<trackbot> Date: 13 April 2015

<deirdrelee> Hi Antoine

<deirdrelee> sitting in Phil's sunny conservatory :) Waiting for Austin team

<RiccardoAlbertoni> i will survive don't worry :)

<Makx_Dekkers> zakim ipcaler is me

<hadleybeeman> deirdrelee phila RiccardoAlbertoni — we seem to have lost you?

<deirdrelee_> Phil's rewiring his house...

<austincomputer> Hi all, just getting on line with our austin AV system

<deirdrelee_> Hi AustinComputer!

<austincomputer> (this is Eric S)

<austincomputer> :-)

<deirdrelee_> Ok everyone, we have a live zakim line and we will have skype online too so that you can see us :)

<deirdrelee_> my skype id is deirdrelee

<ericstephan> Good morningish everyone

<deirdrelee> it's meant to

<deirdrelee> good morning/afternoon ericstephan

<deirdrelee> Can you hear ipswich?

<laufer> good morning/afternoon all

<ericstephan> Good day would be more appropriate I guess :-)

<ericstephan> ericphb@gmail.com

<BernadetteLoscio> https://plus.google.com/hangouts/_/g4vna23i4mz4l6doovo34sysm4a

<phila> We've lost Austin on Zakim

<phila> antoine, we're only trying to use the hangout for video

<ericstephan> Hi phila we switched over to google chat

<phila> Yeah, Eric, but we have Antoine and Makx on zakim...

<ericstephan> ok...

<ericstephan> just a sec...

<ericstephan> Reconnecting...

<ericstephan> My only concern is Antoine and Makx being able to hear everyone else, Antoine and Makx let us know if you can't hear Austin

<Makx_Dekkers> i cant hear austin

<Makx_Dekkers> lots of echo

<antoine> I can hear Ipswich and Austin only when one person speaks

<Makx_Dekkers> i can hear you

<ericstephan> connecting the old fashioned way by iphone

<ericstephan> yes it is clear

<deirdrelee> Start agenda with BP, after one hour, go back to quality vocab discussion, when makx and antoine are present, then return to bp

<laufer> ...

<deirdrelee> Add your name to scribe for one hour: https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/April_2015_F2F

<yaso> we just made a new decoration of the room

<hadleybeeman> yaso, you're redecorating? :)

<yaso> hadleybeeman: no, It was Summit idea :)

<hadleybeeman> @yaso: that's lovely :)

<deirdrelee> Please add name to scribe before we start!!

<deirdrelee> no austin team volunteers yet....

<annette_g> I can scribe

<annette_g> Should I sign up for 9:00?

<phila> Can Austin hear Ipswich?

<BernadetteLoscio> hi phil!

<phila> Can you hear us BernadetteLoscio?

<hadleybeeman> ericstephan BernadetteLoscio can you hear us on the phone?

<BernadetteLoscio> yes

<laufer> not yet, phil

<BernadetteLoscio> i can hera

<BernadetteLoscio> hear

<annette_g> Eric is hooking up the hangout

<phila> Thanks annette_g

<laufer> we have hi-lo tech in this f2f

<hadleybeeman> While we're waiting for Austin to get on the phone... please sign up for an hour to scribe! https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/April_2015_F2F#Agenda

<BernadetteLoscio> Gisele

<hadleybeeman> scribe: hadleybeeman

<annette_g> lewis is out of the room for an hour or so

<BernadetteLoscio> yes :):):)

<yaso> One hour!

<Makx_Dekkers> going to be disconnecting voice for a while

Best Practices (for one hour)

deirdrelee: What we need from this meeting:

<phila> Meeting: DWBP Face to Face 3, Day 1

deirdrelee: look at our three deliverables. We need a clear plan for the next draft of publication. We hope to have a new version of each of those by one month from now, beginning of May.
... We've been building toward that. We want to get rid of all issues.
... Goal 1: close all issues. 2: set the actions for and 3. clear plan of milestones and dates to publish the next working drafts by early May.
... I put the issues together in groups https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1aqkh8jJCyHn0GaPk3Xh277b5L1bQjfwDHukmWUTWryg/edit
... 15 minutes maximum per issue, as we agreed.
... At the end of tomorrow, we can go back to ones that may be still open. But for each issue, we read it, discuss any points. Please be as short as you can, so everyone can discuss it. At the end, a concrete decisions of how to resolve this issue and close it.
... Handing over to Bernadette, Caroline and Newton to discuss these issues. I'll remind you when we have 10 minutes left and 15 minutes left, for each issue.

<phila> I think we're looking at this version http://bernafarias.github.io/dwbp/bp.html in Berna's GH repo

Issue-76?

<trackbot> Issue-76 -- What advice do we give about publishing metadata so that we identify the intended outcome without making assumptions that maybe false? -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/76

<phila> And the open issues are listed at https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/open

issue-76?

<trackbot> issue-76 -- What advice do we give about publishing metadata so that we identify the intended outcome without making assumptions that maybe false? -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/76

BernadetteLoscio: ... This issue was opened in the last f2f. For me, it's not clear. Hadley opened it.

<deirdrelee> Bernadette, there is echo

In the issue, there is a link to the original discussion: http://www.w3.org/2014/10/31-dwbp-irc#T22-37-06

Hadleybeeman: I think we are already addressing this. It's about making sure we don't make assumptions about the type of data that restricts what might be published.

BernadetteLoscio: We are doing this. We are defining metadata without thinking about the data it's referring to.
... can we close this issue?

hadleybeeman: Yes

close issue-76

<trackbot> Closed issue-76.

deirdrelee: We will be using the queuing system, as usual. Put yourself on the queue if you want to talk.

<phila> RESOLUTION: Close issue 76

deirdrelee: Move on to issue 79

<phila> RESOLVED: Close issue 76

Issue-79?

<trackbot> Issue-79 -- Discovery vs structural metadata -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/79

<phila> we don't have any BPs about structural metadata

BernadetteLoscio: We are going to use DCAT vocabulary. But in structured metadata, we don't have a best practice right now for it. I think discovery of metadata is different from structured metadata.
... I'm not sure, we could have a best practice that structured metadata should be available.
... In some case, I'm not sure if it's helpful to provide structured metadata.

<Zakim> phila, you wanted to talk about CSVW and VoID

deirdrelee: reminds eveyrone to use the queue on zakim

<phila> CSVW home page

phila: Re structured metadata: We have two examples to point to.
... The CSV working group is publishing a stable version of this document this week.
... They're pretty much done.

<phila> VoID

phila: Other one is VoID, which has been around a while
... An established way of describing an RDF dataset.
... For XML, you'd publish the schema.
... Any list we give would always be incomplete. I suspect annette_g and ericstephan would give us examples from NetCDF, etc.
... I think we do need to talk about structured metadata, and we can give examples on how.

<SumitPurohit> keyboard noise

<laufer> we are hearing hadley typing

deirdrelee: WE have a best practice on discovery, structured metadata. so you're saying yes.

<BernadetteLoscio> :(

laufer: I think we have discovery as one thing. For discovery, people may want to choose a lot of metadata.
... Descriptions, version, structure. We don't know what they'll choose.
... Structured metadata is one kind of metadata. We have to talk about it giving it. I don't think VoID is structured metadata; it's equivalent to DCAT.

<Ig_Bittencourt> +1 to laufer comment about VoID.

laufer: But a data dictionary would be structure.
... We should talk about someone giving XML schema, or a data dictionary from a relational database. But I think we need a specific best practice saying that someone
... If you don't understand the structure, you don't understand the dataset.

annette_g: Bernadette mentioned that files like audio files may not have a structure and it could be difficult to require that for people.
... My thought is that it has a linear structure in it. You just also need to document that structure

deirdrelee: we're talking about the structure of the metadata, not the data itself.
... also, as discussed on Friday, file formats are out of scope.
... Okay to give as examples, but not in the scope of the group.
... annette_g, is that okay here?

<BernadetteLoscio> i think we are talking about structural metadata not about structured metadata

annette_g: The idea is that there is metadata for the structure of the data.

<laufer> metadata about the structure of the dataset

<BernadetteLoscio> yes!

deirdrelee: I think we all agree that there should be an agreement that says the structure of the actual data should be one of the metadata values.

BernadetteLoscio: I think we agree we should provide info re the structure of the data. It will depend on the data format. We should have a best practice that says structural metadata should be provided whenever possible.
... metadata to describe the structure of the data.

deirdrelee: Close the issue then and create an action for the BP editors to add a BP for structural metadata

close action-79

<trackbot> Closed action-79.

close issue-79

<trackbot> Closed issue-79.

<deirdrelee> close issue 79

<scribe> ACTION: bernadette to to add a BP for structural metadata [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/04/13-dwbp-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-147 - to add a bp for structural metadata [on Bernadette Farias Loscio - due 2015-04-20].

rrsagent pointer?

Ig_Bittencourt: For every BP we are proposing, should we define a use case?

BernadetteLoscio: I think we should start with the use case/requirement that we have. If we don't find one, then we need a new one.

issue-84?

<trackbot> issue-84 -- Should DCAT include a pointer to a mirror/back up? -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/84

<phila> RESOLVED: Close issue 79. ACtion on BP editors to add BO for structural metadata

BernadetteLoscio: Steve raised this. Anyone else know about it?

phila: I don't know why steve raised it, but I do have an answer. I would tell Steve that a mirror is another distribution, which is already accommodated in DCAT

deirdrelee: Is this about preservation and archiving? Backups?

<deirdrelee> ack BernadetteLoscio r

deirdrelee: So let's close this issue.

close issue-84

<trackbot> Closed issue-84.

<phila> RESOLVED: CLOSE ISSUE-84

issue-136?

<trackbot> issue-136 -- Proposal for Metadata BP -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/136

BernadetteLoscio: I think we should discuss the proposal we have now.
... We were saying that metadata should be available, machine-readable and to document what metadata we are using, self-documented metadata, and reuse of terms.
... We now have 2 best practices for metadata. 1) general, providing metadata, which includes the three best practices at the top, and a 2) which is about the others.

<BernadetteLoscio> http://bernafarias.github.io/dwbp/bp.html

BernadetteLoscio: This is our new proposal on metadata best practices.
... I'd also like to discuss another ideal. Now we have two BPs on metadata.

<newton> http://bernafarias.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#DocumentMetadata

BernadetteLoscio: The idea of the first best practice was that metadata should be provided in human-readable and machine readable forms.

<antoine> this sounds complex: isn't all this about merging old BP1 and BP2 into a new BP2, and keeping old BP3 as such (except its number)?

BernadetteLoscio: But I was thinking about the DCAT vocab, and how we agreed to use the def of dataset provided by DCAT
... Then, the metadata should be a description of the dataset based on the DCAT definition.
... We have properties for discovery, versioning, etc., which are different.
... In my opinion, "provide metadata" should be "provide a description of the dataset according to the DCAT vocabulary", if we agree we will use the defintions in DCAT

<phila> +1 to saying 'provide a description of the dataset using the terms from DCAT'

BernadetteLoscio: For the human-readable property, I propose to extend DCAT with a new property.
... There we have dataset descriptions with all the topics we want to cover in our different types of metadata.

