Government Linked Data Working Group Teleconference -- 23 Feb 2012

<trackbot> Date: 23 February 2012

<bhyland> hello everyone

<HadleyBeeman> Hi bhyland!

<bhyland> @Sandro, yes, please fix my typo on date … sorry

<HadleyBeeman> I've missed you all. Someone's been scheduling Open Data Institute planning meetings at the same time as our telecons… Sorry.

<scribe> Scribe:Ghislain Atemezing

<scribe> ScribeNick:gatemezi

<dvilasuero> \me thanks boris

<olyerickson> typing "bh<tab> works nices

<olyerickson> +1 to good group ;)

<bhyland> Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20120223

<sandro> and "bh" without the tab also works. :-)

bhyland: We have to begin..welcome everything

<olyerickson> unmute me.

<bhyland> zakim aabb is gatemezi

BenediktKaempgen to begin the first part of the agenda

<bhyland> Request to approve last week's minutes, see http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/meeting/2012-02-16

last week minutes

<olyerickson> +1 to minutes

bhyland: discussed a lot BP documents

<boris> +1

<BenediktKaempgen> +1 minutes

<dvilasuero> +1

<GeraldSteeman> -q

RESOLUTION: the last minutes is approved

Discussion about DQ use-case

<BenediktKaempgen> http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/wiki/Data_Cube_Vocabulary

RDF Data Cube Use Case proposed by Benedikt

<olyerickson> +1 to hearing BenediktKaempgen...

BenediktKaempgen: 2 products..for rdf DQ vocab
... want to make sure that it covers all the use cases

<BenediktKaempgen> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/gld/raw-file/default/data-cube-ucr/index.html

BenediktKaempgen: for relevant scenario ...
... the doc has an introduction before a complete scenario

<bhyland> Abstract from Use Case doc: "Many national, regional and local governments, as well as other organizations inside and outside of the public sector, create statistics. There is a need to publish those statistics in a standardized, machine-readable way on the web, so that statistics can be freely integrated and reused in consuming applications. This document is a collection of use cases for a standard vocabulary to publish statistics as Linked Data.

BenediktKaempgen: don't have at the moment concret links to the use of those scenario
... use case docs has 10..divided en two groups: to publish and consump data published
... the requirement depend on the use case...
... of course you have to use LD, the data should be published in a general way
... giving freedom for the consumption.. like modeling quantitive oobservation..
... the 2nd use case deals with excel files, their transformation
... the 3rth UC: base the modeling on SDMX...
..4UC: publishing aggregation value; also at the granular level; measurement

<Biplav> Biplav: I am on the call, mute
...5UC: not sure about this, is about registering for other platform
... UC 6: regarding versioning...stats about other stats
... want to make sure that data can be used by "normal" tools...
... visualize data set in expressive way ...for analysis
... provide ways to analyse data with intelligent methods
... problem could occur with large data set...tools can't know for eg aggregation function...
... last UC: specific stats are required in specifics formats...find way to transforme DQ data to those formats
... would be happy to receive feedbacks..

<George> wow indeed - very comprehensive and exciting set of uc's :0

<olyerickson> +1 to awesome

bhyland: thanks for the information in 16 min.

<Zakim> DaveReynolds, you wanted to ask about qb explanation and categories of UC

<PhilA2> +1 to bhyland's thanks for the great work on this

<bhyland> +1 DaveReynolds … I had the same question

<olyerickson> +1 to DaveReynolds's point about mixing up UC with solution

DaveReynolds: wondering how we have UC in the same document?

<olyerickson> I don't agree

<Deirdre> looks like 41# puts up your hand and adds you to speaker queue :)

<bhyland> Possible solution is to call it "best practices for DataCube Use" rather than Use Cases ...

<bhyland> DaveReynolds: The proposed Use Case doc combines use case definition but also pre-supposes an outcome/approach

DaveReynolds: technical UC dealing with design decision..

<olyerickson> I agree with DaveReynolds interpretation

<olyerickson> ** I think it's one of approach to BP

<bhyland> +1 to general use case definition but would like to see solutions separated.

bhyland: Could we consider a doc for UCs and another like "BP for DQ" ?

<bhyland> Benedikt: The use of XMBL is mandated by US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), for final publishing purposes.

<bhyland> Bhyland asked whether that is used extensively elsewhere, e.g., EU, Asia, Australia, etc?

<boris> s/XBML/XBRL

<PhilA2> There is an EU branch of XBRL too btw. They've been involved in the ISA programme stuff I'm doing

<PhilA2> http://www2.xbrl.org//eu/

olyerickson: we could consider a check-list for guiding the user in taking the decision..particularly in BP docs

<bhyland> olyerickson: We need to remember who our constituents or consumers are … we shouldn't be focusing on application of a specific vocab to a problem … rather, how to make a decision, what criteria to apply … should highlight what is important, e.g. how to properly design URLs and define a URI policy...

<bhyland> benedikt: Liaised with Richard Cyganiak and his advice was that people in gov't are considering the application of these vocabs.

<rreck> +1 checklist (to me it sounds like the right approach to a govt problem)

<olyerickson> +1 to moving on ;)

Biplav: propose to add for each UC the benefit of using DQ

<bhyland> Propose: Putting Use Case & Req's for Data Cube Vocab on agenda for a week *after* we get through getting the stuff that is core to our Charter/Schedule addressed.

<bhyland> DaveReynolds: Use Case doc is about setting the context and explains solutions .. this should follow a separate Best Practice doc either part of the main BP doc or separate BP doc specific to the Data Cube

<bhyland> I like having the problem of too much good quality information to separate out :-)

boris: thanks for the others...more precision for the UC 3 regarding the SDMX vocab which is not entirely covered

Thanks Benedikt!

