08:05:46 RRSAgent has joined #gld 08:05:46 logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/04/11-gld-irc 08:06:19 zakim, dial GLDMeetingRoom 08:06:19 sorry, PhilA3, I don't know what conference this is 08:06:25 zakim, this is gld 08:06:25 ok, PhilA3; that matches T&S_(GLD)3:00AM 08:06:33 zakim, dial GLDMeetingRoom 08:06:33 ok, PhilA3; the call is being made 08:06:34 +GLDMeetingRoom 08:06:57 BartvanLeeuwen has joined #gld 08:07:04 we are connected to zakim 08:07:23 zakim, who is on the call? 08:07:23 On the phone I see ??P0, +34.63.926.aaaa, GLDMeetingRoom 08:07:43 zakim, aaaa is me 08:07:43 +MakxDekkers; got it 08:07:53 Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/wiki/F2F3 08:08:09 I am in Barcelona, late start 10 am 08:08:14 zakim, ??p0 is me 08:08:14 +martinA; got it 08:08:48 +[IPcaller] 08:09:45 cygri has joined #gld 08:09:58 can we get visual maybe through skype? 08:11:56 my apologies for falling ill, would have loved to be there 08:12:22 zakim, GLDMeetingRoom has bhyland, BartvanLeeuwen, cygri, Christophe, PhilA3 08:12:23 +bhyland, BartvanLeeuwen, cygri, Christophe, PhilA3; got it 08:12:44 zakim, GLDMeetingRoom has me 08:12:44 +HadleyBeeman; got it 08:12:51 chair: Bernadette 08:13:06 meeting: GLD Face to Face meeting Day 1 08:13:32 PhilA has changed the topic to: GLD Face to Face meeting day 1, Croke Park Dublin 08:14:05 topic: Quick review of European data Forum 08:14:14 rrsagent, make logs public 08:14:39 bhyland: Invites those who were at the EDF to give a quick review 08:15:19 Christophe: Lots of people saying that big data is just data. Goof talk from Siemens. 08:15:25 ... I did a demo on the 2nd day 08:15:36 ... had lots of visits from Dutch people 08:15:58 BartvanLeeuwen: It was interesting. less tech than I usually go to, more polcy than I'm used to 08:16:16 ... lots of stuff about big data but there was a lot about semantics of data 08:16:32 ... lots of talks about linked data and big data in the same project 08:16:48 ... blown away by talk from Daimler - who knew they were using linked data 08:17:58 bhyland: So good to hear the Daimler CEO coming out and using the term linked data. Very polished promotional piece may or may not be accurate reflection 08:18:08 zakim, GLDMeetingRoom has Boris 08:18:08 +Boris; got it 08:18:37 Boris: +1 to Bart. People were asking about best practices for LD 08:19:03 bhyland: Have you put your company in the directory, Boris? 08:19:20 Boris: Not yet, I thought it was gov only. Will fix 08:19:40 zakim, mute me 08:19:40 MakxDekkers should now be muted 08:19:52 cygri: I only saw the second half of the second day. Great venue 08:20:01 s/Very polished promotional piece may or may not be accurate reflection// 08:20:05 boris has joined #gld 08:20:35 cygri: I've only known Croke Park as a sports venue. Weird irish sports get played here. Didn't know about the conference centre 08:20:51 bhyland: Europe's 4th largest stadium 82K people 08:21:28 cygri: Hurling is the biggie here - a cross between hockey and murder 08:22:24 zakim, who is here? 08:22:24 On the phone I see martinA, MakxDekkers (muted), GLDMeetingRoom, DaveReynolds 08:22:26 GLDMeetingRoom has Boris 08:22:26 On IRC I see boris, cygri, BartvanLeeuwen, RRSAgent, HadleyBeeman, Zakim, PhilA, martinA, MakxDekkers, bhyland, DaveReynolds, sandro, trackbot 08:23:29 HadleyBeeman: I only saw some of the presentations. Some of seemed the messages we've been saying and hearing for a while. Shows importance of our work and related work 08:23:30 (here's an excellent recent hurling game played in croke park: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vai3Gzd-ilw ) 08:24:29 HadleyBeeman: Lots of projects were EU funded - lots of projects seemed to be straight translations from one language to another. Lots of machine translation 08:26:10 PhilA: Multilingual issues are more prevalent in EU discussions than the greater LD community has dedicated time & effort to. This doesn't make sense given the depth of multi-lingual expertise that W3C WG's possesses. 08:26:26 … We determined we could make DCAT available in at least 6 languages by 12noon today. 08:27:05 Hadley: John Sheridan said Legislative.gov.uk is about to be launched in Welsh shortly. 