<Ig_Bittencourt> Perhaps, to this human-readable, we could use owl:seeAlso

BernadetteLoscio: In each one of the specific best practices that we have, we want to explain some properties of the definition to give info about discovery.
... In the implementation, we can give examples,

<newton> +1 to BernadetteLoscio

<BernadetteLoscio> +q

ericstephan: I'm finding, in the Data Usage vocab work, that it's easy to look at standards terms (like W3C) to use. But when we're looking at terms used by other communities — it's hard to determine what is standard.
... It's almost like we need metrics for one person in the world, a speciality.
... It's a problem in how people define standards. There are other vocaburalies out there too. Can we use the best practices to help people work out if their own vocabularies are standard or just made up by one person?

laufer: I think we have to talk about DCAT, but as ericstephan said, we don't know. We know we have a minimum of types of metadata.
... But each community will have its own, which is important to them. We have the example of HCLS community, which Phila gave.
... We'll have lots of examples of how to describe datasets, in different communities.
... We can say that we have a minimum, and that we are supporting DCAT as the minimum.

deirdrelee: Is this similar to what we did with scope, that we don't pick a particular format to discuss. But, phila — do we have to refer to W3C standards?

<Zakim> phila, you wanted to suggest that dcat:landingPage *might* do what Berna is talking about

phila: We're now talking about 'what is a standard'. What a community decides they're going to do. A group of people hacking together once a week, a government choosing something with international recognition. RSS is not a standard, robots.txt is not a standard.

GeoJSON isn't a standard, but often used.

<phila> http://www.w3.org/TR/ld-bp/#vocabulary-creation

phila: The danger is that you are so general that yu don't give actionable advice. Where we have a clear spec we can point to, we can give advice on what you need to look for
... And you can say: "for this BP, use DCAT unless you have a reason not to." "Comply or explain" is more useful and actionable and testable.

<ericstephan> +1 Phil

<annette_g> +1 Phil

phila: It's okay to give people an out, a way to decide not to follow the advice. But it helps to tell people what we think they should do.

<SumitPurohit> +1

<SumitPurohit> +q

BernadetteLoscio: I agree with PhilA. We need something more concrete to work with.

<gguizzardi> Folks, just to be clear, we should differentiate between "de facto" standards and formal standards. Just for the sake of clarity. Formally speaking, standards are the things that are produced by standardization bodies

BernadetteLoscio: Maybe when we say "provide metadata", it should be "provide a description for the dataset"

<gguizzardi> formally speaking, "de facto" standards are not standards

<annette_g> okay

BernadetteLoscio: We could say, "You are free to use other vocabularies for dataset description. But we propose W3C's DCAT.

<gguizzardi> and, of course, there are things that are not even "de facto" standards, they are just "frequently used"

<scribe> scribe: annette_g

np

BernadetteLoscio: what is data? datasets? we need to see which BP applies to data itself or content of dataset. Maybe "data" is too general
... we need a concrete definition

<Ig_Bittencourt> http://bernafarias.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#ShareOpenVocabularies

Ig_Bittencourt: re standards and vocabs, we already have BP 15

assessment is hard

maybe after we find vocabularies, we can do the assessment

we could extend DCAT

<ericstephan> Nice link Ig_Bittencourt, okfn has a vocabulary for assessing vocab stability I'll try to find it

<laufer> oh

<Ig_Bittencourt> Nice ericstephan, perhaps it could be put also in the indication of BP15.

SumitPurohit: agrees with Phil and BernadetteLoscio in saying ppl should use DCAT, but be can also show alternative to use something else. A concrete example would be good.

<laufer> +1 to sumit

<phila> +1 to giving examples

We should give that example in our BP

BernadetteLoscio: agrees with Sumit

<Ig_Bittencourt> +1 to SumitPurohit and BernadetteLoscio

<Zakim> deirdrelee, you wanted to talk about scope

deirdrelee: summarizes that we want to include DCAT by name and also other options

<riccardoAlbertoni> +1 to name dcat and be open

<phila> PROPOSED: That we include concrete standards from W3C but that we leave it open for other standards to be used as well

BernadetteLoscio: this doesn't close the issue

we still need to talk about structured metadata

<phila> I'm happy to support the editors' choices. When I read it, if I don't like it, I'll say

BernadetteLoscio: should we keep the metadata BPs as they are now, or have one type of metadata link to the other?

<BernadetteLoscio> +1

<gguizzardi> Folks, sorry for insisting on this rather picky issue, but something like this "Is it really an error if a standard vocabulary was not used? How people will know which vocabularies should be used?" is not really meaningful unless we have a precise definition of what we mean by standard

<phila> +1

<deirdrelee> +1

<riccardoAlbertoni> +1

+1

<antoine> +1

<ericstephan> +1

<laufer> +1

not meeting a best practice is not an error

muffled audio

<laufer> +1

who is speaking now?

<antoine> why don't we just agree that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical_standard is ok? And yes it's vague but the world is such.

<ericstephan> +1

gguizzardi: need a definition of what it means to be standard

<phila> RESOLVED: That we include concrete standards from W3C but that we leave it open for other standards to be used as well

<Ig_Bittencourt> +1 to the proposal

<Gisele> +1 to the proposal

<Ig_Bittencourt> http://bernafarias.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#ShareOpenVocabularies

<Zakim> phila, you wanted to make a proposal about defn of standards

<Ig_Bittencourt> not this

off topic

<Ig_Bittencourt> http://bernafarias.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#DocumentMetadata

<BernadetteLoscio> we have 02 general best practices BP1 and BP2

<ericstephan> +1 to having a definition in the glossary

<BernadetteLoscio> and specific BP for each type of metadata

<phila> ACTION: Yaso to include a definition of 'a standard' in the glossary [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/04/13-dwbp-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-148 - Include a definition of 'a standard' in the glossary [on Yaso Córdova - due 2015-04-20].

deirdrelee: asks yaso if it's okay to add to the glossary our definition of standard

yaso: yes

<yaso> The glossary is here, just commited

<yaso> https://github.com/w3c/dwbp/blob/gh-pages/glossary.html

BernadetteLoscio: we should update the glossary in an incremental way, so we don't have to do it all last minute

<phila> The glossary as HTML page

laufer: communities decide to use a standard as a de facto thing. They choose what they think is best at that moment. It's a kind of "light standard"

<antoine> for info the wikipedia def mentioned de facto standards

<BernadetteLoscio> my proposal is to keep the current organization of BP metadata section: two general best practices (provide metadata and use standard terms) and specific BP for specific types of metadata

<gguizzardi> Yes, Antoine, but we are putting together Formal Standards, "light standards", community conventions, de facto standards and putting it all together under the same term. The point is that we are recommending BPs to other people that cannot be sure if something is "light" standard enough to be consider a case of following the BP in question

<BernadetteLoscio> Provide metadata

<BernadetteLoscio> Use standard terms to define metadata

<newton> http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#DocumentMetadata and http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#ProvideMetadataMachine

<deirdrelee> Proposed: to keep the current organization of BP metadata section: two general best practices (provide metadata and use standard terms) and specific BP for specific types of metadata

<yaso> I made comments at the commit. https://github.com/w3c/dwbp/commit/7bc41017a8a39cc766c920ba791ec43d0def8594 - but we can make it as issues, or new commits with suggestions.

PROPOSED: that we use two general metadata best practices, one to say that people should provide metadata and one to say to use standard terms, and then to provide other BPs for specific metadata.

<antoine> I'm looking at http://www.w3.org/TR/dwbp/#metadata

antoine: what about the third one?

<Ig_Bittencourt> hi gguizzardi, but if we basically provide in the glossary what we are meant by standard, them it could be enough.

<gguizzardi> Sure. I am fine with that

<deirdrelee> +1

<antoine> q

<Ig_Bittencourt> great gguizzardi

<Ig_Bittencourt> +1

<laufer> +1

<deirdrelee> http://bernafarias.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#DocumentMetadata

antoine: was referring to the older version of the BPs

<phila> ACTION: Lee to include the standard resolution in the scope page on the wiki [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/04/13-dwbp-minutes.html#action03]

<trackbot> 'Lee' is an ambiguous username. Please try a different identifier, such as family name or username (e.g., dlee8, klee5).

<phila> ACTION: Deirdre to include the standard resolution in the scope page on the wiki [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/04/13-dwbp-minutes.html#action04]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-149 - Include the standard resolution in the scope page on the wiki [on Deirdre Lee - due 2015-04-20].

antoine: so, the proposal is to just publish 1 and 2 under metadata

<ericstephan> should we try voting again?

BernadetteLoscio: some people didn't agree that the human and machine readable should be separate BPs
... so, if we accept this proposal, we resolve the issue

<phila> PROPOSED: that we use two general metadata best practices, one to say that people should provide metadata and one to say to use standard terms, and then to provide other BPs for specific metadata.

<ericstephan> +1

+1

<deirdrelee> +1

<laufer> +1

<antoine> +1

<yaso> 1

<BernadetteLoscio> +1

<gguizzardi> +1

<yaso> +1

<riccardoAlbertoni> +1

<Ig_Bittencourt> ++1

<phila> RESOLVED: that we use two general metadata best practices, one to say that people should provide metadata and one to say to use standard terms, and then to provide other BPs for specific metadata.

<ericstephan> woo hoo!

<SumitPurohit> +1

<phila> PROPOSED: The the current structure is fine

<deirdrelee> http://bernafarias.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#DocumentMetadata

<laufer> +1 to woo hoo!

<deirdrelee> +1

<Gisele> +1

+1

<phila> PROPOSED: The the structure at http://bernafarias.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#DocumentMetadata on 2015-04-13 is fine

<BernadetteLoscio> +1

<phila> +1

<ericstephan> +1

<phila> RESOLVED: The the structure at http://bernafarias.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#DocumentMetadata on 2015-04-13 is fine

<Ig_Bittencourt> +1

<deirdrelee> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/136

<phila> issue-136?

<trackbot> issue-136 -- Proposal for Metadata BP -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/136

<laufer> close close close

<phila> close issue-136

<trackbot> Closed issue-136.

<ericstephan> :-)

<phila> issue-139?

<trackbot> issue-139 -- Suggests additional content for BP1 implementation -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/139

<antoine> +1 but after that someone will have to explain me what we've resolved. the structure of http://bernafarias.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#metadata is the same as http://www.w3.org/TR/2015/WD-dwbp-20150224/#metadata

BernadetteLoscio: issue 139

is from a really old version of the doc. can we close?

<Ig_Bittencourt> Yes

<phila> close issue-139

<trackbot> Closed issue-139.

<deirdrelee> issue-147?

<trackbot> issue-147 -- We should differentiate a metadata document from documenting metadata (meta metadata) -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/147

<phila> RESOLVED: close 139 as new teplate overrides it.

<ericstephan> Ig_Bittencourt: Vocab status that I mentioned earlier: http://lov.okfn.org/dataset/lov/vocabs/vs

<laufer> clcloclose

BernadetteLoscio: I think we solved this with the new version

laufer: yes

<phila> close issue-147

<trackbot> Closed issue-147.

<phila> issue-145?

<trackbot> issue-145 -- Should we change the title of BP7? -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/145

<antoine> "provide unique identifiers"

<phila> BP on Identifiers perhaps?

<phila> So issue-147 is about http://bernafarias.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#ProvideUniqueIdentifiers

<phila> deirdrelee: So what do you propose to change it to annette_g ?

<SumitPurohit> +q

<phila> annette_g: I'm not sure it means anythinbg to say you need to give something a unique ID whewn it's on the Web - since URIs are the only way to do it

<phila> ... Not sure it's a useful BP

BernadetteLoscio: agrees with Annette, points out that datasets need to be associated with a unique identifier. we need to talk more about what the identifiers are for. resources?

<Ig_Bittencourt> ericstephan: nice. I didn't know this Vocab status. Somehow it is related to the DUV.

deirdrelee: this is not really about metadata, okay to move it?

