14:56:53 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/11/14-gld-irc
RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/11/14-gld-irc ←
14:56:59 <HadleyBeeman> trackbot, start meeting
Hadley Beeman: trackbot, start meeting ←
14:57:01 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, make logs world ←
14:57:03 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be GLD
Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, this will be GLD ←
14:57:03 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see T&S_GLDWG()10:00AM scheduled to start in 3 minutes
Zakim IRC Bot: 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
Hadley Beeman: 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
Zakim IRC Bot: T&S_GLDWG()10:00AM has now started ←
14:59:10 <Zakim> +HadleyBeeman
Zakim IRC Bot: +HadleyBeeman ←
15:00:57 <Zakim> + +1.781.642.aaaa
Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.781.642.aaaa ←
15:01:06 <sandro> zakim, aaaa is sandro
Sandro Hawke: zakim, aaaa is sandro ←
15:01:06 <Zakim> +sandro; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +sandro; got it ←
15:01:58 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[IPcaller] ←
15:02:19 <sandro> zakim, IPcaller is olyerickson
Sandro Hawke: zakim, IPcaller is olyerickson ←
15:02:19 <Zakim> +olyerickson; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +olyerickson; got it ←
15:04:02 <Zakim> +??P11
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P11 ←
15:04:17 <BenediktKaempgen> zakim, ??P11 is BenediktKaempgen
Benedikt Kaempgen: zakim, ??P11 is BenediktKaempgen ←
15:04:17 <Zakim> +BenediktKaempgen; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +BenediktKaempgen; got it ←
15:06:02 <HadleyBeeman> zakim, who is speaking?
Hadley Beeman: zakim, who is speaking? ←
15:06:13 <Zakim> HadleyBeeman, listening for 11 seconds I heard sound from the following: HadleyBeeman (19%), sandro (14%)
Zakim IRC Bot: HadleyBeeman, listening for 11 seconds I heard sound from the following: HadleyBeeman (19%), sandro (14%) ←
15:06:31 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[IPcaller] ←
15:07:17 <sandro> scribe: sandro
(Scribe set to Sandro Hawke)
15:07:33 <HadleyBeeman> Proposed: accept minutes of previous meeting http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/gld/2013-11-07
PROPOSED: accept minutes of previous meeting http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/gld/2013-11-07 ←
15:07:49 <DaveReynolds> +1
Dave Reynolds: +1 ←
15:07:56 <Zakim> + +3539149aabb
Zakim IRC Bot: + +3539149aabb ←
15:08:11 <BenediktKaempgen> I did not participate, can I still vote to accept the minutes?
Benedikt Kaempgen: I did not participate, can I still vote to accept the minutes? ←
15:08:24 <HadleyBeeman> +1
Hadley Beeman: +1 ←
15:08:26 <fadmaa> +1
Fadi Maali: +1 ←
15:08:34 <BenediktKaempgen> :-) sounds senseful
Benedikt Kaempgen: :-) sounds senseful ←
15:08:39 <HadleyBeeman> zakim, aabb is fadmaa
Hadley Beeman: zakim, aabb is fadmaa ←
15:08:39 <Zakim> +fadmaa; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +fadmaa; got it ←
15:08:39 <fadmaa> Zakim, mute me
Fadi Maali: Zakim, mute me ←
15:08:40 <Zakim> fadmaa should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: fadmaa should now be muted ←
15:09:04 <olyerickson> +1 to the minutes being both parseable and valiud
John Erickson: +1 to the minutes being both parseable and valid ←
15:09:26 <olyerickson> s/valiud/valid/
15:09:34 <HadleyBeeman> resolved: accept minutes of previous meeting http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/gld/2013-11-07
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.
Dave Reynolds: 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.
Dave Reynolds: 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
Hadley Beeman: http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/wiki/Data_Cube_PR_transition ←
15:11:24 <sandro> HadleyBeeman: Did you see my PR transition template?
Hadley Beeman: Did you see my PR transition template? ←
15:11:27 <sandro> DaveReynolds: Not yet.
Dave Reynolds: Not yet. ←
15:12:01 <sandro> HadleyBeeman: It's pretty similar to the CR transition.
Hadley Beeman: 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.
Dave Reynolds: 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.
