14:56:53 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #gld
14:56:53 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/11/14-gld-irc
14:56:59 <HadleyBeeman> trackbot, start meeting
14:57:01 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
14:57:03 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be GLD
14:57:03 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see T&S_GLDWG()10:00AM scheduled to start in 3 minutes
14:57:04 <trackbot> Meeting: Government Linked Data Working Group Teleconference
14:57:04 <trackbot> Date: 14 November 2013
14:57:58 <HadleyBeeman> topic: agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20131114
14:58:09 <HadleyBeeman> HadleyBeeman has changed the topic to: agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20131114
14:59:03 <Zakim> T&S_GLDWG()10:00AM has now started
14:59:10 <Zakim> +HadleyBeeman
15:00:57 <Zakim> + +1.781.642.aaaa
15:01:06 <sandro> zakim, aaaa is sandro
15:01:06 <Zakim> +sandro; got it
15:01:54 <BenediktKaempgen> BenediktKaempgen has joined #gld
15:01:58 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
15:02:19 <sandro> zakim, IPcaller is olyerickson
15:02:19 <Zakim> +olyerickson; got it
15:04:02 <Zakim> +??P11
15:04:17 <BenediktKaempgen> zakim, ??P11 is BenediktKaempgen
15:04:17 <Zakim> +BenediktKaempgen; got it
15:05:19 <DaveReynolds> DaveReynolds has joined #gld
15:06:02 <HadleyBeeman> zakim, who is speaking?
15:06:13 <Zakim> HadleyBeeman, listening for 11 seconds I heard sound from the following: HadleyBeeman (19%), sandro (14%)
15:06:31 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
15:07:17 <sandro> scribe: sandro
15:07:33 <HadleyBeeman> Proposed:  accept minutes of previous meeting http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/gld/2013-11-07
15:07:49 <DaveReynolds> +1
15:07:56 <Zakim> + +3539149aabb
15:08:04 <fadmaa> fadmaa has joined #gld
15:08:11 <BenediktKaempgen> I did not participate, can I still vote to accept the minutes?
15:08:24 <HadleyBeeman> +1
15:08:26 <fadmaa> +1
15:08:34 <BenediktKaempgen> :-) sounds senseful
15:08:39 <HadleyBeeman> zakim, aabb is fadmaa
15:08:39 <Zakim> +fadmaa; got it
15:08:39 <fadmaa> Zakim, mute me
15:08:40 <Zakim> fadmaa should now be muted
15:09:04 <olyerickson> +1 to the minutes being both parseable and valiud
15:09:26 <olyerickson> s/valiud/valid/
15:09:34 <bhyland> bhyland has joined #gld
15:09:34 <HadleyBeeman> resolved:  accept minutes of previous meeting http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/gld/2013-11-07
15:10:44 <sandro> DaveReynolds: I told people end of November, so I'm expecting I'll get reports by then.
15:11:03 <sandro> DaveReynolds: on Hierarchy Code List, I haven't scared up any reports yet.
15:11:17 <HadleyBeeman> http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/wiki/Data_Cube_PR_transition
15:11:24 <sandro> HadleyBeeman: Did you see my PR transition template?
15:11:27 <sandro> DaveReynolds: Not yet.
15:12:01 <sandro> HadleyBeeman: It's pretty similar to the CR transition.
15:12:19 <sandro> DaveReynolds: Template looks fine - the challenges will be what we knew from CR.
15:13:08 <sandro> DaveReynolds: THe issue with cube is about the fuzzy request to track usage of terms.
15:13:37 <sandro> HadleyBeeman: Let's try to present the data we have in a useful way.
15:14:44 <sandro> topic: org
15:14:55 <sandro> DaveReynolds: one more report, so far
15:15:25 <sandro> DaveReynolds: It's a person who uses org-like terms internally, and who plans to move to org.  One specific comment:
15:15:38 <sandro> .. we make use of owl:time, which is a WG Note.
15:15:53 <sandro> .. Ralph asked we put it At Risk in the CR document and ask for feedback
15:16:16 <sandro> .. no response on that until this commenter, who strongly supports use of owl:time
15:16:21 <sandro> .. so that's useful.
15:17:04 <BenediktKaempgen> q+
15:17:38 <sandro> BenediktKaempgen: about org and cube: how realistic is it that we can show usage of all the terms, given that some of the terms .....
