IRC log of csvw on 2014-11-05

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:14:18 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #csvw
14:14:18 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2014/11/05-csvw-irc
14:14:20 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
14:14:20 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #csvw
14:14:22 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be CSVW
14:14:22 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see DATA_CSVWG()10:00AM scheduled to start in 46 minutes
14:14:23 [trackbot]
Meeting: CSV on the Web Working Group Teleconference
14:14:23 [trackbot]
Date: 05 November 2014
14:44:26 [ivan]
Chair: Jenni
14:45:26 [ivan]
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-csv-wg/2014Nov/0001.html
14:45:47 [ivan]
ivan has changed the topic to: Meeting agenda 2014-11-05: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-csv-wg/2014Nov/0001.html
14:51:15 [bill-ingram]
bill-ingram has joined #csvw
14:58:34 [gkellogg]
gkellogg has joined #csvw
15:00:01 [ericP]
ericP has left #csvw
15:00:59 [JeniT]
JeniT has joined #csvw
15:01:03 [Zakim]
DATA_CSVWG()10:00AM has now started
15:01:10 [Zakim]
+??P24
15:01:15 [gkellogg]
zakim, I am ??P24
15:01:15 [Zakim]
+gkellogg; got it
15:01:36 [ivan]
zakim, dial ivan-voip
15:01:36 [Zakim]
ok, ivan; the call is being made
15:01:37 [Zakim]
+Ivan
15:01:45 [Zakim]
+ +44.207.346.aaaa
15:01:50 [danbri]
zakim, aaaa is danbri
15:01:50 [Zakim]
+danbri; got it
15:01:52 [Zakim]
+ericstephan
15:01:54 [danbri]
do we have a scribe?
15:01:55 [ericstephan]
ericstephan has joined #csvw
15:02:10 [Zakim]
+[IPcaller]
15:02:37 [Zakim]
+ +1.217.333.aabb
15:03:17 [danbri]
scribenick: danbri
15:03:20 [ivan]
zakim, aabb is bill-ingram
15:03:20 [Zakim]
+bill-ingram; got it
15:03:55 [danbri]
topic: Review of F2F decisions and actions
15:04:00 [JeniT]
agenda: https://www.w3.org/2013/csvw/wiki/Meeting_Agenda_2014-11-05
15:04:06 [ericstephan]
I will be dropped off of IRC at half past the hour to take my daughter to school, I will remain on the phone.
15:04:16 [ivan]
Regrets: Axel, Jeremy
15:05:30 [danbri]
jeni: we'll go over list of resolutions/actions from f2f; and then go through issues from github that are flagged as needing attention.
15:05:36 [JeniT]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-csv-wg/2014Oct/0110.html
15:05:48 [danbri]
see ivan's super-helpful list at url —^^
15:06:35 [danbri]
jenit: regarding resolutions, we talked about defining title + language as our minimal metadata, which is now in the draft. As is resolution not to support geopoint; 3rd, not object array geojson; also 4th. Also syntax resolutions
15:06:44 [danbri]
…but I have not yet put anything in on the imports property yet, still todo
15:07:03 [Zakim]
-JeniT
15:07:13 [danbri]
JeniT: Implemented "We drop the ability in the schema to specify metadata at the row or cell level"
15:07:34 [JeniT]
sorry, Skype dropped
15:07:38 [danbri]
Ivan: some resolution for conversion doc. We have not yet touched the doc itself. Jeremy and I talked yesterday morning on resolutions there.
15:07:44 [danbri]
… I pushed them all onto the issue list
15:08:11 [Zakim]
+[IPcaller]
15:08:14 [danbri]
ivan: some issues that we pushed there, … and I think the resolutions are fine, of course there are issues that we have to solve
15:09:08 [danbri]
ivan: Jeremy and I have other commitments so we won't change the actual doc until next week or so. There are a bunch of issues on github
15:09:15 [danbri]
… some are trivial issues but still need decisions
15:09:18 [danbri]
[missed]
15:09:30 [danbri]
[re needs teleconf discussion flag in github]
15:09:34 [danbri]
jenit: can we run through those?
