See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 23 May 2013
<olyerickson> PhilA is an octave lower than everyone else...
<hadleybeeman> http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20130523
<olyerickson> +1 fadmaa !
<scribe> scribe: fadmaa
<PhilA> fadmaa++
<hadleybeeman> http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/gld/2013-05-16
PROPOSAL: accepting last telco minutes
<olyerickson> +1 to last week's minutes... well formatted etc
<james> +1
<hadleybeeman> +1
<DaveReynolds> +1 to minutes
<gatemezi> +1 to last week's minutes
<olyerickson> All Hail the Hail in Mother Englang!
<Biplav> +1
<olyerickson> (England...)
RESOLUTION: accept last week minutes
DaveReynolds: for ORG we decided
it is not necessary to track all implementations and the use of
every term
... exit criteria for SKOS are weaker than we proposed for
ORG
... marking properties that are not used twice as "at risk"
didn't fly
... we decide to track implementations at the feature
level
... I grouped properties in features
hadleybeeman: thanks for all the work Dave
<gatemezi> s/TOPIC: Data Cube / TOPIC:ORG
DaveReynolds: we need to clarify
the exit criteria
... for example we can have two implementations of every
feature and one implementation for every term
... I will write this down in an email
<PhilA> The topic is a report on the transition call yesterday that discussed ORG and QB which we're hoping will move to CR
DaveReynolds: Given the integrity
constraints in data cube, it is more straightforward to define
exit criteria
... integrity constraints do not address all the terms
... tracking all the implementations on the term level for Data
Cube is challenging
... we won't be tracking abstract classes for example
hadleybeeman: do we need further help regarding the implementation reports and hosting a tool for that?
<hadleybeeman> and executing the CR exit criteria assessment.
DaveReynolds: I am not clear on the actual execution
<BenediktKaempgen> did we get the report on the transition call per mail?
sandro: Dave and me can discuss via emails, maybe we can find some shortcut
PhilA: getting into a CR is one thing but getting out of it needs to be kept in mind
DaveReynolds: agree
... we need a clear idea about the future of the working
group
<PhilA> DaveReynolds++
<olyerickson> +1 to DaveReynolds !
<DaveReynolds> Thanks!
hadleybeeman: we have only one week left
sandro: nothing has changed re.
our chances of getting an extension
... we need to get into a CR
... which looks very much doable
... hard to confirm whether having a CR is sufficient to get an
extension
... we need to wait for a formal meeting which might not happen
soon
... but we still can work for a week or so even before
confirming the extension
... we need to formally capture that people are willing to
continue working on the pending items
PhilA: there is an approval for
the working group that will continue work in this broad
area
... starting around September
<gatemezi> @Dave: I'll send you the file and a capture of the error
hadleybeeman: from work
perspective, we need to get Cube and Org into PR and DCAT into
CR
... and get the notes into transition
<olyerickson> sorry lost my skype...
<olyerickson> dialing in again :(
<olyerickson> +1 to carrying on
Biplav: one direction is to
finish remaining work, the other direction is what's next
... I found the email from Phil on open API very
interesting
... so far we focused only on data
<olyerickson> I think DCAT will be quick....
<Biplav> For some reason, I cannot hear anything
<Biplav> Dropping-off, and reconnecting
<PhilA> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/gld/raw-file/default/adms/index.html
PhilA: I followed up on all the
comments that have been made. ADMS is a DCAT profile now
... still waits for DCAT to add contactPoint
... it is being used extensively by the European
Commision
... if there is no comments on it ,I'd like to publish it as a
note
sandro asks about the identifier in ADMS
<MakxDekkers> +1
<olyerickson> re adms:Identifier see: https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/gld/raw-file/default/adms/index.html#dt_identifier
PROPOSAL: transition ADMS to a working group note
<james> +1
+1
<BartvanLeeuwen> +1
<DaveReynolds> +1
<Biplav> +1
<hadleybeeman> +1 for Sandro
<PhilA> sandro says +1
<BenediktKaempgen> +1
<PhilA> +1
<martinA> +1
<tinagheen> +1
<gatemezi> +1
<olyerickson> +1
<olyerickson> +1 to PhilA !
