11:00:19 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #dwbp
11:00:19 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/09/24-dwbp-irc
11:00:21 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs 351
11:00:21 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #dwbp
11:00:23 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be DWBP
11:00:23 <Zakim> I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot
11:00:24 <trackbot> Meeting: Data on the Web Best Practices Working Group Teleconference
11:00:24 <trackbot> Date: 24 September 2015
11:00:48 <deirdrelee> Agenda: https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Sao_Paulo#Draft_Agenda
11:01:59 <phila> phila has joined #dwbp
11:02:48 <phila> zakim, code?
11:02:48 <Zakim> I have been told this is DWBP F2F https://mit.webex.com/mit/j.php?MTID=me0913a1d1a11424af2809d6256da43aa +1-617-324-0000 code 645 223 304
11:02:59 <phila> Wo hoo! Good to have you back zakim bot :-)
11:03:09 <phila> RRSAgent, make logs public
11:03:13 <Makx> so I understand the problem was that the start time given on the agenda (12:00 Berlin) was in error. I see that 8:00 Sao Paulo is 13:00 CEST.
11:03:37 <Makx> Some of us were here an hour ago.
11:03:39 <phila> :-( A thousand apologies Makx
11:03:41 <Caroline_> Caroline_ has joined #DWBP
11:03:43 <Caroline_> Hello!
11:09:01 <antoine> antoine has joined #dwbp
11:10:23 <antoine> present+ antoine
11:10:24 <laufer> laufer has joined #dwbp
11:10:43 <RiccardoAlbertoni> present+ RiccardoAlbertoni
11:10:47 <nandana> nandana has joined #dwbp
11:11:06 <Makx> I am connected to WebEx but hear no sound
11:12:08 <newtoncalegari> newtoncalegari has joined #dwbp
11:12:13 <laufer> present+ laufer
11:12:18 <newtoncalegari> present+ newton
11:12:18 <Makx> yes, sound is on
11:12:47 <newtonca_> newtonca_ has joined #dwbp
11:12:47 <Caroline_> present+ Caroline_
11:13:13 <antoine> antoine has joined #dwbp
11:13:22 <antoine> present+ antoine
11:14:11 <deirdrelee> present+ deirdrelee
11:14:32 <nandana> present+ nandana
11:15:25 <deirdrelee> chair: deirdrelee
11:15:29 <deirdrelee> agenda: https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Sao_Paulo#Agenda
11:16:23 <phila> present+ phila
11:16:34 <Makx> present+ makx
11:16:51 <Vagner_Br> Vagner_Br has joined #dwbp
11:16:54 <BernadetteLoscio> BernadetteLoscio has joined #dwbp
11:17:01 <Giancarlo_Guizzardi> Giancarlo_Guizzardi has joined #DWBP
11:17:04 <yaso> yaso has joined #dwbp
11:17:28 <Seiji> Seiji has joined #dwbp
11:17:30 <yaso_> yaso_ has joined #dwbp
11:17:42 <BernadetteLoscio> present+ BernadetteLoscio
11:17:53 <Gisele> Gisele has joined #dwbp
11:18:12 <yaso_> present+ yaso
11:18:12 <Gisele> present+ Gisele
11:18:28 <Seiji> present+
11:18:35 <adrianov> adrianov has joined #dwbp
11:18:36 <WagnerMeiraJr> WagnerMeiraJr has joined #dwbp
11:19:01 <PeterWinstanley> PeterWinstanley has joined #dwbp
11:19:14 <yaso> present+ yaso
11:19:33 <PeterWinstanley_> PeterWinstanley_ has joined #dwbp
11:19:43 <PeterWinstanley_> present+ PeterWinstanley
11:20:01 <phila> RRSAgent, draft minutes
11:20:01 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/09/24-dwbp-minutes.html phila
11:21:28 <phila> Topic: Welcome
11:21:42 <AdrianoCesar-InWeb> AdrianoCesar-InWeb has joined #dwbp
11:21:44 <phila> deirdrelee: Thanks Nic BR for hosting us and looking after us so well
11:21:49 <phila> ... note the poster!
11:22:05 <phila> deirdrelee: We're at quite a mature stage now. We need to get into the details of the docs
11:22:10 <phila> ... we get through a lot at F2F meetings
11:22:17 <phila> ... I'm sure these days will be the same.
11:22:28 <phila> ... We're quite punctual. Set up within 20 mins
11:22:56 <phila> Vagner_Br: Welcome everyone. Pleasure to have Phil and Dee at the conference yesterday
11:23:17 <phila> Vagner_Br: Thanks Brazil team for coming as well
11:23:27 <phila> Topic: Data Quality Vocabulary
11:23:39 <phila> -> http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/vocab-dqg.html DQV
11:23:42 <deirdrelee> agenda: https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Sao_Paulo#Friday_25th_September
11:23:49 <phila> deirdrelee: Editors have prepared questions for us all
11:23:51 <deirdrelee> dqv agenda: https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/F2F_S%C3%A3o_Paulo_-_Agenda_Proposal_DQV
11:24:09 <phila> deirdrelee: Turns over the Antoine and Riccardo
11:24:31 <Vagner_Br> present+ Vagner_Br
11:24:33 <RiccardoAlbertoni> sure ..
11:24:42 <deirdrelee> q?
11:25:23 <RiccardoAlbertoni> http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/vocab-dqg.html
11:25:25 <phila> antoine: Offers a brief review of the doc at http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/vocab-dqg.html
11:25:29 <phila> scribe: phila
11:25:34 <phila> scribeNick: phila
11:25:59 <phila> phila: I really like the intro text
11:26:36 <phila> antoine: A reminder that we're not defining what quality is - rather, we're offering a core framework that can be extended to create their own metadat about the quality of datazsets
11:26:48 <phila> s/datazsets/datasets/
11:27:10 <phila> antoine: Idea is to make it easy to compare quality assessments and enhance the interop of these systems
11:27:26 <phila> antoine: usual sections on conformance and namespaces
11:27:38 <phila> ... Some vocab review, presents the main parts of the vocab
11:27:55 <phila> ... RiccardoAlbertoni created this section - very usefeul
11:28:25 <phila> ... the Datasets class is the subject of any description. Below and around that are the different aspects of quality that we've identified so far
11:31:31 <phila> antoine: Top class is the class for dcat:Datastet or dcat:Distribution
11:31:42 <phila> ... on the left is the part about quality measures
11:31:59 <phila> ... not so much inspired as copied from DAQ
11:32:18 <phila> ... the middle part - there are a couple of classes about aggregations
11:32:26 <phila> s/aggregations/annotations/
11:32:33 <phila> ... this is an area for discussion later
11:32:48 <phila> ... on the right is the part about conformance
11:33:00 <phila> ... we'll have discussions later about conforming to certain standards
11:33:11 <phila> ... and we're not sure how to indicate that an SLA is available
11:33:19 <phila> ... so these are the core elements of hte model
11:33:34 <phila> ... The dotted line are about representing provenance
11:33:51 <phila> ... this has been discussed on the mailing list. We re-use Prov of course but there is some discussion about containment
11:34:26 <phila> q+
11:34:36 <deirdrelee> ack phila
11:34:37 <phila> ack me
11:36:06 <phila> phila: Clarified the different divisons
11:36:18 <BernadetteLoscio> q+
11:36:22 <phila> antoine: There's an open nquestion on what role Prov should play, how does that relate to quality
11:36:40 <phila> ... one aspect of prov is the prov of the quality metadata
11:36:52 <phila> ... this is important but that's at a different meta level
11:36:57 <deirdrelee> ack BernadetteLoscio
11:37:13 <phila> BernadetteLoscio: Is the quality annotation done by the publisher?
11:37:18 <phila> antoine: It can be, or the data re-users
11:37:26 <phila> ... this will be a topic for future work
11:37:33 <phila> ... which will go hand in hand with DUV
11:37:54 <phila> BernadetteLoscio: Yes, if it's given by the consumer then it's related to the usage, where we have methods for feedbacl
11:37:56 <phila> antoine: Yes.
11:38:03 <phila> ... That's the a good transition
11:38:37 <phila> ... You can see that one of the first issues for DQV is the relationship/overlap with DUV
11:38:50 <phila> ... that's scheduled later in the agendaq
11:38:53 <WagnerMeiraJr> q+
11:39:11 <deirdrelee> ack WagnerMeiraJr
11:39:21 <phila> WagnerMeiraJr: It seems that you're considering quantitative measure.
11:39:42 <phila> ... I've seen this done - is that a parallel path?
11:40:03 <phila> antoine: This is a good point. Right now, the point about measures is quantitative.
11:40:25 <phila> ... This comes from the DAQ vocabulary that we've re-used.
11:41:04 <phila> ... I'm not clear how to add a qualitative measure. That could be seen as an annotation unless there's a clear example of how to make it more structured
11:41:20 <phila> ... A problem that we face is that we don't have a lot of examples
11:41:29 <phila> ... so please if you know if any, please provide them
11:42:02 <phila> WagnerMeiraJr: One example - in info retrieval. If you have a live experiemnt witrh users evaluating text, you give them a set of possible responses (like sentiment analysis)
11:42:16 <phila> ... and you're measuring how the dataset matches expectations
11:42:25 <phila> ... and benchmarks
11:42:34 <phila> ... I can collect some examples and send them to the group
11:42:45 <phila> antoine: So you mean things like 5 star scales
11:42:51 <phila> WagnerMeiraJr: Yes.
11:43:01 <phila> antoine: If you coulr write that up it would be very helpful
11:43:15 <deirdrelee> s/coulr/could
11:43:21 <phila> antoine: Is a scale quantitative or qualitative? - that's a question
11:43:51 <phila> antoine: Probbaly not a good idea to enter deep discussion on this as we've not considered it. So examples would be very helpful so that we can see where they fit in the model.
11:43:55 <laufer> q+
11:43:56 <Vagner_Br> s/witrh/with
11:44:17 <deirdrelee> ack laufer
11:44:24 <Vagner_Br> s/agendaq/agenda
11:44:27 <phila> action meira to collect examples of qualitative feedback and send them to the group, including 5 star scales
11:44:27 <trackbot> Error finding 'meira'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/users>.
11:44:34 <phila> action wagner to collect examples of qualitative feedback and send them to the group, including 5 star scales
11:44:35 <trackbot> Created ACTION-200 - Collect examples of qualitative feedback and send them to the group, including 5 star scales [on Wagner Meira Jr. - due 2015-10-01].
11:44:55 <RiccardoAlbertoni> q+
11:45:03 <phila> laufer: Raises issue of metadata about different distributions of hte same dataset
11:45:10 <RiccardoAlbertoni> q-
11:45:33 <phila> antoine: I'm tempted to ask you to raisde that later as it's very specific. I don't want to skip it, but from the perspective of the discussion process I'd like to continue the agenda
11:45:40 <phila> RRSAgent, draft minutes
11:45:40 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/09/24-dwbp-minutes.html phila
11:45:43 <Vagner_Br> s/feedbacl/feedback
11:46:18 <phila> regrets+ Hadley, Steve
11:46:21 <RiccardoAlbertoni> i am taking a note
11:46:48 <phila> antoine: What I want to go on to is not so exciting... section 1 is the standard text about defining the various classes and properties in the model
11:47:10 <phila> ... It's currently organised by classes, and then the properties that can typically be applied to this class.
11:47:29 <phila> ... This is a little different from some vocabs where all the classes are grouped together and then the properties.
11:47:36 <Vagner_Br> s/hte/the
11:47:40 <phila> ... If you think that's not a good way to proceed then please say so.
11:47:48 <phila> ... otherwise I won't dive into all these tables.
11:47:56 <phila> ... they just reflect the detailed discussions that we've had
11:48:20 <phila> ... The tables just reflect what the RDFS/OWL definitions will be
11:48:45 <phila> ... Section 6 is the example stuff I was mentioning before. We have a general framework so we think it's important to provide examples.
11:48:49 <Vagner_Br> s/raisde/raise
11:49:13 <phila> antoine: It's not as complete as it could be so we'll keep on asking for more examples
11:49:29 <phila> ... There's only so much that we can create ourselves.
11:49:40 <phila> ... It's good if we can put in real info from real use cases.
11:51:00 <phila> ... In 6.3 and 4 we see the difficlty about Prov that I mentioned earlier. There's the prov of the annotation and the prov of the dataset
11:51:11 <phila> ... this will overlap with the BP doc probably.
11:51:29 <phila> ... We want to include an example of a certificate (e.g. from the ODI)
11:52:11 <phila> ... and finally something about quality of a linkset. Things published separately - e.g. aligning with SKOS concepts and we want to say something about that.
11:52:33 <phila> q+ to make a suggestion about examples
11:52:54 <phila> antoine: We don't want to tell people what quality is but we want others to share their notion of quality
11:53:02 <phila> ... so we'#re providing the framework for that.
11:53:10 <phila> s/we'#re/we're/
11:53:17 <deirdrelee> ack phila
11:53:17 <Zakim> phila, you wanted to make a suggestion about examples
11:53:17 <phila> ack me
11:54:09 <phila> phila: Suggests using the next publication as a trigger to get new examples
11:54:42 <phila> antoine: Can we note an action on the editors to add such a note to the doc
11:55:03 <phila> action: antoine to add note to DQV document seeking examples from external reviewers
11:55:03 <trackbot> Created ACTION-201 - Add note to dqv document seeking examples from external reviewers [on Antoine Isaac - due 2015-10-01].
11:55:22 <phila> antoine: So back to section 7 - hints for dimensions and metrics
11:55:32 <phila> ... this refers to the use cases and elements that we have
11:55:40 <phila> ... need to come back to this with Riccardo
11:55:58 <phila> ... Main areas that we want t explore are the ones raised by various contributuions to the WG.
11:56:25 <phila> ... Ideally we want examples relevant to all the elements in section 7
11:57:02 <phila> antoine: The last section of the doc is the one that lists the requirements that we elicited previously. It's a motivation section.
11:57:58 <deirdrelee> q+
11:58:19 <phila> deirdrelee: Is it worth going back to the UCR at this stage?
11:58:26 <phila> ... might that give us more examples do you think?
11:58:37 <deirdrelee> ack me
11:58:54 <phila> antoine: What do you have in mind?
11:59:00 <nandana> http://www.w3.org/TR/dwbp-ucr/#requirements-for-quality-and-granularity-description-vocabulary
11:59:16 <phila> deirdrelee: Maybe update the UCR based on the examples that come in?
11:59:42 <antoine> https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Quality_Aspects_In_Use_Cases
11:59:45 <phila> antoine: In principle it makes sense but many of the use cases are very general. In the previous phase of work, we analysed each use case to see what they had about quality
12:00:06 <phila> ... Many of the UCs are too general to get some example from there without going to back to each UC owner
12:01:25 <phila> antoine: Only hesitation is the amount of work involved
12:01:34 <phila> ... maybe that's a discussion for later?
12:01:43 <phila> deirdrelee: OK, let's go ahead with the next point on your agenda
12:02:06 <phila> antoine: Any comments on the doc overall?
12:02:11 <phila> phila: I like it
12:02:25 <laufer> +1
12:02:28 <nandana> +1
12:02:38 <phila> deirdrelee: I think the doc looks very strong. There's a logical flow to it, I think it's def in the right direction and it will be very useful
12:03:13 <phila> antoine: Then we shouodl get into the very specific issues
12:03:26 <RiccardoAlbertoni> ok
12:03:37 <phila> antoine hands over to Riccardo to go through the issues
12:03:50 <phila> RiccardoAlbertoni: So we can start with the first issue
12:03:56 <phila> issue-184?
12:03:56 <trackbot> issue-184 -- Is an dqv:ServiceLevelAgreement a kind of certificate, or a standard? -- open
12:03:56 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/184
12:03:56 <RiccardoAlbertoni> issue-184?
12:03:56 <trackbot> issue-184 -- Is an dqv:ServiceLevelAgreement a kind of certificate, or a standard? -- open
12:03:56 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/184
12:05:00 <phila> RiccardoAlbertoni: It's current defined as a kind of standard. One part of the discussion is whether this is right or is it a certificate
12:05:26 <phila> ... Some have said that an SLA is neither. It's a collection of promises
12:05:42 <phila> ... So it seems to me that an SLA is quite a complex thing.
12:05:56 <phila> ... There have been 2 proposals. 1 - keep it as a kind of document
12:06:20 <phila> ... or model it using entities
12:06:29 <PeterWinstanley> PeterWinstanley has joined #dwbp
12:06:38 <PeterWinstanley> present+ PeterWinstanley
12:07:08 <phila> RiccardoAlbertoni: Christophe suggested modelling it as a doc, Antoine suggetsed modelling it along the ODRL model
12:07:54 <phila> q+
12:07:59 <BernadetteLoscio> q+
12:08:10 <deirdrelee> ack phila
12:08:11 <Giancarlo_Guizzardi> q+
12:08:40 <phila> ack me
12:08:49 <phila> phila: ASks for clarification of poss use of ODRL
12:08:59 <RiccardoAlbertoni> there is a lot of echo ..