15:18:26 <DaveReynolds> http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/wiki/Data_Cube_Implementations
15:18:27 <sandro> DaveReynolds: For data cube, our formal exit criteria is two impls that pass all validation tests, and we've already got several more than that.  So our formal criteria DONT require usage of every term.  But the acting director asked us to track usage anyway.
15:18:55 <sandro> DaveReynolds: 5 passing implementations, and at least use one use of each term
15:19:23 <sandro> DaveReynolds: we didn't label the HCLs at risk, so we could have a problem if that's not used
15:19:32 <DaveReynolds> http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/wiki/ORG_Implementations
15:20:41 <sandro> DaveReynolds: For org, we've got good usage across the board.
15:20:55 <sandro> DaveReynolds: Deleting terms would be a problem.
15:22:16 <sandro> HadleyBeeman: What if that happens, that we don't have impls of some terms?
15:22:32 <sandro> sandro: technically we wait in CR, unless we can find some flexibility, which we might.
15:22:42 <sandro> topic: Best Practices
15:22:59 <sandro> HadleyBeeman: We're missing all three of the BP editors.
15:23:10 <sandro> HadleyBeeman: I sent email yesterday
15:23:22 <HadleyBeeman> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-gld-wg/2013Nov/0021.html
15:23:41 <sandro> .. we're running out of time.   very little time for public review.
15:23:56 <sandro> .. can't do the 4 weeks public review we planned on
15:24:34 <sandro> .. options A, B, and C
15:25:20 <sandro> .. When people look at this, they seem to have a lot to say.   So I'm concerned -- we need time for the WG to get happy with it, and feel it represents our work.
15:25:29 <sandro> .. I was hoping for guidance from the Editors.
15:25:42 <sandro> .. They say they're discussing it.
15:26:16 <sandro> .. Sandro, you mentioned we could do public review of an Editors Draft, to save a little work
15:26:38 <sandro> .. but I'm concerned this document may not come together in a way the WG is willing to publish.
15:27:42 <DaveReynolds> q+
15:27:49 <BenediktKaempgen> q-
15:27:57 <HadleyBeeman> sandro:  I'm not sure there's much helpful we can do there.  It's nice to have an explanation for not doing a deliverable: a resolution not to publish it, or asking a future group (the possible Data on the Web BP group) to take it on.
15:28:03 <DaveReynolds> ack me
15:28:51 <sandro> DaveReynolds: it's not rec track in any case.     so one fallback is to publish a note that has a load of editorial comments in it.   as long as there's SOME WG review.   We can include notes that says which bits still have issues, etc.
15:29:28 <olyerickson> Thought: Could it be published as a note, recognizing it was a 'working document" (an artifact of the group)
15:29:33 <olyerickson> Q+
15:29:44 <HadleyBeeman> sandro:  I agree. I wonder whether to leave it as a working draft, in that case?  Anything we can't get consensus on: include phrasing on it to say that.
15:29:51 <HadleyBeeman> ack john
15:29:55 <HadleyBeeman> ack oly
15:31:32 <sandro> olyerickson: I agree.    The BP document was one of the WG's first artifacts.   A number of the sections went in, like URI persistence, then the WG evolved, so we had to formalize vocabularies, so it's reasonable for us to archive this as a NOTE, noting it was a "Working Document" of this group.   So we keep it associated as a formal document.
15:32:25 <olyerickson> I think sandro agrees with what I said
15:32:33 <HadleyBeeman> Sandro: I think the important thing is to try to produce something that will be useful to somebody.  Accurately reflect our wisdom as best we can in the limited time we have left.  Something for historians is less useful : I think we should aim for the public at large.
15:32:39 <olyerickson> I agree with what sandro said!
15:32:41 <sandro> sandro: Let's focus on something useful to the next WG (fallback) or the public at large (ideally)
15:33:13 <sandro> HadleyBeeman: Without the editors on the call, we'll point them at these minutes.
15:33:18 <sandro> .. Anyone disagree with this?
15:33:31 <sandro> .. So, this reflects the brainstorming possibilities.
