Government Linked Data Working Group Teleconference -- 14 Feb 2013

<trackbot> Date: 14 February 2013

<bhyland> Meeting: GLD

<fadmaa> hello all am still having problems joining the call

<JoaoPauloAlmeida> ??P7 is me

<DeirdreLee> Hi, I'm having trouble dialling in

<scribe> Scribe: gatemezi

<scribe> Chair: HadleyBeeman

Mercurial Issue

<bhyland> Here is the problem, identified by DaveR:

<bhyland> There actually seem to be three heads in the repository at the moment. So are there are two problematic checkins, not just one.

<bhyland> Using "hg heads" on a fresh clone I see:

<bhyland> [[[

<bhyland> changeset: 266:a849bc621eb6

<bhyland> tag: tip

<bhyland> user: gatemezi

<bhyland> date: Thu Feb 07 15:18:37 2013 +0100

<bhyland> summary: test adding new respec

<bhyland> changeset: 264:df2f123b3c12

<bhyland> user: bkaempge

<bhyland> date: Sat Feb 02 13:06:39 2013 +0100

<bhyland> summary: Added change to respec usage as Richard suggested.

<bhyland> changeset: 244:903d84fc1644

<bhyland> user: agipap <mailto:apapant@medialab.ntua.gr>

<bhyland> date: Thu Oct 25 16:22:59 2012 +0300

<bhyland> summary: made a new verion of the exemplary RDF file

<bhyland> ]]]

DaveReynolds: We have to solve the issues... merge the two branches to one piece

<bhyland> For clarification, we haven't lost anything.

<bhyland> The good news is, each of the people were working on different docs.

<HadleyBeeman> http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/meeting/2013-01-24

bhyland: Dave will look at the problem much in detail

<bhyland> DaveR agreed to look at the various heads tonight & contact owners if there are any issues

<bhyland> +1

<DaveReynolds> +1

<bhyland> There is a new member on the call, ericstephan ...

<BenediktKaempgen> +1

New on the call

<bhyland> +1

<bhyland> +q

Eric presented himself.

Review of the timeline

<bhyland> For everyone's benefit, here is the W3C process timeline:

<bhyland> With all things going well:

<bhyland> Once at LC, it takes 6 weeks

<bhyland> Once at CR, it takes 6 weeks - if we got to CR, we could get an extension.

<bhyland> Once at TR, it takes 6 weeks

HadleyBeeman: we have to review our work from now till the end of our group

ORG to CR by May (DaveR)

<HadleyBeeman> bhyland: We have a lot of deliverables. We should realise we won't get them all to Rec, but we do have some within striking distance. Especially Cube and DCAT to last call and ORG and REGORG to working group note.

bhyland: we need acceleration to have DQ and DCAT to have ready for end of May
... We have to be sure to have things done..

<BenediktKaempgen> +1 to get things done for QB until the end of WG

<bhyland> Correction: RegOrg only as a possible Working Note.

<BenediktKaempgen> +1 to not overly extending WG

<bhyland> Summary of my points:

<bhyland> Get Cube to LC ASAP, get to CR by end of May.

HadleyBeeman: ORG ready for end of May as Candidate REC ?

<bhyland> Get DCAT to LC ASAP, possible to CR by end of May

Dave: Yes, we can make it! It will depends on the discussion

<bhyland> Get ORG to CR, get ORG to TR by end of May

<HadleyBeeman> W3C process: http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr

<bhyland> Per W3C staffer:

<bhyland> With all things going well:

<bhyland> Once at LC, it takes 6 weeks

<bhyland> Once at CR, it takes 6 weeks - if we got to CR, we could get an extension.

<bhyland> Once at TR, it takes 6 weeks

<HadleyBeeman> 7.1.2 Maturity Levels of the Recommendation Track

<HadleyBeeman> In addition to Working Drafts that are meant to advance to Recommendation, the other maturity levels of the Recommendation Track are:

<HadleyBeeman> Candidate Recommendation (CR)

<HadleyBeeman> A Candidate Recommendation is a document that W3C believes has been widely reviewed and satisfies the Working Group's technical requirements. W3C publishes a Candidate Recommendation to gather implementation experience.

<HadleyBeeman> Proposed Recommendation (PR)

<HadleyBeeman> A Proposed Recommendation is a mature technical report that, after wide review for technical soundness and implementability, W3C has sent to the W3C Advisory Committee for final endorsement.

<HadleyBeeman> W3C Recommendation (REC)

<HadleyBeeman> A W3C Recommendation is a specification or set of guidelines that, after extensive consensus-building, has received the endorsement of W3C Members and the Director. W3C recommends the wide deployment of its Recommendations. Note: W3C Recommendations are similar to the standards published by other organizations.

bhyland: We need to have feedbacks from the the rest of the group...Isn't it better to publish ORG and have CR?

