13:11:43 RRSAgent has joined #swcg 13:11:43 logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/02/08-swcg-irc 13:11:45 RRSAgent, make logs world 13:11:45 Zakim has joined #swcg 13:11:47 Zakim, this will be 7924 13:11:47 ok, trackbot; I see SW_CG()9:00AM scheduled to start in 49 minutes 13:11:48 Meeting: Semantic Web Coordination Group Teleconference 13:11:48 Date: 08 February 2012 13:12:27 Regrets: Lee, Luc, Michael 13:46:42 Regret+ George 13:52:22 SW_CG()9:00AM has now started 13:52:29 +[IPcaller] 13:52:40 pgroth has joined #swcg 13:55:42 tbaker has joined #swcg 13:57:28 +[IPcaller.a] 13:57:39 Zakim, who is on the call? 13:57:39 On the phone I see [IPcaller], [IPcaller.a] 13:57:39 zakim, dial ivan-voip 13:57:40 ok, ivan; the call is being made 13:57:40 +Ivan 13:57:54 Zakim, [IPcaller] is me 13:57:54 +pgroth; got it 13:58:28 zakim, IPcaller.a is me 13:58:28 +tbaker; got it 13:58:42 Scribe: tbaker 13:58:47 Scribenick: tbaker 13:59:20 + +1.540.538.aaaa 13:59:41 zakim, aaaa is David 13:59:41 +David; got it 13:59:47 +Sandro 14:00:33 Regrets: MichaelH, Lee, Luc 14:01:11 Topic: last minutes 14:01:14 -> http://www.w3.org/2012/01/11-swcg-minutes.html last minutes 14:01:48 Topic: Next Meeting 14:01:50 RESOLVED accept minutes http://www.w3.org/2012/01/11-swcg-minutes.html 14:01:59 Next meeting: 22 February 14:02:39 Regrets+ George 14:02:51 Topic: Congratulations 14:02:52 Topic: Congratulations 14:03:18 RDFa: short last call. Hope to get to last call in 3-4 weeks. 14:03:31 Provenance WG: new draft for data model. 14:03:34 Guus has joined #swcg 14:04:02 ...RDD-to-RDF Working Group: candidate recommendation. 14:04:32 tom can you mute? 14:04:42 just hear a lot of typing 14:04:51 zakim, muter tbaker 14:04:51 I don't understand 'muter tbaker', ivan 14:04:56 zakim, mute tbaker 14:04:56 tbaker should now be muted 14:05:06 ...Two HTML data TF drafts: Jeni on Microdata and RDFa and Gregg on RDF mapping. No major comments, so probably will be published as notes. 14:05:26 ...Two F2F meetings since last call. GLD and Provenance. 14:05:38 Topic: Provenance f2f 14:05:39 ...Take Provenance first. 14:05:56 http://www.w3.org/blog/SW/2012/02/05/report-provenance-working-group-2nd-face-to-face-meeting/ 14:06:26 Paul: as in blog post.... we had good F2F. 14:06:52 ...Have gotten alot of public WDs out, but work around consensus on model. 14:07:01 ...So timeline has slipped 2-3 months. 14:07:17 + +1.571.331.aabb 14:07:22 ...Issue: first data model was quite complicated. Feedback on need to simplify. But still too complicated. 14:07:43 zakim, aabb is Bernadette 14:07:43 +Bernadette; got it 14:08:11 ...Paul: encouraged to simplify. Trying. But complications to simplification process. E.g., agreement on 1-2 constructs. 14:08:27 ...At meeting, why we were having complicatns. Addressing two use cases: 14:08:38 ...1) provenance statements about things on the Web - simple statements 14:08:39 s/complicatns/complications/ 14:09:21 ...2) more complex provenance systems and interchange btw such systems (version control systems, e.g.,) - needs more specifics about states of the world. 14:09:34 ...Understanding that these two were clashing will help us move beyond. 14:09:41 ...Address first use case first. 14:10:04 ...Second: "proper" provenance. We are simplifying. In month or so, something nice to read. 14:10:34 ...Kai Eckert, as part of group, working on BP on using Dublin Core with provenance, so know how this works with model. 14:10:42 ...Ivan was there. 14:11:01 -David 14:11:24 +David 14:11:41 Ivan: One more result. At moment, docs structured so that if someone wants to understand what is happening, read data model which uses abstract syntax, only then can you move on to OWL and begin to use in SW setting. 14:11:57 + +31.20.598.aacc 14:12:05 ...Would start reading with Primer -> Data Model -> OWL: not really helpful for LD community. 14:12:10 zakim, +31.20.598.aacc is me 14:12:10 +Guus; got it 14:12:33 ...Future docs will be edited so that Primer -> OWL right away. Goal to have this order to LD people. 