12:08:59 <phila> ... they express things like licensing statements
12:09:11 <nandana> +q to comment why ODRL might be useful
12:09:28 <phila> ... It can fit pretty much any sort of agreement between parties, so we could see an SLA as an instance of that
12:09:43 <deirdrelee> ack BernadetteLoscio
12:10:03 <laufer> q+
12:10:08 <phila> BernadetteLoscio: maybe I missed something, it;s not clear for me, why do you need this SLA info. Will you use it to calculate sometehing?
12:10:39 <phila> RiccardoAlbertoni: The idea is that the SLA tells you how reliable the service is
12:10:52 <phila> ... so it's related to hte quality
12:10:59 <PeterWinstanley> q+
12:11:35 <phila> BernadetteLoscio: OK... but for the dataset...
12:11:54 <antoine> q+
12:12:08 <phila> ack Giancarlo_Guizzardi
12:12:12 <deirdrelee> ack Giancarlo_Guizzardi
12:12:42 <phila> Giancarlo_Guizzardi: There is a lot of work on this. An SLA is a type of social contract. These can be understood as aggregations of commitments and claims.
12:13:11 <phila> ... This would be an interesting way to look at this. For example, partial satisfaction of a SLA might be met
12:13:21 <phila> ... I can include some refs to work in this area.
12:13:32 <phila> q+ to weild Occam's Razor
12:13:40 <phila> ack nan
12:13:40 <Zakim> nandana, you wanted to comment why ODRL might be useful
12:14:09 <phila> nandana: My first comment matches Bernadette, are there use cases that motivate its inclusion?
12:14:31 <jerdeb> jerdeb has joined #dwbp
12:14:38 <phila> nandana: I think ODRL can express commitments clearly
12:14:50 <deirdrelee> action Giancarlo_Guizzardi to share examples around service level agreement activity
12:14:50 <trackbot> Error finding 'Giancarlo_Guizzardi'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/users>.
12:14:58 <deirdrelee> q?
12:15:07 <deirdrelee> action Giancaro to share examples around service level agreement activity
12:15:07 <trackbot> Error finding 'Giancaro'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/users>.
12:15:18 <deirdrelee> action Giancarlo to share examples around service level agreement activity
12:15:18 <trackbot> Created ACTION-202 - Share examples around service level agreement activity [on Giancarlo Guizzardi - due 2015-10-01].
12:15:26 <phila> http://www.w3.org/TR/dwbp-ucr/#UC-OKFNTransport and http://www.w3.org/TR/dwbp-ucr/#UC-RDESC both ask for SLAs
12:16:09 <phila> antoine: My approach to this is there are aspects of quality that everyone agrees are important. Something like the fact that a dataset is refreshed every week
12:16:11 <nandana> another ontology that defines SLAs http://ontology.it/itsmo/v1/itsmo.html#term_SLA
12:16:20 <Makx> +q
12:16:30 <phila> antoine:  So you can measure that, and you might express it in an ODI Certificate
12:16:37 <Giancarlo_Guizzardi> In the following Core Ontology of Services, we address the use of Service Offerings in terms of social commitments and claims. This might be relevant in this context: http://www.inf.ufes.br/~gguizzardi/UFO-S.pdf
12:16:46 <phila> ... We can represent this in the mode in several ways
12:17:13 <phila> ... We don't want to close the door to one way or another. For some people, info that data is udated every week is all they need to know/.
12:17:18 <deirdrelee> ack laufer
12:17:54 <phila> laufer: taking the example of a Distribution. We have the dataset itself and we have the service of providing this data.
12:18:38 <deirdrelee> ack PeterWinstanley
12:18:41 <phila> ... it's confusing to know what we're talking about (what's the subject of the triple)
12:18:42 <antoine> q-
12:19:04 <phila> PeterWinstanley: SLAs require an agreement between parties. So if we're talking about open data there's only one side
12:19:25 <antoine> q+
12:19:37 <phila> ... secondly, if you begin to have the level of detail required in ODRL - I can see a lot of organisations who would pass it to the legal department... for a long time
12:20:05 <phila> ... Danger is getting to a nice vocab that is only useful in a lab
12:20:10 <deirdrelee> q+
12:20:13 <deirdrelee> ack phila
12:20:13 <Zakim> phila, you wanted to weild Occam's Razor
12:21:31 <deirdrelee> phila: agree with peter. wonders should we use the term SLA as there are two sides,as peter said
12:21:44 <PeterWinstanley_> PeterWinstanley_ has joined #dwbp
12:21:51 <PeterWinstanley_> present+ PeterWinstanley
12:22:08 <deirdrelee> ... if a publisher wants to publish a pledge then FOAF could be sufficient
12:22:16 <deirdrelee> q?
12:22:18 <Caroline_> Caroline_ has joined #DWBP
12:22:20 <Caroline_> Present+ Caroline_
12:22:20 <deirdrelee> ack Makx
12:22:31 <phila> Makx: We might be mixing up things here. An SLA is a promise or a pledge, it doesn't say anything about the quality of the data
12:22:48 <phila> ... If I say I'm going to update it every day and trhen I don't, that's confusing
12:22:54 <deirdrelee> ack antoine
12:22:55 <phila> ... an SLA doesn't talk about quality
12:23:02 <phila> antoine: Lots of points to answer there.
12:23:09 <phila> ... start with the last first
12:23:26 <phila> ... Yes, an SLA is not a measure of quality, but it is useful info to potential users
12:23:31 <Makx> +1 to antoine
12:23:39 <phila> ... an annotation might say nothing about quality either
12:23:42 <RiccardoAlbertoni> q+
12:23:56 <phila> ... it depends omn the provenance whether you can assess these things
12:24:09 <phila> ... I don't think an SLA will solve all quality issues.
12:24:36 <phila> antoine: To Peter on ODRL, the risk of adding sometehing that is too complex. I wouldn't suggest that we go through ODRL and include it here.
12:25:11 <phila> ... If there is a community that thinks it's good to expfess these pledges, then people should be entitled to do this. It's finding the most flexible way to makr this happen.
12:25:29 <phila> ... I think we're not on very stable ground and I'm wary of closing doors.
12:26:04 <phila> deirdrelee: I agree that the SLA is about the service, not the data, but could be describe the presence of an SLA as a quality metric. So the metric would be - is an SLA present?
12:26:12 <antoine> q+
12:26:13 <phila> ... which speaks to the relaibility
12:26:17 <RiccardoAlbertoni> q-
12:26:18 <jerdeb> 100% agree with deirdre here
12:26:26 <phila> ... SO we cojld put that in one of the examples without it being explicitly in the model.
12:26:28 <RiccardoAlbertoni> q+
12:26:28 <deirdrelee> ack me
12:26:49 <phila> antoine: In this case, i'd consider adding the SLA/Pledge as a sort of annotation rather than a metirc
12:27:00 <phila> ... something in the same area as the certificates
12:27:19 <jerdeb> present+ jerdeb
12:27:24 <phila> ... The question was whether an SLA is a certificate or a standard. Now it looks like we want to move it to a third place.
12:27:27 <laufer> q+
12:27:33 <BernadetteLoscio> q+
12:27:38 <deirdrelee> ack antoine
12:27:49 <Giancarlo_Guizzardi> q+
12:27:56 <phila> RiccardoAlbertoni: I see there are opther people who want to say womthing about this. But I wonder if we're at the point where we can make a proposal
12:28:05 <deirdrelee> q?
12:28:10 <deirdrelee> ack RiccardoAlbertoni
12:28:16 <phila> ... we are not sure if an SLA is a measuer of quality bnut we don't want to close the door to useful information
12:29:29 <BernadetteLoscio> we had a long discussion about SLA during the F2F at Santa Clara
12:29:31 <BernadetteLoscio> http://www.w3.org/2014/10/30-dwbp-irc#T18-11-17
12:29:31 <phila> ... I'd like to suggest we try and answer a specific question. We have annotations, standards, etc. We want to leave things flexible.
12:30:34 <phila> deirdrelee: I think you're raising an important issue wrt to timing. So I'll start timing things.
12:30:45 <phila> ack next
12:31:43 <phila> laufer: I think it's importsant that SLA is important but we need to be clear. We have the provenance about the metadata, and then about the data etc.
12:31:48 <yaso> q?
12:31:59 <phila> ... WE have meta meta data
12:32:01 <yaso> ack BernadetteLoscio
12:32:37 <phila> BernadetteLoscio: During the F2F at Santa Clara we discussed SLAs and thought it was probably the wrong term. It's good to look back at that discussion
12:32:47 <phila> ack Giancarlo_Guizzardi
12:32:48 <yaso> ack Giancarlo_Guizzardi
12:33:17 <phila> Giancarlo_Guizzardi: I think it's useful to have a sort of commitment. When an entity makes a commitment, that's a potential reason for using a dataset.
12:33:28 <phila> ... I'm still puzzled by the use of the word service.
12:33:45 <antoine> q+
12:33:55 <phila> ... If there is no social contract then even an SLA commitment might be better.
12:34:19 <yaso> q?
12:34:30 <phila> ... Sorry if ontologists have strange concepts sometimes. Whewn you make a pledge, you generally have in mind someone who will receive that commitment.
12:34:34 <phila> ... Who has the claim here?
12:34:46 <yaso> ack antoine
12:35:02 <phila> antoine: maybe the erminology is the problem.
12:35:26 <phila> antoine: Would the term policy, as defined by ODRL, be applicable
12:35:33 <deirdrelee> s/erminology/terminology
12:35:57 <RiccardoAlbertoni> Do we have a link to the definition ?
12:36:04 <nandana> http://www.w3.org/ns/odrl/2/#term-Policy
12:37:23 <RiccardoAlbertoni> q+
12:37:44 <antoine> q+
12:37:47 <Makx> dct:conformsTo
12:37:49 <RiccardoAlbertoni> q-
12:37:54 <antoine> q-
12:37:58 <antoine> Makx++
12:38:33 <antoine> q+
12:39:03 <deirdrelee> ack antoine
12:39:15 <phila> antoine: I agree with Phil that it's not standard
12:39:28 <phila> ... but I really like dcterms:conformsTo as a property
12:39:30 <RiccardoAlbertoni> q+
12:39:31 <BernadetteLoscio> q+
12:39:35 <phila> deirdrelee: So is that a proposal
12:39:39 <Makx> A basis for comparison; a reference point against which other things can be evaluated
12:39:50 <nandana> q+ to ask whether antoine is proposing to use ordl:Policy or to define dqv:Policy instead of dqv:SLA
12:39:59 <deirdrelee> ack RiccardoAlbertoni
12:40:22 <antoine> q+
12:41:49 <deirdrelee> RiccardoAlbertoni: thinks we should go for a proposal, and we will have an example showing how an SLA is modelled
12:41:55 <RiccardoAlbertoni> yes
12:42:01 <phila> BernadetteLoscio:
12:42:06 <deirdrelee> ack BernadetteLoscio
12:42:15 <laufer> q+
12:42:30 <phila> If you're going to describe this commitment, maybe you should consider the measure you're going to use to describe the dataset.
12:42:42 <phila> ... The commitment should reflect the quality description
12:43:31 <phila> ack nandana
12:43:31 <Zakim> nandana, you wanted to ask whether antoine is proposing to use ordl:Policy or to define dqv:Policy instead of dqv:SLA
12:44:24 <phila> nandana: At some point I think I understood that we don't want to use the ODRL policy, but maybe we want dqv:Policy which might be a sub class of dcterms:Standard
12:44:47 <deirdrelee> ack antoine
12:44:55 <phila> antoine: I think we should have just that - dqv:Policy rdfs:subClassOf dcterms:Standard and then an example
12:45:10 <BernadetteLoscio> yes!
12:45:17 <phila> antoine: I assume that what Berna has in mind is the dimensions?
12:45:21 <nandana> I think antoine said dqv:QualityPolicy
12:46:06 <phila> laufer: It's interesting to see the differnet users of he document about the quality. We have the publisher, the consumer, etc.
12:46:14 <phila> ... maybe an intermediary
12:46:52 <phila> ... Users can make statemetns about the dataset, the service etc. That makes the info complicated
12:46:59 <RiccardoAlbertoni> replace the class dvq:ServiceLevelAgreement with dqv:QualityPolicy (subclass of ODRL:policy ?!? ), and check against some  "real" example  if this works for the group
12:47:02 <phila> deirdrelee: Invites Antoine and Riccardo to wrap this up
12:47:46 <nandana> dqv:QualityPolicy (subclass of dcterms:Standard)?
12:48:17 <antoine> Suggested re-write: 1. replace current dqv:ServiceLevelAgreement with dqv:QualityPolicy, subclass of dcterms:Standard and odrl:Policy 2. add an example with an SLA as Quality Policy, trying to use the same dimensions as metrics and annotations
12:48:36 <phila> PROPOSED: 1. replace current dqv:ServiceLevelAgreement with dqv:QualityPolicy, subclass of dcterms:Standard and odrl:Policy 2. add an example with an SLA as Quality Policy, trying to use the same dimensions as metrics and annotations
12:48:55 <phila> PROPOSED: 1. replace current dqv:ServiceLevelAgreement with dqv:QualityPolicy, subclass of dcterms:Standard and odrl:Policy
12:49:06 <Makx> +1
12:49:09 <phila> PROPOSED: Add an example with an SLA as Quality Policy, trying to use the same dimensions as metrics and annotations
12:49:19 <deirdrelee> q?
12:49:22 <deirdrelee> ack laufer
12:49:23 <phila> Giancarlo_Guizzardi: I was thinking about what luafer said
12:49:42 <phila> ... We have these differnet relationships between entities around the dataset
12:50:01 <phila> ... I've made this dataset according to something else, like a quality policy
12:50:11 <phila> ... Perhapos there is a general pattern to unify the two vocabs
12:50:33 <nandana> +1, we should also investigate a bit about odrl:Policy semantics as the definition didn't say much
12:50:37 <phila> ... You have certain activities... I can use a certain dataset, committing not to do sometehing... differnet roles and activities
12:51:06 <antoine> ODRL has prohibitions as part of the Policy
12:51:48 <phila> Giancarlo_Guizzardi: Explores various relationships between different actors.
12:52:24 <phila> ... The pattern will be the same in DQV and DUV
12:52:42 <phila> RiccardoAlbertoni: Not sure if I understand the proposal of Giancarlo
12:53:04 <phila> antoine: If people want to represent these things, then that's when they can go and look into ODRL
12:53:20 <phila> ... ODRL includes way to exprfess constraints and prohibitions
12:53:36 <phila> ... it might be a good thing to point to odrl:Policy
12:53:41 <phila> PROPOSED: Replace current dqv:ServiceLevelAgreement with dqv:QualityPolicy, subclass of dcterms:Standard and odrl:Policy
12:53:41 <deirdrelee> PROPOSED: 1. replace current dqv:ServiceLevelAgreement with dqv:QualityPolicy, subclass of dcterms:Standard and odrl:Polic
12:54:08 <nandana> +1
12:54:09 <antoine> s/odrl:Polic/odrl:Policy
12:54:09 <phila> 0 (I don't think dcterms:Standard is right but I defer to Makx)
12:54:10 <yaso> +1
12:54:13 <antoine> +1
12:54:17 <newtonca_> +0
12:54:18 <RiccardoAlbertoni> +1
12:54:18 <BernadetteLoscio> 0
12:54:22 <Gisele> 0
12:54:44 <PeterWinstanley_> 0
12:54:48 <phila> Splitting the proposal
12:54:50 <deirdrelee> PROPOSED: replace current dqv:ServiceLevelAgreement with dqv:QualityPolicy,
12:54:52 <RiccardoAlbertoni> let's split in two..
12:54:58 <phila> +1
12:54:59 <RiccardoAlbertoni> +1
12:55:00 <Giancarlo_Guizzardi> +1
12:55:02 <antoine> +1
12:55:02 <Gisele> +1
12:55:03 <nandana> +1
12:55:03 <PeterWinstanley_> +1
12:55:04 <laufer> +1
12:55:07 <jerdeb> 0 (i am still not sure about the concept fitting quality metadata - but will give my views after seeing an example)
12:55:23 <phila> RESOLVED: replace current dqv:ServiceLevelAgreement with dqv:QualityPolicy
12:55:41 <phila> RESOLUTION: replace current dqv:ServiceLevelAgreement with dqv:QualityPolicy
12:55:41 <deirdrelee>  PROPOSED: dqv:QualityPolicy will be subclass of dcterms:Standard and odrl:Policy
12:55:54 <antoine> +1
12:56:05 <deirdrelee> PROPOSED: dqv:QualityPolicy will be subclass of dcterms:Standard
12:56:13 <antoine> +1
12:56:16 <laufer> +1
12:56:19 <nandana> +1
12:56:21 <phila> +0 Only 0 not -1 because Makx thinks it's right
12:56:21 <RiccardoAlbertoni> +1
12:56:21 <adrianov> +1
12:56:28 <PeterWinstanley_> 0
12:56:35 <BernadetteLoscio> 0
12:56:39 <Giancarlo_Guizzardi> 0
12:56:41 <Caroline_> Caroline_ has joined #DWBP
12:56:47 <Caroline_> Present+ Caroline_
12:57:08 <antoine> we can add a specific ISSUE about this to call for feedback
12:57:09 <PeterWinstanley_> policy is not a standard
12:57:18 <jerdeb> 0
12:57:25 <RiccardoAlbertoni> q+
12:57:37 <phila> +1 to antoine adding it as a specific issue
12:57:44 <RiccardoAlbertoni> q-
12:58:14 <deirdrelee> PROPOSED: 2. add an example with an SLA as Quality Policy, trying to use the same dimensions as metrics and annotations
12:58:23 <antoine> +1
12:58:24 <nandana> +1
12:58:26 <phila> +1
12:58:26 <Giancarlo_Guizzardi> +1
12:58:32 <deirdrelee> +1
12:58:32 <Seiji> +1
12:58:32 <jerdeb> +1
12:58:36 <RiccardoAlbertoni> +1
12:58:45 <Caroline_> +1
12:58:45 <PeterWinstanley_> +1
12:58:47 <laufer> +1
12:58:47 <BernadetteLoscio> +1
12:59:05 <phila> RESOLVED: Add an example with an SLA as Quality Policy, trying to use the same dimensions as metrics and annotations
12:59:11 <phila> RESOLUTION: Add an example with an SLA as Quality Policy, trying to use the same dimensions as metrics and annotations
12:59:28 <phila> action: riccardo to add an example with an SLA as Quality Policy, trying to use the same dimensions as metrics and annotations
12:59:28 <trackbot> Created ACTION-203 - Add an example with an sla as quality policy, trying to use the same dimensions as metrics and annotations [on Riccardo Albertoni - due 2015-10-01].
