DWBP Face to Face Day 2 -- 14 Apr 2015

<hadleybeeman> Morning, all

<phila> Hi Hadley

<phila> Just getting ste up here

<hadleybeeman> How was yesterday? Looks like you covered a lot!

<phila> Yeah, Dee drove us through a lot of issues :-)

<hadleybeeman> deirdrelee, you're amazing :)

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

<deirdrelee> Updated Agenda: https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/April_2015_F2F

<ericstephan> Hello everyone

<hadleybeeman> Hello, Austin!

<ericstephan> Just getting set up.

<deirdrelee> Hi Eric & all!

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

<phila> http://dublincore.org/documents/2012/06/14/dcmi-terms/?v=terms#Standard

<yaso> Thanks for this link, Phil

<hadleybeeman> ericstephan, I think we have a bit of feedback. Would you mind muting your computer?

<deirdrelee> updated agenda: https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/April_2015_F2F

<laufer> https://plus.google.com/hangouts/_/gu2q3xlnxb4p6sjowowzowteema?v=1428094656

<laufer> I said that I would scribe tomorrow

<laufer> today is not tomorrow

<Caroline> I can scribe later! :)

<Caroline> I must wake up before scribing!

<laufer> I am scribing

<laufer> deirdrelee: talking about the agenda of the day

<phila> DanBri Comment

<phila> http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/dwbp/2015-04-13#resolution_15

<laufer> phila: talking about the comments we talked yesterday

<laufer> ph

<Sumit_Purohit> Hi deirdrelee

<ericstephan> sounds good

<laufer> phila: the comments about dan is defined as not resolved

<phila> ACTION: PhilA to write to DanBri in response to comment 3006 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/04/14-dwbp-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-155 - Write to danbri in response to comment 3006 [on Phil Archer - due 2015-04-21].

<hadleybeeman> +1 to this. I worry about over-enshrining the mental model of "dataset" in what we're doing.

<laufer> deirdrelee: 15 max for each issue

<yaso> +1

<hadleybeeman> issue-52?

<trackbot> issue-52 -- We keep having confusion around our terms. (glossary?) -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/52

<yaso> to close the issue

<phila> issue-52?

<trackbot> issue-52 -- We keep having confusion around our terms. (glossary?) -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/52

<phila> PROPOSED: Close Issue-52 as there is going to be a glossary

<ericstephan> +1

<hadleybeeman> +1

<deirdrelee> +1

<laufer> could you reapeat the proposal, deirdre

<phila> +1

<laufer> thank you phil

<riccardoAlbertoni> +1

<laufer> +1

<phila> RESOLVED: Close Issue-52 as there is going to be a glossary

<Caroline> +1

<phila> close issue-52

<trackbot> Closed issue-52.

<phila> issue-134?

<trackbot> issue-134 -- About Formats, schemas, vocabularies and data models -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/134

<laufer> deirdrelee: issue 134

<phila> PROPOSED: Close issue-134 as the existence of the glossary answers this point

<deirdrelee> +1

<ericstephan> +1

<phila> +1

<riccardoAlbertoni> +1

<hadleybeeman> +1

<Caroline> +1

<laufer> BernadetteLoscio: this definitions are in the glossary, according to joao carlos ideas

<laufer> +1

<phila> RESOLVED: Close issue-134 as the existence of the glossary answers this point

<GiselePappa> +1

<phila> close issue-134

<trackbot> Closed issue-134.

<laufer> deirdrelee: i am happy...

<hadleybeeman> issue-123?

<trackbot> issue-123 -- Use of SHOULD versus MUST for Sensitive Data -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/123

<laufer> who is talking

<yaso> Hadley, Lau

<laufer> hi hadley

<hadleybeeman> hi laufer :)

<laufer> ericstephan: in a sense, I do not see problems in changing the info in teh use cases problems

<phila> deirdrelee: I'm happy to take that suggestion, changing SHOULD to MUST

<phila> PROPOSED: Requirement concerning Sensitive Data, in the UCR, should use RFC 2119 MUST, not SHOULD

<laufer> BernadetteLoscio_: I think does not to be now

<ericstephan> draft PROPOSED: lining up the verbage for the Use Case requirements on sensitive data to the verbage in the BP document.

<laufer> ... we need to read all the document to decide is it is should or must

<laufer> ... we should review all the BPs

<ericstephan> sorry phila didn't see yours

<phila> We are talking only about http://www.w3.org/TR/dwbp-ucr/#R-SensitivePrivacy

<laufer> had we to vote eric´s proposal?

<laufer> have

<laufer> ericstephan: phil could you clarify your proposal

<ericstephan> PROPOSED: Requirement concerning Sensitive Data, in the UCR, should use RFC 2119 MUST, not should

<phila> PROPOSED: That Requirement on Sensitive Data should use the world 'must' not should. See http://www.w3.org/TR/dwbp-ucr/#R-SensitivePrivacy

<deirdrelee> +1

<ericstephan> +1

<riccardoAlbertoni> +1

<hadleybeeman> +1

<annette_g> 0

<GiselePappa> +1

<BernadetteLoscio_> +1

<phila> issue-123?

<trackbot> issue-123 -- Use of SHOULD versus MUST for Sensitive Data -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/123

<Caroline> +1

<laufer> +1

<flavio> +1

<yaso> +1

<phila> RESOLVED: That Requirement on Sensitive Data should use the world 'must' not should. See http://www.w3.org/TR/dwbp-ucr/#R-SensitivePrivacy

<phila> close issue-123

<trackbot> Closed issue-123.

<phila> ACTION: deirdre to change should to must in http://www.w3.org/TR/dwbp-ucr/#R-SensitivePrivacy [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/04/14-dwbp-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-156 - Change should to must in http://www.w3.org/tr/dwbp-ucr/#r-sensitiveprivacy [on Deirdre Lee - due 2015-04-21].

<laufer> deirdrelee: there are 2 issues about data identifiers

<phila> issue-77?

<trackbot> issue-77 -- We need to bring the COMURI work into the Best Practices format agreed at the TPAC F2F -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/77

<phila> issue-118

<trackbot> issue-118 -- New Requirement suggestion R-VersionURIDesign -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/118

<laufer> ... maybe we could see both together

<laufer> isse 118 New Requirement suggestion R-VersionURIDesign

<BernadetteLoscio_> +q

<laufer> BernadetteLoscio_: we try to discusse this with tomas

<laufer> ... now we have this things in separate documents

<laufer> I do not remember exactly what happened

<laufer> ... tomas worked in the separated document

<laufer> ... but this info was not tranfered for the bp document

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

<laufer> deirdrelee: incorporate the info of the separate document to the bp document

<laufer> annette_g: annette (thinking)

<laufer> annette_g: explaining a relation between apis and URIs

<hadleybeeman> This is a big enough topic that I wouldn't be surprised to see it referenced in various sections.

<laufer> annette_g: understanding the issue

<Zakim> phila, you wanted to talk about http://www.w3.org/TR/dwbp/#ProvideUniqueIdentifiers

<laufer> phila: there is a couple of things

<phila> http://www.w3.org/TR/dwbp-ucr/#R-PersistentIdentification

<laufer> ... in the use case documents we have not the requiremets that we have in the issue

<phila> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/118

<phila> New Requirement suggestion R-VersionURIDesign from BBC ontology versioning and Metadata

<phila> R-VersionURIDesign: “Data should have a canonical way to design URIs for different snapshot of the dataset.”

<laufer> ... what he is saying is that we need a new requirement of version uri design

<phila> http://www.w3.org/2014/10/31-dwbp-minutes#onedoc

<laufer> ... at the moment we have the tomas document

<phila> http://www.w3.org/TR/dwbp/#ProvideUniqueIdentifiers

<laufer> ... we decided in tpac not to publish the document

<laufer> phila: what we can do is to close the issue...

<laufer> BernadetteLoscio_: i just want to say that we could close the issue but we need to discuss the bp for identification

<laufer> ... maybe later

<hadleybeeman> +1 to BernadetteLoscio_ — this sounds like we have a new issue here.

<laufer> PROPOSED: closse the issue 77

<ericstephan> +1

<hadleybeeman> +1

<annette_g> +1

<yaso> +1

<Caroline> +1

<GiselePappa> +1

<deirdrelee> +1

<BernadetteLoscio_> +1

<phila> +1 as it is being incorporated in the BP doc (work still to do)

<laufer> +1

<riccardoAlbertoni> +1

<NewtonCalegari> +1

<Sumit_Purohit> +1

<makx> +1

<laufer> RESOLVED: close the issue 77

<phila> close issue-77

<trackbot> Closed issue-77.

<laufer> deirdrelee: should we create an action tho incorporate the things to the bp document?

<phila> deirdrelee: We can close 118, URI design overall should be included in the BP doc but may not need pulling out in the UCR doc

<ericstephan> +1 deirdrelee

<makx> +1

<phila> PROPOSED: Close Issue-118, because it will be included in the BP doc

<deirdrelee> +1

<ericstephan> +1

<hadleybeeman> +1

<annette_g> +1

<laufer> +1

<phila> +1

<GiselePappa> +1

<riccardoAlbertoni> +1

<laufer> BernadetteLoscio_: the uri design will be a requirement?

<phila> RESOLVED: Close Issue-118, because it will be included in the BP doc

<phila> close issue-118

<trackbot> Closed issue-118.

<laufer> hadleybeeman: there are the actions tyo do these things

<phila> I will

<hadleybeeman> I was suggesting we have an action to review it, and a new issue to explain why we were reviewing it.

<phila> ACTION: phila to work with hadleybeeman to revise the BP on http://www.w3.org/TR/dwbp/#ProvideUniqueIdentifiers and make new suggestions [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/04/14-dwbp-minutes.html#action03]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-157 - Work with hadleybeeman to revise the bp on http://www.w3.org/tr/dwbp/#provideuniqueidentifiers and make new suggestions [on Phil Archer - due 2015-04-21].

<laufer> deirdrelee: issue 144

Tech Bias in our docs

<hadleybeeman> issue-144?

<trackbot> issue-144 -- There is a technological bias in several parts of the document -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/144

<laufer> There is a technological bias in several parts of the document

<laufer> deirdrelee: there is a lot of discussion about this issue

<phila> deirdrelee: We could acknowledge that there is a tech bias - and be happy with it - or try and remove itr

<yaso> Welcome, cgueret!

<annette_g> laufer: we acknowledge that we have this kind of thing. But it's a thing that we'll have to think about for all the docs. It will be an open issue in our minds, but we can close it.

<ericstephan> +1 laufer

<phila> laufer: This issue will be open until the heat death of the universe

<ericstephan> nice :-)

<yaso> lol

<phila> (scribe paraphrase)

<hadleybeeman> can we use "until the heat death of the universe" in the document? :)

<ericstephan> couldn't it be for the lifetime of our star?

<laufer> BernadetteLoscio_: is not easy to close this isse

<laufer> ... in carlos comments about the document

<laufer> ... he does not like to use uri as identifiers

<yaso> I think that this will be partially solved when we have more clearance on terms definitions by scenarios, situations, things like that

<laufer> ... he prefer to use only identifiers...

<Sumit_Purohit> +q

<laufer> ... what we would do...

<laufer> deirdrelee: we decided to be out of scope to talk about the formats

<phila> deirdrelee: yesterday we decided it was in scope to recommend standards, without exclusing other methods, and we decided that formats were out of scope

<phila> deirdrelee: So I think we effectively closed this issue yesterday - we're open to other methods, but we can recommend

<phila> deirdrelee: When Hadley and Phil revise the identifier section, they'll have to abide by the scope - formats out, standards in

<phila> ... so I don't think we shoud spend time talkinbg about it now

<phila> +1

<laufer> Sumit_Purohit: we can recommend dcat

<laufer> ... but we should mantain the right the people to use other things

<phila> +1 to Annette - using alternative IDs is not precluded by the use of URIs

<laufer> annette_g: having uris as identifiers does not mean that you have to use a specific tec

<ericstephan> +1 annette_g I use examples all the time for thinking about repurposing in other techologies

<hadleybeeman> +1 to Annette that "being on the web" is important here.