08:27:32 s/legislative.gov.uk/legislation.gov.uk 08:27:49 BartvanLeeuwen: Maybe we've failed to highlight the multilingual nature of LD 08:28:11 quality not briklliant here 08:28:18 s/Legislative.gov.uk/legislation.gov.uk/ 08:28:38 fadmaa has joined #gld 08:28:40 zakim, GLDMeetingRoom has Deirdre 08:28:40 +Deirdre; got it 08:28:44 sound quality I mean 08:29:12 can hear about 50% of what is said 08:29:18 Deirdre: The feedback I was getting about the networking etc. was positive. Lots of use cases and the like shown 08:29:26 zakim, GLDMeetingRoom has fadmaa 08:29:26 +fadmaa; got it 08:29:57 bhyland: What was the most challenging part 08:30:22 Deirdre: the EC was behind it so funding wasn't the biggest problem. Other sponsors brought validation to the event 08:30:39 ... we targeted different communities wrt. invited speakers 08:31:01 ... only the second year but the reputation is growing. Athens in 2014 08:31:45 bhyland: It was excellent. I went to a NIST conference a while back - it was free, in Maryland. Bumped into LDP WG, lots of standards bodies 08:32:01 ... very academic. Lots of PhDs, more like the Siemens, StatOil talks from EDF 08:32:54 bhyland: Maybe more tracks are useful at these things but it's also good to get everyone together. Conferences don't always do that 08:33:49 bhyland: Interesting that privacy and security issues are so important here. Not talked about nearly as much in the US 08:34:12 HadleyBeeman: The Data Protection Directive is an issue - not an American concept 08:34:50 bhyland: We have nothing like Directives, or FP7 funding 08:35:18 ... lots of cases where one project didn't know about what another was doing - when they actually are doing the same thing 08:35:43 bhyland: Makes me think better about the Community Directory as a poss tool to help that. 08:36:39 Deirdre: On the issue of it being less tech than expected that's useful feedback for next year 08:37:34 bhyland: Odd to hear about European Linked Data (isn't it global?) 08:37:50 Room explains EU funding to Bernadette 08:43:09 We're now reviewing the semantics of clotted vs whipped cream. 08:43:57 q+ 08:44:05 And what soda bread is/tastes like. Interesting ramifications of localisation there. 08:44:53 Deirdre: Interesting point about non European funding, how to get EU funded and others linking/working together 08:47:35 q? 08:48:47 ack cygri 08:48:49 cygri: Just pointing to the agenda... 08:48:59 bhyland: We're agenda bashing... 08:49:12 ... and collecting observations from the conference 08:49:54 zakim, GLDMeetingRoom has Ghislain 08:49:54 +Ghislain; got it 08:50:08 can't really hear what he is saying 08:50:23 maybe just me? 08:50:44 Ghislain: I thought it was excellent. I didn't get a huge output for myself but I wasn't expecting much. Really enjoyed it 08:50:58 OK will try to follow on IRC 08:51:04 what was that 08:51:10 Only if it's easy, audio is the main thing 08:51:18 Discussion of setting up a Google Hangout for streaming 08:51:41 Please put your Google e-mail address so we can invite you in 08:52:00 makx.dekkers@gmail.com 08:52:11 topic: Agenda bashing 08:52:26 Boris: I have to leave before lunch 08:52:31 Christophe: I leave shortly after lunch 08:53:06 Others here for the duration 08:53:56 try to have luch when you ahve 08:54:03 yes 08:54:26 your 1600 08:55:00 q+ 08:55:37 s/makx.dekkers@gmail.com// 08:55:41 ack cygri 08:55:56 cygri: Topic to discuss - what's going to happen with the WG? 08:56:25 cygri: We've been told that we are not getting a charter extension as things stand. So we're rushing to get things done in time 08:56:43 gatemezi has joined #gld 08:56:50 cygri: If going to a 2nd Last Call means that's the last thing we have time for then that affects tech decisions and that's not the right way round 08:57:01 +1 to cygri request, key issue to understand 08:57:32 +1 because it impacts much of how we proceed today and for next month 08:57:34 +1 08:57:39 PhilA: for the group to get an extension (here), we have to get everything to CR. 08:57:42 DeirdreLee has joined #gld 08:58:01 in hangout now, can see you! 08:58:05 … Then, come end may, we can be reasonably confident that we can have an extension. 08:58:15 s/come end may/come the end of May 08:58:29 …The extra effort that has gone on recently has made a big difference. 