See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 15 October 2014
<SumitPurohit> Hello Everyone, I am Sumit Purohit
<ocorby> Hello, I am Olivier Corby from INRIA
<simonstey> i guess i'm the ??P1
<ocorby> I am on the phone
<pfps> there is a good description of how to drive Zakim available from the W3C web site
<scribe> scribenick: deiu
Arnaud: going over the details of how IRC and Zakim work
Please say your name before speaking. It makes the scribe's life a lot easier.
Arnaud: several AC reps said they supported the WG and they also intended to join, but none of them showed up for now.
... today is an informal call
... if you're not a W3C member, there is a way to participate by becoming an Invited Expert (though places are limited)
... we're being pressured not to allow people to join for free
... if it's your case, then you may request an Invited Expert status
... today we will not make any resolutions (being an informal call) so almost anyone can participate
... it's a good time to join the call and see if this is a WG you want to participate in
... today I wanted to cover several things during this call:
... we have the first F2F this month at TPAC
... I want to make use of it as much as possible
... if you haven't registered, please go ahead and do it fast
Arnaud: in terms of the Actions plan, some of you may be familiar with how W3C works
... the charter defines a set of deliverables
... in our case, most of you have been witness to the mailing discussions regarding the charter
... the charter tried to outline some directions, and it created quite a bit of controversy
... many people lobbied for different technical directions
... in the end we were able to reach consensus by "watering down" the charter towards a limited technical direction
... it's common practice to develop UCRs that help define the direction
... we already have a sense of what the solution is
... in this case, given the lack of agreed upon solutions, it is crucial that we take the time to define the UCRs
... and also agree on which UC we plan to address
... we have to avoid trying to address too many use cases
... the way I think we should proceed is to go through this first step with the UCs and reach consensus there
... once we reach consensus, we can look at which UC would be the most suitable one to start with
<SumitPurohit> noise ??
<Arnaud> I'm on mute
<Anamitra> I am on mute
Arnaud: any comments/suggestions on how to approach this?
<pfps> +q
<SumitPurohit> +q
pfps: I would like to put in a plea that if we're going to use UCs, then they must be specific and examinable
... the DC (vocab) ones are neither
... otherwise we're going to argue about what UCs mean
Arnaud: agreed
<davidwood> I would hope that this WG would go back to DCMI to ask them to refine their use cases as necessary.
SumitPurohit: I have a question: do we have the intention of proposing something involving SPARQL (@@@). The way I see it, this can lead to modifications to the SPARQL core
ericP: given that there's no other WG working on SPARQL, I'm sure we would have no problem extending SPARQL
Arnaud: ok then, we should talk about TPAC and logistics
Arnaud: we are supposed to meet face-2-face at TPAC -- a week of meetings
<ericP> Technical Plenary and Advisory Committee
Arnaud: WGs meet most days except for Wed, when we have an ad-hoc meeting where different WGs get together for "cross-pollination"
... we are going to have our first F2F meeting then -- most meetings are hosted by one WG member who will also cover the cost of providing the catering and room
... at this point, the online registration is over, so we are a bit short on time
... if there are people who still want to attend, please let us know NOW
... there are still ways to get you to participate
... we will also plan to have remote participation via a teleconf bridge, as well as through IRC (this channel)
... it would help us to know how many people intend to do this, so please use the wiki page (@@@ URI)
<SumitPurohit> +1 Remote Participation
Arnaud: please use this page to let us know what you would like to do
... when it comes to logistics...we're a bit late re. room reservations
... we have a room for Thursday, but for Friday we don't have a room yet
ericP: right now we have 12 people who signed up and room for 16
Arnaud: but that's for Thursday, right?
ericP: yes, Friday we're going offsite to Peter's house
Arnaud: ok, that shouldn't be an issue, it's very close
<Arnaud> yes
pfps: yes, the room should accommodate 25 people
... there will be the usual facilities
... I will keep everyone updated
Arnaud: we'll add the meeting info to the TPAC page
<pfps> The location on Friday (and maybe Thursday) will be at Nuance, 1198 E Arques Ave, Sunnyvale, CA
Arnaud: I am local and I have a minivan (up to 7 people)
... back to the aim of the meeting (re. the action plan), I would like to have a fairly detailed agenda
... right now it might be too early for that
ericP: please let me know if you plan on having on-site registration
<DavidMartin> I expect to join on Thursday
ericP: are there any people on the call who are expected to do late registration?
<SumitPurohit> Not Me
DavidMartin: Yes, that would be my case
<Nick> I have already done late registration
ericP: ok, so we're meeting on-site for Thu, and then at Nuance for Friday
pfps: I'll keep the reservation at Nuance for Thursday just in case
Arnaud: ok, so back to the agenda, my rough idea of what we could do is to spend the first day talking about UCRs
... then the second day on candidate technologies
... if we could come out of this meeting with better understanding of what people's expectations are, then we can find which one are more suitable
... I definitely hope that we can use that time to learn more about each others expectations and requirements
... we need to get everyone on the same page
<Zakim> pfps, you wanted to ask who is going to be presenting at the F2F
Arnaud: does that sound reasonable so far?