<JoaoPauloAlmeida> +1
RESOLUTION: transitioning ADMS into a working group note
sandro: what about the references? dcat is referred to as a working draft
PhilA: RegOrg is now in alignment
with Org
... it defined some new properties, it refers to ADMS
identifier
... its main usecase is describing corporates
... if no comment on it, I'd like to publish it as a note
PROPOSAL: transition RegOrg to a working group note
<olyerickson> +1
<PhilA> +1
+1
<tinagheen> +1
<martinA> +1
<gatemezi> +1
<JoaoPauloAlmeida> +1
<BartvanLeeuwen> +1
<DaveReynolds> +1
<sandro> +1
<olyerickson> Makes reference to org:identifier
<olyerickson> is there another browser than Chrome?
gatemezi: the references don't appear on my browser
PhilA: yes donot appear correctly on Chrome
<BenediktKaempgen> +1
<james> +1
RESOLUTION: transitioning RegOrg into a working group note
<gatemezi> +1
<PhilA> Thank you everyone
<olyerickson> Seriously, this is browser-dependent? Whoa...
olyerickson: we went through all the issues
<hadleybeeman> fadmaa: we've had proposals for all the issues. We've closed a couple of them. Half issues are on the editing side, still left to be done.
<olyerickson> Need URL...
<hadleybeeman> fadmaa: Last version has contactPoint added now
<hadleybeeman> … Two main issues to discuss (now or by email). Licences/rights and date formats.
<gatemezi> fadmaa: there are 2 main issues lefted to be discussed..re using License and Date format
olyerickson: there is a suggestion to use dct:rights instead of dct:license
<PhilA> issue-60?
<trackbot> ISSUE-60 -- dct:license vs. dct:rights -- raised
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/track/issues/60
olyerickson: most notably from
Jeni Tennison
... rights is "looser" which makes it broader
<MakxDekkers> DCMI does not agree with the "looser" interpretation
olyerickson: the proposal is to use dct:rights instead of dct:license
MakxDekkers: DCMI states that dct:rights range is a resource
olyerickson: I am happy with defining dct:rights with a suggestion that using dct:license is also possible
<gatemezi> fadmaa: support to use dct:rights
<MakxDekkers> +1
<gatemezi> hadleybeeman: are you happy for the conclusion of the issue?
<MakxDekkers> +1 for dct:rights
<PhilA> issue-63?
<trackbot> ISSUE-63 -- How to treat underspecified dates in DCAT? -- raised
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/track/issues/63
<gatemezi> hadleybeeman: So, could we close issue-60?
olyerickson: Phil's suggestion is to drop the recommendation to use a specific format
<olyerickson> Phil's suggestion is to drop this and say something like: use a date formatted as one of the formats defined in XSD such as xdd:year, xdd:date, etc.
<DaveReynolds> +1 to Phil's suggestion on this
<olyerickson> Someone else talk if you can't hear me :(
PhilA: in my experience asking for a specific format as for example xsd:datetime forces people to make inaccurate statements
+1
<PhilA> rdfs Literal using the relevant ISO 8601 Date and Time compliant string and typed using the appropriate XML Schema datatype [[XMLSCHEMA-2]]
<olyerickson> +!
<gatemezi> fadmaa: versioning is not included in DCAT
<gatemezi> hadleybeeman: when do you think we can go to LC?
<gatemezi> fadmaa: some editions task to do...but do we need to answer to all the questions received?
<gatemezi> fadmaa: Richard is quite busy, but will answer wording with olyerickson
<olyerickson> so be quick...
<scribe> ACTION: fadmaa to finish editing DCAT SPEC and reply to feedback email by next Tuesday [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/05/23-gld-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-140 - Finish editing DCAT SPEC and reply to feedback email by next Tuesday [on Fadi Maali - due 2013-05-30].
<olyerickson> +1 to continuing GLD WG to whenever
<olyerickson> ;)
<sandro> PROPOSED: We'd like to extend the Working Group so that we can finish our NOTES and see our three Rec-Track documents through to REC.