13:00:33 <RiccardoAlbertoni> q+
13:00:40 <phila> deirdrelee: Because we doidn't resolve to make it a subclass of dcterms:Standard, I assumed we have not resolved the odrl:Policy issue as wll
13:00:45 <RiccardoAlbertoni> q-
13:00:55 <phila> s/doid/did/
13:01:01 <phila> issue-185?
13:01:01 <trackbot> issue-185 -- dqv:QualityAnnotation modeling issues -- open
13:01:01 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/185
13:01:06 <phila> q?
13:01:23 <phila> RiccardoAlbertoni: That was raised by Antoine.
13:02:07 <Giancarlo_Guizzardi_> Giancarlo_Guizzardi_ has joined #DWBP
13:02:17 <phila> antoine: Actually I;m not si sure what the issue was except a general call for feedback
13:02:58 <phila> antoine: We would recommend that the instances of this class ?? from Open Annotation
13:03:29 <phila> ... this was a call for feedback. There has not been a lot of feedback,. so maybe that foodback will come when we look at DUV. For now though I'd say this issue can be closed.
13:03:37 <RiccardoAlbertoni> q+
13:03:44 <phila> ... If everyone's OK I'd say we could resolve to close.
13:04:07 <antoine> q+
13:04:10 <phila> RiccardoAlbertoni: Just wondering whether motivation should refer to ao SKOS concept - do we need a spedcific taxonomy?
13:04:20 <deirdrelee> ack RiccardoAlbertoni
13:04:24 <phila> q+
13:04:29 <phila> ack an
13:04:30 <deirdrelee> ack antoine
13:04:40 <nandana> oa:Annotation -> http://www.w3.org/ns/oa#d4e434
13:04:46 <phila> antoine: My feeling is that we should just show some examples but not represent all possible motivations
13:04:48 <phila> q-
13:05:07 <phila> antoine: One exception might be that the quality dimensions coujld be modelled as motivations - but I'm not sure
13:05:29 <nandana> oa:motivatedBy -> http://www.w3.org/ns/oa#d4e230
13:05:35 <BernadetteLoscio> q+
13:05:41 <phila> BernadetteLoscio:
13:06:01 <deirdrelee> ack BernadetteLoscio
13:06:03 <phila> BernadetteLoscio: The issue is the modelling or the usage of hte annotation? It's not clear what is a quality annotation?
13:06:12 <antoine> q+
13:06:48 <phila> RiccardoAlbertoni: AIUI, the ontology's vision is that you have to indicate the moitivation for your annotation and that's usually expressed as a SKOS concept.
13:06:55 <phila> ... it could be a post or a reply
13:06:59 <phila> ... etc.
13:07:15 <phila> ... We could have a basic taxonomy?
13:07:54 <phila> q+ to ask whether OA defines a taxonomy of motivation
13:08:41 <deirdrelee> ack antoine
13:08:57 <Giancarlo_Guizzardi_> q+
13:09:11 <phila> antoine: I realised I've not been super clear... the proposal is to have at least one concept defined in our namespace - quality assessment. We can do that easily enough
13:09:28 <phila> ... and then if they want to define sub concepts of that, OK
13:09:30 <phila> q-
13:09:36 <RiccardoAlbertoni> ok
13:09:43 <phila> ... I think we should just have this one concept
13:09:57 <phila> Giancarlo_Guizzardi_: A comment about the relationship between user feedback and quality annotation
13:09:57 <laufer> q+
13:10:02 <phila> ... user feedback can be about anything
13:10:29 <phila> ... maybe the user feedback in data usage is more general than one that makes any statement about quality
13:10:35 <phila> q- Giancarlo_Guizzardi_
13:10:40 <phila> ack laufer
13:10:42 <deirdrelee> ack laufer
13:11:10 <phila> laufer: I don't want to try and define quality, but when we talk about annotation, we can say whether the annotation is quality info or not
13:11:24 <Giancarlo_Guizzardi_> q+
13:11:26 <phila> RRSAgent, darft minutes
13:11:26 <RRSAgent> I'm logging. I don't understand 'darft minutes', phila.  Try /msg RRSAgent help
13:11:33 <phila> RRSAgent, draft minutes
13:11:33 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/09/24-dwbp-minutes.html phila
13:11:50 <phila> deirdrelee: Would it make sense 165 and move on to 185?
13:11:51 <deirdrelee> ack Giancarlo_Guizzardi_
13:12:22 <deirdrelee> close issue-185 and move to issue-165
13:12:27 <phila> Giancarlo_Guizzardi_: We could capture what kind of metric/dimension this annotation is about
13:12:30 <antoine> Giancarlo_Guizzardi++
13:12:38 <antoine> (thought that would be a different issue)
13:12:48 <phila> q+
13:13:02 <deirdrelee> ack phila
13:13:42 <BernadetteLoscio> q+
13:13:49 <antoine> PROPOSED: dqv:QualityAnnotation is a subclass of oa:Annotation. The instances of this class should have one oa:motivatedBy statement with a an instance of oa:Motivation (and skos:Concept), which reflects a quality assessment purpose. We define this instance as dqv:qualityAssessment.
13:13:51 <phila> phila: I like Giancarlo_Guizzardi_'s ideas but they sound like something for hte lab, not the real world.
13:14:31 <phila> BernadetteLoscio: Just a comment - we have the policy that says what is expected, the quality statement by the publisher and the assessment of the user
13:14:51 <phila> ... so maybe it would be nice to define everything using the same dimensions
13:15:31 <phila> q+
13:15:42 <deirdrelee> ack BernadetteLoscio
13:15:45 <deirdrelee> ack phila
13:16:16 <antoine> q+
13:16:39 <deirdrelee> phila: if every instance of the class has a particular property, can't you add that inthedefinition of the class. could you use owl to say that they property oa:motivation exists? otherwise redundent triples
13:16:45 <deirdrelee> ack antoine
13:17:16 <phila> phila: If the same triples are always defined, do we need to state them. Can we do it without having to state those triples every time?
13:17:27 <phila> antoine: Yes, you define it as an OWN equivalent class with those features
13:17:37 <antoine> s/OWN/OWL
13:17:50 <phila> PROPOSED: dqv:QualityAnnotation is a subclass of oa:Annotation. The instances of this class should have one oa:motivatedBy statement with a an instance of oa:Motivation (and skos:Concept), which reflects a quality assessment purpose. We define this instance as dqv:qualityAssessment
13:18:08 <antoine> +1
13:18:23 <Giancarlo_Guizzardi_> +1
13:18:24 <nandana>  +1
13:18:25 <Caroline_> +1
13:18:26 <yaso> 0
13:18:26 <RiccardoAlbertoni> +1
13:18:28 <PeterWinstanley_> 0
13:18:29 <Makx> +1
13:18:34 <laufer> +1
13:18:49 <phila> PROPOSED: dqv:QualityAnnotation is a subclass of oa:Annotation. The instances of this class should have one oa:motivatedBy statement with a an instance of oa:Motivation (and skos:Concept), which reflects a quality assessment purpose. We define this instance as dqv:qualityAssessment. This will be included in the definition using OWL constructs
13:19:47 <phila> s/PROPOSED: dqv:QualityAnnotation is a subclass of oa:Annotation. The instances of this class should have one oa:motivatedBy statement with a an instance of oa:Motivation (and skos:Concept), which reflects a quality assessment purpose. We define this instance as dqv:qualityAssessment. This will be included in the definition using OWL constructs//
13:19:50 <phila> +1
13:20:05 <phila> RESOLVED: dqv:QualityAnnotation is a subclass of oa:Annotation. The instances of this class should have one oa:motivatedBy statement with a an instance of oa:Motivation (and skos:Concept), which reflects a quality assessment purpose. We define this instance as dqv:qualityAssessment
13:20:06 <deirdrelee> RESOLVED: dqv:QualityAnnotation is a subclass of oa:Annotation. The instances of this class should have one oa:motivatedBy statement with a an instance of oa:Motivation (and skos:Concept), which reflects a quality assessment purpose. We define this instance as dqv:qualityAssessment
13:20:14 <phila> RESOLUTION: dqv:QualityAnnotation is a subclass of oa:Annotation. The instances of this class should have one oa:motivatedBy statement with a an instance of oa:Motivation (and skos:Concept), which reflects a quality assessment purpose. We define this instance as dqv:qualityAssessment
13:20:29 <phila> == Short Break ==
13:20:33 <phila> scribe: yaso
13:20:41 <phila> RRSAgent, draft minutes
13:20:41 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/09/24-dwbp-minutes.html phila
13:20:47 <Caroline_> 5min break
13:20:57 <BernadetteLoscio> dqv:qualityAssessement is defined on the model?
13:22:09 <Giancarlo_Guizzardi> Giancarlo_Guizzardi has joined #DWBP
13:24:05 <RiccardoAlbertoni> Antoine, is there any issues you want to focus in particular .. ?
13:24:59 <newtoncalegari> newtoncalegari has joined #dwbp
13:25:40 <antoine> I think we could try to NOT discuss the provenance issues, which are very technical (181). The voc management ones could be postponed, but I guess they will be naturally as they are at the end :)
13:26:13 <RiccardoAlbertoni> Ok
13:26:40 <newtoncalegari> newtoncalegari has joined #dwbp
13:27:40 <antoine> Riccardo, I think we should focus on 165, 187, 190, 164, 153, and GeoDCAT-AP
13:27:42 <newtonca_> newtonca_ has joined #dwbp
13:27:55 <RiccardoAlbertoni> let's go for the 165 ? which I am afraid will bring lot of discussion ..  what do you think .. and then 187 I think there is a kind of consensus about keep the cardinality between dimension and metric as in DAq so I suppose we can easily close it ..
13:28:27 <antoine> 165 is needed as per the connection to DUV
13:28:59 <newtoncalegari> newtoncalegari has joined #dwbp
13:29:04 <RiccardoAlbertoni> ok
13:29:50 <antoine> 187 may not be so consensual. Actually I had understood that the consensus was rather on not keeping the cardinality from daQ, i.e. relax it.
13:30:29 <RiccardoAlbertoni> ok let's go for 165, 187, 190, 164, 153, and GeoDCAT-AP ..
13:30:35 <newtoncalegari> newtoncalegari has joined #dwbp
13:32:22 <newtonca_> newtonca_ has joined #dwbp
13:33:59 <newtoncalegari> newtoncalegari has joined #dwbp
13:34:52 <newtoncalegari> newtoncalegari has joined #dwbp
13:35:41 <Giancarlo_Guizzardi> Giancarlo_Guizzardi has joined #DWBP
13:36:20 <yaso> antoine: this is issue 165
13:36:27 <deirdrelee> issue-165
13:36:27 <trackbot> issue-165 -- What is the relation between duv:Feedback and dqv:UserFeedback? -- open
13:36:27 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/165
13:36:34 <yaso> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/165
13:36:36 <deirdrelee> q?
13:37:01 <yaso> antoine: user feedback is a kind of quality annotation
13:37:53 <yaso> q?
13:37:55 <nandana> DUV -> http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/vocab-du.html#Vocab_Overview
13:38:01 <Giancarlo_Guizzardi> q+
13:38:40 <yaso> Giancarlo_Guizzardi: things like correction and suggestion
13:38:55 <yaso> ... you can say "I don't like this vocab" and etc
13:39:05 <BernadetteLoscio> +1
13:39:10 <deirdrelee> q?
13:39:11 <yaso> ... no all feedback is quality annotation
13:39:11 <antoine> q+
13:39:12 <deirdrelee> ack Giancarlo_Guizzardi
13:39:19 <yaso> ack antoine
13:39:30 <laufer> q+
13:39:43 <yaso> antoine: actually i completely understand what Giancarlo_Guizzardi said
13:40:14 <phila> q+
13:40:24 <RiccardoAlbertoni> +1 to QualityUserFeedback
13:40:25 <yaso> Giancarlo_Guizzardi: that was going to be my suggestion
13:41:08 <yaso> q?
13:41:33 <deirdrelee> ack laufer
13:41:50 <BernadetteLoscio> q+
13:41:55 <yaso> laufer: my question is to Giancarlo_Guizzardi: if only sometimes feedback are quality information, how can we say that an annotation is a quality information if we don'tlate it to a dimension
13:43:07 <yaso> laufer: yes, but how say to the user that he can or not put this information in this document
13:43:11 <nandana> +q to ask whether it was intentionally left Feedback to cover more things than user feedback? (so instead of using dqv:UserQualityFeedback and use just dqv:QualityFeedback)
13:43:13 <PeterWinstanley> PeterWinstanley has joined #dwbp
13:43:17 <antoine> q+
13:43:27 <PeterWinstanley> present+ PeterWinstanley
13:44:01 <yaso> Giancarlo_Guizzardi: I think this has to do with the issue regarding user Feedback
13:44:14 <deirdrelee> ack PeterWinstanley
13:44:17 <deirdrelee> ack phila
13:45:12 <yaso> phila: in practice, you might have a CKAN portal, somebody makes use of a dataset - it's hard to get people to fit at your data model
13:45:34 <yaso> ... if it's a machine that is going to classify your data then you can have a more complicated model
13:45:46 <yaso> ... but if otherwise, not
13:46:21 <yaso> ... we should keep a strong focus on how it will be in a real world, with real application
13:46:30 <yaso> ack BernadetteLoscio
13:46:57 <yaso> BernadetteLoscio: we were discussing if we should have specific types of feedback
13:47:16 <yaso> ... if we want to specify the types of feedback
13:47:50 <deirdrelee> ack nandana
13:47:50 <Zakim> nandana, you wanted to ask whether it was intentionally left Feedback to cover more things than user feedback? (so instead of using dqv:UserQualityFeedback and use just
13:47:51 <yaso> ... if we decide that we are going to have just feedback, so it fits the data usage vocab
13:47:54 <Zakim> ... dqv:QualityFeedback)
13:48:11 <yaso> nandana: you said feedback specifically
13:49:06 <yaso> ack antoine
13:49:31 <BernadetteLoscio> q+
13:49:48 <BernadetteLoscio> q_
13:49:58 <nandana> I was just referring to the difference Feedback and *User*Feedback
13:50:47 <yaso> BernadetteLoscio: I think we can keep feedback general
13:51:11 <RiccardoAlbertoni> Proposal: rename DQV:UserFeedback with dqv:QualityUserFeedback making it as duv:Feedback
13:51:44 <yaso> BernadetteLoscio: but tomorrow we are going to discuss if we are going to have this subclass, right?
13:51:56 <Giancarlo_Guizzardi> Feedback = UserFeedback (as far as I understand it). You are right that only one of them should be used
13:52:02 <RiccardoAlbertoni> Proposal: rename DQV:UserFeedback with dqv:QualityUserFeedback making it as duv:Feedback subclass
13:52:07 <yaso> antoine: right now I don't feel that is incompatible with this decision
13:52:37 <antoine> q+
13:52:43 <deirdrelee> ack BernadetteLoscio
13:52:46 <deirdrelee> ack antoine
13:53:00 <yaso> antoine: I like the fact that is from users
13:53:01 <RiccardoAlbertoni> q+
13:53:11 <RiccardoAlbertoni> q-
13:53:18 <RiccardoAlbertoni> +1 to antoine
13:53:35 <Giancarlo_Guizzardi> +1 (terminologically speaking it seems like a good idea)
13:53:39 <yaso> it will be interesting to keep the user on the label of the class
13:53:55 <Giancarlo_Guizzardi> in that case we would have UserFeedback that is specialized in QualityUserFeedback
13:53:58 <nandana> +1
13:54:01 <yaso> deirdrelee: ok so for now we will keep the user on the class
13:54:06 <Giancarlo_Guizzardi> which in turn specializes QualityAnnotation
13:54:07 <RiccardoAlbertoni> Proposal: rename DQV:UserFeedback with dqv:QualityUserFeedback making it as duv:Feedback subclass
13:54:11 <antoine> +1
13:54:13 <yaso> .... and in terms of ricardo's proposal
13:54:13 <Seiji> +1
13:54:21 <jerdeb> +1
13:54:23 <RiccardoAlbertoni> +1
13:54:23 <deirdrelee> +1
13:54:43 <antoine> q+
13:54:45 <yaso> Giancarlo_Guizzardi: I guess that if we agree with antoine, feedback should be userFeedback
13:54:57 <RiccardoAlbertoni> yeah please
13:54:58 <yaso> s/userFeedback/UserFeedback
13:55:00 <Giancarlo_Guizzardi> rename DQV:UserFeedback with dqv:QualityUserFeedback making it as duv:UserFeedback subclass
13:55:13 <RiccardoAlbertoni> q+
13:55:30 <adrianov> +1
13:55:33 <deirdrelee> ack antoine
13:55:52 <PeterWinstanley_> PeterWinstanley_ has joined #dwbp
13:56:05 <RiccardoAlbertoni> q-
13:56:12 <laufer> +1
13:56:18 <yaso> deirdrelee: in general we agree with  this?
