- From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2016 15:13:46 +0100
- To: Public DWBP WG <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
The minutes of today's meeting are at
https://www.w3.org/2016/06/10-dwbp-minutes with a snapshot below.
The time line now is:
- comments to be dealt with next week should lead to the BP doc actually
being complete by next Friday.
- Likely vote on Friday 24 to seek transition to Candidate Rec.
- Which should just give us time to gather our implementation evidence
by the end of July which is when our charter expires.
Separately, I mentioned the upcoming workshop on metadata and related
technologies, Amsterdam 30 Nov - 1 Dec. See
https://www.w3.org/2016/11/sdsvoc/ for details.
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
Data on the Web Best Practices Working Group Teleconference
10 Jun 2016
[2]Agenda
[2] https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20160610
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2016/06/10-dwbp-irc
Attendees
Present
newton, PWinstanley, annette_g, deirdrelee, Caroline_,
phila, antoine, EricKauz, ericstephan,
riccardoalbertoni, BartvanLeeuwen, laufer
Regrets
makx, Hadley, Bernadette, yaso
Chair
Dee
Scribe
PWinstanley
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]JSON/LD BP
2. [6]Comments received for BP doc
* [7]Summary of Action Items
* [8]Summary of Resolutions
__________________________________________________________
<deirdrelee> trackbot, start meeting
<trackbot> Meeting: Data on the Web Best Practices Working
Group Teleconference
<trackbot> Date: 10 June 2016
<phila> chair: Deirdre
<phila> agenda:
[9]https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20160610
[9] https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20160610
<hadleybeeman> I'm sending regrets; am caught in meetings…
sorry all! Miss you!
<deirdrelee> PROPOSED Approve last week's minutes
[10]https://www.w3.org/2016/06/03-dwbp-minutes
[10] https://www.w3.org/2016/06/03-dwbp-minutes
<newton> +1
<deirdrelee> 0
<antoine> +1
<annette_g> +1
<riccardoalbertoni> 0
<Caroline_> 0
<phila> +0 WASN'T THERE
RESOLUTION: Approve last week's minutes
[11]https://www.w3.org/2016/06/03-dwbp-minutes
[11] https://www.w3.org/2016/06/03-dwbp-minutes
<deirdrelee> agenda:
[12]https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20160610
[12] https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20160610
<phila> scribe: PWinstanley
<phila> scribeNick: PWinstanley
<annette_g> is anyone talking?
<Caroline_> now deirdrelee is talking it is much better :)
<annette_g> better!
each of the editors to comment on the feedback they have
received already as we're coming to the end of the timeperiod
<Caroline_>
[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
Caroline_: main thing about the comments is the status wiki -
started discussing #6 on the last call. and today we'd like to
cover #7 and #8
The overall level of comments is good, but there are not many -
hope that there will be more in the final few days
There are still some comments received that have to be added to
the wiki
<newton> this week we delivered a presentation about DWBP and
we invited a lot of people to give feedback
ericstephan: A colleague was interested in providing comments -
I will follow up to ensure that they are received in time
Caroline_: deadline is Sunday at 12:00
ericstephan: No comments on DUV. I have been trying to respond
to comments I mentioned last week
antoine: we received internal comments from Jeremie and Makx.
we are still discussing them. there are no comments from
outside -
deirdrelee: should we be tracking the internal ones?
phila: doesn't do any harm - if possible do it, but it is not
mandatory
antoine: do comments from the group need to be formally
handled?
phila: it needs to be recorded
antoine: can editors raise issues using the issue tracker?
phila: yes
... Makx's comment - that both vocabs have contributed to the
open annotation work, is needing work to ensure that the
references are still valid
riccardoalbertoni: my understanding is that we are referring to
the right docs of the open annotation group, but the namespace
is the old one - and I think they are going to use this for the
new work. This is a reasonable assumption because the new doc
doesn't refer to any change of namespace
<newton> q
newton: re: JSON/LD BP - based on a comment that came in.
JSON/LD BP
the comment is not on the table - but to a message I got a
couple of weeks ago
<annette_g> it's not a comment about one of our docs, right?
