See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 02 May 2013
<olyerickson> LOL!
<sandro> olyerickson, are you using IP today?
<HadleyBeeman> agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20130502
<scribe> scribe: DeirdreLee
<HadleyBeeman> last week's minutes: http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/meeting/2013-04-25
<olyerickson> +1 to minutes
<DaveReynolds> +1
+1
<JoaoPauloAlmeida> +1
<gatemezi> +1
<fadmaa> +1
<PhilA> +1
resolved: last week's minutes
<olyerickson> DCAT UCR http://bit.ly/DCATUseCases
<DaveReynolds> Benedikt sent regrets to the mail list a little while ago
HadleyBeeman: Discuss whether we should proceed with DCAT UCR?
olyerickson: prepared by cygri and fadmaa
<bhyland> @olyerickson, does it really cover all of section 4, for example 4.3 Persistent URIs for catalog entries?
olyerickson: what is the standing
of such a document, are we obliged to complete this doc in a
detailed way
... DCAT doc is already quite complete, with clear guidelines,
is it necessary to go into details on how to implement each
requirement?
<bhyland> I agree with olyerickson that it is real work to go thru UCR & *prove* but the spec is the thing people read for implementation questions IMO.
sandro: UCR is a good marketing
tool and would be a nice supporting doc, but not as important
as the spec
... if we have time we could work on it more, but it's not
essential
<bhyland> +1 as a supporting documentation (I probably wouldn't call it a marketing doc ;-)
olyerickson: for a complete UCR,
each one of these requirements in the DCAT spec may need an
example, and this would be a lot of work
... better to leave it as an informal doc
HadleyBeeman: Leave DCAT UCR as it is for the moment, and if we have more time later, or if we get an extension, we could flesh out the document
<bhyland> +1
<sandro> +1
HadleyBeeman: but as it is, it is fine to leave as a note
Proposal: Transition DCAT UCR editor's draft to be a WG Note (after removing pink todo section)
<scribe> ACTION: Transition DCAT UCR editor's draft to be a WG Note [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/05/02-gld-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Error finding 'Transition'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/track/users>.
<fadmaa> ACTION: fadmaa to Transition DCAT UCR editor's draft to be a WG Note (after removing pink todo section) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/05/02-gld-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-124 - Transition DCAT UCR editor's draft to be a WG Note (after removing pink todo section) [on Fadi Maali - due 2013-05-09].
<gatemezi> http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/wiki/BP_Timetable
subtopic: Best Practices
<JoaoPauloAlmeida> I can't hear anyone… is it just me?
bhyland: found great interest in best practice at ODW 2013
<JoaoPauloAlmeida> PhilA, thanks, I will reconnect
bhyland: ODI is working on this,
Dutch gov has also created a document related to best
practice
... content in best practice doc needs to be restructured
slightly and updated
<PhilA> There's quote a lot of what Hans Overbeek presented in his ODW13 paper http://www.w3.org/2013/04/odw/odw13_submission_14.pdf
bhyland: bhyland focusing on URI
section, which we expect will get most attention
... getting it to W3C note status helped to promote BP
<bhyland> Sections I'm focusing on are:
<bhyland> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/gld/raw-file/default/bp/index.html#uri-constructionhttps://dvcs.w3.org/hg/gld/raw-file/default/bp/index.html#uri-construction
<bhyland> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/gld/raw-file/default/bp/index.html#uri-policy-for-persistencehttps://dvcs.w3.org/hg/gld/raw-file/default/bp/index.html#uri-policy-for-persistence
<bhyland> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/gld/raw-file/default/bp/index.html#internationalized-resource-identifiershttps://dvcs.w3.org/hg/gld/raw-file/default/bp/index.html#internationalized-resource-identifiers
bhyland: updating doc is a matter
of transferring some content, 3-4 hours of work
... if someone was willing to help with pub rules for the
glossary
... bhyland would like to shadow sandro while he does it
<bhyland> Note from PhilA: "Open Data Best Practices WG"
<HadleyBeeman> http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/wiki/BP_Timetable
bhyland: would like to move
timetable forward one week
... the doc hasn't changed a lot, most content has remained
unchanged for a year
... get doc out by 14th, then will get feedback
... might not make publication as WG note by 28th May, but will
work through feedback
<olyerickson> I'm here
<olyerickson> that was from before
DaveReynolds: Should have a day
or two before it's published, for WG members to have a complete
read through the doc
... to publish on 14th (tuesday), we need to agree on previous
thursday (9th)
<DaveReynolds> I was only asking for a few days notice
<bhyland> http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/wiki/BP_Timetable#Detailed_timetable_and_checklist
HadleyBeeman: if we send BP doc to WG members for review on Tues 7th, we can vote on Thurs 9th, and publish for public feedback on Tues 14th
<bhyland> http://dir.w3.org
bhyland: unsure about first rows in doc, will follow-up with Hadley after
bhyland: every GLD organisation represented in WG should be present in Community Directory
TallTed: added entry while ago, but it was deleted, should details be re-entered?
