Government Linked Data Working Group Teleconference -- 04 Oct 2012

<trackbot> Date: 04 October 2012

<james> hello all, i'm new to the WG. @Zakim, are you having the bot call participants, or authorizing certain numbers to call in?

<bhyland> good day all

<bhyland> ouch!!

<gatemezi> Hi all.

<olyerickson> OpenNorth: http://opennorth.ca/

<sandro> not yet, PhilA2

<George> Welcome James - Exec Dir of OpenNorth

Noob Intros

<bhyland> Welcome James, thanks for joining.

<olyerickson> PMSL

I'll do it

<sandro> scribe: HadleyBeeman

<Biplav> I can volunteer as well for future.

welcome

<PhilA2> agipap: ?

<sandro> gatemezi, is that you dialing in and ending us with us put on hold hearing french music?

<PhilA2> Are you there?

<bhyland> @Ghislain, we drop you because we're getting interrupted with lengthy intro and music from your lovely French operator.

accepting last week's minutes

<olyerickson> Abstains...

<BartvanLeeuwen> +1

<agipap> hello all! agipap as usual has problems with the SIP configuration:-)

<PhilA2> Last week's minutes

<sandro> bhyland: As I recall, last week we decided not to do Geo, but I don't see that recorded in the minutes.

<sandro> PhilA2: I'd rather if we said "not now" instead of "we're never going to do it"

phila2: we decided not to NEVER do anything with people, but for the time being not to. Note the existence of the community group that is working on it.

<bhyland> Proposed: We acknowledge that Geography and Spatial Vocab is listed as optional on the charter. There was some initial work on a wiki page but the volunteers have since ceased attending the GLD WG.

<sandro> bhyland: We acknowledge that Geo is listed as optional in the charter. There was some initial work, on a wiki page, but the volunteers are not longer participating, and we acknowledge that we're not going to get to it within the charter timeframe.

<bhyland> +1

<bhyland> With that noted, I +1 last week's minutes

<gatemezi> @bhyland: You mean the initial volunteers? because there still volunteers for Geo Vocab in the group

RADion

PhilA2: There was a suggestion on the mailing list that proposed the working group not take on RADion as a work item.
... If it exists elsewhere, the group will note its existence.

<bhyland> +1

<gatemezi> +1 to accept last week's minute

<PhilA2> new version of ADMS

<sandro> gatemezi, are you suggesting that the group has the time/energy/staff for doing a geo vocab? if so, that's worth talking over with the chairs.

PHilA2: Spent some time on ADMS (Gofran is co-editor on that). When the chair designates, we can take it to first public working draft

<PhilA2> Co-editor of ADMS is Gofran

<PhilA2> Last week's meeting announced that Gofran Shukair of DERI, NUIG will be co-editor of ADMS, the latest editor's draft of which is at http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/gld/raw-file/default/adms/index.html

DaveReynolds: There was one area of ORG added in response to Bart's suggestions several months ago. Doc polished, ready to review. Sent out last week.

…Cygri has done a detailed review, made editorial suggestions. More work than expected for today. Will sort that over the weekend for review in advance of last-call vote early next week.

Bhyland: why a possible restructure?

DaveReynolds: Possibly reorganise vocab references and materials to be at the end.

Bhyland: Is there precedent here we can follow?

DaveReynolds: This is a preference, but not an unreasonable one. That's a normal way to do it. I like to see it intermixed myself.

Bhyland: I think it's well-structured as it is. I'd hate to see you have to do a lot of work at this point.

<PhilA2> I agree there is no "definitive style" for vocabularies. +1 to Dave retaining the structure that has worked for this well-used ontology to date

DaveReynolds: Cygri has said this may not be a critical thing. I'll spend a bit of time looking at it to get a sense of how much work it would be and still be coherent.

<gatemezi> +1 to bhyland point of not having too much work to reorganize ORG

<olyerickson> Sounds like cygri has made a suggestion on non-critical re-structuring that DaveReynolds is not opposed to...

George: That sounds like a good approach. mhausenblas also volunteered to review it. Health.data.gov may also be relevant, using ORG already.

