- From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2016 15:22:21 +0100
- To: Public DWBP WG <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
The minutes of today's meeting are at
https://www.w3.org/2016/07/15-dwbp-minutes
The group is now waiting for feedback from the I18N WG, see
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-i18n-core/2016JulSep/0009.html.
This will delay CR transition by at least 2 weeks, maybe more.
The WG postponed two open issues related to DQV, noting the forthcoming
SDSVoc workshop. These have been noted on the WG's wish list on the home
page https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Main_Page#Wish_List
Of the two open issues for DUV, one was closed, the other is being
processed.
Editors of both vocabs expect to complete work in the near future.
Textual snapshot of today's minutes below.
Data on the Web Best Practices Working Group Teleconference
15 Jul 2016
[2]Agenda
[2] https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20160715
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2016/07/15-dwbp-irc
Attendees
Present
phila, RiccardoAlbertoni, PWinstanley, deirdrelee,
newton, ericstephan, hadleybeeman, annette_g,
SumitPurohit, Caroline_, EricKauz, laufer
Regrets
Chair
yaso
Scribe
Riccardo, Hadley
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]CR delay
2. [6]DQV
3. [7]Open issues on vocabularies
4. [8]DUV
* [9]Summary of Action Items
* [10]Summary of Resolutions
__________________________________________________________
<ericstephan> I apologize being late
<yaso_> no probem, eric
<yaso_> Scribe?
<yaso_> Sorry, I'll have to dial again
<yaso_> +1
<yaso_> [11]https://www.w3.org/2016/06/10-dwbp-minutes
[11] https://www.w3.org/2016/06/10-dwbp-minutes
<RiccardoAlbertoni> propose approve the last meeting minutes
[12]https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20160715
[12] https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20160715
[13]http://www.w3.org/2016/07/08-dwbp-minutes
[13] http://www.w3.org/2016/07/08-dwbp-minutes
<phila> PROPOSED: Accept last week's minutes
[14]http://www.w3.org/2016/07/08-dwbp-minutes
http://www.w3.org/2016/07/08-dwbp-minutes
+1
<yaso_> +1
<annette_g> +1
<newton> +1
<Caroline_> +1
<ericstephan> +1
<phila> +1
<SumitPurohit> 0
<RiccardoAlbertoni> 0 ( i was not there)
<phila> REOLUTION: Accept last week's minutes
[15]http://www.w3.org/2016/07/08-dwbp-minutes
[15] http://www.w3.org/2016/07/08-dwbp-minutes
RESOLUTION: Accept last week's minutes
[16]http://www.w3.org/2016/07/08-dwbp-minutes
[16] http://www.w3.org/2016/07/08-dwbp-minutes
<deirdrelee> +1
CR delay
<phila> [17]http://www.w3.org/2016/07/08-dwbp-minutes
[17] http://www.w3.org/2016/07/08-dwbp-minutes
<phila> [18]I18N Objection
[18]
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-i18n-core/2016JulSep/0009.html
<RiccardoAlbertoni> phila: you suppose to ask review to the
I18N, but they did not get the time to reply
<RiccardoAlbertoni> phil is not sure to be in the next call
with the director , which will be delayed,
<RiccardoAlbertoni> .. we are not going to have the CR before
the middle of august, as we have to wait for I18N and other
stuff
<RiccardoAlbertoni> Caroline_: so we do not know when the call
wth director will be reschedule.
<RiccardoAlbertoni> phila: yes,
<RiccardoAlbertoni> yaso: what about the summer vacation?
<RiccardoAlbertoni> phil: we will possibly have to have the
call before september but we will find out
<RiccardoAlbertoni> phil: we will ask for an extension for
covering the delay
<ericstephan> +1 yes extra time is useful to DUV
<RiccardoAlbertoni> and that will give also some extra time for
the vocabularies
<antoine> +1
<phila> [19]reuse vocabs
[19] https://www.w3.org/TR/dwbp/#ReuseVocabularies
<RiccardoAlbertoni> ericstephan: i cannot imagine the kind of
feedback from i18n, could you provide an example..
<RiccardoAlbertoni> phil:probably issues about multilingualism,
url etc
<RiccardoAlbertoni> hadleybeeman: all the things they care
about we care too
<RiccardoAlbertoni> since we are people from different part of
the world
<RiccardoAlbertoni> hadleybeeman: but we need to see what they
have to say ..
<RiccardoAlbertoni> yaso: other questions about the process ?
<yaso_> [20]https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/open
[20] https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/open
DQV
Open issues on vocabularies
RiccardoAlbertoni: About the open issue re DQV, we have already
discussed this.
<phila> issue-221?