<phila> annette_g: It makes not sense to say things need a URI because if they don't, they're not on the Web

<phila> riccardoAlbertoni: Concerning the bias, whenever anyone raises this issue, we ask them to give an example using anotehr tech

<phila> ... if this is too LD oriented, then, OK, give an example of anotehr way

<cgueret> URN are not on the Web, are they ? and still they are URI too ;-)

<phila> Phila +1 to riccardoAlbertoni

<annette_g> +1 to laufer

<phila> laufer: Is it bias or is it design? (I think is what he's saying)

<deirdrelee> issue-144?

<trackbot> issue-144 -- There is a technological bias in several parts of the document -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/144

<ericstephan> +1 to laufer, however death of the star, I have hope for more standards based civilizations

<annette_g> Laufer: the issue of bias can't be addressed all as one issue. We need to have specific issues to address.

<Zakim> phila, you wanted to talk about HTTP and URIs

<cgueret> ^_^

<cgueret> +1 to Phil for https !

<NewtonCalegari> http://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/URI.html

<yaso> +1 to https!!

<hadleybeeman> phila: W3C is recommending https, rather than http. When Hadley and I look at this, we will take that into account for data too.

<ericstephan> hypertext transfer protocol stephan (https)

<hadleybeeman> ...For those of you concerned with SEO, https:// by default increases your pageRank.

<phila> issue: Whether we should recommend HTTPS by default, rather than HTTP

<trackbot> Created ISSUE-161 - Whether we should recommend https by default, rather than http. Please complete additional details at <http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/161/edit>.

<ericstephan> sounds great

<cgueret> yup, I'm all for it

<phila> That is the issue cgueret - and consensus is hard to come by

<annette_g> * cgueret, my thought, too, but what happens when you get it wrong in your browser?

<deirdrelee> PROPOSED: Close issue-144, scope will keep technological bias in mind

<ericstephan> +1

<phila> +1

<deirdrelee> +1

<cgueret> +1

<riccardoAlbertoni> +1

<phila> (the sun just went in...)

<ericstephan> laufer smiling

<phila> RESOLVED: Close issue-144, scope will keep technological bias in min

<ericstephan> su-mit su-mit

<Sumit_Purohit> scribe:sumit

<annette_g> +1

<BernadetteLoscio_> -1

<ericstephan> no kicking needed, sumit has spunk :-)

<laufer> the queue is closed for me... it is not fair

<Sumit_Purohit> BernadetteLoscio_ : yaso made some changes in the document based on carlos idea, but it is not resolved as yet......

<Sumit_Purohit> .....so the issue is still open

<Sumit_Purohit> deirdrelee: we as a group will decide to accept or reject recommendations we get from hadley and Phil

<Sumit_Purohit> laufer: if its a thing i have to access over the web, its an URI

<Sumit_Purohit> ...if you use it in your own context, you can have anything you want.

<Sumit_Purohit> but if it is over web, its a URI

<ericstephan> that's fine

<yaso> ok!

<hadleybeeman> +1 to deirdrelee on creating a new issue

<ericstephan> BernadetteLoscio_- trying to speak

<yaso> Deirdre, I think that BernadetteLoscio_ has some comments on that

<Sumit_Purohit> Austin.....want to talk....

<annette_g> can you hear us?

<ericstephan> scribe: ericstephan

<phila> issue: Should the BP document refer to URIs or Identifiers

<trackbot> Created ISSUE-163 - Should the bp document refer to uris or identifiers. Please complete additional details at <http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/163/edit>.

deirdrelee: following agenda now BernadetteLoscio_ and will cover this at the end of the meeting if we have time. Is that fair?

BernadetteLoscio_: ok

Archiving and Preservation

<cgueret> yeah! :-)

<phila> Step forward Dr Gueret...

<deirdrelee> issue-62?

<trackbot> issue-62 -- What info is given when dereferencing a persistent identifier after the resource has been removed/archived -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/62

<deirdrelee> issue-63?

<trackbot> issue-63 -- If a resource is archived, is the correct response 410, 303 or something else? -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/63

<deirdrelee> issue-143?

<trackbot> issue-143 -- Is Data Preservation in the scope of the DWBP document? -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/143

beyond data-dome

<cgueret> give me a sec, I need to move to a place where I can speak....

<phila> I think 62 and 63 are the same

deirdrelee: I propose that preservation and archiving are in scope

<cgueret> +1

deirdrelee: looking at issue-143 first for a more fundamental question

<phila> phila: Let's look at 143 first which will decide whether the other are relevant

laufer: looking at description of issue, persistence, versioning and data preservation.
... archiving is a must
... I don't know what we will write in this BP we must have preservation.

<phila> Draft proposal - that data archiving (taking data offline) is out of scope, but what is left on the Web after archiving has taken place *is* in scope

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

laufer: versioning may be optional
... shouldn't be handled the same way

deirdrelee: just to clear data preservation and archiving are in scope laufer?

laufer: data preservation and archiving are the same thing to me

<Zakim> phila, you wanted to make my proposal

<annette_g> +1 to phil

phila: I think there are boundaries when you go out of scope, if you get to the point where you go offline, what is the stuff you leave behind?

<riccardoAlbertoni> +1 to deirdrelee

<Sumit_Purohit> +1 deirdrelee

<Sumit_Purohit> scribe : sumit

deirdrelee: once it goes offline it goes out of scope.

<hadleybeeman> +1 to deirdrelee

<Zakim> cgueret_, you wanted to say I agree with Phil

having problems hearing

<cgueret_> oh :/

<cgueret_> and there is the accent too :-p

<Sumit_Purohit> austin can not hear as well

<cgueret_> fully agree with Phil and deirdree but we should not say everything must be preserved

<phila> PROPOSED: That we recognise that archiving is part of the lifecycle of data management. How data is managed in an offline repository is out of scope, however, what is left on the Web after archiving has taken place *is* in scope.

<cgueret_> the decision on sending something to an archive is up to the publisher

<Sumit_Purohit> +q

<cgueret_> we should give indications on what to do with the remaining URIs

<cgueret_> which still exist even if the data is taken offline

<Sumit_Purohit> annette_g: we need to stick with context on the data on the web ,such as persistent is in scope, but not archiving

+1 annette_g

<phila> +1 annette_g

<cgueret_> +1

Sumit_Purohit: I was agreeing with what laufer said that archiving and preservation go hand in hand

<cgueret_> it would be also good for us to make it clear that archiving the Web of Data is not quite the same as archiving the Web of Documents

<Sumit_Purohit> laufer: its a Question, when we have deliverables, we have draft, we do access all the older version.

<hadleybeeman> It sounds like we're down to definitions again. What is "archiving"? We should write that.

<Sumit_Purohit> ....but if we have all the documents available then it is a best practice....you should have access to all the deliverables

<cgueret_> -1 to laufer. Archiving is not a matter of giving online access to all data

<phila> deirdrelee: Should there be a reference to versioning if we have a specific BP about archiving...

<cgueret_> versioning is related to preservation but that's not a strict coupling. You can have one without the other

<phila> ... and to recommend that there should be a specific BP on the topic

<laufer> cgueret_: I am not saying that you must give the access... but you may... and I think that for some types of data it is a bp to do that...

<cgueret_> laufer, ok then :)

<phila> PROPOSED: That we recognise that archiving is part of data management. How data is managed in an offline repository is out of scope, however, what is left on the Web after archiving has taken place *is* in scope. There will be at least one Best Practice on this topic. Versioning needs to be taken into account.

<cgueret_> +1

<annette_g> +1

<cgueret_> (we're allowed to vote now, right ?)

<hadleybeeman> Well articulated, phila.

<Sumit_Purohit> +1

<Sumit_Purohit> annette_g: data preservation should be offline as well as online....

<cgueret_> Probably the longest proposal we've voted on so far ;-)

<Sumit_Purohit> ......if we put some sort of encouragement then it is OK

<hadleybeeman> @annette_g, to whose mind is that a bad practice?

<Sumit_Purohit> ......it is not a good idea to treat web servers as data archiving system

<hadleybeeman> (Sorry annette_g, that sounded very combative. I didn't mean that — just that it sounds like it may be something from a community that isn't just Data on the Web.)

<annette_g> @hadleybeeman, anyone who worries about security

<Sumit_Purohit> BernadetteLoscio_: we have a section about data preservation but we removed it from the document...

<Sumit_Purohit> are we talking about new BP ?

<hadleybeeman> @annette_g I wish we could explore that over coffee. Sounds a) very interesting, and b) may in scope but maybe not?

<cgueret_> +1 to reuse what I did before ;-)

<BernadetteLoscio_> +q

<Sumit_Purohit> ....we should review work of christoph...

+1 BernadetteLoscio_

<hadleybeeman> +1 to that, BernadetteLoscio_

<riccardoAlbertoni> +1 to BernadetteLoscio_

<cgueret_> +1

<Sumit_Purohit> BernadetteLoscio_: ...we should also add data definition of archiving and presentation and preservation on glossary

<deirdrelee> +1 to BernadetteLoscio_

<cgueret_> can you make an action for me ?

<NewtonCalegari> or in github: http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/glossary.html

<riccardoAlbertoni> PROPOSED: That we recognise that archiving is part of data management. How data is managed in an offline repository is out of scope, however, what is left on the Web after archiving has taken place *is* in scope. There will be at least one Best Practice on this topic. Versioning needs to be taken into account.

<cgueret_> I'll also get the glossary definition validated by an archivist here

<deirdrelee> +1

<Sumit_Purohit> +1

<hadleybeeman> +1

<cgueret_> +1

<annette_g> +1

<GiselePappa> +1

<laufer> +1

<NewtonCalegari> +1

<BernadetteLoscio_> +1

<Caroline> +1

<riccardoAlbertoni> +1

<phila> +1

<Caroline> +1to cgueret_ to get the glossary definition validated by an archivist

<deirdrelee> ACTION: deirdrelee to add preservtion text to scope [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/04/14-dwbp-minutes.html#action04]

<trackbot> Error finding 'deirdrelee'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/users>.

<deirdrelee> ACTION: deirdre to add preservtion text to scope [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/04/14-dwbp-minutes.html#action05]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-158 - Add preservtion text to scope [on Deirdre Lee - due 2015-04-21].

<deirdrelee> ACTION: christoph to define preseravation bp [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/04/14-dwbp-minutes.html#action06]

<trackbot> Error finding 'christoph'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/users>.

<phila> ACTION: cgueret to write a definition of archiving (and preservation) in the glossary (again!) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/04/14-dwbp-minutes.html#action07]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-159 - Write a definition of archiving (and preservation) in the glossary (again!) [on Christophe Gueret - due 2015-04-21].

<deirdrelee> ACTION: cgueret to write a bp on preservation in bp doc [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/04/14-dwbp-minutes.html#action08]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-160 - Write a bp on preservation in bp doc [on Christophe Gueret - due 2015-04-21].

<phila> close issue-143

<trackbot> Closed issue-143.

<annette_g> * PROPOSED: that we get coffee

<cgueret_> +1 annette_g

+1 its just a plus one kind of day

<phila> Which leaves Issues 62 and 63 for after coffee

<yaso> +1 to annette_g

<Sumit_Purohit> coffee break time NOW...

<Sumit_Purohit> 20 min break

<phila> Thanks Christophe

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

<deirdrelee> Hi, welcome back

<Caroline> Hello! :)

<deirdrelee> Let's get started guys & gals...

<NewtonCalegari> Austin is calling

<deirdrelee> cool

<yaso> dialing again

<Caroline> scribe: Caroline

<deirdrelee> issue-62?

<trackbot> issue-62 -- What info is given when dereferencing a persistent identifier after the resource has been removed/archived -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/62

<deirdrelee> issue-63?

<trackbot> issue-63 -- If a resource is archived, is the correct response 410, 303 or something else? -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/63

<Zakim> phila, you wanted to make a suggestion

deirdrelee: sorry, I couldn't hear you

yes

thank you1

sorry, phila please write down this

ericstephan: when you take something offline but it still there
... somehow is not available

<yaso> I think we should presume that data can always be back to online environments

phila, please talk not so close of the mic

laufer: issue 63, are we going to describe what archive on th web is?

<phila> phila: I was saying that it's very context dependent. If the URI always pointed to a landing page then update the landing page. If the URI pointed to the data, make it a 303 to a page giving info about the data and how to get it. basic rule - don't just delete and leave us with a 404

laufer: is that on our scope?

phila: we are not archiving on the web

<yaso> +1 to phila

deirdrelee: we are talking about what happen with the identifier

laufer: to me seems that we have a broken link

<ericstephan> Its fine tuning conditions rather than a boolean 404

deirdrelee: it is not necessarly a broken link

laufer: if I archive something it does mean the linke would be broken?

