- From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2016 15:39:34 +0000
- To: Public DWBP WG <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
The minutes of today's auspicious meeting are at
https://www.w3.org/2016/11/25-dwbp-minutes with a snapshot below.
We have resolved to publish new versions of both vocabularies and seek
transition to PR for the BP doc, having collected substantial evidence
of implementation and relevant documentation. Eric is checking his
resolution to 2 final issues and, assuming that goes to plan, the DUV is
complete. If further work is necessary, we'll hold a call just on that
topic.
Everyone expressed heartfelt thanks to everyone concerned, especially
the editors, for putting in so much work.
Data on the Web Best Practices Working Group Teleconference
25 Nov 2016
[2]Agenda
[2] https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20161125
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2016/11/25-dwbp-irc
Attendees
Present
ericstephan, hadleybeeman, riccardoAlbertoni, PhilA,
newton, Caroline_, BernadetteLoscio, annette_g, Makx,
deirdrelee
Regrets
Laufer
Chair
Hadley
Scribe
PhilA
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]Precious call minutes
2. [6]BP Transition
3. [7]Data Quality vocabulary
4. [8]Dataset usage Vocabulary
* [9]Summary of Action Items
* [10]Summary of Resolutions
__________________________________________________________
<scribe> scribe: PhilA
<scribe> scribeNick: phila
<hadleybeeman> Phila is a bit early :)
[Discussion of the wish list]
[11]https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Main_Page#Wish_List
[11] https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Main_Page#Wish_List
Precious call minutes
<hadleybeeman> s/precious/previous
-> [12]https://www.w3.org/2016/11/11-dwbp-minutes Minutes from
11/11/16
[12] https://www.w3.org/2016/11/11-dwbp-minutes
NOTUC on previous minutes?
RESOLUTION: Accept previous meeting minutes
BP Transition
BernadetteLoscio: I think we're ready and I think Carol and
Newton agree
<BernadetteLoscio>
[13]http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/dwbp-implementation-report.html
[13] http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/dwbp-implementation-report.html
->
[14]http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/dwbp-implementation-report.html
Implementation report
[14] http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/dwbp-implementation-report.html
BernadetteLoscio: We tried to explain the methodology and the
kinds of evidence that we collected
... In 2.1 we show the relation between BP and evidence
... considering datasets, guidelines and docs
... for some BPs it's easy to show, Others are more difficult
... BP28 is the most difficult on ewhich is about assessing
datasets coverage as it's hard to find real implementation for
this as it's very specific.
... But it is relevant and we showed that it is possible to do
and we have agreement that it's important
... We have the lost of evidence, a link for each one
... That section 2.2 - 2.4
... Also have guidelines from Share-PSI etc.
... Included a section with some graphics to show which BPs
have more evidence. Also tried to show that we have...
... First graph shows all evidence, 2nd for datasets and
portals, 3rd for..
... Also made a cross ref between BPs and challenges
... After the graphics we tried to analyse the evidence that we
collected. We want to show that preservation is not difficult
to implement, just hard to find evidence of implementation.
... This section needs to be finished.
... We evaluated data catalogue solutions - CKAN and Socrata -
you can see...
<BernadetteLoscio>
[15]https://docs.google.com/a/cin.ufpe.br/spreadsheets/d/18Gz0n
9HOmeSPjo6qChhXdtPeOBf9kl1mFlA-KkqxP24/edit?usp=sharing
[15]
https://docs.google.com/a/cin.ufpe.br/spreadsheets/d/18Gz0n9HOmeSPjo6qChhXdtPeOBf9kl1mFlA-KkqxP24/edit?usp=sharing
BernadetteLoscio: Plan is to convert the Google doc into an
HTML table
... We wanted to show that CKAN and Socrata supports BPs even
if a specific publishers doesn't follow them.
... We wanted to end with a summary of how to implement each BP
and proof that we've done it.
... We're working on this implementation to show a step by step
guide of how we implemented each BP.
... We can therefore show that each BP is implementable
newton: We are making subtle changes like swapping Google Docs
for HTML but that's cosmetic
hadleybeeman: Thank you. This is a huge amount of work. The
most thorough I've seen.
... The table at section 2.1 is what the Director will focus
on.
... There may be questions like why does BP28 only have 3 when
others have more - but you can answer that verbally.
... The last thing you said - about BPs being implementable -
by showing that others have done it, we've already proved that.