13:56:20 <yaso> +1
13:56:24 <BernadetteLoscio> +1
13:56:28 <Giancarlo_Guizzardi> +1
13:56:35 <Caroline_> +1
13:56:48 <yaso> close issue-165
13:56:48 <trackbot> Closed issue-165.
13:57:08 <deirdrelee> RESOLVED: rename DQV:UserFeedback with dqv:QualityUserFeedback making it as duv:Feedback subclass
13:57:38 <yaso> antoine: we proposed to move to issue-187
13:57:45 <deirdrelee> issue-187
13:57:45 <trackbot> issue-187 -- Do we want to keep the same occurrence constraints as defined in DAQ (for example, that every metric should belong to exactly one dimension)? -- open
13:57:45 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/187
13:58:25 <yaso> Do we want to keep the same occurrence constraints as defined in DAQ (for example, that every metric should belong to exactly one dimension)?
13:58:36 <yaso> q?
13:59:09 <Giancarlo_Guizzardi> q+
13:59:36 <deirdrelee> ack Giancarlo_Guizzardi
13:59:42 <RiccardoAlbertoni> q+
13:59:53 <yaso> Giancarlo_Guizzardi: dimension would be a quality dimension, like height etc
13:59:56 <jerdeb> q+ to clarify
14:00:54 <yaso> Giancarlo_Guizzardi: so availability would be a sort of dimension
14:01:09 <yaso> antoine: right now it belongs to one dimension
14:01:21 <yaso> ... imagine that uptime could be a metric for availability
14:01:40 <RiccardoAlbertoni> q-
14:01:40 <BernadetteLoscio> antoine: I can't find dqv:qualityAssessement in the model
14:01:52 <deirdrelee> ack jerdeb
14:01:52 <Zakim> jerdeb, you wanted to clarify
14:02:10 <Giancarlo_Guizzardi> q+
14:02:13 <yaso> jerdeb: a dimension is made of many metrics
14:02:24 <antoine> BernadetteLoscio: yes the idea is that we've resolved to add it
14:02:35 <yaso> Giancarlo_Guizzardi: then I would change the description in the document
14:02:45 <yaso> ... it is a bit confusing
14:02:57 <antoine> yes the wording with "unit" is confusing
14:03:12 <phila> s/antoine: I can/antoine - I can/
14:03:19 <nandana> DAQ diagram -> http://butterbur04.iai.uni-bonn.de/ontologies/daq/daq#_introduction
14:03:24 <RiccardoAlbertoni> q+
14:03:25 <BernadetteLoscio> antoine: ok! sorry :)
14:03:27 <phila> s/BernadetteLoscio: yes the idea/BernadetteLoscio - yes the idea/
14:03:39 <deirdrelee> ack Giancarlo_Guizzardi
14:04:13 <phila> s/antoine: ok! sorr/antoine - ok! sorr/
14:04:14 <deirdrelee> ack RiccardoAlbertoni
14:04:29 <yaso> RiccardoAlbertoni: I was wondering if Giancarlo_Guizzardi can write the definition that he suggested
14:05:16 <Gisele> RiccardoAlbertoni: we are closig the issue and keeping the constraints
14:05:18 <antoine> -1
14:05:19 <jerdeb> q+
14:05:24 <Giancarlo_Guizzardi> A Metric is not a unit of measuring. An Observation (QualityMeasure) assigns a value in a given unit to a Metric
14:05:43 <RiccardoAlbertoni> q+
14:06:08 <Gisele> jerdeb: I suggest that we use these constraints and propose to provide guidelines
14:06:22 <Gisele> ... I believe we should keep than as guidelines but not formally constrain them
14:06:33 <antoine> jerdeb++ it's really great that you've consulted with colleagues!
14:06:36 <Gisele> ... we should still provide guidelines
14:06:39 <nandana> +1 to jerdeb
14:06:48 <phila> +1
14:07:06 <Gisele> deirdrelee: that would mean that the concepts we use would have no constraints but only guidelines
14:07:08 <Giancarlo_Guizzardi> I meant "Unit of Measurement" instead of "unit of measuring" (although DQV mentions "unit of measuring")
14:07:39 <phila> q+ to ask if a metric is a slice
14:07:52 <RiccardoAlbertoni> q-
14:08:04 <deirdrelee> ack jerdeb
14:08:06 <deirdrelee> ack phila
14:08:06 <Zakim> phila, you wanted to ask if a metric is a slice
14:08:30 <Gisele> phila: aguideline is a slice thourgh a hypercube
14:08:50 <nandana> s/hypercube/datacube/
14:08:53 <Gisele> ..i'trying to match what  are saying with my knoeldge on data cube
14:09:14 <Gisele> RiccardoAlbertoni: we can have slices from multiple observation but im not sure
14:09:39 <Giancarlo_Guizzardi> q+
14:09:50 <Gisele> deirdrelee: proposal for issue 187
14:10:16 <RiccardoAlbertoni> s/RiccardoAlbertoni/jerdeb
14:10:19 <ericstephan> ericstephan has joined #dwbp
14:10:27 <cgueret> cgueret has joined #dwbp
14:10:34 <deirdrelee> PROPOSED: Don't keep the constraints from DAQ but provide guidelines
14:10:44 <ericstephan> good morning phila :-)
14:10:44 <deirdrelee> +1
14:10:46 <BernadetteLoscio> Hi Eric! :)
14:10:47 <antoine> +1
14:10:50 <phila> +1 Noting that DAQ is moving in the same direction
14:10:51 <Seiji> +1
14:10:51 <nandana> +1
14:10:53 <Gisele> +1
14:10:57 <yaso> q?
14:10:58 <RiccardoAlbertoni> +1
14:11:04 <laufer> +1
14:11:07 <ericstephan> ericstephan present+
14:11:08 <adrianov> +1
14:11:13 <jerdeb> +1 (will remove constraints from daQ as well)
14:11:28 <yaso> Giancarlo_Guizzardi: what do we mean by "provide guidelines"
14:11:44 <deirdrelee> RESOLVED: Don't keep the constraints from DAQ but provide guidelines
14:11:54 <yaso> close issue-187
14:11:54 <trackbot> Closed issue-187.
14:12:02 <yaso> issue-189
14:12:02 <trackbot> issue-189 -- Aether VoID extension uses a different from the pattern that DQV inherits from DAQ -- open
14:12:02 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/189
14:12:10 <deirdrelee> ack Gisele
14:12:13 <deirdrelee> ack Giancarlo_Guizzardi
14:12:26 <BartvanLeeuwen> BartvanLeeuwen has joined #dwbp
14:13:52 <yaso> Giancarlo_Guizzardi: we could have a uniform threatment of this part of the model. So I was wondering if we are going to have a discussion on this, or it will be discussed my email.. It's a general question
14:14:07 <deirdrelee> s/threatment/treatment
14:14:15 <yaso> ... there's a lot of work here that we could use, there's a lot o discussions here
14:14:42 <yaso> q?
14:15:07 <Giancarlo_Guizzardi> Ok. Thanks
14:15:43 <deirdrelee> issue-189
14:15:43 <trackbot> issue-189 -- Aether VoID extension uses a different from the pattern that DQV inherits from DAQ -- open
14:15:43 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/189
14:16:51 <yaso> antoine: in our patter for measure on the quality of datasets there will be a connexion between
14:18:27 <RiccardoAlbertoni> to phila http://jiemakel.github.io/aether/#/
14:19:22 <yaso> ... the question is if we are comfortable with a more complex proposal and if we should try to reflex this in the document
14:19:39 <phila> q+
14:19:39 <deirdrelee> q?
14:19:42 <RiccardoAlbertoni> q+
14:19:47 <yaso> s/reflex/reflect/
14:19:52 <deirdrelee> ack phila
14:21:02 <antoine> q+
14:21:21 <BernadetteLoscio> BernadetteLoscio has joined #dwbp
14:21:32 <BernadetteLoscio> present+ BernadetteLoscio
14:21:45 <nandana> q+ to say Aether is more about statistics and DAQ is more about quality
14:21:46 <Giancarlo_Guizzardi> A known proposal in the subject actually comes from VU: http://www.semantic-web-journal.net/sites/default/files/swj177_7.pdf
14:22:38 <antoine> can I try to re-phrase the problem?
14:23:56 <deirdrelee> ack RiccardoAlbertoni
14:24:12 <yaso> ack antoine
14:24:33 <antoine> <http://data.europeana.eu/void/Dataset>         <http://ldf.fi/void-ext#averageLiteralLength>                 "62,014"^^<http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#decimal> ;
14:25:03 <Giancarlo_Guizzardi> Other relevant references are: http://www.qudt.org, https://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=quomos. We also did some work on that which could be relevant: http://www.inf.ufes.br/~gguizzardi/PID2733627.pdf and http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1301/ontocomodise2014_9.pdf
14:25:37 <nandana> q-
14:26:01 <RiccardoAlbertoni> q+
14:26:39 <phila> q+ to make a suggestion
14:26:42 <yaso> antoine: this about it and decide if this is something that we are comfortable with
14:26:55 <phila> scribe: Giancarlo_Guizzardi
14:27:28 <deirdrelee> ack RiccardoAlbertoni
14:28:58 <Giancarlo_Guizzardi> RicardoAltertoni mentions that we need some of this complexity in the proposal but he also thinks that Antoin is right in advocating a simple way of representing statistics
14:29:26 <nandana> +1 to RiccardoAlbertoni. we might start with Aether but end up again something similar to DAQ if we want to represent the all the information to that we represent now
14:29:28 <laufer> q+
14:29:34 <Seiji> q+
14:30:08 <deirdrelee> ack phila
14:30:08 <Zakim> phila, you wanted to make a suggestion
14:31:35 <RiccardoAlbertoni> +1 to jerdeb
14:31:55 <RiccardoAlbertoni> q+
14:32:09 <Seiji> q-
14:33:12 <phila> phila: I asked whether it might be possible to treat Aether VoID as a quality meansure within DQV, or use a CONSTRUCT query to convert from one to the other. The answer was no.
14:33:18 <Giancarlo_Guizzardi> laufer, DQV is a way to besides the quality of the data, it semantically describes the data
14:33:21 <deirdrelee> laufer: trying to understand issue. i think that dqv is a way of as well as describin quality data, we describe the semanticcs
14:33:41 <deirdrelee> ... void is description of the data,not the semantics of the informaiton. so void and dqv are two differnet things
14:33:52 <deirdrelee> ... it is more complicated to describe the semantics ofthe data
14:33:53 <RiccardoAlbertoni> +1 to laufer
14:33:58 <Giancarlo_Guizzardi> laufer, these are two separate things. Describing the semantics of the quality of the data is more complicated but it is a more general model
14:33:59 <jerdeb> jerdeb: re transform Aether to daQ -> no this cannot happen because we do not know any quality information about the aether property, such as category and dimension which are important to daQ
14:34:00 <deirdrelee> q?
14:34:04 <deirdrelee> ack laufer
14:34:05 <antoine> q+
14:34:23 <deirdrelee> ... dav is a simpler model, but they don't have semantics
14:34:51 <Giancarlo_Guizzardi> riccardo, once you have described your property with DAQ, it is possible to serialized it Aether but not the other way around
14:34:57 <deirdrelee> RiccardoAlbertoni: it is difficult to erialise the results in the header as daq is more complex
14:35:09 <Giancarlo_Guizzardi> riccardo, the bridge can only be done in one direction
14:35:14 <deirdrelee> q?
14:35:18 <deirdrelee> ack RiccardoAlbertoni
14:35:46 <deirdrelee> antoine: it's not that the void extension has not semantics. the semantics are in the properties
14:35:51 <Giancarlo_Guizzardi> antoin, it's not that the VoiD extension has no semantics.
14:35:52 <nandana> s/riccardo,/RiccardoAlbertoni:/
14:36:01 <deirdrelee> ... the semantics are not positions as a quality metric
14:36:16 <deirdrelee> ... we feel as a group not satisfied, that we're missing something
14:36:39 <deirdrelee> ... it must be possible to express these simple triples
14:37:17 <deirdrelee> laufer: agree we have semantics in the properties, but in dqv in the description there will be semantics, a more sophisticated way
14:37:19 <deirdrelee> q?
14:37:26 <deirdrelee> ack antoine
14:37:26 <phila> ack antoine
14:37:42 <Giancarlo_Guizzardi> antoine: we seem to be calling semantics different things
14:38:34 <phila> issue-189?
14:38:34 <trackbot> issue-189 -- Aether VoID extension uses a different from the pattern that DQV inherits from DAQ -- open
14:38:34 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/189
14:38:35 <deirdrelee> ... we don't really have the means to find out they're about quality, they're just properties. dqv provides a framework that facilitates interoperability
14:38:50 <deirdrelee> deirdrelee: make a specific proposal around issue-189
14:39:57 <deirdrelee> RiccardoAlbertoni: proposal, keep dqv as it is,provide guidance on how to convert daq to aether void
14:40:39 <phila> q+
14:40:49 <deirdrelee> antoine: we should have this for market adoption
14:41:04 <deirdrelee> phila: i've been looking at aether, i'm happy to say we keep dqv as it is
14:42:07 <deirdrelee> ... they're not antagonistic, we can extend dqv with aether, there are lots of other things that you could say about the dataset, not necessary to include
14:42:10 <deirdrelee> q?
14:42:12 <deirdrelee> ack phila
14:42:56 <RiccardoAlbertoni> q+
14:42:58 <deirdrelee> antoine: really have doubts about it. i'm in a community where they'll look at vocab like aether and say this is quality
14:43:08 <phila> phila: That makes it sounds as if I don't like Aether voID - it looks very interesting. I just don't think it's necessarily something we should feel obliged to move towards/include as an example
14:43:14 <RiccardoAlbertoni> q-
14:43:25 <deirdrelee> ... agree not all statistics are relevant for quality, but would like us to be stronger about
14:43:39 <phila> PROPOSED: keep dqv as it is, provide guidance on how to convert daq to aether void
14:43:45 <laufer> q+
14:43:50 <phila> ack l
14:44:20 <antoine> q+
14:44:22 <phila> phila has changed the topic to: Agenda: https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Sao_Paulo#Agenda WebEx: https://mit.webex.com/mit/j.php?MTID=m2c0af451188e3c2177f8d56453c588e9
14:44:22 <RiccardoAlbertoni> q+
14:44:44 <phila> phila has changed the topic to: Agenda: https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Sao_Paulo#Agenda WebEx: https://mit.webex.com/mit/j.php?MTID=me0913a1d1a11424af2809d6256da43aa
14:44:56 <RiccardoAlbertoni> q-
14:45:04 <deirdrelee> antoine: in my community this is important
14:45:14 <phila> q- an
14:45:23 <deirdrelee> PROPOSED: keep dqv as it is, provide guidance on how to convert daq to aether void
14:45:26 <jerdeb> -1 (because there are other ontologies like aether, such as lodstats)
14:45:27 <phila> +1
14:45:37 <laufer> -1
14:45:41 <antoine> +1
14:45:43 <ericstephan> +1
14:45:44 <deirdrelee> 0
14:45:44 <PeterWinstanley_> +1
14:45:44 <Seiji> +1
14:45:47 <Giancarlo_Guizzardi> 0
14:45:52 <antoine> q+
14:45:53 <Caroline_> +1
14:45:56 <RiccardoAlbertoni> +1
14:45:56 <Gisele> 0
14:45:57 <RiccardoAlbertoni> q+
14:47:15 <deirdrelee> anthoine: it doesn't have to be aether
14:47:16 <deirdrelee> PROPOSED: keep dqv as it is, provide guidance on how to convert daq to another quality statistics vocabulary
14:47:20 <laufer> +1
14:47:21 <Seiji> +1
14:47:22 <nandana> +1
14:47:25 <jerdeb> +1
14:47:40 <Giancarlo_Guizzardi> +1
14:47:44 <adrianov> +1
14:47:47 <antoine> +1 to "work with"
14:47:50 <Caroline_> +1
14:47:56 <ericstephan> +1
14:47:58 <RiccardoAlbertoni> +1
14:48:06 <deirdrelee> PROPOSED: keep dqv as it is, provide guidance on how daq can work with another quality statistics vocabulary
14:48:12 <Giancarlo_Guizzardi> +1
14:48:12 <phila> +1
14:48:14 <deirdrelee> +1
14:48:15 <Gisele> +1
14:48:16 <laufer> +1
14:48:17 <jerdeb> +1
14:48:18 <adrianov> +1
14:48:20 <Seiji> +1
14:48:20 <RiccardoAlbertoni> +1
14:48:20 <Caroline_> +1
14:48:21 <deirdrelee> RESOLVED: keep dqv as it is, provide guidance on how daq can work with another quality statistics vocabulary
14:48:25 <nandana> _1
14:48:29 <nandana> +1
14:48:31 <ericstephan> ++++++++++++++++++1
14:48:37 <deirdrelee> close issue-189
14:48:37 <phila> RESOLUTION: keep dqv as it is, provide guidance on how daq can work with another quality statistics vocabulary
14:48:40 <trackbot> Closed issue-189.