<Caroline_> We will forward to the public list and include it
on the Wiki table
[14]https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Status_of_comments_about_
the_last_call_working_draft
[14]
https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Status_of_comments_about_the_last_call_working_draft
<phila> [15]This documnet
[15]
https://rawgit.com/gkellogg/36b51a2681e1d6a0a9146041fd6564d5/raw/0b4af28c82074c3936e62645e2f011ed301247e0/json-ld-api-best-practices.html
newton: the message came directly, not on the public list. the
message asked if it was appropriate for the group to publish bp
about json-ld APIs
deirdrelee: It seems a bit inappropriate because we have not
had time to consider it within the BP work
phila: we have less than 2 months to go before the charter
expires
<Zakim> phila, you wanted to say no
phila: this group has too much work to include this work by
Greg. he can make a member submission. There may be a home in
future
<Caroline_> I forward Greg's message to the group
<ericstephan> There seem to be a general need for best
practices like this in the W3C its beyond the scope of the
group
annette_g: I agree with phila . We could have a list of work to
take forward, but if we were to take it on we would need to add
expertise to the group
<Caroline_> +1 to Annette's suggestion to put it on the whish
list
newton: bernadette, Caroline_ and I agree that although we like
the approach we cannot take this on and will write to Greg to
tell him this
... there will be a group starting if people want to join
<ericstephan> +1 to newton
Comments received for BP doc
Caroline_: the data access (#6) - has been discussed a little
already but we don't have a resolution yet
<Caroline_>
[16]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-comments/2
016May/0027.html
[16]
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-comments/2016May/0027.html
Caroline_: the discussion was only preliminary
phila: ... looking at andrea's email - he makes a valid point
and gives us an easy method to work with this. People wanting
registration just want to track usage. Andrea's extension to
the existing BP looks manageable to me, it is something that
we've not covered
... providing a mechanism to collect data using the DUV is an
alternative/better solution
... so we can act on what Andrea is saying
<phila> issue-153?
<trackbot> issue-153 -- Should open/closed data be addressed in
the Data Usage Vocabulary? -- open
<trackbot> [17]http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/153
[17] http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/153
ericstephan: I agree with phila / looking again at the
open/closed data issue, whatever we do needs to be coordinated
- there needs to be just one message
<ericstephan> Privacy interest group report "Do not track"...
[18]https://www.w3.org/2012/dnt-ws/report.html
[18] https://www.w3.org/2012/dnt-ws/report.html
<ericstephan> I'm hearing wind or breathing
<annette_g> could somebody mute? I hear breathing
<laufer> the important thing is to say in our document that a
publisher has to say to the user what she will do will data
that is collected
<laufer> thing*
newton: this week we talked with Dr ??? from RJ who works for a
Swedish co. that made a portal of data collected from public
orgs
<annette_g> +1 to Laufer
newton: there is data enrichments and then made available via
APIs that need registration.
<Caroline_> s/thing*
newton: it is not a good thing for open data, but it is how the
world is
<laufer> I suggest to put a paragrah in the data access
introduction
<ericstephan> +1 deirdrelee
deirdrelee: we agree with Andrea's comment - we should
acknowledge it and provide some guidance - a few sentences in
BP #23 should be sufficient
<annette_g> +1 deirdrelee
<laufer> Ok
<laufer> I prefer a paragraph in the introduction and not in
the BP
Caroline_: maybe we can make a proposal following laufer
suggestion (which we couldn't hear clearly enough to scribe, so
laufer is going to write it)
<laufer> what do you think about?
<ericstephan> +1 deirdrelee in the bp
<laufer> because the BP is about an explanation of data that it
is not avaiable...
<annette_g> +1 to having it in the BP
<phila> ACTION: caroline to reply to Andrea to say that we'll
include his suggestion to talk about registration and will
refer to the DUV as an alternative route. Always important to
say what will be done with the registration data [recorded in
[19]http://www.w3.org/2016/06/10-dwbp-minutes.html#action01]
[19] http://www.w3.org/2016/06/10-dwbp-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-284 - Reply to andrea to say that
we'll include his suggestion to talk about registration and
will refer to the duv as an alternative route. always important
to say what will be done with the registration data [on
Caroline Burle - due 2016-06-17].
deirdrelee: people will dip in and out of the document, so
guidance should be in the BP rather than the introduction
newton: in the BP
<laufer> But this is not data that is not available
<phila> +1 to putting it in a BP
<annette_g> well, it's not available to unregistered people
<laufer> I do not know why to include in this bp
<laufer> I think that if it is not a BP we did not to test this
deirdrelee: the DUV describes this very well, so we don't want
to repeat
Caroline_: we could link to the DUV
<ericstephan> That would be great Caroline_
<laufer> This could be a kind of politics of the publisher...
<laufer> I thisk is more linked to a kind of license
deirdrelee: laufer will write a para that will go into the BP
<laufer> think*
<laufer> I will write the paragraph
<annette_g> It is BP22, not 23
<laufer> then we decide where to put it
<laufer> ok
Caroline_: comment #7 about numerical data
<Caroline_>
[20]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-comments/2
016May/0022.html
[20]
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-comments/2016May/0022.html
<laufer> I will write the paragraph and send by email to the
editors
Caroline_: it is to do with inappropriate precision
phila: we have talked about this some times previously.
<laufer> yes, phil... it is not data on the web specific
annette_g: I had thought of this early on, but it is not
specific to the web, so I think it is out of scope
BartvanLeeuwen: I know we talked about it previously and
thought it was resolved as being out of scope
deirdrelee: we will review earlier meetings, find the
resolution agreed and respond to Frans
<Caroline_>
[21]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-comments/2
016Jun/0000.html
[21]
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-comments/2016Jun/0000.html
Caroline_: #8, enrichment
... from David.