<ericstephan> Yes it would be broken, but it would have an explanation

<phila> phila: I want to avoid broken links, even if the data has been removd

+1 to phila

annette_g: maybe this issue is out of scope

<Zakim> annette_g, you wanted to ask if this issue is specific to data on the web

<ericstephan> +1 phila

annette_g: maybe talking about memento would be ok

<phila> annette_g: It may be reasonable to talk about memento in this context too

phila: I think is about the ??

<ericstephan> it would seem like more of a warning condition as opposed to a fatal error.

annette_g: is it specific to data?

<phila> phila: I think Memento only applies if you have dated data available. I think we're talking about removing data altogether and what happens to the identifier

<ericstephan> good point hadleybeeman

deirdrelee, I can't understand, sorry

<phila> phila: Persistent identifiers don't die, only what they identify

maybe if deirdrelee talk not so close to the mic

deirdrelee: archiving is out of scope?

<deirdrelee> deirdrelee: is addressing how identifiers on the Web are handled after a data resource is no longer on the web in scope?

<ericstephan> error handling bp?

laufer: I don't know if we should have a BP to data being archived

<Zakim> phila, you wanted to offer to write a BP on the topic

laufer: I don't know how this would be resolved

phila: we are not talking about data archiving, but about consistence

<hadleybeeman> I would assume that a request for archived data would return a 410... is that just me?

<phila> phila: Yes, Sumit, that's what we should do

<phila> (I think)

<ericstephan> +1 Sumit_Purohit

Sumit_Purohit: for a BP, if we can explain what had happen to that data in a common sense, instead of saying that data existed it might be more useful
... data has been moved or has been removed for some reason

<ericstephan> give a chance to do real exception handling

annette_g: thinking about what Sumit_Purohit said
... it should be understanded by a machine as well as human
... maybe it is up to us to point something

laufer: for me is the same comment to indicate information not only to humans
... how do people do it today? They put a message saying that page is not here anymore
... is there a standard for that?

ericstephan: this might be an opportunity to the data vocabulary to provide an explanation
... the data usage vocabulary could provide an exaplation for this

<deirdrelee> Draft Proposal: Close issue 62 and 63, Action for Phil to write BP on topic of what happens to identifiers after data resource is no longer online (e.g. through archiving). WG will then decide if this should be included in BP doc, and if it is, should it be separate BP or merged with another BP

annette_g: I think this is more of a publisher side than a user side

<hadleybeeman> +1 to annette_g!!

annette_g: it could be on the BP document

<hadleybeeman> That's what I was going to say. :)

<laufer> I think that someone could have no more access to some data even if it is online

<laufer> because, perhaps, now it is necessary to pay for it, for example

annette_g: we could use the code 410 for something that has been removed

<annette_g> * 410 is "gone"

ericstephan: the way we are looking to the data usage vocabulary is that some useful information should be there
... we can debate it this afternoon
... to me giving the information about what is going on

deirdrelee: we can discuss it this afternoon

<phila> PROPOSED: Close issue 62 and 63, Action for Phil to write BP on topic of what happens to identifiers after data resource is no longer online (e.g. through archiving). WG will then decide if this should be included in BP doc, and if it is, should it be separate BP or merged with another BP

<ericstephan> +1

<riccardoAlbertoni> +1

<annette_g> +1

<laufer> +1

<phila> +1

<hadleybeeman> +1

<deirdrelee> +1

<phila> RESOLVED: Close issue 62 and 63, Action for Phil to write BP on topic of what happens to identifiers after data resource is no longer online (e.g. through archiving). WG will then decide if this should be included in BP doc, and if it is, should it be separate BP or merged with another BP

<BernadetteLoscio_> +1

<phila> CLOSE ISSUE-62

<trackbot> Closed ISSUE-62.

<trackbot_> Closed ISSUE-62.

<phila> close issue-63

<trackbot_> Closed issue-63.

<trackbot> Closed issue-63.

<ericstephan> set up another round again, ever forward!

<hadleybeeman> :)

deirdrelee: issue number 137

The Right to privacy, Issue-137

<phila> issue-137?

<trackbot> issue-137 -- Review BP Preserve person's right to privacy -- open

<trackbot_> issue-137 -- Review BP Preserve person's right to privacy -- open

<trackbot_> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/137

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/137

https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/137

deirdrelee: maybe changing the text

<deirdrelee> ACTION: phila to write BP on topic of what happens to identifiers after data resource is no longer online (e.g. through archiving). WG will then decide if this should be included in BP doc, and if it is, should it be separate BP or merged with another BP [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/04/14-dwbp-minutes.html#action09]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-161 - Write bp on topic of what happens to identifiers after data resource is no longer online (e.g. through archiving). wg will then decide if this should be included in bp doc, and if it is, should it be separate bp or merged with another bp [on Phil Archer - due 2015-04-21].

<trackbot_> Created ACTION-162 - Write bp on topic of what happens to identifiers after data resource is no longer online (e.g. through archiving). wg will then decide if this should be included in bp doc, and if it is, should it be separate bp or merged with another bp [on Phil Archer - due 2015-04-21].

hadleybeeman: I have trouble with this one because is so country specific and culture specific, there is no easy way to make it global

<ericstephan> really good points hadleybeeman

hadleybeeman: it is very dificult to deal with the fact the data should deal with so many jurisdiction and it is so close to legal laws

+1 to hadleybeeman

<riccardoAlbertoni> +1 to hadleybeeman

<hadleybeeman> The topic is too close to us giving legal advice, which isn't in scope for us.

<yaso> +1 to annette_g

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

<ericstephan> +1 that's the approach companies, orgs use (security plans)

annette_g: the BP 19
... it helps people who are more familiarized with the data other than us

<Zakim> hadleybeeman, you wanted to comment that I don't think this is technical

<ericstephan> have we got any advice from the privacy interest group?

hadleybeeman: I am not sure is technical enough to be in the scope here

annette_g: It might help people how to deal with this
... if we could give them some guidance
... focusing on how they might do a security plan

right now the title is very general

scribe: it could explain how a security plan would be

ericstephan: in the commercial industry there are so many approaches
... something that is fine with one kind is not with another

<ericstephan> +1 to Caroline as a footnote bp

<Zakim> phila, you wanted to support Hadley's point

Caroline: proposal to put this as a note (footnote)

<phila> Share-PSI

<hadleybeeman> phila: When were in TPAC, Hadley made similar comments about some of the proposed best practices then. Though it has caused me pain since then, she's right.

<ericstephan> +1 phila->hadleybeeman (pointer reference)

<hadleybeeman> ... That is a link to a best practice that could have been in our document except that we agreed we were only doing technical matters, not policy matters.

<makx> +1 to phil

<hadleybeeman> ...This BP says "security plan". We ruled lots of things out of scope because they were too policy oriented, and to be consistent we should remove this one too.

hadleybeeman: I agree with phila and Caroline

ericstephan: we have talked about that the BP needs to be dataset centered
... this would be an interesting note, but it is not dataset centered
... I would take it out

<phila> Draft proposal - that http://bernafarias.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#PreservePrivacy be deleted, however, reference to the importance of preserviving privacy should be included in the introductory material in the context of the overall policy in which data is made available.

annette_g: I respectly desagree.
... I think it is dataset centered. I think the data publishers in general have to deal with a lot
... I think it is more an issue for publishing data than publishing other formats on the web

deirdrelee: I tend to agree with annette_g
... it might not be as tecnhical centered as others, but it has to be considered
... it doesn't have to be a BP
... but it should be on the BP document

<ericstephan> I understand your point annette_g, but I still don't want it to be a BP

laufer: I thinking that privacy is one of the things that can control the access to data
... we have other things that can control access to data
... maybe we are talking about control of access
... I don't konw if we are talking about access of data and privacy is one of them

<hadleybeeman> "Intended Outcome: Data that can identify an individual person must not be published without their consent."

+1 to hadleybeeman

hadleybeeman: I don't see a way to give any kind of guidance without getting into a legal trouble

<annette_g> +1 to hadley

<hadleybeeman> caroline: What are we proposing?

<deirdrelee> Draft proposal - that http://bernafarias.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#PreservePrivacy be deleted, however, reference to the importance of preserviving privacy should be included in the introductory material in the context of the overall policy in which data is made available.

<hadleybeeman> ...I think "Intended Outcome: Data that can identify an individual person must not be published without their consent." is very clear

Caroline: what is hadleybeeman proposal?

<hadleybeeman> ...The question should be: should we keep it or not?

Caroline: should we keep the section 8.5 on the BP document?

<makx> +000000000000000000000.

<annette_g> -1

phila: we would have to remove 2 BP (19 and 20)

ericstephan: I am wondering if we deduce security, somethings might be available or not
... this data isn't availabe. Maybe we can provide an explanation or not
... instead of security plan, it can envolve all about puting the data on the web

annette_g: I agree that is dangerous to propose specif rules
... I think it is important to mention this issue
... I think it might help the web to be a better place to publish

<annette_g> annette_g:

<ericstephan> +1 BernadetteLoscio_

<annette_g> annette_g: that's why I propose we suggest publishers make a plan

BernadetteLoscio_: I think it we are going to remove the BP 19, we would have to review the entire section

<ericstephan> By +1 I mean revisit, to see what to do

BernadetteLoscio_: I am not against to remove the BP 19, but then we would have to review the BP 20 and discuss what to do with it

<deirdrelee> PROPOSED: that http://bernafarias.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#PreservePrivacy be deleted, however, reference to the importance of preserviving privacy should be included in the introductory material in the context of the overall policy in which data is made available.

<hadleybeeman> +1

<annette_g> -10

<deirdrelee> -1

<laufer> the proposal is to revise...

<makx> +1 to deleting and mention in introduction

<phila> I don't want to delete the BP about unavailability reference

<yaso> -1

-1

<ericstephan> +1

<ericstephan> annette_g used the nuclear option

I think before removing it is important to review it

the entire section

yaso: I think we should take a look more careful of what means a security plan
... maybe we can recommend more technical details to recommend on this issue
... we could split
... there are a lot of W3C recommendations about privacy
... we could remove the word security plan

<deirdrelee> ddraft PROPOSal: that http://bernafarias.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#PreservePrivacy should remain, but rephrased so that it does not give any specific recommendations of HOW it should be achieved, e.g. the consent sentence Hadley referenced

<Zakim> hadleybeeman, you wanted to respond to Yaso

hadleybeeman: I still think we have to be very careful on how we describe the use cases

<ericstephan> draft proposal: that http://bernafarias.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#PreservePrivacy be deleted, and be replaced by BP for sharing datasets and metadata.

hadleybeeman: I am not sure we are talking about data individuals

<laufer> is about of what different types of consumers could see...

deirdrelee: I agree with hadleybeeman

ericstephan: deirdrelee was saying that this is about the publishers and they would have to figure out about the laws and what is privacy or not
... but we should share what should be published or not

<laufer> is about the publishers and the consumers

ericstephan: that might be about data and metadata

<Zakim> hadleybeeman, you wanted to respond to deirdrelee's point about HOW. I think my worries are more about the "when" and the "why".

<ericstephan> okay sorry if I was off topic deirdrelee

deirdrelee, I could'nt understand you, sorry

hadleybeeman: I have a problem about talking about how
... saying to protect personal data of another people causes legal issues
... that feels to me that is out of scope

<Zakim> phila, you wanted to ask what the intended outcome will be

<ericstephan> hadleybeeman +1 yeah for practical advice like https

<phila> Data that can identify an individual person must not be published without their consent.

<yaso> So we should make a note and clearly point to somewhere, so that people can find advice about this

phila: if we change it, talking about only the tecnhical aspects, what would be the intended BP?

<laufer> this is a world law, phil?

annette_g: I think the intended outcome is that data would be published with some thoughs about these issues
... that itself is an important outcome

deirdrelee: if we agree to remove the BP and put a note
... or we could revise the BP

<ericstephan> could we do both?

+1 to ericstephan suggestion

<phila> deirdrelee: We have replacing the BP with a footnote (on Hadley) and we have Deirdre and Annette on rewording the BP. Maybe we take those as actions and then decide

<yaso> I do not agree that this turns in to a footnote, at least I do not agree now...

