Government Linked Data Working Group Teleconference -- 21 Mar 2013

<trackbot> Date: 21 March 2013

<BartvanLeeuwen> hi HadleyBeeman

<sandro> one sec

<HadleyBeeman> agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20130321

<MariosMeimaris> I've never done it in the past :(

<PhilA> agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20130321

<PhilA> scribe: james

<MariosMeimaris> Ok thanks!

<PhilA> scribeNick: james

<PhilA> http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/meeting/2013-03-14

<HadleyBeeman> Previous minutes: http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/meeting/2013-03-14

Acceptance of minutes

<martinA> +1

<MariosMeimaris> +1

<gatemezi> +1

RESOLUTION: Minutes accepted

<sandro> gld?

<sandro> gld hello?>

How to acknowledge active participants in published documents

<sandro> https://www.w3.org/2000/09/dbwg/details?group=47663

sandro: may be unfair to give inactive members equal recognition as active members

… option is to have a section that recognizes active members according to some metric, e.g. activity within past two months

DaveReynods: do we not use "good standing" anymore?

<bhyland> +agenda, cleaning up the participants list

sandro: "good standing" has been considered too heavy handed in the past

<bhyland> Propose: Anyone who has done specific work (i.e., review, feedback) + attendees in the WG who have attended at least 3 meetings in last quarter

<HadleyBeeman> +1

<sandro> +1

<BartvanLeeuwen> +1

<gatemezi> +1

<PhilA> +1

<TallTed> +1

<martinA> +1

<DaveReynolds> +1

<bhyland> +1

<MariosMeimaris> +1

RESOLUTION: Anyone who has done specific work (i.e., review, feedback) + attendees in the WG who have attended at least 3 meetings in last quarter

<sandro> ACTION: sandro determine who meets the current "active participants" bar, for including in publications [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/03/21-gld-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-105 - Determine who meets the current "active participants" bar, for including in publications [on Sandro Hawke - due 2013-03-28].

bhyland: a few members have asked to be withdrawn, GLD should do some clean up to remove those members

sandro: there is a software bug in that some members who have left still show up on a list of members

Seek consensus to transition ADMS to working group note

<PhilA> http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/wiki/Adms

<Mike_Pendleton> muted

PhilA: a lot has changed since the last publication of ADMS, in particular with respect to DCAT

<PhilA> http://joinup.ec.europa.eu/

PhilA: ADMS is, to my knowledge, only used in one place: the above EU platform

<PhilA> http://joinup.ec.europa.eu/catalogue/all?keys=css&field_language_textfield_lang_value=&sort_option=date-desc&current_checkbox=1

<MakxDekkers> https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/catalogue/repository/all

<gatemezi> I think also in Neologism? http://neologism.deri.ie/

PhilA: ADMS was written according to old convention of having a conceptual model and an RDF model

<gatemezi> Correct me if I am wrong, deri folks :-

PhilA: a new ADMS diagram for discussion is at http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/wiki/Adms, which simplifies the old diagram

<MakxDekkers> There are EU member states that also use it. Need to find references.

PhilA: it uses much more of DCAT (is almost the same), and no longer uses Radion
... the proposed new ADMS version can be understood as a profile of DCAT, similar to how RegOrg is a profile of ORG

<MakxDekkers> +q

<HadleyBeeman> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/gld/raw-file/default/adms/index.html

PhilA: looking for feedback and discussion around the proposed new version

HadleyBeeman: is the editor's draft updated as well?

PhilA: not yet

MakxDekkers: there seem to be certain things described by ADMS which are not datasets, e.g. a specification document

<HadleyBeeman> Ah, PhilA: I see the confusion. ADMS was scheduled for publication on 26 Mar, which is next week, which implies a consensus today. But I'm sorry we didn't make that clear. We'll go for consensus next then, as just discussed.

<PhilA> DCAT def of a datatset is - This class represents the actual dataset as published by the dataset publisher. In cases where a distinction between the actual dataset and its entry in the catalog is necessary (because metadata such as modification date and maintainer might differ), the catalog record class can be used for the latter.

<PhilA> A collection of data, published or curated by a single source, and available for access or download in one or more formats.

PhilA: question is, does a spec document count as a dataset, according to the broad definition given by DCAT?
... people have argued the question both ways, which somewhat opens the door to using DCAT in ADMS
... if ADMS is a profile of DCAT, it gets a lot of properties for free

<DaveReynolds> Broad approach makes sense to me, not familiar enough with the details to spot specific problems

<PhilA> fadi?