15:33:51 <sandro> .. skipping BP points on agenda
15:34:02 <sandro> topic: dcat
15:34:02 <fadmaa> zakim, unmute me
15:34:02 <Zakim> fadmaa should no longer be muted
15:34:16 <sandro> HadleyBeeman: Where are we on CR comments?
15:34:28 <sandro> fadmaa: I still have to reply.  A few of the issues turned into a discussion, (versioning and schema)
15:34:34 <HadleyBeeman> http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/wiki/DCAT_LC_comments
15:34:46 <fadmaa> https://www.w3.org/2011/gld/track/issues/70
15:34:59 <HadleyBeeman> issue-70?
15:34:59 <trackbot> issue-70 -- Define dcat:downloadURL as sub property of dcat:accessURL -- raised
15:34:59 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/track/issues/70
15:35:00 <sandro> .. We got a comment about downloadURL and accessURL.   Unfortunately, this required some change to vocab.
15:35:19 <sandro> .. calls for subProperty assertion
15:35:56 <sandro> HadleyBeeman: Is that another last call.
15:36:49 <HadleyBeeman> sandro: questions on last call are usually either: does this invalidate an implimentation, or the review of any of the commenters?
15:37:43 <HadleyBeeman> … This would make somebody's code change if they were writing a consumer and using the inference by hand, and using OWL, they would have to add a line.  But we're not looking at consumers.  And on invalidating people's reviews… I don't understand the user community enough to judge that myself.
15:37:58 <sandro> sandro: Are there people who would find this subProperty assertion problematic?
15:38:15 <sandro> olyerickson: I think these questions are coming from people anticipating using it.
15:38:30 <sandro> olyerickson: There's a good argument for adding the subproperty assertion
15:39:25 <sandro> olyerickson: I'm actually 51/49 around this change.  Not sure it's a good idea.
15:40:08 <sandro> sandro: John, in your mind was this a subProperty all along?
15:40:12 <HadleyBeeman> sandro: In your mind, was one of these a subProperty of the other all along? or not.
15:40:19 <sandro> olyerickson: No, but I can see how that might be useful
15:41:11 <HadleyBeeman> sandro: that makes me think there may be people for whom that inference would be wrong.  If you were writing data, you were doing so assuming that assertion hadn't been made.  It would be a bug.
15:41:24 <sandro> sandro: So it sounds like you and some others were writing data assuming these properties were independent.
15:41:31 <sandro> olyerickson: I'm not enthusiastic about this change.
15:42:16 <sandro> fadmaa: It makes sense from a modeling perspective.     I'm trying to think of a case where this isn't correct, and haven't come up with one.
15:42:21 <sandro> fadmaa: But is it practical, I don't know.
15:42:42 <sandro> olyerickson: Is it an error if the subProperty assertion isn't there?
15:42:55 <sandro> fadmaa: No, it's not an error.  It's just better modeling to have it there.
15:43:58 <sandro> sandro: It sounds to me like too controvcial a change to make during CR.
15:43:59 <HadleyBeeman> sandro:  this sounds to me like we sholud't have the subproperty assertion. It's not the kind of change we should make during CR.  IT's too big, too controversial.
15:44:04 <olyerickson> I agree with sandro
15:44:12 <fadmaa> +1
15:44:33 <sandro> fadmaa: Trying to think of how to respond to commenters.
15:45:46 <HadleyBeeman> sandro: think of a case where it's incorrect to be modelling that way.  Or — think of the future.  Would it make sense to include this a next future?  (Not sure what that means for DCAT.  Versioning vocabularies is hard. A future version could have a new property with the subproperty relation.)
15:46:39 <DaveReynolds> q+
15:46:52 <HadleyBeeman> sandro: the working group isn't supposed to change its mind about design matters after last call.
15:47:13 <DaveReynolds> ack me
15:47:14 <sandro> oly: subPropertyOf creates a relationship that wasn't in the earlier drafts, and it potentially damaging
15:48:23 <sandro> DaveReynolds: I think this is more about the clarity of AccessURL.    DownloadURL is clearly how you get the data.    AccessURL is clearly ANY way you can get at the data.    So, that sounds like a subPropertyOf.
15:48:46 <sandro> DaveReynolds: If we answer and say it's NOT a subProperty, then we need to say how it's not.
15:49:16 <sandro> sandro: John....?