14:13:24 ...Also (more image than content): OWL, it turns out, is very simple - manageable by LD community, but this fact is well-hidden in document. 14:13:38 ...A major feature, which messaging will bring out. 14:13:41 q? 14:14:13 Paul++ re: simplification 14:14:57 Ivan: Issue that comes up: Named Graphs. Document can do hand-waving for now. 14:15:21 q+ 14:15:32 David: RDF WG has made progress on NGs. Pat Hayes sees a way forward acceptable - action to compose something. 14:15:35 ack pgroth 14:15:46 ...As soon as we know, will feed back. Remains thorn in our side. 14:16:23 Paul: We had a concept around "accounts" - a complicated feature. Decided to dump alot of the verbiage - focus on where we got provenance asserttions. 14:16:45 ...Can move forward without _dependence_ on NG - because less central to model. 14:17:21 Topic: CR criteria for vocabulary-like specs: GLD, Provenance, maybe RDF 14:17:22 Topic: CR criteria for vocabulary-like specs: GLD, Provenance, maybe RDF 14:17:53 GLD must recommend several vocabs, yes. 14:18:07 Ivan: What does CR mean? To implement? 14:18:33 Paul: In case of Provenance, used discussion with SKOS as a model. Some idea that that was too lightweight. 14:19:05 ...Ended up coming up with notion - using SKOS model. We have X number of implementations which use constructs Y and Z. 14:19:46 ...Starting point. Then: have at least two applications implementations that would exchange provenance information and do some sort of query answering over that provenance information. Higher hurdle: need two apps that work together. 14:19:52 ...Aiming at minimum of two. 14:20:05 ...Finally: Simple queries that you can do on model and test cases. 14:20:17 ...Take test data and answer simple queries. 14:20:36 ...To show that we have an interoperable spec. 14:21:06 Sandro: GLD has a bunch of vocabs in charter. 14:21:19 ...e.g., vocab about people. Whether new, or old (e.g., FOAF). 14:22:02 ...Largely baffled how we can do CR here. W3C way: interoperate with a test suite. How to do for vocabulary? 14:22:06 +q 14:22:28 ...Can do for an application. 14:22:33 ack pgroth 14:22:42 ...Not sure how to test - make sure that code is right. 14:23:19 Paul: Instead of making test cases - simple queries that one should be able to answer. Simple transitive closure. "How many activities represented?" 14:23:36 ...If you have enough apps that can implement queries - enough. 14:24:31 David: Suggest, in relation to vocabs, if test suite consists of sample instance data - combination of instance data and vocabulary can be thrown to a reasoner for validation of logical consistency. Can perform alot of operations (transitive closure, eg). Should work well. 14:25:01 Sandro: You'd need operations expected. What would a FOAF system need to implement, eg? 14:25:25 bhyland has joined #swcg 14:25:36 David: "If I have a FOAF person, want to determine if two separate people" 14:25:44 Sandro: That's just OWL reasoner. 14:25:53 David: Yes, alot of cases like that. 14:26:04 Sandro: How do we get one DB of people to merge with another? 14:26:11 really? 14:26:14 ...Need to know if this vocab will work for that. 14:26:22 that's a huge ask 14:26:38 Ivan: Not necessarily merge, but I as user may want to extract or infer info from dataset that uses FOAF? 14:26:47 q+q+ 14:26:47 +\ 14:26:51 Sandro: Underlying use case: I want to query across 100 DBs 14:26:51 q+ 14:27:08 ack q+ 14:27:09 you can't 14:27:19 ...What test case could I construct? How do we assure the world? What systems implemented? Tested provided? 14:27:59 In the GLD LOD world, we haven't focused on collecting use cases ... 14:28:05 David: Want to be able to show that for a sample system, sufficient system to disambiguate. In alot of real-world system, can't. But that is not a failure of spec, but because identifying people by non-unique identifiers. 14:28:45 Bernadette: Would put emphasis differently. People in this and many WGs focused on guidance to make reasoners work, making semantics work in products. 