<trackbot> Date: 02 May 2013

<olyerickson> LOL!

<sandro> olyerickson, are you using IP today?

<HadleyBeeman> agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20130502

<scribe> scribe: DeirdreLee

<HadleyBeeman> last week's minutes: http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/meeting/2013-04-25

<olyerickson> +1 to minutes

<DaveReynolds> +1

+1

<JoaoPauloAlmeida> +1

<gatemezi> +1

<fadmaa> +1

<PhilA> +1

resolved: last week's minutes

<olyerickson> DCAT UCR http://bit.ly/DCATUseCases

<DaveReynolds> Benedikt sent regrets to the mail list a little while ago

DCAT UCR

HadleyBeeman: Discuss whether we should proceed with DCAT UCR?

olyerickson: prepared by cygri and fadmaa

<bhyland> @olyerickson, does it really cover all of section 4, for example 4.3 Persistent URIs for catalog entries?

olyerickson: what is the standing of such a document, are we obliged to complete this doc in a detailed way
... DCAT doc is already quite complete, with clear guidelines, is it necessary to go into details on how to implement each requirement?

<bhyland> I agree with olyerickson that it is real work to go thru UCR & *prove* but the spec is the thing people read for implementation questions IMO.

sandro: UCR is a good marketing tool and would be a nice supporting doc, but not as important as the spec
... if we have time we could work on it more, but it's not essential

<bhyland> +1 as a supporting documentation (I probably wouldn't call it a marketing doc ;-)

olyerickson: for a complete UCR, each one of these requirements in the DCAT spec may need an example, and this would be a lot of work
... better to leave it as an informal doc

HadleyBeeman: Leave DCAT UCR as it is for the moment, and if we have more time later, or if we get an extension, we could flesh out the document

<bhyland> +1

<sandro> +1

HadleyBeeman: but as it is, it is fine to leave as a note

Proposal: Transition DCAT UCR editor's draft to be a WG Note (after removing pink todo section)

<scribe> ACTION: Transition DCAT UCR editor's draft to be a WG Note [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/05/02-gld-minutes.html#action01]

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

<fadmaa> ACTION: fadmaa to Transition DCAT UCR editor's draft to be a WG Note (after removing pink todo section) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/05/02-gld-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-124 - Transition DCAT UCR editor's draft to be a WG Note (after removing pink todo section) [on Fadi Maali - due 2013-05-09].

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

subtopic: Best Practices

<JoaoPauloAlmeida> I can't hear anyone… is it just me?

bhyland: found great interest in best practice at ODW 2013

<JoaoPauloAlmeida> PhilA, thanks, I will reconnect

bhyland: ODI is working on this, Dutch gov has also created a document related to best practice
... content in best practice doc needs to be restructured slightly and updated

<PhilA> There's quote a lot of what Hans Overbeek presented in his ODW13 paper http://www.w3.org/2013/04/odw/odw13_submission_14.pdf

bhyland: bhyland focusing on URI section, which we expect will get most attention
... getting it to W3C note status helped to promote BP

<bhyland> Sections I'm focusing on are:

<bhyland> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/gld/raw-file/default/bp/index.html#uri-constructionhttps://dvcs.w3.org/hg/gld/raw-file/default/bp/index.html#uri-construction

<bhyland> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/gld/raw-file/default/bp/index.html#uri-policy-for-persistencehttps://dvcs.w3.org/hg/gld/raw-file/default/bp/index.html#uri-policy-for-persistence

<bhyland> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/gld/raw-file/default/bp/index.html#internationalized-resource-identifiershttps://dvcs.w3.org/hg/gld/raw-file/default/bp/index.html#internationalized-resource-identifiers

bhyland: updating doc is a matter of transferring some content, 3-4 hours of work
... if someone was willing to help with pub rules for the glossary
... bhyland would like to shadow sandro while he does it

<bhyland> Note from PhilA: "Open Data Best Practices WG"

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

bhyland: would like to move timetable forward one week
... the doc hasn't changed a lot, most content has remained unchanged for a year
... get doc out by 14th, then will get feedback
... might not make publication as WG note by 28th May, but will work through feedback

<olyerickson> I'm here

<olyerickson> that was from before

DaveReynolds: Should have a day or two before it's published, for WG members to have a complete read through the doc
... to publish on 14th (tuesday), we need to agree on previous thursday (9th)