bhyland: yes, new version now,
richer features, nice theme,
... so please resubmit if entry isn't available
TallTed: suggests bhyland to send a reminder out to those who may have to resubmit
bhyland: agreed
<bhyland> I'd like to announce the Directory to the various lists today.
subtopic: ADMS
<bhyland> Per Ted's comment, I'll ping each organization who previously had a listing in v1.0 of the Directory. I guess we'll call this Directory 2.0
PhilA: going through the spec, addressing comments from F2F, and other comments
<HadleyBeeman> http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/wiki/ADMS_Timetable
HadleyBeeman: ADMS timetable is out of date, advises PhilA to update it
<scribe> ACTION: to PhilA update ADMS timetable [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/05/02-gld-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-125 - PhilA update ADMS timetable [on Tope Omitola - due 2013-05-09].
subtopic: RegORG
<HadleyBeeman> http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/wiki/REGORG_Timetable
PhilA: Marios is taking a look at that
<scribe> ACTION: to PhilA update RegORG timetable [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/05/02-gld-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-126 - PhilA update RegORG timetable [on Tope Omitola - due 2013-05-09].
<DaveReynolds> Fadi not Dave :)
subtopic: DCAT
<olyerickson> I must leave at 11a
Sandro: Could we extend this meeting to talk about DCAT?
<fadmaa> http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/track/issues/raised
<olyerickson> http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/wiki/DCAT_LC_comments
HadleyBeeman: Go through DCAT issues
<PhilA> issue-6?
<trackbot> ISSUE-6 -- How should publishers figure out good URIs for properties with non-literal ranges? -- raised
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/track/issues/6
<PhilA> issue-54?
<trackbot> ISSUE-54 -- Relationship of DCAT and VoID -- raised
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/track/issues/54
fadmaa: Issue 6 is done
<PhilA> issue-65?
<trackbot> ISSUE-65 -- Add properties for dataset versioning -- raised
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/track/issues/65
fadmaa: issue-9 needs richard to
close
... ISSUE-60 and 65 need further discusssion
<PhilA> issue-60?
<trackbot> ISSUE-60 -- dct:license vs. dct:rights -- raised
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/track/issues/60
fadmaa: the rest of the issues, Fadi and Richard can go through
<olyerickson> 60 and 65
<olyerickson> Do we need to "normalize" on rights vs license?
<gatemezi> I thought one of the resolution during F2F3 was to have a special call for DCAT..
HadleyBeeman: Do we need another last call for dcat?
fadmaa: It depends on resolution of ISSUES 60 and 64, as decisions on these could mean a change to the core, and as such, would impact on conformance
PhilA: recommends we go for a
second LC
... given the rate of progress and amount of work being done,
but still to be done, we have good justification of an
extension
<bhyland> +1 to what PhilA is saying, critical to get this correct even if we flow over a couple months.
<olyerickson> I see no strong argument against dcterms:rights
PhilA: DCAT is getting a lot of attention, so to acknowledge all comments, make informed decisions, and go for quality over urgency, we should go for 2nd LC
fadmaa: totally agrees with PhilA
HadleyBeeman: We will leave this decision with editors, and should they decide on a need for 2nd LC, the chairs/groups will support this
<olyerickson> http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/track/issues/raised
PhilA: related to ADMS, will DCATinclude a contact point?
fadmaa: surprised there is no
issue related to this
... fadmaa will create an issue on this, he would be for
creating a contact point in DCAT
PhilA: if it is in DCAT, it can be removed from ADMS, and they will just use the DCAT property
<olyerickson> NOT ME
<olyerickson> ;)
<olyerickson> +1 to DCAT going to where it needs to go...
