Thanks for making yourselves
    available. Editors are available if you need specific help

    <PWinstanley_> newton: Do we need to create actions for each
    piece of work?

    <ericstephan> annette_g are you going to CoDa in Santa Fe March

    <PWinstanley_> Yaso: we should perhaps use github. I will send
    an email.

    <annette_g> @ericstephan, I don't even know what that is

    <PWinstanley_> phila: if we come back to the table every week
    then we don't need an action

    <ericstephan> annette_g


    <PWinstanley_> Caroline_: next and the following week can we
    have this on the agenda

    <PWinstanley_> Yaso: no problem

    <ericstephan> It might be an interesting place to talk about
    some topics

    <ericstephan> data versioning etc

    <annette_g> @ericstephan whoa! maybe...

    <phila> [35]Zagreb F2F

      [35] https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/ZagrebF2F

    <PWinstanley_> phila: if you are going to Zagreb fill in the

    <ericstephan> Its really limited in terms of who can go, but
    would be interesting for you to go

    <laufer> bye all... nice wknd... abra├žos...

    <Yaso> bye all!

    <PWinstanley_> bye

    <RiccardoAlbertoni> bye .. thanks ..

    <annette_g> @ericstephan are you going?

    <ericstephan> Ywa

    <ericstephan> yes

Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: antoine to work with eric S on writing section on
    evolution of DUV wrt reuse of namespaces etc. [recorded in
    [NEW] ACTION: phila to fix bpconfig.js to restore contributors
    to BP doc [recorded in

      [36] http://www.w3.org/2016/02/05-dwbp-minutes.html#action01
      [37] http://www.w3.org/2016/02/05-dwbp-minutes.html#action02

Summary of Resolutions

     1. [38]Accept https://www.w3.org/2016/01/29-dwbp-minutes
     2. [39]Do not include domains and ranges on properties unless
        it genuinely adds to the semantics

    [End of minutes]
Received on Friday, 5 February 2016 15:07:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:39:43 UTC