- From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 11:29:57 +0100
- To: Public DWBP WG <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
Dear all,
Prompted by Riccardo, I have looked at last Friday's minutes. Sorry I
wasn't able to be on the call.
Incredible as it seems after 2.5 years, no one thought to type
RRSAgent, generate minutes
at the end of the meeting.
Grrr...
Fortunately, your trusty team contact was able to find the IRC log that
*was* generated, thank you, and have been able to generate the minutes
from that, now in place at the correct place,
https://www.w3.org/2016/06/03-dwbp-minutes
A text snapshot is included below for your convenience.
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
Data on the Web Best Practices Working Group Teleconference
03 Jun 2016
See also: [2]IRC log
[2] http://www.w3.org/2016/06/03-dwbp-irc
Attendees
Present
ericstephan, antoine, hadleybeeman, BernadetteLoscio,
annette_g, eric_kauz, newton
Regrets
PhilA
Chair
Hadley
Scribe
annette_g
Contents
* [3]Topics
* [4]Summary of Action Items
* [5]Summary of Resolutions
__________________________________________________________
<BernadetteLoscio>
[6]https://rawgit.com/gkellogg/36b51a2681e1d6a0a9146041fd6564d5
/raw/0b4af28c82074c3936e62645e2f011ed301247e0/json-ld-api-best-
practices.html
[6]
https://rawgit.com/gkellogg/36b51a2681e1d6a0a9146041fd6564d5/raw/0b4af28c82074c3936e62645e2f011ed301247e0/json-ld-api-best-practices.html
<hadleybeeman>
[7]https://gist.github.com/gkellogg/36b51a2681e1d6a0a9146041fd6
564d5
[7] https://gist.github.com/gkellogg/36b51a2681e1d6a0a9146041fd6564d5
<hadleybeeman> scribe: annette_g
PROPOSED: approve last week's minutes
<hadleybeeman> [8]http://www.w3.org/2016/05/27-dwbp-minutes
[8] http://www.w3.org/2016/05/27-dwbp-minutes
<BernadetteLoscio> +1
<ericstephan> +1
<antoine> +1
+1
RESOLUTION: approve last week's minutes
hadleybeeman: Antoine, let's start with your vocabulary
antoine: we still have a number of items to do with this
vocabulary. We received some feedback this week, an exchange on
the list this morning.
... at the moment, we don't need much input from the working
group.
chiming in about issues is welcome, of course. We don't have a
lot of issues that are difficult.
hadleybeeman: do you feel okay with the timetable?
antoine: yes, for the moment
<laufer> hi all
hadleybeeman: let's move on to the other vocabulary
ericstephan: I haven't seen any comments about the DUV on the
public comments.
ericstephan: there were some editorial comments from
BernadetteLoscio that need to get incorporated into the doc
<antoine> [9]https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/227
[9] https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/227
antoine: I realized I have an item that I need input from the
group on.
<hadleybeeman> action-227?
<trackbot> action-227 -- Antoine Isaac to Work with eric s on
writing section on evolution of duv wrt reuse of namespaces
etc. -- due 2016-04-01 -- OPEN
<trackbot> [10]http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/227
[10] http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/227
<antoine>
[11]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-wg/2016May
/0101.html
[11]
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-wg/2016May/0101.html
antoine: I'm asking input from ericstephan and BP editors
... the idea was to put a small bit of text about this in the
BP doc. Now I have doubts on whether we should do it.
<BernadetteLoscio> the text was: "The Data Quality
[[VOCAB-DQV]] and Data Usage vocabularies [[VOCAB-DUV]] created
by the W3C Working Group publishing this document have also
sought to minimize the number of formal axioms involved in
their definition. For instance, the property
dqv:hasQualityMeasurement has no formal domain in the RDFS/OWL
sense, even though it is expected to be most often used with
resources that are of type dcat:Dataset or
dcat:Distributio[CUT]
<BernadetteLoscio> designers to employ it for other types of
entities, for which quality measurements would also be relevant
but that were not in the focus of the design process for DQV."
antoine: this is the text that was removed. My suggestion is to
leave things as they are now.
ericstephan: I've seen several comments on twitter, and this
has been on my mind. Do we put something like this in the
vocabulary docs? I've seen a number of opinions, including at a
European semantic web meeting this week. I'm not sure whether
this belongs in the BP doc or maybe summarized as a note.
hadleybeeman's point about whether it helps describe the
vocabulary is a good one.
<hadleybeeman> Original discussion for this ACTION:
[12]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-wg/2016Feb
/0013.html
[12]
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-wg/2016Feb/0013.html
<ericstephan> thank you!
ericstephan: I've thought the reuse of different namespaces was
a strength, but some people see it differently
BernadetteLoscio: I was looking at BP16. The BP is long. I'm
not sure it's worth including the text here, but maybe we can
include in the vocabularies a mention of the best practices. We
do the opposite in the BP doc.
hadleybeeman: other thoughts? apparently not.
ericstephan: One thing I don't want to do is come up
defensively in the vocabularies. The DUV is what it is. I would
be against trying to rework the best practice, so I agree with
what BernadetteLoscio said.