<bhyland> @DaveReynolds, I leave it to your judgement. For the record, I think it is well structured & readable as structured but if you're happy enough to make changes, thank you.

phila: There is no rule book on how to set out a vocabulary, so I'm happy to see flexibility on this. No need to conform with a standard that doesn't exist.

bartvanleeuwen: we had a 2-day meeting with the source of my changes. We were able to model everything we wanted to with the ORG ontology

George: we should close action 78 as completed. 79 we'll leave for the additional work

davereynolds: re issue 35… should we close that as well? Bartsvanleeuwen was the test-case for that, so if he's able to address that, then we're set.

<bhyland> @HadleyBeaman … do you know how to close issues? I can do if you like

… The question of OPMV and ProvO:

… Use case: Where two companies are merging, or a new company is created. Change history. We use the OPMV vocabulary for that.

<bhyland> @Hadley, done. Recorded: closed: "Addressed and Bart has been successful in using ORG to satisfy his the noted cases."

… Provenance working group has produced Prov-O. Names are different, but the structure is the same. Question for us: can we switch vocabularies. Issues: timescales between the two working groups, and the existing uses in the wild.

<olyerickson> OPMV: http://open-biomed.sourceforge.net/opmv/ns.html

… Not aware of anyone dependent on the vocabulary as it is. At some point, there may be a mapping between OPMV and PROV-O.

… If anyone can identify a problem here, now is a good time to bring it up

… We need a formal reference to Prov-O in document, and then to update the ontology to reflect that.

s/we need/we would need

sandro: Is the term part of ORG, or a sub-class kind of thing?

davereynolds: Sub-class. Suggests other terms from that vocabulary that could be used.

Sandro: if it were just the vocabulary, I was wondering about sub-classing both of them.

davereynolds: That would be reasonable. We still need to satisfy the Prov-O piece. Still need to reference that in the formal document.

Sandro: Just want to make sure we aren't causing problems for anyone already using OPMV

… ORG uses everything in its own namespace. Why is this a sub-class rather than just using the other term?

davereynolds: because it's actually a specialisation.

sandro: We could put this part "at risk". Prov-O is moving along pretty well now.

davereynolds: How to designate this? Editorial notes: a change in the vocabulary intended to be backward compatible?

sandro: A usage note or something like that. A list of changes in the appendix?

Davereynolds: for last-call document, are we allowed editorial notes?

<gatemezi> Could some one putting the link to the actual rdf file of the Prov-O ontology?

sandro: I'm thinking of a style of note that would even proceed into recomendation

<PhilA2> (For background, if you flag a feature as being 'At Risk' it means that you can take it out after LC (although IIRC not at CR)

<Zakim> PhilA, you wanted to raise a separate issue (i.e. when the Prov discussion is done)

<olyerickson> For the record: The specific section we were discussing was 10.1 Class: ChangeEvent http://bit.ly/QJy1AS

pHilA: concept of an identifier: handled differently in ORG than in OPMV.
... There are distinct bits of data about the identifier in ADMS — different to ORG. Don't want to mess around with ORG, but we need to recognise that we have 2 other work items that refer to this identifier concept and we need to make sure they don't clash

<bhyland> @Hadley, should I also close ISSUE-36 re: RADion as I see status is set to "Raised" but I think should go to "Closed" based on earlier discussion … did I understand that correctly??

<bhyland> @Hadley, see http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/track/issues/36

<PhilA2> -> The ADMS notion of a 'code' which includes the concept of an 'Identifier'

<PhilA2> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/gld/raw-file/default/adms/index.html#data-types

<olyerickson> Curious what the proposed PROV-O equivalent of "opmv:Process" is http://open-biomed.sourceforge.net/opmv/ns.html#Process

daveryenolds: Option 1: Change ORG to make identifier a resource value as well as a typed value. Option 2: create another one in ORG. Option 3: Leave this in place. In doing legal entity, you'll define an interment rule.

davereynolds: that needs to be resolved before we vote on last call

<olyerickson> See: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/gld/raw-file/default/org/static.html#property--identifier

<olyerickson> Q: Could we have a side-by-side comparison?

davereynolds and PhilA2 are working out where conflicting recommendations to use SKOS notation in ADMS and ORG come up (with regard to identifiers)

<olyerickson> Proposal: Can we have a side-by-side comparison??

