See also: IRC log
we discussed to use gotomeeting for the phone bridge and IRC for scribing. Self introductions have been sent to the list
http://www.w3.org/community/bpmlod/wiki/Topic_classification
dom: like to have a telco for each topic. Want to publish that as a white paper on best practices
discussing http://www.w3.org/community/bpmlod/wiki/Topic_classification
dave: development of topics vs. development of use cases - how to manage that?
jose: list of topics is a dynamic
part. use cases is seperate
... tools can be links to implementation
... in rome people suggested that we talk about these aspects,
that is why I put it here
dave: agree, localization can be
an important use case
... so better put this as a use case rather than a topic
... question: about publishing - is this publishing of LOD or
content in general?
jose: multilingual publishing in
general
... what is the relation between multilingual LOD and
multilingual publishing
dave: publishing of content is
like a use case
... publishing of multilingual LOD is an important best
practices
... here we can look into what comes out of META-NET and e.g.
DCAT
dcat see http://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-dcat/
meta-net see http://www.meta-net.eu/meta-share
jose: so move these topics to use cases?
dave, jorge agree
<scribe> ACTION: jose to move topics as discussed at http://www.w3.org/2013/06/20-bpmlod-irc#T07-29-44 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/06/20-bpmlod-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Sorry, but this channel isn't in my configuration.
people on the call agre on the general items of the topic classification
sebastianH: wrt to topics - will we also talk about organization aspects, licensing etc.
dave: these might be best practices
jorge: will not avoid these topics, but thinks like licensing that are general to linked open data will not be focus here
jose: agree
sebastianH: for licensing we can liase with open data / linguistic group
see above link
sebastianS: licensing is just one
aspect
... but there are other non technical aspects
dom: licensing on multilingual LOD is interesting. focus here is technical. but having a section about licensing is ok, if people want to discuss that. Do people agree?
jose: a section "non technical aspects"?
phil: we also want to drive adoption
dave: agree. If we have pointers about non technical issues, that will help for adoption
dom: I will add in a non-technical aspects about licensing & legal issue
phil: do we have a target date for publishing?
dom: depends on people
avail.
... we plan a bi monthly meeting
... 4 months - aiming for an initial draft by fall this
year
phil: sounds good
milestones here http://www.w3.org/community/bpmlod/wiki/Main_Page
dom&jorge: want to keep to these milestones
michael: question on scope of
group
... it is called "linked open data" - are we talking about
"linked data" in general?
dom: the charter says "Best
Practices for Multilingual Linked (Open) Data (BP-MLOD)"
... "open" is in brackets
... I would hope that what we prouce can apply to both types of
data sets
jose: agree
sebastianH: "open" has various
facets, e.g. "open access" via HTTP
... that is different from "open" in the legal sense
dom: will you add a paragraph on the charter about that?
sebastianH: yes
<scribe> ACTION: sebastianH to add a paragraph to the charter about what "open" means [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/06/20-bpmlod-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Sorry, but this channel isn't in my configuration.
see sebastianH docuemnt at http://de.slideshare.net/kurzum/linked-data-for-abbreviations-and-segmentation
michael: will we have example data?
jose: agree that this is a good
approach, I often use a toy example
... in terms of implementation I'm not sure since we are a best
practices group
michael: a BP which is theoretical is not helpful for me
discussion about what we can do in terms of offical w3c standardization
dom: let's do BP by autumn
... if people are then interest let's do examples, data,
implementations
dave: agree wrt to "update"
mentioned by phil
... trying applying things is then helpful
felix: how about having a section
on the wiki with data examples
... these can help also veryfing the BP
<daveL> +1 on assembling examples as we go along
chaals: problems that we can
address wrt to what is open data and what is not open
... so we will not reject anything just because it does not
conform to some definition of linked "open" data
... I'd hope that we describe from what people actually
do
... should be looking at actual problems
... as the starting point
dom: topic classification is what
we extracted from rome
... chaals, do you feel that it represents what people are
doing?
chaals: yes, as a first paas
dom: so let's go with the idea to
discuss each of these in the group
... idea of "open vs. not open" is a separate aspect
<daveL> +1 on driving work from what people are actually doing and on covering open and non-open
dom: will start a thread to discuss that so that it is scoped out
<scribe> ACTION: dom to get wording about open vs not open in the charter [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/06/20-bpmlod-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Sorry, but this channel isn't in my configuration.
<scribe> ACTION: dom to set up doodle poll about meeting time [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/06/20-bpmlod-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Sorry, but this channel isn't in my configuration.
jorge: we wanted to comment on
how to deal with use cases collection and spec
... possible starting point could be: everybody can go to the
wiki and put name on it
... next telco we have a list of use cases that we can
refine
dom: agree. Topic classification
is clear, but use cases is to be created
... use cases page is now in wiki at http://www.w3.org/community/bpmlod/wiki/Use_cases_definition
<scribe> ACTION: jose to work on use case definition template and then send a mail out to the list [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/06/20-bpmlod-minutes.html#action05]
<trackbot> Sorry, but this channel isn't in my configuration.
dom: next call we will review topic classifiation, will discuss use case definition, then following call will break topics down in a topic per call to work on them
agreement on the call
dom: aob?
dave: thanks a lot for the chairs for starting this?
+1!
dom: thanks to all for taking the
call
... meeting adjourned, by all!
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.138 of Date: 2013-04-25 13:59:11 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/topic: topics again// Succeeded: s/topic: process of our group// Succeeded: s/sebastian:/sebastianH:/ Succeeded: s/sebastian:/sebastianH:/ No ScribeNick specified. Guessing ScribeNick: fsasaki Inferring Scribes: fsasaki Present: dom felix chaals john jorge jose michale sebastianH sebastianS tatiana phil daveLewis Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpmlod/2013Jun/0004.html Got date from IRC log name: 20 Jun 2013 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2013/06/20-bpmlod-minutes.html People with action items: dom jose sebastianh[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]