14:48:52 <deirdrelee> issue-164
14:48:52 <trackbot> issue-164 -- Are statistics about a dataset a kind of quality info we need to include in the data quality vocabulary? -- open
14:48:52 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/164
14:48:56 <phila> RRSAgent, draft minutes
14:48:56 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/09/24-dwbp-minutes.html phila
14:49:01 <RiccardoAlbertoni> yeah , let's close it
14:49:12 <phila> I think we just resolved that issue
14:49:26 <deirdrelee> antoine: proposal is we agree that some statistics may be relevant for expressing data quality
14:49:38 <deirdrelee> ... after resolution for issue-189, we should have examples
14:50:32 <phila> PROPOSE: Close Issue 164 as previous proposal covers it
14:50:43 <phila> PROPOSE: Close Issue 164 as previous resolution covers it
14:51:16 <deirdrelee> +1
14:51:18 <BernadetteLoscio> +1
14:51:19 <phila> +1
14:51:20 <Seiji> +1
14:51:21 <laufer> +1
14:51:24 <antoine> +1
14:51:26 <RiccardoAlbertoni> +1
14:51:26 <phila> RRSAgent, draft minutes
14:51:26 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/09/24-dwbp-minutes.html phila
14:51:27 <adrianov> +1
14:51:27 <ericstephan> +1
14:51:28 <newtoncalegari> +1
14:51:33 <Giancarlo_Guizzardi> +1
14:51:42 <nandana> +1
14:51:42 <deirdrelee> RESOLVED: Close Issue 164 as previous resolution covers it
14:53:07 <Caroline_> https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/153
14:53:08 <deirdrelee> action-153
14:53:08 <trackbot> action-153 -- Antoine Isaac to Look at completeness as one of the quality dimensions -- due 2015-04-20 -- OPEN
14:53:08 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/153
14:53:54 <deirdrelee> RiccardoAlbertoni: the discussion in the mailing list says that completeness is an example of one ofthe quality dimensions
14:53:58 <jerdeb> q+
14:54:15 <deirdrelee> ack antoine
14:54:17 <deirdrelee> ack RiccardoAlbertoni
14:54:19 <deirdrelee> ack jerdeb
14:54:41 <deirdrelee> jerdeb: agree that completeness should be a dimension. how can we measure this as linked data?
14:54:45 <deirdrelee> ... open world assumptions
14:55:06 <antoine> q+
14:55:06 <deirdrelee> RiccardoAlbertoni: we have to assume closed world to measure completeness
14:55:23 <deirdrelee> jerdeb: that's one of the main problems i'm having, difficult to measure
14:55:48 <phila> q+ to talk about RDF Data Shapes
14:56:00 <deirdrelee> antoine: some more info on this aciton. like RiccardoAlbertoni  said, completeness is important to measure, but didn't receive much feedback
14:56:18 <deirdrelee> ... asked for specific feedback on completeness but didn't get any
14:56:32 <deirdrelee> ... similar to statistics, used this as a proxy for completeness
14:56:44 <deirdrelee> ... if you are keen for completeness, please send examples
14:57:17 <deirdrelee> phila: one of the reasons i don't like using dcterms:conformsto is that ?
14:57:58 <deirdrelee> ... there are various things that you could point to something that defines what complete meants
14:58:34 <deirdrelee> RiccardoAlbertoni: there are some situation that the closed world assumptoin works fine, and we would like the opportunity to say something about it
14:58:51 <phila> phila: I was saying that one quality description could be that the dataset matches a spedcific profile, such as DCAT-AP, or maybe point to a SHACL description (http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/)
15:00:05 <jerdeb> q+
15:00:05 <RiccardoAlbertoni> q+
15:00:20 <phila> q-
15:00:22 <deirdrelee> phila: it could even be a description in a pdf. as long as you say it conforms to, e.g. to say that ckan dcat export
15:00:25 <antoine> q-
15:00:29 <deirdrelee> ack antoine
15:00:30 <deirdrelee> ack jerdeb
15:00:39 <jerdeb> q+
15:00:40 <deirdrelee> ack RiccardoAlbertoni
15:01:11 <deirdrelee> RiccardoAlbertoni: we are thinking about different kind of completeness. the one i'm talking about is the one in the linked data survey
15:01:14 <jerdeb> q-
15:01:28 <deirdrelee> ... being compliant to a certain profile
15:02:17 <phila> PROPOSED: That we include completeness as a quality metric. That can be defined in any way that puts boundaries around what the data should contain.
15:02:17 <nandana> +1 for including completeness dimension and asking for concrete metrics and examples.
15:02:59 <phila> PROPOSED: That we include completeness as a quality dimension. That can be defined in any way that puts boundaries around what the data should contain.
15:03:11 <phila> PROPOSED: That we include completeness as a quality dimension. That can be defined in any way that puts boundaries around what the data should contain, closes the world etc.
15:03:30 <BernadetteLoscio> +1
15:03:36 <Seiji> +1
15:03:37 <Giancarlo_Guizzardi> +1
15:03:37 <antoine> +1
15:03:39 <nandana> +1
15:03:41 <RiccardoAlbertoni> +1
15:03:41 <deirdrelee> +1
15:03:43 <Gisele> +1
15:03:43 <phila> +1
15:03:43 <laufer> +1
15:03:43 <Caroline_> +1
15:03:45 <ericstephan> +1
15:03:56 <phila> RESOLVED: That we include completeness as a quality dimension. That can be defined in any way that puts boundaries around what the data should contain, closes the world etc.
15:04:00 <phila> RESOLUTION: That we include completeness as a quality dimension. That can be defined in any way that puts boundaries around what the data should contain, closes the world etc.
15:04:05 <jerdeb> +1 if we have specific examples for population completeness and schema completeness
15:04:20 <phila> close issue-153
15:04:20 <trackbot> Closed issue-153.
15:04:47 <RiccardoAlbertoni> yeah it was very useful ..
15:06:44 <antoine> Thanks everyone!!!
15:06:50 <phila> == Lunch ==
15:07:01 <BernadetteLoscio> Thanks!
15:07:04 <laufer> Thank antoine, riccardo
15:07:08 <phila> close action-153
15:07:08 <trackbot> Closed action-153.
15:07:26 <jerdeb> sorry but need to leave now. will join you again tomorrow morning (afternoon here in germany)
15:07:29 <deirdrelee> close-164
15:07:36 <deirdrelee> close issue-164
15:07:37 <trackbot> Closed issue-164.
15:07:41 <RiccardoAlbertoni> enjoy the lunch!
15:08:00 <deirdrelee> q?
15:18:45 <newtoncalegari> newtoncalegari has joined #dwbp
15:20:28 <newtonca_> newtonca_ has joined #dwbp
15:41:41 <phila> phila has joined #dwbp
15:45:10 <newtoncalegari> newtoncalegari has joined #dwbp
15:56:48 <deirdrelee> ok, let's get back...
16:00:04 <newtoncalegari> Let's go
16:00:21 <RiccardoAlbertoni> yeah.. I am on webex
16:00:28 <yaso> yaso has joined #dwbp
16:00:33 <yaso> present+ yaso
16:01:42 <deirdrelee> https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/F2F_S%C3%A3o_Paulo_-_Agenda_Proposal_DWBP
16:01:46 <newtoncalegari> yaso: starting the meeting with BP agenda
16:01:46 <yaso> https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Sao_Paulo#Agenda
16:01:56 <deirdrelee> scribe: newtoncalegari
16:02:01 <Giancarlo_Guizzardi> Giancarlo_Guizzardi has joined #DWBP
16:02:46 <yaso> ISSUE-137
16:02:46 <trackbot> ISSUE-137 -- Review BP Preserve person's right to privacy -- open
16:02:46 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/137
16:02:54 <AdrianoCesar-InWeb> AdrianoCesar-InWeb has joined #dwbp
16:03:03 <newtoncalegari> yaso: issue-137 about privacy
16:03:04 <BernadetteLoscio> q+
16:03:25 <yaso> ack BernadetteLoscio
16:03:48 <newtoncalegari> BernadetteLoscio: during the last F2F we had a discussion about privacy
16:03:49 <deirdrelee> BP Editor's draft: http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html
16:03:58 <newtoncalegari> ... and we raised some issues
16:04:12 <newtoncalegari> ... now we need to decide what we gonna do
16:04:28 <newtoncalegari> ... hadleybeeman was not sure if we will talk about privacy
16:04:50 <yaso> http://bernafarias.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#PreservePrivacy
16:04:50 <newtoncalegari> ... so, there is this action to rewrite the BP. but we need to discuss what we need to do
16:05:13 <newtoncalegari> ... to rewrite, keep it as it is, or discontinue..
16:05:36 <newtoncalegari> ... the discussion in the end of last f2f was not clear if we should have a BP like this, about privacy
16:05:38 <yaso> q?
16:05:45 <phila> q+
16:05:49 <newtoncalegari> ... what we should do with this section?
16:05:50 <Vagner_br> Vagner_br has joined #dwbp
16:05:52 <yaso> ack phila
16:06:18 <newtoncalegari> phila: yes, hadleybeeman make the point that it's not technical
16:06:39 <phila> It is clearly essential that individuals' privacy is respected. This means that Personally Identifiable Information needs to be handled according to policies and procedures that reflect the local jurisdictional context and it is therefore beyond the scope of this document to make specific recommendations on this topic.
16:06:45 <newtoncalegari> ... makx suggested that we put some text in the introduction
16:06:59 <ericstephan> q+
16:07:08 <newtoncalegari> ... we can potential link to some definition
16:07:23 <yaso> ericstephan,
16:07:23 <newtoncalegari> ... the scope is policy and law, and it's not in the technical scope
16:07:26 <yaso> ack ericstephan
16:07:32 <Gisele> Gisele has joined #dwbp
16:08:07 <phila> -> http://www.w3.org/mid/006801d0c9f8%2524bc2750f0%25243475f2d0%2524%2540makxdekkers.com Makx's comment
16:08:07 <newtoncalegari> ericstephan: phila is propposing to take this out of the BPs, and put it in another section
16:08:14 <Caroline> Caroline has joined #DWBP
16:08:27 <newtoncalegari> ... it could be in a section called "Assumptions"
16:08:37 <yaso> q?
16:08:40 <phila> ericstephan: Perhaps we could have a section called 'Assumptions' - i.e. things that we recognise as being important but that are out of scope.
16:09:02 <newtoncalegari> yaso: there are challenges in the Use Cases and this challenge is out of the scope
16:09:09 <PeterWinstanley_> q+
16:09:14 <BernadetteLoscio> q+
16:09:16 <deirdrelee> BP 20q+
16:09:20 <deirdrelee> q+
16:09:21 <newtoncalegari> phila: we can't in a Technical document say "you should follow the law"
16:09:46 <yaso> ack PeterWinstanley_
16:09:51 <Caroline> Present+ Caroline
16:10:22 <yaso> ack BernadetteLoscio
16:10:25 <phila> Principles/assumptions - I;m OK wth either
16:10:46 <laufer> q+
16:10:50 <newtoncalegari> (someone could help me with Peter speech?)
16:12:10 <newtoncalegari> BernadetteLoscio: we can add some links appoint to this issue of Sensitive Data
16:12:25 <newtoncalegari> yaso: is there any way to ask to other groups to deal with it?
16:12:28 <Caroline> q+
16:12:53 <yaso> ack deirdrelee
16:13:03 <newtoncalegari> phila: dealing with this issue is different of using dublin core, or vocabs
16:13:05 <phila> Peter was saying that in Enterprise Architectures often begin with a bunch or principles
16:13:48 <newtoncalegari> deirdrelee: there is a technical element on saying to share, integrate, publish datasets
16:13:55 <Giancarlo_Guizzardi> q+
16:14:04 <Caroline> +1 to deirdrelee
16:14:21 <yaso> q?
16:14:22 <Caroline> to put in the BP document
16:14:26 <yaso> ack laufer
16:14:54 <newtoncalegari> laufer: the ideia of a paragraph is interesting to clarify people there is a law to deal with it
16:15:09 <BernadetteLoscio> q+
16:15:47 <BernadetteLoscio> q-
16:15:47 <yaso> ack Caroline
16:15:53 <newtoncalegari> ... we don't need to have a BP about it, the paragraph is enough
16:16:06 <newtoncalegari> Caroline: BernadetteLoscio and I discussed about it
16:16:29 <newtoncalegari> ... if we don't keep it as a BP, it's important to say something about this topic
16:16:47 <newtoncalegari> ... say that this topic is broader than other BPs
16:17:12 <newtoncalegari> ... I Agree with Deirdre on point about this in the Document
16:17:13 <yaso> q?
16:17:17 <deirdrelee> q+
16:17:21 <yaso> ack Giancarlo_Guizzardi
16:17:28 <newtoncalegari> Giancarlo_Guizzardi: I agree
16:17:33 <newtoncalegari> ... but it's very complicated
16:17:59 <newtoncalegari> ... this seems to be also related to one aspect of quality
16:18:45 <yaso> ack deirdrelee
16:18:51 <newtoncalegari> ... this is related with conformance
16:19:27 <BernadetteLoscio> q+
16:19:30 <newtoncalegari> deirdrelee: if you classify a dataset, you can say some terms are commercial, others sensitivity
16:19:30 <Giancarlo_Guizzardi> q+
16:19:42 <yaso> ack BernadetteLoscio
16:19:47 <newtoncalegari> ... maybe if we provide a classification for the dataset
16:20:03 <newtoncalegari> BernadetteLoscio: it's quite similar of what laufer propposed
16:20:25 <Giancarlo_Guizzardi> q-
16:20:43 <deirdrelee> q+
16:20:54 <yaso> ack deirdrelee
16:20:56 <newtoncalegari> BernadetteLoscio: if we have a proporty to describe of classify a dataset, maybe it could be a part of the dataset description
16:21:06 <yaso> q?
16:21:16 <newtoncalegari> deirdrelee: but it could be not only human-readable
16:21:20 <antoine> http://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-dcat/#classifying-datasets ?
16:21:23 <Giancarlo_Guizzardi> q+
16:21:26 <newtoncalegari> ... need to be machine readable
16:21:40 <newtoncalegari> yaso: I don't think we don't have to try to classify
16:22:03 <phila> q+ to talk about traffic lights
16:22:04 <BernadetteLoscio> q+
16:22:13 <newtoncalegari> ... it's not only technical
16:22:14 <Giancarlo_Guizzardi> q-
16:22:35 <phila> q-
16:22:39 <Seiji> q+
16:22:41 <yaso> ack phila
16:22:50 <newtoncalegari> ... I'm in favor of keep as a note and maybe other group to talk about Privacy
16:23:01 <PeterWinstanley> PeterWinstanley has joined #dwbp
16:23:03 <newtoncalegari> phila: they classify datasets
16:23:33 <yaso> q?
16:23:37 <yaso> ack BernadetteLoscio
16:23:40 <phila> s/they classify/Norway classifies/
16:23:55 <newtoncalegari> BernadetteLoscio: I think the idea of having an extra metadata to describe this kind of information could be nice
16:25:07 <newtoncalegari> yaso: for instance, if facebook has an API and I get data from my friends. but suddenly facebook closes the API, and I can't get my data anymore
16:25:20 <newtoncalegari> ... is this data public? sensitive?
16:25:40 <WagnerMeiraJr> q+
16:25:55 <newtoncalegari> yaso: for me it's hard to do that, to classify datasets in that way
16:26:31 <yaso> q?
16:26:35 <deirdrelee> q+ to say gov already classify docs as open, confidential, secure, etc
16:26:37 <yaso> ack Seiji
16:26:49 <newtoncalegari> Seiji: I think we can have an agreement among those ideas
16:26:59 <phila> present+ Seiji, WagnerMeiraJr, ericstephan
16:27:13 <newtoncalegari> ... in the Draf there is not section called "Policy"
16:27:45 <phila> q+ hadleybeeman
16:27:49 <yaso> ack WagnerMeiraJr
16:28:07 <newtoncalegari> WagnerMeiraJr: I believe it's important to make a difference between what is Ethical and what is Illiegal
16:28:28 <ericstephan> q+
16:28:33 <Makx> Makx has joined #dwbp
16:28:57 <newtoncalegari> ... each provider usually have different rules
16:29:45 <newtoncalegari> ... it's in our scope to discuss in a BP doc what is illegal or not (???)
