15:55:42 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #dwbp
15:55:42 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2014/07/10-dwbp-irc
15:55:44 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs 351
15:55:46 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be DWBP
15:55:47 <trackbot> Meeting: Data on the Web Best Practices Working Group Teleconference
15:55:47 <trackbot> Date: 10 July 2014
15:56:29 <antoine> RRSAgent, make logs public
15:57:18 <BartvanLeeuwen> BartvanLeeuwen has joined #dwbp
15:57:41 <antoine> zakim, who is here?
15:58:09 <BartvanLeeuwen> there is no zakim yet :)
15:58:46 <jerdeb> jerdeb has joined #DWBP
15:58:50 <antoine> how do I invite him???
15:59:04 <antoine> It's been called by trackbot before, I thought he was invited
15:59:53 <antoine> me is trying /invite zakim
15:59:57 <laufer> laufer has joined #dwbp
16:00:06 <BartvanLeeuwen> trackbot, start meeting
16:00:08 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs 351
16:00:10 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be DWBP
16:00:11 <trackbot> Meeting: Data on the Web Best Practices Working Group Teleconference
16:00:11 <trackbot> Date: 10 July 2014
16:01:03 <BartvanLeeuwen> ohw, there is no zakim at all
16:01:20 <antoine> yep this will be hard
16:01:36 <BartvanLeeuwen> I mean its not registered at the server at all
16:02:12 <antoine> how to proceed?
16:02:23 <BartvanLeeuwen> get in touch with the team
16:02:39 <antoine> phila: can you see us?
16:02:49 <jerdeb_> jerdeb_ has joined #DWBP
16:02:53 <ericstephan> ericstephan has joined #dwbp
16:03:16 <phila> Oops, yes, just seeing the time. Dialling in now
16:03:45 <BartvanLeeuwen> phila, it seems that zakim is offline
16:03:58 <phila> Yes, it is and will remain so, sorry. Hang on...
16:04:29 <antoine> meanwhile we are in the call with Eric
16:04:42 <phila> present+ phila
16:04:54 <antoine> present+ antoine
16:05:12 <antoine> at everyone, please call in!
16:05:58 <ericstephan> ericstephan has joined #dwbp
16:06:33 <ericstephan> present +ericstephan
16:07:07 <antoine> present+ ericstephan
16:07:08 <jerdeb_> present +jerdeb_
16:07:09 <BartvanLeeuwen> present+ BartvanLeeuwen
16:07:27 <antoine> present+ laufer
16:07:41 <laufer> present +laufer
16:07:50 <phila> chair: Antoine
16:07:50 <antoine> Scribe: phila
16:08:40 <antoine> last meeting minutes: http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/dwbp/2014-06-26
16:08:52 <phila> PROPOSED: Accept minutes
16:08:53 <ericstephan> +1
16:08:59 <jerdeb_> +1
16:09:06 <antoine> +1
16:09:38 <antoine> RESOLVED: Accept last call's minutes http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/dwbp/2014-06-26
16:10:05 <phila> RESOLVED: Accept last call's minutes http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/dwbp/2014-06-26
16:10:35 <phila> Topic: Methodology
16:10:38 <antoine> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-wg/2014Jul/0017.html
16:10:49 <phila> antoine: There was an e-mail from Eric and then some discussion
16:11:18 <phila> ericstephan: My original intention was to generate discussion about including non-LD communoties to use our vocabularies
16:11:26 <phila> ... we should therefore start with a conceptual model
16:11:37 <phila> ... my general Q is: are these concerns warranted?
16:12:02 <phila> ... if I'm going to assume that we're going to publish the vocab as RDF, I'm OK, but what about others
16:12:16 <phila> ... the other thing I wanted to mention... I used PROV as an example
16:12:20 <BernadetteLoscio> BernadetteLoscio has joined #dwbp
16:12:59 <phila> ericstephan: They (PROV) were grappling with the same things. How they could make the  vocab apply to others. So my Q is - where do we need to start our vocabs to be inclusive?
16:13:11 <phila> antoine: Anyone want to have a stab at this?
16:14:43 <BernadetteLoscio> zakim, ipcaller is BernadetteLoscio
16:14:45 <antoine> phila: technology neutrality is a good thing
16:14:52 <BernadetteLoscio> zakim, mute BernadetteLoscio
16:14:55 <antoine> ... we have UML-like diagrams
16:15:13 <antoine> ... in existing vocabulary documents
16:15:35 <antoine> ... for JSON we can do JSON-LD
16:15:41 <phila> phila: +1 to tech neutrality. We should start with a diagram and then redner in diff techs
16:15:59 <antoine> present+ BernadetteLoscio
16:16:06 <phila> ericstephan: So the concptual models are UML diagrams?
