See also: IRC log
<mhausenblas> trackbot, start telecon
<trackbot> Date: 16 February 2012
<bhyland> zakim aaaa is tinagheen
<George> scribe: olyerickson
<bhyland> zakim aaa is tinagheen
<bhyland> zakim aaaa is olyerickson
<tinagheen> I don't think aaaa is me
<tinagheen> I am usually [LC]
<George> proposal: accept minutes
I'm on over here at least
<bhyland> Scribe: olyerickson
I am the scribe
<George> resolved: minutes accepted
George: enough people on the call to resolve pending issues
<trackbot> Sorry, bad ACTION syntax
George: resolve action 25?
** procurement section
George: Move to close action
... anyone with other issues that can be closed?
Bhyland: Q on action 20
** was assigned to Bhyland, not sure what it is
** drawing a blank
<BenediktKaempgen> \me sorry, bit late
** Concerned "multilingual" discussion
Bhyland: Doesn't know what it is for, not in position to do anything about it
george: info has been captured
Tina: says that ed summers will respond to issue 12 on listserv
<bhyland> RE: Action-43, status is "in progress". I have a question as to whether the W3C Glossary/Dictionary location makes the most sense, see http://www.w3.org/2003/glossary/
george: How do we feel about FPWD status?
** do we agree on readiness
** items on 'product" page "look good"
** any issues?
DCAT has the most issues
bhyland: RE Action 43, move it to "in progress"
<mhausenblas> Michael: I think we're good to go re FPWD batch - after the one week review, hence proposal to resolve this on 1 March telecon
** question of continuity
** not unique to working group
<Zakim> mhausenblas, you wanted to state FPWD position
<mhausenblas> [[Purpose: The publication of the First Public Working Draft is a signal to the community to begin reviewing the document. See section 4.1 of the W3C Patent Policy [PUB33] for information about the policy implications of the First Public Working Draft.]]
** "signal to community to begin reading document"
** Of course, clearer is better, but
** we should not wait/should not delay just to be perfect
olyerickson: +1 to getting it out there for feedback. We'll never get it perfect ourselves ;)
<olyerickson1> +1 with Michael's view
<olyerickson1> bhyland: Proposing to give WG two (2) weeks
<olyerickson1> * 2 weeks for WG to review
<olyerickson1> * 23 Feb is the date that everything should be ready
<olyerickson1> Michael: Actually, should start now
<olyerickson1> * people can comment on what they have now
<olyerickson1> * tradeoff, more time to review vs more editing, shorter review
<olyerickson1> bhyland: w.r.t. BP, "a lot" to clean up
<olyerickson1> * some parts 25% done, others 75% done
<olyerickson1> * people will have a hard tiem reading
<olyerickson1> * some parts looks like people's notes
<olyerickson1> Michael: suggest combining everything into common template/class
<olyerickson1> bhyland: Suggest she, michael, et.al. get together
<olyerickson1> * how to use the tools
<olyerickson1> Michael: makes sense
<olyerickson1> * for the other parts/groups, no need to wait
<olyerickson1> bhyland; agreed, we're just talking about the BP
<George> +1 for all other FPWD's except BP, pending break-out discussion
<olyerickson1> I'm totally confused by the 'respect document' stuff
<olyerickson1> bhyland: suggest using the discussion tab in the wiki to make comments
<mhausenblas> [[I'd like to send regrets for today, and inform you that we have been working on the document describing the ORG ontology, I planned to have it ready for today's call but I finally did not make it:
<olyerickson1> bhyland: we need a way for people to make specific feedback/comments
<olyerickson1> Q: Is there an overview for how we're using 'respect" for us newbies?
<mhausenblas> see http://dev.w3.org/2009/dap/ReSpec.js/documentation.html olyerickson
<olyerickson1> * I hate that this stuff starts on one media, then goes to 'respect' or Hg or Foo or bar :(
<mhausenblas> but this is only relevant for Editors anyway ;)
<olyerickson1> Michael: Only people who need to know these details (e.g. ReSpec) are editorsa
<olyerickson1> bhyland: cochairs will send note on how to comment
<bhyland> Agreed: co-chairs to send msg to the GLD members explaining what and how to best comment on each of the deliverables (products)
<olyerickson1> phila/olyerickson/et.al. will send out something w.r.t. DCAT
<olyerickson1> +1 to much love needed (for BP)
<mhausenblas> PROPOSAL: All other products beside BP can and should be reviewed as of now
<olyerickson1> ** reviews done in time for next telecon
RESOLUTION: : All other products beside BP can and should be reviewed as of now
<olyerickson1> george: spend more time on BP now?