Dave Reynolds: 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.
Hadley Beeman: 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
Dave Reynolds: 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:
Dave Reynolds: 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.
.. 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
.. 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
.. no response on that until this commenter, who strongly supports use of owl:time ←
15:16:21 <sandro> .. so that's useful.
.. so that's useful. ←
15:17:04 <BenediktKaempgen> q+
Benedikt Kaempgen: 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 .....
Benedikt Kaempgen: 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
Dave Reynolds: 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.
Dave Reynolds: 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
Dave Reynolds: 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
Dave Reynolds: 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
Dave Reynolds: http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/wiki/ORG_Implementations ←
15:20:41 <sandro> DaveReynolds: For org, we've got good usage across the board.
Dave Reynolds: For org, we've got good usage across the board. ←
15:20:55 <sandro> DaveReynolds: Deleting terms would be a problem.
Dave Reynolds: Deleting terms would be a problem. ←
15:22:16 <sandro> HadleyBeeman: What if that happens, that we don't have impls of some terms?
Hadley Beeman: 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.
Sandro Hawke: 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.
Hadley Beeman: We're missing all three of the BP editors. ←
15:23:10 <sandro> HadleyBeeman: I sent email yesterday
Hadley Beeman: I sent email yesterday ←
15:23:22 <HadleyBeeman> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-gld-wg/2013Nov/0021.html
Hadley Beeman: 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.
.. 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
.. can't do the 4 weeks public review we planned on ←
15:24:34 <sandro> .. options A, B, and C
.. 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.
.. 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.
.. I was hoping for guidance from the Editors. ←
15:25:42 <sandro> .. They say they're discussing it.
.. 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
.. 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.
.. but I'm concerned this document may not come together in a way the WG is willing to publish. ←
15:27:42 <DaveReynolds> q+
Dave Reynolds: q+ ←
15:27:49 <BenediktKaempgen> q-
Benedikt Kaempgen: 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.
Sandro Hawke: 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. [ Scribe Assist by Hadley Beeman ] ←
15:28:03 <DaveReynolds> ack me
Dave Reynolds: 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.
Dave Reynolds: 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> a Thought: Could it be published as a note, recognizing it was a 'working document" (an artifact of the group)
John Erickson: a Thought: Could it be published as a note, recognizing it was a 'working document" (an artifact of the group) ←
15:29:33 <olyerickson> Q+
John Erickson: 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.
Sandro Hawke: 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. [ Scribe Assist by Hadley Beeman ] ←
15:29:51 <HadleyBeeman> ack john
Hadley Beeman: ack john ←
15:29:55 <HadleyBeeman> ack oly
Hadley Beeman: 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.
John Erickson: 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
John Erickson: 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.
Sandro Hawke: 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. [ Scribe Assist by Hadley Beeman ] ←
15:32:39 <olyerickson> I agree with what sandro said!
John Erickson: 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)
Sandro Hawke: 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.
Hadley Beeman: Without the editors on the call, we'll point them at these minutes. ←
15:33:18 <sandro> .. Anyone disagree with this?
.. Anyone disagree with this? ←
15:33:31 <sandro> .. So, this reflects the brainstorming possibilities.
.. So, this reflects the brainstorming possibilities. ←
15:33:51 <sandro> .. skipping BP points on agenda
.. skipping BP points on agenda ←
15:34:02 <sandro> topic: dcat
15:34:02 <fadmaa> zakim, unmute me
Fadi Maali: zakim, unmute me ←
15:34:02 <Zakim> fadmaa should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: fadmaa should no longer be muted ←
15:34:16 <sandro> HadleyBeeman: Where are we on CR comments?
Hadley Beeman: 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)
Fadi Maali: 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
Hadley Beeman: http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/wiki/DCAT_LC_comments ←
15:34:46 <fadmaa> https://www.w3.org/2011/gld/track/issues/70
Fadi Maali: 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
Trackbot IRC Bot: 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
Trackbot IRC Bot: 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.
.. We got a comment about downloadURL and accessURL. Unfortunately, this required some change to vocab. ←
15:35:19 <sandro> .. calls for subProperty assertion
.. calls for subProperty assertion ←
15:35:56 <sandro> HadleyBeeman: Is that another last call.