<trackbot> issue-221 -- What is the importance of the alignment
between hcls-dataset and dqv/duv? -- open
<trackbot> [21]http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/221
[21] http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/221
<phila> issue-223?
<trackbot> issue-223 -- Parameters for metrics -- open
<trackbot> [22]http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/223
[22] http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/223
RiccardoAlbertoni: re issue 223, we have added a section
explaining how parameters can be addressed with DQV.
... but we haven't found a solution, and it's probably out of
scope for our work.
... So Antoine and I have decided to mark this as 'postponed'.
... Hopefully the commenter will find that okay.
... The same approach is followed for issue 221.
<antoine> I'd want to create two issues
<antoine> ... from 223
<antoine> ... one we close, and one we postponed
RiccardoAlbertoni: in the future, we'd have to target
specialised profiles of dcat according to special domains. But
we think that is out of scope for this group.
... I know Antoine wants to wait to the end, to mark this issue
as 'postponed' — maybe the people from stanford who raised this
issue will have an update.
... The point is, we have plenty of feedback from some people
outside of the group. We are trying to address these comments.
We welcome the idea of an extension for the group.
... In the email, the commenters have sent a pull request on
github, and we're not sure that a PR from someone outside the
group can be merged.
... From a procedural point of view, is that acceptable?
phila: Yes, as long as the group approves. If they write the
text, we have to worry that it comes with their intellectual
property.
... If they are endorsing or creating an opportunity for their
technologies, we are in trouble.
RiccardoAlbertoni: No, I think they are just pointing out a
simple fix. I don't see the problem you are mentioning here.
<antoine> it's mostly editorial changes, I think
phila: If I understand correctly, I think we can safely close
issue 223?
RiccardoAlbertoni: We'd like to mark them as 'postponed'
... In another group's CR, they had marked a pending issue as
'postponed' because it was out of scope.
phila: 223 is postponed to a group that doesn't exist and isn't
planned to exist.
... the other one... We can mark it as 'postponed' and point
specifically to the Vocabularies workshop in Amsterdam at the
end of the year.
<phila> [23]Postpone 221 to that workshop
[23] https://www.w3.org/2016/11/sdsvoc/
RiccardoAlbertoni: Okay.
... 223 is postponed in principle? In the future when someone
modifies DCAT might come up...
phila: if you think the DCAT workshop can handle it as well, we
can pass a resolution here to say that both these issues are
closed for this workshop but may be useful in future work.
... I'm trying to tidy things up.
hadleybeeman: Does 'postponed' not mean it's still open?
phila: I think it means 'postponed within the lifetime of the
working group'
RiccardoAlbertoni: Antoine is not on the phone.
<antoine> I have to do it by typing
<antoine> we did partly fix 223
yaso: Antoine, if you can type,..
<yaso_> ok
<antoine> the solution was to split 223 in two issues
<antoine> one that we close, one that we postpone
<antoine> we postpone like other WGs postponed, like OWL
<antoine> I've sent an email about it.
@antoine, what are the two issues you proposed?
<antoine> I can do the splitting, once the WG tells it's ok in
principle
<phila> PROPOSAL: Noting the partial fix for Issue-223 and the
forthcoming SDSVoc workshop that will tackle both Issue 221 and
223, the WG should close those two issues, noting these on the
WG homepage for future reference
<antoine> sounds good
phila: That's my understanding of how you postpone something
hadleybeeman: Sounds good to me
<phila> [24]Wish list
https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Main_Page#Wish_List
+1
<RiccardoAlbertoni> +1
<EricKauz> +1
<yaso_> +1
<annette_g> +1
<newton> +1
<antoine> +1
<ericstephan> +1
<phila> +1
<laufer> +1
RESOLUTION: Noting the partial fix for Issue-223 and the
forthcoming SDSVoc workshop that will tackle both Issue 221 and
223, the WG should close those two issues, noting these on the
WG homepage for future reference
phila: We're not burying it or pretending it doesn't exist;
we're putting it somewhere we can come back to it.
<annette_g> I think it needs to say PROPOSED and RESOLVED,
though, no?
<phila> close issue-221
<trackbot> Closed issue-221.
<phila> close issue-223
<trackbot> Closed issue-223.
<ericstephan> Correct annette_g
<antoine> can't we postpone 223?
<antoine> I can do it using the web interface
<RiccardoAlbertoni> yes
@antoine, we think we can only use that 'postpone' within the
lifetime of this working group. We need to close our issues to
transition further.
<antoine> hadleybeeman: I think we can postpone indefinitely:
some OWL issues have been postponed for ages
<antoine> see
[25]https://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/webont-issues.html
[25] https://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/webont-issues.html
@antoine, phila is going to check... but that seems a bit
out-of-process in my opinion (and his). We'll find out.
phila: Good to see comments coming in.
