Government Linked Data Working Group Teleconference -- 28 Mar 2013

<trackbot> Date: 28 March 2013

<bhyland> Scribe: Fadi

<fadmaa> Scribe: fadmaa

<HadleyBeeman> Last week's minutes: http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/meeting/2013-03-21

<bhyland> Proposal to accept minutes from last week: http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/meeting/2013-03-21

bhyland: PROPOSAL: accept last week minutes
... we discussed attribution during last week telco

<bhyland> +1

<BartvanLeeuwen> +1

<HadleyBeeman> +1

<DaveReynolds> +1

<gatemezi> +1

<PhilA> +1

bhyland: RESOLUTION: accept the minutes
... I thank you all for the great outreach last week with regards to the vocabularies

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

bhyland: there was a great discussion particularly about DCAT and thanks to cygri for addressing most of them

RESOLUTION: accept last week minutes

F2F meeting in Dublin

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

bhyland: we have 10 confirmed people
... any thoughts regarding remote joining?

DaveReynolds: normally there is always a remote option in the W3C F2F meeting

<olyerickson> yes I am...

<olyerickson> not going to Dublin

sandro: It'd help if we get a good Web cam for people joining remotely

bhyland: we need someone to operate it though

<MakxDekkers> I can bring my MiFi, but don't have an Irish SIM

bhyland: we have no meal sponsor... you are encouraged to do so
... otherwise, we have to pay for our meals

cygri: the most important thing is to have time for discussing comments related to last call
... we have an hour slot reserved for each of the vocabulary

<bhyland> +1

<HadleyBeeman> +1 to being flexible about the agenda.

cygri: I'd encourage being flexible with the agenda to accomodate for potential comments we might get

<HadleyBeeman> Especially because we don't know how many last call comments we will have, who will be able to participate.

<olyerickson> I can dial-in to the DCAT discussion

bhyland: totally agree

<olyerickson> I did not realize I was on the agenda (looking at URI section)

<gatemezi> +1 to cygri point related to agenda flexibility and have more time for vocabs discussions

bhyland: we might cancel the session dedicated to discussing licenses
... PhilA will be our W3C contact during the meeting

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

PhilA: regarding F2F agenda, there is an hour dedicated to the open data on the web workshop
... all people on this call is welcomed to join even if he/she has no paper there

<HadleyBeeman> PhilA, would you rather put a different title on the F2F session?

bhyland: we might use this slot to also discuss the potential of a follow-up of this group

<BartvanLeeuwen> Sorry PhilA ;)

Biplav: a possible agenda topic, reserving a slot to reach-out for people other than the attendants

<bhyland> Biplav: Suggested we have a considered, thoughtful outreach effort post-GLD WG ...

Biplav: I mean people working on open government catalogues

<bhyland> … .e.g, Greece, Kenya, etc.

Biplav: a half-time slot that people from outside the working group might join remotely (online)

<bhyland> +1 to Biplav's idea but not sure how we'd do it logistically

HadleyBeeman: very good idea I am a bit concerned that we might don't have time for that
... also we need their comments to arrive before the F2F

<gatemezi> For the comments, we can also try to send them a mail via their public address

<gatemezi> from their portal

<HadleyBeeman> +1 to bhyland to explore this… and possibly wrap into EDF presentation?

<bhyland> Biplav: There are risks, but there there benefits to present a polished presentation on the deliverables, to promote usage.

bhyland: we have a speaking slot at EDF I can use a couple of minutes of the slot there

<HadleyBeeman> Should we find some way to include the eGov IG in this outreach?

BartvanLeeuwen: Biplav idea sounds good to me. I'd suggest to have some ready presentation that we can use to reach-out about the working group activities and products
... we might work on that during the F2F meeting

<bhyland> +1 to Bart's idea for a short deck that all members could use for future presentations.

<bhyland> Does anyone want to take this as an action item? We have lots of content …. anyone feeling their inner marketing creativity?

cygri: outreach is definitely important. I am, though, concerned about taking time out of the F2F meeting for this
... The F2F meeting is not necessarily the best time to work on preparing a presentation... using the time for discussing and planning outreach activities sound better to me

bhyland: I updated the agenda and dedicated a skot for the outreach

Linked Data Glossary

bhyland: we have a short name approved.
... we seeked the feedback of a number of relevant experts
... we are ready to getting it published as a note

<olyerickson> Yes, jahendler is out for Passover

PhilA: we need to keep the upcoming holidays in mind with regards to the publication dates

DCAT

<bhyland> http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/wiki/DCAT_Timetable

http://www.w3.org/ns/dcat

<olyerickson> How are we tracking and vetting these DCAT issues?

<sandro> http://www.w3.org/TR has a much more strict process than http://www.w3.org/ns (at the moment)

<bhyland> http://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-dcat/

<olyerickson> Wait: are "we" editing the LCWD?

http://www.w3.org/ns/dcat.ttl

<olyerickson> ie making changes during LC?

olyerickson: are we editing the last call working draft as we are getting the comments?
... that might confuse people as they are asked to review the specification

<olyerickson> ack

<sandro> olyerickson, the WORKING DRAFT is NOT being changed. I imagine the EDITORS DRAFT is being changed.

bhyland: we need to respond to all the comments we are getting

<olyerickson> sandro: okay...

bhyland: and we need to edit the document when we have corrections to make

sandro: the editor draft can be edited but not the working draft

<sandro> PhilA: The changes made need to be within a very limited bound. Substantial changes will require another Last Call.

sandro: editing the working draft needs group agreement

<sandro> PhilA: The changes can be editorial, no more.