BernadetteLoscio: yes

<Ig_Bittencourt> ericstephan: perhaps we could reuse it in DUV.

<phila> deirdrelee: Issue postponed until discussion of identifiers

SumitPurohit: yes, it

will be more relevant later

breaking up

BernadetteLoscio: we

are going to change the issue title to show the name of the bP

<ericstephan> Ig_Bittencourt: interesting about including it in DUV, we've been focusing on usage of dataset, metadata would be good.

deirdrelee: 10 minute break?

<Makx_Dekkers> yes

<antoine> https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Requirements_From_FPWD_BP

<phila> Not getting a response from that wiki page :-(

deirdrelee: come back at half past to talk about Q+G vocab

<antoine> deirdre I'm really not sure we can talk about quality if the wiki's not working :-(

<phila> Seems the wiki is having a hissy fit

<Makx_Dekkers> trying to coenect to https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/ but site seems to be dead

<phila> We have wikis!

<phila> (Someone turned them off and on again)

Quality discussion

<phila> scribe: phila

<annette_g> scribe is back

<annette_g> still a couple missing here

<annette_g> thanks, Phil!

<ericstephan> OK!

deirdrelee: We'll do this for 2 hours then break for lunch
... over to Antoine

We're looking at https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Requirements_From_FPWD_BP

<Makx_Dekkers> link to doc does not work

No, Makx_Dekkers Grr

<gguizzardi> I am the ipcaller

<ericstephan> @phila, having trouble with the wiki again, I can scribe next

<annette_g> wiki is stalled?

<deirdrelee> antoine: the first thing was looking at the bp group and tring to identify concrete things about the scope of quality vocab, what we call competency questions

<Makx_Dekkers> yes i see it now

<gguizzardi> I can't access it

<Ig_Bittencourt> me neither.

<annette_g> Gisele got it, the rest of us are waiting

<newton_> https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Requirements_From_FPWD_BP

<BernadetteLoscio> https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Requirements_From_FPWD_BP

<ericstephan> Could anything be sent via email attachment?

<Ig_Bittencourt> Good idea ericstephan. Gisele or BernadetteLoscio, please send the file by email.

Comments

<laufer> maybe you can generate a pdf and send by email

See https://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/68239/WD-dwbp-20150224/

<laufer> as eric said

<ericstephan> okay just didn't know if local copies existed somewhere

<deirdrelee> ...https://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/68239/WD-dwbp-20150224/

<deirdrelee> https://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/68239/WD-dwbp-20150224/3003

deirdrelee: Points out that Andrea's comment is at odds with what we just agreed

BernadetteLoscio: I'm not sure ... we have a new proposal now. WE have already discussed the proposal
... so I suggest we close it with what we just agreed

<annette_g> +1 to BernadetteLoscio

https://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/68239/WD-dwbp-20150224/3003?cid=3003

phila: Explains the comment system, how we can resolve in differnet names

annette_g: It feels like we have resolved no - we don't agree with Andrea

BernadetteLoscio: I think it's more resolve partial because we have another proposal.

<ericstephan> I think resolving partial keeps the door open to get his feedback

<yaso> +1 to BernadetteLoscio

<ericstephan> +1

<flavio> +1

PROPOSED: Mark as Resolved Partial and action on BernadetteLoscio to contact Andrea and let him know about the new wording

+1

<deirdrelee> https://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/68239/WD-dwbp-20150224/3004

<riccardoAlbertoni> +1

RESOLUTION: Mark as Resolved Partial and action on BernadetteLoscio to contact Andrea and let him know about the new wording

BernadetteLoscio: I've already written to him - OK, no action required

<BernadetteLoscio> I'm gonna write a new message

<BernadetteLoscio> you can create an action if you want

<scribe> ACTION: BernadetteLoscio to write to Andrea Perego informing of the new text [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/04/13-dwbp-minutes.html#action05]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-150 - Write to andrea perego informing of the new text [on Bernadette Farias Loscio - due 2015-04-20].

laufer: The three comments that Andrea made are all related

BernadetteLoscio: So I can write to him once and say that his comments are taken into accoiunt in the new version
... of the BP doc

Now looking at https://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/68239/WD-dwbp-20150224/3005

BernadetteLoscio: I didn't cover this issue in the new version of the BP text arund data discovery

laufer: Our scope should be the dataset... should I say that it's not part of our goals to talk about data discovery?

ericstephan: I agree that we should stick at the dataset level

<Ig_Bittencourt> +1 to ericstephan

<BernadetteLoscio> Bernadette

<Ig_Bittencourt> and annette_g

<BernadetteLoscio> +q

SumitPurohit: I'm not happy with saying you have any gibberish in your data as long as the description is good

deirdrelee: I agree. In terms of the content, we still recommend quality data, standards etc. All we're saying is that for the discoverability, that the metadata should facilitate discoverability
... it's implied that if you do that then there's potential for data being discoverable

scribe is very confused

<ericstephan> I filtered myself :-)

BernadetteLoscio: If we're going to provide structrual metata, this can hekp find more info about the data itself.

<ericstephan> Metadata should be useful and appropriate

deirdrelee: Calls for a proposal

PROPOSED: We're not going to go into detail on the discovery of data content that is addressed by metadata, including quality of data etc. We're not going into discovery of the data itself

<ericstephan> I would ammend this with we arent going to define a BP for going into detail..

phila: happy for someone to put in a better proposal

<SumitPurohit> we lost skype.....

<laufer> I think search engines are the responsibles for creating the metadata about content itself (just thinking...)

<yaso> skype absents

<ericstephan> austin we have a problem

<deirdrelee> :)

<annette_g> working on it

<BernadetteLoscio> one moment

<ericstephan> we are pooling money to get back on skype

<laufer> very near houston...

<deirdrelee> ok, let's leave these comments and get back to quality-

<laufer> our 2F2F

<BernadetteLoscio> ok ;)

<gguizzardi> Folks, I can no longer understand anything

<deirdrelee> bernadette - let's mark all as three as resolved-part, reply to Andrea

<ericstephan> Yaso saves the day

<BernadetteLoscio> yes Deirdre! I agree

<deirdrelee> austin, can you hear us?

<annette_g> no

<yaso> Not yet, deirdre

<laufer> w--e a-- he--..ari--ng y o u ... li---ke thi...s

<BernadetteLoscio> please, create an action for me to send a new message to Andrea

<yaso> Run out of credits on skype, and then run out of battery in our bluetooth micro

action-150?

<trackbot> action-150 -- Bernadette Farias Loscio to Write to andrea perego informing of the new text -- due 2015-04-20 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/150

<deirdrelee> we can hear you, talk to us!

<deirdrelee> what's happening?

<Ig_Bittencourt> gguizzardi: the discussion was about Andrea's comments about the BP Doc.

<BernadetteLoscio> thanks Phil!

<laufer> apollo 14 it´s back home

<Ig_Bittencourt> https://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/68239/WD-dwbp-20150224/3003?cid=3003

<gguizzardi> Thanks, Ig.

<Ig_Bittencourt> https://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/68239/WD-dwbp-20150224/3005

<ericstephan> Yes

<gguizzardi> I couldn't hear anything

<gguizzardi> Now, it seems to be working again

<gguizzardi> thanks!

<ericstephan> drums beating

<antoine> https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Requirements_From_FPWD_BP

deirdrelee: Back to you Antoine - with audio and a functioning wiki

https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Requirements_From_FPWD_BP

antoine: First thing on the agenda is trying to identify relevant requirements from the Best Practices
... First outcome is a table https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Requirements_From_FPWD_BP#Requirements
... We're aware of different levels. Some reqs are more general than making classes and properties in the vocab
... third catageory is what we called competency questions
... for e.g. there has to be a quality score. This calls for classes and props to describe the score
... what we could do is to go through these requirements
... I could go through them all and then get an overview
... for example, the first req stems from BPs 2 and 8,
... this is something about how the vocab shouold be desigend in general. It's a general need for data quality expression as some form of metadata but not what form it should take

Makx_Dekkers: Maybe a more fundamental Q first.
... We have rewuirements and then we jump to the conclusion that we need a vocab for that
... a lot can already be expressed in DCAT et al
... intrinsic characteristics of datasets can be expressed. Why are we jumping to a new vocab - maybe we can do it already?

<laufer> I feel the same...

annette_g: It's in our charter to do this. There are lots of things that we left out of the BP doc because we thought they'd be in the quality vocab

<riccardoAlbertoni> deirdrelee: we are not defining vocabulary for its sake but we want to address specifically quality

<riccardoAlbertoni> perhaps, we don't need a new vocabulary but we want more application profile

<riccardoAlbertoni> antoine: we are identifining requirements if these requirements are already satisfied by existing vocabulary so we can avoid to have a new one, bu first let picture requirements

<riccardoAlbertoni> laufer: maybe we don't have to define a new vocabulary but give advice on how to use the existing

<scribe> scribe: phila

<deirdrelee> close speaker queue

BernadetteLoscio: We don't know exactly *what* should be described to cover quality

<gguizzardi> I fully agree with Bernadette

Ig_Bittencourt: I agree with Berna that we should follow up with a conceptual framework to define the vocab
... I like the way Antoine has started. Also important to define the concepts

<Ig_Bittencourt> http://www.slideshare.net/OpenDataSupport/open-data-quality-29248578

Ig_Bittencourt: e.g. (points to makx's work)

BernadetteLoscio: The table of reqs that we have - fne - but how to provide the quality metrics

ericstephan: I was at a smart release workshop a month ago. One of the things they said was there are a lot of vocabs but very few effots to get things done
... the DUV is a kind of glue

<Ig_Bittencourt> If you look in the link, there are some dimensions: accuracy, availability, completeness, conformance, consistency, credibility, processability, relevance and timeliness

<ericstephan> Has http://qudt.org/ been considered for standard quantities? It might be useful for metrics

ericstephan: The otehr comment - Jeremy Tandy sent me a link to a vocab for quantity that I thought was useful
... a standardised set of metrics would be good

annette_g: I wanted to agree with eric and Berna - we need to focus on the metrics that are in the caht. That's the value
... I appreciate the effort that went into the list
... but I don't want to reiterate what we already have in the BP doc
... requirements to include prov - that's BP

<SumitPurohit> +1 annette_g

<Ig_Bittencourt> +1 to antoine

annette_g: those would be hard to discuss without a vocab

<Ig_Bittencourt> ops... +1 to annette_g

deirdrelee: So, Antoine, what do you see as the next steps

<antoine> https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Data_quality_schedule

antoine: The schedule includes a lot of references to things like the work already mentioned
... we do want to start from the UCR as a concrete starting poinbt
... Helps to identify what we should focus on
... Right now we're focussed more on looking at ...
... after the f2f we hope we'll have enough consensus on the scope to sgtart looking at the related work

s/looking at.../ looking at the scope/

Makx_Dekkers: Coming back to an earlier poinbt - we're still talking on the meta level. How to express quality. We're not talking about what quality is
... something we discussed at Share-PSI in Romania - what do people think reflects quality
... I wrote a message to the group - we want a metric like processability
... someone said well, a metric for that wouold be the number of stars in the 5 star scheme
... so far we used 'quality' the same way we use otehr words
... they want info about processability, consistency etc.
... then you can see whether there is an objective metric, or a subjective metric, like freshness
... I think we need to get to what are the components of quality
... you can say how fresh data is but you don't need a qulaity vocab for that
... I'm not sure we're going into the right aspects

deirdrelee: What Antoine, riccardo and I have been looking at is how to describe quality in an abstract layer
... then the next layer is the dimensions - and that's what I think makx is talkinbg about
... and then at the lowest level - the metrics, how do you measure it
... If that's all in scope for us is to be decided

<Makx_Dekkers> i think daq describes the abstract layer

<BernadetteLoscio> the sound is really bad!