<scribe> ACTION: PHilA and DaveReynolds to sort out this issue off-line [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/10/04-gld-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-80 - And DaveReynolds to sort out this issue off-line [on Phil Archer - due 2012-10-11].

<PhilA2> -> Richard's proposal http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-gld-wg/2012Sep/0064.html

<BenediktKaempgen> @olyerickson PROV-O equivalent of "opmv:Process" probably is prov:Activity

PhilA2: To clarify, RADion is mostly an abstract way to think of things like software forges and data catalogues. Anywhere you have lots of assets collected in a category or repository.

…You'd subclass it, as DCAT does. You'd rarely use it directly.

… Cygri is saying fine, it's there. We don't have to think about it, except in seeing sublcasses (like DCAT and ADMS). We could decide to accept that and not discuss RADion again

<BartvanLeeuwen> +1

<bhyland> +1

bhyland: Agreed, we are closing Issue 36?

<DaveReynolds> +0

<gatemezi> +1

davereynolds: Not opposing to close it, but the implication of this discussion is that we accept the conclusion that DCAT is a subclass… I wouldn't vote for it, but I"m not against it. I abstain

ack ??P17

<PhilA2> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: The WG resolves that RADion is *not* a GLD-WG product. If the RADion editor makes a credible assertion that he is going to publish the RADion namespace document regardless through some other venue (SWIG, community group, Just Ask the Webmaster, ?), then GLD-WG will include mappings to RADion in the DCAT and ADMS RDFS files. and close Issue-36

<bhyland> Resolved to CLOSE ISSUE-36. RADion will not be further pursued.

<bhyland> +1

<sandro> RESOLVED: CLOSE ISSUE-36. RADion will not be further pursued.

<gatemezi> +1

The larger ISA programme

PhilA: Lots here, little time. There was an agreement between Jeff Jaffe and the European Commission (with George, Bernadette, Sandro, Thomas and Phil) to review the ISA Programme Vocabs for possible RECOMMENDATION track status. that are coming from the EC work.
... I'm trying to take the group along in our discussions (including the one we just had about RADion). The ADMS spec is something we can take to first public working draft — but we need the group to buy in first.
... The EC has emailed us to express displeasure with our lack of expediency.
... Some things are easy to handle. We haven't published the Location Core Vocabulary because there is a community group to deal with that. Chair should be set today.
... Some things just aren't a priority. Not in use.

… The legal entity one is active and implemented. There is demand.

… We haven't yet, in this group, brought this work into W3C space yet because we've been doing other things. It's time.

bhyland: Are there any people who could augment this activity either direct with ISA or complementary, because we're short on time on this? Are there 1-2 other reviewers outside the working group we could get to help?

<olyerickson> HadleyBeeman: Note that I updated ACTION-80 to better reflect what is being asked...

PhilA2: I would say that everything that was produced and handed over was done by a working group, just not THIS working group.

… The Commission is not putting pressure on individuals, but it is on the W3C.

George: Phil, Sandro, Bernadette and I will discuss this more next week. We'll see what we can do to progress this.

<bhyland> At the end of the day, we did agree to *review it* and we agreed 9 months ago. I feel we owe a thorough review & indication as to whether this is "on our plate" or decidedly "off our plate" (which would be very unfortunate).

<BenediktKaempgen> bye

<Biplav> Thanks

<bhyland> @PhilA, do you have a minute for a call?

<gatemezi> Chair: George

<bhyland> @phil, skype?

<gatemezi> Thanks, all!

Should I clean up the minutes, or is there someone else who wants to do that?

Thanks, PhilA2. I don't think I can access that part of the wiki… not sure why :(

- DRAFT -

Government Linked Data Working Group Teleconference

04 Oct 2012

Attendees

Contents

Noob Intros

welcome

accepting last week's minutes

RADion

The larger ISA programme

Summary of Action Items

Scribe.perl diagnostic output