16:30:03 <yaso> q?
16:30:42 <newtoncalegari> ... data is in some sense public
16:30:52 <newtoncalegari> ... for instance, the ashley madison web site
16:31:05 <newtoncalegari> ... they had a agreement about privacy
16:31:32 <newtoncalegari> ... but hackers have violated and have gotten the private data
16:31:47 <newtoncalegari> ... the second point is what is illegal?
16:32:15 <newtoncalegari> ... we may recommend that you verify license and terms
16:32:29 <phila> q- hadleybeeman
16:33:01 <yaso> ack deirdrelee
16:33:01 <Zakim> deirdrelee, you wanted to say gov already classify docs as open, confidential, secure, etc
16:33:07 <laufer> q+
16:33:33 <annette_g> annette_g has joined #dwbp
16:33:39 <Caroline> q+
16:34:08 <phila> zakim, close the queue
16:34:08 <Zakim> ok, phila, the speaker queue is closed
16:34:14 <newtoncalegari> deirdrelee: the data is on the Web, you should recommend a license
16:34:22 <yaso> ack ericstephan
16:34:54 <yaso> ack laufer
16:34:59 <newtoncalegari> ericstephan: (??? sorry ericstephan -( )
16:35:22 <newtoncalegari> laufer: the problem is not when you have the data, is when someone access the data
16:35:37 <newtoncalegari> ... you can have the some dataset with different licenses
16:35:42 <ericstephan> I was just mentioning that I agreed with WagnerMeiraJr and mentioned that this was complementary to the way people think of open and closed data
16:35:50 <yaso> ack Caroline
16:36:08 <deirdrelee> possible proposal: Remove BP 20 'Preserve people's right to privacy'. Instead add a note around data protection and linking to other related work
16:36:16 <newtoncalegari> Caroline: I understand we maybe put as a note
16:36:51 <phila> q+ to argue for BP21
16:36:52 <newtoncalegari> BernadetteLoscio: in this case we need to remove the section, 2 BPs and challenge 'Sensitive Data'
16:37:18 <annette_g> q+
16:37:19 <Makx> +1 to remove BP20. there is no universal 'right to privacy'
16:37:20 <newtoncalegari> yaso: I don't know if we can remove the section
16:37:25 <phila> zakim, open the queue
16:37:25 <Zakim> ok, phila, the speaker queue is open
16:37:32 <phila> q+ to argue for BP21
16:37:38 <yaso> ack phila
16:37:38 <Zakim> phila, you wanted to argue for BP21
16:37:40 <annette_g> these are two different questions
16:37:54 <Makx> present+ makx
16:37:55 <newtoncalegari> phila: I agree on removing the BP20
16:38:01 <yaso> q?
16:38:02 <annette_g> present+ annette_g
16:38:07 <newtoncalegari> ... but BP21 we cuold keep
16:38:26 <ericstephan> +1 to keeping BP21
16:38:30 <antoine> +1 Actually BP21 is much more on the technical side of things.
16:38:36 <RiccardoAlbertoni> +1 to phil
16:38:39 <yaso> +1 to keeping 21
16:38:51 <Makx> +1 to keep BP21
16:38:54 <yaso> q?
16:38:59 <newtoncalegari> BernadetteLoscio: but you want to keep the Sesntive Data section, with the BP21 but without BP20?
16:39:14 <newtoncalegari> phila: (you answered yes?)
16:39:23 <newtoncalegari> q+
16:39:46 <yaso> ack newtoncalegari
16:39:50 <Caroline> q+
16:40:09 <deirdrelee> newtoncalegari: should bp21 stay in the sensitive data section or it should be moved?
16:40:20 <newtoncalegari> phila: it's up to the editors :-)
16:40:24 <phila> newtoncalegari: On keeping the BP on Provide data unavailability reference - does that mean keeping the section but with one BP?
16:40:28 <Makx> BP21 has nothing to do with sensitive data
16:40:30 <phila> phila: That's up to the editors
16:40:33 <deirdrelee> q?
16:40:35 <annette_g> q+
16:40:39 <deirdrelee> ack Caroline
16:40:50 <yaso> ack annette_g
16:40:51 <deirdrelee> ack annette_g
16:41:25 <newtoncalegari> annette_g: for BP20, are we going to replace if it's removed?
16:41:25 <Makx> the only thing we can say about BP20 is that data providers should respect applicable laws
16:41:37 <yaso> +1 to Makx
16:41:38 <deirdrelee> q+
16:41:40 <BernadetteLoscio> q+
16:41:52 <yaso> ack deirdrelee
16:42:04 <newtoncalegari> phila: we are agreeing on taking out BP21 but write some notes about the topic
16:42:11 <Caroline> q+
16:42:18 <yaso> ack BernadetteLoscio
16:42:46 <newtoncalegari> BernadetteLoscio: if we keep the section 'Sensitive Data', I think we can't have only the description without a BP
16:42:54 <annette_g> +1 to Bernadette
16:43:13 <newtoncalegari> ... we can keep the BP21, but this BP seems to doesn't fit in the Sensitive Section
16:43:23 <yaso> q?
16:43:27 <newtoncalegari> ... and we need to look for a place for BP21
16:43:37 <newtoncalegari> Caroline: I agree with BernadetteLoscio
16:43:45 <Seiji> +1 to what bernadette said
16:43:47 <newtoncalegari> ... maybe BP21 fits in Data Preservation section
16:44:10 <newtoncalegari> ... and the text of BP20 will be transformed in a note
16:44:21 <deirdrelee> q+
16:44:23 <annette_g> q+
16:44:59 <newtoncalegari> yaso: we need to let people know Sensitve Data is a challenge, and I think we can keep the section
16:45:04 <Caroline> +1 to yaso that privacy is a challenge important to be mentioned
16:45:21 <yaso> ack Caroline
16:45:45 <newtoncalegari> BernadetteLoscio: Ok. It can be a challenge, but no in the scope of this document, and I don't agree on having a section like others, but without any BP
16:45:56 <yaso> ack deirdrelee
16:46:02 <newtoncalegari> deirdrelee: two counter suggestions
16:46:31 <Caroline> Caroline: the editors may make the change on Sensitive data and send to the group
16:46:48 <yaso> q?
16:47:07 <yaso> Ack annette_g
16:47:22 <newtoncalegari> annette_g: maybe we can rewrite the BP
16:47:53 <yaso> q?
16:48:08 <newtoncalegari> ... we need to consider those issues
16:48:31 <newtoncalegari> PROPOSAL: removing BP20 - Preserve people's right to privacy
16:48:34 <phila> PROPOSED: That the Best practice on Preserve people's right to privacy be removed and replaced by a suitable note/paragraph
16:48:38 <annette_g> removing and replacing by a note are two different issues
16:48:40 <yaso> +1
16:48:42 <Makx> +1
16:48:45 <annette_g> 0
16:48:46 <Caroline> +1
16:48:48 <AdrianoCesar-InWeb> +1
16:48:50 <BernadetteLoscio> +1
16:48:54 <BernadetteLoscio> +1
16:48:54 <newtoncalegari> +1
16:48:55 <Seiji> +1
16:48:55 <Gisele> +1
16:49:02 <ericstephan> +1
16:49:06 <deirdrelee> +1
16:49:11 <nandana> +1
16:49:30 <newtoncalegari> annette_g: I think it should a BP
16:49:31 <deirdrelee> q+
16:49:38 <Caroline> +q
16:49:49 <yaso> ack deirdrelee
16:49:53 <newtoncalegari> ... agree on removing BP20, but put another BP in the empty place (??? is that right, annette_g? )
16:50:10 <newtoncalegari> phila: writing a draft proposal
16:50:11 <phila> Draft proposal -  That the Best practice on Preserve people's right to privacy be removed
16:50:27 <annette_g> * :)*
16:50:30 <phila> Draft proposal that the section on sensitive data be reviewed in the broader scope of the doc
16:50:50 <phila> draft proposal - that privacy is an important issue and we shouold say something, even if it is only "think about this stuff"
16:51:22 <phila> PROPOSED: That the Best practice on Preserve People's Right to privacy be removed
16:51:26 <yaso> +1
16:51:31 <Makx> +1
16:51:31 <annette_g> +1
16:51:31 <newtoncalegari> +1
16:51:33 <Caroline> +1
16:51:34 <RiccardoAlbertoni> +1
16:51:36 <Seiji> +1
16:51:43 <phila> +1
16:51:53 <ericstephan> +1
16:52:04 <newtoncalegari> BernadetteLoscio: Editors will review the Senstive Data section
16:52:17 <phila> PROPOSED: That the section on sensitive data be reviewed in the broader scope of the document
16:52:23 <BernadetteLoscio> +1
16:52:27 <Makx> +1
16:52:30 <newtoncalegari> +1
16:52:33 <laufer> +1
16:52:33 <phila> +1
16:52:33 <Gisele> +1
16:52:33 <deirdrelee> +1
16:52:35 <Seiji> +1
16:52:35 <Caroline> +1
16:52:38 <BernadetteLoscio> +1
16:52:38 <annette_g> +1
16:52:41 <AdrianoCesar-InWeb> +1
16:52:51 <phila> RESOLVED: That the Best practice on Preserve People's Right to privacy be removed
16:52:51 <yaso> newtoncalegari, Draft proposal -  That the Best practice on Preserve people's right to privacy be removed
16:52:58 <phila> RESOLUTION: That the Best practice on Preserve People's Right to privacy be removed
16:53:07 <phila> RESOLVED: That the section on sensitive data be reviewed in the broader scope of the document
16:53:15 <phila> RESOLUTION: That the section on sensitive data be reviewed in the broader scope of the document
16:53:33 <phila> close action-164
16:53:33 <trackbot> Closed action-164.
16:53:39 <phila> close action-166
16:53:40 <trackbot> Closed action-166.
16:53:47 <phila> close issue-137
16:53:47 <trackbot> Closed issue-137.
16:54:45 <BernadetteLoscio> bye bye! thanks!
16:54:56 <annette_g> * closed instead of close? *
16:54:59 <yaso> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/166
16:55:07 <yaso> issue-166
16:55:07 <trackbot> issue-166 -- Should the data vocabularies section be removed? -- open
16:55:07 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/166
16:55:08 <newtoncalegari> yaso: we're going to discuss about the issue-166
16:55:36 <newtoncalegari> BernadetteLoscio: there is an ongoing discussion about this section
16:55:46 <newtoncalegari> ... on removing or not the vocabularies section
16:56:15 <annette_g> * oops, didn't see the whole interaction w/trackbot *
16:56:29 <newtoncalegari> ... in this section we have more BPs related on publishing vocabularies, and only one on using vocabularies
16:56:35 <yaso> q?
16:56:45 <Caroline> q-
16:56:52 <newtoncalegari> ... there is a discussion if we should have BP for publishing vocabularies or not
16:56:56 <RiccardoAlbertoni> bye nandana !
16:57:22 <newtoncalegari> ... I discussed by email with antoine, we had some agreements, but we want know if the group agrees on keeping the section or not
16:57:26 <yaso> q?
16:57:45 <laufer> q+
16:57:51 <yaso> ack laufer
16:58:13 <newtoncalegari> laufer: when you say to remove the section, we need to remove the BPs of the section?
16:58:15 <antoine> this is a fair account, BernadetteLoscio
16:58:53 <newtoncalegari> BernadetteLoscio: no. antoine and I have agreed on keep the section, but it's not about the vocabulary creation, but it's vocabulary publication
16:59:01 <antoine> also about re-use
16:59:02 <Seiji> +1 keep the section
16:59:04 <laufer> q+
16:59:26 <newtoncalegari> BernadetteLoscio: not sure if BP14 should be there
16:59:53 <yaso> ack laufer
17:00:11 <newtoncalegari> laufer: I don't think BP14 is equal to the 'Re-use vocabularies'
17:00:39 <RiccardoAlbertoni> q+
17:00:46 <yaso> laufer has a point
17:00:48 <antoine> q+
17:00:50 <newtoncalegari> ... for me vocabulary is a kind of dataset
17:00:57 <yaso> ack RiccardoAlbertoni
17:01:55 <annette_g> examples?
17:02:03 <yaso> q?
17:02:06 <Giancarlo_Guizzardi> q+
17:02:18 <newtoncalegari> laufer: we can't deal with vocabulary like a special kind of dataset
17:02:26 <yaso> ack antoine
17:02:30 <newtoncalegari> q+
17:03:08 <newtoncalegari> antoine: I disagree with laufer
17:03:09 <annette_g> +! that these are not datasets
17:03:12 <deirdrelee> +1
17:03:30 <newtoncalegari> scribe: Caroline
17:03:50 <deirdrelee> q?
17:03:55 <newtoncalegari> q-
17:04:22 <Caroline> Giancarlo_Guizzardi: if you consider all the schemas it would be strange to make recommendations
17:04:32 <Caroline> ... but if the focus is dataset
17:04:53 <Caroline> ... the dataset may refers to one BP and define the terms
17:05:10 <Caroline> ... it is a essencial aspect of quality of data to have these BPs
17:05:15 <BernadetteLoscio> q+
17:05:19 <Caroline> ... we must say something about it
17:05:26 <deirdrelee> ack Giancarlo_Guizzardi
17:05:27 <deirdrelee> ack BernadetteLoscio
17:05:37 <Caroline> BernadetteLoscio: do you think we need to have BPs for the publication of this
17:05:51 <newtoncalegari> q+
17:06:05 <Caroline> ... or we just keep the BP like "we should use vocabularies" and "we should use standards"
17:06:34 <Caroline> Giancarlo_Guizzardi: we should talk about the quality of relation between the datasets and what we use to annotation
17:06:47 <phila> q+
17:06:51 <Caroline> ... we should recommend that people use those, whatever they are
17:06:53 <deirdrelee> ack newtoncalegari
17:06:59 <deirdrelee> q+
17:07:05 <Caroline> newtoncalegari: I agree on re-using vocabulary
17:07:15 <deirdrelee> ack phila
17:07:19 <Caroline> ... but it seems confusing on standarizing terms
17:07:44 <Caroline> phila: standarizing terms maybe not in a vocabulary, I personally woul keep it
17:08:18 <Caroline> ... use them, re-use them and tell people what you have re-used is what we could keep
17:08:42 <newtoncalegari> q+
17:08:51 <phila> ack deirdrelee
17:09:41 <deirdrelee> ack newtoncalegari
17:09:43 <Caroline> deirdrelee: if we are talking about vocabularies meaning standarized terms and also core vocabulaires or in sens of schemas
17:10:03 <Caroline> newtoncalegari: using standarized terms refering as vocabularies
17:10:29 <Caroline> ... when you say it is like everyone using the same vocabulary could use FOAF, per example
17:10:32 <phila> newtoncalegari: Using standardised terms, referring to vocabs... if I use FOAF - should we always use the prefix 'foaf:'
17:10:46 <laufer> q+
17:10:55 <Caroline> BernadetteLoscio: it is not clear the difference vocabularies and standarized terms and also from core vocabulaires to other vocabularies
17:10:56 <phila> BernadetteLoscio: I don't know how to distinguish between core vocabs and others
17:11:17 <phila> BernadetteLoscio: We have BPs 15, 16, 17 and 19
17:11:26 <Caroline> ... we have 2 things: 1. BPs 15, 16, 17 and 19 are related to vocabularies publication
17:11:32 <deirdrelee> q?
17:11:34 <phila> ... those are related to vocab publication.
17:11:35 <Caroline> ... 2. relation between 14 an 18
17:11:43 <deirdrelee> ack laufer
17:11:45 <phila> ... What is the relationship between 14 and 18
17:11:55 <phila> laufer: Is a code list a vocabulary?
17:12:06 <annette_g> q+
17:12:35 <phila> scribe; Caroline
17:12:36 <ericstephan> If I cross my eyes I have no problems distinguishing between vocabularies and standardized terms.  ;-)
17:12:39 <phila> scribe: Caroline
17:12:53 <deirdrelee> ack annette_g
17:13:07 <Caroline> annette_g: I think vocabulary is not data
17:13:21 <Caroline> ... if vocabularies were the same as data
17:13:27 <ericstephan> q+
17:13:46 <Caroline> ... it is woth to try people how to be consistency when they use their own terms
17:13:47 <deirdrelee> q+
17:14:04 <phila> +1 to annette_g
17:14:12 <Giancarlo_Guizzardi> q+
17:14:16 <Caroline> ... if there is not a vocabulary you can try to be consistency
17:14:17 <Makx> There are two types of 'vocabularies'; a. predicate vocabularies (e.. Dublin Core terems) and b. value vocabularies (such as code lists, e.g. language codes)
17:14:19 <deirdrelee> ack ericstephan
17:14:26 <deirdrelee> q-
17:14:44 <Caroline> ericstephan: the question about difficulties on semantic web that someone asked at Web.br
17:15:09 <Caroline> ... I think one of the difficulties of adopting semantic web or existing vocabularies is ??
