See also: IRC log
ivan: We had a pretty good TPAC
meeting for CSVW. Made a plan for hwo to move forward
... which meant cutting back on what we can achieve
... mappings to JSON and RDF will be relatively simple.
... we played for a long time with doing something more
complicated, a template language etc.
... testing etc would go way beyond that the group can
achieve
... so bunch of disucssion going on now
... Interesting point - the charter says we should make a
simple mapping to XML, but there's no one in the Wg to do
it.
... can't find anyone outside the WG whi wants to do it either.
Norm Walsh *might* be interested though
... no interest -> no standard to XML
... and the world won't colleapse
Kerstin: On HCLS
... Trying to participate in the group but don't know bigger
picture
... last 2 meetings joined with HL7 with David Booth. he's
showing how to use RDF as an enabler
... HL7 getting their act together on RDF - very good
news
... brinbging people in from Pharma
... meeteing yesterday had participates from ?? connected with
FDA and pharma users/industry
... have been working on core standards for clinical trials
data
... really interesting from diff perspectives, not just
HL7
... Fire breaking away from XML, but all of these diff strands.
Eric P remains key person
phila: Does that chime with work in DC, David?
davidwood: We should pay
attention to Kerstin. We have probs and tech solutions but not
necessarily political cover
... technically there's a tremendous potential
tbaker: On Data Shapes
... There are groups that are jockying for position in the
group
... our concern is that the Cultural Heritage community is
represented
... a lot of the UCs are in other areas
<Kerstin> Exxellent ongoing webinar serie on the HL7, W3C work http://semanticweb.com/webinar-yosemite-project-part-1-rdf-roadmap-healthcare-information-interoperability-video_b44757 with David Booth
tbaker: We're happy that the WG
is paying attention to the DB that was developed in the DCMI
context
... extended to cover areas other than GLAM
... so hope that will continue to be useful
Arnaud: On Data Shapes - Tom's
accurate
... I've heard people complain that W3C is too far ahead. here
we have the opposite. Wait too long and people are too
entrenched
... we're focussing on UCR
... TPAC went well. We had a conversation...
... overheard "tomorrow is when strangulation begins" - but
actually it went well
... diff backgrounds and interests in the tech
<Kerstin> Attendes at the HCLS/HL7 meeting yesterday from UCB (Tim Williams) also enangade also in FDA/PhUSE Semantic technlogy project http://www.phusewiki.org/wiki/index.php?title=Semantic_Technology
Arnaud: people looking for
different things. Validation cf. Description
... description to do things liike generate the UI - the needs
are quite different
tbaker: I heard that the meeting went well too.
Arnaud: On LDP
... main spec is now at PR - just waiting for meeting with
W3M
... meanwhile np. implementations has increased. Lots of
support
<Kerstin> Also a new attendee, Ingeborg Holt, working for Pinnacle/Open CDISC http://www.pinnacle21.net/ working very close with FDA CDER
Arnaud: we split the spec so that
LDP Paging is separate. That's now at CR after 2 LCs - and
interest has decreased. Might be stuck in CR for a while
... most of the discussion is about LDP II
... question what are going to do
... we're getting to end of the 6 month extended charter
<Kerstin> Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR, pronounced "Fire") http://wiki.hl7.org/index.php?title=FHIR
Arnaud: making progress on LD
PATCH Format
... Everybody wanted it but people couldn't agree on what was
needed. I wanted to focus on the main spec
... recent F2F people seemed to have an epihany and agree on an
approach
... 3 people took the task of drafting a solution
... but I;m worried it will be a repeat of paging wtih
declining interest - hoping to get to LC/CR next week
ivan: The annotation WG has begun
to discuss whether LDP might be a good solution for the
protocol work
... the annotation WG uses RDF as a model
... the only point is that we try and hide that a little by
only talking about JSON and JSON-LD
... so can LDP use JSON-LD everywhere or are there places where
Turtle is required
Arnaud: You can use JSON-LD
everywhere
... when we began, using Turtle everywhere looked forweard
thinking, it's more recently that JSON-LD came along but we've
gone back to add it
ivan: TNhe Annotation WG is
cheering
... On The Annotation WG
... It started a few weeks ago
... starts withb Open Annotation Model from a CG
... that model is RDRF-based with Turtle everywhere
... but annotation works itself has to and wants to go beyond
that so we get into how to store annotations separately, a JS
API
... and some ways of defining and querying of annotations (URIs
where an annotation is attached)
... so WG is a mixture of people with differnet
backgrouns
... some publication people (hence DPub involvement); some Web
App devs
... adding annos to data and some SemWeb people
... getting these people to work together isn't easy
... lots of antibodies to RDF in general. JSON-LD is v
helpful
... FPWD of the annotation model should be out in the nexct few
weeks. Diff between that and CG is that everything is written
as JSON-LD wth a context file at the end of the doc
<Arnaud> +q
Arnaud: I;m also co-chair of the
Social Web WG
... at TPAC we had the meeting between the two WGs
<davidwood> JSON-LD is great, but please ensure that RDF is still the data model. You might consider using similar language to the way we dealt with that in the JSON-LD spec.