14:29:24 ...In GLD WG, consumers of BPs: looking for more "informative" than normative. Not building products. Coming from world of data warehouses, XML... 14:29:41 ...If they go down path of RDF standards, what do they get? 14:29:53 ...Europe: more multilingual issues. 14:30:35 ...Haven't gotten to granularity of defining use cases. Personal information is not big issue here. Alot is geospatial. Regulatory, laws. 14:31:24 ...Now trying to get them to put toe in water. Frustrated that we are providing context and history - "pragmatic provenance". Don't tell me about steps down the road. Rather: 10 basic things. 14:31:25 q? 14:31:50 ack pgroth 14:32:31 Paul: Don't see problem in taking adoption road to interoperability for these vocabularies. Don't think use case approach is workable. 14:33:12 q+ 14:33:27 +1 to what Paul is saying! 14:33:31 ...Not show interoperability by [solving] use case. Bernadette: take adoption approach. May recommend XYZ vocabs. We will recommend provenance vocabulary. 14:33:36 ack ivan 14:34:22 @bhyland - I hope the GLD group will be using the prov vocabulary 14:35:02 Ivan: Want to ask: When CR phase comes and you have more precise spec of criteria, would like to see well-documented outside of group (e.g., CG wiki) so that groups in future will be helped - clearer idea what to do about vocabulary CRs. 14:35:19 @bhyland - if we need to do anything in the prov group to facilitate what you want, please let us know 14:35:32 ...Want to avoid this uncertainty in future. Document what happens for the CG. 14:35:40 Topic: TPAC 14:36:18 @pgroth, I'll review it again & make sure I raise at tomorrow's GLD WG telecon because to be honest, it wasn't discussed during the recent F2F. 14:36:46 Ivan: TPAC meetings in past few years had little SW presence. Good to plan for F2F of your groups in Lyon in November. 14:36:51 http://www.w3.org/2012/10/TPAC/ 29 October - 2 November 2012 Lyon, France 14:37:24 ...If we have new Linked Data Pattern group, can plan F2F. 14:37:33 We focused on People (DERI), org (epimorphics) and Cube vocab during the F2F at the end of January. So thank you Paul for raising this so it's given due consideration. 14:38:33 David: RDF WG has discussed not having F2F in that timeframe, but may, because not done. Current economic environment has not allowed us to have everyone in one place. Unclear how well we will be able to manage F2F. But good to get representation in Lyon. 14:38:38 @bhyland - i just heard "pragmatic provenance" so wanted to make sure we had overlap there 14:38:45 @ivan, thanks for the heads up & recommendation so people can plan well in advance. 14:39:53 David: Agenda request: SemTech in Berlin had wikimedia announcement. Discussion on net how that might impact wikipedia and LD community. 14:39:56 wikidata is driven by Semweb people :-) 14:40:16 Ivan: There will be a discussion on Semantic Web gang on Friday with Danny on call. 14:40:28 Topic: GLD F2F 14:40:34 agenda+ re: talks on behalf W3C 14:41:00 http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/wiki/F2F2 14:41:29 (28 people, day 1) 14:41:39 Bernadette: Had F2F - 12 people in DC and 14 in Deri. Facilities good! Problem in GLD WG, getting action. Lots of IEs with less experience. 14:42:51 ...In public sector, less urgency. 14:43:38 ...F2F good at building bonds. Want to get something out on vocabs and BPs rather than dribble out slowly. Existing content needs to be pulled together. 14:44:28 ...DERI people vocab... Authors of editors' draft. Will be more more informative than normative guidance. 14:44:37 surprised not to see QUDT (http://www.qudt.org/) 14:44:59 Preliminary feedback: "helpful and practical". Using a Void description... the process... demystifying. 14:45:41 QUDT: Quantities, Units, Dimensions and Data Types in OWL and XML 14:45:56 we've seen the need for this 14:46:17 this was presented at GLD F2F1, as I recall, as something TQ wanted GLD to do. 14:46:36 Bern: QUDT very relevant. Dealing across countries and metric/empirial. Gist: splash by end of February. 