08:58:47 q+ 08:59:09 … What comes after that is a topic for debate (on agenda for tomorrow). What do you want to do next? We in the W3C have been discussing the possibilities. 08:59:43 … Conversations were primarily on "is RDF finished"? If so, what impact does that have on our Semantic Web Activity? 08:59:56 q- 09:00:23 … W3C Mgmt having serious discussions regarding maturity of RDF specifications, as well as broader Open Data on the Web 09:00:25 … What I've been putting in is that we need to talk about open data, and linked data within it. We also need to talk about data validation (which is why we have the Open Data on the Web workshop) 09:00:54 … That workshop will be important in setting the agenda for what happens to this working group's work. 09:01:44 … And what working groups will come out of this. A number of people (including DaveReynolds) have been talking about closing the world for RDF. A workshop is being planned in the autumn to explore that. 09:02:05 s/setting the agenda for what happens to this/ setting the agenda for what comes after this 09:02:17 … We need to broaden the scope to talk about open data. Break down the religious wars between JSON and XML, etc. 09:02:32 q+ 09:04:01 … This group is making very good progress to getting towards finishing its charter. Over the summer, things should be in CR. Most of what we're talking about is already implemented. We shouldn't have too much complicated discussions. Therefore, it's realistic to think that three months after the end of May, we could have the rec-track docs as full recommendations. At the end of that period, the new working group will be in play. 09:04:26 q+ 09:04:34 … This planning has to go through the W3C planning process, consultations with us, and the membership as well. 09:05:17 bhyland: summer is misleading; we're talking about may 31 onwards. 09:05:51 phila: Our charter extension will probably be for June, July and August, and will say something along the lines of "this is to get the rec-track documents to the end of the process." 09:05:51 s/Over the summer, things should be in CR/By end of GLD charter, deliverables should be in CR 09:07:05 ack me 09:08:06 PhilA: Perhaps I should say, the key is "are the documents at the stage, by the end of May, that we could reaonsably see them getting to Rec within three months" 09:08:37 DaveReynolds: So if, say, DCAT isn't quite at CR by 31 May, does that mean we don't get an extension? 09:09:17 PhilA: No, it's not that hard and fast. The test is, are documents sufficiently stable that they could realistically be moved to Rec by the end of a 3 month extension 09:09:55 cygri: So we have to decide whether we want to actively avoid a second last call. How much of an influence should process be? 09:10:20 cygri: I'm not as optimistic as PhilA to get everything to CR by the end of May if we go through a second LC 09:10:40 ... some of the comment were quite substantive and might take several weeks to get through 09:11:25 ... I don't want to jeopardise other specs because DCAT isn't quite finished on time. 09:12:53 bhyland: W3C is reasonable. It won't shut things down that are active and making progress 09:13:16 point of order: how does this discussion relate to the agenda? Not trying to be pedantic but trying to organise my time today and tomorrow. 09:13:51 OK 09:14:07 bhyland: The reason Richard asked is because it frames the discussion he's going to be leading soon 09:14:38 bhyland: We have similar issues around the BP doc. Timing affects some decisions on what is left in vs what we can get done 09:15:11 HadleyBeeman: I'd also add on DCAT that my priority is on a higher quality piece of work than rushing 09:15:31 cygri: And we'd all rather produce a quality piece of work than something rushed out to a schedule 09:15:51 HadleyBeeman: There are limits to that of course but in general, plus or minus a little then we're OK 09:16:14 cygri: We got a number of comments that we need to go through for DCAT and the speed is an important factor 09:16:18 Topic: Agenda bashing for today & tomorrow 09:16:40 bhyland: Anything we need to change 09:17:09 HadleyBeeman: I'm sure that a conversation on licensing etc. would be interesting but I'm not sure it's a priority for us 09:17:17 http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/wiki/F2F3#Thursday.2C_2013-04-11 09:17:17 bhyland: I took that out a while ago... 09:17:36 HadleyBeeman: Presses F5 09:18:08 bhyland: In theory we're going to do the BP doc in 10 mins time 09:18:24 ... we have an hour for Cube. Enough Richard? 