BernadetteLoscio: It's because I'm worried about BP28 where we
only have 1 evidence from a dataset and 2 from documents/blogs
... it's a site
... This implementation was made by someone else (not us)
... So we thought that it would be nice to show that someone
else has done everything.
hadleybeeman: I think that's a user. Someone has used it -
good. But you've already proved that it's implementable.
BernadetteLoscio: Can we stillwork on the implementation report
up until the Director meeting?
<annette_g> Does anyone else see "The DocumentView interface is
not supported
<annette_g> Non-W3C methods of obtaining "window" also failed"
when they open the editor's draft?
BernadetteLoscio: We can probably add more evidence. I;ve
written to Christophe, for example
hadleybeeman: The IR can be edited up until the Director's
call, it's not a formal document.
... That said, we need to vote on the BPs based on what we have
at the time of the vote
... I would also recommend... assuming we go ahead, as you
prepare for the Director's call, be ready for questions you can
predict you're going to get.
... You can put info in the doc if you want to but it may not
be read.
BernadetteLoscio: It's not a Note, but we can still make it
available, no?
phila: Yes, I'll put it in /2016/11/{blah}
<newton> +1 phil :-)
BernadetteLoscio: Do you think its worth including the data
catalogues evaluation?
... IU think it shows that they're available in the solutions
that are widely used. They're not currently in the evidence
table.
... It's another level
hadleybeeman: Phil said it can be on the Web, so it's out
there. You can do what you like with it.
... If you want to add, close off etc. you can
BernadetteLoscio: But for Director's call, it's the table in
section 2.1 that's most important
hadleybeeman: Yep, and 2.2 explains 2.1
... It's a very good doc and very thorough
<Zakim> antoine, you wanted to discuss nitpicking
antoine: It's a very good doc.
... Just one comment - on the graphics in section 3
... I'm not sure why the no. evidences is in a differnet
diagram
... It's because not all docs have references
... It looks a bit different from the other one which makes it
look as if there's a difference in the methodology.
... It looks as if you're trying to hid something when in fact
you're trying to explain.
BernadetteLoscio: Is it a problem that we don't havea docs and
ref for each BP?
antoine: No, as long as there's another kind of evidence
BernadetteLoscio: This type of evidence is a kind of support.
... Our main concern was to have datasets and data portals for
each BP
antoine: I'm already convinced.
... On the number of evidence per challenge
... I'm concerned that this diagram over emphasises the smaller
level of evidence for BP28
... It highlights data preservation prob even more
BernadetteLoscio: I agree. I had similar thoughts when I saw
it.
antoine: In 2.3 there's a really weird link for ???
<hadleybeeman> q/
[Discussion - the hash bang URL is fine]
<hadleybeeman> phila: This document... we can put it on the
web. It is linked from the PR and the actual recommendation. It
is part of the documentation.
<Makx> q
hadleybeeman: have all comments received been addressed? Is
there a disposition of comments?
BernadetteLoscio: We received some comments but they were not
to change the content
... We had a message from Christophe but he was thinking that
we were still in the previous phase, but he made some commetns
adn suggestions for fixing some minor mistakes
hadleybeeman: And do we have a message from the commenters that
they're happy with our response.
BernadetteLoscio: They were about fixing a word or two
... I answered saying that we're going to fix it, it's not
about making a proposal.
annette_g: I wanted to point out the restrictions on the Google
doc prevent us getting in
<Caroline_>
[16]http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/dwbp-implementation-report.html
[16] http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/dwbp-implementation-report.html
annette_g: Can it be linked from the regular WG homepage so we
can get to it.
... There's a link to the IR but it goes to the Google doc
... Oh, no, it goes somewhere else
hadleybeeman: So we need a message from Christophe confirming
that he's happy
BernadetteLoscio: I'll collect the messages
... I'll do it the same way as last time on a wiki page
<Zakim> phila, you wanted to talk about Wendy Carrera
[17]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-comments/2
016Nov/0001.html
[17]
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-comments/2016Nov/0001.html
<hadleybeeman> phila: Wendy's comments are more than editorial.
She runs the European Data Portal.
On Wendy's mail, yes, we can point to
[18]https://www.w3.org/TR/dwbp/#LocaleParametersMetadata about
locale-neutral data. We could talk about her comment on
multilingualism. I don't think that we can add in a line about
multilingual labels in data at this stage but I'm not sure this
is where that belongs anyway - I'd say that's in vocabulary
development. I'd be happy to amend this sentence in BP 15:
[18] https://www.w3.org/TR/dwbp/#LocaleParametersMetadata
" In the context of the Web, using unambiguous, Web-based
identifiers (URIs) for standardized vocabulary resources is an
efficient way to do this."
to say
" In the context of the Web, using unambiguous, Web-based
identifiers (URIs) for standardized vocabulary resources is an
efficient way to do this, noting that the same URI may have
multilingaul labels attached for greater cross-border
interoperability."