... I do have a section in the DUV that talks about the use of
other vocabularies. I haven't looked at DQV in a while, but I
could look it over and check that we have similar language, but
I don't think we should spend more time than that.
antoine: that sounds alright.
... we may be tempted to create concrete examples. We can try
it.
hadleybeeman: in the process of explaining a vocab, it can help
to explain things to refer to the other docs. It also enhances
coherence within the working group, which may not be a
priority.
<BernadetteLoscio> yes!
<ericstephan> thank you for sorting through the details!
<ericstephan> +1 for keeping action open
<antoine> +1
hadleybeeman: so, Eric will take a look at it.
ericstephan: this is great. Thanks, antoine, for bringing that
up.
... I think I have my working orders for the week. I don't
think I need anything else from the group, other than
discussions in email during the week. I'm feeling okay with the
timetable.
hadleybeeman: update on the best
practicesââ¬Â¦BernadetteLoscio or newton?
<BernadetteLoscio> :(
<BernadetteLoscio> hello?
<newton> Berna, we can't hear you!
<BernadetteLoscio> can you hear me?
newton: I'm trying to reach BernadetteLoscio. I was working on
other projects this week.
<BernadetteLoscio> no :(
<BernadetteLoscio> i can hear you!
<BernadetteLoscio> just a minute
<BernadetteLoscio> ahahhahahaha
<BernadetteLoscio>
[13]https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Status_of_comments_about_
the_last_call_working_draft
[13]
https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Status_of_comments_about_the_last_call_working_draft
BernadetteLoscio: this week we worked on the wiki table to
collect commetns. We included the comments we've received so
far. For some of them, the author already has a proposal. Most
are not difficult to implement.
... I would like to discuss comment 6 with the group.
... It's about the need for users to register to use a dataset.
<hadleybeeman> The commenter's message:
[14]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-comments/2
016May/0027.html
[14]
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-comments/2016May/0027.html
BernadetteLoscio: for other comments, I can make a proposal and
send to the group. The second thing is about the implementation
grid. We can have different types of evidence. How can we check
or test the BP in each case? It's more clear when we have a
dataset, but for guidelines and data portals, it's more
general. I don't know if we can have the same form for the
three types of evidence.
... let's start with comment 6.
hadleybeeman: I'm trying to separate open data from data on the
web. This is the latter, so it's in scope. He wants publishers
to describe reasons. That's not technical. This feels
behavioral, so in my opinion it's not clear that it belongs in
a W3C spec.
<hadleybeeman> s/w3c spec./w3c spec. If he were advocating
using a specific vocabulary in that use case, it would feel
different to me.
laufer: I agree that it's not a technical issue, but I think
it's a worry that the publisher needs to have. Maybe we can put
it in a paragraph somewhere. It's kind of a reverse license.
The publisher is asking for data from users. It's interesting
for the publisher to say what they will do with this data. We
can think of it as publication of that data.
<hadleybeeman> annette_g: I agree with Laufer. I think there is
a lot of other material in our BP doc that doesn't meet that
threshold of technicality. We do want to help people publish
data in ways that are useful. I see it in social science data,
where people need to have somebody give a little info about
themselves because that's part of the legality of publishing.
<hadleybeeman> ...In the harder sciences, people need to report
back to a funding agency who is using this data. It's a strong
incentive for people publishing to do that. If we can give them
some guidance on how to do it will, it may help people publish
more data.
<BernadetteLoscio> [15]https://www.w3.org/TR/dwbp/#dataAccess
[15] https://www.w3.org/TR/dwbp/#dataAccess
BernadetteLoscio: I agree that it's not technical, too, and
that it's relevant to mention this. Maybe we can include, as
Laufer proposed, in the introduction to the data access
section.
hadleybeeman: If we are going to do that, we should talk about
principles and ideas rather than the specifics that Andrea put.
I think the specifics will vary widely from use case to use
case.
... I want this to be as broadly applicable as possible. I'm
still stuck on the behavioral point. other thoughts?
silence ensues.
BernadetteLoscio, is that enough for you to progress with?
BernadetteLoscio: we'll make a proposal and get back to the
group.
<BernadetteLoscio>
[16]https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1a9cOGzWJTIhh2OrAemv
WBR8f0rv5xqvL03pJeMrotCo/edit#gid=0
[16]
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1a9cOGzWJTIhh2OrAemvWBR8f0rv5xqvL03pJeMrotCo/edit#gid=0
<BernadetteLoscio>
[17]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-wg/2016May
/0106.html
[17]
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-wg/2016May/0106.html
BernadetteLoscio: I'm working on this proposal to collect
implementation information. An evidence can be a link to a
guideline. Makx gave a good example.
