Government Linked Data Working Group Teleconference -- 05 Dec 2013

<trackbot> Date: 05 December 2013

<bhyland> Hi

<fadmaa> scribe: fadmaa

<HadleyBeeman> http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/gld/2013-11-21

<bhyland> +1

<HadleyBeeman> proposed: approve last week's minutes

<HadleyBeeman> +1

<gatemezi> +1

<sandro> +1

<Biplav> +1

<HadleyBeeman> resolved: approve last week's minutes

<JoaoPauloAlmeida> the link was wrong

<JoaoPauloAlmeida> should have been http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/gld/2013-11-28

<bhyland> +1

<HadleyBeeman> thanks, joaopaulo!

<sandro> +1 minutes http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/gld/2013-11-28

<JoaoPauloAlmeida> +1 anyway

DCAT

<sandro> (agreed we meant that one)

<sandro> scribe: sandro

<fadmaa> http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/wiki/DCAT_PR_transition

HadleyBeeman: fadmaa where are we on PR transition

fadmaa: all good, except I didn't know how to generate diff

sandro: I'll do diff

fadmaa: Impl report, three sections to look at

<fadmaa> dcat:byteSize has only one conforming usage, however its deprecated predecessors (dcat:bytes and dcat:size) are used. dcat:byteSize was introduced to replace dcat:bytes and dcat:size to simplify the data model less than a year ago. The DCAT Application profile for data portals in Europe (DCAT-AP), a specification based on DCAT for describing public sector datasets in Europe, includes dcat:byteSize in its recommended terms. A similar recommendation of dcat:byte[CUT]

fadmaa: only dcat:byteSize is at issue

<fadmaa> Some further comments were received. We kept track of them and tried to address all of them. Few requests asked to extend the vocabulary in some direction (e.g. specific terms for tabular data, versioning, etc...) These requests couldn't be addressed due to the scope of the work as described in the WG charter and to the resources available.

HadleyBeeman: under Wide Review, yes, looks good.
... I think that's okay.

fadmaa: I added the bit about domains.

<HadleyBeeman> … to the HTML document. PhilA did it for the ontology.

fadmaa: It's a "noteworthy" change, but not "minor"

<fadmaa> Missing domain definitions for some terms The document was updated so that all properties defined under the DCAT namespace have their domain explicitly mentioned in the document (described above).

<HadleyBeeman> +1

<JoaoPauloAlmeida> +1

sandro: suggest s/declared/declared/

<fadmaa> http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/wiki/DCAT_Implementations

fadmaa: Three new reports. ckan, ...

<HadleyBeeman> … Data Tank

fadmaa: new section, on "Recommending DCAT"

+1 looks great

HadleyBeeman: I like it, it supports the case well.

fadmaa: Yes, I'm happy with impl. reports. Links are all good.

<bhyland> Whoot! Great work Fadi!

<fadmaa> http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/wiki/DCAT_LC_comments

HadleyBeeman: Comments?

fadmaa: I just replied to Leigh Dodds asking for confirmation that he's okay with the text as it now stands
... For the one about downloadURL and accessURL; last week I sent reply, but don't have confirmation from commenters.
... Two issues were resolved by WG. We just don't have formal acknowledgement.

HadleyBeeman: Table at top of comments page.
... Status....

fadmaa: All we've replied to, but not received....

sandro: LC vs CR comments....?

fadmaa: Some of the LC ones were CR.
... I'll split the CR ones out into another table.
... on same page

HadleyBeeman: It looks like we're ready to go!
... Anything else on your to-do list?
... As the WG had enough time to review it?

<bhyland> The organization of the http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/wiki/DCAT_LC_comments is really helpful.

bhyland: I'd like a chance to review, but I don't want to hold things up.

sandro: If folks needs to review, we could resolve to move forward sending transition request tomorrow?

bhyland: THanks so much Fadi. Excellent, excellent work.

PROPOSED: DCAT is ready to advance to Proposed Recommendations. We
... DCAT is ready to advance to Proposed Recommendations.
... DCAT is ready to advance to Proposed Recommendation.

<JoaoPauloAlmeida> +1

<gatemezi> +1

<HadleyBeeman> +1

<fadmaa> +1

<tinagheen> +1

<Biplav> +1

<DaveReynolds> +1

<bhyland> +1

RESOLUTION: DCAT is ready to advance to Proposed Recommendation.

<bhyland> Yay!

congradulations!!!!

<gatemezi> congrats fadmaa and al.

Data Cube

<scribe> scribe:fadmaa

<DaveReynolds> http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/wiki/Data_Cube_PR_transition

<bhyland> Congratulations to Fadi, John, and Phil for the considerable work in getting DCAT ready for transition!

DaveReynolds: There's been no change to the transition page itself

<DaveReynolds> http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/wiki/Data_Cube_Implementations

DaveReynolds: the implementations page http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/wiki/Data_Cube_Implementations had three new reports
... there were some issues raised related to conformance report
... there were three failures but all agreed that the failure was due to the data and not the conformance test
... that's a good indicator that the conformance tests are doing good job
... It is still possible that we get an extra one

<sandro> +1 DaveReynolds this is awesome

HadleyBeeman: that's great work! phenomenal

great work DaveReynolds !

DaveReynolds: no changes were made to the Data Cube TR

<bhyland> @Dave, your implementations write up should serve as the bar for all others, excellent work. Thank you!

<bhyland> +1

<sandro> RESOLVED: Data Cube is ready to advance to Proposed Recommendation.

<gatemezi> +1

Proposed: Transition Data Cube to recommendation

<Biplav> +1

<JoaoPauloAlmeida> +1

<DaveReynolds> +1

<HadleyBeeman> +1

<sandro> +1

<tinagheen> +1

<deirdrelee_> +1

Proposed: Transition Data Cube to Proposed recommendation

Resolved: Transition Data Cube to Proposed recommendation

<bhyland> Congrats!

