IRC log of rdfval on 2013-09-11

Timestamps are in UTC.

01:38:40 [DavidBooth]
DavidBooth has joined #rdfval
03:44:13 [SteveS]
SteveS has joined #rdfval
04:58:43 [mib_x8cefa]
mib_x8cefa has joined #rdfval
06:53:02 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #rdfval
12:59:01 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #rdfval
12:59:01 [RRSAgent]
logging to
13:03:36 [SteveS]
SteveS has joined #rdfval
13:03:59 [danbri_]
is zakim in listen-only mode?
13:04:41 [Arnaud]
Arnaud has joined #rdfval
13:06:16 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #rdfval
13:06:40 [Arnaud]
sorry guys we're a bit behind
13:06:43 [Arnaud]
hang in there
13:06:52 [Arnaud]
eric is setting up the phone
13:07:08 [Arnaud]
zakim, this is rdfval
13:07:08 [Zakim]
ok, Arnaud; that matches SW_(RDFVal)8:30AM
13:08:20 [labra]
13:08:27 [gjiang]
gjiang has joined #rdfval
13:08:36 [rmb]
rmb has joined #rdfval
13:08:37 [Zakim]
13:08:44 [Arnaud]
ok, we're on
13:08:46 [nmihindu]
nmihindu has joined #rdfval
13:08:57 [Arnaud]
please, join in, we're starting
13:09:00 [ssimister]
ssimister has joined #rdfval
13:09:38 [hsolbri]
hsolbri has joined #rdfval
13:10:21 [ericP]
Zakim, pick a victim
13:10:21 [Zakim]
Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose Workshop_room
13:10:42 [hsolbri]
Jose Gayo - Validating statistical index data represented in RDF using SPARQL queries
13:10:54 [dbooth]
dbooth has joined #rdfval
13:10:59 [AAshok_Malhotra]
AAshok_Malhotra has joined #rdfval
13:11:02 [Arnaud]
zakim, who is on the phone?
13:11:02 [Zakim]
On the phone I see kcoyle, [IPcaller], [IPcaller.a], Workshop_room
13:11:10 [mgh]
mgh has joined #rdfval
13:11:14 [TimCole]
TimCole has joined #rdfval
13:11:15 [ericP]
scribenick: hsolbri
13:11:44 [Zakim]
13:11:53 [Arnaud]
ok, we're calling back
13:12:08 [Zakim]
13:12:17 [kcoyle]
still whooshing
13:12:29 [hsolbri]
13:12:36 [kcoyle]
this happened briefly yesterday then went away
13:13:25 [roger]
roger has joined #rdfval
13:13:40 [Arnaud]
we'll try to reboot in a desperate move
13:14:25 [Arnaud]
well, we haven't published the minutes per se but the irc log is available
13:14:41 [hsolbri]
Motivation - Webindex Project
13:14:42 [ericP]
[ slide 2]
13:14:55 [ericP]
jose: developed for web index
13:15:12 [ericP]
... we developed the data portal for web index
13:15:12 [hsolbri]
Visualization and data portal
13:15:26 [ericP]
[slide 3]
13:15:33 [GR]
GR has joined #rdfval
13:15:34 [ericP]
jose: the workflow involves:
13:15:39 [Arnaud]
irc log:
13:15:48 [ericP]
... .. get data from external sources
13:16:02 [ericP]
... .. statisticians produce index
13:16:14 [ericP]
... .. we map that to RDF and provide visualizations
13:16:31 [hsolbri]
Conversion is from Excel to RDF
13:16:38 [Arnaud]
rrsagent, make logs public
13:16:54 [Zakim]
13:17:29 [kcoyle]
tbaker: the piratepad has quite a bit of content
13:17:31 [hsolbri]
jose: Technical details. 61 countries, 85 indicators. > 1megatriple, linked to DBpedia, etc.
13:18:17 [hsolbri]
WebIndex slide
13:18:24 [ericP]
[slide: WebIndex computation process (1)]
13:18:53 [Zakim]
13:19:00 [dbooth_]
dbooth_ has joined #rdfval
13:19:39 [PhilA]
Jose Emilio is talking about and its use of
13:21:48 [DaveReynolds]
DaveReynolds has joined #rdfval
13:22:52 [ericP]
link should be ther. i forgt to remove the "not available" text
13:23:09 [hsolbri]
Jose: Used SPARQL CONSTRUCT instead of ASK
13:23:23 [hsolbri]
... empty graph if ok, else RDF graph with error
13:23:42 [gjiang]
gjiang has joined #rdfval
13:23:51 [hsolbri]
[slide: SPARQL queries RDF Data Cube]
13:24:53 [hsolbri]
[slide: limitations of SPQRAL expressivity]
13:25:12 [hsolbri]
13:25:30 [Zakim]
13:25:50 [hsolbri]
Jose: Challenge computing series computation on RDF collections
13:26:48 [Zakim]
13:27:19 [Zakim]
13:27:29 [hsolbri]
Jose: Idea of RDF Profiles for dataset families
13:28:40 [hsolbri]
could it be the mouse?
13:29:11 [hsolbri]
13:29:29 [hsolbri]
Jose: Source code in Scala (site on slides)
13:30:36 [hsolbri]
Jose: - demo site
13:32:39 [hsolbri]
Jose: Webindex as use case, SPARQL as implementation, RDF Profiles (declaritive, Turtle)
13:33:05 [ddolan]
ddolan has joined #rdfval
13:35:18 [hsolbrig]
hsolbrig has joined #rdfval
13:35:30 [danbri]
(somewhat related, SKOS validation - - also just a structure)
13:35:31 [gqjiang]
gqjiang has joined #rdfval
13:35:36 [ericP]
jose: you can check e.g. that one observation is in one slice but not much more expressivity than that
13:36:27 [ericP]
ashok: if SPARQL works for a fairly complicated situation, why are we thinking about anything else?
13:36:34 [ericP]
jose: SPARQL is hard to debug
13:36:44 [gjiang]
gjiang has joined #rdfval
13:37:07 [ericP]
... we need to differentiate validating the graph vs. a dataset
13:38:04 [ericP]
... with SPARQL, we can test specific values in a particular graph
13:38:05 [hsolbrig]
A couple of interesting, albeit unrelated ideas here...
13:38:19 [ericP]
... though we could compile ShEx to SPARQL
13:38:27 [hsolbrig]
... signing RDF - how do you generate a reproducable MD5 w/o order?
13:38:56 [hsolbrig]
... functional patterns for RDF lists. Should there be "best practices"?