<BernadetteLoscio>
[18]http://www.europeandataportal.eu/en/content/goldbook/prepar
ing-data
[18]
http://www.europeandataportal.eu/en/content/goldbook/preparing-data
BernadetteLoscio: This is the link that shows our BPs are being
used. So this is evidence, but I don't know how we can test.
... In this case, it's hard to show that a guildeline follows
our best practice. How can we take this into our report.
hadleybeeman: I'm hoping to clarify. We need things to be
testable so that implementers can test that they've met our
guidelines. There's no halfway on whether they meet it. So, I'm
wondering whether your question is leading us to reword to make
things more testable, or whether you are asking what testing
means.
BernadetteLoscio: It's more the second question.
<hadleybeeman>
[19]http://www.europeandataportal.eu/en/content/goldbook/prepar
ing-data
[19]
http://www.europeandataportal.eu/en/content/goldbook/preparing-data
<BernadetteLoscio>
[20]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-wg/2016May
/0106.html
[20]
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-wg/2016May/0106.html
hadleybeeman: the link isn't working
<BernadetteLoscio>
[21]http://www.europeandataportal.eu/en/providing-data/goldbook
/preparing-data
[21]
http://www.europeandataportal.eu/en/providing-data/goldbook/preparing-data
<ericstephan> are they following the data unavailability bp?
;-)
BernadetteLoscio: they are using the BP, and they have a link
to the section of the BP doc.
hadleybeeman: we can use data that is published following these
rules, not the rules themselves.
BernadetteLoscio: so evidence of implementation should be an
implementation of a dataset
hadleybeeman: yes, or a data portal
BernadetteLoscio: when you say data portal, how do we test? is
it the portal itself or a specific dataset on the portal?
hadleybeeman: it depends on the BP. We need to demonstrate that
somebody else out there thinks they are also good.
BernadetteLoscio: we can use datasets published before and
after our BP doc was published?
hadleybeeman: yes
BernadetteLoscio: can we also include guidelines to demonstrate
that our guidelines are being used by others creating
guidelines
hadleybeeman: In my experience, the director will be interested
in what people are doing rather than what they're saying.
BernadetteLoscio: we can also share this info with others, but
not to prove that the BPs have been implemented.
... so now we're going to focus on gathering info about the
publication of datasets.
... for the proposal, what we're trying to do is make it easier
to give answers. It doesn't mean all the BPs will be
implemented in a given dataset or data portal.
... the BPs are in the column on the left
hadleybeeman: what the director needs to see is that for every
line there are at least two instances of "pass". But at the top
of column C, I think we can't say it can be a guideline.
... other than that, I think what you have is very very useful.
BernadetteLoscio: It would be helpful if someone could test,
try to collect some evidence and fill in the form.
hadleybeeman: do we have anyone in the group who has promised
to do an implementation?
newton: yes, we have
BernadetteLoscio: feel free to give us feedback even if you
aren't doing an implementation.
<hadleybeeman> ACTION: annette to look at optimising the test
for BP 31. Multiple tests? [recorded in
[22]http://www.w3.org/2016/06/03-dwbp-irc]
[22] http://www.w3.org/2016/06/03-dwbp-irc]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-283 - Look at optimising the test for
bp 31. multiple tests? [on Annette Greiner - due 2016-06-10].
BernadetteLoscio: the data enrichment test is something maybe
we should discuss with Annette. If we have a lot of checks in
the same line, that can be a problem. For one best practice,
you will see that there is more than one line, because we have
multiple checks. A BP will be considered implemented if we pass
every test. Can the data enrichment one be more concise?
annette_g: I'll take a look at it.
<newton> q_
hadleybeeman: we have 2 more minutes. anything else?
BernadetteLoscio: we're going to try to work on the comments
table and see what we can resolve by email.
laufer: I think a guideline that says what we say in a BP is an
evidence. If an organization agrees with us, that is a strong
evidence, maybe even stronger than a single implementation.
<hadleybeeman> [23]http://www.w3.org/2015/Process-20150901/
[23] http://www.w3.org/2015/Process-20150901/
hadleybeeman: we should carry this on in email. Take a look at
the process document where it's all laid out.
newton: I was going to ask about JSON-LD BPs.
<ericstephan> thank you all
hadleybeeman: They've asked if we want to host their document
in our working group. I wanted to ask editors what they thought
and open it up to the working group.
<ericstephan> bye
<laufer> thank you all. bye
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: annette to look at optimising the test for BP 31.
Multiple tests? [recorded in
[24]http://www.w3.org/2016/06/03-dwbp-irc]
[24] http://www.w3.org/2016/06/03-dwbp-irc
Summary of Resolutions
1. [25]approve last week's minutes
[End of minutes]
__________________________________________________________
Received on Monday, 6 June 2016 10:30:00 UTC