17:15:27 <Caroline> ... I think having guidance on how people use vocabularies is helpful
17:15:31 <deirdrelee> ack Giancarlo_Guizzardi
17:15:32 <Caroline> Giancarlo_Guizzardi: I agree with phil
17:15:46 <Caroline> ... use standarized terms makes sense
17:15:48 <phila> q+ to focus on Use Standardised Terms
17:16:06 <Caroline> ... and re-use vocabularies makes sense also
17:16:22 <Caroline> ... BPs 14 and 18 may be miss interpreted
17:16:45 <deirdrelee> ack phila
17:16:45 <Zakim> phila, you wanted to focus on Use Standardised Terms
17:16:53 <Caroline> ... we should be clear that we are talking about using vocabs to annotate metadada
17:17:17 <Caroline> phila: standarized terms could be written code lists
17:17:39 <Caroline> ... maybe be not metadata
17:17:53 <antoine> for the record code lists are mentioned in BP 19
17:18:05 <Caroline> ... to write it it is better to talk first about standarized terms and then code lists
17:18:14 <Caroline> ... I would use BP 19
17:18:27 <Giancarlo_Guizzardi> q+
17:18:32 <Caroline> ... the ones that are clearly about vocabs we could take them out
17:18:51 <Caroline> Giancarlo_Guizzardi: on BP 19 we should make it clear that we are not talking about vocabulary creation
17:18:55 <annette_g> q+
17:19:04 <annette_g> q-
17:19:06 <deirdrelee> ack Giancarlo_Guizzardi n
17:19:16 <deirdrelee> ack Giancarlo_Guizzardi
17:19:36 <phila> PROPOSED: That the BP on Use Standardized Terms be amended to talk about terms and code lists
17:20:30 <phila> draft prop - that
17:20:30 <phila> Best Practice 15: Document vocabularies, Share vocabularies in an open way ,  Vocabulary versioning be removed
17:22:23 <yaso> q?
17:22:29 <Caroline> laufer: we have a lot of communities that use some terms as standards for them
17:22:35 <deirdrelee> q+
17:23:06 <Caroline> deirdrelee: to be part of a code list of vocabulary it doesn't have to be standarized
17:23:07 <yaso> q+
17:23:14 <yaso> ack deirdrelee
17:23:14 <Caroline> ack deirdrelee
17:23:14 <BernadetteLoscio> q+
17:23:29 <Caroline> laufer: I don't think we have to use informal things
17:23:33 <Giancarlo_Guizzardi> q+
17:23:54 <Caroline> ... but I don't know that our BPs are restricted to things that are only standarized
17:24:02 <Caroline> ack yaso
17:24:06 <phila> Community Standard is the usual term for something everyone uses that isn't a formal standard
17:24:08 <deirdrelee> q+ to give example of informal codelist
17:24:19 <annette_g> I cannot hear anything
17:24:22 <phila> Examples include RSS, GTFS, robots.txt etc.
17:24:25 <Caroline> yaso: at netflix they classify films themselves
17:24:41 <annette_g> * just been about a minute*
17:24:42 <Caroline> ... they create a lot of relationships between the movies and what people write there
17:24:51 <Caroline> ... they don't use W3C standards
17:25:08 <RiccardoAlbertoni> yes
17:25:10 <Makx> I think the term 'vocabulary' is really confusing!
17:25:14 <Caroline> ... are you saying that what netflix does would be that?
17:25:20 <Caroline> laufer: kind of
17:25:42 <BernadetteLoscio> q-
17:25:45 <annette_g> * I got it, local problem *
17:25:52 <Caroline> yaso: if I have a online news agency I could have standards there
17:25:56 <deirdrelee> q?
17:25:59 <yaso> ack Giancarlo_Guizzardi
17:26:11 <Caroline> Giancarlo_Guizzardi: the purpose of this BPs is to increase the interoperability
17:26:22 <Caroline> ... to community to re-use vocabs
17:26:23 <yaso> q?
17:26:28 <yaso> ack deirdrelee
17:26:28 <Zakim> deirdrelee, you wanted to give example of informal codelist
17:26:33 <Caroline> ... we could capture that on these terms
17:26:33 <BernadetteLoscio> q+
17:27:08 <Caroline> deirdrelee: in Irland there are 4 or 5 vocabs valid for spacial references
17:27:16 <yaso> ack BernadetteLoscio
17:27:33 <Caroline> BernadetteLoscio: we should define what we mean about standarized terms
17:27:44 <Caroline> ... I propose we keep it and put code list
17:27:58 <Caroline> ... considering also Giancarlo_Guizzardi suggestion's to show the consensus about a term
17:28:01 <yaso> q?
17:28:01 <Makx> And also define what we mean by 'vocabulary'
17:28:09 <Caroline> ... we can rewrite it considering these comments
17:28:20 <BernadetteLoscio> yes Makx ;)
17:28:35 <Giancarlo_Guizzardi> It think it is more about shared vocabularies than standard vocabularies, i.e., vocabularies that capture a consensus of the community the dataset refers to
17:28:59 <annette_g> * is someone speaking/ *
17:29:14 <RiccardoAlbertoni> could you write a proposal because I think I am a little lost ;)
17:29:17 <BernadetteLoscio> :)
17:29:20 <phila> Draft proposals:
17:29:20 <phila> - That Use Standardized Terms be amended to refer to code lists and other commonly used terms.
17:29:20 <phila> - That Document vocabularies , Share vocabularies in an open way, Vocabulary versioning be removed from the document.
17:29:20 <phila> - That Re-use vocabularies be retained
17:29:21 <phila> - That Choose the right formalization level be reviewed
17:29:25 <Caroline> phila: I have 4 proposals
17:29:42 <Caroline> ... before we do all that, is that a consensus?
17:30:11 <laufer> +4
17:30:11 <annette_g> +4
17:30:12 <deirdrelee> q+
17:30:16 <Caroline> +4
17:30:25 <yaso> ack deirdrelee
17:30:31 <PeterWinstanley> q+
17:30:36 <yaso> +4 also (new kind of voting)
17:30:41 <Caroline> deirdrelee: from the external comments and feedback was anything about it?
17:30:44 <RiccardoAlbertoni> q+
17:30:46 <laufer> speed voting
17:30:48 <Caroline> BernadetteLoscio: no, only internal discussion for now
17:30:54 <yaso> ack PeterWinstanley
17:31:02 <Caroline> PeterWinstanley: I have to go! I see you tomorrow!
17:31:05 <annette_g> bye Peter!
17:31:05 <Giancarlo_Guizzardi> +4 (+1 (but we should make sure that we don't mean Use Standardized Terms in creating your vocabulary and we don't mean "use the right formalization level in creating...")
17:31:07 <yaso> q?
17:31:12 <Makx> -1
17:31:15 <yaso> ack RiccardoAlbertoni
17:31:30 <Giancarlo_Guizzardi> and we don't mean re-use vocabularies in creating a vocabulary, etc...
17:31:38 <Caroline> RiccardoAlbertoni: I am ok with it
17:31:58 <Caroline> ... but I would like to see something: "if you are defining your own vocab follow this"
17:32:16 <yaso> q?
17:32:23 <Caroline> yaso: are you saying that we should recommend if someone is defining a new vocab
17:32:32 <phila> The BP on re-using vocabs already points to the LD-BP document
17:32:38 <BernadetteLoscio> q+
17:32:43 <deirdrelee> q+ that could be part of desc of bp18
17:32:50 <annette_g> q+
17:32:50 <Caroline> RiccardoAlbertoni: we should at least adjust to follow the document that has been done in Linked Data Government group, per example
17:32:51 <yaso> ack BernadetteLoscio
17:32:57 <deirdrelee> q+ to sya that could be part of desc of bp18
17:33:03 <Caroline> BernadetteLoscio: we can put this in the section introduction
17:33:08 <phila> q+
17:33:08 <yaso> ack annette_g
17:33:12 <Caroline> ... that there are other materials
17:33:12 <yaso> q?
17:33:33 <Caroline> annette_g: if you have to create a vocabulary, how are we mentioning something that already exists?
17:33:38 <Caroline> q+
17:33:44 <RiccardoAlbertoni> q+
17:34:02 <Caroline> ... if you don't find a existing vocab you could use something that already exists
17:34:02 <yaso> ack RiccardoAlbertoni
17:34:31 <Caroline> RiccardoAlbertoni: if you have a data to publish and you have your own database and the schema is not mentioning what you are using
17:34:43 <Caroline> ... you need to define more portion of a vocab
17:34:59 <Caroline> ... as a publisher you have to make that undertandable
17:35:11 <Caroline> ... that is why you suppose to publish your vocabulary
17:35:22 <Caroline> ... and people can understand a specific attibute
17:35:43 <Caroline> ... my suggestion is to put a link to Linked Data gov group because they already explain how to do data
17:36:12 <yaso> ack deirdrelee
17:36:12 <Zakim> deirdrelee, you wanted to sya that could be part of desc of bp18
17:36:12 <Caroline> ... if you don't want to go to linked data we can suggest that it could rely on something else
17:36:17 <Caroline> deirdrelee: I agree with RiccardoAlbertoni
17:36:26 <Makx> +1
17:36:34 <laufer> q+
17:36:39 <yaso> ack phila
17:36:40 <Caroline> ... we can mention the vocabs to be seen
17:36:46 <Caroline> phila: there is already in the BPs
17:36:51 <Caroline> ... it could be enphasized
17:37:08 <Caroline> s/enphasized/emphazied
17:37:17 <yaso> q?
17:37:29 <yaso> ack Caroline
17:37:41 <phila> RiccardoAlbertoni: Yes, it's there but we should emphasise that the doc talks about creating vocabs if they don't already exist.
17:38:30 <Caroline> Makx: BP 18 we use in a way that RDF uses vocabs
17:38:44 <Caroline> ... in DCAT they talk in a different way
17:39:02 <Caroline> ... sometimes we use vocabs differently
17:39:22 <Caroline> ... my suggestion is that where we use vocabs as attibutes
17:39:23 <phila> q+
17:39:40 <Caroline> ... so people who are not familiar with linked data don't get confused
17:39:41 <phila> q-
17:39:50 <Caroline> ... I agree that on 14 we use the word standarized terms
17:40:08 <BernadetteLoscio> q+
17:40:14 <yaso> ack laufer
17:40:32 <Caroline> laufer: when we are publishing data we have a BP to provide structural metadata
17:40:43 <Caroline> ... a vocab like FOAF doesn't need to be explained
17:41:11 <Caroline> ... if I will publish my own ontology the linked data WG can show how to do it
17:41:20 <Caroline> ... we could put a link to this document
17:41:26 <yaso> ack BernadetteLoscio
17:41:27 <Caroline> ... I think we don't have to say how to do this
17:41:53 <yaso> q?
17:41:55 <Caroline> BernadetteLoscio: I think we can keep Phil's proposal and change the one to re-use the term vocab and say that the term vocab can be defined
17:42:07 <Caroline> ... Makx do you agree?
17:42:12 <phila> draft 3 becomes... - That Re-use vocabularies be retained but the term vocabulary should be defined as a set of attributes
17:42:33 <Sumit_Purohit> Sumit_Purohit has joined #DWBP
17:42:39 <phila> i.e. we get
17:42:40 <phila> Draft proposals:
17:42:40 <phila> - That Use Standardized Terms be amended to refer to code lists and other commonly used terms.
17:42:40 <phila> - That Document vocabularies, Share vocabularies in an open way, Vocabulary versioning be removed from the document.
17:42:40 <phila> - That Re-use vocabularies be retained but the term vocabulary should be defined as a set of attributes
17:42:41 <Sumit_Purohit> present++
17:42:41 <phila> - That Choose the right formalization level be reviewed
17:42:49 <phila> present+ Sumit_Purohit
17:42:50 <yaso> Hi Sumit_Purohit :-)
17:42:55 <yaso> q?
17:43:00 <Sumit_Purohit> Hi Everyone.
17:43:05 <phila> PROPOSED: That Use Standardized Terms be amended to refer to code lists and other commonly used terms.
17:43:12 <yaso> +1
17:43:13 <Caroline> +1
17:43:14 <deirdrelee> +1
17:43:14 <antoine> +1
17:43:15 <phila> +1
17:43:15 <Seiji> +1
17:43:16 <annette_g> +1
17:43:19 <Makx> +1
17:43:19 <laufer> +1
17:43:19 <newtoncalegari> +1
17:43:19 <ericstephan> +1
17:43:23 <RiccardoAlbertoni> +1
17:43:27 <phila> RESOLVED: That Use Standardized Terms be amended to refer to code lists and other commonly used terms.
17:43:27 <AdrianoCesar-InWeb> +1+
17:43:33 <Sumit_Purohit> +1
17:43:35 <Giancarlo_Guizzardi> +1
17:43:35 <phila> PROPOSED: That Document vocabularies, Share vocabularies in an open way, Vocabulary versioning be removed from the document.
17:43:41 <deirdrelee> +1
17:43:43 <yaso> +1
17:43:43 <phila> +1
17:43:44 <Giancarlo_Guizzardi> +1
17:43:45 <laufer> +1
17:43:46 <Seiji> +1
17:43:47 <Caroline> +1
17:43:48 <annette_g> +1
17:43:49 <newtoncalegari> +1
17:43:55 <Makx> +1
17:43:55 <antoine> +1
17:43:58 <RiccardoAlbertoni> +1
17:44:01 <Caroline> +1
17:44:07 <phila> RESOLVED: That Document vocabularies, Share vocabularies in an open way, Vocabulary versioning be removed from the document.
17:44:14 <yaso> q?
17:44:15 <phila> PROPOSED: That Re-use vocabularies be retained but the term vocabulary should be defined as a set of attributes
17:44:22 <Makx> +1
17:44:24 <yaso> +1
17:44:25 <laufer> +1
17:44:25 <Caroline> +1
17:44:27 <phila> +1
17:44:27 <annette_g> +1
17:44:28 <Gisele> +1
17:44:28 <newtoncalegari> +1
17:44:31 <deirdrelee> +1
17:44:33 <BernadetteLoscio> BernadetteLoscio has joined #dwbp
17:44:33 <antoine> 0
17:44:50 <Seiji> +1
17:44:54 <Sumit_Purohit> +1
17:45:02 <yaso> ack antoine
17:45:49 <Caroline> antoine: I have been though this once
17:45:53 <BernadetteLoscio> q+
17:46:18 <Caroline> antoine: if the group feels this should be there I am not opposing this
17:46:29 <Makx> Current text in intro says "According to W3C, vocabularies define the concepts and relationships (also referred to as “terms”) ..."
17:46:42 <Caroline> ... I am just warning it is not easy to do it
17:46:51 <Makx> Let's add (... "terms" or "attributes")
17:47:04 <Caroline> ... this section has 4 paragraphs trying to describe what vocab is
17:47:11 <Caroline> q+
17:47:11 <phila> yaso: You're saying it will be difficult to re-write that BP. I wrote those 4 paragraphs introducing the section. It took several weeks - it's not easy
17:47:15 <Makx> +q
17:47:15 <ericstephan> +1 Makx
17:47:21 <yaso> q?
17:47:25 <yaso> ack BernadetteLoscio
17:47:27 <Caroline> yaso: I was going to propose a extention of this definition
17:47:43 <Caroline> BernadetteLoscio: I don't know if we can define a vocab as a set of atributes
17:47:49 <RiccardoAlbertoni> +1 to  Makx's proposal to add  (... "terms" or "attributes") into "According to W3C, vocabularies define the concepts and relationships (also referred to as “terms”) ..."
17:48:00 <yaso> q?
17:48:04 <Caroline> ... Makx do you agree with the definition we have now?
17:48:29 <Caroline> Makx: on the first paragraph it could be add to refer as terms or atributes
17:48:32 <phila> Makx: Rather than terms, refer to terms and attributes
17:48:43 <antoine> q+
17:48:49 <Caroline> q-
17:49:07 <yaso> ack Makx
17:49:19 <phila> Draft 3 - - That Re-use vocabularies be retained but that it should refer to 'terms or attributes' to broaden the acceptance beyond the LD community
17:49:43 <yaso> ack antoine
17:50:06 <Caroline> antoine: if the proposal is that only adding attributes I am fine with it
17:50:11 <antoine> +1
17:50:14 <Makx> +1
17:50:16 <RiccardoAlbertoni> +1
17:50:17 <laufer> +1
17:50:18 <phila> antoine: Happy if we're talking about adding a few words rather than rewriting
17:50:20 <adrianov> +1
17:50:38 <phila> PROPOSED: That Re-use vocabularies be retained but that it should refer to 'terms or attributes' to broaden the acceptance beyond the LD community
17:50:41 <yaso> +1
17:50:43 <antoine> +1
17:50:46 <deirdrelee> +1
17:50:48 <RiccardoAlbertoni> +1
17:50:49 <annette_g> +1
17:50:49 <phila> +1
17:50:50 <ericstephan> +1
17:50:52 <laufer> +1
17:50:57 <Seiji> +1
17:50:57 <BernadetteLoscio> +1
17:51:00 <newtoncalegari> +1
17:51:00 <Giancarlo_Guizzardi> +1
17:51:04 <Caroline> +1
17:51:15 <phila> RESOLVED: That Re-use vocabularies be retained but that it should refer to 'terms or attributes' to broaden the acceptance beyond the LD community
17:51:20 <phila> PROPOSED: That Choose the right formalization level be reviewed
17:51:39 <deirdrelee> +1
17:51:40 <yaso> +1
17:51:42 <annette_g> +1
17:51:43 <BernadetteLoscio> +1
17:51:44 <Gisele> +1
17:51:46 <laufer> +1
17:51:48 <phila> +1
17:51:49 <RiccardoAlbertoni> +1
17:52:00 <Makx> +1
17:52:07 <phila> RESOLVED: That Choose the right formalization level be reviewed
17:52:26 <deirdrelee> close issue-166
17:52:27 <trackbot> Closed issue-166.