13:40:20 [ericP]
PhilA: is slide 11 a candidate profile?
13:40:27 [ericP]
... if so, i see it as too complicated
13:41:18 [ericP]
... we have two req: validation and form creation. too complex for the latter
13:41:38 [ericP]
ericP: is that 'cause of the expressivity, or 'cause it's in RDF?
13:41:49 [ericP]
PhilA: i suppose 'cause it's in RDF
13:42:26 [ericP]
evren: re: UI generation, the issue is not the syntax, it's the SPARQL query. that's where the shape of the data is described
13:42:33 [ericP]
scribenick: ericP
13:43:38 [ericP]
PhilA: EU reqs are "don't make me need to speak SPARQL to generate a UI"
13:43:44 [gjiang]
gjiang has joined #rdfval
13:46:26 [ericP]
gjiang: did you use SPARQL extensions?
13:46:39 [ericP]
jose: we weren't happy when we had to use jena:sqrt
13:46:41 [hsolbri]
hsolbri has joined #rdfval
13:46:55 [ericP]
gjiang: maybe there can be a link from SPARQL to some statistical package
13:47:31 [DavidBooth]
scribe: DavidBooth
13:47:57 [ericP]
topic: Stardog ICV
13:48:52 [Arnaud]
13:50:27 [DavidBooth]
slide 3
13:50:44 [Zakim]
13:50:46 [DavidBooth]
Slides are not numbered. :(
13:51:09 [hsolbri]
hsolbri has joined #rdfval
13:51:15 [TallTed]
TallTed has joined #rdfval
13:51:29 [dbs]
Zakim, ??P39 is dbs
13:51:29 [Zakim]
+dbs; got it
13:52:34 [DavidBooth]
slide 5
13:53:15 [DavidBooth]
slide 7
13:55:18 [DavidBooth]
slide 8
13:57:25 [gjiang]
Semantics in OWL are for inference not suitable for validation
13:58:43 [DavidBooth]
slide 10
14:00:33 [DavidBooth]
slide 11
14:00:45 [gjiang]
Rule syntax for constraints
14:01:21 [DavidBooth]
slide 12
14:01:32 [DavidBooth]
slide 13
14:01:33 [arthur]
arthur has joined #rdfval
14:06:00 [DavidBooth]
Evren: if each person must have two parents, but only one was specified, inference can determine that there is another parent, and then the validation can be applied after inference.
14:06:34 [DavidBooth]
(Evren talks to a slide that is not in the uploaded slides)
14:08:12 [DavidBooth]
Evren: tool figures out explanation of validation.
14:08:36 [DavidBooth]
slide 15
14:08:56 [ericP]
evren: i agree with the folks that said we need good explanations of errors but don't believe the constraints author should have to write the explanation. that should be the tool.
14:09:36 [ericP]
... we have definitions of constraints in W3C specs so we should capture those
14:11:15 [DavidBooth]
EricP: Re validation and reasoning, SPARQL semantics say you have an RDF graph, but how you got it is up to you. The reasoning just changes what graph you use. Do you think that's a good model for validation use with entailment? If so, then we don't have to think about entailment.
14:11:40 [DavidBooth]
Evren: Yes.
14:12:06 [DavidBooth]
Arnaud: The question is whether the language allows you to specify that entailment should be used.
14:12:13 [ericP]
arthur: the quesiton is "does the language you use allow you to specify the entailment?"
14:12:36 [ericP]
s/arthur: the quesiton/Arnaud: the question/
14:12:37 [DavidBooth]
Arthur: Initially you propopsed to just change the OWL namespace. Is that what you use now?
14:13:29 [DavidBooth]
Evren: No, that would require using all the tool chains. You just execute it through the validation. That's why at the tool level you need to separate the axioms from the constraints.
14:14:36 [DavidBooth]
Arthur: How would you associate the constraints with a graph?
14:16:08 [PhilA]
PhilA: A proposal (from Paul Davidson) is to add a property to VoID that links a dataset to a profile (constraint set)
14:16:23 [DavidBooth]
Evren: You could use named graphs, to have your constraints in a named graph. You need to keep them separate. Axiom annotations could also be used to indicate constraints, but we didn't do that because axiom annotations are a lot like reification, and tools may not treat them well.
14:16:53 [DavidBooth]
EricP: What if someone interprets constraints as inference rules accidentally?
14:18:21 [DavidBooth]
Evren: under OWA it would just infer that person085 is a manager, instead of determining (under CWA) that there is an error because person085 is not a manager.
14:18:54 [ericP]
@@1: how can i read this to learn about the graph to e.g. generate a form?
14:19:23 [ericP]
evren: you can thing about it as the SPARQL BGP describes the graph
14:19:47 [ericP]
... so we see "someValuesFrom" and we'll create a text box, ...
14:20:07 [DavidBooth]
(Evren explains how constraint can be represented in SPARQL)
14:20:15 [DavidBooth]
_: What about optional properties?
14:20:20 [ericP]
@@1: how would i describe optional properties
14:20:41 [ericP]
evren: right, you wouldn't write that in the constraints langauge
14:21:24 [DavidBooth]
Arthur: It's not really a constraint, it's a graph descriptoin.
14:21:55 [DaveReynolds]
+1 to last speaker, optional properties are needed for describing the data "shape" as part of publish/consume contract, even though they are not part of validation
14:22:13 [DavidBooth]
Arthur: You want to describe a contract with a service, and part of the contract is that a property can appear 0+ times.
14:23:22 [ericP]
evren: we added "min 0" to our OWL constraint. it's not actionable during constraints checking but it describes the graph
14:24:09 [DavidBooth]
Topic: Bounds: Expressing Reservations about incoming Data, Martin Skjaeveland
14:24:15 [DavidBooth]
14:26:25 [DavidBooth]
slide 2
14:27:40 [DavidBooth]
slide 3
14:30:32 [DavidBooth]
slide 4
14:30:40 [DavidBooth]
slide 5
14:31:56 [DavidBooth]
slide 6
14:34:14 [DavidBooth]
Arthur: What do you mean by element? Does it depend on ts position?
14:34:25 [DavidBooth]
Martin: By element I mean S P O in a graph.
14:34:48 [DavidBooth]
s/P O/P or O/
14:35:05 [DavidBooth]
s/I mean/I mean a/
14:36:04 [DavidBooth]
slide 7
14:38:48 [DavidBooth]
slide 8
14:40:47 [DavidBooth]
slide 9
14:42:46 [DavidBooth]
slide 10
14:43:15 [DavidBooth]
slide 1
14:43:17 [DavidBooth]
slide 11
14:44:58 [DavidBooth]
slide 13
14:47:21 [DavidBooth]
Evren: What kind of use cases for ontology hijacking?
