See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 16 August 2012
<bhyland> Agenda for today's call: http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20120816
<BartvanLeeuwen> Zakim ??p17 is me
<BartvanLeeuwen> it is
<BartvanLeeuwen> but zakim doesn't react ?
<bhyland> anyone else looked at Fadi et al's pres, see http://www.slideshare.net/fadimaali/selfservice-linked-government-data
George, do you want me to scribe?
<scribe> Meeting: Telecon20120816
<scribe> Scribe: Benedikt
<scribe> ScribeNick: BenediktKaempgen
<olyerickson> i'm talking
<olyerickson> how do we switch then?
Bart: TPAC was not discussed. Will it happen? Unresolved.
George: No GLD f2f planned at TPAC
<bhyland> Question from Bart: Did we make a definitive decision re: having our next F2F at TPAC?
bhyland: who is going to
TPAC?
... I am planning to go.
<sandro> I expect to be at TPAC, the whole week
Bart: Going there, but not entire time.
<bhyland> Attending: Sandro, Bart, Bernadette …
George, how about last minutes?
<olyerickson> +1 to minutes
minutes: http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/meeting/2012-07-26
minutes accepted
<bhyland> See https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/gld/raw-file/default/glossary/index.html
bhyland: if googling for "linked
data glossary" nothing very useful is coming
... currently, there is no good result coming.
... asked Tom Heath whether to look at current status of our
glossary.
... asked him to put up link to linkeddata.org, he agreed
... assume that it is possible to clean our current LD glossary
in a week
george: great idea to have a new version of glossary which is "approved" by Tom.
<olyerickson> unmute me.
bhyland: tell me whether worth the effort?
<DaveReynolds> Seems like a good thing to do.
<tinagheen> yes, worth the effort
<bhyland> I invite anyone on this call, in the group or our larger community to send Ghislain & me improved wording of definitions so we can publish a decent, useful, canonical glossary.
olyerickson: canonical glossary is important, if someone would be willing to work on it, that would be awesome.
bhyland: I want under w3c domain a decent LD glossary
<Yigal> A google search brings up In the second position http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/gld/raw-file/default/glossary/index.html
<BartvanLeeuwen> +1 for having it under the w3c domain
bhyland: wants to know whether someone wants to add feedback to the current glossary.
<olyerickson> Now I get it...thanks...apologies for missing the point
<bhyland> no worries John, I'm sorry I wasn't clear in the beginning.
sandro: WG note would be more
efficient but would be difficult to update
... a wiki would be possible, too, but depending on what wiki
is chosen, more or less people are possible to change it.
<BartvanLeeuwen> +q
sandro: question is whether only working group participant should change the glossary or all people that have an W3C account.
<bhyland> Agreed to speak to Ivan Herman, Semantic Web activity lead
<DaveReynolds> I'd also advocate using the Wiki so its a community resource which can be maintained.
<bhyland> The semantic web wiki is here http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/wiki/Main_Page
Bart: Prefers solution where
every W3C member can edit it
... otherwise it gets outdated, quickly.
I can do it
<Biplav> Biplav: prefers W3C member editing
<scribe> ACTION: bhyland to ask Ivan and group about possible options for decent glossary location [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/08/16-gld-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-74 - Ask Ivan and group about possible options for decent glossary location [on Bernadette Hyland - due 2012-08-23].
george: any chance that Tom updates its page according to our changes to LD glossary.
bhyland: yes, if group is motivated enough to put some effort in it. Also, there is nothing against having several glossaries, e.g., another glossary by Tom.
<olyerickson> Rec track reference: http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#rec-advance
george: most progress on dcat
(related to void)
... Dave maybe put a possible date for another QB session
... open up for general discussion about the current status
sandro: getting the vocabularies
to last call means that group has resolved all issues.
... then it can be reviewed by the more general public
<bhyland> Here is the detail on Last Call Announcement, see http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr#last-call
sandro: if big changes are introduced, several last calls are possible.
<bhyland> Note: "Duration of the review: The announcement begins a review period that SHOULD last at least three weeks but MAY last longer if the technical report is complex or has significant external dependencies."
sandro: we run the risk to be too narrow in the WG
george: dcat - how much community involvement do we need to get to consensus?
sandro: pretty good status. People had their chances to contribute.
george: dcat to put in last call this fall should be possible
sandro: yes
<olyerickson> Note: In addition to "People" isn't there "Location?" Or did we set that aside
george: data-cube - what is the state here?
DaveReynolds: Cube needs at least
one more working draft.