<ericstephan> add a note and make a new and improved BP

<laufer> if the bp depends on local laws a bp in one place could be a bad practice in another place

<annette_g> I'm happy to work on the BP

<ericstephan> okay

action to ericstephan and hadleybeeman to review the BP thinking about a footnote

<trackbot_> Error finding 'to'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/users>.

<trackbot> Error finding 'to'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/users>.

<deirdrelee> PROPOSED: Action for Hadley & Eric to propose alterantive text if BP is removed. Action for Annetee & Dee to revise BP text if BP remains. Leave Makx's issue open

<deirdrelee> +1

<ericstephan> +1

<hadleybeeman> +1

<yaso> +1

<flavio_> +1

<annette_g> +1

<GiselePappa> +1

<phila> +1

<makx> +1

<laufer> +1

<BernadetteLoscio_> +1

<riccardoAlbertoni> +1

<Sumit_Purohit> +1

<phila> RESOLVED: Action for Hadley & Eric to propose alterantive text if BP is removed. Action for Annetee & Dee to revise BP text if BP remains. Leave Makx's issue open

<ericstephan> we are an agreeable bunch today - even dancing around security issues.

<hadleybeeman> :)

<phila> ACTION: hadley to work with Phil to propose text to replace http://bernafarias.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#PreservePrivacy [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/04/14-dwbp-minutes.html#action10]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-163 - Work with phil to propose text to replace http://bernafarias.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#preserveprivacy [on Hadley Beeman - due 2015-04-21].

<trackbot_> Created ACTION-164 - Work with phil to propose text to replace http://bernafarias.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#preserveprivacy [on Hadley Beeman - due 2015-04-21].

<ericstephan> you were breaking up deirdrelee

<phila> ACTION: annette to work with Dee to propose alternative text for http://bernafarias.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#PreservePrivacy [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/04/14-dwbp-minutes.html#action11]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-166 - Work with dee to propose alternative text for http://bernafarias.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#preserveprivacy [on Annette Greiner - due 2015-04-21].

<trackbot_> Created ACTION-165 - Work with dee to propose alternative text for http://bernafarias.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#preserveprivacy [on Annette Greiner - due 2015-04-21].

deirdrelee: let's talk about the issues 53, 54 and 93

<ericstephan> we are moving ahead on BP issues, and timeline in the remaining time?

<deirdrelee> issue-53

<trackbot> issue-53 -- Whether sla is/can be thought of as part of the licence or whether it needs to be pulled out spearately? -- open

<trackbot_> issue-53 -- Whether sla is/can be thought of as part of the licence or whether it needs to be pulled out spearately? -- open

<trackbot_> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/53

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/53

<deirdrelee> issue-54

<trackbot_> issue-54 -- The term "sla" is vague, undefined, and may not actually represent an agreement between the publisher and reuser -- open

<trackbot> issue-54 -- The term "sla" is vague, undefined, and may not actually represent an agreement between the publisher and reuser -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/54

<trackbot_> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/54

SLAs

<deirdrelee> issue-93

<trackbot> issue-93 -- Free Open Data SLAs for Open Data publishing -- open

<trackbot_> issue-93 -- Free Open Data SLAs for Open Data publishing -- open

<trackbot_> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/93

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/93

<phila> deirdrelee: SLAs not currently included in the BPs

<deirdrelee> PROPOSED: SLAs are not in scope

<deirdrelee> +1

<yaso> Agree. +1

<ericstephan> +1

<NewtonCalegari> +1

<BernadetteLoscio_> +1

<phila> -1, see http://www.w3.org/TR/dwbp-ucr/#R-SLAAvailable

<makx> +1

<flavio_> +1

<GiselePappa> +1

<laufer> but to give metadata for sla is not in the scope?

BernadetteLoscio_: we have other requirements that are not covered. This is not the only one

<annette_g> -1

<laufer> -1

<yaso> Not specific to SLA, I think that is covered, Laufer

deirdrelee: sla is out of scope even though there is a requirement?

<annette_g> can't understand

<BernadetteLoscio_> we cant understand :(

riccardoAlbertoni: I cannot understand you, sorry

<ericstephan> muffled sounding unfortunately

<ericstephan> glossary suggested?

what is the suggestion?

<laufer> I think that license and sla has some common things...

<riccardoAlbertoni> I am proposing to have the definition in the glossary for sla

annette_g: I agree that the term sla is vague an not helpful
... but I think we need to address the issue of availability

<riccardoAlbertoni> becouse It is not clear to me the difference between licence and SLA

BernadetteLoscio_: availability is data quality
... availability is a quality criteria

annette_g: why do you think is data quality?

<phila> I think I agree with Berna

BernadetteLoscio_: availability is another criteria
... in my opinio availability is a dataset and a data quality information

annette_g: I think is a different thing

<phila> +1 to BernadetteLoscio

<yaso> +1 to berna

laufer: I think the sla is the way the consumer could evaluate it
... the consumer need a license

<phila> CHAIR INTERRUPT - BEHAVE!

laufer: to decide about to use it or not.

<phila> +1 to Eric

ericstephan: I need someway to describe the availability of the data
... I think we can discuss wich ways we can do that
... we must have some way of convey that

deirdrelee: even though there is a requirement it is not currently included on the BP
... if it is important to be included, where it should be on the BP document?

<phila> Draft proposal - The the subject of Service Level Agreement be included in the Data Quality work as one way to convey info about accessibility

<Zakim> phila, you wanted to say that SLAs are an aspect of DQ

deirdrelee: should we include in the Glossary a definition

phila: I think we have several agreements. I agree with BernadetteLoscio_ and ericstephan
... keeping the discussion we had yesterdary on data quality

<ericstephan> phila sla as an alternative approach and part of data quality +1

<phila> phila: I am saying that SLAs can be seen as one way to express data quality wrt accessibility and availability. So I suggest the issue is taken up by the Data Quality (vocab) work

<ericstephan> +1 phila

+1 to phila suggestion

<yaso> +1 to phila

<phila> PROPOSAL: Close issue-53 - SLA should nto be referred to in the BP doc as it is distinct from the notion of licence

annette_g: as long as we say we are including a reference. The BP will include what would be in the data quality vocabulary

<phila> annette_g: I can get behind this if the BPs say that we'll include what's in the DQV

annette_g: we should make it clear what the availability is

laufer: we will have a vocabulary to talk about this, but not a BP

annette_g: I suggest we write a BP that refers to the vocabulary

BernadetteLoscio_: this will appears as one of the dimensions to describe data quality

annette_g: I would suggest that we have a BP taht tell us what the availbility is

<phila> I think http://www.w3.org/TR/dwbp/#ProvideDataQuality addresses Annette's point (modulo any updates)

<ericstephan> suggested alternative draft proposal: Close issue-53 - SLA should nto be referred to in the BP doc. SLA can be a dimension of data quality, data availability may be described in other ways in the DQ vocab

BernadetteLoscio_: if we have a vocabulary that describes the availability, then we have it

laufer: we will have a BP taht someone has to give metadata about quality

BernadetteLoscio_: we already have a BP taht information about data quality should be available

+1 to BernadetteLoscio_

<annette_g> +1 to BernadetteLoscio_

<yaso> ack me o/

ericstephan: I suggest that we close this issue. SLA is an alternative way to express data availability. There are simpler ways, that could be described in the data quality vocabulary

yaso: how can we describe availabity in a simple way?

<phila> Dependencies whithin the WG are generally OK. Dependecies on outside WGs can be dangerous

<ericstephan> "Back in ss minutes" concept might be introduced?

<riccardoAlbertoni> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Service-level_agreement

<phila> riccardoAlbertoni: If you want to have an SLA as a quality dimension - OK

<annette_g> q_

<yaso> My question to BernadetteLoscio_ was: is there a simpler or alternative way to provide info about availability of data?

<phila> ... the wiki page pointed to includes some kind oif promise that the publisher makes wrt quality

<phila> [Abba Dancing Queen]

<ericstephan> lol

<deirdrelee> yaso, yes, refer to data quality work..

<phila> riccardoAlbertoni: I wonder if there is more than just measuring the level of service

<phila> ... is an SLA an actual agreement. is it a legal contract and not just quality

<phila> deirdrelee: The SLA isn't just about quality, it's a legal agreement

<yaso> Yes, but if this data quality work does not exist? Suppose that we don't make it. How can I publish information about the availability of my data?

<yaso> (naive question, I know)

<phila> Have a little faith Yaso!

laufer: we have a BP that says 2 ways to provide this information: for humand and for machines
... the BP about providing quality information solves this issue

<phila> deirdrelee: Time's up on this topic

laufer: the BP 8

<phila> deirdrelee: How can we refer to DQV if we don't have it it

<yaso> Trying to have, phila! can't I as a small creator of data just say in specific field: "monthly provided" - maybe a different approach for implementation

<phila> ... we can assume that there will be this work

<yaso> okok, so I'll assume that too :-) phila

<ericstephan> +1 deirdrelee

<phila> deirdrelee: If for some reason the DQV doesn't happen, Ok, we'll deal with it

<annette_g> +1 if there is a BP for publishing data quality info

<phila> ... in terms ofthe SLA issue

deirdrelee: we are going to ericstephan proposed in terms of SLA

<ericstephan> PROPOSAL: Close issue-53 - SLA should not be referred to in the BP doc. SLA can be a dimension of data quality, data availability may be described in other ways in the DQ vocab

<yaso> +1

<ericstephan> sorry

<ericstephan> +1

<annette_g> can the proposal say that we have a BP for quality?

<phila> PROPOSED: Close issue-53 - SLA should not be referred to in the BP doc. SLA can be a dimension of data quality, data availability may be described in other ways in the DQ vocab

<deirdrelee> +1

<phila> +1

<phila> annette_g - see http://www.w3.org/TR/dwbp/#ProvideDataQuality

<riccardoAlbertoni> +0

<annette_g> +1

<laufer> SLA is not a dimension of DQV

<phila> riccardoAlbertoni: My 0 ... it's find me to treat an SLA as a dimension of quality, but it's something different

<annette_g> riccardo is too close to the mic?

<laufer> some aspects of SLA could be covered by dimensions of DQV

<yaso> scribe: yaso

<phila> riccardoAlbertoni: An SLA is a promise between the provider and the consumer

<phila> ... the consumer will receive a certain level of service

tks phila

GiselePappa: Just to say that I agree with Laufer that is not a dimension
... is a way to measure data quality, but is not a dimension

<laufer> +1 to riccardo... and the contract could attend or not the quality needs of the consumer

GiselePappa: I'll try to rewrite it

ericstephan: to me, I'm not getting caught by the term, I would suggest that perhapss that we it falls under a type of data quality but it is just to use a more generic

<GiselePappa> PROPOSED: Close issue-53 - SLA should not be referred to in the BP doc. SLA aspects can be covered by a dimension of data quality, data availability may be described in other ways in the DQ vocab

phila: An SLA is one way to provide info about the quality of data

<ericstephan> +1

<Sumit_Purohit> +1

<annette_g> +1

<riccardoAlbertoni> +1 I agree with phil

<phila> deirdrelee: There's too much uncertainty about what the DQV will offer so we should leave the issues open and come back to them later

<laufer> +1

<phila> ... spoke too soon

<BernadetteLoscio_> +1

BernadetteLoscio_: says that she disagrees of deirdre's proposal

<phila> PROPOSED: Close issue-53 - SLA should not be referred to in the BP doc. SLA can be one way to express data quality across multiple dimensions defined in the DQV

<laufer> do we have a SLA here?

<laufer> +1

<BernadetteLoscio_> +1

<annette_g> +1

<phila> Stop being awkward laufer

<GiselePappa> +1

<Sumit_Purohit> +1

<ericstephan> +

<laufer> hmmmm

<ericstephan> uncertainty quantification needed about data quality, is what we are basically saying

<deirdrelee> draft proposal: data quality vocab includes a note on how data quality can be expressed, e.g. in SLAs, using ODI certs, metadata, etc

<makx> +1 to phil

deirdre: inconcrete terms

<laufer> I agree phil... the sla could not be an explicit thing called sla... but a thing that can be extracted of things thta the publisher say...

<ericstephan> I think we are defining the DQV model right now phila

<makx> call it guarantees

<BernadetteLoscio_> it should be on the BP, no?