<hadleybeeman> +1
<sandro> +1
<Biplav> +1
<gatemezi> +1 to continuing GLD WG for 2 months
+1
<BenediktKaempgen> +1
<tinagheen> +1
<james> +1
<martinA> +1
<olyerickson> +1 to what sandro proposed
<BartvanLeeuwen> +1
<DaveReynolds> +1
<MakxDekkers> +1
<sandro> RESOLVED: We'd like to extend the Working Group so that we can finish our NOTES and see our three Rec-Track documents through to REC.
<olyerickson> Bye!
<BenediktKaempgen> +1
<BenediktKaempgen> i can give the status of qb ucr
BenediktKaempgen: I received some
feedback regarding the qb ucr
... both editorial and content-related feedback
... requirements in the documents need to be changed as some of
them are relevant to tools but not to the vocabulary
... DaveReynolds asks if it is still worth the efforts of
continuing this
... I can address the comments I got but can't add new parts to
it
... I suggest that I do the required editing and then publish
it as a first public working draft
... if people are not happy with the document, I am fine with
not publishing it
PhilA: good to hear that
BenediktKaempgen is willing to continue working ont he
document
... I am trying to figure out the purpose of the document as
Cube is done so it won't inform it
... the question is whether the document is useful outside the
scope of the vocabulary design
hadleybeeman: I think Sandro said
that having a ucr is good from the implementer
perspective
... is it worth having the document as input for
implementers?
<DaveReynolds> sounds like a lot more work to me!
BenediktKaempgen: currently the
ucr document is an overview of the tools and application that
could use and benefit from the Cube vocabulary
... it help someone to make the decision whether to use the
vocabulary
... the spec helps someone who already decided to use the
vocabulary
<PhilA> Can I emphasise again that I was not making a criticism. You wanna see me try and write German?
<hadleybeeman> :)
DaveReynolds: I am not sure if there exists a working draft status for note in the W3C process
hadleybeeman: we did it for the
best practices to get multiple rounds of feedback
... what is your recommendation?
BenediktKaempgen: I can give it a
try. implement the feedback I got (mostly the editorial
ones)
... then I can ask for feedback and then we can decide
accordingly
<PhilA> Just publish it as a Note
BenediktKaempgen: whether to continue toward publishing the document as a note
<PhilA> It can be updated if desired or it can be left as is
<PhilA> +1
<BenediktKaempgen> +1
<sandro> yes
<BenediktKaempgen> Thanks all!
<hadleybeeman> thanks again, fadmaa!
<hadleybeeman> :) have a good week
thanks hadleybeeman
s/rdfs: Literal/rdfs Literal/
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) FAILED: s/TOPIC: Data Cube / TOPIC:ORG/ Succeeded: s/continue this WG work/continue work in this broad area/ Succeeded: s/sandro +1// Succeeded: s/discusses/discussed/ Succeeded: s/use dct:License/use dct:rights/ Succeeded: s/int he /in the / Succeeded: s/note/first public working draft/ Succeeded: s/as as/as is/ FAILED: s/rdfs: Literal/rdfs Literal/ Succeeded: s/rdfs:Literal/rdfs Literal/ Found Scribe: fadmaa Inferring ScribeNick: fadmaa WARNING: No "Present: ... " found! Possibly Present: BartvanLeeuwen BenediktKaempgen Biplav DaveReynolds DeirdreLee HadleyBeeman1 IPcaller JoaoPauloAlmeida LC MakxDekkers Mozilla P13 P30 P4 P9 PROPOSAL PROPOSED PhilA Sandro aaaa aabb danbri fadmaa gatemezi gld hadleybeeman https james joined martinA olyerickson tinagheen trackbot You can indicate people for the Present list like this: <dbooth> Present: dbooth jonathan mary <dbooth> Present+ amy WARNING: No meeting chair found! You should specify the meeting chair like this: <dbooth> Chair: dbooth Found Date: 23 May 2013 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2013/05/23-gld-minutes.html People with action items: fadmaa[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]