14:47:41 [DavidBooth]
Martin: Can check if you are adding domain and range axioms.
14:48:53 [DavidBooth]
Evren: OWL RD only allows things that can be expressed with one triple. Cannot have someValuesFrom, allValuesFrom, (and some others).
14:49:03 [danbri]
if I say MyNewType is a subClassOf,">, versus MyNewType is a superTypeOf ... people tend to see the latter as weirder, the former as acceptable and non-hijack-y
14:49:25 [DavidBooth]
_: Re ont hijacking that adds statements. What about removing statements? what effect does it have?
14:49:48 [ericP]
s/_: Re ont/gjiang: Re ont/
14:49:53 [DavidBooth]
martin: no, only considered use cases of receiving data and protecting existing dataset.
14:50:40 [DavidBooth]
Eric: Use case came from practical considerations or theoretical?
14:51:00 [DavidBooth]
Martin: We did prior work on managing RDF transformations. This is transforming by adding.
14:51:28 [DavidBooth]
EricP: SADI project is all about inferring extra triples. Their rules are written in OWL LD.
14:52:19 [PhilA]
scribe: PhilA
14:52:22 [Zakim]
14:52:23 [PhilA]
scribeNick: PhilA
14:52:31 [Zakim]
14:52:35 [PhilA]
14:52:40 [dbs]
14:55:47 [tbaker]
15:00:15 [Zakim]
15:01:08 [dbs]
I can hear tbaker (assuming tbaker = Tom)
15:06:13 [DaveReynolds]
DaveReynolds has left #rdfval
15:10:57 [ssimister]
ssimister has joined #rdfval
15:19:18 [PhilA]
Next up OSCL Resource Shapes
15:19:19 [DavidBooth]
Arthur's slides:
15:19:21 [PhilA]
15:19:35 [hsolbri]
hsolbri has joined #rdfval
15:19:51 [rmb]
rmb has joined #rdfval
15:20:02 [PhilA]
Arthur's paper
15:20:20 [DavidBooth]
Topic: OSLC Resource Shape: A Linked Data Constraint Language
15:20:24 [PhilA]
slide 1 - 1 slide intro to OSLC
15:20:26 [SteveS]
SteveS has joined #rdfval
15:21:24 [PhilA]
Arthur: IBM customers want tools that cover the product life cycle and beyond
15:21:33 [Zakim]
15:22:17 [PhilA]
Arthur: core specs delivered to W3C, being worked on in LDP WG. More domain specific specs gone to OASIS
15:22:47 [PhilA]
... customers bothered by lack of XML Schema analogue
15:23:41 [PhilA]
... came up with minimal language
15:24:39 [PhilA]
Slide 5
15:24:59 [PhilA]
slide 6
15:25:32 [PhilA]
RDF/XML snippet shown is a resource shape for a bug report
15:25:43 [PhilA]
slide 7
15:26:51 [PhilA]
Does data have to be in the graph or is it externally referenced, for e.g.
15:27:01 [hsolbrig]
hsolbrig has joined #rdfval
15:27:18 [PhilA]
slide 8
15:28:33 [PhilA]
Arthur: Creation factory is the data source, query capability is the endpoint (scribe paraphrase)
15:29:52 [PhilA]
arthur: data can link to its description (its shape)
15:30:34 [PhilA]
slide 9
15:32:06 [PhilA]
slide 10 is an example
15:32:16 [rogerm]
rogerm has joined #rdfval
15:33:11 [PhilA]
Declarative list of properties etc. Encoded in turtle
15:34:55 [PhilA]
arthur: OSLC is just a vocabulary, it's not an ontology. How you use it is up to you
15:35:36 [PhilA]
slides 11 - 16 show the spec
15:35:44 [PhilA]
slide 17
15:36:10 [PhilA]
Arthur: SPARQL seems good for the task of testing against the resource shape
15:37:14 [PhilA]
ericP: I notice people favour returning True if there's a failure (the inverse of OSLC model)
15:37:32 [PhilA]
Arthur: OK, but you want data to be returned so you cna fix it
15:39:28 [PhilA]
slide 18-19
15:39:56 [PhilA]
slide 20 - Summary
15:40:46 [PhilA]
Arthur: OSLC has been around about 3 years
15:40:54 [PhilA]
??: How does this relate to WSDL?
15:41:08 [ericP]
s/??: How/hsolbrig: How/
15:41:10 [PhilA]
Arthur: It's in the same spirit
15:41:20 [PhilA]
... you cna check for properties, cardinalities etc.
15:41:42 [DavidBooth]
15:41:44 [gjiang]
gjiang has joined #rdfval
15:43:20 [PhilA]
Arthur: I was in the WSDL WG and this one - I suggested re-using WSDL but there was too much baggage. WSDL basically too complicated although I fear we may have thrown away too much. We need a way to express constraints on RDF
15:43:50 [PhilA]
hsolbrig: Is there a spec for the semantics of OSLC?
15:43:50 [evrensirin]
evrensirin has joined #rdfval
15:44:07 [PhilA]
Arthur: The semantics would be formalised using SPARQL
15:44:20 [evrensirin]
q+ ask about deletes
15:44:34 [evrensirin]
q+ to aks about deletes
15:44:49 [PhilA]
Discussion of what 'read only' means
15:45:00 [PhilA]
15:45:27 [Arnaud]
ack evrensirin
15:45:27 [Zakim]
evrensirin, you wanted to aks about deletes
15:45:31 [PhilA]
ack evrensirin
15:45:50 [PhilA]
evrensirin: you said something about the payload?