(Or some such small addition in that general area of the doc).
On DCAT-AP, I thought we'd mentioned it somewhere but a quick
search shows me to be mistaken. We could perhaps amend BP 1 so
that the current:
<hadleybeeman> Phila: She made a couple of comments on her
email. I have a few suggestions on how to reply. But we do need
her to then say, "that helps"
"when defining machine-readable metadata, reusing existing
standard terms and popular vocabularies are strongly
recommended. For example, Dublin Core Metadata (DCMI) terms
DCTERMS] and Data Catalog Vocabulary [VOCAB-DCAT] can be used
to provide descriptive metadata."
becomes
"when defining machine-readable metadata, reusing existing
standard terms and popular vocabularies are strongly
recommended. For example, Dublin Core Metadata (DCMI) terms
DCTERMS] and Data Catalog Vocabulary [VOCAB-DCAT] can be used
to provide descriptive metadata. Such vocabularies are designed
to be very flexible so it is often helpful to use a specific
/profile/ of a vocabulary such as the European Commission's
DCAT-AP (link)."
<hadleybeeman> ...Her second comment was to comment DCAT-AP.
Which we haven't yet.
<hadleybeeman> ...I think that's as far as we can go to address
those at this point.
<hadleybeeman> BernadetteLoscio: I thought her comment meant
changes to the implementation report
<hadleybeeman> phila: I think we can get away with these minor
changes to the BP doc.
<hadleybeeman> BernadetteLoscio: So you can help us to answer
her message?
<hadleybeeman> phila: I'll make those changes to the doc and
confirm them with Wendy
<scribe> ACTION: phila to act on Wendy Carrera's comments
suggested and write to her [recorded in
[19]http://www.w3.org/2016/11/25-dwbp-minutes.html#action01]
[19] http://www.w3.org/2016/11/25-dwbp-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-303 - Act on wendy carrera's comments
suggested and write to her [on Phil Archer - due 2016-12-02].
BernadetteLoscio: I'll take another look at the mailing list.
<Caroline_> [20]https://github.com/w3c/dwbp/pull/473
[20] https://github.com/w3c/dwbp/pull/473
newton: We had pull requests from Andrew Kirkpatrick, from
Adobe that changed a link. Do we include that as a comment
hadleybeeman: I'd point to that and say that we accepted their
proposal
Makx: Just one comment on section 4 of the implementation
report. You're making statements about a product that might not
be in line with their view. If you publish without asking them,
you might get into trouble.
... You're matching a BP against a product - the vendor might
object to that.
BernadetteLoscio: I see that. We've finished this evaluation
yesterday. We're going to contact the vendors and see if they
agree with this.
... If not, we won't include it.
<riccardoAlbertoni> just delete the column about fail
hadleybeeman: A suggestion - we need to show evidence - not all
evidence will be relevant.
<ericstephan> +1 hadleybeeman
<Makx> +1 to hadley
hadleybeeman: You could remove the fail column
<riccardoAlbertoni> +1
<Caroline_> +1 :)
hadleybeeman: Just keep provides evidence, provides partial
evidence instead of "pass" and "partial pass"
... That's less confrontational
BernadetteLoscio: Instead of pass/fail, we can just say which
solutions implement which BPs
... Like in 2.2
<Makx> that's OK
hadleybeeman: That would work too.
<riccardoAlbertoni> \me the same here
annette_g: One little thing that I think we can take care of.
The editor's draft in Safari I get javascript errors. But it
works in Chrome and FF
phila: I believe that problem will disappear in the published
version in which ReSpec disappears
<newton> @annette_g, would you mind chatting a little on skype
to show me those errors?
PROPOSED: Accept comments from Christophe G and Wendy C that
will lead to very minor tweaks to the BP doc
<annette_g> what if commenters aren't happy with our changes?
<annette_g> :)
+1
<ericstephan> +1
<riccardoAlbertoni> +1
<newton> +1
<hadleybeeman> +1
<annette_g> +1
<deirdrelee> +1
RESOLUTION: Accept comments from Christophe G and Wendy C that
will lead to very minor tweaks to the BP doc
<Makx> +1
<BernadetteLoscio> +1
<Caroline_> +1
<annette_g> but Wendy may be trying to get us to add a BP about
multilingual publishing
<hadleybeeman> @annette_g, in which case we'd have to back and
do CR again.