<DaveReynolds> I was only asking for a few days notice

<bhyland> http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/wiki/BP_Timetable#Detailed_timetable_and_checklist

HadleyBeeman: if we send BP doc to WG members for review on Tues 7th, we can vote on Thurs 9th, and publish for public feedback on Tues 14th

<bhyland> http://dir.w3.org

bhyland: unsure about first rows in doc, will follow-up with Hadley after

Community Directory

bhyland: every GLD organisation represented in WG should be present in Community Directory

TallTed: added entry while ago, but it was deleted, should details be re-entered?

bhyland: yes, new version now, richer features, nice theme,
... so please resubmit if entry isn't available

TallTed: suggests bhyland to send a reminder out to those who may have to resubmit

bhyland: agreed

<bhyland> I'd like to announce the Directory to the various lists today.

subtopic: ADMS

<bhyland> Per Ted's comment, I'll ping each organization who previously had a listing in v1.0 of the Directory. I guess we'll call this Directory 2.0

PhilA: going through the spec, addressing comments from F2F, and other comments

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

HadleyBeeman: ADMS timetable is out of date, advises PhilA to update it

<scribe> ACTION: to PhilA update ADMS timetable [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/05/02-gld-minutes.html#action03]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-125 - PhilA update ADMS timetable [on Tope Omitola - due 2013-05-09].

subtopic: RegORG

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

PhilA: Marios is taking a look at that

<scribe> ACTION: to PhilA update RegORG timetable [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/05/02-gld-minutes.html#action04]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-126 - PhilA update RegORG timetable [on Tope Omitola - due 2013-05-09].

<DaveReynolds> Fadi not Dave :)

subtopic: DCAT

<olyerickson> I must leave at 11a

Sandro: Could we extend this meeting to talk about DCAT?

<fadmaa> http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/track/issues/raised

<olyerickson> http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/wiki/DCAT_LC_comments

HadleyBeeman: Go through DCAT issues

<PhilA> issue-6?

<trackbot> ISSUE-6 -- How should publishers figure out good URIs for properties with non-literal ranges? -- raised

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/track/issues/6

<PhilA> issue-54?

<trackbot> ISSUE-54 -- Relationship of DCAT and VoID -- raised

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/track/issues/54

fadmaa: Issue 6 is done

<PhilA> issue-65?

<trackbot> ISSUE-65 -- Add properties for dataset versioning -- raised

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/track/issues/65

fadmaa: issue-9 needs richard to close
... ISSUE-60 and 65 need further discusssion

<PhilA> issue-60?

<trackbot> ISSUE-60 -- dct:license vs. dct:rights -- raised

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/track/issues/60

fadmaa: the rest of the issues, Fadi and Richard can go through

<olyerickson> 60 and 65

<olyerickson> Do we need to "normalize" on rights vs license?

<gatemezi> I thought one of the resolution during F2F3 was to have a special call for DCAT..

HadleyBeeman: Do we need another last call for dcat?

fadmaa: It depends on resolution of ISSUES 60 and 64, as decisions on these could mean a change to the core, and as such, would impact on conformance

PhilA: recommends we go for a second LC
... given the rate of progress and amount of work being done, but still to be done, we have good justification of an extension

<bhyland> +1 to what PhilA is saying, critical to get this correct even if we flow over a couple months.

<olyerickson> I see no strong argument against dcterms:rights

PhilA: DCAT is getting a lot of attention, so to acknowledge all comments, make informed decisions, and go for quality over urgency, we should go for 2nd LC

fadmaa: totally agrees with PhilA

HadleyBeeman: We will leave this decision with editors, and should they decide on a need for 2nd LC, the chairs/groups will support this

<olyerickson> http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/track/issues/raised

PhilA: related to ADMS, will DCATinclude a contact point?

fadmaa: surprised there is no issue related to this
... fadmaa will create an issue on this, he would be for creating a contact point in DCAT

PhilA: if it is in DCAT, it can be removed from ADMS, and they will just use the DCAT property

<olyerickson> NOT ME

<olyerickson> ;)

<olyerickson> +1 to DCAT going to where it needs to go...