15:09:59 [danbri]
(still going through those resolutions and actions)
15:10:15 [danbri]
jenit: URI Template piece, …
15:10:28 [danbri]
REgarding """We will use URI templates for generating URLs for objects created from rows, for mapping of cell values, and for predicate URIs""" … I have added some things to metadata doc for that
15:10:38 [danbri]
but not cell values, or uris [missed detail]
15:10:51 [danbri]
jenit: have created github issues for each issue in syntax and metadata docs
15:11:02 [danbri]
… have put the csv configuration [echoey noises] …
15:11:33 [danbri]
[strange noises like in a carpark stairwell]
15:11:45 [ericstephan]
okay now
15:11:45 [danbri]
it comes and goes
15:11:47 [danbri]
you're fine now
15:11:57 [danbri]
the strangled dalek thing doesn't suit you
15:12:21 [danbri]
jenit: so i was asking if there was anything that anybody thought of around those resolutions. But we were all there.
15:13:02 [JeniT]
“For now, and without limiting our future work, that we scope to the simplest possible thing that might work and therefore do not have multi-object per line or multiple columns per value"
15:13:08 [danbri]
yup, that's all i remember recording
15:13:50 [danbri]
ah CG chartering
15:13:53 [danbri]
q+
15:14:07 [danbri]
ivan: we mentioned possibility of a per-column skip flag
15:14:14 [danbri]
… did we agree on this?
15:14:29 [danbri]
jenit: still pending
15:14:38 [danbri]
ivan: somrthing to be recorded in issue list
15:15:13 [danbri]
ivan: my proposal is to have it, for the following reasons: the URI template is rich enough, if my understanding is correct, that I can create an object URI that is put together based on several cells of the same row
15:16:02 [danbri]
… because a URI template may contain several templates, each can contain any col name, which means that combining … e.g. one col gets the day, another the month, then these can be combined via URI Templates, in which case one of the two cols becomes superflous in terms of the mapping
15:16:09 [danbri]
+1 i'm persuaded.
15:16:36 [danbri]
jenit: my pushback would be that first, it may well be output specific. You might want to preserve it in RDF but not in JSON
15:16:41 [danbri]
iVan: that's true
15:16:49 [danbri]
-1 I'm now unpersuaded.
15:17:17 [danbri]
jenit: … basically if you're creating an URL, they're supposed to be opaque, … if they are being built from meaningful information you should be capturing that meaningful info elsewhere anyway
15:17:25 [danbri]
… postprocessor can always ignore data
15:18:15 [JeniT]
PROPOSAL: We don’t add a flag that indicates that a column should be skipped when mapping to other formats, because we don’t want people to have to hack URLs to get hold of data
15:18:18 [gkellogg]
q+ to ask about URI unencoding URI templates not used for URIs
15:18:33 [JeniT]
ack gkellogg
15:18:33 [Zakim]
gkellogg, you wanted to ask about URI unencoding URI templates not used for URIs
15:18:48 [danbri]
gregg: talking about use of URI Templates for things other than URIs like dates
15:19:01 [danbri]
… discussed possibility of unencoding some of these outputs
15:19:07 [danbri]
(data: URIs too? --danbri)
15:19:38 [danbri]
gregg: you could use a URI Template, and emit spaces which become %20 escaped markup
15:19:50 [ivan]
q+
15:20:07 [JeniT]
ack ivan
15:20:09 [danbri]
… if you wanted a literal string value, unencoding the result of that template would let you get the result you wanted i.e. with real spaces
15:20:38 [JeniT]
PROPOSAL: We don’t add a flag that indicates that a column should be skipped when mapping to other formats, because we don’t want people to have to hack URLs to get hold of data
15:20:41 [ivan]
+1
15:20:44 [danbri]
ivan/jeni: lets come back to that later
15:20:44 [gkellogg]
+1
15:20:46 [ericstephan]
+1
15:20:49 [bill-ingram]
+1
15:20:51 [JeniT]
+1
15:20:57 [ivan]
RESOLUTION: We don’t add a flag that indicates that a column should be skipped when mapping to other formats, because we don’t want people to have to hack URLs to get hold of data
15:20:58 [danbri]
+0.01
15:21:14 [Zakim]
-JeniT
15:21:25 [ericstephan]
its still positive
15:21:40 [danbri]
q?