14:46:41 q? 14:46:41 @bhyland for provenance see the Prov-Primer http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/primer/Primer.html 14:46:59 @pgroth 14:47:08 @pgroth, thanks very much! 14:47:15 Sandro: Agree. 14:47:23 +q 14:47:24 q? 14:47:29 ack pgroth 14:47:45 q+ 14:48:01 Paul: Especially vocab list, recommended vocabs is super-important, even outside of govt - eg, pharmaceutical. Keen to see list. 14:48:27 ack bhyland 14:48:30 ...Also keen on making sure Provenance vocab addresses your use cases. Need feedback before last call. 14:49:10 we need best practice on exact vocabularies 14:50:06 Bern: Will do. Re: vocabs: fifteen or so common vocabs, want to include list. Others think: not list, but criteria for judging whether vocabs appropriate to be used. Qualitative criteria: about organizational commitment eg. Could it go away? Agree there should be criteria. 14:50:06 -pgroth 14:50:29 Topic: Library Linked Data discussions 14:50:29 I can scribe 14:50:35 Scribe: bhyland 14:50:40 scribenick: bhyland 14:50:41 zakim, please unmute me 14:50:41 tbaker should no longer be muted 14:51:19 LC http://www.loc.gov/marc/transition/news/framework-051311 14:51:47 tbaker: In library world, many interesting developments including announcement by Library of Congress that they're planning to replace MARC with a bibliographic framework, based on Linked Data principles. 14:52:03 Pressure on IFLA to publish their vocabs in RDF. 14:52:36 … Harvard, Stanford, Europeana, British Library also have projects happening in this space. Lots of interest. 14:53:26 … Bibliographic Framework Initiative at LOC want to replace MARC with RDF family of standards. 14:54:10 http://dcevents.dublincore.org/ 14:54:13 … Tom explained the history & people involved in this progress. Slow progress initially but picking up now. 5 year anniversary of this effort will happen in April 2012 in London. 14:54:21 http://wiki.dublincore.org/index.php/Full_announcement 14:55:37 … A lot of traditional library standards, with longer older historical roots, are being translated to RDF. These older standards include RDA, FERBER (?), ISBD, others. 14:56:25 s/FERBER/FRBR/ 14:56:41 … These translations are being made by traditional library standardization groups as opposed to sem web savvy experts which causes some concern by the sem web / library community. 14:57:19 … Concern around these translations & how they'll interoperate in the open world on the Web. 14:57:50 … If standards that are used to express library data play well with Linked Data, it will be *huge* contribution to the LOD cloud. 14:59:03 … Note, this involves politics in the traditional library world. We'll looking to start with a workshop to bring together semantic experts with representatives from more traditional library standards community to find common ground, define broader consumers of this important data. 14:59:06 q? 15:00:18 @tbaker, I'll follow up by email as I notice the same phenomena happening with vocabs and modeling done by traditional modeling people who believe automatic translation to RDF is all the same. 15:00:27 thanks all! 15:00:29 -Sandro 15:00:30 -David 15:00:32 -Ivan 15:00:35 -tbaker 15:00:37 -Guus 15:00:38 -Bernadette 15:00:38 SW_CG()9:00AM has ended 15:00:38 Attendees were Ivan, pgroth, tbaker, +1.540.538.aaaa, David, Sandro, +1.571.331.aabb, Bernadette, Guus 15:00:41 @tbaker, will you create minutes? 15:01:02 @bhyland - I think Ivan usually creates the minutes...? 15:01:19 tbaker, bhyland : I will take care of those 15:01:27 rrsagent, draft minutes 15:01:27 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/02/08-swcg-minutes.html ivan 15:01:38 trackbot, stop telcon 15:01:38 Sorry, ivan, I don't understand 'trackbot, stop telcon'. Please refer to http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc for help 15:01:47 trackbot, end telcon 15:01:47 Zakim, list attendees 15:01:47 sorry, trackbot, I don't know what conference this is 15:01:55 RRSAgent, please draft minutes 15:01:55 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/02/08-swcg-minutes.html trackbot 15:01:56 RRSAgent, bye 15:01:56 I see no action items