<Zakim> BartvanLeeuwen, you wanted to pronounce name correctly
annette_g: the best way to think about this is David's example
of precalculated data, accepting requests to do calculations.
The requests are quantifiable. The data set accretes as missing
values are added after people reaslise that they are missing.
... David recognises that the addition is driven by user need
phila: seems to me that the key thing is provenance, but it
looks as though David is extending this a bit
deirdrelee: we should update the BP?
annette_g: seems reasonable to add a sentence about it
Caroline_: I think it is OK
... we can do that. annette_g to write, or me?
annette_g: if you are clear about it then just go ahead
Caroline_: could you do it annette_g
<deirdrelee>
[22]https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1a9cOGzWJTIhh2OrAemv
WBR8f0rv5xqvL03pJeMrotCo/edit#gid=0
[22]
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1a9cOGzWJTIhh2OrAemvWBR8f0rv5xqvL03pJeMrotCo/edit#gid=0
Caroline_: I included a link for the implementation grid.
<phila> [23]Agenda
[23] https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20160610
<newton>
[24]https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1YS-rBihjb_mOuTLVxptWuiejDL
xd-L4WwK8hXsaSbEM/edit
[24]
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1YS-rBihjb_mOuTLVxptWuiejDLxd-L4WwK8hXsaSbEM/edit
Caroline_: we started the form to have a better idea about what
we are going to do with the questionnaire for the
implementation report. We want to make it easy for those
testing the BP. We talked last time about who would be the
implementers
<newton> We transposed the table into this form in order to
make easier for implementors to answer
Caroline_: the test area would be a portal. we would appreciate
feedback from the group on the form - is it easy to use?
deirdrelee: reference to evidence is only a dataset or portal,
not a policy or guideline?
<annette_g> don't forget to replace the X with a number in the
intro
newton: policy is a good thing, but not evidence of
implemtation
<newton> we'll annette_g :-)
<laufer> it is an evidence om implementation of our document...
<newton> if you have sofe time, could you give a feedback about
the form or suggest modifications if you think it's necessary
deirdrelee: timeframe - what dates are we working to for this?
we are only operating until the end of July
phila: do we have a sense of who we think will be able to
provide evidence of implementation? if we do that's good. Can
we in advance identify any BP that we feel/know we are not
going to get >=2 implementations for. The chances of us
finishing CR by end July are tiny
... we need to push for more reviews. We need to arrange a
transition call with the Director (will take 2/52) We need to
show we're making progress. We need to move before the summer
break
<annette_g> summer is already in effect in Berkeley
phila: in reality we're not going to finish CR untill
September. We need to have evidence of progress to take to the
Director and ask for an extension
<Zakim> Caroline_, you wanted to talk about candidates to
implementation
Caroline_: we have been talking to many people in Brasil - I
feel that if we finish the form we can do a lot of work next
week
... do we have to have the implementation period completed
before we go to CR?
phila: CR is when there is proof of implementation. If we can
identify the problem areas then we mark 'at risk' - if we don't
then if we get to CR without the 2 pieces of proof then we are
back to working draft
... but if we mark 'at risk' then we can still proceed
Caroline_: each BP has to be tested by 2 organisations or 2
data sets?
phila: we need 2 independent organisations to have proof
ericstephan: I was at Provenance Week last week and I think I
can find potential implementers from that. When we are going
through it is yes/no or some qualitative estimation of how well
it was done?
phila: newton has a yes/no approach but some qualitative
comment would be a good addition
deirdrelee: I think this is do-able before July. All issues and
actions closed by next Friday. Review the form and the BPs for
any "at risk". Next friday we vote to go into transition
... vote to CR on 24th and we have a month to gather
implementations. Discuss/resolve issues on the mailing list
<ericstephan> go deirdrelee go!
Caroline_: any news about IODC?
<annette_g> the form will need to offer a N/A option, in case
someone says false by accident and then can't change back to
neutral
deirdrelee: nothing official.
<phila> [25]the next WG starts here
[25] https://www.w3.org/2016/11/sdsvoc/
deirdrelee: I will write to the list the actions
phila: link to a workshop at the end of November - opportunity
to start a new working group
<ericstephan> wow that looks really great
phila: research data is very much in the frame
<annette_g> science!!
<ericstephan> I will start swimming now!
phila: let me konw if you're interested in joining the PC
<riccardoalbertoni> count on me too
<laufer> bye all
deirdrelee: thanks - end of meeting
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: caroline to reply to Andrea to say that we'll
include his suggestion to talk about registration and will
refer to the DUV as an alternative route. Always important to
say what will be done with the registration data [recorded in
[26]http://www.w3.org/2016/06/10-dwbp-minutes.html#action01]
[26] http://www.w3.org/2016/06/10-dwbp-minutes.html#action01
Summary of Resolutions
1. [27]Approve last week's minutes
https://www.w3.org/2016/06/03-dwbp-minutes
[End of minutes]
__________________________________________________________
Received on Friday, 10 June 2016 14:13:37 UTC