Government Linked Data Working Group Teleconference -- 08 Dec 2011

<trackbot> Date: 08 December 2011

DCAT/ADMS breakout session

George: there is a link to the ADMS/dcat discussion
... http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/meeting/2011-11-28

<George> https://www.w3.org/2011/gld/group/WD-DCAT-20111218.html

George: Martin suggested a new property to indicate direct access
... of dcat:Distribution

<George> http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/meeting/2011-11-17

George: minutes of the last telcon http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/meeting/2011-11-17

PROPOSED: accept minutes

<BartvanLeeuwen> +1 for minutes

<Yigal> +1 accept minutes

bhyland: F2F will be in two locations
... Ireland and Washington DC

<bhyland> +1

<gatemezi> +1

s/bernaddet/bhyland/

RESOLUTION: minutes accepted

vocab.data.gov

George: data.gov plans to deploy DERI neologism

<George> http://neologism.deri.ie/

George: for vocabulary management
... Neologism is open source platform for vocabulary management http://neologism.deri.ie/

<George> http://vocab.deri.ie/

George: Richard raised a couple of questions and provided some guidance
... the intention is to have internal and external vocabularies
... some issues were raised regarding authors for example

<George> vocab.deri.org/void

George: neologism assume its users as authors. not true for external vocabularies like void

<George> vocab.data.gov/void

George: generally, there is no problem from data.gov perspective
... some work around can be utilized
... the main goal of vocab.data.gov is cataloging vocabularies rather than managing them and supporting the full life cycle

bhyland: who will be the maintainer? how will the logistics be?

<BartvanLeeuwen> +q

George: a couple of people will be managing it in a lightweight manner.. they will be the point of contact
... users will request support and adding vocabularies through the contact people

BartvanLeeuwen: I like neologism... my problem with it is that it is very slow
... responsiveness is very slow. wondering if there is enhancements

cygri: we experienced slow responsiveness on vocab.deri.ie
... most of it was solved and the situation had been improved to an accceptable degree

<bhyland> George: the points on contact for adding vocabs to vocab.data.gov will be George Thomas and Chris Musialek.

<bhyland> cygri: Neologism is a fairly light application, performance is "good enough", it isn't meant to be mission critical (?)

cygri: any plans to support editing vocabularies on vocab.data.gov?

George: initially it will mainly be used as a catalogue
... to have a place where people can make their vocabularies visible

<bhyland> George: vocab.data.gov is intended to provide a place to make vocabs more visible. It isn't intended to be a place for maintenance of vocabs. It is a directory listing.

George: do not expect people to be using it for actual creation and editing

bhyland: do we want to recommend on incorporating tools
... especially with tools that might not be commercially supported
... maintinance might be an issue.

<annew> annew is on SIP

cygri: I have experience with working on tools in the course of research academic projects

<bhyland> cygri: I feel that it's important to make a statement of usability, maintenance, support for a given tool.

<Yigal> But how do we know what the current and future plans for such a tool are?

cygri: it is important to make the status of the project and its level of support very clear

<bhyland> cygri: There are various ways to characterize this in objective ways, e.g., when was it release, how often is it updated, how many posts to the mailing list, etc that all give an indication of whether a healthy community exists.

cygri: some simple measures can help. looking at the number of releases, its mailing list, etc.

<bhyland> cygri: If external funding went into the project, that is also a good sign.

<bhyland> +1 agree with cygri and think the GLD WG should provide guidance on this topic.

cygri: to summarize, if you make recommendation on a tool it is worth spending time on documenting the status of the project

bhyland: shall we add this to other places like the cook book, the vocabulary...?

<Yigal> I think a pre-defined checklist would be a good idea, because it would help ensure a standard for evaluation.

cygri: I will send an email with a list of bullet points outlining the main points to look at

<BartvanLeeuwen> cygri, could you share a link where I can find some information on the performance tuning you described earlier ?

sandro: this sounds relevant to prucurment

<bhyland> George: Suggested that the "tools viability" checklist should go in the Procurement section of the Best Practices Deliverable.

BartvanLeeuwen: is there a pointer to how to tune neologism performance?

cygri: I suggest sending an email to neologism mailing list

<annew> on no mic failure

<annew> I'll ask by chat

<annew> The issues seem to be about stability!!