09:18:50 cygri: Yes, we only have one real issue to discuss 09:18:55 DaveReynolds: Agree, an hour should be enough 09:19:31 fadmaa: Yes, an hour or so is enough 09:19:53 PhilA: Hides head in shame when suchkect of URI presistence comments somes up 'cos I keep promising and not delivering 09:20:08 bhyland: May cut to half an hour as we need John E 09:20:29 HadleyBeeman: Something I want to accomplish in the next 2 days is to re-do our timetable planning 09:20:44 ... a bash at the timetable page would be god before we finish 09:21:18 bhyland: Editor should take the responsibility to update their timetables 09:21:34 s/god/good 09:21:36 (Example for reminder: http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/wiki/DCAT_Timetable ) 09:22:52 rrsagent, draft minutes 09:22:52 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/04/11-gld-minutes.html PhilA 09:22:58 Coffee break 09:29:25 until 10.30 Dublin time 09:33:57 "Caeser didn't have the option of following some British guys on Twitter, which would have changed the invasion completely." 09:34:14 s/Caeser/Caesar 09:34:55 scribe: fadmaa 09:35:15 Topic: Best Practices 09:35:21 ses http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/wiki/BP_Timetable 09:35:25 s/ses/see 09:35:36 https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/gld/raw-file/default/bp/index.html#source-data 09:36:41 bhyland: The BP document has a summary, list of checklists, diagrams. It then has a section on URI construction 09:37:11 ... the fact that these recommendation can be done or not makes it different from other W3C recommendation 09:37:30 ... I am suggesting removing the "checklist" section 09:37:46 ... making the BP more normative 09:37:56 ... and move the checklist to a separate note 09:39:05 bhyland: this also enhances our opportunity to have the BP done as a recommendation within the time frame 09:39:26 PhilA: this raises the question again of whether the BP should be a recommendation 09:39:47 ... a recommendation also requires some implementation (independtly two implementations) 09:39:55 ... which is hard 09:40:31 ... checklist is really helpful and having them in a separate document make them hard to find 09:41:08 Checklist for WCAG is very useful and it's a Recommendation 09:42:07 ... it has been done to have a community group note that feels exactly like a W3C recommendation if it is done well 09:43:37 HadleyBeeman: Are notes easier to be carried on by subsequent groups? 09:44:13 Community group producing things that look like, but are not, standards http://www.w3.org/community/odrl/ 09:44:32 +Sandro 09:44:36 BartvanLeeuwen: best practice is hard to be put in a solid way as they need to be updated 09:45:00 cygri: agree. With note the process of updating it is more flexible 09:45:30 PhilA: it is better to try to finish the BP within the charter of this group 09:45:31 Google hangout available for visuals. If you want to join, post your email here 09:46:21 bhyland: taking URI process as an example, it is hard to point to implementations 09:46:45 HadleyBeeman: is Linked government data different than linked data in general? 09:46:59 ... can't we consider an enterprise implementation 09:47:27 ... as an existing implementation for the best practices for linked government data 09:47:52 or possibly have the scope of Best Practices to cover all linked data? 09:48:01 (tbd by the group) 09:48:14 s/tbd/to be determined 09:49:07 ??: would it be appropriate to refer to existing implementations from within a note? 09:49:20 s/??