<antoine> @hadleybeeman: ok. I don't want to put a lot of more
work on the WG. To me it seemed like a simple proposal that I
could have implemented myself.
RiccardoAlbertoni: We were ready to close everything by next
week, but extra time lets us face the things in a positive way.
phila: Yes, we'll have the extension, I think. But I think the
purpose of these weekly calls is now to finish these
vocabularies. Chairs, stop me if I'm wrong.
... Once we're into CR for the BP doc, we probably don't need
these calls anymore. We won't need them much longer.
... The last weekly call could be next week? It's up to the
chairs.
... I suspect it won't be that soon. But fairly soon they'll
come to an end, when we run out of things to talk about.
... When you've closed all the issues, and you're resolving the
issues, and we're in CR for the other thing — these calls are
here to discuss comments and actions.
... Dn't see an extension til the end of Nov as meaning we can
carry on postponing things till then. We can't. We have to
finish this.
RiccardoAlbertoni: Okay; sooner is better. But we need a little
time and this is a busy period
phila: I'm not at all criticising.
RiccardoAlbertoni: Depends on Antoine's schedule, but we can
maybe close in the beginning of August?
phila: thanks
yaso: So extending the group doesn't mean we still have
meetings?
phila: All we should be doing now is handling the comments.
We'll get some new ones from I18N, and Open Annotation group
commented today, so there is a bit of editing to do on the BP
doc --
... and I hope we'll have time to hear about the DUV. But I
imagine all this will be sorted quickly.
... At the latest by September -- we'll have resolved
everything.
yaso: And if the problems are all sorted before September, and
the BP doc goes to CR, then the group is done with the work?
phila: apart from gathering implementation experience.
... When we're doing that, and the vocabs are done, we don't
need to meet every week. Maybe every other week, or every four
weeks? We don't need to talk every Friday.
... Given the state of the docs right now... this is what
happens.
yaso_: comments?
<ericstephan> Nope
<ericstephan> :-)
DUV
<ericstephan> [26]http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/vocab-du.html
[26] http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/vocab-du.html
<ericstephan> [27]https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/153
[27] https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/153
<RiccardoAlbertoni> ericstephan: there are two issues
<RiccardoAlbertoni> one is around from quite a while
<RiccardoAlbertoni> ericstephan: 153... i do not think it is in
the scope of the dub
<phila> issue-153?
<trackbot> issue-153 -- Should open/closed data be addressed in
the Data Usage Vocabulary? -- open
<trackbot> [28]http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/153
[28] http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/153
<RiccardoAlbertoni> If anyone have a specific comment or
opinion on that ?
<phila> How should feedback and usage instructions be handled
that are either in themselves sensitive or discussing details
about data that is closed. How should the model handle
personally identifiable information (PII) in feedback. We
should also take into account the privacy interest group, are
there aspects of usage
[29]http://www.w3.org/2012/dnt-ws/report.
[29] http://www.w3.org/2012/dnt-ws/report.
<RiccardoAlbertoni> phila: i agree I think it is conveniently
out of scope
<RiccardoAlbertoni> phila: it is not more or less relevant to
anything for the web, so i think i agree
<RiccardoAlbertoni> ericstephan: can we put a proposal to close
it?
<phila> PROPOSED: To close issue-153 as this is out of scope
for the DUV
+1
<annette_g> +1
<ericstephan> +1
<yaso_> +1
<phila> +1
<RiccardoAlbertoni> +1
<newton> +1
<laufer> +1
<SumitPurohit> +1
RESOLUTION: To close issue-153 as this is out of scope for the
DUV
<phila> close issue-153
<trackbot> Closed issue-153.
<ericstephan> [30]https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/234
[30] https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/234
<phila> issue-234
<trackbot> issue-234 -- Role of Usage Tool -- open
<trackbot> [31]http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/234
[31] http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/234
<Caroline_> +1
<RiccardoAlbertoni> ericstephan: the other issue 234, it is
around for a while as well
<ericstephan>
[32]http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/vocab-du.html#class-usageTool
[32] http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/vocab-du.html#class-usageTool
<RiccardoAlbertoni> ericstephan: that was soothing joão paulo
pointed out ..
<RiccardoAlbertoni> ..
<RiccardoAlbertoni> .. considering the time extension, we can
try to address this..
<ericstephan> Made considerable editorial alterations
(approximately 60 minor edits) to the DUV, clarifying use of
language, using code styles to depict classes and property
references in code format when mentioned in the text.