<fadmaa> http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/wiki/DCAT_LC_comments
HadleyBeeman: Are all issues for DCAT being followed up on / progressed?
olyerickson: editors are working through comments/issues
HadleyBeeman: issues are being recorded in issue-tracker and in LC comments section, they may not be the same issues, so as long as editors is keeping an eye on both places
subtopic: ORG
<DaveReynolds> http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/wiki/ORG_CR_transition
DaveReynolds: Have created a section on uses of ORG that needs feedback from, from Bart and PhilA
<HadleyBeeman> davereynolds: expecting bits to be completed by Bart
<DaveReynolds> http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/wiki/ORG_CR_transition
<DaveReynolds> http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/wiki/ORG_Implementations
<PhilA> ACTION: phila to provide info about usage of ORG in Italy and Greece [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/05/02-gld-minutes.html#action05]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-127 - Provide info about usage of ORG in Italy and Greece [on Phil Archer - due 2013-05-09].
DaveReynolds: proposes to
subdivide ORG into a set of features (5), and uses could be
reported at a feature level instead of property level
... that way users may not have to use every single property in
a feature, but we can still see which features are actually
useful
<HadleyBeeman> If we label a feature "at risk" and then discover implementations, do they lose that "at risk" label?
DaveReynolds: for the exit criteria, we could check the use/conformance specification at feature level
<DaveReynolds> http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/wiki/ORG_Validation_Suite
DaveReynolds: there will be a set
of SPARQL queries that will act like a minimal consumer (at
link)
... the resultant list will still have to be manually checked
to see if the results are valid
... will we rely on implementers to report this
<bhyland> @DaveReynolds, that is a really good approach & outcome based on the WG F2F discussions, IMO. Thank you very much. I think that gives us sufficient due diligence that an implementer can use to guide their use of ORG.
DaveReynolds: but would we need a dedicated person from WG to check the negative compliance?
<bhyland> Sandro: THinks this is great!
Sandro: this seems like a great approach. Normally we don't want implementations to be public, but maybe in this case we could make them public?
DaveReynolds: would we need 2 public ones, or would 1 be sufficient?
sandro: 1 is fine, 2 or more
would be great
... we're not committing to cross-referencing it, but we have
the option to check the public implementations ourselves then
if we want
DaveReynolds: we could add a
checkbox for implementers, asking whether they mind if their
data is made public
... we could provide a service to check this
<gatemezi> @DaveReynolds: if we change the Select queries to ASK ones? could them be also sufficient for checking?
sandro: w3c will provide a vm to host the service for the CR period
<sandro> (probably)
HadleyBeeman: Could this exit criteria methodology be applied to other vocabs?
DaveReynolds: qb is a different
beast., in the spec we have an idea of what is a good and bad
implementation, so we can simply run the validation queries on
these and see if they conform
... might not be worth breaking down into features
also doesn't make sense to have online service as datacube data would be very large
fadmaa: the exit-criteria for ORG
should also apply to DCAT
... would make more sense to run online service on same VM as
ORG
<bhyland> Great job Dave, thank you for blazing the path forward to seeing sunlight out the other side of CR process. Thanks.
<sandro> HadleyBeeman: We just lost our scribe, but I think we're done with the agenda!
<bhyland> Thank you Hadley, awesome work barreling through this mega-agenda!!
<sandro> HadleyBeeman: Thank you all for everything today. Talk to you all next week.
<bhyland> thanks all. have a good weekend.
<sandro> ADJOURNED
<fadmaa> bye
<HadleyBeeman> thank you again, DeirdreLee!
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/dcat/DCAT UCR/ Succeeded: s/bhland/bhyland/ Succeeded: s/DaveReynolds/Sandro/ Succeeded: s/54/60/ Found Scribe: DeirdreLee Inferring ScribeNick: DeirdreLee Default Present: Sandro, HadleyBeeman, +000000aaaa, olyerickson, bhyland, martinA, TallTed, DaveReynolds, DeirdreLee, Fadmaa, PhilA, JoaoPauloAlmeida, gatemezi, Mike_Pendleton, Gregg_Vanderheiden Present: Sandro HadleyBeeman +000000aaaa olyerickson bhyland martinA TallTed DaveReynolds DeirdreLee Fadmaa PhilA JoaoPauloAlmeida gatemezi Mike_Pendleton Gregg_Vanderheiden Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20130502 WARNING: No meeting chair found! You should specify the meeting chair like this: <dbooth> Chair: dbooth Found Date: 02 May 2013 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2013/05/02-gld-minutes.html People with action items: dcat draft editor fadmaa phila s to transition ucr[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]