<trackbot> Date: 17 October 2013

<olyerickson> zakim: harumph...

<HadleyBeeman> Agenda http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20131017

<PhilA> meeting: GLD 17 October 2013

<DaveReynolds> ack ??P27

<olyerickson> +1 to fadi-by-proxy

<atemezin> me Hi Dave...Can report this application http://semantics.eurecom.fr/datalift/PerfectSchool/ consuming cube vocab for the implementation report?

<bhyland> chair: HadleyBeeman

<bhyland> scribe: bhyland

<DaveReynolds> Hi, sure send a report to the list and I'll a link to the page

<atemezin> Ok. Thanks Dave!

<JoaoPauloAlmeida> ??P40 is me

<PhilA> PhilA: Apologises in advance for almost certainly misspelling the Pacific NW

<HadleyBeeman> http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/gld/2013-08-01

There appear to be a missing set of meetings for http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/gld/2013-08-15

<atemezin> http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/gld/

OK, the minutes are there but not linked to in the main wiki

<DaveReynolds> +1 to accept minutes

(I'll fix later)

<atemezin> +1

<JoaoPauloAlmeida> +1

<olyerickson> +1 to minuts

Accepted minutes from 20130815

DCAT status

Fadi Maali <fadi.maali@deri.org>

Resent-From: W3C public GLD WG WG <public-gld-wg@w3.org>

To: Public GLD WG <public-gld-wg@w3.org>

Cc: Deirdre Lee <deirdre.lee@deri.org>, Makx Dekkers <makx@makxdekkers.com>, Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>and cc

status of DCAT

<PhilA> Fadi's mail

<PhilA> See for example http://schema.org/DataCatalog

bhyland: Given the importance & visibility of DCAT in the overall open data community, I personally would like to see it ushered through and have some ideas for how to give some support to Fadi IF he is still willing to be the main facilitator.

olyerickson: What type of documentation do we require from users of DCAT (Woods Hole, EU organizations, etc) to demonstrate implementation of the proposed document.

Sandro: The W3C requirements are pretty flexible. We can take an email from the organization that confirms they've read the spec, they are using the following terms, they conform to the spec.

… If there are terms that no one is using, it is questionable as to whether they should remain in the spec.

olyerickson: Yes, that process/approach makes sense. Remaining issue is complete coverage because DCAT anticipates a broader set of terms than a given LD publisher is likely to use.

Sandro: any given publisher doesn't need to use all terms, just coverage overall between the implementors.
... I think we can ignore test harness for a vocabulary publisher … it is not clear how to do that. In general, we haven't done this for vocabs & I don't think we need to.

<DaveReynolds> Well that's not entirely the case c.f. ORG and Data Cube :)

olyerickson: We're showing data set implementers using a by-way-of-example approach but it is difficult to do this for a vocabulary ...

… International Open Government Data Catalog is meant to be a 90% overlap of DCAT but the vocab terms are not pure DCAT ...

… We could claim we have a catalog with terms that are mostly DCAT, but we don't have the staffing resources currently (not before end of November 2013), to complete that effort.

<Zakim> PhilA, you wanted to talk about mappings

<PhilA> mappings http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/Datasets

… Our implementation of DCAT isn't complete. By way of complete implementation, see the Woods Hole implementation. For those not familiar with who Woods Hole is, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woods_Hole_Oceanographic_Institution

PhilA: Raised concerned that terms DCAT, ADMS changes happened after the terms had been incorporated in to Schema.org.
... Agreed to take an Action to communicate with Schema.org facilitators to ask them to update....

<scribe> ACTION: PhilA will communicate with Schema.org facilitators & ask them to update terms from DCAT & ADMS. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/10/17-gld-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-149 - Will communicate with schema.org facilitators & ask them to update terms from dcat & adms. [on Phil Archer - due 2013-10-24].

<olyerickson> im muted

<JoaoPauloAlmeida> We are in a huge mess with respect to vocabulary adoption/reuse

… Discussion ensued about Schema.org's willingness to update Schema.org based on changes made by W3 working group(s).

<JoaoPauloAlmeida> This schema.org usage is only one small example...

PhilA: Hasn't personally come across people who said they are implemented one vocab over another, specifically Schema.org vs. DCAT

<JoaoPauloAlmeida> This is not the first time we had discussed this. We ourselves (in ORG) depend on FOAF (which has a broken versioning scheme).

olyerickson: People are asking about DCAT & how to surface their metadata on the Web. RPI teaches people about both Schema.org which has "good brand" coverage, as well as RDFa ...

<Zakim> PhilA, you wanted to raise a completely different issue about schema.org cf. DCAT

<JoaoPauloAlmeida> good comment by bhyland

PhilA: Per discussion with EC, questions were raised by someone why the W3C is working with Schema.org because it is a proprietary vocab not developed in an open, peer reviewed process.

<JoaoPauloAlmeida> we have used FOAF, which is not open

… Because Schema.org hasn't been done in open peer reviewed forum, it is tough to make recommendation to government authorities to use it.

<JoaoPauloAlmeida> best practices should clarify issues of vocab reuse, versioning (evolution) and openness

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

<PhilA> JoaoPauloAlmeida - I think FOAF is more open than schema.org. All decisions are taken in public by its community cf. behind closed doors for schema.org

Hadley: We still have quite a bit of (W3) process to get DCAT across the finish line in the remaining 2 months.
... Asked whether we have the resources within the GLD WG to engage in CR effort … Alternatively, we publish a WG Note.