<sandro> Congratulations!!

<DaveReynolds> http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/wiki/ORG_PR_transition

ORG vocabulary

DaveReynolds: ORG TR hasn't changed since two weeks
... there has been no new implementation reports

<DaveReynolds> http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/wiki/ORG_Implementations

DaveReynolds: all terms are used apart from 5 terms each of which having 1 usage
... and interest in using it later
... I'd recommend to proceed with all the terms
... this was agreed by the WG
... we got contacted by a user who is willing to help the WG with the Org ontology
... a bit late for our time
... but that's evidence of interest
... they promise to contact the list

sandro: I don't see a link from TR to the comments page on ORG

DaveReynolds: there were no issues raised durng the CR period

sandro: any relevant emails other than implementation reports?

DaveReynolds: I'll double check
... may be clarifications requests

sandro: it is helpful to have these in a page

<gatemezi> Dave , I have a small implementation that might be useful..see a small sample here http://goo.gl/fvEF21 ...with an application here http://semantics.eurecom.fr/datalift/Equipment/

sandro: linked from the TR

<gatemezi> I will send you an email

DaveReynolds: I'll do the same for the Data Cube

sandro: it's good to have such a page even if there were no issues

<sandro> sandro: The Director will want to see a Disposition of Comments page, even if it is "There were no comments"

Proposed: transition ORG to proposed recommendation

<JoaoPauloAlmeida> +1

<sandro> +1

<Biplav> +1

<DaveReynolds> +1

<tinagheen> +1

<HadleyBeeman> +1

<gatemezi> +1

<bhyland> +1

resolved: transition ORG to proposed recommendation

<bhyland> Double whoot! really well done guys. Grazie mille

<sandro> congratulations again!

great!

<HadleyBeeman> Well done, davereynolds and cygri!!

<sandro> HadleyBeeman: These seem to be specialist vocabs, where lots of people don't care very much, but some people need them a lot.

<sandro> HadleyBeeman: Editors please comments page & transition requestions in 24 hrs, then chairs will send these out.

<HadleyBeeman> hadleybeeman: We'll Send out transition requests to W3M and W3C chairs tomorrow

<HadleyBeeman> We'll arrange transition meetings (to include editors)

<bhyland> Last day for publications is Dec 17th.

<bhyland> If request comes in tomorrow, we can meet 13 or 16-Dec '13

sandro: can the editors do the required changes in teh next 24 hours?

DaveReynolds: yes

yes

Best practices

<bhyland> Report on status of Best Practices doc:

<bhyland> The editors believe we've resolved all reported issues in Tracker, including Issue-6

<bhyland> We've folded in the master normative & informative references but there is one more to add [Wood2011]

<bhyland> The work to link to the Linked Data Glossary is still outstanding, but isn't a material change.

<bhyland> Editors still must address the most recent feedback (Nov/Dec 2013) from Dave Reynolds, João Paulo Almeida, John Erickson & Richard Cyganiak which are very important.

<bhyland> I feel the URI Construction section is not complete. It is insufficient & I personally want to improve it. URI Construction section needs at a minimum references to RPI's design principals, Dutch Gov't reference, as well as informative guidance.

<bhyland> Do we need a disposition of comments for this WG Note? I feel this may help with transition to the next Web Best Practices WG.

bhyland: thanks Dave for the comments
... editors resolved all the issues recorded on the tracker
... we got quite a bit of feedback
... we still need to review the document
... an important section that I'd like to improve is the URI construction

<Biplav> Request to consider comments I sent earlier. Some still relevant/ unaddressed. At http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-gld-wg/2013Nov/0029.html

HadleyBeeman: from teh next WG perspective, the more organised the work the easier for the next WG
... I am more concerned about getting our work finished in this WG

<gatemezi> Thanks Biplav..we will look at it closely. At the mean time, could you look at the current version of the doc at https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/gld/raw-file/default/bp/index.html#sumbp. TIA

HadleyBeeman: the question is more to the editors whether the quality is good enough even if the scope is not as wide as we might like

bhyland: best practices document can be reviewed. I encourage people to do so
... I want to change the section on the URI construction

HadleyBeeman: changes to the document is more important than organising the comments IMO

<bhyland> For example, choosing entity URIs is only "notes" quality, https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/gld/raw-file/default/bp/index.html#howto

HadleyBeeman: is it possible to do the changes to the URI construction section by next Monday?
... I mean having a stable version of the document to review by Monday?

bhyland: yes

gatemezi: I think we addressed most of the comments we received
... I believe we can have a stable version by next week

Biplav: the BP document is extremely valuable
... even if there are some pieces which are incomplete, I'd suggest having a section that indicate non-polished sections
... the next WG can take it from there
... let's have coloured sections indicating where further work is needed

bhyland: that's good idea

DaveReynolds: in addition to talking about individual sections, I suggest we have an indication in the abstract that this document is unfinished
... to set the reader's expectation and indicate that furhter changes might be introduced

<scribe> ACTION: bhyland to indicate in the BP abstract that the document is unfinished and is subject to change [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/12/05-gld-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-156 - Indicate in the bp abstract that the document is unfinished and is subject to change [on Bernadette Hyland - due 2013-12-12].

thanks all! a great meeting!

<HadleyBeeman> thank you, fadmaa and sandro for scribing!!

- DRAFT -

Government Linked Data Working Group Teleconference

05 Dec 2013

Attendees

Contents

DCAT

Data Cube

ORG vocabulary

Best practices

Summary of Action Items

Scribe.perl diagnostic output