<Makx_Dekkers> cant hear either

riccardoAlbertoni: I would like to add some words... I am a big supporter of metrics, but I'm not sure they're the only way to express quality

<laufer> daq is kind of "foundation ontology" for quality...

<yaso> +1 to riccardoAlbertoni

<ericstephan> +1 laufer

riccardoAlbertoni: My question is - is there any other way to represent qwuality that we should consider

<Makx_Dekkers> 'metrics' can also be subjective statements not necessarily numbers

riccardoAlbertoni: for example - people publishing open data will assess the quality in some metrics framework, or a short decsription
... what is really used by people?
... I know about metrics and we'll have a framework,

<ericstephan> Could you give an example Makx_Dekkers ?

riccardoAlbertoni: but I guess that at the moment, as metrics aren't so commonly deployed, people figure out other ways to speak out quality

<Gisele> about terminology - a metric is a number, a "measure" can be a different thing

annette_g: hard to hear what you were saying
... looking at what we have to start with, porocessability is embodied in others
... accuracy, completeness etc.
... these are all good, but processability will be determined by the otehr dimensions

<annette_g> the list: accuracy,

<annette_g> availability,

<annette_g> completeness,

<annette_g> conformance,

<annette_g> consistency,

<annette_g> credibility,

<annette_g> processability,

<annette_g> relevance

<annette_g> timeliness

<yaso> deirdre I can try

BernadetteLoscio: We have dimensions, critera, metrics

<antoine> @annette where is this list coming from?

<antoine> @annette is it fromMakx' presentation?

deirdrelee: For me, annette's list is a list of dimensions

<annette_g> Ig pasted it in before

deirdrelee: we can also call them criteria

<Ig_Bittencourt> yes antoine

BernadetteLoscio: We can look at th literature an dsee what is at different levels

<annette_g> +1 to Bernadette

BernadetteLoscio: I think it should have a way to describe these criteria - which I think is a better word than dimensions

group discusses dimension vs criteria

deirdrelee: Please use the queue or remotes can't understand

<yaso> define as items, maybe?

deirdrelee: Want to go back to Antoine... want to focus the conversation

<ericstephan> scribe: ericstephan

deirdrelee: what do you want to spend the next hour on antoine ?

<annette_g> http://onlinehelp.tableau.com/v6.1/public/online/en-us/Id112A8A00YEX.html

antoine: We should add dimensions and metrics and have standards to represent that...
... maybe we could go to the next stage, actually defining dimensions and metrics

<SumitPurohit> +q

<laufer> daq talk about categories...

antoine: In the next hour get some confirmation on dimensions and metrics, looking at the use case owner as well to get some confirmation as well
... do we have the right amount of information as well?

<antoine> @annette we have put definition in our draft questions: https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/QualityQuestionnaire

<Zakim> phila, you wanted to take a stab at that list

phila: (sorry hard to hear) mentioned layered model, Makx_Dekkers mentioned the need for accuracy conformance etc.
... some things can only be described in natural language, how do you declare credibility for instance? Very difficult problems...
... How you express that difficult, how it is expressed in a use case helps provide focus

phila - I hope I captured your thoughts...

SumitPurohit: If the relevance is not there, its all subjective. Quantitative measurements are criteria we can provide guidance.

<phila> phila: I mean that that list of dimensions is helpful. How you declare each of them will vary and may or may not need a new vocab. ANd we'll prob have to be flexible in how it's expressed anyway

<phila> phila: And the fact the our charter says we'll create a vocab is not a reason to do it. Use cases are

deirdrelee: we have stronger feelings around the abstract layer than metrics etc. It should be closed, always will be exceptions.

<riccardoAlbertoni> +1 to deirdrelee dimensions can't be a close set we define

deirdrelee: reliability is subjective, it needs specific critiera.

Makx_Dekkers: phila said some things can be computed (repeatibility) the level of quality based on opinions, relability is perspective based.
... raw data that needs to be verified, for some communities the data is valuable (mashups) might not be for other communities.

<laufer> we are mixing the dimensoins of what we call quality with dimensions of qualities of the dataset...

Makx_Dekkers: maybe step back to the abstract level to answer "who says" its quality. Credintials perhaps? Provenance may help here

BernadetteLoscio: Describing the quality of a dataset is important, the vocabulary should provide the means to provide common terms to describe quality in their own particular way. E.g. dimension concept.
... maybe the vocabulary should be about describing the concepts not the properties

<laufer> who say what are the dimensions of quality that would be important... different consumers could have different qualities needs...

annette_g: maybe part of the solution to this, is not having a good/bad assignment, its more about definiing what raw data means...
... provide clarity on terms as opposed to judgements about the data
... my first question about datasets is: how clean is it, how many zeros are in it etc. These are in my mind important to capture.

deirdrelee: agree with annette_g , its not the most useful thing is to describe how reliable something is...where we can define items we should, defined in vocabulary or examples...

<Zakim> phila, you wanted to talk about PROV of statements

<phila> https://certificates.theodi.org/about

<laufer> what is the quality of a mp3 file...

phila: we talk about the dimensions theodi tries to get around the complexity with ennumerations but not describe what that means.

<riccardoAlbertoni> BTW, PROV of statements happens to be the requirement no.5 in the list of requirements

phila: theodi advangtage is simplicity, compared to provenance it might not always be accurate we need to weigh these different approaches

<riccardoAlbertoni> speak louder please

antoine: (had trouble hearing)
... from the completeness perspective, its difficult to find completeness. Should we attempt to define metrics or is it perhaps to difficult?

<BernadetteLoscio> +q

<phila> ericstephan: We have something to start on. I like Annete's idea of a base vocab that I can adpt to what I need

<phila> ... I like general terms that I can tailor

<phila> ... terms might not always work out but we start from a common definition

<phila> ... start at the concept level and then add properties. That's the starting place I think

<riccardoAlbertoni> a lot echo

<phila> Makx_Dekkers: Eric made a good point. Quality is in the eye of the beholder.

<phila> ... it's about giving people enough info to allow them to decide whether it's useful

<phila> ... is it complete, yes or not? I think it's about perspective. The publisher may not think it's complete

Makx_Dekkers: quality is in the perception in the way a person looks at it. antoine mentioned is it complete yes or no? In the eyes of the data owner, they will provide a subjective answer.

<phila> ... (gives example of subjective statements)

<Ig_Bittencourt> daq

Ig_Bittencourt: starting to rethink about the need for a vocabulary. If we look at each dimension, it could be very difficult to maintain. If we need to go to a new vocabulary we need to think about the ramifications of redefining metrics etc
... maybe we should define a foundational ontology for that.

<Ig_Bittencourt> http://butterbur04.iai.uni-bonn.de/ontologies/daq/daq#

BernadetteLoscio: The vocabulary - the daq could be the starting point for the vocabulary.

<riccardoAlbertoni> it is actually listed among the vocabulary on which we can start building ..

<antoine> well we're already doing this

BernadetteLoscio: we should start with something that is there, if they have a description for dimensions, why not use that as a starting place?

<gguizzardi> Giancarlo Guizzardi

<laufer> I think we have here problems with different complexity levles for the audience of our documents

gguizzardi: One issue which I think is important to address dimensions and metrics, we should provide a vocabulary to describe things in a way that someone else will understand. We are just providing a language.
... I should know if I am publishing data it would be useful to provide a language so that people can talk about it

antoine: I agree with many things, I have a lot of doubts on granularity in terms of what we should address.
... completeness I could think of the amount to represent persons, it could be about the average of the time a name is present about all persons,
... there is a whole range about possibilities and there isn't a lot of concrete clues about what we should focus on.

<phila> That's an interesting point re Use Cases

laufer: I don't know if we have two different complexities around the document we are writing here. Wil the BP document be the same as how to generate information on the quality of data.
... How are we addressing things from the consumers perspective?

<deirdrelee> PROPOSED: Provide a vocab (or vocab AP) to allow someone to define quality of data on the web PROPOSED: This vocab AP should allow someone to define a quality dimension PROPOSED: This vocab AP should allow someone to define a quality metric PROPOSED: Quality vocab should include specific dimentsions (not exhaustive) PROPOSED: Specific dimensions should be defined as separate list PROPOSED: Quality vocab should include specific metrics (not exhaustive)[CUT]

multiset-proposal?

<deirdrelee> PROPOSED: Provide a vocab (or vocab AP) to allow someone to define quality of data on the web

<Ig_Bittencourt> With this proposal, are we agreeing that we should really provide a vocab?

deirdrelee: Do you generally agree with the proposal?

<phila> -1

<Ig_Bittencourt> -1

deirdrelee: does it make sense?

<annette_g> +1

<laufer> -1

<Makx_Dekkers> -1

<Ig_Bittencourt> We should first think if we should really provide a new vocab.

phila: The reason why I am saying no, we have antoine saying its difficult to go to the use cases and come up with something concrete about how to move forward?

<Makx_Dekkers> the list is not 'correct', it's a list of things that are maybe useful

phila: If the list of dimensions are correct, then as the vocab evolves, the list could be used to create other dimensions.

<annette_g> list of caveats?

<Makx_Dekkers> +10 to phil

<laufer> \me it seems like things that maybe will be useful to didcover things...

phila: if one or more of these dimensions shows the need to create a new vocabulary then that provides an argument to move forward on the creation process.

<Ig_Bittencourt> I agree with phila.

<phila> I was pointing at the list of citeria - accessibility, processability etc

<BernadetteLoscio> +q

Makx_Dekkers: the list of dimensions and critiera is what phila was expressing. What dimensions and criteria you have and contextually how you interpret it. Frequency is an example of where you can point to an existing vocab rather than inventing somehting new

<antoine> +1 to Makx about the design principle

<phila> Draft proposal: We will consider whether the Open Data Support list of dimensions is the best list we can identify, based on the use cases that we have

deirdrelee: is there a list of criteria someone has?

<annette_g> accuracy,

<annette_g> availability,

<annette_g> completeness,

<annette_g> conformance,

<annette_g> consistency,

<annette_g> credibility,

<annette_g> processability,

<annette_g> relevance

<annette_g> timeliness

<antoine> https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Data_quality_notes#Suggested_requirements:

phila: can we evalue this (link) in the context of the use cases?

Makx_Dekkers: Its sort of a meta-list of the open data support?

<Ig_Bittencourt> Some metrics here: http://www.scielo.cl/pdf/jtaer/v9n2/art06.pdf

phila: we should be able to provide some type of comparison between this and the use cases. Can someone spend some time just making an assessment at a starting point?

<Ig_Bittencourt> deirdrelee: maybe, there are some metrics related to some of these dimensions.

<Ig_Bittencourt> s\maybe\

<Makx_Dekkers> Open Data Support presentation http://www.slideshare.net/OpenDataSupport/open-data-quality-29248578

annette_g: distinction between timelyness and frequency. its important to address this in the quality vocabulary

BernadetteLoscio: Its going to be hard to extract from the use cases detailed information. Unless you are familiar with the use case, its difficult to evaluate.

<phila> Draft proposal: We will review the Open Data Support list of dimensions in the light of the use cases that we have, looking for any obvious omissions or unnecessary dimensions

BernadetteLoscio: from the perspective of the consumer (user) what are the needs?