16:16:29 <phila> antoine: Can I try a specific example...
16:16:35 <antoine> http://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-dcat/#vocabulary-overview
16:16:51 <phila> ... I've looked at DCAT and its digram. It has a diagram weith specific name spaces
16:17:00 <antoine> http://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-org
16:18:05 <phila> ... on the other side, ORG, it has something that looks a little more like a neutral representation
16:18:19 <phila> phila: But even that has some namespaces
16:18:29 <phila> ericstephan: do we have non-LD people in the WG that we can call on?
16:18:48 <phila> antoine: I think we do in the whole group, yes, but in vocabs, it's harder
16:19:18 <phila> ericstephan: The other thing with PROV... what got me started... BernadetteLoscio and I talked about looking at PROV and seeing what we could take from it.
16:19:28 <phila> ... I remembered the PROV data model
16:19:44 <phila> ... when we talk about using PROV, what are we basing it on? The data model or a specific implementation?
16:20:04 <EricKauz> EricKauz has joined #dwbp
16:20:34 <phila> phila: The problem is, we here don't really know. We need to ask others
16:20:47 <phila> ericstephan: I was thinking of asking Paul Groth for his views?
16:21:15 <phila> phila: You're geographically close to Paul, could you ask him?
16:21:30 <phila> antoine: Well, maybe, but I think Eric has already explained what we need
16:21:48 <phila> ... Personally some form of UML diagram that doesn't use a specific namespace would be good enough
16:21:59 <phila> ericstephan: I like UML, I use it in other projects
16:22:25 <phila> antoine: And also the data model in PROV was central. They had to write ba long doc just about the model
16:22:41 <phila> ericstephan: If we're writing a vocab, do we have two parts to it?
16:23:27 <antoine> phila:
16:23:49 <antoine> phila: I have done this earlier. Create a diagram, thinking of specific classes and properties
16:24:08 <antoine> ... but not doing it right away. Only in a second stage.
16:24:19 <antoine> ... It can create some confusion
16:24:36 <antoine> ... when you go from a technology-neutral vocabulary
16:24:44 <antoine> ... to the moment you re-use exisitng vocs
16:24:55 <antoine> ... It can irritate people
16:25:11 <EricKauz> present + Eric Kauz
16:25:17 <antoine> present+ steve
16:25:27 <EricKauz> present+ Eric Kauz
16:25:27 <phila> Present+ EricKauz
16:26:05 <phila> antoine: Any other views? Or do we go ahead and create something like a UML diagram, perhaps with namespaces in it and then remove them if we're asked to
16:26:38 <phila> ericstephan: Are there situations where we might need to... if we have a diagram with terms in it... do we need to do more work to make the linkages with existing terms
16:27:00 <phila> ericstephan: If we take a stab at this, put our ideas out, and then maybe use the f2f to really hone our ideas?
16:27:05 <phila> ... is the f2f too far off?
16:27:27 <phila> ... if we can have those ideas as complete as possible leading up to the f2f
16:27:44 <phila> laufer: I want to talk about what I'm hearing... maybe my confusuion can help
16:27:58 <phila> ... you want to define a kind of neutral diagram rather than using namespaces
16:28:12 <phila> ... you want to put some terms there for which you will have to define the terms
16:28:21 <phila> ... when we define the namespace, we are defining the semantics
16:28:48 <adler1> adler1 has joined #DWBP
16:28:51 <phila> ... if we define a digaram without namespaces, we have to define everything, incuding what others have altready defined?
16:30:22 <antoine> phila: if we create names that are namespace-independent, we still create something and it can raise confusion.
16:30:30 <antoine> ... we could take an example
16:30:45 <antoine> e.g. DCAT has no JSON schema
16:31:00 <antoine> ... could anyone create a JSON schema for DCAT
16:31:04 <antoine> ... ?
16:31:16 <ericstephan> +q
16:31:19 <antoine> ... would that be enough or do we need to go further?
16:31:20 <phila> s/JSON/JSON-LD/
16:31:24 <phila> s/JSON/JSON-LD/g
16:31:35 <BernadetteLoscio> yes
16:31:43 <phila> ericstephan: I'm wondering - Bernadette?
16:32:34 <phila> ericstephan: You're asking students to help with this work. Is there a student who is adept in both RDF vocabs who could create a JSCON schema readily?
