<trackbot> Date: 20 June 2013

<olyerickson> I think I was heard/...

<bhyland> PROPOSED: We'll ask Ralph (acting as W3C Director) to waive the w3c Rec-Status requirement on normative references for OWL Time, since it's a de facto standard.    If he refuses, we'll go ahead and change the reference to being non-normative, with OWL Time as one suggested option.

<bhyland> +1

<Mike_Pendleton> +1

<PhilA2> +1

<olyerickson> The notes are accurate

<sandro> +1

<HadleyBeeman> +1

<DaveReynolds> +1

<bhyland> RESOLVED: We'll ask Ralph (acting as W3C Director) to waive the w3c Rec-Status requirement on normative references for OWL Time, since it's a de facto standard.    If he refuses, we'll go ahead and change the reference to being non-normative, with OWL Time as one suggested option.

<bhyland> Accepted last meeting's minutes, http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/gld/2013-05-30

DCAT

<olyerickson> I already have ;)

<bhyland> Olyerickson: Haven't yet heard from Fadi re: completion of the remaining work (estimated to be 20% effort) in relation to follow up responses.

<bhyland> bhyland @ 10:26

<bhyland> … expected to be done 2 weeks ago.  That is the only barrier to moving on two 2nd LC of DCAT … apologies.

<bhyland> ACTION: Olyerickson to ping Fadi about completing follow up responses so we can move to 2nd LC of DCAT. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/06/20-gld-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-144 - Ping Fadi about completing follow up responses so we can move to 2nd LC of DCAT. [on John Erickson - due 2013-06-27].

<olyerickson> AFAIK there were no "substantive" issues

<bhyland> Olyerickson: Does not expect anything to be any blockers on DCAT going to 2nd LC. Anticipate there will be responses but nothing substantial is expected.

<olyerickson> Not from me!

LD Glossary

<bhyland> 1. LD Glossary and review of 5 Star Linked Data and 5 Star Linked Open Data definitions, please seehttps://dvcs.w3.org/hg/gld/raw-file/default/glossary/index.html

<HadleyBeeman> scribe: hadleybeeman

bhyland: background: people in the field are talking about 5 star linked data and 5 star linked open data (with open licensing).

… In May, we talked about having those two separate definitions.

… I've realised we've been confusing linked *open* data and linked data (on the public Web, but not openly licensed)

… The second set isn't 5 star open data.

Sandro: It's fine to have both these entries. Readers may be confused with these as they are. i suggest: under 5-star linked open data, explain that a variant of this is...

<bhyland> Sandro: Could live with either one but carve out the definition in paragraph form to show the differences.

PhilA: the upcoming Data Best Practices working group will work on this. This is helping, but will be examined in detail probably next year

<bhyland> PhilA: It is healthy to talk about it now but we don't need to solve it today because the future BP group will handle it

<scribe> scribe: bhyland

Olyerickson: Would prefer to have 5 Star Linked Open Data definition (#2) remain and then reference use of LD principles in the enterprise as 5 Star Linked Data.

<atemezin> +1 to Olyerickson point regarding this topic

<PhilA> Bernadette is right - we need the glossary, people are asking for it

Phil: Prefers to keep the 5 Star Linked Open Data definition and then specify that if you're publishing in a closed world, here is what you remove.

<HadleyBeeman> +1 to philA

<HadleyBeeman> -q

<DaveReynolds> +1 to PhilA stick as closely to what is already published

<olyerickson> +1 to stopping this thread ;)

Propose: Keeping 5 Star Linked Open Data definition and adding exclusions if publishing in a closed world.

<BenediktKaempgen> http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData.html

+1

<sandro> +1

<olyerickson> I would add: publishing with SOME explicit expression of rights/terms, even if not "open," is strongly recommended.

<PhilA> +1

<DaveReynolds> +1

<HadleyBeeman> +1

<BenediktKaempgen> +1

<Mike_Pendleton> +1

RESOLUTION: Keeping 5 Star Linked Open Data definition and adding exclusions if publishing in a closed world.

<deirdrelee_> http://5stardata.info/

<olyerickson> To reinforce: it's not about open vs no license, but open license vs some other terms vs no explicit terms

Data Cube UCR

<BenediktKaempgen> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/gld/raw-file/default/data-cube-ucr/index.html

yes

<PhilA> I admit that I haven't responded to BenediktKaempgen's mail. I apologise, but I have confidence that the issues have been addressed

<DaveReynolds> haven't had a chance to re-read, sorry

Benedikt: PhilA and DaveReynolds were the reviewers & gave comments. Benedikt has responded.

<james> loop is closed for me!

<scribe> ACTION: Benedikt to continue pinging reviewers for Data Cube UCR until they complete review of most recent doc. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/06/20-gld-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-145 - Continue pinging reviewers for Data Cube UCR until they complete review of most recent doc. [on Benedikt Kaempgen - due 2013-06-27].

Hadley: Please take request for Data Cube UCR as WG Note to email with chairs.

… If Benedikt can get reviewers to complete review, we anticipate WG Note publication can be completed during the anticipated extension phase.

DCAT UCR

Olyerickson: Understood this to be more work than the GLD WG could complete given our resources at this time. We don't expect it to become a WG Note at this time….
... We expect for DCAT UCR to be remain artifact of this WG but have no official standing. It preceded the work of this WG.

<DaveReynolds> Agreed, don't make it a note, leave it on the wiki, no more.

+1

<HadleyBeeman> http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/gld/2013-05-23

<olyerickson> I gotta go

<olyerickson> UCR

<olyerickson> okay

<HadleyBeeman> PROPOSED: to reorient the DCAT UCR to be a "helpful note" including some of the use cases and examples. On the wiki.

<olyerickson> +!0

<olyerickson> +1

+1

<sandro> +1 just to save time

<PhilA2> Sounds right to me given time and resources

<olyerickson> Gotta go go another meeting

<atemezin> +1

<DaveReynolds> -0 what's a "helpful note"?

<sandro> a wiki page.

Resolved: DCAT UCR to be a helpful note as an artifact of this WG, but has no official standing.

<DaveReynolds> Suggest, gain, leave it on the WIki . Not a "Note"

+1

<PhilA2> thanks

<DaveReynolds> bye all

<BenediktKaempgen> bye

▪ RRSAgent, set logs world-visible

<atemezin> bye

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)

Found Scribe: hadleybeeman
Inferring ScribeNick: HadleyBeeman
Found Scribe: bhyland
Inferring ScribeNick: bhyland
Scribes: hadleybeeman, bhyland
ScribeNicks: HadleyBeeman, bhyland

WARNING: No "Present: ... " found!
Possibly Present: BartvanLeeuwen Benedikt BenediktKaempgen DaveReynolds Hadley HadleyBeeman IPcaller Mike_Pendleton Olyerickson PROPOSED Phil PhilA2 Phila Propose Sandro TallTed atemezin bhyland deirdrelee deirdrelee_ https james martinA 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: 20 Jun 2013
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2013/06/20-gld-minutes.html
People with action items: benedikt olyerickson

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.