<laufer> yes, makx

<annette_g> yes, makx, SLA is not a good term

<phila> PROPOSED: data quality vocab includes methods for expressing data quality, e.g. in SLAs, using ODI certs, metadata, etc

<BernadetteLoscio_> different ways of providing data quality should be possible approaches for implementation

<laufer> SLA is a way to express guarantees...

<ericstephan> phila there seems to be a natural parent concept there ("guarentees"?) and sla a child concept?

BernadetteLoscio_: I think that I'm not sure that the Data Vocabulary is the right place

<makx> yes laufer that's what i wanted to say

<phila> Could be, ericstephan

BernadetteLoscio_: not sure about the right place to put it

<phila> PROPOSED: data quality vocab includes methods for expressing data quality, e.g. in SLAs, using ODI certs, metadata, etc

<phila> +1

<laufer> I am just agreeing with what you said, makx

<annette_g> +1

<laufer> +1

<Sumit_Purohit> +1

<BernadetteLoscio_> 0

<ericstephan> +1

<ericstephan> whaaaa BernadetteLoscio_ ?

<Caroline> scribe: Caroline

<riccardoAlbertoni> +1 let's re-discuss this when we have aversion of data quality vocabulary ..

<deirdrelee> +1

<laufer> a version...

<phila> Close issue-53

<trackbot_> Closed issue-53.

<trackbot> Closed issue-53.

<phila> issue-54?

<trackbot_> issue-54 -- The term "sla" is vague, undefined, and may not actually represent an agreement between the publisher and reuser -- open

<trackbot> issue-54 -- The term "sla" is vague, undefined, and may not actually represent an agreement between the publisher and reuser -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/54

<trackbot_> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/54

<deirdrelee> PROPOSED: close issue 54

<phila> +1

<ericstephan> "aversion" or "a version"?

<annette_g> +1 to close 54

<ericstephan> +1

<BernadetteLoscio_> +1

<GiselePappa> +1

<riccardoAlbertoni> to ericstephan: a version

<riccardoAlbertoni> +1

<phila> RESOLVED: Close issue-54

<deirdrelee> PROPOSED: close issue-93

<ericstephan> okay thanks riccardoAlbertoni :-)

<phila> issue-93?

<trackbot> issue-93 -- Free Open Data SLAs for Open Data publishing -- open

<trackbot_> issue-93 -- Free Open Data SLAs for Open Data publishing -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/93

<trackbot_> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/93

<deirdrelee> +1

<laufer> hello

<laufer> I want to talk about 93

<phila> ACTION: Riccardo to ensure that the DQV document includes SLAs as a possible method for expressing quality [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/04/14-dwbp-minutes.html#action12]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-167 - Ensure that the dqv document includes slas as a possible method for expressing quality [on Riccardo Albertoni - due 2015-04-21].

<trackbot_> Created ACTION-168 - Ensure that the dqv document includes slas as a possible method for expressing quality [on Riccardo Albertoni - due 2015-04-21].

<laufer> 93

<deirdrelee> https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/April_2015_F2F

<phila> close issue-54

<trackbot> Closed issue-54.

<trackbot_> Closed issue-54.

deirdrelee: for the last 15min we will talk about the BP public working draft

BP Doc Time Line

deirdrelee: we have created a lot of actions

<phila> close issue-144

<trackbot> Closed issue-144.

<trackbot_> Closed issue-144.

deirdrelee: the editors must keep on track with the contributors to incorporate them in the document. It is up to the editors to make decisions on what to incorporate or not

<BernadetteLoscio_> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/BP_Document_Schedule

Caroline: asks to everyone to read the proposed schedule so we can discuss it in 2min from now
... it is important to have an agreement on this so the editors can make decisions regarding the discussions/actions/issues and edit the document
... also, if people can contribute direct on github it would very much help the editors

<yaso> phila: would you reconsider opening issues on github for the second round on community feedback?

<BernadetteLoscio_> yes

<Zakim> NewtonCalegari, you wanted to ask about memento and versioning (yesterday topic)

NewtonCalegari: about the memento and versioning
... we must creat an action about it

deirdrelee: go ahead and creat it, NewtonCalegari

NewtonCalegari: ok

scribre: yaso

<yaso> phila: to the BP doc editors

<yaso> ... in there's anything you need to discuss today, say it

<yaso> BernadetteLoscio_: I think that for the proposed scheduled there are 3 improtant things:

<phila> phila: Is there anything stopping the BP editors meeting the 18 May target as described in https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/BP_Document_Schedule

<NewtonCalegari> action newton create a "Possible Approach to Implementation" showing Memento examples

<trackbot_> Created ACTION-169 - Create a "possible approach to implementation" showing memento examples [on Newton Calegari - due 2015-04-21].

<trackbot> Created ACTION-170 - Create a "possible approach to implementation" showing memento examples [on Newton Calegari - due 2015-04-21].

<yaso> ... 1: we are going to try to include the resolutions on the doc, but there are other comments that we need to discuss

<yaso> ... so I suggest that in the next meeting we discuss this issues

<yaso> ... and comments

<yaso> Ahá, the wine!

<deirdrelee> which comments BernadetteLoscio_ ?

<ericstephan> you didn't want us to hear you eating the chocolate

<yaso> lol

<yaso> BernadetteLoscio_: about the comments

<yaso> ... there are comments that are still in discussion

<yaso> ... the second thing is about this examples, it is really important to show

<yaso> ... because people want to see how to do this

<yaso> BernadetteLoscio_: for the next version we would like to see some examples

<yaso> BernadetteLoscio_: I think if we are going thru this is a great improvement for the doc

<yaso> BernadetteLoscio_: for the next version, I think that there is not enough resources to build tests

<yaso> ... for the next draft I think we should consider the comments, the examples and also to consider the things that we discussed during this f2f. The action that we can use to improve this version of the doc

<ericstephan> +1 BernadetteLoscio_

<yaso> ... the tests I think we should leave for the next version

<yaso> -q

<yaso> deirdre: I think that having a couple of examples is the right way to keep going forward

<yaso> deirdre: is a lot easier to get feedback on content that is example

<Zakim> phila, you wanted to ask what comments?

<yaso> phila: BernadetteLoscio_ what comments are you talking about?

<yaso> phila: we have resolved them

<yaso> ... so what are the comments that you need we to look at?

<phila> This is the only open comment in the tracker https://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/68239/WD-dwbp-20150224/3008 And we have talked about Memento already

<yaso> Caroline: I think we have to create an action to put that on the tracker

<yaso> deirdre feedback from the public we should discuss

<phila> acke

<yaso> ericstephan: this examples can be developed while we go with the work

<deirdrelee> ACTION: BernadetteLoscio_ to add all public comments to comment tracker [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/04/14-dwbp-minutes.html#action13]

<trackbot> Error finding 'BernadetteLoscio_'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/users>.

<trackbot_> Error finding 'BernadetteLoscio_'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/users>.

<yaso> ... we are looking for implementations

<deirdrelee> ACTION: Bernadette to add all public comments to comment tracker [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/04/14-dwbp-minutes.html#action14]

<trackbot_> Created ACTION-171 - to add all public comments to comment tracker [on Bernadette Farias Loscio - due 2015-04-21].

<trackbot> Created ACTION-172 - to add all public comments to comment tracker [on Bernadette Farias Loscio - due 2015-04-21].

<yaso> ... why are people publishing or using this best practices

Caroline and NewtonCalegari will help BernadetteLoscio_ with ACTION-171

<yaso> BernadetteLoscio_: I'd like that a small group could work in the examples

<yaso> a task force?

<yaso> agree

<yaso> +1 to BernadetteLoscio_

<yaso> ericstephan: at the dinner we had a good conversation about expertise

<Zakim> phila, you wanted to talk about examples

<yaso> ericstephan: mentioned annette_g as a good example of expertise

<annette_g> I can help

<ericstephan> good point phila +1

<ericstephan> May 18th, Mount Saint Helens (Washington state USA) eruption 35th anniversary for those interested.

<ericstephan> another example of a deliverable

<annette_g> * I wish we could deliver on such short notice

<ericstephan> lol

we will change the schedule according to this discussion

<ericstephan> unfortunately I was in high school at that time phila (still have a jar of ash) :-)

<deirdrelee> PROPOSED: The BP schedule is https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/BP_Document_Schedule

<yaso> BernadetteLoscio_: we did not worked on the how to test section

<yaso> Caroline: maybe we can update this now

<phila> When my manager looks at this group he sees: a UCR, an FPWD of the BP doc and no sign of the two vocabs. We need to prove the (substantial) progress we've made in this meeting.

<yaso> people here wants to keep working

<ericstephan> dissension

<yaso> And work till lunch

<phila> Not lunch yet!

<phila> Just a 10 min break

<ericstephan> only whiskey in texas

<phila> Propose lunch at 12:30 Austin time

<yaso> +1 to phila

<ericstephan> +1

ok! We will change the schedule in 10min

so we can vote it

<deirdrelee> PROPOSED: The BP next PWD to be published on May 18th

no!!!

that is not the proposal!

<yaso> Caroline: strongly disagrees

yes! Thks

<NewtonCalegari> 22 May 2015 Group voting

PROPOSED: Last review of document before publishing it on May 18th

<yaso> +1

<ericstephan> +1

<annette_g> +1

<deirdrelee> +1

rephrasing it

PROPOSED: on May 18th is the deadline for the Last review of document before publishing it. 22th May Group voting the document to be published

<deirdrelee> +1

<phila> PROPOSED : May 18th is the deadline for the Last review of the BP document before publishing it. 22th May Group voting the document to be published

<flavio_> not yet

<yaso> Because people are confabulating on something.

let's rephrase it. Sorry!

Just 2min

<yaso> deirdre: we ARE going to breake

we need 5min

<ericstephan> eleven thirtyish

<ericstephan> okay

<yaso> everybody ready to get back?

<ericstephan> re-docking to the mothership roger

<yaso> Caroline: Just one more minute

The schedule is updated https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/BP_Document_Schedule. We will put the tests on the next schedule.

<yaso> I think is too far away

<yaso> Caroline: can you hear us?

<phila> When do you plan to publish the FPWD of the glossary?

<phila> All we hear is background hubub, nothing we can actually follow

<yaso> deirdre: this is the proposal?

<yaso> BernadetteLoscio_: yes]

<yaso> PROPOSED: to change the schedule to d https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/BP_Document_Schedule

<yaso> sorry guys

<ericstephan> +1

<yaso> PROPOSED: to change the schedule to https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/BP_Document_Schedule

<yaso> BernadetteLoscio_: the glossary is going to be a note, but published together

<yaso> _1 to BernadetteLoscio_

<annette_g> +1 to BernadetteLoscio_

<yaso> I think is a separate document

<laufer> +1

<yaso> _1

<yaso> +q

<Sumit_Purohit> +1 BernadetteLoscio_

<ericstephan> +1 glossary, its information on the web

<phila> PROPOSED: That the Glossary is a separate document (a WG NOTE)

<yaso> deirdre: is the glossary a separate note or it will be published with the BP doc

<yaso> ?

<annette_g> -1

<yaso> +1

<Sumit_Purohit> -1

<yaso> annette_g: I put -1 because I think that it should be part of the document

<phila> annette_g: I think it should be part of the document that it's about. If separate, the BO should make sense without it and the glossary should make sense on its own

<yaso> ... if it is a separate document I think it should make sense on it's own

<BernadetteLoscio_> http://www.w3.org/TR/ld-glossary/

<yaso> BernadetteLoscio_: It is not clear to me what the glossary will be

<yaso> +1

<yaso> BernadetteLoscio_: the idea of the glossary is for us to have an agreement of the terms

<yaso> BernadetteLoscio_: that is why Im surprised

<yaso> laufer: we will publish this agreement because the audience has to understand our agreement

<Sumit_Purohit> +1 for annette_g and BernadetteLoscio_

<yaso> ... I think the glossary is not only for terms that we use at the BP doc, in the other docs of the group we will use the same content

<Zakim> deirdrelee, you wanted to say it applies to all documents in dwbp wg

<yaso> deirdre: I agree with laufer

<phila> deirdrelee: I think the doc should be independent as it applies to all the docs we create

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

<phila> ... what should it be - it's a list if terms

<yaso> ... the document should be independent because I think that the document applies to all the deliverables

<yaso> ericstephan: I'm looking at what yaso has untill now

<yaso> ... if it something like what I'm looking at know, then is just something that people should point or read

<ericstephan> yes we did talk about this yaso, adding mental models as examples in the glossary.