/christophe 09:49:36 PhilA: I don't think this is good especially that implementations are not guaranteed to continue to exist 09:50:15 boris: it will be hard to point to implementations of BP 09:50:32 bhyland: if we take into account enterprise implementations that won't be hard 09:51:14 boris: it is hard to prove that the implementation was good and the practices were helpful 09:51:26 PhilA: if the customer(implementer) is happy, we can trust this 09:51:58 HadleyBeeman: looks like we have three options: one recommendation, a recommendation and a note or a note? 09:52:22 bhyland: one recommendation is not an option given the time frame 09:53:04 bhyland:this leaves two options: a recommendation and a checklist separate as a note 09:53:09 ... or one note 09:53:46 http://www.w3.org/TR/mobile-bp/ 09:53:47 www.w3.org/TR/mobile-bp/ 09:54:06 bhyland: an example of a good way to put best practices: http://www.w3.org/TR/mobile-bp/ 09:55:27 BartvanLeeuwen: BP will not contain a MUST and SHOULD kind of recommendations 09:55:46 ... but the like of "we think it is good to do this and this" 09:56:41 PhilA: in the mobile bp document referred to, we required feedback from two different implementers 09:59:02 PhilA: it might be good to suggest including a "persistent URI" section for the likely new W3C WG dealing with open data in general 09:59:31 Screen has joined #gld 09:59:31 ... this means we can make the URI construction part of the BP as a note 09:59:36 Step 1 for talking the JSON folks: Don't use the terms "URI" or "IRI". Stick with "URL". :-) 09:59:50 wise words, sandro 10:00:21 bhyland: URI policy and implementation is something that I think this WG can and should do 10:00:28 q+ 10:00:43 ... we have the required technical capabilities 10:00:44 q- 10:00:54 ack DaveReynolds 10:01:34 DaveReynolds: I support the suggestion for going for a note containing the URI construction section 10:01:51 ... I don't think having two separate docs is a good idea 10:02:18 HTTP range 14 compliance can of worms 10:02:28 ... and achieving consensus for a rec is risky, we might have the http range discussion opened again 10:02:54 :) 10:03:00 bhyland: I don't mind putting the BP in a note 10:03:18 ... but I don't like the idea of defering this for a next WG 10:03:51 Don't think that PhilA's suggestion was to defer, but to build on. 10:04:15 Agenda says this discussion has 26mins left 10:04:25 PROPOSAL: put a BP as a note 10:06:18 sandro: is the argument that because URI construction is controversial we shouldn't try to get consensus on it? 10:07:26 PhilA has joined #gld 10:07:34 DaveReynolds: I didn't mean that having a document on URI construction is a bad idea 10:08:03 ... but having this within the best practice as a rec is risky 10:08:07 bhyland: +1 10:08:44 DaveReynolds:We're spending months on a revision of the UK policy and we're not nearly done, so this WG isn't ready to produce a REC on URI Construction. 10:09:10 bhyland: I think it is better to have the BP as a comprehensive document and as a WG note 10:09:39 boris: giving the time restrictions, I also think that putting this as a note is a good idea 10:10:12 +1 10:10:15 +1 to putting BP as a note 10:10:15 PROPOSAL: The WG aims to publish Best Practices as a W3C Note 10:10:32 +1 10:10:33 +1 10:10:41 +1 10:10:42 +1 10:10:42 +1 10:10:42 +1 10:10:45 +1 10:10:52 +1 10:11:08 +1 given that I'm hearing the editor says we can't possibly make it to CR by the end of May, or even the URI Construction part of it. 10:11:32 To be clear. Very happy to have URI construction and policy as part of BP note. Having a REC track document that just focusses on that issue will be a challenge in terms of community consensus and timescale. UK experience is that despite several years use of previous UK recommendations, they need substantial update and that achieving consensus on that update is time consuming. 10:11:46 +1 10:11:49 bhyland has joined #gld 10:11:53 DaveReynolds, my question is whether or not we should ATTEMPT to meet that challenge. 10:12:09 DaveReynolds, ... and I'm hearing "No." 10:12:34 sandro: no, I'm saying "yes" but not in the next 3 weeks just from GLD perspective 10:12:44 What if we had 6 months? 10:13:29 Looking further at URI persistence in the context of open data (especially with regard to JSON and XML) would be useful. Perhaps subsequent working group? At that point, it's out of the realm of Linked Data and RDF… but still worth doing. 10:14:03 sandro: If we get a 6 month extension, should we try to work on the URI construction recommendations? 10:14:04 q+ 10:15:22 bhyland: we have enough technical recommendations and guidance to put in a section on URI construction in a best practice note 10:15:35 ... it can serve as input for further work 10:15:56 bhyland: It would be confusing to take URI Construction out of Best Practices, into another document. 