15:46:03 [PhilA]
arthur: you might want to specify a pre-condition for a delete
15:46:12 [ericP]
s/about the payload/about not needing to do anything about DELETE/
15:46:14 [PhilA]
... that's a good point. The context of the constraint is important
15:47:01 [arthur]
arthur has joined #rdfval
15:47:09 [ericP]
15:47:37 [labra]
labra has joined #rdfval
15:47:59 [PhilA]
PhilA has joined #rdfval
15:48:54 [PhilA]
tbaker: paper
15:49:01 [ericP]
topic: Description Set Profiles
15:49:12 [PhilA]
15:49:33 [PhilA]
tbaker: Gives background on DC. Application Profiles date from 2000
15:50:12 [PhilA]
slide 2
15:50:49 [PhilA]
slide 3
15:51:14 [PhilA]
slide 4
15:51:21 [PhilA]
slide 5
15:51:43 [PhilA]
slide 6
15:51:44 [rmb]
rmb has joined #rdfval
15:51:51 [PhilA]
tbaker: Looks more like a record format
15:51:52 [PhilA]
slide 7
15:52:21 [PhilA]
slide 8
15:52:33 [kcoyle]
description set document:
15:52:48 [PhilA]
slide 9
15:54:08 [PhilA]
slide 10 shows same data in XML
15:54:24 [PhilA]
tbaker: So can we validate the extracted data
15:54:59 [PhilA]
tbaker: Defined a small set of constraints that we saw being used in the DC community in their app profiles
15:55:14 [PhilA]
... being produced as natural language text
15:55:56 [PhilA]
slide 12
15:57:04 [PhilA]
slide 13
15:57:24 [PhilA]
tbaker: Just flash this up - it's the entire set of templates defined in the description set profile constraint language
15:57:26 [PhilA]
slide 14
15:57:49 [PhilA]
slide 15
15:58:19 [PhilA]
slide 16
15:58:35 [PhilA]
tbaker: The motivation was to help people author application profiles in a consistent way
15:59:13 [PhilA]
... here's a screenshot from an experiment that sadly no longer exists although there is some Python code I can share
15:59:33 [PhilA]
... it shows a tabular presentation of a profile - a style people are used to
15:59:38 [PhilA]
slide 17
15:59:59 [PhilA]
tbaker: constraints are being embadded in the source of the wiki page in a controlled way
16:00:01 [PhilA]
slide 18
16:00:30 [PhilA]
slide 19
16:00:46 [PhilA]
tbaker: vision was that the profile could be used to configure editors as well as validators
16:00:48 [PhilA]
slide 20
16:01:49 [PhilA]
tbaker: We found that people were designing APs without looking at functional requirements
16:02:03 [PhilA]
... so this is an attempt from 2007 to put the APs in context
16:02:20 [PhilA]
... the yellow box is the AP - a set of documentation about the content of your metadata
16:02:42 [PhilA]
.... you can also document the domain model it was based on
16:02:53 [gjiang]
... distinction among foundation standards, domain standards, application profile
16:03:37 [PhilA]
... we had some syntax definitions based on the abstract model
16:03:38 [PhilA]
slide 21
16:04:48 [PhilA]
tbaker: I'm really offering this as a set of requirements that were gathered in the DC community up to 2008
16:04:50 [PhilA]
slide 22
16:05:28 [PhilA]
tbaker: we wanted to encourage people to base their APs on functional requirements
16:05:29 [PhilA]
slide 23
16:06:04 [PhilA]
tbaker: wanted to encourage people to model reality but with a light touch
16:06:22 [PhilA]
slide 24
16:06:45 [PhilA]
tbaker: then we wanted to constrain the data - important for consistency and quality control
16:07:14 [PhilA]
... bridging the gap between people who see the world as a series of records and those whop see unbounded graphs
16:08:46 [PhilA]
... record people, used to XML, just saw it as the latest validation syntax. Some APs were then written as OWL ontologies. Wanted to get people to constrain the data, not the vocabulary (scribe note - hope I got that right)
16:08:50 [PhilA]
slide 25
16:10:18 [PhilA]
slide 26
16:10:56 [PhilA]
PhilA: +1 to the 'Authored in an idiom usable by normal people' requirement
16:11:00 [PhilA]
slide 27
16:12:37 [PhilA]
Arnaud: Any questions?
16:13:02 [PhilA]
tbaker: Before questions - can I ask kcoyle to comment? Anything to add?
16:13:28 [PhilA]
kcoyle: My only comment is that I've been doing a back of the envelope on what we have and do not have is DSP language
16:13:54 [PhilA]
... when the requirements are completed, what we might want to do is to look at the existing languages and techniques and see which ones cover what
16:14:14 [PhilA]
... my gut feeling that there may not be a single solution because diff comunities have diff contexts
16:15:02 [PhilA]
Arnaud: I hope you'll be able to join us after lunch as that's when we'll step back from the reqs and look at use cases, diff technologies etc. whether they match or not
16:15:23 [PhilA]
... challenge in standards is always to decide on the use cases
16:15:30 [PhilA]
... that's all for after lunch
16:16:44 [PhilA]
TimCole: Thinking about APs.... XMl Schema always seem pretty powerful. Does anything on DSP provide any guidance on how we might make a language from what we have?
16:17:39 [PhilA]
TimCole: One application might ask for foaf:name, another might want foaf:givenName and foaf:familyName - can I define a constraint doc in some way so that I can add an extra requirement?
16:18:22 [PhilA]
tbaker: We refer to a specific set of DPS, or set of them - they're cookie cutters for data
16:19:12 [PhilA]
... in the example from FOAF - those distinctions are defined in the FOAF vocab - the DSP would say what to use but I don't see how that eg would impact the design of the constraint language itself
16:19:45 [PhilA]
TimCole: You've defined a profile with lots of things and I want to change one thing. Do I have to repeat the whole thing or can I just define the difference?
16:20:25 [PhilA]
tbaker: We did discuss having a layered approach so people can define a basic profile and then just add a layer on. So that's in the same thought process but we decided not to solve that
16:20:34 [PhilA]
Arnaud: Anything else?
16:20:47 [PhilA]
Topic: Experiences with the Design of the W3C XML Schema Definition Language
16:21:03 [PhilA]
Noah's paper
16:21:16 [PhilA]
Noah's slides
16:22:00 [PhilA]
Arnaud: Noah was involved in XML Schema and so he's here to share his experiences of that
16:23:43 [PhilA]
Noah: We went through a lot of things when designing XMLSchema - it has a lot right and a few problems
16:23:50 [PhilA]
slide 2
16:24:13 [PhilA]
slide 3
16:24:26 [PhilA]
Noah: These topics match those in the paper
16:24:48 [PhilA]
slide 4 Use Cases
16:25:23 [PhilA]
Noah: People came with very different assumptions and ideas and diff ideas about validation
16:25:42 [PhilA]
... some thought the idea was to end up with a Boolean
16:26:26 [PhilA]
... others wanted to say more
16:27:06 [PhilA]
... some people wanted to know that data matched a type and why (data binding)
16:28:12 [PhilA]
... following the 80/20 rule is good but one person's 80 is another's 20
16:28:34 [PhilA]
slide 5
16:30:06 [PhilA]
Noah: discussed diff between validating doc as a whole or at the element level
16:31:33 [PhilA]
Noah: RDF folks better at idea that serialisations are diff versions of same abstract model. That doesn't work so well for all XML folks
16:33:13 [PhilA]
slide 6
16:34:03 [PhilA]
Noah: No surprise that XML folks write their schemas in XML
16:36:21 [PhilA]
... It's possible that there were better ways of encoding a schema
16:37:39 [Arnaud]
Noah is talking about the example on page 3 of his paper
16:37:46 [Arnaud]
16:38:54 [PhilA]
Noah: So the warning is - don't automatically write your schemas in RDF
16:40:22 [PhilA]
slide 7
16:40:56 [PhilA]
slide 9 - Anticipate versioning
16:41:05 [PhilA]
Noah: you're likely to need an answer
16:42:23 [PhilA]
... people find that their previous work needs updating. May need to reinterpret something
16:44:36 [PhilA]
... how do you write a schema on day 1 such that if I get something different you can handle that the supplier might be using a later version of the schema, or even just providing data that is correct and it's the schema that is in error. Do you throw out the whole thing or do you break it down at the element level and highlight the 'error'
16:46:52 [PhilA]
ericP: Drills down a little.