<Zakim> phila, you wanted to make a suggestion (we could do both)

<ericstephan> OPEN THE QUEUE

<ericstephan> :-)

<yaso> BernadetteLoscio_: feels trapped by the closed queue

<BernadetteLoscio_> ==

<BernadetteLoscio_> http://www.w3.org/TR/ld-glossary/

<yaso> phila: q-

<yaso> sorry

<BernadetteLoscio_> example of glossary!

<yaso> annette_g: I think we need to consider what is the audience of the glossary

<ericstephan> initially its for us, to keep us in line for what we decide as a definition... :-)

<yaso> ... if it's made for the people who are reading the document so I think that it should be separated

<yaso> Sumit_Purohit: I think the glossary is a separated material

<yaso> ..I'm

<yaso> trying to

<yaso> Ok, thanks, phila!

<yaso> deirdre: when we have the 1st version

<yaso> ... then we can decide

<yaso> .. if it is ok or not

<NewtonCalegari> if the glossary is a separate doc, should we remove it from BP Schedule and deal with it in a separate schedule as well?

<BernadetteLoscio_> +1 to Newton

<yaso> ok

<deirdrelee> PROPOSED: Glossary should be separate doc from the bp doc

<yaso> +1

<phila> I'd say it can be FPWD when the BP doc is updated

<annette_g> -1 to separate schedule

<phila> +1

<riccardoAlbertoni> +1

<annette_g> we need to publish together

<GiselePappa> +1

<ericstephan> +1

<BernadetteLoscio_> +1

<Ig_Bittencourt> +1

<deirdrelee> +1

<flavio_> 0

<Sumit_Purohit> -1

<laufer> +1

<Ig_Bittencourt> and +1 to annette_g comments to do not have separate schedule.

<phila> PROPOSED: That the glossary is published simultaneously with the next version of the BP doc, with deep links from the BP doc to the relevant terms in the glossary

<yaso> BernadetteLoscio_: we are discussing here that if there are 2 docs, we should have separated schedules

<annette_g> +1 to phil

<yaso> ... this doesn't mean they should not be published together

<flavio_> -1

<Zakim> phila, you wanted to say you can't publish a doc with broken links

<yaso> ... it can be synchronized but I think that is another doc, that has another editor, then it should have a separated schedule

<Sumit_Purohit> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/glossary

<yaso> phila: you cannot publish document in w3c with broken links

<annette_g> you're breaking up

<yaso> tks phila

<yaso> Can't hear

<yaso> ops

<phila> deirdrelee: We can have separate dates but they can be published together

<flavio_> when you publish a thesis, the glossary comes togheter

<BernadetteLoscio_> i agree!

<ericstephan> can we make that a proposal?

<phila> We're actually creating a dependency for the BP doc on the glossary - but that's OK (and quite common)

<ericstephan> ok

<phila> deirdrelee: We have a date in the schedule... let's get the revised version of the glossary completed

<phila> phila: I would urge Yaso to include ids for every term in the glossary

<yaso> yes!

<yaso> No problem

<phila> deirdrelee: Are you OK, yaso, with the date of 23 April for the updated glossary?

<yaso> Yes

<phila> phila: And I'll try and get that para about the mental models done by then ;-)

<deirdrelee> PROPOSED : May 18th is the deadline for the Last review of the BP document before publishing it. 22th May Group voting the document to be published

<yaso> Yes yes, I have full days vacation at NY to do that :-D

<yaso> +1

<deirdrelee> +1

<ericstephan> +1

<laufer> +1

<flavio_> +1

<phila> +1

<Sumit_Purohit> +1

<annette_g> +1

<NewtonCalegari> +1

<BernadetteLoscio_> +1

<GiselePappa> +1

<deirdrelee> RESOLVED: May 18th is the deadline for the Last review of the BP document before publishing it. 22th May Group voting the document to be published

ops

the dates are wrong!

<BernadetteLoscio_> 29 May 2015

Second Draft of DWBP Document 18 May 2015 Freeze the document to be reviewed by the group before publishing it Second Draft of DWBP Document 29 May 2015 Last feedback from the group before publishing it Second Draft of DWBP Document 29 May 2015 Group voting the document

<annette_g> draft proposal: adopt the schedule on the wiki

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

<yaso> I quit from scribbing

<phila> CHAIR INTERRUPT - It was just a typo in the resolution - now fixed

Data Usage Vocabulary

<phila> deirdrelee: We have 3 hours left including lunch/dinner

<phila> deirdrelee: Goals - address as many issues as we can

<phila> deirdrelee: Build the DUV team

<phila> ... look at the schedule

<ericstephan> sounds like a plan!

<phila> deirdrelee: Yesterday we had 90 min lunch - we can't afford that. 40 mins max today

<ericstephan> we are kind of stuck with the accommodations here

<yaso> Agrees with deirdre that we have to stick with the agenda

<yaso> I propose that we go for lunch now

<yaso> And then go back to the data enrichment topic

+1 to yaso proposal

+10 to yaso proposal

<Ig_Bittencourt> 0

<yaso> phila: you are scribing?

<ericstephan> https://docs.google.com/document/d/17Wqrh4SKhFcHPykGPyXlljNNw8WJgMnpwzinvvGXn0o/edit?usp=sharing

<phila> ericstephan: I wanted to go over some of the issues that Dee and I have been talking about

<phila> scribe: phila

ericstephan: Some of the notes are not up to date but it shows the kind of thing we've been looking at
... First thing I wanted to mention... we need another editor - Sumit
... Is this OK with the team?

<deirdrelee> +1 :)

ericstephan: Sumit is a good fit for this team as he and I are working on the same schedule

<Caroline> +1 to Sumit_Purohit as a editor of the data usage vocabulary document

ericstephan: so there's joint motivation, and offers a pair of fresh eyes
... in order to make him editor, do we need to make a proposal?

phila: No - go for it

ericstephan: So I'd like Berna, Sumit and I to walk through https://docs.google.com/document/d/17Wqrh4SKhFcHPykGPyXlljNNw8WJgMnpwzinvvGXn0o/edit#
... We've been talking about data, datasets... it hit me that we're talking about ??
... So I edited the first two paras to talk about datasets, not data

s/dataset usage/dataset usage//

<annette_g> +1 to Eric

PROPOSED: That the 'Data Usage Vocaulary' be renamed the 'Dataset Usage Vocabulary'

<ericstephan> +1

<Ig_Bittencourt> +1 to ericstephan about talk about datasets.

<NewtonCalegari> +1

<Sumit_Purohit> +1

<BernadetteLoscio_> +1

<yaso> +1

<Ig_Bittencourt> +1

<deirdrelee> +1

<makx> +1

RESOLUTION: That the 'Data Usage Vocaulary' be renamed the 'Dataset Usage Vocabulary'

BernadetteLoscio_: If we keep this in mind, it can help the BP doc
... it will be more concrete to apply the BPs

ericstephan: What occurred to me was that we can talk about datasets in the abstract, as a logical unit

<annette_g> lots of nodding going on here

<Zakim> phila, you wanted to make a slightly different proposal on the name

my proposal - the Dataset Usage and Citation Vocabulary

<yaso> think it needs more reading on that so we can vote

phila: Talks about sci data publishing

ericstephan: Can we defer that discission until we've been through the model

phila: Of course

ericstephan: One of the things at the top of the doc - a bunch of observations

<Ig_Bittencourt> I could not understand phil's proposal.

<Ig_Bittencourt> But OK to skip this discussion to later on.

This is hte doc that has Turtle/JSON-LD switch http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/data-shapes-primer/

ericstephan: I like that because it gives the impression that it's not all about Sem Web

<ericstephan> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/153

ericstephan: I'd like to also raise the issue of open and closed data - does the vocab change depending on that?

<Ig_Bittencourt> Thanks deirdrelee.

<Ig_Bittencourt> Thanks Caroline. I am happy to be with you all, even by distance.

<Caroline> thank you ericstephan, great explanation!

deirdrelee: So you mean closed because it's behind a firewall, or legally encumbered or whatever

<annette_g> * waves at Ig

ericstephan: Phil crafted a short section about closed data in the UCR

<Ig_Bittencourt> :)

ericstephan: one of the things in the DUV - some things in the BP talk about when data isn't available

<deirdrelee> http://www.w3.org/TR/dwbp-ucr/#a-word-on-open-and-closed-data

<Caroline> ericstephan: would be the difference between open data regarding the concept of the 5 stars and closed data as data that are not inclued on this concept?

<deirdrelee> +1 for including closed data

annette_g: Just to clarify - do you mean datasets that may or may not be open?

ericstephan: We might have been working on proprietary projects behind the firewall
... One of the first use cases in the doc was about different jurisdictions having different levels of sharing
... I don't think this is sophisticated, just a couple of classes to formalise it

<ericstephan> ack

<Caroline> +q

<Ig_Bittencourt> According to the concept of closed data in de ucr doc, it is also related to the concept of deep web - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Web

ericstephan: The DUV is more about capturing feedback, providing info to publishers, not so much for machines

<Sumit_Purohit> +q

<ericstephan> ack

annette_g: It's important where I work to be able to say that some work you have dine has been cited by other researchers
... by the DoE or whoever
... you may do things at your end to make it easy to use but without a way to report back you won't know

<ericstephan> ack

annette_g: as the person publishing the original work, I don't know whether you have used my data or not

Sumit_Purohit: I want to capture what the use is. We staretd with the UCR, if it's BP for publishing, then how many times it has been used is not part of the publisher's BP
... Publishgers don't just vocabs, they provide a feedback mechanism, even if it's just a natural language field

Sorry, Sumit, I lost that

<ericstephan> sorry BernadetteLoscio you are next

annette_g: Publishers want to know that fact that their data has been used at all

Sumit_Purohit: If you know the exact usage then you can create a template

annette_g: If you're the original publisher... how do they find out that it's been used

ericstephan: I think we're going as far as making it possible

Sumit_Purohit: If you share someething on G+ or facebook, you get feedback - you know if it's shared
... That kind of mechanism would be good
... it requires that every usage has its own identifier

BernadetteLoscio: The BP in the doc we say that the publisher should provide a feedback mechanism so we'll link to the DUV

<Ig_Bittencourt> I remember a discussion in this way, related to pingbak (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pingback) and semantic pingback (http://aksw.org/Projects/SemanticPingback.html)

<ericstephan> phila: ok

<Ig_Bittencourt> Perhap a BP could be to apply some pingback mecanism.

<ericstephan> can we propose something briefly? attempt?

ericstephan: I'd like to resolve the open/closed data issue

<ericstephan> PROPOSED: Explore the inclusion of open/closed data indicators in the data usage vocabulary.

<annette_g> +1

<Ig_Bittencourt> +1

<BernadetteLoscio> +1

<GiselePappa> +1

<flavio_> +1

<ericstephan> +1

<Sumit_Purohit> +1

<NewtonCalegari> +1

<laufer> phil, I am saying that for open data is difficult to have a way to identify the usage

<annette_g> gee, I wish there were a vocabulary for that

<laufer> when we have ids for users, or controlled data provided by apis we can control this... but with open data is difficult...

PROPOSED: Include open/closed data indicators in the data usage vocabulary.

<yaso> +1

<Caroline> +1

<ericstephan> +1

<annette_g> +1

<riccardoAlbertoni> +1

<flavio_> +1

<ericstephan> thank you :-)

<GiselePappa> +1

<laufer> +a

<Sumit_Purohit> +1

<BernadetteLoscio> +1

<Sumit_Purohit> +1 for Phil's point.....we need to look into this

<ericstephan> +1

phila: I undertsand now - it's whether the feedback that the data has been used is public or not
... That makes sense.

PROPOSED: Include open/closed indicators for feedback/usage info in the data usage vocabulary.

<ericstephan> +1

<annette_g> +1

<Ig_Bittencourt_> 0

<ericstephan> protecting feedback and constraining usage information

<deirdrelee> +1

<laufer> +1

<Caroline> +1

RESOLUTION: Include open/closed indicators for feedback/usage info in the data usage vocabulary.

<makx> some feedback serives ask you two questions: 1. do you want your feedback to be visible and 2. do you want your name to be visible or make the feedback anonymously

<yaso> 40 minutes

<yaso> ?