<fadmaa> http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/wiki/DCAT_LC_comments

HadleyBeeman: Are all issues for DCAT being followed up on / progressed?

olyerickson: editors are working through comments/issues

HadleyBeeman: issues are being recorded in issue-tracker and in LC comments section, they may not be the same issues, so as long as editors is keeping an eye on both places

subtopic: ORG

<DaveReynolds> http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/wiki/ORG_CR_transition

DaveReynolds: Have created a section on uses of ORG that needs feedback from, from Bart and PhilA

<HadleyBeeman> davereynolds: expecting bits to be completed by Bart

<DaveReynolds> http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/wiki/ORG_CR_transition

<DaveReynolds> http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/wiki/ORG_Implementations

<PhilA> ACTION: phila to provide info about usage of ORG in Italy and Greece [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/05/02-gld-minutes.html#action05]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-127 - Provide info about usage of ORG in Italy and Greece [on Phil Archer - due 2013-05-09].

DaveReynolds: proposes to subdivide ORG into a set of features (5), and uses could be reported at a feature level instead of property level
... that way users may not have to use every single property in a feature, but we can still see which features are actually useful

<HadleyBeeman> If we label a feature "at risk" and then discover implementations, do they lose that "at risk" label?

DaveReynolds: for the exit criteria, we could check the use/conformance specification at feature level

<DaveReynolds> http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/wiki/ORG_Validation_Suite

DaveReynolds: there will be a set of SPARQL queries that will act like a minimal consumer (at link)
... the resultant list will still have to be manually checked to see if the results are valid
... will we rely on implementers to report this

<bhyland> @DaveReynolds, that is a really good approach & outcome based on the WG F2F discussions, IMO. Thank you very much. I think that gives us sufficient due diligence that an implementer can use to guide their use of ORG.

DaveReynolds: but would we need a dedicated person from WG to check the negative compliance?

<bhyland> Sandro: THinks this is great!

Sandro: this seems like a great approach. Normally we don't want implementations to be public, but maybe in this case we could make them public?

DaveReynolds: would we need 2 public ones, or would 1 be sufficient?

sandro: 1 is fine, 2 or more would be great
... we're not committing to cross-referencing it, but we have the option to check the public implementations ourselves then if we want

DaveReynolds: we could add a checkbox for implementers, asking whether they mind if their data is made public
... we could provide a service to check this

<gatemezi> @DaveReynolds: if we change the Select queries to ASK ones? could them be also sufficient for checking?

sandro: w3c will provide a vm to host the service for the CR period

<sandro> (probably)

HadleyBeeman: Could this exit criteria methodology be applied to other vocabs?

DaveReynolds: qb is a different beast., in the spec we have an idea of what is a good and bad implementation, so we can simply run the validation queries on these and see if they conform
... might not be worth breaking down into features

also doesn't make sense to have online service as datacube data would be very large

fadmaa: the exit-criteria for ORG should also apply to DCAT
... would make more sense to run online service on same VM as ORG

<bhyland> Great job Dave, thank you for blazing the path forward to seeing sunlight out the other side of CR process. Thanks.

<sandro> HadleyBeeman: We just lost our scribe, but I think we're done with the agenda!

<bhyland> Thank you Hadley, awesome work barreling through this mega-agenda!!

<sandro> HadleyBeeman: Thank you all for everything today. Talk to you all next week.

<bhyland> thanks all. have a good weekend.

<sandro> ADJOURNED

<fadmaa> bye

<HadleyBeeman> thank you again, DeirdreLee!

This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.138  of Date: 2013-04-25 13:59:11  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/dcat/DCAT UCR/
Succeeded: s/bhland/bhyland/
Succeeded: s/DaveReynolds/Sandro/
Succeeded: s/54/60/
Found Scribe: DeirdreLee
Inferring ScribeNick: DeirdreLee
Default Present: Sandro, HadleyBeeman, +000000aaaa, olyerickson, bhyland, martinA, TallTed, DaveReynolds, DeirdreLee, Fadmaa, PhilA, JoaoPauloAlmeida, gatemezi, Mike_Pendleton, Gregg_Vanderheiden
Present: Sandro HadleyBeeman +000000aaaa olyerickson bhyland martinA TallTed DaveReynolds DeirdreLee Fadmaa PhilA JoaoPauloAlmeida gatemezi Mike_Pendleton Gregg_Vanderheiden
Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20130502

WARNING: No meeting chair found!
You should specify the meeting chair like this:
<dbooth> Chair: dbooth

Found Date: 02 May 2013
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2013/05/02-gld-minutes.html
People with action items: dcat draft editor fadmaa phila s to transition ucr