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

[Minutes] 2016-02-12

From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2016 15:15:57 +0000
To: Public DWBP WG <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <56BDF72D.7030600@w3.org>
Minutes from today's meeting are at 
https://www.w3.org/2016/02/12-dwbp-minutes with a text snapshot below.

Lots of discussion today about closing comments, some of which are very 
old and have been dealt with a long time ago but the record doesn't show 

We're in the final straight towards Candidate Rec - i.e. the BP doc 
needs to be essentially *finished* by the time we leave Zagreb next month.

       Data on the Web Best Practices Working Group Teleconference

12 Feb 2016


       [2] https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20160212

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2016/02/12-dwbp-irc


           PWinstanley, deirdrelee, yaso, BernadetteLoscio,
           Caroline, riccardoAlbertoni, phila, annette_g, laufer

           Eric S, Newton, Hadley




      * [4]Topics
      * [5]Summary of Action Items
      * [6]Summary of Resolutions

    <deirdrelee> trackbot, start meeting

    <trackbot> Meeting: Data on the Web Best Practices Working
    Group Teleconference

    <trackbot> Date: 12 February 2016

    <deirdrelee> not too many people on call....anyone else from
    irc joining

    <deirdrelee> scribe: PWinstanley

    <phila> Decision - only a handful of people, so we'll have an
    informal chat

    <riccardoAlbertoni> i am trying

    deirdrelee: Last week's minutes: accepted?

    <deirdrelee> PROPOSED: Accept minutes of last week's meeting

       [7] https://www.w3.org/2016/02/05-dwbp-minutes

    <Yaso> +1


    <deirdrelee> +1

    <phila> +1

    <Caroline> +1

    RESOLUTION: Accept minutes of last week's meeting

       [8] https://www.w3.org/2016/02/05-dwbp-minutes

    deirdrelee: Agenda: go bak to the BP doc and talk aout

    <deirdrelee> PWinstanley: I'd offered to do some work on bps,
    but would like to know what is the current workflow?

    <phila> PWinstanley: I'd offered to do some work on the BPs,
    but what is the current workflow for working with these?

    PWinstanley: What is the workflow for working on BPs?

    <BernadetteLoscio> [9]http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp-status.html

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

    PWinstanley: how do I get access to Github?

    phila: make edits in own repo, give a pull request, then let
    editors know and they will do the merging

    PWinstanley: Fork repo, edit, and issue pull request

    deirdrelee: In Chairs meeting we talked about implementations
    for the BP doc, so that it gets to candidate rec, we need
    examples of c. >2 of each BP

    phila: because it is a BP rather than a tech spec, the issue is
    what do you mean by an example...
    ... mobile web BPs asked people to try to implement and then
    report back
    ... the other way (Share-PSI) is to link to handbooks
    ... we can make the case to the Director if an official doc
    presents a BP then if our advice is consistent then we can
    infer validity
    ... we need evidence that people agree with us

    deirdrelee: 3 things: 1/ "evidence..."; should the evidence be
    from outside the group?

    phila: external validation is always better. We can use the
    Zagreb F2F to get some of this
    ... however, internal evidence is also good. We can look at
    Scottish or Irish or other guides that WG members are involved
    in ... that is good too
    ... we need >2 implementations per BP

    deirdrelee: 2/ when we go through there might be BPs that are
    more challenging to get examples - so we should pick up those
    early so that we are not rushing around at the last minute
    trying to get them

    phila: before candidate rec we mark "at risk", and they can be
    removed. If we don't do that we are back to working draft if we
    cannot find the examples

    BernadetteLoscio: wht if the implementation doesn't work?

    phila: if it becomes obvious that it is not working we rewrite
    or remove
    ... there is no minimum period for candidate rec.... we can
    turn round in a few weeks

    BernadetteLoscio: so we can edit the doc?

    phila: yes, but ideally you don't edit much. Once cand rec
    ends, there is a call with a Director, and the Chairs/Editors
    prove wide review and examples. Thereafter it is pretty much

    deirdrelee: how should we start collecting implementations?
    google doc? Suggestions please

    phila: use the wiki or github? but a google form might be a
    good idea. I have a model from share-PSI

    <BernadetteLoscio> Phil, is this one:


    PWinstanley: if thereis a BP that doesn't 'work' then add it as
    an antipattern

    <phila> Yes, that one BernadetteLoscio

    annette_g: are our use cases illustrations of implementation?

    phila: I guess so, but we need validation from others having
    implemented them

    Caroline: it is important to make the google doc/form - I don't
    think we will have time to handle emailed material

    BernadetteLoscio: about the Use Cases. I am afraid of using
    these as evidence as we used these for requirements and the
    challenge from which we developed BP. We need to avoid the
    ... it is a circular argument

    deirdrelee: to create an action for BP editors to develop a
    process that we can start using from next week

    Caroline: we can have 2 actions, one for editors and another
    developed from the Share-PSI quesitons (so we are not starting
    from the ground up)

    <deirdrelee> ACTION for phila to send bp editors
    implementation-questionairre template

    <trackbot> Error finding 'for'. You can review and register
    nicknames at <[11]http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/users>.

      [11] http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/users

    <deirdrelee> ACTION: phila to send bp editors
    implementation-questionaire template [recorded in

      [12] http://www.w3.org/2016/02/12-dwbp-minutes.html#action01]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-229 - Send bp editors
    implementation-questionaire template [on Phil Archer - due

    <deirdrelee> ACTION: Caroline to create process for gathering
    evidence of implementations, e.g. wiki, google form [recorded
    in [13]http://www.w3.org/2016/02/12-dwbp-minutes.html#action02]

      [13] http://www.w3.org/2016/02/12-dwbp-minutes.html#action02]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-230 - Create process for gathering
    evidence of implementations, e.g. wiki, google form [on
    Caroline Burle - due 2016-02-19].

    deirdrelee: back to BP issues...

    <Caroline> [14]http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp-status.html

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

    BernadetteLoscio: Yaso and Annette - I need help with the
    section on APIs, it is still open and there needs to be
    agreement re: the proposed changes. Needs to be done ASAP

    annette_g: I was planning to help

    BernadetteLoscio: do we need an action? when we are going to
    ask for implementations, the BPs need to be stable. We have
    many BPs in this section. The work needs to be done before we
    ask for evidence

    <Caroline> thank you annette_g :)

    deirdrelee: target date is 19 Feb - next Friday. The following
    week we should be able to put out the call for implementations

    phila: This needs a convo with the Director. It may only be
    done after Zagreb. Transition to CR is done after isses and
    actions are all closed. The WG has to think it is finished.

    deirdrelee: so the main focus is on clising issues and comments

    BernadetteLoscio: the table by Newton is for examples and test.
    The BP needs to be reviewed too - the whole thing needs a
    review, not just examples and tests

    deirdrelee: for the next 30 mins - open issues?
    ... comments first please

    <deirdrelee> Open comments:


    deirdrelee: 10 open comments. What is the status?

    Caroline: I think we need to go down the list ....
    ... most of them are old

    phila: given that they are so old, ...

    BernadetteLoscio: some can be closed - the ones from Christoph,
    for example
    ... the ones from Eric remained open because I didn't know how
    to answer
    ... others have a resolution already

    phila: I think this needs to be discussed on the Chair's call
    on wednesday. they need to be closed, but that depends on
    whether they have been answered

    BernadetteLoscio: I think most already have a resolution.

    deirdrelee: is there a need to contact the author again.

    phila: in the case of Eric's then the comments are being worked
    on, but we need to focus on process - the group needs to be
    satisfied that the comments have been worked on

    deirdrelee: going through them now

    annette_g: can I wrap things up with Eric? what's the protocol

    <Caroline> :))))

    phila: just chat with eric and sort it out, then reply back.
    that will work

    <deirdrelee> ACTION: annette_g to talk to Eric Wilde about open
    comments and reach resolution [recorded in

      [16] http://www.w3.org/2016/02/12-dwbp-minutes.html#action03]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-231 - Talk to eric wilde about open
    comments and reach resolution [on Annette Greiner - due



    <annette_g> but but but

    <Zakim> phila, you wanted to highlight

      [18] http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#EnrichData

    Caroline: the data enrichment document will be prepared
    elsewhere and the link put into the BP, but this has not yet
    been done