PROPOSED: That subject to positive replies from Wendy C and
Christophe G, the WG will seek transition of the BP doc to
Proposed Recommendation, noting the extensive evidence of
implementation that has been gathered
<hadleybeeman> +1
<annette_g> +1
<ericstephan> +1 in the season of hope
<Caroline_> +1
<riccardoAlbertoni> +1
<newton> +1
<Makx> +1
<BernadetteLoscio> +1
<antoine> +1
<deirdrelee> +1
RESOLUTION: That subject to positive replies from Wendy C and
Christophe G, the WG will seek transition of the BP doc to
Proposed Recommendation, noting the extensive evidence of
implementation that has been gathered
<BernadetteLoscio> uhhuhuhuuhuhuhuhuhu
<riccardoAlbertoni> congrats!!!!
<ericstephan> woot woot
<newton> :-) :-)
<annette_g> PROPOSED: A vote of thanks to editors for putting
together a fantastic implementation report!
<hadleybeeman> +1
<riccardoAlbertoni> +1
<annette_g> +1
+1
<ericstephan> +1
<Makx> +1
<deirdrelee> +1 :)
<antoine> +1 :-)
<newton> thanks! :-)
RESOLUTION: A vote of thanks to editors for putting together a
fantastic implementation report!
Data Quality vocabulary
<BernadetteLoscio> thanks a lot everybody!
<Caroline_> Thank you! Great job all members of the WG :))))))
hadleybeeman: DQV editors, would you like to publish a new
verrsion of DQV?
antoine: Yes
... All we changed was a couple of mappings in mapping to the
ISO quality dimensions
riccardoAlbertoni: And we changed data usage to dataset usage
hadleybeeman: Are there any other changes?
... Are there any other comments?
riccardoAlbertoni: We collected some new implementations in the
wiki
antoine: There are some old comments for which we didn't
receive precise feedback to your replies, but we're thinking of
adding to the WG's wishlist
hadleybeeman: So you're saying that even though you don't have
confirmation from the commenters, after allowing good time, you
want to go ahead
PROPOSED: That the current Editor's Draft of the Data Quality
Vocabulary be published as an updated Note
<hadleybeeman> +1
<deirdrelee> +1
<Makx> +1
<annette_g> +1
<antoine> +1
<newton> +1
<riccardoAlbertoni> +1
<BernadetteLoscio> +1
<ericstephan> +1
<Caroline_> +1
RESOLUTION: That the current Editor's Draft of the Data Quality
Vocabulary be published as an updated Note
Dataset usage Vocabulary
<annette_g> yay!
ericstephan: I'd like to mention the ongoing discussion with
Andrea P
... Andrea has been excellent at providing feedback on the DUV
... He pointed out an inconsistency in data usage and dataset
usage
... He was asking about the relationship with DQV
... I was thinking these might be good topics for a summary
document that we could publish cf. putting in the doc.
... Andrea has also pointed out some errors in usage of
dct:identifier
... So I'd like permission to check with the SPARK ontology
editors
... We have a stable version of the doc, it's been stable since
August. What I'd like is permission to publish with the
examples fixed.
hadleybeeman: Typos, yes. What's the discussion with SPARK
ontology editors. How different could that make the doc?
ericstephan: Our team has been working with SPARK for a while.
... It's just making sure that we use the correct property in
the way that SPARK would like to use it
... If it's not something that we can verify, I'd just take the
property out of the example.
<hadleybeeman> phila: is this dcterms:identifier?
<hadleybeeman> eric: no
<hadleybeeman> phila: In the resolution, we can note tis is an
ongoing discussion. Subject to simple resolution of the issue
with vero:isReferencedby, and the one on dcterms:identifier,
the group is happy.
<hadleybeeman> ...If that isn't simply resolved, we could
reconvene just before the end of Dec.
Makx: I read Andrea's comment, I think biro is an indirection
(pointing to a record)
ericstephan: That's what I think we're doing
... I just want to double check
... Worst case, we go back and use dct:isReferencedBy but I
don't think that's correct
hadleybeeman: We could resolve to publish now and come back if
we have to
phila: True
<hadleybeeman> phila: Eric, if you make a snapshot copy before
you make any changes, I'll use that one.
<hadleybeeman> ...But you're hoping not to make changes, right?