10:16:00 cgueret has joined #gld 10:16:22 +1 10:16:57 ... there are examples of notes which are widely used and even referred to as standards sometimes especially for people not aware of the W3C processes 10:17:16 sandro: if we have the URI construction doc separate, people will pay more attention 10:17:30 ... and this will halep getting this thoroughly discussed 10:17:44 s/christophe/cgueret 10:17:48 s/halep/help/ 10:17:50 Sandro - We want BP well documented and this is important. 10:17:54 q+ 10:18:32 sandro: This is a major decision for the WG, so it needs to be well-documented and well-justified. 10:18:43 q+ 10:18:45 sandro: we need to clearly record the reason for our decision re. working or not URI construction 10:19:22 cygri: What we say on URI Policy for Persistence has wide reaching impact… for example LDP and RDF WGs 10:19:28 cygri: What we say on URI construction can have a pretty big impact and affect lots of other WGs. Making those recommendations might also be in-scope for other WGs, like LDP. The RDF WG has views and opinions on these issues. 10:19:30 cygri: this has broad implications. one might argue that this falls also in the scope of other WG e.g. the RDF WG, the LD platform 10:19:51 (It came about because of the UK guidance document.) 10:20:16 bhyland: the reason this was part of the GLD charter, is because its charter was written before the LDP one 10:20:28 boris has joined #gld 10:20:30 that's the one DaveReynolds tells us that months of work is going into updating. It's referred to by many people. 10:21:06 cgueret: it is important to clarify whether there is something specific with government URIs in particular 10:21:38 cygri: some topics in the charter are hard to be addressed exclusively in the government scope 10:21:58 cygri: Makes the point that URI construction is not gov-specific (or any other domain). LDP is equally interested, for example 10:21:59 q? 10:22:04 ... many of the issues are general and the technologies can be applied outside government linked data 10:22:49 bhyland: it is fine to impact other people and WGs and we can get input from them 10:23:24 cygri: my concern is that we might not have the right composition in the WG to address some broad topics 10:24:09 ... that might go beyond the scope. 10:24:33 q+ to say the Charter was about URI Construction *for governments* specifically. 10:25:01 cygri: there is a danger of not having all related people looking into our output and providing feedback 10:25:04 " The group will specify how to create good URIs for use in government linked data. " 10:25:31 ack me 10:26:42 sandro: the charter states that government linked data specifically 10:27:00 sandro: in the part referring to the URI construction 10:27:06 To quote the charter: URI Construction. The group will specify how to create good URIs for use in government linked data. 10:27:41 cygri: if I look at our draft I don't see it specific to the government data 10:27:54 bhyland: yes it is general 10:28:56 q? 10:29:12 bhyland, I think I halted the vote by asking this question -- about 6 months, etc. 10:29:15 PhilA: There's a session on URIs at the London workshop btw http://www.w3.org/2013/04/odw/agenda#uris. Some gov, but not all 10:29:24 q+ 10:29:52 It sounds to me like we can all agree that URI persistence section of our BP draft isn't finished. I suggest we have other conversations about the nuances of the content. 10:30:11 DaveReynolds: If URI Construction were split out, we'd have to be much more careful and clear about the scope. Meanwhile, the UK stuff is Best Practice suggestions, *not* formal conformance spec stuff. 10:30:15 ack me 10:30:22 q- 10:30:30 I'm comfortable deferring to DaveReynolds expertise on that. 10:30:43 q- 10:31:30 @Dave - so what you just said further suggests the URI Policy guidance should be in a WG Note, not a Rec track doc because it is not "pass / fail" 10:31:44 @Dave, do I understand you correctly? 