<Makx_Dekkers> I saw one in the requirements: 21 says Quality data must be available in an up-to-date manner and the update frequency made explicit.

BernadetteLoscio: we don't have enough to really make the assessment.

giancarlo_guizzardi: It would be a good idea to use a shared open vocabulary, to describe terms from a standard vocabulary rather than use local terms.
... this is just one example

deirdrelee: any vocabs in mind?

giancarlo_guizzardi: everything we put in the recommendation in the bp practice document, we should be giving people a way to show how they can comply

<annette_g> inaudible

no sound quality

in one half hour /lunch slash dinner break. We should find a path forward, even though the use cases aren't complete, we should try to find use cases where these dimensions could be drawn out.

annette_g: is a survey relevant? asking people what are the barriers?

<BernadetteLoscio> +1 to Annette

<BernadetteLoscio> the sound is bad :(

<giancarlo_guizzardi> very hard to understand

riccardoAlbertoni: (hard to hear muffled)

<annette_g> * type it?

riccardoAlbertoni - could you add your thoughts to the notes?

<Makx_Dekkers> compliance to best practice dct:conformsTo

<riccardoAlbertoni> I was saying compliancy to BP can be a further way to represent quality, that can be used besides metrics,

<Ig_Bittencourt> Ig_Bittencourt: What I said was that we firstly should define the conceptual framework (e.g. those dimensions) we should follow/use in order to guide us in a more detailed discussion. After that, to check if it is really possible to define metrics for that conceptual framework and so on.....

<antoine> https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/QualityQuestionnaire

<riccardoAlbertoni> so the my question was if statements about compliance to Bp should be included in the vocabulary quality

antoine: the idea of the survey, would it be different than what we started to put together? Annette could you send around ideas?

annette_g: yes, you show more of a verification. I suggest something is more open, more qualitatie approach?

antoine: trying to understand what you suggest.

annette_g: the point is to get something from an original source, rather than coming up with something on our own.

antoine: thinking about taking this back to the use case owner...

<annette_g> aren't the use case owners people in this group?

<deirdrelee> sorry guys, we dropped...

<giancarlo_guizzardi_> Agree with Antoine

We didn't do it this time (just being contextual on quality)

<annette_g> W3C has expressed interest in getting better relationships with developers. We should get info from developers for this in particular, not just W3C people.

<antoine> @annette ok I get it

<giancarlo_guizzardi_> If I got his point correctly, that is what I was saying. If there is something which we judge to be a BP, we should give people a way to state how they comply to that. Just to clarify my previous example: IF we say, people should use a Standard Vocabularity. We should have a dimension for them to rank how they comply to this

<annette_g> dogfood, man

lol annette_g sick em :-)

deirdrelee: what proposals should be introduced? annette_g , antoine Makx_Dekkers ?

<annette_g> PROPOSED: that we do a survey to find out what the barriers to data reuse are

<Ig_Bittencourt> giancarlo_guizzardi_: I agree with what you are saying, but I believe that most of the BP is related to Data Usage Vocabulary in spite of Data Quality Vocab. Another point is that if we do not follow a conceptual framework, it will quite hard to go through this vocab and provide an interesting one.

<Makx_Dekkers> PROPOSED: ask use case authors to say which aspects of quality they want to see expressed and how

annette_g: ask anyone who considers themselves a user of data on the web? from a data quality point of view?

<antoine> I think Annette's suggestion is excellent. But I'm afraid of the resources it would consume to make it a success

<deirdrelee> PROPOSED: that we do a survey to find out what the barriers to data reuse are

<giancarlo_guizzardi_> I am fine with using a conceptual framework, of course. However, we might need to adapt existing ones to deal with Datasets on the web. This seems to me a systematic way to find obvious omissions. My example of "how authoritative/standard" a vocabulary is came to mind as an omission without effort

<deirdrelee> -1

<phila> -1 - it's what the W3C process does

-1

<antoine> +0 if someone volunteers I think it's ok

<Makx_Dekkers> -1

deirdrelee: in this stage, this might take too many resources and would delay the work very much..

<phila> Draft proposal: We will review the Open Data Support list of dimensions in the light of the use cases that we have and Makx's Share-PSI session, looking for any obvious omissions or unnecessary dimensions. Publish a draft ASAP and seek review, asking specifically whether we have the right dimensions.

<phila> (so Annette says I'm not against what she's saying, just the method)

<deirdrelee> PRPOSED: ask use case authors to sy whihc aspects of quality they want to see expressed and how

<deirdrelee> 0

<Ig_Bittencourt> agree with phila's way of think ing.

PROPOSED: ask use case authors to say which aspects of quality they want to see expressed and how

<deirdrelee> Draft PRPOSED: ask use case authors to sy which aspects of quality, from list of 12 criteria above they want to see expressed and how

<annette_g> does writing a use case qualify someone in particular to speak for data consumers?

<deirdrelee> +1

<annette_g> -1

<phila> +0

0

<laufer> -101+

DRAFT PROPOSED: ask use case authors what type of feedback they want from data consumers?

<antoine> I would expect use case owners to have good knowledge of the applications, no?

<laufer> one question: when we ask what criteria of quality one consumer whant to see, he will answer completeness or the number of interviewed people?

<annette_g> like asking Microsoft to provide feedback on usability?

<Zakim> phila, you wanted to talk about evidence we already have available

annette_g: trying to find ways to do this, I'm am just worried that going back to the group for the same thing isn't going to do that.

<phila> PROPOSED: We will review the Open Data Support list of dimensions in the light of the use cases that we have and Makx's Share-PSI session, looking for any obvious omissions or unnecessary dimensions. Publish a draft ASAP and seek review, asking specifically whether we have the right dimensions and perhaps highlighting ones that didn't make the cut.

<phila> Makx's mail

phila: we have a starting point as noted in my proposal
... Makx_Dekkers proposed the list and got some feedback, so we have a sense of a review.

<Ig_Bittencourt> +1 to phila

phila: if we take that list and put it in a doc that can be reviewed as a draft recommendation, we can ask, did we get this right?
... we aren't starting from nothing, Makx_Dekkers list is a good starting point, the best way is to get something out in a draft for public review

<phila> PROPOSED: We will review the Open Data Support list of dimensions in the light of the use cases that we have and Makx's Share-PSI session, looking for any obvious omissions or unnecessary dimensions. Publish a draft ASAP and seek review, asking specifically whether we have the right dimensions and perhaps highlighting ones that didn't make the cut.

<riccardoAlbertoni> +1 ( It seems a very pragmatical way to go )

<giancarlo_guizzardi_> +1

+1 for getting public feedback asap

<Ig_Bittencourt> +1

<BernadetteLoscio> +1

<Gisele> +1

<SumitPurohit> +1

<antoine> +1

<annette_g> +1 ~

<Makx_Dekkers> +1

<flavio> _q

does ~ mean ish?

<flavio> +1

<deirdrelee> +1

<annette_g> yes, ish

<Makx_Dekkers> Also see rough notes of Share-PSI session https://www.w3.org/2013/share-psi/wiki/Timisoara/Scribe#Tuesday_17th_March_.2811:30_-_12:40_Parallel_Sessions_B.29

<phila> RESOLVED: We will review the Open Data Support list of dimensions in the light of the use cases that we have and Makx's Share-PSI session, looking for any obvious omissions or unnecessary dimensions. Publish a draft ASAP and seek review, asking specifically whether we have the right dimensions and perhaps highlighting ones that didn't make the cut.

<laufer> +1

high noon in the heart of Texas

<laufer> aftre the approval

deirdrelee: antoine what say you?

<Ig_Bittencourt> s\aftre\after

antoine: it seems like a good approach

<antoine> may I ask Makx to be co-actor on this?

<scribe> ACTION: antoine to follow up on resolution that Phil proposed [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/04/13-dwbp-minutes.html#action06]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-151 - Follow up on resolution that phil proposed [on Antoine Isaac - due 2015-04-20].

<phila> ACTION: antoine to follow up on the resolution re starting with the ODS list, Makx's list etc, working towards FPWD ASAP [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/04/13-dwbp-minutes.html#action07]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-152 - Follow up on the resolution re starting with the ods list, makx's list etc, working towards fpwd asap [on Antoine Isaac - due 2015-04-20].

did I screw that up phila?

<phila> close action-151

<trackbot> Closed action-151.

<Makx_Dekkers> antoine, afraid that I can't commit myself

thank you

<Makx_Dekkers> already overloaded

<giancarlo_guizzardi_> see u in 40'-ish

<Ig_Bittencourt> Thanks.

<giancarlo_guizzardi_> thanks

<antoine> Bye everyone, thanks for the great discussion, and enjoy the rest of the meeting!

<antoine> I wish I could be with you F2F

<deirdrelee> Thanks Antoine!

<deirdrelee> Talk to you later

<deirdrelee> google hangout: https://plus.google.com/hangouts/_/gu2q3xlnxb4p6sjowowzowteema

<Makx_Dekkers> no that's not me

<Makx_Dekkers> zakim p1 is me

<giancarlo_guizzardi_> The sound quality here is very bad

<giancarlo_guizzardi_> can't understand anything right now

<Makx_Dekkers> i cant understand a word that is said

<Makx_Dekkers> has the meeting started yet?

<Makx_Dekkers> yes

<deirdrelee> google hangout: https://plus.google.com/hangouts/_/gu2q3xlnxb4p6sjowowzowteema

<deirdrelee> Welcome back Austin!

<deirdrelee> yaso, where is everyone??

<deirdrelee> We're nearly ready for bed ;)

<annette_g> us, too

<phila> :-) annette_g

<deirdrelee> google hangout: https://plus.google.com/hangouts/_/gu2q3xlnxb4p6sjowowzowteema

the quality of my credit card usage was called into question when I purchased our external speaker at 1am in the Austin Airport from an electronics vending machine.

<phila> deirdrelee: Re-Starts the meeting

Quality issues

<phila> scribe: BernadetteLoscio

<phila> issue-116?

<trackbot> issue-116 -- Best Practices for Data Quality - Insertion of specific strategies apart from DATA QUALITY Vocabulary -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/116

<phila> issue-117?

<trackbot> issue-117 -- Should Data quality vocabulary be mentioned as specific strategy in BP Document? -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/117

<giancarlo_guizzardi_> really bad audio

<phila> riccardoAlbertoni: At the time we drafted the doc, my concern was that we didn't get much input

<deirdrelee> BP Doc: http://bernafarias.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#ProvideDataQuality

i'm sorry... i cant understand

<giancarlo_guizzardi_> me neither

<phila> riccardoAlbertoni: We shouod mention for sure that we are going to develop a vocab to hekp documetn quality and that should be clearly stated

<annette_g> me neither

<phila> riccardoAlbertoni: My concern/question was, is there any obecjtion to the proposal that...

<yaso> in Austin it is hard to hear

<ericstephan> could the proposal be written?

<phila> ... that we explicitly mention in the BP doc that there will be advice/vocab on quality description

<Ig_Bittencourt> s\hekp\help

<Ig_Bittencourt> s\documetn\document

<phila> PROPOSED: That the data quality work is explicitly mentioned in the data Quality section of the BP document

<ericstephan> +1

<deirdrelee> +1

<phila> +1

<GiselePappa> +1

+1

<giancarlo_guizzardi_> +1

<annette_g> +1

<laufer> +1

<SumitPurohit> +1

<Ig_Bittencourt> 0 I lost the discussion

<phila> RESOLVED: That the data quality work is explicitly mentioned in the data Quality section of the BP document

<phila> close 116

<phila> close issue-116

<trackbot> Closed issue-116.