<PhilA> fadmaa?

HadleyBeeman: administrative issue: Tracker is not tracking ADMS

PhilA: not currently necessary to create a tracker for ADMS

DaveReynolds: is there enough time for people to read the new draft before next week, if we need to vote on the ADMS WG note next week?

HadleyBeeman: can we move approval of ADMS to Apr 4?

PhilA: will aim to have new version ADMS ready for next week

ADMS approval moved to Apr 4

<HadleyBeeman> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-gld-comments/2013Mar/

How to get more attention/help on last call docs for "widespread public review" (especially Data Cube)

HadleyBeeman: the above mailing list is part of the evidence of widespread public review
... we received feedback for DCAT and ORG, need to get more feedback on DCAT and Cube

bhyland: are there people in our network from other standards bodies who can provide feedback?

suggest OKF lists like http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/data-protocols http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/data-catalogs

PhilA: who already uses Cube?

<gatemezi> We have also the public vocab list of the W3c

DaveReynolds: Cube used to publish statistics in Ireland and by DERI, EU, etc.

<BartvanLeeuwen> +1 for the draft message

<gatemezi> +1 also for the draft message bhyland

james: can a draft message be sent to GLD list for members to send to appropriate mailing lists, as part of outreach for feedback?

HadleyBeeman: yes

<danbri> regarding review, the next rev of schema.org will have Datasets vocab, ... which is somewhat DCAT-derived. Hopefully we can use that to drum up review comments (and revise in future if DCAT changes)

<MakxDekkers> http://joinup.ec.europa.eu/asset/dcat_application_profile/description

<PhilA> MakxDekkers: was talking about his forthcoming work on developing a profile for DCAT that will be used by data portals in Europe. Details (and invitation to join) at http://joinup.ec.europa.eu/asset/dcat_application_profile/description

<HadleyBeeman> danbri, do you have a mailing list for schema.org we could ask for help?

<gatemezi> This one: public-vocabs@w3.org

<PhilA> gatemezi: beat me to it http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vocabs/

DaveReynolds: will propose additional lists within W3C

Status of ORG and the PROV WG

<DaveReynolds> Should notify at least public-lod@w3.org and semantic-web@w3.org about the LC vocabs

<danbri> yes, public-vocabs

<danbri> there's been some discussion w/ ivan et al., on whether a separate list that is explicitly and only for schema.org would be useful

administrative process discussion re: whether ORG is in LC or not

and/or how long ORG has been in LC

<gatemezi> Some other mailing lists : Public List, lod2 <lod2@lists.okfn.org>, open-government <open-government@lists.okfn.org>, public-gld-wg <public-gld-wg@w3.org>, public-egov-ig <public-egov-ig@w3.org>, euopendata@lists.okfn.org, mydata-open-data@lists.okfn.org, okfn-nl@lists.okfn.org, school-of-data@lists.okfn.org

<HadleyBeeman> gatemezi, I sent the info to open-government <mailto:open-government@lists.okfn.org>, public-gld-wg <mailto:public-gld-wg@w3.org>, public-egov-ig <mailto:public-egov-ig@w3.org>. The others would be great though.

rough consensus is that ORG is respecting process

DaveReynolds: summarizing the back-and-forth between ORG and PROV around PROV's feedback and responses to GLD's comments
... waiting to hear back from PROV re: his last response to their comments

HadleyBeeman: will add this point (Status of ORG and the PROV WG) to next week's agenda, to check that we follow up with PROV by then

bhyland: please update GLD wiki page to point to gld comments list, so that it is clear that feedback should go there

HadleyBeeman: the gld comments list has been included in outreach emails and in many of the documents of the deliverables

<HadleyBeeman> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/gld/raw-file/default/glossary/index.html

<scribe> ACTION: bhyland to fix the comments email address on the LD glossary document [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/03/21-gld-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-106 - Fix the comments email address on the LD glossary document [on Bernadette Hyland - due 2013-03-28].

<HadleyBeeman> http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/wiki/BP_Timetable

New publication timetable for Best Practices

HadleyBeeman: may need to push Best Practices timetable back a few days, need to hear from bhyland

<MakxDekkers> +q

MakxDekkers: how many people are coming to Dublin?

<PhilA> http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/wiki/F2F3

<MakxDekkers> OK thanks

<MakxDekkers> Move me to "expected in person", thanks

- DRAFT -

Government Linked Data Working Group Teleconference

21 Mar 2013

Attendees

Contents