<yaso> 1h?

deirdrelee: We'll break for lunch. We will finsih at 15:00 Austin (21:00 Ipswich, 22:00 Barcelona)

We'll try and rush lunch

deirdrelee: So we'll aim for 20 past the hour

to reconvene

==LUNCH==

<Caroline> thank you!

<Sumit_Purohit> +1 laufer . consumer knowing feedback is open/close also affects the feedback level

<Ig_Bittencourt_> by

<Ig_Bittencourt_> bye

<GiselePappa> Hi all, most of us are still at lunch, we split to get things faster

OK... we have a hard finish in 75 mins - but that doesn't stop you carrying on ;-)

<ericstephan> would it be possible to continue discussing the data usage vocabulary at Friday's call if we run out of time?

<yaso> We're back

Restarting

deirdrelee: Explains that we have just over an hour to go in Ipswich. After that, the folks in Austin can decide if t hey want to continue

ericstephan: Will it be possible to continue the DUV issues on Friday's meeting?

<GiselePappa> deirdrelee: Are we talking about data enrichment? It is really important to our group to have a position from the WG

deirdrelee: Yes, of course. friday meetings will focus on the issues and revise the actions
... Friday meetings will be dedicated to each of the docs - i.e. one doc per meeting
... So this Friday - if we have a meeting - we could focus on DUV
... but while so many folk are together, it's quicker than on the call
... I'll leave it to you Eric. I'll interrupt at 10 to the hour to wrap up the meeting
... We had enrichment in the agendsa but we didn't get to it. You can discuss it after 15:00 Texas time or on Friday, but not in the next hour

<ericstephan> draft data vocab document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/17Wqrh4SKhFcHPykGPyXlljNNw8WJgMnpwzinvvGXn0o/edit?usp=sharing

<ericstephan> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/154

issue-154?

<trackbot_> issue-154 -- Handling data usage references to collection of datasets -- open

<trackbot> issue-154 -- Handling data usage references to collection of datasets -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/154

<trackbot_> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/154

ericstephan: I'd like to close this, but I'd like to have subclasses that may be more specialised

<Sumit_Purohit> +q

BernadetteLoscio: The idea was to have feedback on the dataset or parts of the dataset

<ericstephan> PROPOSED: Close http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/154 because a dataset is a collection of data.

<annette_g> +1

Sumit_Purohit: In addition to what Eric was saying, DCAT says a dataset is a collection of things. Anyone can say things about a collection

<ericstephan> +1

Sumit_Purohit: on the top classes thing... (sorry, lost it)
... WE have an issue about the classes and properties - even among the 3 of use we have things to discuss

BernadetteLoscio: See section 5

<Sumit_Purohit> +1 for closing this issue

PROPOSED: Close Issue-154 because a dataset is a collection of data.

<Sumit_Purohit> +1

<ericstephan> +1

RESOLUTION: Close Issue-154 because a dataset is a collection of data.

close issue-154

<trackbot> Closed issue-154.

<trackbot_> Closed issue-154.

<Caroline> +1

<deirdrelee> issue-155?

<trackbot> issue-155 -- Target audience for vocabulary -- open

<trackbot_> issue-155 -- Target audience for vocabulary -- open

<trackbot_> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/155

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/155

<ericstephan> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/155

ericstephan: Scrolling down to Intro and Audeince

<ericstephan> ack

ericstephan: Talks about the fact that the BP doc is aimed at publishers

annette_g: I think the audience for this doc is users

<yaso> phila: we agree that there are no users. Just data consumers :-)

annette_g: From my own POV, you put data on the Web for other people to use, but I want to see how people are using it and that requires them to use something like the DUV

<yaso> oops it was for annette_g

<Sumit_Purohit> +q

phila: It is in the interests of publishers ot make it easy to use the DUV, so they too are part of the audience

"This vocabulary also recommends and requires data publishers to provide a mechanism of receiving data usage from data consumers in the form of feedback,citation and data correction.

<annette_g> PROPOSED: that the primary audience for the DUV is consumers of data and that data publishers are also in the audience.

<deirdrelee> -1

<laufer> -1

PROPOSED: That the purpose of the DUV is to foster mutually beneficial communication between data publishers and users and therefore the audience for this document is both

ericstephan: If user A is doing something with their data and they can provide user info to user B, it's not something that can be published formnally but it is data that can be shared

(Can't hear Sumit)

<laufer> phil, I think other metadata types also foster the communication...

<laufer> oh...

<laufer> I am talkim about the proposal

<laufer> talking

Then change it... :-)

<Zakim> deirdrelee, you wanted to say bp doc audience is ' those who publish data on the Web. '

<Sumit_Purohit> sumit: We should provide examples of "collaborator" in the docuement

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

deirdrelee: I think we had a similar discussion about the BP doc
... the audience was mainly publishers. To me, the DUV is mainly by publishers to facilitate users to provide feedback, but the publishers are the key ones
... it's a metadata spec. It's up to the publishers to provide the interfaces using the vocab
... users don't need to know the spec - publishers do

ericstephan: I know where you're coming from. I agree - it's more of an AND than an OR
... You can have publishers and producers, who may want usage info... more like a collaborator... I'm not disagreeing - it can be for any community

deirdrelee: OK

annette_g: The question about collaborators to report their uses or make data available... if you're actually collaborating, you probably already know each other
... I;m not sure that it's a separate use case
... I think I'd agree with Deirdre that hte publishers have to take the first actions to make this work
... My feeling is that it's both
... And to Eric, I think you become the publisher - I don't mean random House, I mean people posting the data

<yaso> find terms that need to be in the glossary

ericstephan: I think part of our job will be to define terms that need to be in the glossasry

<Caroline> BernadetteLoscio: the glossary should be a collaborative work

<Caroline> ... as the audience we keep both

<Caroline> deirdrelee: does ericstephan think the editors have enough answers?

<Caroline> ericstephan: yes, we can close it

issue-155?

<trackbot> issue-155 -- Target audience for vocabulary -- open

<trackbot_> issue-155 -- Target audience for vocabulary -- open

<trackbot_> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/155

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/155

<ericstephan> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/156

PROPOSED: Close Issue-155 as the audience is both publishers and consumers

<ericstephan> +1

<yaso> +1

<deirdrelee> +1

<Caroline> +1

<GiselePappa> +1

<laufer> +1

<ericstephan> thank you phila

RESOLUTION: Close Issue-155 as the audience is both publishers and consumers

<ericstephan> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/156

close issue-155

<trackbot> Closed issue-155.

<trackbot_> Closed issue-155.

<deirdrelee> issue-156?

<trackbot_> issue-156 -- Protocol for referring to related efforts -- open

<trackbot> issue-156 -- Protocol for referring to related efforts -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/156

<trackbot_> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/156

ericstephan: How do we refer to related efforts
... One of the concers that I have is how to refer to other usage models...
... if we reference these things in our recommendations, will we have problems with IPR etc.

phila: This is a Note, so rules aren't so tight, but you shouldn't refer to proprietary software or tech
... It depends on the circumstances

deirdrelee: In the DCAT-AP work, there's a lot of talk about two datasets that are related
... might be worth looking at that and how they relate different datasets

ericstephan: I think we can stay away from proprietary refs easily enough

deirdrelee: We can go back to the scope. Formats out, standards in, as long as we don't close it

<ericstephan> CLOSE ISSUE 156

Close issue-156

<trackbot> Closed issue-156.

<trackbot_> Closed issue-156.

<ericstephan> issue-156 close

<deirdrelee> issue-153?

<trackbot> issue-153 -- Should open/closed data be addressed in the Data Usage Vocabulary? -- open

<trackbot_> issue-153 -- Should open/closed data be addressed in the Data Usage Vocabulary? -- open

<trackbot_> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/153

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/153

<deirdrelee> close issue-153

<trackbot> Closed issue-153.

<trackbot_> Closed issue-153.

<ericstephan> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/157

<deirdrelee> issue-157?

<trackbot> issue-157 -- Considering other kinds of data usage -- open

<trackbot_> issue-157 -- Considering other kinds of data usage -- open

<trackbot_> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/157

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/157

Sumit_Purohit: We have tried to identify the relevant use cases...
... we have data being citable
... usage of data, ability to get feedback
... how it's used, was it easy to use, difficult to use etc.
... we tried to identify all our existing use cases
... We think we should base it on our existing use cases

deirdrelee: What's the question Sumit_Purohit?
... do you want new use cases?

<deirdrelee> https://docs.google.com/document/d/17Wqrh4SKhFcHPykGPyXlljNNw8WJgMnpwzinvvGXn0o/edit

laufer: Can you have a foaf:Agent that is not connected to a usage?

BernadetteLoscio: An application is a kind of usage
... We looked at how we can describe an application that uses data
... We can have other types of usage that are not here
... You don't always have feedback

(Berna and Laufer discussed further)

ericstephan: we don't have cardinalities yet

Sumit_Purohit: An issue we have seen that we want to discuss is ...

Sorry Sumit_Purohit I missed what it was you wanted to discuss

ericstephan: We have the use cases that motivate the creation of the DUV already

<riccardoAlbertoni> s/morivate/motivate

deirdrelee: We couldn't catch everything said

Sumit_Purohit: Let's look at 4.3.1

<deirdrelee> 4.3.1 in https://docs.google.com/document/d/17Wqrh4SKhFcHPykGPyXlljNNw8WJgMnpwzinvvGXn0o/edit

Sumit_Purohit: We are proposing to include citation as part of the usage

phila: For me it definitely is - it was a motivation for forming the WG!

<deirdrelee> trackbot,

ericstephan: We're looking at citation. Now, citation can be used in so many ways
... Can we see citation as a form of feedback?

BernadetteLoscio: If we're going to include citation - what should we provide?

<Sumit_Purohit> +1 BernadetteLoscio

-> http://htmlpreview.github.io/?https://github.com/joejimbo/HCLSDatasetDescriptions/blob/master/Overview.html

<ericstephan> BernadetteLoscio:

phila: Banged on about dataCite, PDFs, DOIs etc.

<ericstephan> deirdrelee: I saw your note

phila: There is a lot on this already. We know how to do it, it's how we include it in the DUV

ericstephan: We're not going to complete everything today.
... do we have time tio talk about scheduling

phila: is keen to talk schedules

DUV Schedule

ericstephan: You've got the UML diagram, then the classes

<deirdrelee> uml diagram in section 6 https://docs.google.com/document/d/17Wqrh4SKhFcHPykGPyXlljNNw8WJgMnpwzinvvGXn0o/edit

<deirdrelee> Data Usage schedule: https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Data_usage_schedule

ericstephan: We are going to need to reuse the DQV. If it's not there, we'll have to roll our own

<ericstephan> https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Data_usage_schedule

ericstephan: You'll see that the first darft of the vocab will be available tomorrow

deirdrelee: It's there - just in a Google doc

ericstephan: By may 18, we'll have our first draft done and ready for WG review
... so there's a lot to do

Ig said yesterday that he's interested in helping

<Ig_Bittencourt> Yes. I can help if you think it would be interesting.

phila: is willing, it's a question of availability. I am certainbly interested in this work

I can try and take care of the citation part

BernadetteLoscio: Over to you on that then Phil

30 seconds

<Zakim> deirdrelee, you wanted to wrap up...

<yaso> deirdre dont forget the data enrichnment :-D

<yaso> I can make it, phila

<yaso> scribe: yaso

<ericstephan> :-) thank you for keeping us to time deirdrelee you've been a great task master :-)

<phila> Austin is empowered to carry on talking after 15:00 local, including taking resolutions.

deirdre, do you want me to chair this last section?

<deirdrelee> issue-151?