<phila> close issue-117

<trackbot> Closed issue-117.

<phila> BernadetteLoscio: Someone said that we shouldn't mention the quality work in the BP doc...

<phila> deirdrelee: Can you recall who made the comment?

<phila> BernadetteLoscio: Might have been Carlos I?

Annette: We should have a reference to the vocabulary in the document

<phila> annette_g: What I voted yes to was having a reference to the vocabulary doc from the BP doc

<phila> ... what I would oppose would be having BPs in the vocab document

<annette_g> * yes, Phil

<yaso> Scribe: yaso

<BernadetteLoscio> thanks yaso ;)

deirdre: issue n.55

<deirdrelee> Issue-55?

<trackbot> Issue-55 -- The word "granularity" can been many things. scope, city/state/country, data aggregation -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/55

deirdre: Is it something that we want to include, or we can forget about it and go ahed

Berna: It is not clear what type of granularity we are talking about.
... In the doc we identified some types of granularity. For example, we can talk about different levels of granularity

yes, thanks, Phila

scribe: if we are going to consider this in the document, because we had a section about it, but it was removed because it was empty

laufer: this issue is about the word?

BernadetteLoscio: we need to define what is granularity for us, for the group.
... this issue was opened due the last F2F. We removed because we had nothing written.

<phila> draft proposal - that we effectively ignore the word 'granularity' and just talk about data quality

<deirdrelee> google hangout: https://plus.google.com/hangouts/_/gu2q3xlnxb4p6sjowowzowteema

<ericstephan> https://plus.google.com/hangouts/_/g4vna23i4mz4l6doovo34sysm4a

had to get out, computer was freezing. Sorry

BernadetteLoscio: should we talk about this in the BP document?
... this issue es related to the BP document, but also related to the DQ vocabulary

ericstephan: this is just a draft, if we leave it now, and then add it when it becomes clear

<annette_g> +1 to eric

BernadetteLoscio: we should keep it like this

<giancarlo_guizzardi> yes

<giancarlo_guizzardi> I called via skype

<ericstephan> I don't see it as being useless, its just not really clear about how we articulate it

<SumitPurohit> +q

<giancarlo_guizzardi> my connection is not very stable so I have to reconnect frequently

<phila> PROPOSED: That we put the word 'granularity' on ice until and unless we need it

Thanks, phila

+1

<BernadetteLoscio> +1

<annette_g> +1

<Ig_Bittencourt> +1

<riccardoAlbertoni> +1

<ericstephan> +1 ice cubes, blocks whatever granularity you want

<deirdrelee> +1

<phila> +1

<laufer> +1

<GiselePappa> +1

<phila> RESOLVED: That we put the word 'granularity' on ice until and unless we need it

<phila> close issue-55

<trackbot> Closed issue-55.

<phila> issue-64?

<trackbot> issue-64 -- Jeremy t's expression of concern over 'data must be complete' - not realistic. better to say where it isn't complete -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/64

deirdre: this is about completeness

<phila> (Jeremy T is Jeremy Tandy from the UK Met Office who joined us at TPAC)

SumitPurohit: doo we think that granularity can be related to quality in some way?

ericstephan: I think I remember when Jeremy mentioned this
... Phil had introduced the idea of how do we measure the BPs
... I thin in all the data quality points that we were talking today

<ericstephan> I like that idea deirdrelee

<phila> riccardoAlbertoni: I think the discussion about granularity should be addressed at the level of BPs

can't und :-/erstand

<phila> ... It's not related to quality, it's the way you;re going to provide your data

<phila> ... that's best practice, not quality

<phila> Everyone says they don't want it, BP or quality vocab

deirdre: maybe we should not keep it

<phila> riccardoAlbertoni: If the data quality editors don't want it and the BP editors don't want it then maybe we shouldn't keep it

<annette_g> is this about completeness or granularity?

<giancarlo_guizzardi> I have the same problem

<phila> We're talking about completeness I think...

<giancarlo_guizzardi> As consequence, I am a bit confused as well what we are discussing about now. Completeness or granularity or something more general

<deirdrelee> PROPOSED: Let data quality editors look at completeness as one of the quality dimensions

<ericstephan> +1

<BernadetteLoscio> +1

<annette_g> +1

<phila> +1

+1

<riccardoAlbertoni> +1

<GiselePappa> +1

<newton> +1

<GiselePappa> +1

<laufer> +1

<Ig_Bittencourt> +1

<SumitPurohit> +1

<giancarlo_guizzardi> +1

<phila> RESOLVED: Let data quality editors look at completeness as one of the quality dimensions

<phila> close issue-64

<trackbot> Closed issue-64.

<phila> ACTION: antoine to look at completeness as one of the quality dimensions [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/04/13-dwbp-minutes.html#action08]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-153 - Look at completeness as one of the quality dimensions [on Antoine Isaac - due 2015-04-20].

Best Practices

<deirdrelee> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1aqkh8jJCyHn0GaPk3Xh277b5L1bQjfwDHukmWUTWryg/edit#gid=0

<phila> Grrr Google Docs :-(

because 54 is to solve tomorrow

<phila> Commente 3006 https://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/68239/WD-dwbp-20150224/3006?cid=3006

Someone wants to scribe? It is difficult to follow

BernadetteLoscio: we had some discussion about this by email
... dan said that there is not a complete distinction about metadata and data
... this is something that the group have to resolve
... we are going to keep this definition, that metadata is data about data
... or we are going to discuss another definition
... we are going to keep this discussion or leave it as it is

annette_g: ... I like to suggest that we stick with our definition

<laufer> +1

<Zakim> phila, you wanted to argue for the sentence that DanBri suggests

phila: In 2003 we drafted RDF spec

<ericstephan> draft proposal: Dan is right, however we keep the informal standard metadata/data definition because it is more easily understood by the general open data community.

<phila> Draft proposal - that we include the sentence Dan suggests and then say that for this document we are using the simplified definition that metadata is data about data

ericstephan: I'd rather go with that, that go with something too complex
... the community can understand easily

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-wg/2015Apr/0019.html

<newton> yaso: I think it's related to the Makx point sent on this e-mail; I think people will continue having discussions like this if we don't define in a clear way what metadata is

<ericstephan> metadata is in the eye of the beholder, so to speak

giancarlo_guizzardi: I think that the sentence can mean anything we want
... if we want to be more precise,
... I think that this is intuitive,
... there is not a real distinction of what is metadata and data

<ericstephan> perhaps a more detailed explaination of data/metadata could be in the glossary?

<annette_g> +1 to glossary for this

giancarlo_guizzardi: I think if we want to make this more clear,

<Ig_Bittencourt> +1 to glossary for this too, showing the distinction.

deirdre: should we leave the description of metadata as it is
... or we add this to glossary?

<deirdrelee> PROPOSED: that we include the sentence Dan suggests and then say that for this document we are using the simplified definition that metadata is data about data

<ericstephan> -1 (see the glossary comments)

<annette_g> +1 only if it's in the glossary

<SumitPurohit> +1

<riccardoAlbertoni> +1

<GiselePappa> +1, but it is not simplified, it is the standard

<laufer> -1

-1

<newton> +1 only if it's in the glossary

<giancarlo_guizzardi> +1 to including the definition in the glossary

<phila> PROPOSED: to include the term metadata in the glossary and give a definition (TBD)

<deirdrelee> Current glossary: http://htmlpreview.github.io/?https://github.com/w3c/dwbp/blob/gh-pages/glossary.html

Ig_Bittencourt: we should change the proposal

BernadetteLoscio: just to comment that at the tracker there is something else that we should remove from the document

<laufer> the prefix meta indicates that metadata is data... we do not have to clarify this...

BernadetteLoscio: because it makes the things worse. So it is not that we are going to have a metadata doc separated

<annette_g> +1 to Bernadette

BernadetteLoscio: we should remove the sentence off the document

<Ig_Bittencourt> PROPOSED: that we include an explanation (and Dan's comments) in the glossary and then say that for this document we are using the definition that metadata is data about data

<BernadetteLoscio> "A metadata document must be published together with the data"; taken together this makes the distinction seem more clear-cut than it often seems in practice.

BernadetteLoscio: I just suggested to remove this phrase

<annette_g> +++++

<laufer> I think the comment of Dan is about to confuse the reader

<laufer> we do not have to say that a metalanguage is a language...

<laufer> a metaproperty is a property... and so on...

<annette_g> let's vote on Ig's

<phila> +1 to Ig's proposal

<Ig_Bittencourt> +1

<giancarlo_guizzardi> A metaproperty is a property but one about a property

<BernadetteLoscio> +1

<flavio> +1

<ericstephan> +1

<giancarlo_guizzardi> not about individuals in the domain

<GiselePappa> +1 to Ig's

<annette_g> +1

0

<giancarlo_guizzardi> that makes a lot of difference

<SumitPurohit> +1

<laufer> -1

<newton> 0

<annette_g> did you go away?

<phila> deirdrelee: We're going to leave this comment for now - it will come up again tomorrow I'm sure

<giancarlo_guizzardi> I am very confused right now...

Data Versioning

<phila> issue-94?

<trackbot> issue-94 -- Dataset versioning and dataset replication -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/94

issue 94

deirdre: we are following the agenda?

<giancarlo_guizzardi> The discussion between the relative notions of level and meta-level, from a logical point of view is IMHO very well addressed here: http://nemo.inf.ufes.br/mlt

<phila> Moving on to Comment 3007 https://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/68239/WD-dwbp-20150224/3007?cid=3007

<phila> (we'll come back to issue-94)

annette_g: My understanding is that memento is for preserving versions of documents, so I would mention this at the implementation section

<SumitPurohit> +1 anne

+1

<phila> About Memento

<Ig_Bittencourt> +1 to annette_g

thanks annette_g

<Zakim> phila, you wanted to talk about referencing Memento

what annette_g is proposing is to mention memento at the implementation section

<annette_g> +1 to Phil

phila: I would include it as a possible implementation

BernadetteLoscio: We agree

<phila> phila: I'm happy to refer to it as a possible approach but I wouldn't put it more stringly than that

laufer: I think that it is a general advise for all the BPS
... for all the implementation approaches

<Ig_Bittencourt> The name of the section in BP doc is "Possible Approach to Implementation"

<Ig_Bittencourt> So it is OK to put there.

deirdre: we can create an action to include this at the possible implementation

Newton: I can do this

<ericstephan> suggested ammendment is there a simpler example that can also be shown?

<phila> PROPOSED: That we refer to Memento in the 'possible implementation' section of the relevent BP; resolve yes to the comment and action Newton to write to Herbert vS

<Ig_Bittencourt> +1

<riccardoAlbertoni> +1

<deirdrelee> +1

<phila> +1

<newton> +1

<laufer> +1

newton: Annette and me worked together at the versioning section

+1

<giancarlo_guizzardi_> +1

<ericstephan> +1 if we can have another simpler example that could also be shown

<BernadetteLoscio> +1

agree with ericstephan

"if we can have another simpler example that could also be shown"

<laufer> s/Laufer/Annette/

<Ig_Bittencourt> ericstephan: there are others indication in the BP 17 (Vocabulary versioning).

<annette_g> +1 to have a second example

ericstephan: I think it is great to have this example at the BP, but it can scare people, so we can have another example, simpler,
... to do not overwhelm anyone with a too much complex implementation approach

Ig_Bittencourt: there are 2 vocabularies that provide purpose to versioning numbers, so maybe it can solve this problem

deirdre: I said that there are 2 examples in the BP-27, and maybe it sufficient to add the memento and it is ok

<phila> Are we looking at http://bernafarias.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#VersioningVocabularies ?

laufer: memento is more that that data versioning
... it is about data preservation also

<newton> Phil, Ig talks about this doc http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#VersioningVocabularies

<Ig_Bittencourt> Vocabulary Versioning.