15:49:54 <sandro> olyerickson: I think Dave is perfectly understanding the way AccessURL was intended.   It was always meant as a catchall, it could be anything.
15:50:13 <sandro> olyerickson: DownloadURL is something much more specific.
15:50:32 <sandro> olyerickson: As DaveReynolds says, that does sound like subPropertyOf
15:50:34 <sandro> q+
15:50:49 <HadleyBeeman> ack sandro
15:51:14 <HadleyBeeman> sandro: maybe there's a nuance here… If you have a downloadURL, you shouldn't have an accessURL? Does it ever make sense to have both, and have them be different?
15:51:17 <fadmaa> q+
15:51:21 <DaveReynolds> q+
15:51:28 <HadleyBeeman> olyerickson: absolutely
15:51:43 <sandro> fadmaa: You can't have them both on the same distribution
15:51:43 <olyerickson> arggghj
15:51:53 <fadmaa> zakim, ack me
15:51:53 <Zakim> I see DaveReynolds on the speaker queue
15:52:07 <sandro> olyerickson: I don't agree
15:52:09 <fadmaa> +1
15:52:36 <sandro> HadleyBeeman: fadmaa and olyerickson  please take this offline.
15:52:51 <sandro> olyerickson: I think it's a question of how it's adopted
15:52:57 <DaveReynolds> q-
15:53:02 <sandro> HadleyBeeman: Any other unanswered comments?
15:53:08 <sandro> fadmaa: Yes a few.
15:53:24 <sandro> fadmaa: The others are simpler, but I need to send emails on the other.
15:53:40 <sandro> s/on the other//
15:53:46 <sandro> HadleyBeeman: Please do that soon
15:53:57 <fadmaa> http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/wiki/DCAT_Implementations#Open_Data_Support
15:54:08 <sandro> HadleyBeeman: DCAT implementaitons?
15:54:21 <sandro> fadmaa: One new report, from EU, sparql endpoint.
15:54:35 <olyerickson> RE DCAT Implementation reports, detailed WHOI report is due to RPI today...
15:54:50 <sandro> fadmaa: It has very good coverage.   A few possible wrong uses of properties -- contacting them.
15:54:51 <olyerickson> (confirmed during this call)
15:55:16 <sandro> fadmaa: ckan uses some old terms
15:55:25 <sandro> fadmaa: Working with dublink catalog
15:56:08 <olyerickson> sandro: need to understand "wrong usage"
15:56:22 <HadleyBeeman> sandro: re "wrong usage": obsolete terms don't invalidate the report. But we do need to understand any wrong usage of our terms.  If it's a mistake on their part, it's fine. If they disagree with us, that's important for us to know.
15:56:46 <olyerickson> re: "wrong usage" thanks for the clarification
15:56:49 <HadleyBeeman> … preferably, our written explanation confirmed by them  as well.
15:56:51 <fadmaa> +1 to sandro. sounds great to me
15:58:01 <HadleyBeeman> sandro: anything that reflects an impression not supported by the spec, we should do something about that. We would like that opinion to be written down, preferably i nthe spec
15:58:10 <HadleyBeeman> s/i nthe/in the
15:58:57 <sandro> fadmaa: dct:rights might be an issue
15:59:23 <HadleyBeeman> http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/wiki/DCAT_PR_transition
16:01:16 <fadmaa> thanks all
16:01:18 <Zakim> -olyerickson
16:01:20 <Zakim> -sandro
16:01:23 <Zakim> -HadleyBeeman
16:01:24 <BenediktKaempgen> bye!
16:01:24 <Zakim> -fadmaa
16:01:26 <Zakim> -DaveReynolds
16:01:27 <DaveReynolds> DaveReynolds has left #gld
16:01:27 <Zakim> -BenediktKaempgen
16:01:27 <Zakim> T&S_GLDWG()10:00AM has ended
16:01:27 <Zakim> Attendees were HadleyBeeman, +1.781.642.aaaa, sandro, olyerickson, BenediktKaempgen, DaveReynolds, +3539149aabb, fadmaa
16:01:30 <HadleyBeeman> Thanks for scribing, sandro!
16:14:24 <olyerickson> olyerickson has left #gld
16:20:55 <HadleyBeeman> HadleyBeeman has joined #gld
17:58:53 <Zakim> Zakim has left #gld