16:46:58 [mgh]
In GS1 standards that provide XSD artefacts, we use this mechanism to represent an extension point (wildcard) <xsd:any namespace="##other" processContents="lax" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
16:48:01 [PhilA]
Noah: Point is that how to handle such cases is essentially app-specifc
16:48:56 [PhilA]
ericP: Did you consider creating a compact syntax?
16:49:20 [PhilA]
Noah: I guess you'll want your abstract model to map to RDF - you're used to that
16:50:30 [PhilA]
... we do have the abstract model for XML, it's there.
16:50:32 [Zakim]
16:50:46 [PhilA]
Arnaud: Thank you for coming Noah
16:51:01 [tbaker]
Thank you, Noah!
16:51:04 [kcoyle]
could someone post here when things start up again, for those of us on the phone? thx
16:51:05 [PhilA]
... you're touching points that have been raised
16:51:41 [PhilA]
Lunch - will be 25 minutes
16:51:45 [Zakim]
16:51:49 [PhilA]
We'll resume at 13:35 EST
16:51:59 [PhilA]
16:52:14 [tbaker]
PhilA, do you mean 13:35 or 13:15?
17:05:46 [Zakim]
17:17:27 [Zakim]
17:17:31 [Zakim]
17:17:31 [Zakim]
17:20:28 [mSkjaeveland]
mSkjaeveland has joined #rdfval
17:22:03 [Arnaud]
about to resume meeting
17:22:13 [kcoyle]
17:22:21 [dbs]
Arnaud: thanks
17:22:45 [dbs]
conf call has gone silent
17:23:09 [Zakim]
17:23:30 [Zakim]
17:23:31 [Arnaud]
can you guys here us?
17:23:59 [Zakim]
17:24:25 [dbs]
Zakim, ??P0 is dbs
17:24:25 [Zakim]
+dbs; got it
17:24:38 [ssimister]
ssimister has joined #rdfval
17:24:42 [Anamitra]
17:24:57 [roger]
roger has joined #rdfval
17:25:04 [dbs]
aside: thanks to everyone for being so good to us remote attendees :)
17:25:04 [kcoyle]
it's hard to hear - we may need some structure to be able to get participation of the phone people
17:25:09 [SteveS]
Scribe: Anamitra
17:25:14 [PhilA]
q+ to talk about queuing
17:25:19 [DavidBooth]
Topic: Discussion
17:25:23 [PhilA]
ack me
17:25:23 [Zakim]
PhilA, you wanted to talk about queuing
17:25:27 [hsolbri]
hsolbri has joined #rdfval
17:25:34 [kcoyle]
+1 dbs -- keeping track of the slides is a big help
17:26:35 [arthur]
arthur has joined #rdfval
17:26:37 [Anamitra]
up next Alignment of requirements and technology
17:26:42 [labra]
labra has joined #rdfval
17:28:07 [Anamitra]
Arnaud: questions regarding what we want to do
17:28:22 [Anamitra]
Arnaud: capture use cases
17:28:53 [Anamitra]
Arnaud: its just not about validation - its abt describing the Resource too
17:29:10 [Zakim]
17:29:19 [tbaker]
zakim, IPcaller is tbaker
17:29:20 [Zakim]
+tbaker; got it
17:29:42 [PhilA]
17:29:50 [Arnaud]
ack PhilA
17:30:22 [hsolbri]
17:30:29 [Arnaud]
ack hsolbri
17:30:31 [arthur]
q+ to describe scope
17:30:34 [mgh]
XSD can also be used to generate an instance XML document example from an XSD. Do we need that kind of capability? - to generate a set of triples from a description?
17:30:39 [Anamitra]
_:describe and validation are different
17:31:16 [Arnaud]
17:31:24 [Arnaud]
ack arthur
17:31:24 [Zakim]
arthur, you wanted to describe scope
17:31:26 [ericP]
hsolbri: in many cases, i don't need to go to SPARQL
17:31:29 [Anamitra]
harold: want to publish what you expect without going to SPARQL
17:31:42 [Zakim]
17:31:52 [ericP]
... if i import data from an RDB with a good model, all i need from our language is to publish the description
17:31:53 [PhilA]
+1 to Harold
17:32:35 [Anamitra]
Arthur:just calling this workshop validation is not accurate
17:32:57 [Anamitra]
ericP: lets call it validation and description
17:33:03 [Anamitra]
+1 ericP
17:33:12 [hsolbri]
17:33:55 [Anamitra]
ericP:constraints is not a clear way to describe a resource
17:34:04 [kcoyle]
q+ to ask about defining description
17:34:17 [Arnaud]
ack kcoyle
17:34:17 [Zakim]
kcoyle, you wanted to ask about defining description
17:34:54 [TimCole]
17:35:00 [Arnaud]
ack TimCole
17:35:01 [ericP]
kcoyle: when we talk about validation description, or do we have a broader view of description?
17:35:03 [Anamitra]
kcoyle:there are certails aspects that are just description without any validation aspect
17:36:33 [Anamitra]
hsolbri: we need something that does not imply process
17:36:49 [TimCole]
To provide scope, do we want though to focus on descriptive aspects that support validation?