Hadley Beeman: 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?
Sandro Hawke: questions on last call are usually either: does this invalidate an implimentation, or the review of any of the commenters? [ Scribe Assist by Hadley Beeman ] ←
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.
Hadley Beeman: … 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?
Sandro Hawke: 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.
John Erickson: 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
John Erickson: 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.
John Erickson: 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?
Sandro Hawke: 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.
Sandro Hawke: In your mind, was one of these a subProperty of the other all along? or not. [ Scribe Assist by Hadley Beeman ] ←
15:40:19 <sandro> olyerickson: No, but I can see how that might be useful
John Erickson: 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.
Sandro Hawke: 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. [ Scribe Assist by Hadley Beeman ] ←
15:41:24 <sandro> sandro: So it sounds like you and some others were writing data assuming these properties were independent.
Sandro Hawke: 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.
John Erickson: 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.
Fadi Maali: 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.
Fadi Maali: But is it practical, I don't know. ←
15:42:42 <sandro> olyerickson: Is it an error if the subProperty assertion isn't there?
John Erickson: 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.
Fadi Maali: 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.
Sandro Hawke: 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.
Sandro Hawke: 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. [ Scribe Assist by Hadley Beeman ] ←
15:44:04 <olyerickson> I agree with sandro
John Erickson: I agree with sandro ←
15:44:12 <fadmaa> +1
Fadi Maali: +1 ←
15:44:33 <sandro> fadmaa: Trying to think of how to respond to commenters.
Fadi Maali: 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.)
Sandro Hawke: 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.) [ Scribe Assist by Hadley Beeman ] ←
15:46:39 <DaveReynolds> q+
Dave Reynolds: q+ ←
15:46:52 <HadleyBeeman> sandro: the working group isn't supposed to change its mind about design matters after last call.
Sandro Hawke: the working group isn't supposed to change its mind about design matters after last call. [ Scribe Assist by Hadley Beeman ] ←
15:47:13 <DaveReynolds> ack me
Dave Reynolds: ack me ←
15:47:14 <sandro> oly: subPropertyOf creates a relationship that wasn't in the earlier drafts, and it potentially damaging
John Erickson: 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.
Dave Reynolds: 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.
Dave Reynolds: 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....?
Sandro Hawke: 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.
John Erickson: 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.
John Erickson: DownloadURL is something much more specific. ←
15:50:32 <sandro> olyerickson: As DaveReynolds says, that does sound like subPropertyOf
John Erickson: As DaveReynolds says, that does sound like subPropertyOf ←
15:50:34 <sandro> q+
q+ ←
15:50:49 <HadleyBeeman> ack sandro
Hadley Beeman: 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?
Sandro Hawke: 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? [ Scribe Assist by Hadley Beeman ] ←
15:51:17 <fadmaa> q+
Fadi Maali: q+ ←
15:51:21 <DaveReynolds> q+
Dave Reynolds: q+ ←
15:51:28 <HadleyBeeman> olyerickson: absolutely
John Erickson: absolutely [ Scribe Assist by Hadley Beeman ] ←
15:51:43 <sandro> fadmaa: You can't have them both on the same distribution
Fadi Maali: You can't have them both on the same distribution ←
15:51:43 <olyerickson> arggghj
John Erickson: arggghj ←
15:51:53 <fadmaa> zakim, ack me
Fadi Maali: zakim, ack me ←
15:51:53 <Zakim> I see DaveReynolds on the speaker queue
Zakim IRC Bot: I see DaveReynolds on the speaker queue ←
15:52:07 <sandro> olyerickson: I don't agree
John Erickson: I don't agree ←
15:52:09 <fadmaa> +1
Fadi Maali: +1 ←
15:52:36 <sandro> HadleyBeeman: fadmaa and olyerickson please take this offline.
Hadley Beeman: fadmaa and olyerickson please take this offline. ←
15:52:51 <sandro> olyerickson: I think it's a question of how it's adopted
John Erickson: I think it's a question of how it's adopted ←
15:52:57 <DaveReynolds> q-
Dave Reynolds: q- ←
15:53:02 <sandro> HadleyBeeman: Any other unanswered comments?