<RiccardoAlbertoni> ericstephan: we are doing some editorial
changes, I wonder how the group must be involved in that
<ericstephan> Based on the DQV we expanded discussion of the
motivation of the DUV to reference work in the DWBP and
introduce the concept that the DUV is largely a composition of
4 submodels. [33]http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/vocab-du.html#intro
[33] http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/vocab-du.html#intro
<RiccardoAlbertoni> ericstephan: working with antoine we are
revising the introduction tiding the intro to vocabulary test
practice the
<ericstephan> In section 2 we discuss why extensive use of
other vocabularies was necessary due to the vocabularies
inheriitd by other reused vocabularies.
[34]http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/vocab-du.html#namespaces-1
[34] http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/vocab-du.html#namespaces-1
<ericstephan> Section 5 A new section was added and is still a
work in progress to discuss Alternative Vocabulary
Considerations. The intent here is that part of the purpose of
the DUV is to provide guidance on how to depict usage,
citation, and feedback on the web, and in the depiction there
are certain parts that are open to different kinds of
representation.
[35]http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/vocab-du.html#relationship_vocabu
laries
[35] http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/vocab-du.html#relationship_vocabularies
<RiccardoAlbertoni> ericstephan: .. in section 5 we talked
about a introductory section
<RiccardoAlbertoni> ericstephan: providing some guidance as
result of feedback from the Open knowledge foundation..
<ericstephan> Section 6 pictures of the submodels were added to
help people look at what parts of the model apply to what
submodel.
[36]http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/vocab-du.html#Vocab_Overview
[36] http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/vocab-du.html#Vocab_Overview
<RiccardoAlbertoni> ericstephan: we needed some pictures,
broken down the model to make it clearer
<RiccardoAlbertoni> phila: breaking the diagram, is a very good
idea but please created three distinct things ..
<RiccardoAlbertoni> as in this way I can click on each and see
them
<ericstephan> We did receive feedback from Pierre-Yves
Vandenbussche who is interested in including the DUV in the
OKFN Linked Open Vocabulary. Which has to do with the
motivation of expanding section 5.
[37]http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/vocab-du.html#relationship_vocabu
laries
[37] http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/vocab-du.html#relationship_vocabularies
<RiccardoAlbertoni> ericstephan: we get some contact with the
open knowledge foundation, they want to use DUV for feedback,
so we that is why are making the changes ..
<newton>
[38]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-wg/2016Jul
/0022.html
[38]
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-wg/2016Jul/0022.html
<Zakim> newton, you wanted to ask very quickly about the
evidences object
<RiccardoAlbertoni> newton: my question is to phil.. about the
message from max , I can't recall what we decided about
<RiccardoAlbertoni> .. the adoption of BP from other
recommendation
+1 to phila.
<phila> [39]Localised Guides
[39] https://www.w3.org/2013/share-psi/lg/
<laufer> +1 (the director will accept this as an evidence?)
<annette_g> personally, I think being listed in a guide is
stronger evidence that something is a real best practice than
that someone is doing it.
<RiccardoAlbertoni> phila: they are important, if they are for
example from government ..
@laufer -- I think it will help build the case, but I don't
think the director will accept them as implementations
<RiccardoAlbertoni> phila: they have to show evidence of
endorsement ..
<Caroline_> +1 to phila
<deirdrelee> [40]https://www.w3.org/2016/06/10-dwbp-minutes
[40] https://www.w3.org/2016/06/10-dwbp-minutes
<RiccardoAlbertoni> deirdrelee: the group decided to not
include them..
<annette_g> maybe we can do both
<deirdrelee> [41]https://www.w3.org/2016/06/03-dwbp-minutes
[41] https://www.w3.org/2016/06/03-dwbp-minutes
<RiccardoAlbertoni> Caroline_: i remember the resolution we
take but i think they should be used as well
<newton> @phila would you mind answering Makx's message?
<laufer> maybe in our report we could separate these two types
of evidences... implementations and endorsments...
<RiccardoAlbertoni> Caroline_: the form for feedbacks is ready
.. can we keep going with implementation or we have to wait for
I18n
<RiccardoAlbertoni> phila: keep going
<RiccardoAlbertoni> hadleybeeman: to my mind, the main reason
to show implementation is give evidence that they are not
rubbish and can be implemented..
<RiccardoAlbertoni> bye to all !
<laufer> bye all
Summary of Action Items
Summary of Resolutions
1. [42]Accept last week's minutes
http://www.w3.org/2016/07/08-dwbp-minutes
2. [43]Noting the partial fix for Issue-223 and the
forthcoming SDSVoc workshop that will tackle both Issue 221
and 223, the WG should close those two issues, noting these
on the WG homepage for future reference
3. [44]To close issue-153 as this is out of scope for the DUV
[End of minutes]
__________________________________________________________
Received on Friday, 15 July 2016 14:21:07 UTC