17:37:54 [evrensirin]
q+ to comment about being careful about descriptions
17:38:01 [Anamitra]
hsolbri: testcases for RDF and sw that produces RDF is to be considered
17:38:32 [Anamitra]
Arnaud: Resource shape serves dual purpose of describe and validation
17:38:35 [Arnaud]
ack evrensirin
17:38:35 [Zakim]
evrensirin, you wanted to comment about being careful about descriptions
17:38:54 [gjiang]
17:39:37 [PhilA]
q+ to talk about the likely new CSV on the Web WG which, in some ways, is closely related
17:39:40 [arthur]
q+ to discuss how resources can use existing vocabularies in a novel way
17:40:04 [Anamitra]
evrensirin: define the scope - main goal validation - side goal is describe the resource
17:40:10 [Arnaud]
ack gjiang
17:40:45 [Arnaud]
ack PhilA
17:40:45 [Zakim]
PhilA, you wanted to talk about the likely new CSV on the Web WG which, in some ways, is closely related
17:40:45 [Anamitra]
gjiang: low level user should be able to define the constraints like UML
17:40:51 [PhilA]
-> CSV on the WEb
17:40:59 [hsolbri]
gjiang: we may need an OCL for the description language as well
17:42:12 [Anamitra]
philA: similar to csv metadata - like headers and data type
17:42:19 [hsolbri]
q+ to say CSV is on our radar itself. We started with UML / XML Schema, need to produce RDF equiv and CSV
17:42:55 [Arnaud]
ack arthur
17:42:55 [Zakim]
arthur, you wanted to discuss how resources can use existing vocabularies in a novel way
17:43:54 [Anamitra]
arthur: we need to describe resources/documents - you can describe that without inventing any new RDF terms
17:44:53 [ericP]
17:45:17 [Anamitra]
arthur: we should avoid inventing vocab terms if we can
17:45:37 [Anamitra]
Arthur: and re-use as much we can
17:47:08 [Arnaud]
ack hsolbri
17:47:08 [Zakim]
hsolbri, you wanted to say CSV is on our radar itself. We started with UML / XML Schema, need to produce RDF equiv and CSV
17:47:54 [Ashok_Malhotra]
Ashok_Malhotra has joined #rdfval
17:47:57 [Anamitra]
hsolbri: omv - schema for describing ontology - modeled in RDF
17:48:25 [Anamitra]
hsolbri: started with UML
17:48:51 [Anamitra]
hsolbri: UML->XML schema
17:50:02 [Anamitra]
hsolbri: we need to be able to exchange constraints between different modeling framwork - UML, RDF
17:50:18 [Ashok_Malhotra]
17:50:19 [PhilA]
+1 to hsolbri
17:50:23 [Arnaud]
ack Ashok_Malhotra
17:51:28 [Anamitra]
Ashok_Malhotra: UML is useful - lets focus on just RDF validation - and then build tooling later for covering exchange between models - keep the swcope small
17:52:05 [hsolbri]
q+ to rebut
17:52:52 [Anamitra]
Arnaud: can define a transformation from csv to RDF and then validate using the RDF validator
17:53:05 [Arnaud]
ack hsolbri
17:53:05 [Zakim]
hsolbri, you wanted to rebut
17:54:01 [Anamitra]
hsolbri: UML and xml schema community has already done the groudwork - lets start with that - as relevant to RDF
17:54:37 [arthur]
q+ to say UML has a different perspective
17:54:43 [arthur]
17:54:56 [arthur]
17:55:02 [Anamitra]
sandro: there is too much mismatch between these models
17:55:09 [Ashok_Malhotra]
17:55:12 [arthur]
arthur has joined #rdfval
17:56:23 [Anamitra]
hsolbri: RDF type analogus to UML class and UML attribute to RDF predicate
17:56:59 [kcoyle]
q+ to caution about starting with UML or XML or ??
17:58:02 [Arnaud]
ack arthur
17:58:02 [Zakim]
arthur, you wanted to say UML has a different perspective and to and to
17:58:07 [Anamitra]
arnaud: guided by UML - makes sense
17:58:23 [Anamitra]
arthur: fundamental mismatch between UML and RDF
17:58:51 [Anamitra]
arthur: RDF class is a classification - a resource can have many classification
17:59:39 [Anamitra]
arthur: UML and RDF has intersection - so u can do a OO model as RDF - but not the other way
17:59:46 [ericP]
18:00:08 [Anamitra]
hsolbri: lossy in both direction
18:00:29 [SteveS]
18:00:35 [Anamitra]
arthur: oo is abt info hiding -
18:01:04 [ericP]
q+ to say that it's probable that the info that we care about for shape/pattern description is largely covered by UML
18:01:09 [Arnaud]
ack kcoyle
18:01:09 [Zakim]
kcoyle, you wanted to caution about starting with UML or XML or ??
18:01:26 [Anamitra]
kcoyle: agree with Arthur -
18:02:32 [Anamitra]
kcoyle: UML and other models comes with baggage
18:02:35 [Arnaud]
ack ericP
18:02:35 [Zakim]
ericP, you wanted to say that it's probable that the info that we care about for shape/pattern description is largely covered by UML
18:04:09 [Arnaud]
ack SteveS
18:04:55 [Anamitra]
SteveS: UML has evolved
18:07:07 [Anamitra]
sandro: we should have a way to produce the RDF constraints as UML diagrams
18:07:10 [arthur]
18:07:18 [Arnaud]
ack arthur
18:07:28 [mgh]
18:07:47 [Arnaud]
ack mgh
18:07:57 [Anamitra]
arthur: ER diagrams precede UML
18:08:07 [hsolbri]
q+ to change the subject.
18:08:20 [Arnaud]
ack hsolbri
18:08:20 [Zakim]
hsolbri, you wanted to change the subject.
18:08:41 [kcoyle]
SteveS: flow-charting
18:09:02 [DavidBooth]
q+ to say I think it would be helpful if we roughly ranked our use cases and requirements
18:09:19 [DavidBooth]
I have to leave now :(
18:09:56 [kcoyle]
can't we start as a community group?
18:10:25 [arthur]
18:10:42 [Ashok_Malhotra]
18:11:26 [Arnaud]
ack David
18:11:26 [Zakim]
DavidBooth, you wanted to say I think it would be helpful if we roughly ranked our use cases and requirements
18:12:15 [Arnaud]
ack arthur
18:13:29 [Anamitra]
arthur: we need to plan - have atleast 2 stages -
18:13:45 [ericP]
q+ to ask if the description and validation of the issue tracking document in seems useful to all of us here
18:14:03 [Anamitra]
arthur:statge 1>extremely simple spec - then follow that up with the stage 2
18:14:07 [ericP]
q+ sandro
18:14:14 [Arnaud]
ack Ashok_Malhotra
18:15:31 [Anamitra]
Ashok_Malhotra: easy declarative stuff for 80% of stuff - and the SPARQL for rest of it
18:15:35 [Arnaud]
ack ericP
18:15:35 [Zakim]
ericP, you wanted to ask if the description and validation of the issue tracking document in seems useful to all of us here
18:15:50 [Anamitra]
+1 Ashok_Malhotra
18:16:09 [Arnaud]
ack sandro
18:16:46 [arthur]
18:17:33 [Arnaud]
ack arthur
18:17:55 [kcoyle]
sandro: start with a spec, get all of the right people in the room
18:18:24 [hsolbri]
q+ to ask eric a question about pushback
18:18:39 [Arnaud]
ack hsolbri
18:18:39 [Zakim]
hsolbri, you wanted to ask eric a question about pushback
18:19:41 [Anamitra]
hsolbri: do we have a political issue for validating RDF -
18:21:15 [TimCole]
+q Reaction may depend on definition of validation.