<annew> Welcome the comments about signs of stability for projects

<annew> I am muted

<cygri> ACTION: cygri to write some bullet points re viability of open source/academic tools/services for procurement section of best practices deliverable [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/12/08-gld-minutes.html#action01]

<Biplav> Biplav here. I joined on the call after resolving my logistics issue. Also had an update on my action item. I have added my inputs for Action item 19 and updated the tracker to "Pending Review".

<trackbot> Created ACTION-25 - Write some bullet points re viability of open source/academic tools/services for procurement section of best practices deliverable [on Richard Cyganiak - due 2011-12-15].

<Biplav> And I am on mute

<annew> I am on voip

Procurement

bhyland: people who are working on that are not here
... suggest defering details till next week

george: we might have some discussion about defining objective criteria to assess stability of projects

bhyland: some people are working on what kind of guidance W3C can provide to people working on procurment
... we took licence out of the scope

<annew> is there someone in an airport or train station?

<gatemezi> Here, they provide a list of tools for data publication and consumption http://www4.wiwiss.fu-berlin.de/latc/toollibrary/

@George sorry couldn't hear you

it was noisy

bhyland: I'd rather avoid listing tools

<annew> zakim ChrisP37 is annew

bhyland: but suggest focus on list of features and a checklist
... the commercially supported product are more in the scope of the community directory
... procurment people working on Linked Data need more help with aspects like security
... and other list of features

sandro: I do not support listing products

<bhyland> Sandro: Recommend we list product "categories", defined by TimBL's 4 data principles.

sandro: but generally we list functionality that the product should support

<annew> +1 to sandro

<bhyland> Sandro: Avoid listing specific products by name.

sandro: e.g. support SPARQL, resolvable URIs

F2F2

Procurement

cygri: how technical should the procurement document be?
... what level of details need to be in it?

<bhyland> cygri: Who is the audience? A technical evaluator or business manager?

George: procurement report is mainly for project manager
... help them when deciding to buy a product

bhyland: two group of people are involved. technical people and manager

<Zakim> cygri, you wanted to ask about how technical this should get

bhyland: we need both general guidelines and technical details

<gatemezi> @bhyland: bhadley organization is linkedgov.org

<Yigal> If anyone is still wondering about Hadley's project, it's linkedgov.org

bhyland: I think there should be a list of checklist for business people

Chris: I have experience with the procurement process. typically it does not go to the technical details

<bhyland> ChrisMusialek: I've seen very general guidance. It doesn't get into the very technical details, it doesn't make sense to prescribe to that level of granularity. Typically, the people writing those RFI/RFPs, they aren't very technical.

Chris: in the procurement document technical details are not mentioned as they are usually not written by developers

<bhyland> zakim aaee is Chris

<bhyland> @Fadmaa, that was Chris Musialek from US GSA speaking

@bhyland thanks wil lcorrect that

<sandro> sandro: So, I'm imagining that for each item on the checklist (eg 4-principles, sparql, etc), there's reference to the spec, some additional detail where the spec has too much wiggle room, maybe a reference to test suite, and some justification/explanation for this check list item.

sandro: having a checklist with links to standards containing more details

<annew> I've got to go. Can't tell if you could actually hear me or not on this call.

<annew> Will send an email about stability that I have been working on

<annew> Ron 's been helpful too

<annew> bye

<sandro> annew, I never heard your voice....

<scribe> ACTION: bhyland to pull the list of things to check and notify the group [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/12/08-gld-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-26 - Pull the list of things to check and notify the group [on Bernadette Hyland - due 2011-12-15].

F2F2

<George> http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/wiki/F2F2

George: wiki page about F2F2 http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/wiki/F2F2

<Biplav> @bhyland please review update on action item 19 and close. Thanks.

bhyland: we do have to work on agenda

cygri: Michael will be the point of contact
... for the F2F meeting in Ireland
... no capability of video conferencing

bhyland: chairs will be working on logistics... input is welcome on agenda

George: procurement discussion will be continued next week

bhyland: next week might be our last meeting this year or shall we have another one?

<sandro> no for 22nd, okay for 29th

<Biplav> +1

<gatemezi> ok for 22nd

<Biplav> ok for 22nd

<cygri> i'm ok with 22nd

<Yigal> OK for 22nd

<BartvanLeeuwen> okay bye

<bhyland> Thanks all!

<gatemezi> -gatemezi

- DRAFT -

Government Linked Data Working Group Teleconference

08 Dec 2011

Attendees

Contents

DCAT/ADMS breakout session

vocab.data.gov

Procurement

F2F2

Procurement

F2F2

Summary of Action Items

Scribe.perl diagnostic output