[Minutes] 2016-07-15

The minutes of today's meeting are at 

The group is now waiting for feedback from the I18N WG, see 
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 

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] https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20160715

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2016/07/15-dwbp-irc


           phila, RiccardoAlbertoni, PWinstanley, deirdrelee,
           newton, ericstephan, hadleybeeman, annette_g,
           SumitPurohit, Caroline_, EricKauz, laufer


           Riccardo, Hadley


      * [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


      [13] http://www.w3.org/2016/07/08-dwbp-minutes

    <phila> PROPOSED: Accept last week's minutes



    <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

    RESOLUTION: Accept last week's 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


    <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

    <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


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
    ... 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

    <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



    <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

    @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
    ... 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

    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

    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

    yaso_: comments?

    <ericstephan> Nope

    <ericstephan> :-)


    <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.

    <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

    <phila> PROPOSED: To close issue-153 as this is out of scope
    for the DUV


    <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

    <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


      [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

    <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

      [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

      [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

    <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_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 ..



    <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

    +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

    <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
     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