18:21:43 [TimCole]
q+ to suggest that reaction may depend on definition of validation
18:22:11 [Anamitra]
sandro: consumers need to know about what they are consuming - that argument works - as opposed to a triple store needing that info
18:23:33 [Arnaud]
ack TimCole
18:23:33 [Zakim]
TimCole, you wanted to suggest that reaction may depend on definition of validation
18:23:58 [SteveS]
Based on past discussions within context of LDP: I think Tim and Henry see the need/motivation for this thing we called validation
18:24:24 [Anamitra]
TimCole: want to stay away from just a binary result - valid or not - give information about the result
18:26:22 [Anamitra]
_: the simple declarative format will lend itself to autogenerate SPARQL
18:26:32 [ericP]
18:26:44 [ericP]
18:26:48 [evrensirin]
q+ to comment on simplicity
18:26:53 [Arnaud]
ack ericP
18:27:35 [Arnaud]
ack evrensirin
18:27:35 [Zakim]
evrensirin, you wanted to comment on simplicity
18:28:11 [Anamitra]
ericP: if simple format is not able to define something - we will need to re-look as to whether we can improve it to cover that
18:28:22 [arthur]
18:28:45 [Arnaud]
ack arthur
18:29:26 [kcoyle]
can't hear - pls scribe! thx
18:29:38 [Anamitra]
Arthur: disjoint constraint can be added to resource shape
18:29:57 [Anamitra]
Arthur: should be driven by use cases
18:30:37 [Anamitra]
Ashok_Malhotra: do we have people who will like to start of this spec?
18:30:58 [Anamitra]
Arthur: I would
18:31:19 [arthur]
18:31:23 [Anamitra]
Arnaud: is it a requirement to make this language RDF
18:31:37 [kcoyle]
DCMI can offer the constraints in DSP - Arthur, I will do that
18:32:42 [evrensirin]
q+ about RDF representation
18:32:51 [Anamitra]
ericP: the primary language should be RDF
18:32:52 [evrensirin]
q+ to talk about RDF representation
18:33:34 [kcoyle]
+1 needs to be demonstrable
18:34:03 [tbaker]
+1 agree that should be representable, not necessarily represented, in RDF - who am I agreeing with (is this being scribed)?
18:34:48 [Anamitra]
hsolbri: description should exist in SPARQL query form
18:34:57 [Ashok_Malhotra]
18:34:58 [Arnaud]
ack arthur
18:36:01 [Anamitra]
arthur: the more declaritive the language is - the easier it is to define in RDF
18:37:01 [Arnaud]
ack evrensirin
18:37:01 [Zakim]
evrensirin, you wanted to talk about RDF representation
18:37:25 [ericP]
q+ to say that the requirement we're discussing is whether the expression in RDF is *interoperable*
18:37:49 [Anamitra]
evrensirin:atleast have a way to specify sparql as a literal in the constraint language
18:38:06 [Arnaud]
ack Ashok_Malhotra
18:39:04 [Anamitra]
Ashok_Malhotra: schema for schemas never worked
18:40:02 [Arnaud]
ack ericP
18:40:02 [Zakim]
ericP, you wanted to say that the requirement we're discussing is whether the expression in RDF is *interoperable*
18:40:25 [Anamitra]
ericP: interoperable RDF representation
18:40:47 [arthur]
18:42:08 [Anamitra]
hsolsbri: represent in RDF as much as possible - should be able to publish a standard representation form
18:42:13 [Arnaud]
ack arthur
18:43:04 [kcoyle]
pls scribe
18:43:06 [tbaker]
rrsagent, please draft minutes
18:43:06 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate tbaker
18:44:03 [Arnaud]
18:44:10 [tbaker]
didn't catch the point about SKOS - or who was talking...
18:44:31 [arthur]
Eric was talking about SKOS
18:44:37 [tbaker]
18:44:55 [Arnaud]
scribe: TimCole
18:45:27 [TimCole]
Can we define next steps
18:46:00 [TimCole]
Do we agree that a Working Group should be formed to make a new declarative language with fall back to SPARQL
18:46:29 [TimCole]
To speed things along we should start from a preliminary spec? Who would do this?
18:47:16 [kcoyle]
I offered DSP structure and constraints to Arthur
18:47:37 [TimCole]
Candidates. ResourceShape, Shape Expressions, DSP
18:48:26 [TimCole]
Arthur. There will have to be a call...
18:49:02 [roger]
can you send a link to your "shape expressions" information please Eric ?
18:49:39 [tbaker]
wondering whether there is consensus that a working group is needed as opposed to a community group (as Karen suggested)
18:49:51 [TimCole]
Arnuad: The working group will be chartered to use a spec as starting point, but WG can throw the spec out and start again.
18:50:47 [PhilA]
q+ to talk a little about W3C process
18:51:39 [TimCole]
evrensirin: Could the WG start with multiple specs?
18:52:01 [TimCole]
Arnaud: There are IP issues which make this approach more difficult.
18:52:09 [Arnaud]
ack PhilA
18:52:09 [Zakim]
PhilA, you wanted to talk a little about W3C process
18:52:45 [TimCole]
PhilA: To get a WG chartered, need bums on seats
18:52:59 [kcoyle]
TimCole: :-)
18:53:04 [SteveS]
q+ to talk about doing joint submission
18:53:26 [Arnaud]
ack SteveS
18:53:26 [Zakim]
SteveS, you wanted to talk about doing joint submission
18:53:48 [TimCole]
SteveS: Submission (of starting spec) can be collaborative.
18:54:24 [TimCole]
Arnaud: Charters need to be approved by W3C mgmt, and then by members.
18:55:01 [TimCole]
Arnaud: A draft charter is developed on mailing list. Responses feed the process of moving the charter forward.
18:56:17 [TimCole]
Arnaud: If interested in submitting a spec to serve as starting point, need to submit to W3C to clear IP issues.