Arnaud: I was surprised by how
much similarity there is between the 2 WGs (or wants to
do)
... It became clear that the tech is not that different.
Posting an annotation is not so differnet to posting a comment
on a blog post
... the fact that liaison between the two hasn't been more
striongly identified is unfortunate
... could have been brought up earlier
... joint meeiting achieved the goal
ivan: True. Both groups are new,
both same age
... I don't know how closely the social WG talks to the LDP WG
except via the common co-chair
Arnaud: In the social WG there is
an overlap in membership: me, Sandro, Erik W etc.
... makae it easy to see possible alignment
... but it was more surprising that there was zero overlap with
annotation WG so we have to identify a liaison person
ivan: Different backgrounds..
Sebastian: On his overview
... We received a lot of new Horizon 2020 projects and I;m
driving the DBPedia Association
... right now W3C is doing standards but we also need
infratructure
... so for the Web of data, it's unreliable. They don't know
how to find the data that they need
... the task, with W3C Help and conferences etc. is to have a
reliable Web of data
... standards is one thing. but you need an organisation
support
... to make sure standards are applied and relaible
... more things that can't be achieved by standards, like
policies
... we need differnet domains, eg law
... you can have public data for law text
... thes emight be annotated by legal experts
... but quality depends on reputation of the lawyer
... quality standards can onkly be defined by domain
experts
... so there's some non-tech standardisation necessary. Not
sure this is W3C's role
phila: If not W3C, who? DBPedia Association?
Sebastian: DBPA is in a good position to do this. We have the research institute, industry... we might drive this, not sure
Kerstin: I think this is a key
topic
... IMI projects in Europe etc. looking at this
... this is eactly the discussion we're having
<Sebastian> +Sebastian
Kerstin: it's a huge topic - commerical money, EU funding, other?
<Sebastian> +q
<Kerstin> This is a key topic also in the pharma industry e.g. for things such as IMI Open PHACTS
eINFRA
Sebastian: SEMANTiCS will be in Vienna in Sept 2015 - maybe have a track on this topic
<Kerstin> Exeample on an joint work between IMI Open PHACTS and W3C HLCS for Datasets and Linksets descriptions http://www.slideshare.net/alasdair_gray/dataset-descriptions-in-open-phacts-and-hcls
http://www.w3.org/2014/spatial/charter
Arnaud: Not sure that we have a
plan quite yet
... but as we went through the dev of LDP I there were features
people wanted but we dodn't have time for. So we developed a
wishlist. My tip for a WG is to develop a wishlist early
on
... that helps people see that their topic is recorded and we
might get to it
... If you get to the point we're at now we can go back to the
wishlist and work through it, sorting the prioroties
... talking about drafting the charter based on that
... One thing still being discussed - should we charter the WG
right away or after 6 month pause
... to allow experiementation
... but the charter schedule should allow WG to work on UCR for
first 6 months
... talking about optimisation
... we have the concept of a container
... to explore the info we have to get the container and then
GET each element
... want a way to optimise this to get the container and all
its resources
... we call this 'Inlining'
... also interest in developing some kind of filtering/querying
- but not reinventing SPARQL
... want to be able to select the kind of info that you want.
If a container has thousands of resources, how do you select
some
... also thinking about communicating changes to the
resources
... some way to communicate to the client that something has
changed - what? Without getting everything.
... Can we come up woith a way to do this
... We also have Access Control. We put it aside in the first
charter. We developed a UCR for that already. That helped a
lot
... we could define sometehing that's useful without solving
the bigger Access Control problem
... Regarding optimisation - people want to be able to create
multiple resources at once
... One thing we talked about - rather than having another big
spec is to have smaller specs defining diff mechanisms =>
LDP becomes a framework of diff technologies
... downside is that end up with less then ideal interop
... but def an interest in this
... If you look at LPD 1 we have conatiners and resources - you
can imagine it could have been containers were defined
independently. We may want new kinds of containers
http://www.w3.org/2014/Talks/1105_phila_semwebpro/#(11)
<Sebastian> SEMANTiCS is international, just happens to be in German speaking countries
phila: Gives quick overview of stategic plans for 2015 re supply chain data and research data