16:32:55 <jerdeb_> afaik it can be done using: http://rdf-translator.appspot.com
16:32:56 <adler1> good idea
16:33:06 <phila> q+ To talk about http://rdf-translator.appspot.com/
16:33:19 <adler1> +1 eric
16:34:29 <antoine> phila: there's no pb generating json-ld from rdf
16:34:41 <antoine> ... I have got it here.
16:35:04 <antoine> ... but is what comes out it is sufficient to show people it's usable in a non-LD context
16:35:09 <antoine> ... ?
16:35:28 <antoine> ... people use json-ld thinking they're not using RDF
16:35:36 <antoine> ... let them keep on
16:35:51 <phila> ericstephan: If the JSON community is at home with that solution, then we're OK
16:36:26 <ericstephan> +1
16:36:27 <antoine> phila: does anyone as time to see what comes out of dcat as json-ld
16:36:37 <antoine> ... and see if it looks tech-neutral enough?
16:36:40 <ericstephan> I can help there....I believe
16:37:31 <phila> ericstephan: We have someone who is adept at both RDF and JSON who came to us from industry... if we're really just inspecting what the converters provide, then I can see what he thinks about this
16:37:40 <phila> ericstephan: Does this speak to the JSON community?
16:37:53 <phila> phila: I think that would be very helpful, Eric
16:38:04 <phila> ericstephan: I can promise that by our next vocab telecon
16:38:07 <adler1> +1
16:38:44 <phila> action: ericstephan to seek feedback on JSON-LD version of DCAT schema, using, for example http://rdf-translator.appspot.com/ with http://www.w3.org/ns/dcat.ttl
16:38:45 <trackbot> Created ACTION-55 - Seek feedback on json-ld version of dcat schema, using, for example http://rdf-translator.appspot.com/ with http://www.w3.org/ns/dcat.ttl [on Eric Stephan - due 2014-07-17].
16:39:37 <phila> antoine: So I think that's what we can do on the first topic that Eric S has raised
16:39:43 <phila> Topic: Publication policies and standards
16:40:33 <phila> ericstephan: What I have been finding is that we're keeping a lot of concepts on the wiki. The DQ&G group is collecting info...
16:40:53 <phila> ... I've found that relying on the publication policies have helped us move forwards on the CSVW work
16:41:18 <phila> ... I'm not trying to dictate anything but I think creating our own HTML doc would be helpful
16:41:24 <antoine> https://github.com/w3c/dwbp/blob/master/vocab-dqg.html
16:41:29 <phila> antoine: You mean the wiki page?
16:41:39 <phila> ericstephan: It was the GitHub doc
16:41:58 <phila> ericstephan: I just put a skeleton doc on GitHub as well
16:42:24 <phila> ericstephan: It was just picking up on the policies that we need ot be following at some point
16:42:47 <phila> antoine: I was pretty sure that Bart's doc was good
16:43:39 <antoine> http://htmlpreview.github.io/?https://github.com/w3c/dwbp/blob/master/vocab-dqg.html
16:43:48 <antoine> does not work
16:44:18 <phila> phila: We need to ask Yaso to configure the GitHub preview for us
16:44:23 <antoine> phila: reSpec is recommended
16:44:48 <phila> ericstephan: And there's an issue around why I can't access it the way I can in CSV
16:45:07 <antoine> phila: I'll ask Yaso to find a solution
16:45:40 <phila> action: phila to ask Yaso to help configure the GitHub Repo for the new docs
16:45:41 <trackbot> Created ACTION-56 - Ask yaso to help configure the github repo for the new docs [on Phil Archer - due 2014-07-17].
16:45:59 <phila> ericstephan: I took the CSV Use Case doc on GitHub...
16:46:15 <ericstephan> http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/WD-csvw-ucr-20140327/
16:46:34 <phila> ... what I liked about it was that there were lots of cases about ... and we prob have that in our own UCR... but there were call out sections where there are examples used, issues etc.
16:46:40 <phila> ... and I started from that baseline doc
16:46:45 <phila> ... that we used on the CSVW WG
16:47:11 <phila> ... that's out in GitHub right now and I notice that BernadetteLoscio used a slightly differnet approach for the DWBP UCR, maybe things can be aligned
16:47:34 <phila> ... I know that Ivan ran the CSVW UCR through W3C Pub Rules
16:47:38 <phila> ... and it checked ou
16:48:41 <antoine> phila: my job would be to put it through pubrule
16:48:59 <antoine> ... But right now we need the github configuration to show the html not just the source
16:49:48 <phila> antoine: Any other questions?