<JoaoPauloAlmeida> This group needs to write about these fundamental issues. Vocabularies are only useful if they are reused, and if they can evolve (even when they are already being used), … is this something that can be raised in the follow up efforts of the Data Activity

<JoaoPauloAlmeida> ?

Sandro: We need to consider whether there is a benefit to DCAT being a Recommendation or a WG Note.

… Boils down to level of effort required + time available + value derived from the effort.

<Zakim> HadleyBeeman, you wanted to talk about what "official" means

bhyland: Asked whether European LD publishers (with whom PhilA works fairly closely), whether they distinguish between a WG Note vs a Recommendation.

… They simply want to know it is stable & not being mucked around with … terms aren't being changed out from beneath them.

… If the Data on the Web WG wants to add terms, then they have freedom to do so.

<olyerickson> +1 to some W3C status that signifies stability. "Note" apparently achieves that, "Recommendation" prolly stronger than "Note"

<HadleyBeeman> …. by adding a separate note

… Stability is the most important issue. They want the technology to remain stable.

… the existing terms remain in effect.

Sandro: There *may* be editorial changes in subsequent documents that add clarity (reduce ambiguity).

DaveReynolds: I'm not working with people trying to use DCAT at the moment. But in the UK, there is commitment to working with open Web standards.

… There is a cost to doing a WG Note vs. a Recommendation

<olyerickson> I will ask whether "recommendation" status makes a difference to e.g. WHOI

<olyerickson> I'll also ask my friends in Data.gov

HadleyBeeman: Working on UK Government Open Standards

… It includes language around "due process" for open web standards that are adopted.

… Practically on the ground, I doubt that there would be a lot of push back if there were a stable Working Group Note vs. Recommendation.

<HadleyBeeman> UK gov definition of open standard is in here: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/78892/Open-Standards-Principles-FINAL.pdf

… Back to Sandro's point … do we have the resources within 2 mos & is success is possible & do we get sufficient value from that hard work?

Deirdre: If DERI & RPI could each supply an implementation that conforms, independentally developed, would that be sufficient?

Sandro: Yes.

HadleyBeeman: Provided a summary:we need a final resourcing discussion with Fadi.

<olyerickson> RPI will solicit a statement of implementation (or intent to implement) DCAT from e.g. WHOI. Hopefully they will agree...

Sandro: We need the following by Thur Oct 24-Oct: 1) Documented WG Resolution to proceed; 2) Documentation ready for publication as CR (from LC); 3) Transition request emailed to W3C mgmt & chairs.

<DaveReynolds> Presumably also a question of availability - if Fadi is off to ISWC then prepare docs by next Thursday may be hard

<scribe> ACTION: HadleyBeeman, bhyland - Solicit commitment from WG participants & reach out beyond, to determine that there is support for Fadi who does want to see DCAT move through the Rec Track process. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/10/17-gld-minutes.html#action02]

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

Deirdre: Appreciate that Fadi wants to see this move forward, and from DERI's side, we'd like to see it move forward to Rec track. She couldn't commit on behalf of DERI but expressed that it is very important to DERI.

<scribe> ACTION: Deirdre to raise with DERI management to lend support & needed resources to move DCAT through Rec Track process. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/10/17-gld-minutes.html#action03]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-150 - Raise with deri management to lend support & needed resources to move dcat through rec track process. [on Deirdre Lee - due 2013-10-24].

<atemezin> +1 to see DCAT going to Rec

<Deirdrelee> I have to go....I'll follow up on mailing list

ORG update

DaveReynolds: Cannot have sufficient status discussion in 2 minutes remaining.
... It has been tough to get implementation reports. We have one formal report Cube.

We have one report for ORG that was somewhat loose. We need to encourage implementation reports, conformance checks & rigor.

Hadley: Is it doable in the time remaining?

DaveReynolds: For Cube, I think it is doable. We can get evidence of conformance. For ORG, I'm more worried. We might need to consider taking ORG to WG Note....

<PhilA> scribe: PhilA

<bhyland> ta!

sandro: Asks about Soton's use of QB

DaveReynolds: No

sandro: OK, they've used it. Need to chase it

PhilA: I have some info from Italy. No usage of more terms I'm afraid. But I have Italian translations of the labels and comments

<atemezin> Thanks all!

<JoaoPauloAlmeida> bye

<sumit> Thanks All

HadleyBeeman: Asks about Best prac doc. Bernadette has had to leave already. No one else on the call to talk about it

meeting adjourned

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: bhyland
Inferring ScribeNick: bhyland
Found Scribe: PhilA
Inferring ScribeNick: PhilA
Scribes: bhyland, PhilA
ScribeNicks: bhyland, PhilA
Default Present: +1.617.646.aaaa, Sandro, olyerickson, HadleyBeeman, bhyland, PhilA, DaveReynolds, Deirdrelee, Sumit, JoaoPauloAlmeida, +33.4.93.00.aabb
Present: +1.617.646.aaaa Sandro olyerickson HadleyBeeman bhyland PhilA DaveReynolds Deirdrelee Sumit JoaoPauloAlmeida +33.4.93.00.aabb
Found Date: 17 Oct 2013
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2013/10/17-gld-minutes.html
People with action items: ask communicate deirdre facilitators hadleybeeman phila schema.org them will with

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