15:21:54 [Zakim]
+[IPcaller]
15:22:00 [danbri]
ivan (re gregg's point about URIs to strings): I am pretty opposed to using URI templates for anything but URIs
15:22:35 [danbri]
(I agree w/ Ivan, let's not endorse URI Templates as a replacement for Mustache/Django/XSLT/etc)
15:22:52 [danbri]
ivan: if I see a URI Template, what I'll make is a URI Reference, otherwise a literal
15:23:07 [danbri]
… so that means if somebody would unescape things that would be a wrong URI
15:23:17 [Zakim]
+[IPcaller]
15:23:19 [danbri]
… could v easily lead to problems, should be a URI
15:23:25 [Zakim]
-[IPcaller]
15:23:51 [danbri]
gregg: (or ericstephan?) … re simple mappings, only mechanism for multi-column combination is URI Templates
15:23:54 [Zakim]
+[IPcaller]
15:23:57 [AndyS]
zakim, IPCaller is me
15:23:57 [Zakim]
+AndyS; got it
15:23:57 [danbri]
ivan: my example is dated URIs
15:24:14 [danbri]
ivan: I've been convinced not to do that anyway
15:24:19 [danbri]
did JeniT rejoin?
15:24:56 [danbri]
ivan: URI Templates are (for) URI Templates
15:25:17 [danbri]
jenit: since we discussed it, and I don't want to come back on it again, it would be good to have it as a decided issue
15:25:23 [danbri]
… maybe I'll do the proposal for it
15:25:35 [JeniT]
PROPOSAL: We only use url templates for url values, not for atomic values (eg dates)
15:25:44 [JeniT]
+1
15:25:45 [gkellogg]
+1
15:25:46 [ericstephan]
+1
15:25:50 [ivan]
+1
15:25:51 [ivan]
RESOLUTION: We only use url templates for url values, not for atomic values (eg dates)
15:25:51 [danbri]
+1 (assuming url means URI/IRI/etc too)
15:26:02 [bill-ingram]
+1
15:26:25 [danbri]
jenit: so we have that decision for reference
15:26:35 [danbri]
… moving on to list of post-f2f actions
15:26:42 [danbri]
first was for Dan to write something about sitemaps.
15:27:14 [danbri]
dan: continue please
15:27:28 [danbri]
jenit: had an action to do something to section 3.4, [done]
15:27:32 [danbri]
… one on axel who isn't here
15:27:47 [danbri]
… one on dan/jeni to talk to people who aren't active, needs doing
15:28:04 [AndyS]
regrets for at least the next 2 telecons and may be more.
15:28:16 [danbri]
re dan to set up CG - will discuss later
15:28:28 [danbri]
one on ericstephan to talk to bernadette, … started but continue action please
15:28:56 [danbri]
one on gregg looking at github/respec linkage
15:29:16 [danbri]
ivan: gregg showed me what to do, i changed the conversion doc, it is not 100% but we can now link to the issue tracker
15:29:25 [ericstephan]
dropping off of IRC, will stay on the phone with (509-554)
15:29:26 [gkellogg]
q+
15:29:27 [danbri]
… i was thinking more how to link from issue tracker back to the relevant document area
15:29:43 [JeniT]
ack gkellogg
15:29:47 [danbri]
ivan: in the doc you can link to an issue pretty easily, so copy/paste from the two conversion docs to get the markup. Works fine for that.
15:30:16 [danbri]
gregg: on reverse linkage it is possible to go back from individual commits to visibility within the issues, use the #-sign with the number and it will show up accordingly.