<deirdrelee> http://bernafarias.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#VersioningVocabularies

<newton> are the same BP, only with different numbers...

<Ig_Bittencourt> yes phila. This one http://bernafarias.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#VersioningVocabularies

<phila> Yes, we're looking at the same one. Excpet we have 15 differevnt versions of the doc and I no longer know which one I'm suppoed to be looking at!

<phila> s/I'm/I'm/g#

<annette_g> http://bernafarias.github.io/dwbp/bp.html

<phila> OK, so we're just looking at http://bernafarias.github.io/dwbp/bp.html, not a Google doc. OK, I'm happy enough

<phila> Thanks BernadetteLoscio

<phila> So we 8are* looking at http://bernafarias.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#VersioningVocabularies

BernadetteLoscio: the feedback that we had was for both: versioning of vocabularies and for datasets

<phila> PROPOSED: That we only have one BP about versioning

annette_g: I think that we really should have only one BP about versioning, just deleting n. 16

<laufer> +1

annette_g: proposed is to remove the BP for vocabulary versioning

<phila> PROPOSED: That we only have one BP about versioning, by merging data versioning and vocabulary versioning, favouring the data versioning one

BernadetteLoscio: maybe we need more time for this one

Ig_Bittencourt: thinking about the differences of remove or merge it,
... different things

<phila> PROPOSED: That we only have one BP about versioning, by merging data versioning and vocabulary versioning, favouring the data versioning one

<ericstephan> +1

<annette_g> -1

<newton> -1

<Ig_Bittencourt> -1

<giancarlo_guizzardi> -1

<phila> Then we misunderstood here...

<annette_g> PROPOSED: that we remove the best practice about versioning vocabularies

<phila> No

<laufer> +1

<laufer> -1

<laufer> +1

<laufer> _1

<SumitPurohit> +q

<Ig_Bittencourt> -1

<giancarlo_guizzardi> -1

<deirdrelee> PROPOSED: Keep both bps on versioning and add memento to both

<phila> -1

SumitPurohit: data also includes vocabulary
... but once you start working with data, this distinction actually fades

<SumitPurohit> +q

<giancarlo_guizzardi> "data includes vocabulary" could be interpreted as a version of "there is no distinction between data and metadata"

ericstephan: in some ways what I'm suggesting is dumming down things, unless you can make cristal clear for the 2
... that is why I made my +1 for merging the 2

<phila> PROPOSED: That we remove the best practice on versioning vocabularies, transferring any relevant points to the data versioning BP. We will refer to memento as a possible implementation

<annette_g> +1

BernadetteLoscio: I agree with ericstephan, but when writing the BP, we are talking about data or a dataset?
... if we can solve this we are going to solve a lot of problems at the document

<phila> IMO - for DWBP data = dataset

BernadetteLoscio: a dataset should have a version number,

<Makx_Dekkers> a vocabulary is data, not metadata. you can have metadata about a vocabulary (e.g. ADMS)

<Ig_Bittencourt> +1 to phila

BernadetteLoscio: we need 1 BP for datasets and 1 BP for vocabulary
... BP should be applied on something

<ericstephan> I like the idea about tightening up the language on data

BernadetteLoscio: data will be updated over time - we are talking about data collection or dataset updating?

<giancarlo_guizzardi> Makx: Vocabulary is a kind of content metadata. The fact that we can have metadata about it, it does not mean that it cannot be metadata

<giancarlo_guizzardi> we can have metadata about metadata

<giancarlo_guizzardi> that is what I meant by this being a relative notion

<Makx_Dekkers> giancarlo, don't go there!

<phila> I think we're proving DanBri's point...

<ericstephan> is metadata about metadata metameta?

<giancarlo_guizzardi> I think we are proving that if we don't have precise definitions, it is very easy to get lost in all related discussions

agree with phila

<phila> CHAIR INTERRUPT

<BernadetteLoscio> :)

<Ig_Bittencourt> +1 to phila and giancarlo_guizzardi

<phila> deirdrelee: We have 2 issues. We have a BP on vocab versioning and another on data versioning

<BernadetteLoscio> +1 to giancarlo!

<phila> ... we've gone back to talling about metadata and data. I know they're related bu t we jave to move on

<SumitPurohit> -q

<laufer> semantics is exactly about the confusion, giancarlo...

<phila> deirdrelee: Looks like we have agreement to include Memento as a possible implementation

<Makx_Dekkers> nce between BPs for data and metadata, and BPS for data and vocabularies

<giancarlo_guizzardi> laufer: I am confused and not about semantics :-)

<ericstephan> one best practice for versioning that can be applied to dataset and vocab

<Makx_Dekkers> +1 to eric

<flavio> +1 to eric

<annette_g> +1 to eric

<phila> PROPOSED: That we remove the best practice on versioning vocabularies, transferring any relevant points to the data versioning BP. We will refer to memento as a possible implementation

<Ig_Bittencourt> Maybe the ericstephan's proposal could be the best way

BernadetteLoscio: a BP for versioning that is UNIVERSAL

<Ig_Bittencourt> Not necessarily universal, but that fits to both.

PROPOSED: That we remove the best practice on versioning vocabularies, transferring any relevant points to the data versioning BP. We will refer to memento as a possible implementation

<ericstephan> PROPOSED: We have one best practice for versioning that can be applied to dataset and vocabulary

<annette_g> +1

<flavio> +1

<Ig_Bittencourt> +1 to ericstephan

<GiselePappa> +1

+1 to ericstephan

<ericstephan> +1

<riccardoAlbertoni> +1

<Makx_Dekkers> .+1

<deirdrelee> +1

<newton> +1

<giancarlo_guizzardi> +0

<SumitPurohit> +1

<phila> +1

<laufer> we are just postponing the necessity of the BP for vocabularies versioning...

<BernadetteLoscio> +1

<laufer> +1

<deirdrelee> +1

giancarlo_guizzardi: I think that we should ask is why people would want versioning, in the first place

It has to do with the compliance to this vocabulary

scribe: that could be ok, for a given application
... why do we think that this is relevant
... this BP are important to reflect some quality dimensions?

<Makx_Dekkers> you may not want versioning, but it is a fact of life. things chang

<SumitPurohit> +q

deirdre: moving to the next point

<phila> RESOLVED: We have one best practice for versioning that can be applied to dataset and vocabulary

<laufer> the versioning is necessary because we have the same identifier for the dataset during the life of data...

<Makx_Dekkers> no! different version, different identifier!

annette_g: our document is really long

<phila> +1 Makx

<laufer> not for vocabularies, makx

annette_g: we should look for opportunities to make it shorter

SumitPurohit: that inconsistent with the rest of the document. If quality is only about dataset, and not about versioning, it is kind of confusing

<Makx_Dekkers> laufer, even for vocabularies

SumitPurohit: just scan the document and make sure that we used all the words when needed

<laufer> even for uris, makx?

<Makx_Dekkers> laufer, the terms may not change and keep the same identifiers, but the vocabulary as a whole may be versioned

BernadetteLoscio: I think what SumitPurohit is saying that in the document we are explicit about the terms

<giancarlo_guizzardi> Folks, unfortunately I will need to leave right now. This has been very interesting. Thanks.

<Makx_Dekkers> a vocab with terms a, b, and c is different from the vocabulary with a, b, c and d, even if a, b, and c stay the same

BernadetteLoscio: in several parts we talk about datasets, then we need to review the document and see if the BP apply to both cases

<phila> Thanks giancarlo_guizzardi

<laufer> the vocabulary is versioned but is the same uri

<Ig_Bittencourt> Thanks giancarlo_guizzardi. Look at my e-mail after.

<giancarlo_guizzardi> ok. will do. talk to you tomorrow

<giancarlo_guizzardi> ciao

BernadetteLoscio: when we talk about data licences, for instance, vocabulary and dataset? Why not include the vocabulary?
... this is going to be a big change to the document

<Makx_Dekkers> no! different version, different uri

<SumitPurohit> +1

<ericstephan> Are dataset and vocab to be assumed unless otherwise noted?

<Zakim> phila, you wanted to talk about dataset/vocab

<laufer> so, schem.org has different uris for each new verion of its vocabularies, maks... is this?

phila: we don't want to have 2 separated BPs

<deirdrelee> http://htmlpreview.github.io/?https://github.com/w3c/dwbp/blob/gh-pages/glossary.html

<deirdrelee> o 52, 55, 59, 68, 80, 82, 133, 134

https://w3c.github.io/dwbp/glossary.html

<Makx_Dekkers> laufer, I don't know about schema.org. I know what I've been doing for ADMS vocabularies.

<ericstephan> perhaps a "context" field needs to be added to describe what 'thing' it should be applied

BernadetteLoscio: we talked about how to use this vocabularies, we should talk about licences

<laufer> ok, makx

BernadetteLoscio: the second question is: the BPs for metadata apply to datasets and vocabs?

<phila> deirdrelee: Can we frame things so that it's clear whether we're talking about data, vocabs and/or metadata?

<Zakim> annette_g, you wanted to question the assumption that a vocabulary is a dataset

annette_g: the more I think about the less I think it is true that a vocabulary is metadata
... I think it is out of scope

<Makx_Dekkers> In my opinion, a vocabulary is a dataset. It fits the definition of dataset in DCAT

<SumitPurohit> +q

BernadetteLoscio: it is just that: what is the difference between publishing a dataset and a vocabulary

<Makx_Dekkers> I describe vocabularies with ADMS as a adms:Asset which is a subclass of dcat:Dataset

BernadetteLoscio: in the document we are talking about publishing dataset and publishing vocabulary

annette_g: I think we should mention vocabs but I do not think that we are here to teach people how to make a vocabulary

deirdre: it is in scope?
... we really want to make some decisions

<phila> deirdrelee: I think Annette brings up an important issue, not only are datasets and vocabs different and is that question is scope

<ericstephan> Could we be onto a new glossary term "vataset" or "docab"? ;-)

<phila> ... if it's in scope, how do we include it in the docs

<phila> +1 ericstephan

<Makx_Dekkers> The issue is, I think, that people have a mental model of what a dataset is. I've been asking to make that mental model explicit.

<laufer> a vocabulary is a language to talk with machines... as a natural language is a language to talk with humans...

<ericstephan> +1 Makx_Dekkers

<Makx_Dekkers> I favour an inclusive mental model that includes vocabularies, images, text collections, spreadsheets, video streams etc.

+1 to Makx_Dekkers

<ericstephan> +q

<newton> Makx_Dekkers, I agree with you. Do you have any suggestions or would like to start it?

<Makx_Dekkers> But I have also expressed my opinion that we can't write BPs for all those types of data. We just don't have the knowledge for that.

<laufer> vocabularies are replicating the way humans establish communication...

maintenance is different of creation imho

Laufer: do you want to scribe?

<Makx_Dekkers> My proposal was to focus our work just on spreadsheet-like data and leave the rest ot other experts.

<ericstephan> Makx_Dekkers - I like the schema.org term https://schema.org/CreativeWork which is a parent to many mental model digital objects

This is a bargain, deirdre

<Makx_Dekkers> Otherwise, BPs can only be very general. What's the similarity between publishing a spreadsheet and a video feed? Not much.

