- From: Eric Stephan <ericphb@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 23:33:18 -0400
- To: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
- Cc: Public DWBP WG <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
Oh Geez, Phil to the rescue again! Thank you, Eric S Sent from my iPhone > On Jun 6, 2016, at 6:29 AM, Phil Archer <phila@w3.org> wrote: > > 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 Tuesday, 7 June 2016 03:33:51 UTC