- From: Eric Stephan <ericphb@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2016 09:23:45 -0800
- To: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>, João Paulo Almeida <jpalmeida@ieee.org>, Carlos Iglesias <contact@carlosiglesias.es>
- Cc: Public DWBP WG <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAMFz4jhndzjCJA2nTx1AcrFPF2JeL0AR1y-g3PGqOFyPSi_BSg@mail.gmail.com>
Thank you Phil, Yes this is extremely helpful. Joao Paulo and Carlos please note there was discussions about several of the DUV issues you raised. Since you were not on the call, could you look at the discussion and comment on each of your issues? Thank you, Eric On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 7:06 AM, Phil Archer <phila@w3.org> wrote: > 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]Agenda > > [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 > > Attendees > > Present > phila, PWinstanley, yaso, antoine, newton, Caroline_, > ericstephan, annette_g, laufer, hadleybeeman, > RiccardoAlbertoni, deirdrelee > > Regrets > Chair > Yaso > > Scribe > PWinstanley > > Contents > > * [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 > > [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 > > [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 > DUV > > <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 > too > > <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 > namespace > > <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 > elsewhere > > <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 > here > > <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 > vocabularies > > <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] > > [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 > > <ericstephan> > [28]https://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-duv/#Vocab_Overview > > [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 > dcat:distribution > > <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 > ranges > > <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 > > <Caroline_> > [30]https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/BP_Plan_for_CR > > [30] https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/BP_Plan_for_CR > > <PWinstanley_> ...we have prepared target dates as per last > call > > <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 > assigned > > <PWinstanley_> ...some names have been added, but change/add as > you think appropriate. There are still some empty places in the > allocation > > <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 > assignments? > > <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 > assignments > > <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? > > <newton> > [32]https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Call_for_BP_example_contr > ibutors > > [32] > https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Call_for_BP_example_contributors > > <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 > deterministics > > <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 > assignments > > <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 > contributors > > <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] > > [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 > 1-2? > > <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 > [34]http://www.cvent.com/events/coda-2016-conference-on-data-an > alysis-2016/event-summary-a11ed42531524891a3ebeb626147a980.aspx > > [34] > http://www.cvent.com/events/coda-2016-conference-on-data-analysis-2016/event-summary-a11ed42531524891a3ebeb626147a980.aspx > > <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 > wiki > > <ericstephan> Its really limited in terms of who can go, but > would be interesting for you to go > > <laufer> bye all... nice wknd... abraços... > > <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 > [36]http://www.w3.org/2016/02/05-dwbp-minutes.html#action01] > [NEW] ACTION: phila to fix bpconfig.js to restore contributors > to BP doc [recorded in > [37]http://www.w3.org/2016/02/05-dwbp-minutes.html#action02] > > [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 17:24:19 UTC