<trackbot> issue-151 -- Connections of the data enrichment work of inweb (ufmg) to the deliverables of the wg -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/151

Data Enrichment

GiselePappa: just to make clear: our group entered the WG after the work began

<GiselePappa> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jnD5eiq8Xk5ftUMWWfvBb6QXI0N4igx0bbidGkzF2L0/edit?usp=sharing

GiselePappa: we did not wanted to disturb the amazing work that you are making
... we concluded that it was not a good idea to propose something on data enrichment
... we discussed this a little with some people of the WG
... we would like to have BP in the current document that simply says that "when you publish data you should enrich data"
... but link to some advice on data enrichment that would be a note
... is difficult to say do this or do that because it is something that is always changing

deirdre: if we look at the content we see that there are things that we can bring to deliverables of the wg
... maybe the focus is that data can be enriched

<Zakim> phila, you wanted to distinguish between enabling enrichment and actually enriching. Cf. data preservation

phila: thisis interesting and I think that the details that we are discussing

<BernadetteLoscio> R-DataEnrichment: It should be possible to perform some data enrichment tasks in order to aggregate value to data, therefore providing more value for user applications and services.

phila: are interesting and I think that there are aspects of this that are in scope
... so I think that it would be important to learn from you

<deirdrelee> phila: similar to data archiving is out of scope, but persistent identifiers is in scope, detailed data enrichment is out of scope, but elements of data enrichment could be in scope

<deirdrelee> ...this could be an entirely new working group

phila: data enrichment seems to be a new wg

<ericstephan> https://www.arm.gov/publications/tech_reports/doe-sc-arm-tr-093.pdf example of this in the climate research community

<deirdrelee> ...for this group its about enabling data enrichment,and making people aware of data enrichment

phila: and you work would be very interesting and inside the scope

<deirdrelee> ... this is very important for this group

annette_g: data enrichment is important to data that is not big data

<ericstephan> +1

annette_g: most of the description here is about a type of analysys that is not in our scope

GiselePappa: first, regarding what phila said, I think we can be great providers of metadata, you could use metadata or provide metadata
... our document has a bias on machine learning of course, because it is what we do
... but when we saw that data on the web we thought "we fit in that" because all we do is Data on The Web
... I feel that we fit in the group, otherwise its better to go for another group

<ericstephan> the reference I provided is a data enrichment process provided for the last 30 years

GiselePappa: because sometimes I feel like if we do not provide some useful knowledge to the group

deirdre data enrichment is important, we just have to find the best way to incorporate it in our document

annette_g: I am a little bit concerned about the parts of the document that do not fit to the wg

+1 to annette_g

GiselePappa: I think actually is not that doesn't work for us
... so I think we can collaborate on the document
... we are trying to do things together
... we want to know if the group is interested in doing things like this
... we propose to have some best practices on data enrichment

Caroline: I was going to say something similar to what GiselePappa said
... we can think on some specific topics about data enrichment
... maybe we can write this as a bp an see how this goes
... it would be easier to the group

deirdre maybe on that point GiselePappa if you can talk to phil it would be a good idea

<Caroline> ok

scribe: and that closes our topic for today

and thank you all :-D

<phila> deirdrelee: Closes the transAtlantic meeting. Austin may continue

<phila> deirdrelee: Let's have a meeting on Friday and focus on DUV

<deirdrelee> PROPOSED: This Friday meeting on DUV

<ericstephan> +1

<BernadetteLoscio> +1

<Caroline> +1

<phila> =1

<laufer> +1

<GiselePappa> +1

<riccardoAlbertoni> +1

<phila> +1

<Ig_Bittencourt> +1

<ericstephan> thank you!

<phila> RESOLVED: This Friday meeting on DUV

<phila> Please continue scribing!

<laufer> bye deirdre!!! tnx

deirdre yes, we are going to continue

<riccardoAlbertoni> thanks all for the interesting discussions... bye

<GiselePappa> nice meeting you. bye

<BernadetteLoscio> thanks!!!

<Ig_Bittencourt> bye deirdrelee

<phila> Signing off from Ipswich

<annette_g> bye! thanks!

Bye!!!

<Ig_Bittencourt> I will try to continue (at least seeing) if the internet let me.

5 min break

====

<Ig_Bittencourt> I think I do not have the access to add comments to the DUV doc in the Google docs.

<Ig_Bittencourt> Zzzzzzz

<ericstephan> we are awake again

<Ig_Bittencourt> :)

<ericstephan> escriba: ericstephan

<ericstephan> scribe: ericstephan

<yaso> Chair: yaso

<BernadetteLoscio> Ig?

escriba: ericstephan

<scribe> scribe: ericstephan

<Ig_Bittencourt> I am here. But I did not see any discussion yet. Not sure if it is an internet problem.

discussion from GiselePappa about role of data enrichment as a best practice and a potential working group proposal at some point

hi Ig_Bittencourt should we call in again?

yaso: its important to publish
... folks are doing this stuff, data on the web has something to do with this.

<Ig_Bittencourt> Hi ericstephan, the problem seems to be my net.

GiselePappa: if you put one best practice saying data should be enriched you create all sorts of options.

<laufer> we are connecting audio again, ig

GiselePappa: I can give a proposed best practice to see what you think?

<yaso> Ig, are you on hangout or skype?

sumit: some of the best practices are about data enrichment. We could apply data enrichment to this.

GiselePappa: I am still about a broader concept.

yaso: let's continue talking to phila about this.

BernadetteLoscio: we are going to create a section for the data usage.

<yaso> ACTION: GiselePappa to create a section on the BP document about data enrichment [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/04/14-dwbp-minutes.html#action15]

<trackbot> Error finding 'GiselePappa'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/users>.

The document should be in the same place as a note for the w3c

<NewtonCalegari> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/users

<Caroline> yaso: we will work until 4:30 pm

DUV

http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/157

<yaso> scribe: yaso

issue 157

action 157

<NewtonCalegari> action-157

<trackbot> action-157 -- Phil Archer to Work with hadleybeeman to revise the bp on http://www.w3.org/tr/dwbp/#provideuniqueidentifiers and make new suggestions -- due 2015-04-21 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/157

<ericstephan> https://docs.google.com/document/d/17Wqrh4SKhFcHPykGPyXlljNNw8WJgMnpwzinvvGXn0o/edit#

<GiselePappa> action GiselePappa Create BP for data enrichment

<trackbot> Created ACTION-173 - Create bp for data enrichment [on Gisele Pappa - due 2015-04-21].

ericstephan: what we got is application class that BernadetteLoscio wrote
... data usage is different from feedback
... it provides information about how do you use the data
... I could explore what apps uses my type of file
... so it structures information about how to use the data
... one from the point of the user, other from the point of the publisher

SumitPurohit: is that data usage or data feedback

BernadetteLoscio: feedback is when you are going to say something about a dataset that you use
... data usage: you can have data usage from the point of view from the consumer,
... the other thing is the readme file. It is how to use the dataset. It is provided by the publisher
... given by the data publisher and shows how to use a dataset.
... feedback can be an opinion, rating, we can use quality criteria to provide feedback
... citation can be a type of feedback, but I'm not sure

ericstephan: if you have a dataset and I used your dataset
... and I published a feedback considering your data

<ericstephan> yaso: have you looked at the annotation working group Eric?

<ericstephan> ericstephan: no we haven't , but we need to

laufer: when we have a feedback
... the citation is the link between some usage and the dataset
... we need to have a reverting thing to say why this guy used this dataset
... why did you use a citation on a thesis

<Ig_Bittencourt> If we look at a classical information life cycle (create, colect, store, process, distribute, consume, recicle), there are different types of use of a dataset and also by different agents (i.e. foaf:Agent).

<ericstephan> http://rdfs.org/sioc/spec/ Semantically-Interlinked Online Communities,

BernadetteLoscio: I wanted to say that If i write a paper and I have a reference there, it does not mean that this is a feedback on a paper

+1 to Berna

<Caroline> +1 to BernadetteLoscio

<Ig_Bittencourt> +1 to BernadetteLoscio

ericstephan: It's all about the dataset, so to me in terms of feedback,
... you provided a citation to show provenance
... in terms of feedback it can be a paper that maybe discuss a quality of a dataset

laufer: maybe it is a good or bad feedback but why would someone cite my name?

SumitPurohit: there is different levels of citations that you could use

<Ig_Bittencourt> I agree to ericstephan, but this one way of using citation. For example, I can use the feedback of another user (i.e. an instance of the duv) about the same dataset that I am providing a feedback.

SumitPurohit: ... that citation worth something

BernadetteLoscio: I just don't know when I have a citation about a dataset
... if this is always a feedback

<Ig_Bittencourt> ... So, there are different ways with different purpose of using citations.

BernadetteLoscio: I'm not sure if you will always have a feedback on this

ericstephan: we already have dublincore references in DCAT

BernadetteLoscio: I'm not sure if we discussed this before
... datasets will have different versions and different distributions
... the data usage information that we provide for a dataset will be the same for every distributions
... and if we have different versions of the same datasets then feedback should refers to the version?

<Ig_Bittencourt> But I can give a feedback about a specific version of a dataset, for example, discussing about the quality of the data available in this new version.

ericstephan: if I change a file

SumitPurohit: one thing that we should put in the glossary that citation is about using a complete DCAT dataset
... that's what we are defining here

<scribe> scribe: NewtonCalegari

<ericstephan> action SumitPurohit to make update to glossary for new data usage terms: citations, data producer, consumer, publisher etc

<trackbot> Created ACTION-174 - Make update to glossary for new data usage terms: citations, data producer, consumer, publisher etc [on Sumit Purohit - due 2015-04-21].

BernadetteLoscio: it's hard to define when we are going to have feedback
... maybe it's interesting to get the data of the feedback
... the properties of the dcat definition isn't enough
... we could extend and create good definitions for dataset

<BernadetteLoscio> http://htmlpreview.github.io/?https://github.com/joejimbo/HCLSDatasetDescriptions/blob/master/Overview.html

BernadetteLoscio: looking at the document that phila shared with us
... in the doc they say that the DCAT is used to describe datasets and catalogs
... but it's, in fact, enough, and they need to combine with others vocabs
... and if necessary, extend to new properties
... they have a citation section as well

ericstephan: I agree that we could create an action

close issue-158

<trackbot> Closed issue-158.

action ericstephan read the citation section on the "Dataset Descriptions: HCLS Community Profile" document

<trackbot> Created ACTION-175 - Read the citation section on the "dataset descriptions: hcls community profile" document [on Eric Stephan - due 2015-04-21].

<ericstephan> http://rdfs.org/sioc/spec/

ericstephan: about references
... it's interesting that it has a model that might be useful for feedback

<ericstephan> propose that we look at this for feedback

ericstephan: in this document http://rdfs.org/sioc/spec/

BernadetteLoscio: different vocabs cover different aspects
... maybe we don't need to create new ones, we can just see others and use them

act ericstephan

<ericstephan> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/159

issue-159

<trackbot> issue-159 -- Is R-QualityOpinions more of a Data Usage Vocabulary concept? -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/159

ericstephan: antoine replied back about this issue
... saying that it is part of data quality
... if we don't have data quality concepts, we need to create

<ericstephan> close issue-159

<trackbot> Closed issue-159.

BernadetteLoscio: I agree, and we need to keep in mind that for the first version we aren't going to have a definition yet
... maybe we can have some examples to illustrate those concepts

issue-157

<trackbot> issue-157 -- Considering other kinds of data usage -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/157

<ericstephan> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/157

BernadetteLoscio: is it related to the "README" thing?
... as we discussed earlier, application is data usage from the consumer POV
... and the readme file is on how to use or consume the data

SumitPurohit: the readme file come from the publish POV, and sometimes it can get confused

laufer: I think readme file is for humans, it's a kind of metadata
... if we have an API, we need instructions on how to use it
... how can I guide someone who is going to use the data?
... I can have instructions only about the data, explain some points
... but we don't have any kind of guide on how to use the data
... because consumer can use in whatever way he wants

ericstephan: a lot of scientists use readme in their data and applications
... we don't need to use readme, but I like the ideia of having a template

BernadetteLoscio: when we say metadata should be provided in human readable, is it related to the readme file?

laufer: what kind of metadata you could put on a readme file?

ericstephan: can put instructions, FAQuestions

BernadetteLoscio: we have a description of a dataset when we talk about metadada
... what I think is that can have more information on a readme file than on a metadata to describe the dataset

ericstephan: I like the ideia of apply instructions

laufer: maybe a few of the information on a readme file, we already cover on other BP related to metadata for humans

<yaso> Rssagent, generate minutes

<yaso> So, we are closing the meeting with the last survivors

<Caroline> bye! :)

<BernadetteLoscio> bye!!!

<yaso> bye!!! thank you!!!

<laufer> bye all, nice weekend

tchuß

<flavio> Ciao !

- DRAFT -

DWBP Face to Face Day 2

14 Apr 2015

Attendees

Contents

Tech Bias in our docs

Archiving and Preservation

The Right to privacy, Issue-137

SLAs

BP Doc Time Line

Data Usage Vocabulary

Restarting

DUV Schedule

Data Enrichment

DUV

Summary of Action Items

Scribe.perl diagnostic output