- From: Bernadette Farias Lóscio <bfl@cin.ufpe.br>
- Date: Sat, 6 Feb 2016 10:52:28 +0100
- To: Eric Stephan <ericphb@gmail.com>
- Cc: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>, João Paulo Almeida <jpalmeida@ieee.org>, Carlos Iglesias <contact@carlosiglesias.es>, Public DWBP WG <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CANx1PzwTTw6HCu5ZM_1qvGivWgay79cQ3avASA-1yW7cx5WE8g@mail.gmail.com>
Thanks a lot Phil! This is very helpful! And thanks everybody for the valuable contribution with the BP and DUV documents! A special thanks to Eric, Carol and Newton. Cheers, Berna 2016-02-05 18:23 GMT+01:00 Eric Stephan <ericphb@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] >> __________________________________________________________ >> >> > -- Bernadette Farias Lóscio Centro de Informática Universidade Federal de Pernambuco - UFPE, Brazil ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Saturday, 6 February 2016 09:53:18 UTC