Hadley Beeman: Any other unanswered comments? ←
15:53:08 <sandro> fadmaa: Yes a few.
Fadi Maali: Yes a few. ←
15:53:24 <sandro> fadmaa: The others are simpler, but I need to send emails on the other.
Fadi Maali: The others are simpler, but I need to send emails . ←
15:53:40 <sandro> s/on the other//
15:53:46 <sandro> HadleyBeeman: Please do that soon
Hadley Beeman: Please do that soon ←
15:53:57 <fadmaa> http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/wiki/DCAT_Implementations#Open_Data_Support
Fadi Maali: http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/wiki/DCAT_Implementations#Open_Data_Support ←
15:54:08 <sandro> HadleyBeeman: DCAT implementaitons?
Hadley Beeman: DCAT implementaitons? ←
15:54:21 <sandro> fadmaa: One new report, from EU, sparql endpoint.
Fadi Maali: One new report, from EU, sparql endpoint. ←
15:54:35 <olyerickson> RE DCAT Implementation reports, detailed WHOI report is due to RPI today...
John Erickson: 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.
Fadi Maali: It has very good coverage. A few possible wrong uses of properties -- contacting them. ←
15:54:51 <olyerickson> (confirmed during this call)
John Erickson: (confirmed during this call) ←
15:55:16 <sandro> fadmaa: ckan uses some old terms
Fadi Maali: ckan uses some old terms ←
15:55:25 <sandro> fadmaa: Working with dublink catalog
Fadi Maali: Working with dublink catalog ←
15:56:08 <olyerickson> sandro: need to understand "wrong usage"
Sandro Hawke: need to understand "wrong usage" [ Scribe Assist by John Erickson ] ←
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.
Sandro Hawke: 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. [ Scribe Assist by Hadley Beeman ] ←
15:56:46 <olyerickson> re: "wrong usage" thanks for the clarification
Dave Reynolds: "wrong usage" thanks for the clarification [ Scribe Assist by John Erickson ] ←
15:56:49 <HadleyBeeman> … preferably, our written explanation confirmed by them as well.
Hadley Beeman: … preferably, our written explanation confirmed by them as well. ←
15:56:51 <fadmaa> +1 to sandro. sounds great to me
Fadi Maali: +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
Sandro Hawke: 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 in the spec [ Scribe Assist by Hadley Beeman ] ←
15:58:10 <HadleyBeeman> s/i nthe/in the
15:58:57 <sandro> fadmaa: dct:rights might be an issue
Fadi Maali: dct:rights might be an issue ←
15:59:23 <HadleyBeeman> http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/wiki/DCAT_PR_transition
Hadley Beeman: http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/wiki/DCAT_PR_transition ←
16:01:16 <fadmaa> thanks all
Fadi Maali: thanks all ←
16:01:18 <Zakim> -olyerickson
Zakim IRC Bot: -olyerickson ←
16:01:20 <Zakim> -sandro
Zakim IRC Bot: -sandro ←
16:01:23 <Zakim> -HadleyBeeman
Zakim IRC Bot: -HadleyBeeman ←
16:01:24 <BenediktKaempgen> bye!
Benedikt Kaempgen: bye! ←
16:01:24 <Zakim> -fadmaa
Zakim IRC Bot: -fadmaa ←
16:01:26 <Zakim> -DaveReynolds
Zakim IRC Bot: -DaveReynolds ←
16:01:27 <Zakim> -BenediktKaempgen
Zakim IRC Bot: -BenediktKaempgen ←
16:01:27 <Zakim> T&S_GLDWG()10:00AM has ended
Zakim IRC Bot: T&S_GLDWG()10:00AM has ended ←
16:01:27 <Zakim> Attendees were HadleyBeeman, +1.781.642.aaaa, sandro, olyerickson, BenediktKaempgen, DaveReynolds, +3539149aabb, fadmaa
Zakim IRC Bot: Attendees were HadleyBeeman, +1.781.642.aaaa, sandro, olyerickson, BenediktKaempgen, DaveReynolds, +3539149aabb, fadmaa ←
16:01:30 <HadleyBeeman> Thanks for scribing, sandro!
Hadley Beeman: Thanks for scribing, sandro! ←
Formatted by CommonScribe