<HadleyBeeman> http://www.w3.org/2005/08/01-transitions.html

<MakxDekkers_> zakim aahh is me

HadleyBeeman: there is a transition meeting where we prepare existing implementations and maybe future objections

<martin_> \me Apologies, I have to leave.

bhyland: we need more commitments to have ORG ready before May

<BenediktKaempgen> +q

ericstephan: It is important to push the publication of our ORG...he volunteers to review ORG

<HadleyBeeman> ericstephan: can be an implementation of ORG as well

<DaveReynolds> Thanks to James and Eric, implementation evidence would be great!

Benedickt: How to help Dave with the next steps? creating a UCs ?

Cube

<bhyland> If we have a hope of getting Cube to CR by end of May, we need to get Cube to LC ASAP. DaveReynolds agreed to have a look and swap in Cube issues

Dave: will go throw the differents issues btw Cube and ORG and get agreement

+1 to this priority: ORG, Cube and DCAT

<ericstephan> +

<BartvanLeeuwen> +1

Benedickt: commits to put more time in Cube in the coming weeks

<bhyland> May I put a fine point on this in direct American style? There is urgency to getting LC in a week.

<JoaoPauloAlmeida> Do we really need another LC on ORG?

<bhyland> DaveR: There is no possibility of Cube getting to LC in a week

<BartvanLeeuwen> +q

<ericstephan> I will look into getting additional external reviewers on cube if that would be helpful

HadleyBeeman: LC of Cube at the beginning of March?

<bhyland> yes

<scribe> ACTION: DaveReynolds to contact Richard to review Cube to have Cube ready for March, 8th [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/02/14-gld-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Error finding 'DaveReynolds'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/track/users>.

<JoaoPauloAlmeida> Sorry, for some reason, I keep disconnecting.

<fadmaa> http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/track/products/2

DCAT

fadmaa: we had a meeting to resolve many issues..

<bhyland> Note: There has been a lot of discussion on the list re: DCAT, which is great. Thank you Fadi & others for focusing on this.

<bhyland> +1 to separate telecon

<BartvanLeeuwen> +1 to seperate telco as well

fadmaa: Decide if you have a different telecon or 30 mins to resolve remaining issues?

+1 to separate telco as well

<bhyland> fadmaa: Thinks DCAT is in proper shape to move to LC ASAP

<BartvanLeeuwen> -q

Glossary and BP

<bhyland> Status on BP on Linked Open Data

<bhyland> Sandro: We haven't talked about the controversial issues

<bhyland> Procurement: needs editing, but have content & feedback.

<bhyland> Vocab selection: needs editing, but have content.

<bhyland> URI Construction: needs editing, but have content.

<bhyland> Versioning: RDF WG talked about this a lot and couldn't come to closure. Not addressed in GLD WG.

<bhyland> Stability: Not addressed

<bhyland> Legacy: Not addressed

<bhyland> Cookbook: Ready for review.

<JoaoPauloAlmeida> I have reviewed the Stability section as requested.

<JoaoPauloAlmeida> I do not believe it is currently mature enough. I suggest abandoning the Stability section.

<JoaoPauloAlmeida> or rewriting it

bhyland: In BP, there are some sections that need to be removed

<ericstephan> +q will telecon be available?

<BartvanLeeuwen> +1

<fadmaa> I am going as well

<scribe> Topic : 3F2F in Dublin

<DaveReynolds> I'm on the queue but have concerns about retaining procurement section of BP

<BartvanLeeuwen> +q

<DaveReynolds> Also URI guidance is being substantially reviewed in UK and you should take this into account

<DaveReynolds> It may be better to drop both of those sections

F2F3

<bhyland> See wiki page: http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/wiki/F2F3

<ericstephan> I could do skype

<HadleyBeeman> The challenge with dropping URI guidance is that everyone is looking for it.

<DaveReynolds> If they are retained then please give us enough time to review

<bhyland> FWIW, our Doodle poll taken showed enthusiasm but the list has been quiet since then, see http://www.doodle.com/3w7wnzy45ehn7iqi

Bart: Do we have a specific agenda in the F2F?

bhyland: It will be important to have things well documented for the F2F..
... a place also to have input for the deliverables part ..

<bhyland> Thank you Hadley!

<BenediktKaempgen> Thanks hadley and bernadette!

<bhyland> Thanks Ghislain!

<bhyland> http://www.w3.org/2013/04/odw/

<HadleyBeeman> http://www.w3.org/2013/04/odw/who

<HadleyBeeman> bye, zakim

<TallTed> trackbot, end meeting

- DRAFT -

Government Linked Data Working Group Teleconference

14 Feb 2013

Attendees

Contents