<hadleybeeman> ericstephan: Right
<Makx> Eric, I think you do use biro:isReferencedBy
incorrectly; your object is a fabio:InstructionalWork not a
bibliographic record
hadleybeeman: We could vote on what there is, and come back for
another meeting is we have to
ericstephan: Makx also provided some guidance in IRC
... If it blows up, we'd just remove anything that seems to be
controversial, that's how I'd contain it
hadleybeeman: Are you talking about removing a term, that's
substantial.
ericstephan: I want to do the right thing but I also want to
respect the timing
Makx: Just to say to Eric, it's not a question of changing the
vocab, it's just changing the example
... I was looking at the diagram - that is correct. The example
is in conflict with the diagram
... The diagram references a biro prop, in the example, you
make a reference to a ?? work
... The consequence is for the example
ericstephan: That gives me hope.
<BernadetteLoscio> +1
PROPOSED: To publish the editor's draft of the Dataset Usage
Vocabulary, pending the fixing of typos
<Caroline_> +1
<hadleybeeman> +1
<ericstephan> +1
hadleybeeman: Please, ericstephan, get back to us by Wednesday
(Europe) if you need a meting next Friday.
<BernadetteLoscio> +1
<annette_g> +1
<Makx> +1
phila: Either way, we're only going to publish one new version,
not two.
<ericstephan> [21]https://lov.okfn.org/dataset/lov/vocabs/duv
[21] https://lov.okfn.org/dataset/lov/vocabs/duv
RESOLUTION: To publish the editor's draft of the Dataset Usage
Vocabulary, pending the fixing of typos
<hadleybeeman> yeay!!!
ericstephan: LOV did publish our vocab but since we didn't
publish the other vocabs, it looks tiny. Can we improve that
<Zakim> newton, you wanted to discuss the last and very quick
question - can we add more evidence for Data Preservation BPs?
<Zakim> phila, you wanted to talk LOV
<hadleybeeman> phila: sure
<hadleybeeman> phila: I see what ericstephan means. The number
of terms DUV defines is small.
-> [22]https://www.w3.org/ns/duv Namespace
[22] https://www.w3.org/ns/duv
<hadleybeeman> ...Therefore, your namespace file — that's what
they look at.
<hadleybeeman> ...They don't look at the TR space document.
<hadleybeeman> ...There's got to be a way to do something bout
that.
<hadleybeeman> ericstephan: I can go back to them and see what
we might do. I'll copy phila
<hadleybeeman> phila: I can easily ad to the NS document at any
time. IT's not locked down.
antoine: I suspect that we might be able to use a specific
field in the metadata to force the links to be recognised
<ericstephan> yes will do!
hadleybeeman: The queue is empty...
... Eric, you mentioned...
... Topics for a summary document
... You can write a doc like an implementation report, i.e. not
a formal doc
ericstephan: Its just a web page about the relationships or
background info
... You can put it in the wiki etc.
<BernadetteLoscio> I can help you Eric ;)
hadleybeeman: The wiki is frozen when the WG closes
<BernadetteLoscio> ok ;) thanks!
hadleybeeman: We're 30 mins over...
... Thank you to editors, contributors, participants
<BernadetteLoscio> sure!!!
hadleybeeman: We'll work on other stuff coming up
<ericstephan> Take care and thank you all for everything!
<deirdrelee> yay! Great work
<Makx> OK bye bye!
Caroline_: Thank you the chairs, Obrigado
<Makx> Hope to see some of you next week
<deirdrelee> see some of you next week!
<annette_g> bye folks!
<deirdrelee> Thanks for chairing hadleybeeman
<hadleybeeman> bye all :)
<hadleybeeman> thanks for co-chairing, deirdrelee and yaso!
<hadleybeeman> :)
<Makx> Bye
<newton> bye and thank you all!
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: phila to act on Wendy Carrera's comments
suggested and write to her [recorded in
[23]http://www.w3.org/2016/11/25-dwbp-minutes.html#action01]
[23] http://www.w3.org/2016/11/25-dwbp-minutes.html#action01
Summary of Resolutions
1. [24]Accept previous meeting minutes
2. [25]Accept comments from Christophe G and Wendy C that will
lead to very minor tweaks to the BP doc
3. [26]That subject to positive replies from Wendy C and
Christophe G, the WG will seek transition of the BP doc to
Proposed Recommendation, noting the extensive evidence of
implementation that has been gathered
4. [27]A vote of thanks to editors for putting together a
fantastic implementation report!
5. [28]That the current Editor's Draft of the Data Quality
Vocabulary be published as an updated Note
6. [29]To publish the editor's draft of the Dataset Usage
Vocabulary, pending the fixing of typos
[End of minutes]
__________________________________________________________
Received on Friday, 25 November 2016 15:39:52 UTC