15:30:25 [danbri]
… doesn't take you to a place in a doc as such, but to the 'diff' view.
15:30:42 [danbri]
ivan: it is a good habit when we push something, that we list the issues that are relevant to the changes in the comments.
15:30:51 [danbri]
gregg: ideally a commit is relevant to a particular issue
15:30:56 [danbri]
ivan: great
15:31:01 [JeniT]
ack danbri
15:31:30 [danbri]
draft https://gist.github.com/danbri/5593faaa79a9ef30c098
15:31:31 [gkellogg]
If you include, say “issue #1” in a commit message, it will add a reference to that commit in the issue on GitHub.
15:33:42 [danbri]
AndyS: need to be a little bit careful, … since this WG isnt 100% clear on what it'll do
15:33:54 [danbri]
… maybe better to wait til we're clear on what we'll do here
15:34:14 [danbri]
jenit: i think we have a pretty clear consensus from last week about the limits of the mappings that we're considering
15:34:50 [danbri]
AndyS: dan's wording was "supplement, support and enrich" the WGs output
15:35:03 [danbri]
jenit: so your concern is that it might sound too close a rel
15:35:16 [danbri]
andys: maybe better to say that it goes beyond the work of the WG and goes into new areas
15:35:32 [danbri]
andys: that it doesn't draw the line between the two
15:35:41 [danbri]
jenit: maybe it should mention the extension mechanism
15:35:45 [danbri]
andys: good idea
15:35:47 [danbri]
q+
15:35:54 [JeniT]
ack danbri
15:37:42 [danbri]
action: danbri circulate revised Advanced Mappings CG draft to list, reflecting today's discussion
15:37:43 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-56 - Circulate revised advanced mappings cg draft to list, reflecting today's discussion [on Dan Brickley - due 2014-11-12].
15:38:01 [danbri]
[dropping action on ivan to … something something url templates for predicates]
15:38:16 [danbri]
ivan can you clarify which action was dropped?
15:38:16 [JeniT]
PROPOSAL: we will not use url templates for predicate urls (for RDF mapping)
15:38:24 [ivan]
+1
15:38:24 [JeniT]
+1
15:38:25 [danbri]
+0
15:38:28 [gkellogg]
+0
15:38:29 [bill-ingram]
+1
15:39:44 [danbri]
(my mood is: URI Templates are super powerful, and will need code library support, so if they're in our toolset why not exploit them, at least when generating URLs)
15:39:52 [danbri]
resolution?
15:39:54 [ivan]
RESOLUTION: we will not use url templates for predicate urls (for RDF mapping)
15:40:25 [danbri]
(I think it is important that predicate URLs can be from well known vocabs, but there are various ways to achieve that)
15:40:48 [danbri]
jenit: action on me to create foreign key pattern, is in metadata spec based on uc 4 and other examples, would be good to get that review. link:
15:41:26 [JeniT]
http://w3c.github.io/csvw/metadata/#examples
15:42:20 [danbri]
jenit: considering uc-4, at schema level, refs are between schemas. All instances of these schemas will be referencing each other, ...
15:42:27 [danbri]
… showing how that might work, whether it works
15:42:38 [danbri]
… borrowed pattern from the data package schema
15:42:54 [danbri]
q+ to note that Kingsley / OpenLink volunteered to review - is it ready?