... regarding current issues, I think they are either out of
scope or easy to resolve
... there are lively discussions on new features, e.g., units
of measures. I think there is no reason to change cube.
... there are efforts to have some cube+, with more OLAP
features. But risk of scope-creep.
... aim would be to have over the next 1-2 months a cube
session and create a new working draft, that is then put to
last call for wider reviewing.
<olyerickson> Clarification: One of our grad students on PROV is asking questions/making suggestions wrt DataCube/PROV usage
<olyerickson> That's why DaveReynolds mentioned me ;)
george: regarding proposals for cube. Shall we settle dates for proposals done, reviewing, qb session etc.?
DaveReynolds: prefers to have
proposals out on mailing lists first, and then see the
reactions. Then we would be more flexible.
... What is the time frame for vocabs?
bhyland: last call was scheduled for October 2012. We are some time behind.
george: taking the action to speak to Dave and Richard to settle dates for proposals and cube session, as soon as possible.
<bhyland> My concern is that we published FPWD in early April. We got quite a bit of useful feedback in the following months. I have a bias to action to at least *try* to getting DCAT to by September.
<bhyland> Recognizing that we may have 1-2 last calls.
george: speaking about this topic in next chair telco.
<bhyland> Dave: Suggests getting DCAT out to LC in next month.
<bhyland> +1
DaveReynolds: get dcat last call out should be focus now
<bhyland> See http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/wiki/Organizational_Structures
DaveReynolds: Bart had use case to define organization independent of people.
<bhyland> ED = http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/gld/raw-file/default/org/index.html
<bhyland> I'd like to propose that DCAT and Cube get to FC in September.
DaveReynolds: there are other efforts (e.g., ADMS) that overlap with efforts which may lead with some confusion.
<bhyland> In fairness, we should consider ORG in context with ADMS organizational vocab (ISA Programme)
DaveReynolds: it is important that vocabularies are compatible, e.g., org and people.
<BartvanLeeuwen> +q
Bart: Proposes to change org regarding to feedback and get a new version out.
<bhyland> +1 to Bart
Bart: If changes are relatively easy, they should be done as soon as possible.
bhyland: risk of having only
emotional discussions, but not bringing improvements to the
people
... ADMS seems to big to be thouroughly reviewed by WG
DaveReynolds: bigger issue is
relation between ADMS and dcat. I do not think we need to
review ADMS to make progress with org.
... business part of ADMS seems a more independent part
<bhyland> DaveReynolds: ADMS underpins everything and thus have an impact on DCAT. The business vocabulary ISA Programme is not well understood by people on the call vis a vis connections with our vocabs in FPWD.
<Biplav_> uncertainty
Biplav_: Have we decided how to handle uncertainty?
Biplav: Example is accident with injured with people. There is inherent uncertainty here.
<bhyland> ORG has no concept of uncertainty. You can represent history over time, but at any given time, it is deterministic at a given interval.
DaveReynolds: regarding org uncertainty is not considered, since we deal with deterministic snapshots.
<Biplav_> Agreed - uncertainty in organization is hard to imagine.
DaveReynolds: in data-cube uncertainty is a relevant issue and can be handled by qualitative attributes.
<bhyland> Dave: Historic info captured by "historical information" component of ORG, see http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/gld/raw-file/default/org/index.html#historical-information
Biplav_: Was expecting some concepts regarding uncertainty in general.
<sandro> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/urw3/XGR-urw3-20080331/ Uncertainty Reasoning for the World Wide Web
Biplav_: but sees Daves points.
bhyland: topics will be best practices and community directory. Next steps.
<bhyland> See Scribes page for schedule and please volunteer to scribe :-) http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/wiki/Scribes
<olyerickson> Thanks Leaders!
<DaveReynolds> bye all
<BartvanLeeuwen> bye
<bhyland> Thanks all.
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) Succeeded: s/assumes/assume/ Succeeded: s/poit/point/ Found Scribe: Benedikt Found ScribeNick: BenediktKaempgen WARNING: No "Present: ... " found! Possibly Present: Attending Bart BartvanLeeuwen BenediktKaempgen Biplav Biplav_ Clarification Dave DaveReynolds David George_Thomas LC MacTed Note P17 P21 P22 ScribeNick SimpsonTP Yigal aaaa aabb bhyland danbri george gld hhalpin joined minutes olyerickson sandro tinagheen trackbot You can indicate people for the Present list like this: <dbooth> Present: dbooth jonathan mary <dbooth> Present+ amy Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20120816 Found Date: 16 Aug 2012 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2012/08/16-gld-minutes.html People with action items: bhyland[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]