meeting setup

we discussed to use gotomeeting for the phone bridge and IRC for scribing. Self introductions have been sent to the list

topic classification

http://www.w3.org/community/bpmlod/wiki/Topic_classification

dom: like to have a telco for each topic. Want to publish that as a white paper on best practices

discussing http://www.w3.org/community/bpmlod/wiki/Topic_classification

dave: development of topics vs. development of use cases - how to manage that?

jose: list of topics is a dynamic part. use cases is seperate
... tools can be links to implementation
... in rome people suggested that we talk about these aspects, that is why I put it here

dave: agree, localization can be an important use case
... so better put this as a use case rather than a topic
... question: about publishing - is this publishing of LOD or content in general?

jose: multilingual publishing in general
... what is the relation between multilingual LOD and multilingual publishing

dave: publishing of content is like a use case
... publishing of multilingual LOD is an important best practices
... here we can look into what comes out of META-NET and e.g. DCAT

dcat see http://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-dcat/

meta-net see http://www.meta-net.eu/meta-share

jose: so move these topics to use cases?

dave, jorge agree

<scribe> ACTION: jose to move topics as discussed at http://www.w3.org/2013/06/20-bpmlod-irc#T07-29-44 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/06/20-bpmlod-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Sorry, but this channel isn't in my configuration.

people on the call agre on the general items of the topic classification

sebastianH: wrt to topics - will we also talk about organization aspects, licensing etc.

dave: these might be best practices

jorge: will not avoid these topics, but thinks like licensing that are general to linked open data will not be focus here

jose: agree

sebastianH: for licensing we can liase with open data / linguistic group

http://linguistics.okfn.org/

see above link

sebastianS: licensing is just one aspect
... but there are other non technical aspects

dom: licensing on multilingual LOD is interesting. focus here is technical. but having a section about licensing is ok, if people want to discuss that. Do people agree?

jose: a section "non technical aspects"?

phil: we also want to drive adoption

dave: agree. If we have pointers about non technical issues, that will help for adoption

dom: I will add in a non-technical aspects about licensing & legal issue

phil: do we have a target date for publishing?

dom: depends on people avail.
... we plan a bi monthly meeting
... 4 months - aiming for an initial draft by fall this year

phil: sounds good

milestones here http://www.w3.org/community/bpmlod/wiki/Main_Page

dom&jorge: want to keep to these milestones

michael: question on scope of group
... it is called "linked open data" - are we talking about "linked data" in general?

dom: the charter says "Best Practices for Multilingual Linked (Open) Data (BP-MLOD)"
... "open" is in brackets
... I would hope that what we prouce can apply to both types of data sets

jose: agree

sebastianH: "open" has various facets, e.g. "open access" via HTTP
... that is different from "open" in the legal sense

dom: will you add a paragraph on the charter about that?

sebastianH: yes

<scribe> ACTION: sebastianH to add a paragraph to the charter about what "open" means [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/06/20-bpmlod-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Sorry, but this channel isn't in my configuration.

see sebastianH docuemnt at http://de.slideshare.net/kurzum/linked-data-for-abbreviations-and-segmentation

michael: will we have example data?

jose: agree that this is a good approach, I often use a toy example
... in terms of implementation I'm not sure since we are a best practices group

michael: a BP which is theoretical is not helpful for me

discussion about what we can do in terms of offical w3c standardization

dom: let's do BP by autumn
... if people are then interest let's do examples, data, implementations

dave: agree wrt to "update" mentioned by phil
... trying applying things is then helpful

felix: how about having a section on the wiki with data examples
... these can help also veryfing the BP

<daveL> +1 on assembling examples as we go along

chaals: problems that we can address wrt to what is open data and what is not open
... so we will not reject anything just because it does not conform to some definition of linked "open" data
... I'd hope that we describe from what people actually do
... should be looking at actual problems
... as the starting point

dom: topic classification is what we extracted from rome
... chaals, do you feel that it represents what people are doing?

chaals: yes, as a first paas

dom: so let's go with the idea to discuss each of these in the group
... idea of "open vs. not open" is a separate aspect

<daveL> +1 on driving work from what people are actually doing and on covering open and non-open

dom: will start a thread to discuss that so that it is scoped out

<scribe> ACTION: dom to get wording about open vs not open in the charter [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/06/20-bpmlod-minutes.html#action03]

<trackbot> Sorry, but this channel isn't in my configuration.

action health check

<scribe> ACTION: dom to set up doodle poll about meeting time [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/06/20-bpmlod-minutes.html#action04]

<trackbot> Sorry, but this channel isn't in my configuration.

aob

jorge: we wanted to comment on how to deal with use cases collection and spec
... possible starting point could be: everybody can go to the wiki and put name on it
... next telco we have a list of use cases that we can refine

dom: agree. Topic classification is clear, but use cases is to be created
... use cases page is now in wiki at http://www.w3.org/community/bpmlod/wiki/Use_cases_definition

<scribe> ACTION: jose to work on use case definition template and then send a mail out to the list [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/06/20-bpmlod-minutes.html#action05]

<trackbot> Sorry, but this channel isn't in my configuration.

dom: next call we will review topic classifiation, will discuss use case definition, then following call will break topics down in a topic per call to work on them

agreement on the call

dom: aob?

dave: thanks a lot for the chairs for starting this?

+1!

dom: thanks to all for taking the call
... meeting adjourned, by all!

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/topic: topics again//
Succeeded: s/topic: process of our group//
Succeeded: s/sebastian:/sebastianH:/
Succeeded: s/sebastian:/sebastianH:/
No ScribeNick specified.  Guessing ScribeNick: fsasaki
Inferring Scribes: fsasaki
Present: dom felix chaals john jorge jose michale sebastianH sebastianS tatiana phil daveLewis
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpmlod/2013Jun/0004.html
Got date from IRC log name: 20 Jun 2013
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2013/06/20-bpmlod-minutes.html
People with action items: dom jose sebastianh