15:43:23 [danbri]
ivan: i think that what we discussed is that the primary key would essentially dissapear, but you reuse it in example 22, and i'm not sure what it means
15:43:32 [danbri]
… but it is certainly different than what we had in prev version
15:43:47 [danbri]
jenit: primary key refs a col or number of cols, which provide a primary key for each row
15:43:52 [danbri]
ivan: but why do you need it
15:44:02 [danbri]
… the ref in the other table refers to the col name in the other table
15:44:15 [danbri]
jenit: you don't need it for the foreign key bit to work
15:44:29 [danbri]
ivan: i think what we said is that the primary key is used so far to generate a URI for a row, …
15:44:37 [danbri]
… but that now has been exchanged against a URI Template for a ro
15:44:37 [danbri]
w
15:44:45 [danbri]
… my understanding is that primary key as such dissapears
15:45:09 [danbri]
jenit: there's a validation point around primaryKey which is that … e.g. primaryKey is family_name, given_name
15:45:18 [danbri]
… which is that you're asserting that comb of fields on each row is unique
15:45:24 [danbri]
… you don't get that from URI Template
15:45:30 [danbri]
… yet it is still a useful thing to say
15:45:42 [danbri]
ivan: I understand. But we must be clear that if primaryKey generates [missed]
15:45:57 [danbri]
jenit: i think separate. talk your point that we need to be clear. will record issue.
15:46:33 [JeniT]
https://github.com/w3c/csvw/issues/63
15:46:40 [JeniT]
q?
15:46:46 [JeniT]
ack danbri
15:46:46 [Zakim]
danbri, you wanted to note that Kingsley / OpenLink volunteered to review - is it ready?
15:47:27 [ivan]
q+
15:47:36 [JeniT]
ack ivan
15:47:44 [danbri]
(jenit will act on this after issues are clarified)
15:48:12 [danbri]
ivan: memory fading but … we got to a structure whereby it turns out that generating the proper refs and URIs etc is relatively easy, …
15:48:16 [Zakim]
-JeniT
15:48:20 [danbri]
…when i look at what you have here it looks like it is not
15:48:36 [danbri]
ivan: how do i generate in 1st country slice, i have to generate a URI into the other one
15:48:43 [danbri]
… i think we said we'll use frag id to get into the other one
15:48:49 [danbri]
… but when i see just one row for e.g. Andora
15:48:52 [Zakim]
+[IPcaller]
15:48:55 [danbri]
… I know from the metadata that
15:49:02 [danbri]
there is a ref somewhere to the other stuff
15:49:09 [danbri]
for the country column, but how do i find out
15:49:16 [danbri]
which row i should refer to?
15:49:24 [danbri]
let's say for Afghanistan you have 3 rows
15:49:45 [danbri]
ivan: or do we say that we refer to the column as a whole in terms of the fragment URI?
15:49:56 [danbri]
jenit: can we work through this in an issue rather than doing on phone?
15:50:05 [danbri]
ivan: we have an action with jeremy to work out what we have to do
15:50:27 [danbri]
… i realised/remembered we came with some simplification of the foreign key that made it easy,
15:50:34 [danbri]
jenit: I'll try to reconstruct that using eg. 22.
15:50:42 [danbri]
ivan: buffer overflowed
15:51:00 [JeniT]
q?
15:51:01 [danbri]
jenit: rest of actions —
15:51:18 [danbri]
were on jeremy and ivan, all deferred until roughly next week or after when Jeremy is back.
15:51:26 [danbri]
last 10 mins-
15:51:31 [JeniT]
https://github.com/w3c/csvw/labels/Requires%20telcon%20discussion/decision
15:51:32 [danbri]
topic: Github issues
15:51:50 [danbri]
Reviewing issues at https://github.com/w3c/csvw/labels/Requires%20telcon%20discussion/decision as things we can try to close or discuss.
15:52:03 [danbri]
jenit: any blocking ivan in particular?
15:52:20 [danbri]
ivan: not particularly. We should try to have some discussion of each on email, generally. These should have fairly quick resolutions.
15:52:31 [danbri]
jenit: let's go through them
15:52:34 [JeniT]
https://github.com/w3c/csvw/issues/7
15:53:25 [danbri]
issue 7: q was whether generated rdf should carry some provenance info
15:53:29 [ivan]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-csv-wg/2014May/0110.html
15:53:46 [danbri]
… he had a sketch of what might be put there, which comes from the PROV WG's vocab and could be added verbatim with few changes
15:54:05 [danbri]
issue is whether we should have something like this, vs not, with simple mapping
15:54:27 [danbri]
ivan: seems reasonable to have something on provenance in generated rdf, but might be overkill
15:54:45 [danbri]
jenit: so basically including provenance info, automatically, about the generation of the rdf, in the rdf that is generated
15:54:56 [danbri]
(feels like a 'MAY' not 'MUST' on tooling; —me)
15:55:12 [danbri]
ivan: there are two, simple vs complex, … the simple example seems pretty clear
15:55:20 [danbri]
… but i don't know whether it is useful
15:55:34 [gkellogg]
Seems like a good idea.