18:56:42 [TimCole]
Arnaud: process takes a few months. PhilA: at least.
18:58:30 [TimCole]
TimCole: Do we need to do any winnowing or prioritizing of list developed yesterday?
18:59:02 [kcoyle]
TimCole: list needs a fair amount of work
18:59:03 [TimCole]
Arnaud: Have we done enough for now? Let Chairs move forward, form mailing list, etc.
18:59:22 [TimCole]
Arnaud: Or we can work a little longer?
19:00:03 [TimCole]
evrensirin; We need to say a little more about needs and priorities
19:00:27 [ericP]
-> SOTA ex
19:00:30 [tbaker]
q+ to ask if a WG is really needed. Why not a Community Group?
19:01:23 [TimCole]
ericP: The example implies some things about expressivity and interface
19:01:59 [TimCole]
evrensirin: Wants to talk more about higher level aspects of use case. Who's this for?
19:02:31 [TimCole]
ericP: Wants to keep concrete though. Not too hi-level.
19:02:34 [Arnaud]
ack tbaker
19:02:34 [Zakim]
tbaker, you wanted to ask if a WG is really needed. Why not a Community Group?
19:02:41 [PhilA]
q+ to answer Tom
19:03:09 [TimCole]
tbaker: Given lack of really strong agreement on task needed, do we want to start with a Community Group
19:04:04 [TimCole]
Arnaud: Community Groups are recent. More of a forum to work together. No resources or formal endorsement by the W3C.
19:04:43 [PhilA]
ack me
19:04:43 [Zakim]
PhilA, you wanted to answer Tom
19:04:46 [TimCole]
Arnaud: At best CG creates a spec which would need to be submitted, go through a WG, and then be ratrified.
19:04:46 [Arnaud]
ack PhilA
19:05:45 [TimCole]
PhilA: Some commercial entities reluctant to implement a CG spec.
19:06:39 [TimCole]
Arnaud: Some success stories, but really though the startup is faster in the end not really faster in the end.
19:07:06 [TimCole]
PhilA: if we can get a WG charter that tends to be better
19:07:30 [arthur]
19:07:55 [Arnaud]
ack arthur
19:08:16 [tbaker]
+1 depends on how mature the concept is, and easier to involve people with CG
19:08:24 [TimCole]
arthur: I think this is a mature area, and so appropriate for a WG
19:09:14 [TimCole]
Arnaud: Going back to having people commit. Do we have a critical mass?
19:09:24 [TimCole]
Arnaud: Who here would commit?
19:09:29 [arthur]
19:09:33 [hsolbri]
19:09:34 [ericP]
19:09:37 [roger]
19:09:39 [labra]
19:09:44 [evrensirin]
19:09:54 [kcoyle]
~1 (unsure)
19:09:58 [mesteban]
mesteban has joined #rdfval
19:10:05 [nmihindu]
19:10:31 [TimCole]
TimCole: harder to join WG if your institution not part of W3C
19:10:36 [tbaker]
19:10:40 [ssimister]
0.5 not sure yet
19:10:44 [Ashok_Malhotra]
19:10:48 [mSkjaeveland]
19:10:48 [mesteban]
19:10:50 [mgh]
+0.5 not sure yet
19:10:53 [TimCole]
-1 since Illinois not part of W3C
19:11:12 [ddolan]
19:11:13 [SteveS]
+0.1 I will participate through Arthur/Arnaud, definitely support it
19:11:57 [Ashok_Malhotra]
Community Groups cannot create standards
19:12:32 [TimCole]
tbaker: Not sure we are really ready to write a good charter yet.
19:12:58 [Ashok_Malhotra]
19:13:12 [Arnaud]
ack Ashok_Malhotra
19:15:23 [TimCole]
Arnaud: Let's get back to what the problem we're trying to solve?
19:15:53 [TimCole]
Arnaud: Let's focus on the use cases.
19:16:03 [Arnaud]
19:16:26 [kcoyle]
pad has requirements, but not use cases. need to gather use cases
19:17:21 [kcoyle]
most of the talks represented one or more use cases
19:17:30 [TimCole]
moving to pirate pad now.
19:25:03 [mesteban_]
mesteban_ has joined #rdfval
19:25:41 [Zakim]
19:27:54 [dbooth]
dbooth has joined #rdfval
19:28:45 [dbooth]
zakim, code?
19:28:45 [Zakim]
the conference code is 733825 (tel:+1.617.761.6200, dbooth
19:29:06 [Zakim]
19:29:47 [dbooth]
rrsagent, draft minutes
19:29:47 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate dbooth
19:56:25 [Arnaud]
19:57:03 [dbooth]
q+ to suggest roughly prioritizing use cases and requirements
19:59:24 [Arnaud]
ack dbooth
19:59:24 [Zakim]
dbooth, you wanted to suggest roughly prioritizing use cases and requirements
20:01:57 [SteveS]
How about a X day effort to build the list of requirements and/or use-cases, then Y day effort to prioritize them (using a surveying tool)?
20:05:11 [TimCole]
TimCole has left #rdfval
20:15:30 [dbooth]
q+ to say it is important to be able to apply different schemas to the same datasets
20:20:01 [Arnaud]
ack dbooth
20:20:01 [Zakim]
dbooth, you wanted to say it is important to be able to apply different schemas to the same datasets
20:20:35 [PhilA]
rrsagent, make logs public
20:20:41 [PhilA]
rrsagent, generate minutes
20:20:41 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate PhilA
20:21:16 [PhilA]
PhilA has left #rdfval
20:21:47 [Zakim]
20:22:21 [Zakim]
20:23:27 [dbooth]
Meeting: RDF Validation Workshop
20:23:34 [dbooth]
rrsagent, draft minutes
20:23:34 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate dbooth
20:24:29 [dbooth]
Chair: Arnaud Le Hors and Harold Solbrig
20:24:36 [dbooth]
rrsagent, draft minutes
20:24:36 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate dbooth
20:25:26 [gjiang]
gjiang has joined #rdfval
20:25:53 [Zakim]
20:25:54 [Zakim]
SW_(RDFVal)8:30AM has ended
20:25:54 [Zakim]
Attendees were kcoyle, Workshop_room, DaveReynolds, hhalpin, dbs, Workshop_room.a, tbaker, DBooth
20:30:51 [dbs]
dbs has left #rdfval
20:46:19 [PaulD]
PaulD has joined #rdfval
21:51:10 [Arnaud]
Arnaud has joined #rdfval
22:32:23 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #rdfval