16:49:56 <phila> ericstephan: No,  think we're good to go
16:50:01 <phila> Topic: Reports from Editors
16:50:12 <BartvanLeeuwen> +1
16:50:26 <phila> antoine: So first from the QWuality and Granularity work. I don't think Bart and I have a lot to report
16:50:44 <phila> Antoine: I received an e-mail from Jeremy - can you repeat what you said here for everyone?
16:50:53 <phila> jerdeb_?
16:51:24 <phila> jerdeb_: I sent you an e-mail yes, I should have sent it to the whole group
16:51:53 <phila> ... we have ?? our ?? ontology with the Data Cube Ontology
16:52:05 <phila> ... We sent it to iSEMANTICS and it was accpeted
16:52:11 <antoine> s/??/daQ
16:52:58 <phila> jerdeb_: I understand you want to be tech independent. So what we've done is a little differnet from what you wanted to achieve?
16:53:04 <phila> antoine: Yes
16:53:33 <phila> jerdeb_: So what I said was that when you extend DCAT, you have these metrics based on what we achieved anad [cut off]
16:53:39 <antoine> jerdeb_: we can't hear you!
16:53:54 <phila> phila: This is the conference Jeremy mentioned http://www.semantics.cc/
16:54:00 <phila> jerdeb_: Back
16:54:39 <phila> jerdeb_: Eventually what we proposed was that the representation of quality metadata, if other groups want to specify their own metrics, they can use the dAQ ontology
16:56:01 <phila> jerdeb_: With the dAQ ontology, we have a way to represent quality metrics. The DWBP can define domain indepent metrics, using the dAQ. Another group can create their own metrics using the dAQ ontology
16:56:09 <phila> ... those two sets of metrics would be interoperable
16:56:32 <phila> ... so if we have a framework like CKAN then we can have ranking using this kind of data quality metadata
16:56:58 <phila> antoine: No time to discuss this now but we can discuss it furtehr in the next call and/or on the list
16:56:59 <BernadetteLoscio> this is an important discussion
16:57:07 <phila> jerdeb_: I'll forward it to the list.
16:57:16 <phila> antoine: So the otehr vocab...#
16:57:19 <adler1> have to drop
16:57:54 <phila> Topic: Data Usage Vocab
16:57:55 <BernadetteLoscio> I have a terrible connection...
16:58:26 <phila> ericstephan: One of my action items for tomorrow was to sketch out a meaning for data usage
16:58:38 <phila> ... so I have collected notes from some of our previous calls
16:58:46 <phila> ... and I'm compiling that later today
16:58:51 <phila> ... but it's still pretty sketchy
16:59:01 <phila> antoine: Is that an action for the general meeting tomorrow
16:59:12 <phila> ... I have an action to talk about this? Action 53?
16:59:15 <phila> action-53?
16:59:15 <trackbot> action-53 -- Bernadette Farias Loscio to Write down on the wiki about the talk about data usage vocabs -- due 2014-07-03 -- CLOSED
16:59:15 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/53
16:59:15 <antoine> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/53
16:59:35 <BernadetteLoscio> this is a different one
16:59:37 <BernadetteLoscio> yes
16:59:40 <phila> ericstephan: That was something we talked about 2 weeks ago
17:00:23 <phila> ericstephan: What it comes down to... it's describing application-base usage, R&D usage, linkage between datasets and I'm working on citing data in publications
17:00:28 <phila> ... that's all I had for now
17:00:39 <phila> antoine: OK, we should wait until tomorrow then.
17:00:50 <phila> ... We're at the top of the hour - anything else for now?
17:01:00 <phila> rrsagent, make logs public
17:01:05 <BernadetteLoscio> thanks!!!
17:01:10 <phila> antoine: OK, then let's close off now
17:01:17 <jerdeb_> thanks!
17:01:27 <phila> ericstephan: Maybe in the next week we can sort out a next person for chairing the meeting?
17:01:31 <phila> antoine: Sure
17:01:46 <phila> antoine: I can be around in 2 weeks
17:03:08 <BernadetteLoscio> Steven just sent!
17:03:26 <BernadetteLoscio> thanks!! bye!
17:03:31 <phila> Thanks BernadetteLoscio !
17:03:32 <laufer> bye all
17:03:37 <jerdeb_> bye all
17:06:00 <HadleyBeeman> HadleyBeeman has joined #dwbp