15:56:09 [danbri]
ivan: I've fine w/ dan's having it as may on tools;, but would still need speccing
15:56:14 [danbri]
'informational' section of spec?
15:56:25 [danbri]
q+
15:56:30 [JeniT]
ack danbri
15:57:16 [danbri]
danbri: suggest giving it as an example of where tools can go beyond the core spec
15:57:21 [danbri]
ivan: should we mandate the minimal though?
15:57:33 [danbri]
… i'd be fine saying it is the minimal thing that ought to be there
15:58:42 [danbri]
jenit: github issues + their comments for majority of our technical discussion
15:58:50 [danbri]
… please flag any that you want discussed at telecon time
15:58:51 [ivan]
PROPOSED: An RDF conversion processor MUST generate provenance information of the form of the first snippet in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-csv-wg/2014May/0110.html, and MAY generate richer provenance information
15:59:01 [danbri]
… we'll use that as primary way we'll allocate our call time each week
15:59:14 [danbri]
jenit: ivan's proposal —^^
15:59:19 [gkellogg]
+1
15:59:20 [JeniT]
+1
15:59:21 [ivan]
+1
15:59:23 [danbri]
+1
15:59:23 [bill-ingram]
+1
15:59:29 [Zakim]
-AndyS
15:59:36 [ivan]
RESOLVED: An RDF conversion processor MUST generate provenance information of the form of the first snippet in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-csv-wg/2014May/0110.html, and MAY generate richer provenance information
15:59:47 [danbri]
ivan: i'll add to issue list and then close it
15:59:53 [danbri]
jenit: once you've done the draft
16:00:02 [danbri]
… when it's actually in the doc, rather than when decided
16:00:13 [danbri]
(yeah, let's write 'RESOLVED' into the still open issue)
16:00:20 [danbri]
jenit: kthxbye
16:00:23 [danbri]
Adjourned.
16:00:26 [Zakim]
-ericstephan
16:00:27 [Zakim]
-JeniT
16:00:29 [Zakim]
-gkellogg
16:00:29 [Zakim]
-Ivan
16:00:30 [Zakim]
-danbri
16:00:32 [danbri]
rrsagent, plaase draft minutes
16:00:32 [RRSAgent]
I'm logging. I don't understand 'plaase draft minutes', danbri. Try /msg RRSAgent help
16:00:36 [Zakim]
-bill-ingram
16:00:37 [Zakim]
DATA_CSVWG()10:00AM has ended
16:00:37 [Zakim]
Attendees were gkellogg, Ivan, +44.207.346.aaaa, danbri, ericstephan, JeniT, +1.217.333.aabb, bill-ingram, AndyS
16:00:42 [danbri]
rrsagent, please draft minutes
16:00:42 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/11/05-csvw-minutes.html danbri
16:00:50 [danbri]
thanks all, thanks bots :)
16:01:02 [ivan]
trackbot, end telcon
16:01:02 [trackbot]
Zakim, list attendees
16:01:04 [Zakim]
sorry, trackbot, I don't know what conference this is
16:01:10 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:01:10 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/11/05-csvw-minutes.html trackbot
16:01:11 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, bye
16:01:11 [RRSAgent]
I see 1 open action item saved in http://www.w3.org/2014/11/05-csvw-actions.rdf :
16:01:11 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: danbri circulate revised Advanced Mappings CG draft to list, reflecting today's discussion [1]
16:01:11 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/11/05-csvw-irc#T15-37-42