<dvilasuero> thanks benedikt, very good work!

bhyland: sugestions for publishing FPWD ? Any formal procedure at W3C

<PhilA2> The short name on the docs now look pretty good to me

bhyland: there is a formal procedure for publishing FPWD...

<PhilA2> The editors have put them on in allc ases

DCAT

<PhilA2> I admit I've not given it the time I had hoped

https://www.w3.org/2011/gld/track/products/2

<PhilA2> Currently swamped by ISA Programme stuff that is more than filling my time so I've been a bit negligent on DCAT

bhyland: RESOLUTION: posponed DCAT discussion to march, 8.

<bhyland> Topic Org Ontology is now in Mercurial, see http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/gld/raw-file/default/org/index.html

<boris> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/gld/raw-file/default/org/index.html

bvila: transform the ORG for reviewing process...

<bhyland> Approved: Org Ontology will have an email sent to Thomas Roessler @ W3C to move to public review of FPWD

<sandro> PROPOSED: Publish the Org Ontology Specification as a FPWD

<bhyland> +1

<sandro> +1 (W3C)

<HadleyBeeman> +1 (LinkedGov)

<DaveReynolds> +1 (invited expert)

<rreck> +1 rrecktek

<boris> +1 (UPM)

<tinagheen> +1 (Library of Congress)

<George> +1 (HHS)

<dvilasuero> +1 (UPM)

<BenediktKaempgen> +1

<Deirdre> +1 (DERI)

<olyerickson> +1 (RPI)

<Biplav> +1 (IBM)

<BenediktKaempgen> +1 (FZI)

<GeraldSteeman> +1 (NASA)

<sandro> RESOLVED: Publish the Org Ontology Specification as a FPWD

<PhilA2> :-)

<HadleyBeeman> :)

People Vocab, see https://www.w3.org/2011/gld/track/products/4

<BenediktKaempgen> \me thanks Dani

<DaveReynolds> Thanks especially to Dani

<bhyland> RE: People Vocab, discussion post-poned to 8-Mar-2012 until MHausenblas

Proposed: discussion of People Vocab post-poned

Best Practices https://www.w3.org/2011/gld/track/products/1

BP prep for FPWD, see https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/gld/raw-file/default/bp/index.html

bhyland: there is a lot of content, many people involved..the editors working a lot to clean up all the content
... The document is not ready at the moment even for internal revision

<bhyland> Propose: Separate working note for Linked Data Glossary

<olyerickson> Q: Note that this ED doesn't reflect the current state of the work that's been done

<bhyland> ACTION: bhyland to produce a Linked Data Glossary from existing content in wiki & books. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/02/23-gld-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-54 - Produce a Linked Data Glossary from existing content in wiki & books. [on Bernadette Hyland - due 2012-03-01].

<olyerickson> Observation: The BP ED doesn't include any of the URI Construction work to-date: http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/wiki/223_Best_Practices_URI_Construction

bhyhand: consider procurement for a different working group note?

<DaveReynolds> *Stunned* that W3C really thinks it can do REC for procurement. NOT at all happy with this.

<olyerickson> So URI Construction people need an action to update the ED in Hg...

Community Directory, see new stats http://dir.w3.org/rdf/2012/directory/statistics.xhtml?view

<sandro> DaveReynolds, W3C does this with WCAG, right?

<bhyland> there are 66 organizations that have been listed.

<DaveReynolds> sandro, very different case, that's an area that W3C is qualified to recommend on

<sandro> DaveReynolds, you don't think we are qualified to say what is a Linked Data system....?

<DaveReynolds> sandro, yes

<sandro> sorry, lost in double negative, DaveReynolds :-)

<bhyland> Announcements:

<bhyland> Biplav: described conference ...

Biplav: organize a Workshop in LD

<DaveReynolds> sandro, W3C not qualified to recommend how to buy linked data solutions

<tinagheen> For clarification please, has Community Directory been released to the public?

<sandro> DaveReynolds, not "how to buy", but "what is a linked data server" or a "linked data storage system", or something like that. That could be where Bernadette and I are disagreeing, too.

<bhyland> @tinagheen, not officially because we haven't made time to discuss in the WG.

<rreck> thanks, bye

<BenediktKaempgen> Thanks! Bye

bhyland: thanks everyone

<DaveReynolds> sandro, so why call it "procurement" and prejudge the nature of the solution?

<bhyland> @ghislain, I'll hang out here to ensure the minutes get created OK.

<bhyland> thanks everyone. Great work on vocabs & use cases .. thank you.

<Biplav> AAAI 12 workshop on Semantic Cities: http://research.ihost.com/semanticcities12/index.html http://research.ihost.com/semanticcities12/index.html AAAI 12 workshop on Semantic Cities -

<bhyland> @Biplav, thank you!

<bhyland> @Biplav, I'll ping you about addressing the organizational representation of a multi-national in the Community Directory … you'll have some good ideas I bet

<PhilA2> gatemezi: are you going to do the Common Scribe processing?

<PhilA2> i.e. get this onto the wiki?

<sandro> DaveReynolds, the charter text is: "Specific products and services involved in governments publishing linked data will be defined, suitable for use during government procurement." That's okay, yes? That emphasis is because that's what John Sheridan and others were telling me they needed.

<sandro> ( see http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/charter for more of the context. )

@bhyland: I may need your help for the final process of the minutes :-) TIA

<bhyland> OK, would you like to take over now?

<bhyland> It will take me a couple minutes & we'll be done...

<PhilA2> bhyland: I'm happy to handle common scribe - I'm starting to get sued to it I think

- DRAFT -

Government Linked Data Working Group Teleconference

23 Feb 2012

Attendees

Contents