10:32:00 cygri: Potentially, all LD is in scope for LDP 10:32:40 BartvanLeeuwen: Dutch government has a linked data working group 10:32:42 BartvanLeeuwen: It'd be helpful to the Dutch group on this to have URI construction be a separate WG Note 10:32:47 fadmaa has joined #gld 10:33:10 … having a separate document for URI construction would help highlighting it so that national groups don't reinvent thing 10:33:10 bhyland: I would not want to see URI Construction taken out of Best Practices. 10:33:14 s/thing/things/ 10:33:15 bhyland: yes, if it gets into lower details as the UK stuff does then that should be framed as a range of possible approaches rather than a one true way 10:33:35 HadleyBeeman: I think URI Construction needs a lot more time and attention than we've got. 10:34:00 PhilA: Don't know, in principle maybe, would need to discuss with the sponsors (defra) 10:34:13 q? 10:34:17 HadleyBeeman: Part of what needs to happen going forward with URIs is to (1) make it more government specific and (2) get more reviews from the WGs that might care about this 10:34:27 @Dave, then I agree with you & in discussion this AM discussion, believe even more so that it should be a WG Note. 10:34:28 bhyland: yes and yes 10:35:53 Proposed: Publish Best Practices as as Working Group Note, inclusive of URI Construction guidance and URI Policy for Persistence, and various checklists for vocabs, etc. 10:37:17 +1 10:37:36 +1 10:37:44 RESOLVED: The WG aims to publish Best Practices as a W3C Note. 10:37:52 +1 10:38:00 +1 10:38:36 (We understand this is different from the Charter -- in that the charter says this will be a Recommendation.) 10:39:20 Charter: 2.2 Best Practices for Publishing Linked Data www.w3.org/2011/gld/charter 10:39:42 bhyland: reviewing the BP document as stated in the charter: 10:39:58 ... Procurement we decided before not to include it in the BP doc 10:40:01 Main my -1 on procurement checklist 10:40:07 s/Main/Maintain/ 10:40:39 bhyland: procurement as a checklist 10:40:47 Well at least -0 10:41:19 cygri: it is hard to vote on whether it should be a checklist or no 10:41:42 ... the group can vote based on teh content. I think there is no need for the WG to micro-manage this 10:42:38 HadleyBeeman: do we need formal process to drop parts of the charter? 10:42:55 sandro: we have discussions on emails but not a formal decision 10:42:58 Discussed that the Best Practices WG Note contain checklist information for procurement, vocab selection, and thoroughly URI Construction and URI Policy for Persistence. This WG Note does not expect to cover in detail Versioning, Stability, Legacy Data. Finally, the LD Cookbook will live as a wiki. 10:43:16 ... at some point we need some text explaining why we are not working on some parts of the charter 10:43:51 The charter commits us to delivering BP recommendations that we have discussed not having. 10:44:35 PhilA: we need to record that the WG has decided not to include some parts of the charter 10:45:37 We planned for sections on Procurement, Versioning, Stability and Legacy Data. WG members who were authorities on those topics have left, and we have further discussed that they are not relevant/feasible to produce to a high level. 10:46:25 bhyland: they are relevant, but we are only going to produce high-level summaries of them. 10:46:39 PROPOSED: Best Practices will only very briefly discuss "4. Versioning", "5.Stability", and "6. Legacy Data. ". Also, "7. Cookbook" will be in a wiki. We don't have the time/expertise to do more. 10:46:45 +1 10:46:50 +1 10:47:06 0 (sounds like procurement checklist remains) 10:47:36 PROPOSED: Best Practices will only very briefly discuss "1. Procurement", "4. Versioning", "5.Stability", and "6. Legacy Data. ". Also, "7. Cookbook" will be in a wiki. We don't have the time/expertise to do more. 10:48:07 q? 10:48:30 PROPOSED: Best Practices will (at most) only very briefly discuss "1. Procurement", "4. Versioning", "5.Stability", and "6. Legacy Data. ". Also, "7. Cookbook" will be in a wiki. We don't have the time/expertise to do more. 10:48:46 +1 10:48:47 +1 10:49:08 +1 10:49:32 (for DaveReynolds, the addition of "at most" clarifies that we might drop the Procurement section entirely.) 10:49:38 bhyland: the current section on procurement is not specific to government 10:49:45 0 (I don't see the point of this vote.) 10:49:48 +1 10:49:51 +1 10:49:53 +1 10:49:54 +1 10:49:54 +1 10:49:57 +1 10:49:58 ... if we can't make it better I'd suggest not having it 10:49:59 +1 10:50:18