<olyerickson1> bhyland: yes to BP discuss now
<olyerickson1> * URI discussion
<olyerickson1> * we're getting a lot of interest in
<olyerickson1> * "people' looking for guidance
<olyerickson1> * people down the path
<boris> the wiki version is here http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/wiki/223_Best_Practices_URI_Construction
<mhausenblas> +1 to use UK URI spec as an initial draft
<Zakim> mhausenblas, you wanted to talk to URI construction
<olyerickson1> michael: not about one against another
<olyerickson1> * more about how can we reuse something existing, kickstart
<olyerickson1> * reuse what we have, refine to what we ultimately want
<olyerickson1> george: to michael's point, a bit more coverage
<bhyland> George: The UK guidance on designing URIs provides more coverage & depth than RPI draft. It includes more on /def and /set for example.
<bhyland> Olyerickson: We have a more narrow, applied model from RPI and a broader model from data.gov.uk. One alternative is to put forward one particular model and ask people to comment on this…
<bhyland> …. another way is to suggest multiple models.
<olyerickson1> bhyland: need more "meat," more coverage
<olyerickson1> * need something that is simpler than complete "UK" model, but more general than (say) "RPI" model
<olyerickson1> * "these are the issues you need to be aware of"
<olyerickson1> * at the end of the day, guidance that they need to do it right, etc
<olyerickson1> Note: "EPA" is an *example8
<olyerickson1> Summary: URI Construction section needs work/editing/by responsible bodies
<olyerickson1> boris: agrees with michael
<olyerickson1> bhyland: would like to see e.g. two people who will "take the ball and run"
<olyerickson1> olyerickson: I will help, BUT I need a sense of what is needed
<Zakim> mhausenblas, you wanted to make analogy w/ life cycles
<olyerickson1> I don't have a clear picture of what it wants to look likke
<olyerickson1> michael: similar situation in BP w.r.t. "Life cycle"
<olyerickson1> michael: goal should be to create something that fits for most,
<olyerickson1> * but leave out stuff that contributors can't live with
<olyerickson1> * leave sections stubbed in where there are arguments
<martin> yes, I am
<olyerickson1> are we changing topics?
<olyerickson1> Summary of URI Construction: olyerickson and daniel to pull something together
<olyerickson1> ** boris is volunteering daniel
<olyerickson1> george: need to wrap up, plan
<olyerickson1> * all but BP are ready to start reviewing
<olyerickson1> * BP will have some break-out sessions
<Zakim> mhausenblas, you wanted to ask about WG-internal review request
<bhyland> yes michael
<olyerickson1> Michael: chairs to send out notifications
<George> @ olyerickson1 - can you and i get together on the URI construction topic as well? perhaps with Dani?
<olyerickson1> "once upon a time there was a versioning section"
<bhyland> Once upon a time, we had the following people signed up to deal with versioning in BP doc:
<bhyland> ; Versioning:
<bhyland> * John Erickson (RPI)
<bhyland> * Ghislain (INSTITUT TELECOM)
<bhyland> * Hadley Beeman, (versioning as related to Data "Cube")
<bhyland> * Cory Casanove (OMG)
<olyerickson1> bhyland: who is responsible for versioning.
<olyerickson1> * still only has notes, no real content
<olyerickson1> bhyland: big gaping hole, need to close
<olyerickson1> michael; could just leave it as a section
<George> BenediktKaempgen: versioning could be part of the QB UC work
<olyerickson1> ??? could be a use case of datacube
<olyerickson1> not sure I understand
<mhausenblas> OK, sorry, I gotta run
<olyerickson1> benedikt: how versioning fits with DQ
<olyerickson1> ** also related to provenance
<olyerickson1> george: thanks to everyone
<BenediktKaempgen> bye, thanks
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.136 of Date: 2011/05/12 12:01:43 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Found Scribe: olyerickson Inferring ScribeNick: olyerickson Found Scribe: olyerickson Inferring ScribeNick: olyerickson WARNING: No "Present: ... " found! Possibly Present: BenediktKaempgen George_Thomas IPcaller LC MacTed Note Olyerickson P32 PROPOSAL Summary Tina Yigal ZacharyWhitley aaaa aabb aacc benedikt bhyland boris danbri davidwood george gld https joined lbermudez martin mhausenblas michael olyerickson1 rreck tinagheen trackbot You can indicate people for the Present list like this: <dbooth> Present: dbooth jonathan mary <dbooth> Present+ amy Found Date: 16 Feb 2012 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2012/02/16-gld-minutes.html People with action items: WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]