<laufer> thank you, phil... I almost believed...

sorry, deirdre, I lost that

<Makx_Dekkers> I like https://schema.org/Thing better...

<ericstephan> it is the parent of https://schema.org/CreativeWork

thanks, deirdre!

<laufer> tomorrow...

<phila> scribe: Newton

SumitPurohit: for this group probably we may distinguish between data and vocabulary

<Makx_Dekkers> Apologies, have to sign off. Supper calls...

Ig: even this situation we are talking about data on the web, not necessary about vocabulary or ontology

<yaso> Ig_Bittencourt: we are talking about creation of BP for vocabulary creation

<phila> Thanks Makx - bon apetite

Ig: In my opinion is still the same, and I agree on removing versioning vocabulary BP

<yaso> If anyone wants to explore this question about a mental model with me after the meeting, We could spend an hour on this

<annette_g> we need a definition of data

<laufer> remove remove remove

<yaso> I really believe that this could help the grou to stick to situations related to context

ericstephan: Makx was sharing great thoughts
... BernadetteLoscio and I were thinking about different kinds of data to put on the web
... Makx shared thoghts about a mental model concerning about more kinds of data

<yaso> I agree with ericstephan

<Ig_Bittencourt> s\talking\not talking

ericstephan: I think that might be example that people use everyday, such as videos, experimental datasets

<annette_g> data = recorded observations

ericstephan: I think we need a glossary

<Zakim> phila, you wanted to make a proposal that Berna might not like but might move us on a little

ericstephan: we could have a glossary not only for general terms, but to specific things too

<ericstephan> draft proposal: define example "mental models" as examples of dataset, vocabulary in glossary.

<phila> phila: I was saying thagt most BPs will apply to all kinds of data. Where they only apply to specific types, say, vocabs, then we should say so. perhaps organise the doc from general down to specific.

<phila> In the glossary or BP doc, eric?

yaso: I was going to propose about the mental model, but ericstephan already said about it

annette_g: I think this is a very fundamental distinction; versioning is important to data, and it's necessary to have a meaning of what is data

<phila> I'm recalling the conversation in Croke Park a few years ago when we came to the conclusion that dcat:Dataset = Information Resource, which is counter to what Annette is saying

<phila> CHAIR INTERRUPT

<phila> 20 mins to go...

deirdrelee: 20 minutes left... and a couple of things to decide
... first of all is the vocabulary is not a dataset (?)

<phila> deirdrelee: Options are - vocabs, metadata are treated as datasets, or we agree that they are not, or that it's out of scope and we don't have to decide

<phila> ... and there's the added thing of deciding which BP applies to each

<phila> ... that may be a very long conversation

<phila> deirdrelee: Consensus seems to be that we treat metadata and vocabs as datasets... most of the time

<phila> ... what gets included in the glossary, what gets included in the BP doc

<ericstephan> draft proposal: conclude that vocabs, datasets aren't the same thing, but the same technique can at times be applied to both

<yaso> 1+

<BernadetteLoscio> +1

<deirdrelee> conclude that vocabs, datasets aren't the same thing, but the same technique can at times be applied to both

ericstephan: we have different mental model on what those things are
... but we can use the same BP technique on vocab, datasets
... we need to focus on methodology and on how methodology could be applied on it

<riccardoAlbertoni> +1 to conclude that vocabs, datasets aren't the same thing, but the same technique can at times be applied to both

annette_g: I agree that a specific methodology can be applied on both

<deirdrelee> draft proposal: to decide if vocab and dataset are equal is out of scope, but if BPs specifically to metadata or vocab, we call it out in the BP (not that we have to say it necessarily for each BP)

<Zakim> annette_g, you wanted to ask what is not data?

<Zakim> phila, you wanted to make a concrete proposal

<phila> One can treat vocabularies, metadata and data as one species - the boundaries between them are not always absolute. However, for the purpose of the Best Practices, we have a number of mental models to help:

<phila> A dataset is...

<phila> A vocbulary is...

<phila> Metadata is...

<yaso> annette_g: jpeg picture published with encoded exif data, for instance: jpeg is not data, but has data encoded in exif tags. This metadata can be extracted. Jpeg is not data, but can be read by spiders that identify some features and put them together in a dataset. Then is data extracted from the picture, I think...

<BernadetteLoscio> https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Glossary

<annette_g> yaso, yes, one can use it as data if that is the intention

<ericstephan> +1 phila

<yaso> annette_g: that's why I think we should think in mental models, or "situations"

deirdrelee: we have a glossary that yaso and bernadette are working on
... we also may include a disclaimer to recognize

<annette_g> yaso: if we cover all situations, we will have an endless document

<yaso> and then say: in this specific situations, this wg will not work, like best formats to encode metadata, or best softwares to extract data from media

deirdrelee: we can assume that all BPs apply to dataset

<scribe> scribe: yaso

defining situations mean that we can get rid of some of them :-)

<laufer> and we have to define what we assume of beeing a dataset...

<newton> yaso: I was talking to annette_g to define some situations that could help us

<phila> PROPOSED: That we state that the boundaries between metadata, dataset and vocabulary is not always clear, however, we have the following mentalmodels in mind... and then talk about the three

<ericstephan> +1

<deirdrelee> +1

<newton> ... we need to defines the situations before, for instance, we cannot recommend BPs to extract metadata from media files

<newton> ... we have to recognize are data on the web also, but we don't necessary work on those situations

<SumitPurohit> +q

+ 1 to phila

<newton> ... we can't ignore that, so we can recognize that but not necessary to work on that

<laufer> +1

<newton> SumitPurohit: have we the distinction between vocabularies and metadata

<SumitPurohit> +1

<annette_g> +1

<GiselePappa> +1

<scribe> scribe: yaso

<newton> +1

<phila> RESOLVED: That we state that the boundaries between metadata, dataset and vocabulary is not always clear, however, we have the following mental models in mind... and then talk about the three

+1

<Ig_Bittencourt> +1

<phila> ACTION: yaso to add the definitions of dataset, vocabulary and metadata in the glossary, noting that the boundaries are not always distinct (or helpful). [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/04/13-dwbp-minutes.html#action09]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-154 - Add the definitions of dataset, vocabulary and metadata in the glossary, noting that the boundaries are not always distinct (or helpful). [on Yaso Córdova - due 2015-04-20].

<SumitPurohit> +q

<phila> Yaso - I'm happy to help write that

<ericstephan> Thank you all, see you tomorrow!

phila: great! I will appreciate it indeed

<annette_g> maybe discuss over email?

phila: I'try to write something today, then you can review as soon as I finish, is that ok for you?

<Ig_Bittencourt> There is a definition about dataset and vocab in the glossary. So we just need to give a definition to metadata.

<phila> deirdrelee: I'd like to park the conversation about defining the three things or we'll spend endless time discussing it.

<phila> Thanks yaso - that would be great

Nice!

<phila> Eneergy levels at critical here now I'm afraid

people get too much philosophical when tired

<phila> The DCAT definition Dataset is "A collection of data, published or curated by a single agent, and available for access or download in one or more formats."

<phila> phila: Suggests you have plenty to talk about over dinner in Austin. Please come back with a consensus decision that we can all agree to tomorrow

<BernadetteLoscio> ;)

<ericstephan> Yes I think we need to hit the bars on this one

<phila> deirdrelee: Wraps up the meeting

<phila> phila: Records thanks to Dee for excellent chairing today

<ericstephan> bye bye

<phila> Night all

<riccardoAlbertoni> bye, thanks

Tks, bye, see you tomorrow

This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.140  of Date: 2014-11-06 18:16:30  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/WE/we/
Succeeded: s/phil/hadley/
Succeeded: s/CLS/HCLS/
Succeeded: s/PROPOSAL/PROPOSED/
Succeeded: s/1/+1/
Succeeded: s/goof/good/
Succeeded: s/shoujld/should/
Succeeded: s/ion/on/
Succeeded: s/BO doc/BP doc/
Succeeded: s/a plrofile/application profile/
FAILED: s/looking at.../ looking at the scope/
Succeeded: s/jear/hear/
Succeeded: s/(something)/of the time a name is present/
Succeeded: s/PRPOSED/PROPOSED/
Succeeded: s/make a/make it a/
Succeeded: s/sy whihc/say which/
Succeeded: s/thinkin/thin in/
Succeeded: s/thinkin/think in/
Succeeded: s/preserving/preserving versions of/
Succeeded: s/implnementation sectio/implementation section/
Succeeded: s/Laufer/Annette/
FAILED: s/Laufer/Annette/
WARNING: Bad s/// command: s/I;m/I'm/g#
Succeeded: s/I;m/I'm/g
Succeeded: s/60/16/
Succeeded: s/not/no/
Succeeded: s/wauallity/quality/
Succeeded: s/Makz/Makx/g
Succeeded: s/menatl /mental/
Found Scribe: hadleybeeman
Inferring ScribeNick: hadleybeeman
Found Scribe: annette_g
Inferring ScribeNick: annette_g
Found Scribe: phila
Inferring ScribeNick: phila
Found Scribe: phila
Inferring ScribeNick: phila
Found Scribe: ericstephan
Inferring ScribeNick: ericstephan
Found Scribe: BernadetteLoscio
Inferring ScribeNick: BernadetteLoscio
Found Scribe: yaso
Inferring ScribeNick: yaso
Found Scribe: Newton
Inferring ScribeNick: newton
Found Scribe: yaso
Inferring ScribeNick: yaso
Found Scribe: yaso
Inferring ScribeNick: yaso
Scribes: hadleybeeman, annette_g, phila, ericstephan, BernadetteLoscio, yaso, Newton
ScribeNicks: hadleybeeman, annette_g, phila, ericstephan, BernadetteLoscio, yaso, newton

WARNING: Replacing list of attendees.
Old list: deirdrelee RiccardoAlbertoni phila antoine HadleyBeeman Makx_Dekkers Austin ericstephan austincomputer [IPcaller] annette_g laufer Ig_Bittencourt flavio newton yaso Gisele Sumit
New list: deirdrelee RiccardoAlbertoni phila antoine HadleyBeeman Makx_Dekkers ericstephan austincomputer [IPcaller] annette_g laufer Ig_Bittencourt flavio newton yaso Gisele Sumit BernadetteLoscio SumitPurohit +31.20.420.aaaa Ipswich


WARNING: Replacing list of attendees.
Old list: deirdrelee RiccardoAlbertoni phila antoine HadleyBeeman Makx_Dekkers ericstephan austincomputer [IPcaller] annette_g laufer Ig_Bittencourt flavio newton yaso Gisele Sumit BernadetteLoscio SumitPurohit +31.20.420.aaaa Ipswich
New list: [IPcaller] Makx_Dekkers deirdrelee Riccardo phila giancarlo_guizzardi_ ericstephan flavio newton annette_g yaso BernadetteLoscio giancarlo_guizzardi

Default Present: [IPcaller], Makx_Dekkers, deirdrelee, Riccardo, phila, giancarlo_guizzardi_, ericstephan, flavio, newton, annette_g, yaso, BernadetteLoscio, giancarlo_guizzardi
Present: [IPcaller] Makx_Dekkers deirdrelee Riccardo phila giancarlo_guizzardi_ ericstephan flavio newton annette_g yaso BernadetteLoscio giancarlo_guizzardi GiselePappa Sumit
Regrets: Steve
Agenda: https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/April_2015_F2F#Agenda
Found Date: 13 Apr 2015
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2015/04/13-dwbp-minutes.html
People with action items: antoine bernadette bernadetteloscio deirdre lee yaso