    <phila> [19]BP on enrichment

      [19] http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#EnrichData

    phila: annette, are you aware that there is a BP in the doc, it
    is light on content, but needs completing

    annette_g: there are more ways of enriching data than simply
    adding more metadata

    BernadetteLoscio: this BP needs to be complemented

    annette_g: my initial problem was that it seemed to be looking
    only at adding metadata or doing some machine learning, but
    data enrichment can also be about e.g. segmenting a visual
    dataset to isolate patterns that have meaning. This whole side
    is missing

    phila: rather than it being for Annette, it should be for
    Giselle and there is not enough interaction with the WG so we
    will have problem in finding evidence. The action is on UFMG
    but it is quesionable that this BP will survive without
    significant effort

    <laufer> +1 to phil

    phila: but it is for others to do this

    <annette_g> I'm on the queue

    annette_g: this is a BP I care about. maybe it isn't only UFMG,
    and perhaps we need to merge their point of view with mine

    BernadetteLoscio: what annette is describing is different to
    what UFMG were thinking - they are more ML people so enrichment
    by addition of metadata was their 'thing'
    ... we need a definition here to help clarify the topic

    Caroline: maybe annette could collaborate with them?
    ... would this work? do we still have time?

    annette_g: I am worried about workload, but can give it a try

    <phila> Personally, I think the conversation with Erik Wilde
    should take a higher priority

    <BernadetteLoscio> It should be possible to perform some data
    enrichment tasks in order to aggregate value to data, therefore
    providing more value for user applications and services.

    <Caroline> +1 to phila

    BernadetteLoscio: we can have the discussion by mail - but we
    need clarification on the semantics of 'enrichment'/ I think
    the requirement is closer to what annette was describing
    ... i agree that the chat with eric is important, it should
    take priority

    deirdrelee: 2 others for annette .... can these be looked at as
    well please.
    ... last few minutes....

    BernadetteLoscio: we have comments from Maurino Andrea - I
    contacted him before publicaiton of the second draft. I think
    these can be closed. Chairs can confirm.
    ... I can message the list with the links

    <Zakim> phila, you wanted to ask for help with a JSON problem

    <phila> action-228

    <trackbot> action-228 -- Phil Archer to Fix bpconfig.js to
    restore contributors to bp doc -- due 2016-02-12 -- OPEN

    <trackbot> [20]http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/228

      [20] http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/228

    <phila> [21]BPConfig file

      [21] http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bpconfig.js

    <annette_g> I could look at it

    <Yaso> I can help

    phila: I need help with an action to fix (action 228) - I
    cannot debug it. The BP config file isn't showing up the list
    of contributors

    <Yaso> :-) We need an action for that or it's ok?

    annette_g: in talking with eric I will focus on the API stuff,
    but there is more that Eric commented on. Will that be dealt
    with at the Chairs' meeting?

    deirdrelee: perhaps the BP editors should check first, then
    writing Eric a note

    BernadetteLoscio: we already provided comments in the tracker.
    Open ones are because we don't know how to handle them

    annette_g: we need to see if we have replied to Eric ....

    BernadetteLoscio: we had a lot of discussion with him on the
    mailing list. his messages were replied to promptly
    ... I am going to go through all the comments and send the
    group a message indicating status for each

    deirdrelee: thanks to all for the useful meeting.

    <laufer> bye all...

    <riccardoAlbertoni> bye, have good weekend|

    <annette_g> bye!

    <Caroline> bye! great scribing PWinstanley!

Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: annette_g to talk to Eric Wilde about open
    comments and reach resolution [recorded in
    [NEW] ACTION: Caroline to create process for gathering evidence
    of implementations, e.g. wiki, google form [recorded in
    [NEW] ACTION: phila to send bp editors
    implementation-questionaire template [recorded in

      [22] http://www.w3.org/2016/02/12-dwbp-minutes.html#action03
      [23] http://www.w3.org/2016/02/12-dwbp-minutes.html#action02
      [24] http://www.w3.org/2016/02/12-dwbp-minutes.html#action01

Summary of Resolutions

     1. [25]Accept minutes of last week's meeting

    [End of minutes]
Received on Friday, 12 February 2016 15:15:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:39:44 UTC