PhilA: we can only make editorial changes to the last call working draft. major changes require re-going through the process

<sandro> PhilA: A subtantive change is something that would break an implementation. A substantive change would require a second last call.

Data Cube

<bhyland> http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/wiki/Data_Cube_Timetable

<sandro> fadmaa, where/how are comments being tracked?

<sandro> fadmaa, (if they are)

cygri: we are waiting for last call feedback

<bhyland> They should be tracked via public comments mailing list

cygri: so far there has been no comments received

bhyland: how are we tracking the comments we get?

<bhyland> Sandro: Disposition of comments

sandro: we need to create a page that list the coments we get and how we address them

<HadleyBeeman> Example disposition of comments http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/42538/ElementTraversal/doc/

<bhyland> Sandro: Some groups use a simple wiki or LC tracker.

sandro: groups can use a Wiki page or the LC comments tracker

bhyland: editors should be responsible of maintaining this?

<bhyland> … Advise doing it along the way.

sandro: either editors or the chairs can do this

<DaveReynolds> For example see http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/wiki/ORG_LC_comments for ORG. That will need cleaning up and checking before asking for a CR transition.

<bhyland> @Dave, thank you, good example.

cygri: we have a number of spec in the last call currently. Creating a list from the mailing archive we have is some manual work that needs to be done but I don't think it will be a lot of work
... if we do it per spec.

<sandro> Here's a pretty wiki page: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Turtle_Candidate_Recommendation_Comments or another http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Comments

cygri: I think having the editors keeping track of that is a good idea

<sandro> "disposition of comments"

HadleyBeeman: I will add a column "disposition of comments" to the summary table we have

sandro: will we use WIKI or LC tracker?

bhyland: ... let's leave it to the decision of the editors

<gatemezi> @hadleyBeeman: with a link to each comment section per spec?

bhyland: this is only for the recommendation track

ORG vocabulary

<HadleyBeeman> @gatemezi: yes, a with a link to each comment. I'll create a holding page for comment tracking of each spec.

Org Vocab

<bhyland> http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/wiki/ORG_Timetable

DaveReynolds: we have only one comment which is not specifically related to ORG
... I responded to it but don't consider that a direct comment to ORG

PhilA: we need to respond to comments until the commentor is happy

<bhyland> Definition of what goes on the Disposition wiki page or tracker = Proof that comments were received, evaluated and replied to. Replies don't always have to be in the affirmative.

PhilA: or we get no response. still good to send a reminder
... in case of no response

DaveReynolds: we have to respond to any comment that is clearly addressed at some last call draft

Community Directory

<bhyland> -Topic: Community Directory

<sandro> yay!

<HadleyBeeman> :)

DaveReynolds: the provenance group informed us that they are happy with the reply we provided

<sandro> DaveReynolds: PROV WG is happy with our responses with their reviews.

<bhyland> Issue-55, issue-56, issue-57 can all be closed.

<sandro> issue-55?

<trackbot> ISSUE-55 -- Use of prov:wasDerivedFrom -- pending review

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/track/issues/55

<sandro> issue-56?

<trackbot> ISSUE-56 -- Check PROV semantic constraints -- pending review

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/track/issues/56

<sandro> issue-57?

<trackbot> ISSUE-57 -- PROV use of invalidation -- pending review

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/track/issues/57

DaveReynolds: we can now close the issues 55, 56 and 57

<bhyland> http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/wiki/File:W3C_Community_Directory_Workflow-status_update_20130328.pdf

bhyland: we worked on streamlining the workflow re. community directory
... have a look at the updated document
... creating an entry now is an asynchronous process
... in response to registering an entry we provide RDF (we used the ORG ontology also)
... the web master can then paste the resulting RDF
... after that, the location of the published RDF needs to be provided to our system

<sandro> I wonder about using a .well-known location, so one just needs the domain name? Or about embedding it in the / document

bhyland: the user interface of the directory has been significantly improved

<sandro> +1 willing to try

bhyland: people on this call are encouraged to test it
... they need to be able to put a turtle file one the Web

<PhilA> I can give it a whirl although I don't think I'm really the target for the Dir but yes, I have write access to philarcher.org

<sandro> Is it okay too put the w3c one at http://www.w3.org/People/Sandro/ ... ?

<bhyland> Sandro: The dir.ttl Turtle file can be put in your staff or personal area.

<sandro> bhyland: yes

<HadleyBeeman> If we have personal information, might there be Data Protection issues in moving data from one databases to another?

<gatemezi> I guess we have info that are public

<BartvanLeeuwen> cya

<gatemezi> office tel, address, etc..

RRSAgent: make minutes public

- DRAFT -

Government Linked Data Working Group Teleconference

28 Mar 2013

Attendees

Contents