<SumitPurohit> +1 for the plan
<Anamitra> +1
<simonstey> +1
<pfps> I think that this is a reasonable plan
pfps: basically to ask that question: who is going to be presenting at the F2F?
Arnaud: that's a good idea
... we should sort that out beforehand
<pfps> it also would be a good idea to have pointers to good descriptions of the proposed technologies available as soon as possible
Arnaud: if people can call in remotely, they might want to do it when it's more relevant for them, so a time schedule for presentations is good to have
... back to pfps' question, it would be good to have the name of the people who want to speak and present
... if there are no more comments and questions, we can move to UCRs
Arnaud: UCRs are part of our charter
... the typical format is a WG note
... ideally we would have UCs and requirements that support the UCs
... there are different ways to approach the development of UCRs
... somebody usually first takes a crack at it, maybe though a Wiki page
... then we will need a volunteer editor that would curate the page
... finally the WG will have to take a look at at the page and agree on which items we keep for the UCRs
... in this case, ericP prior to the launch of the WG, pinged the Dublin Core people about UCRs
<ericP> XQuery UC&R http://www.w3.org/TR/xquery-31-requirements/#json
ericP: to give people a bit of background, here is a notion of what a UCR doc looks like
<ericP> DCAP UC&R: http://purl.org/net/rdf-validation
ericP: the DC application profile people have proposed this list ^
... that's probably not how we would describe our requirements
... now I'm trying to get them and us on the same page
... they haven't had an internal review yet though
<ericP> my hierarchical view: http://www.w3.org/2014/10/rdfvalreqs/#R7
ericP: I created a hierarchical view
... in there you will see example of what it looks like in OWL as well as several other examples
... there are some things in there that no longer make sense
... there's a lot of work to be done to reach common ground re. requirements
... we can try to use they UCRs as a start for our WG
<ericP> DCAP reqs: http://lelystad.informatik.uni-mannheim.de/rdf-validation/?q=requirements/dc-requirements
ericP: there's about 30 of those reqs they care a lot about
... that means that we only have to really look hard at those
<ericP> DCAP facets: http://lelystad.informatik.uni-mannheim.de/rdf-validation/?q=taxonomy/term/38
ericP: it also turns out that they actually have a hierarchical view too
... I hope that during the F2F we will have some time to pick through them
... we want people to be able to compare apples and apples, oranges and oranges...
pfps: so, I looked at a number of these Reqs, UCs and case studies...
... I'm looking at CS 7 now [looking for examples] and many don't have examples
... some of them point to looooong final reports of other groups
... I want a concise and effective description
... so somebody has to do that work [I don't want to do it]
<ralphtq> +q
ericP: I suspect that we'd have to do some of that work, but they will also do part of it
Arnaud: I agree and I was a bit overwhelmed when ericP pointed me to that list
... the amount of material there is immense
... we don't want to get drowned
ericP: I have the impression that they've rephrased some of it, so I think they are also thinking about expressing the text in a language that we can use
ralphtq: I have an ontology for requirements capture, so I was thinking of ingesting all these materials into an ontology
... the point is that we're missing rational
... to the point about scrapping all of this and putting it into an RDF model...I am prepared to bring them into a tool where I can run SPARQL queries
ericP: the data is all in Drupal, so we can probably just dump it, maybe in JSON-LD
... if you can send me a quick example of your ontology, then I'll make sure the JSON-LD representation follows that
ralphtq: will do
kcoyle: I just want to say that I am here today as co-chair of the DC WG
... we think that working with this WG would help make a better database
Arnaud: ralphtq, you're welcome to experiment as much as you want, of course
<ralphtq> +q
Arnaud: we will have to decide as a group where the reference is
ralphtq: this started as a personal effort, effectively it's a semantic spreadsheet
Arnaud: getting close to the end, I don't know what else we can do at this point
... we had a shared pad where everyone went and put their favorite use cases
... should we try to use it again?
ericP: do you have evidence that it has been since modified
Arnaud: we'll have to dive into all this and figure out what we have to extract, format and take on
... there's one last thing I forgot to mention
... I was wondering if in the week before TPAC we could have another call
SumitPurohit: I think that's a good idea
<pfps> I am at risk next week because of ISWC, but I think that a call next week is a good idea
Arnaud: do people have a preference for a date and time?
<Anamitra> + 1 hr earlier
ericP: maybe one hour earlier?
<pfps> One hour earlier is problematic for those of us who work on the West Coast.
<SumitPurohit> I am from West Coast
<pfps> Two from Nuance
[people discussing time]
<SumitPurohit> B
<hsolbrig> B
<Arnaud> strawpoll: a: 11am Boston (same) b: 10am Boston
<SumitPurohit> B
<pfps> A
<markus> A
<betehess> a: +1 b: 0
<simonstey> a
<ocorby> b
<ralphtq> B
<Anamitra> a
a
<DavidMartin> a
<Nick> either works
<davidwood> either
<betehess> woops, meant a: 0 b: +1
<hknublau> b
<ericP> ⚅⚅
I'm fine either way actually
<SumitPurohit> Note that i have my vote twice....
B has one more with me going 0
<Anamitra> B is fine
<pfps> 7amPT is acceptable
RESOLUTION: one hour earlier for next week's call
<pfps> I thought that there was a promise not to make resolutions this week :-)