17:52:27 <phila> close issue-166
17:52:27 <trackbot> Closed issue-166.
17:52:32 <yaso> o/
17:52:37 <phila> Bernadette is happy!
17:52:58 <Sumit_Purohit> OK....
17:53:01 <yaso> we can return in 5 minutes!!
17:53:04 <deirdrelee> 5 minute break (tea has arrived!)
17:53:08 <BartvanLeeuwen> BartvanLeeuwen has joined #dwbp
17:54:17 <phila> RRSAgent, draft minutes
17:54:18 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/09/24-dwbp-minutes.html phila
18:05:04 <Sumit_Purohit> Sumit_Purohit has joined #DWBP
18:05:04 <ericstephan> back from coffee run
18:05:12 <newtoncalegari> newtoncalegari has joined #dwbp
18:05:21 <Sumit_Purohit> No one wants to come back from tea ??? :-)
18:05:45 <yaso> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/145
18:06:33 <phila> Topic: open issues/actions about identification
18:06:35 <deirdrelee> issue-145
18:06:35 <trackbot> issue-145 -- It makes sense to have a BP "Use unique identifiers"? -- open
18:06:35 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/145
18:06:39 <deirdrelee> issue-163
18:06:39 <trackbot> issue-163 -- Should the bp document refer to uris or identifiers -- open
18:06:39 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/163
18:06:42 <deirdrelee> issue-194
18:06:42 <trackbot> issue-194 -- Data Identification -- open
18:06:42 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/194
18:07:00 <annette_g> * what one are we on? *
18:07:12 <deirdrelee> all three annette_g
18:07:19 <AdrianoCesar-InWeb> BernadetteLos
18:07:31 <deirdrelee> grouped together under agenda https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/F2F_S%C3%A3o_Paulo_-_Agenda_Proposal_DWBP
18:07:36 <newtoncalegari> BernadetteLoscio: the issues on the agenda are grouped by topic
18:07:41 <deirdrelee> all issues about identification
18:07:52 <deirdrelee> BartvanLeeuwen: let's look at all three together
18:08:11 <deirdrelee> ... lots of discussion on mailing list around uris
18:08:18 <AdrianoCesar-InWeb> BernadetteLoscio: next one BP 194
18:08:24 <deirdrelee> s/bartvanleeuwen/bernadetteloscio
18:08:36 <yaso> q?
18:09:19 <yaso> q?
18:09:23 <AdrianoCesar-InWeb> BernadetteLoscio: about data identification section, talking about some messages (33) about this topic
18:09:39 <AdrianoCesar-InWeb> BernadetteLoscio: is this issue still opened?
18:09:54 <AdrianoCesar-InWeb> BernadetteLoscio: ask Annette about her opinion
18:10:26 <yaso> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/145
18:10:38 <AdrianoCesar-InWeb> annette_g: the first one is solved (145)
18:10:45 <deirdrelee> close issue-145
18:10:45 <trackbot> Closed issue-145.
18:10:55 <yaso> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/163
18:11:07 <deirdrelee> close issue-163
18:11:09 <trackbot> Closed issue-163.
18:11:12 <yaso> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/194
18:11:28 <yaso> q?
18:12:11 <AdrianoCesar-InWeb> yaso: 194 is about limiting this section to information that applies to publishing *data*
18:12:14 <yaso> q?
18:12:36 <deirdrelee> q+
18:13:05 <phila> PROPOSED: That the BP document will use the term 'URI' throughout
18:13:08 <yaso> ack deirdrelee
18:13:26 <Makx> +1
18:13:28 <newtoncalegari> q+
18:14:01 <Makx> +1 to annette
18:14:06 <AdrianoCesar-InWeb> deirdrelee: decision is to use URI or not? Let´s clarify it
18:14:18 <yaso> ack newtoncalegari
18:14:20 <yaso> q?
18:14:49 <Caroline> Caroline has joined #DWBP
18:15:33 <phila> PROPOSED: That the BP document will use the term 'URI' throughout, unless there is a clear reason to use a differfnet term (URL, IRI etc.)
18:15:39 <ericstephan> +1 to consistent and intentional use of uri
18:15:40 <yaso> +1
18:15:45 <phila> PROPOSED: That the BP document will use the term 'URI' throughout, unless there is a clear reason to use a different term (URL, IRI etc.)
18:16:04 <annette_g> +1
18:16:14 <Sumit_Purohit> +1
18:16:24 <yaso> +1
18:16:52 <BernadetteLoscio> q=
18:16:53 <RiccardoAlbertoni> +1 to phila  about keeping the information
18:17:10 <yaso> ack BernadetteLoscio
18:17:39 <AdrianoCesar-InWeb> BernadetteLoscio: include the description of the terms and other point is to use this terms in the document
18:17:43 <annette_g> q+
18:18:22 <newtoncalegari> q+
18:18:40 <yaso> ack annette_g
18:19:03 <phila> q+
18:19:07 <AdrianoCesar-InWeb> phila: it is important to have definitions informed in the document
18:19:13 <phila> q-
18:19:16 <yaso> ack newtoncalegari
18:20:23 <Makx> -1 to Phil
18:20:31 <annette_g> -1
18:20:51 <Makx> +1 to Ivan
18:21:14 <Makx> Let's not go there
18:21:23 <phila> +1 makx, let's not
18:21:23 <yaso> q?
18:21:35 <phila> PROPOSED: That the BP document will use the term 'URI' throughout, unless there is a clear reason to use a different term (URL, IRI etc.)
18:21:43 <annette_g> +1
18:21:43 <Makx> +1
18:21:45 <antoine> +1
18:21:50 <laufer> +1
18:21:53 <Sumit_Purohit> +1
18:22:13 <BartvanLeeuwen> +1
18:22:17 <annette_g> * I keep seeing URI *
18:22:19 <ericstephan> +1
18:22:21 <Caroline> +1
18:22:28 <annette_g> * in W3C space *
18:22:32 <annette_g> -1 to IRI
18:22:54 <annette_g> q+
18:22:56 <yaso> q?
18:23:01 <yaso> ack annette_g
18:23:14 <Caroline> scribe: Caroline
18:23:46 <yaso> q?
18:23:57 <Caroline> annette_g: using countries specific IRIs I don't think is a BP to include that
18:24:09 <Caroline> phila: it is better to use URI considering data
18:24:22 <Caroline> annette_g: I think is a BP of everything on the Web
18:24:22 <Sumit_Purohit> +q
18:24:27 <Caroline> ... I want to keep it as data
18:24:37 <Caroline> phila: We can stick as URI
18:24:43 <yaso> ack Sumit_Purohit
18:24:55 <Caroline> ... a lot of people will ready any say "you mean URL"
18:25:02 <Caroline> scribe: AdrianoCesar-InWeb
18:25:24 <yaso> q?
18:25:45 <annette_g> q+
18:25:47 <Makx> I second Annette and I am not American
18:26:00 <newtoncalegari> q+
18:26:04 <yaso> ack annette_g
18:26:19 <newtoncalegari> http://sãopaulo.gov.br/example/dataset
18:26:21 <yaso> ack newtoncalegari
18:26:36 <newtoncalegari> http://saopaulo.gov.br
18:26:57 <ericstephan> q+
18:27:02 <AdrianoCesar-InWeb> newtoncalegari: give an example of saopaulo.gov.br, the idea is to use an international format
18:27:36 <deirdrelee> sa0pa0l0.gov.br
18:27:38 <phila> +1 to the security issue
18:27:49 <yaso> q?
18:28:07 <yaso> ack ericstephan
18:28:11 <newtoncalegari> q+
18:28:15 <phila> +1 _ I can't write Sao Paulo properly and easily without copying and pasting from somewhere else
18:29:01 <yaso> ack newtoncalegari
18:29:03 <deirdrelee> q+
18:29:31 <annette_g> q+
18:30:01 <yaso> ack deirdrelee
18:30:11 <AdrianoCesar-InWeb> phila: W3C suggests to use international format, avoid to use special characters
18:30:31 <yaso> ack annette_g
18:30:38 <newtoncalegari> +1 deirdree
18:30:48 <yaso> +1 to deirdrelee
18:30:52 <laufer> q+
18:30:57 <yaso> ack newtoncalegari
18:31:10 <AdrianoCesar-InWeb> annette_g: this is important for everything on the Web, not only for data
18:31:14 <Sumit_Purohit> +1 deirdrelee
18:31:16 <yaso> +1 to newtoncalegari proposal
18:31:29 <AdrianoCesar-InWeb> newtoncalegari: it is important to justify the need to suggest this
18:31:29 <annette_g> in a tiny little footnote
18:31:40 <yaso> q?
18:31:47 <Makx> Let's just keep the intro of section 9.7 as it is.
18:31:58 <newtoncalegari> newton: we can use URI and warn about the security issue. what do you think?
18:32:18 <AdrianoCesar-InWeb> laufer: We are recommending to use URI?
18:32:42 <newtoncalegari> maybe we should recommend to avoid using special characters
18:32:53 <AdrianoCesar-InWeb> +1 to newtoncalegari
18:33:09 <Sumit_Purohit> need to leave for a meeting..Will be back.
18:33:28 <newtoncalegari> annette_g, not using special characters we tend to avoid some security issues, right?
18:33:36 <annette_g> right
18:34:35 <yaso> +1 to newton
18:35:21 <yaso> annette_g is not happy with the definition
18:35:29 <cgueret> cgueret has joined #dwbp
18:35:34 <phila> PROPOSED: That the definitions of URI, URL and IRI be removed from the draft section 9.7
18:35:51 <AdrianoCesar-InWeb> annette_g: propose to describe this definition
18:36:13 <phila> Other proposal is to use the term URI throughout
18:36:25 <AdrianoCesar-InWeb> BernadetteLoscio: we can record that the group agree to use URIs
18:36:30 <phila> +1 not to discuss this any more
18:36:49 <phila> annette_g: This is about our own writing, not what other people should do
18:36:54 <yaso> PROPOSED: That the BP document will use the term 'URI' throughout
18:36:54 <phila> PROPOSED: That the definitions of URI, URL and IRI be removed from the draft section 9.7
18:37:18 <yaso> q?
18:37:25 <laufer> q-
18:37:35 <yaso> ack phila
18:37:44 <newtoncalegari> -1
18:38:01 <Makx> keep the second part
18:38:36 <Caroline> q+
18:38:38 <AdrianoCesar-InWeb> BernadetteLoscio: proposing to rewrite the introduction of the section
18:38:41 <newtoncalegari> q+
18:38:48 <annette_g> PROPOSED: That the definitions of URI, URL and IRI be removed from the draft section 9.7
18:38:56 <yaso> ack Caroline
18:39:50 <AdrianoCesar-InWeb> Caroline: suggest to explain the definitions, but to explain all definitions
18:40:01 <yaso> sorry, annette_g
18:40:11 <yaso> speak slowly, please!
18:40:17 <phila> annette_g: Says this is as crazy as including a definition of antidisestablishmentarianism because we think it's cool
18:40:39 <AdrianoCesar-InWeb> annette_g: there is no reason to define if we are not going to discuss in the document
18:40:40 <laufer> +1 to phil proposal
18:40:46 <yaso> ack newtoncalegari
18:41:15 <annette_g> maybe we need to decide first whether we are going to include anything about identifiers
18:41:17 <yaso> +1 to newtoncalegari
18:41:24 <AdrianoCesar-InWeb> newtoncalegari: someone is reading the document to learn, as a W3C document we need to inform the difference between URI, URL etc
18:41:39 <AdrianoCesar-InWeb> ... therefore prefer to keep this in the document
18:41:45 <yaso> ack phila
18:42:02 <yaso> q+
18:42:21 <AdrianoCesar-InWeb> phila: I desagree with that because the definition can generate more discussion, since there is no clear definition about these terms
18:42:21 <Seiji> +1 to phil
18:42:28 <BartvanLeeuwen> +1 to phil
18:42:35 <annette_g> +1 to phil
18:42:40 <laufer> completely agree +1
18:42:53 <AdrianoCesar-InWeb> +1 to phil
18:43:21 <newtoncalegari> +1 for that proposal
18:43:21 <phila> PROPOSED: That the definitions of URI, URL and IRI be removed from the draft section 9.7
18:43:21 <yaso> +1 to phil
18:43:25 <newtoncalegari> +1
18:43:25 <yaso> +1
18:43:27 <antoine> +1
18:43:28 <Caroline> +1
18:43:29 <Makx> +1
18:43:30 <BernadetteLoscio> +1
18:43:31 <phila> +1
18:43:34 <laufer> +1
18:43:34 <Seiji> +1
18:43:35 <Gisele> +1
18:43:46 <adrianov> +1
18:43:49 <RiccardoAlbertoni> +1
18:44:12 <phila> RESOLVED: That the definitions of URI, URL and IRI be removed from the draft section 9.7
18:44:14 <AdrianoCesar-InWeb> yaso: next item
18:44:42 <phila>  PROPOSED: That the BP document will use the term 'URI' throughout, unless there is a clear reason to use a different term (URL, IRI etc.)
18:44:54 <phila> +1
18:44:57 <yaso> +1
18:44:57 <annette_g> +1
18:44:59 <newtoncalegari> +1
18:45:00 <BernadetteLoscio> +1
18:45:00 <BartvanLeeuwen> +1
18:45:00 <deirdrelee> +1
18:45:01 <RiccardoAlbertoni> +1
18:45:01 <Seiji> 0
18:45:04 <Gisele> +1
18:45:06 <Caroline> +1
18:45:07 <Makx> +1
18:45:07 <annette_g> q+
18:45:17 <yaso> -q
18:45:19 <laufer> +1 (to define what is a clear reason)
18:45:33 <yaso> ack annette_g
18:45:55 <ericstephan> +1
18:45:56 <phila> RESOLVED: That the BP document will use the term 'URI' throughout, unless there is a clear reason to use a different term (URL, IRI etc.)
18:46:15 <phila> annette_g: What's there now is not specific about data on the Web, it's about anything on the Web
18:47:16 <AdrianoCesar-InWeb> phila: there is a confussion about what each of these terms represent...
18:47:50 <annette_g> q+
18:48:00 <yaso> +1 to phila
18:48:10 <yaso> ack annette_g
18:49:31 <annette_g> q+
18:49:37 <phila> annette_g: It's the bulletted list I object to
18:49:40 <yaso> ack annette_g
18:49:42 <phila> phila: It's gone
18:50:02 <newtoncalegari> q+
18:50:03 <deirdrelee> q+
18:50:09 <phila> annette_g: You can't put something on the web without using a URI so it's pointless saying that you need to give datasets a URI
18:50:22 <newtoncalegari> q-
18:50:23 <phila> q+ to try and squatre this circle
18:50:42 <yaso> ack deirdrelee
18:50:43 <laufer> q+
18:51:08 <annette_g> PROPOSED: that the best practice about identifiers be rewritten to address issues when posting data on the web.
18:51:48 <newtoncalegari> ack phila
18:51:48 <Zakim> phila, you wanted to try and squatre this circle
18:51:57 <phila> some draft text - When any resource is put on the Web, it has a URI. Many URIs are generated automatically but when sharing data, it is useful to bear in mind the following factors
18:52:14 <yaso> +1 to phil
18:54:39 <deirdrelee> http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#DocumentVocabularies
18:55:16 <phila> http://philarcher1.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#UniqueIdentifiers
18:55:39 <newtoncalegari> "So what should I do? Designing URIs" http://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/URI.html
18:56:49 <yaso> q?
18:57:01 <BernadetteLoscio> q+
18:57:07 <yaso> Ack laufer
18:57:07 <BernadetteLoscio> q-
18:57:35 <AdrianoCesar-InWeb> laufer: if an information does not have an URI, then it is not on the Web...
18:57:47 <yaso> q?
18:58:06 <ericstephan> q+
18:59:12 <BernadetteLoscio> q+
18:59:18 <AdrianoCesar-InWeb> yaso: proposing to try to finish the discussion about this issue
18:59:21 <yaso> ack ericstephan
18:59:53 <yaso> ack BernadetteLoscio
19:00:18 <AdrianoCesar-InWeb> BernadetteLoscio: we are going to use URI as identifier, ok? Yes
19:00:36 <AdrianoCesar-InWeb> BernadetteLoscio: now we are discussing the best practice, is a different issue, right?
19:00:56 <AdrianoCesar-InWeb> yaso: suggest to annette_g to describe this issue about the best practice...
19:01:07 <yaso> q?
19:01:15 <AdrianoCesar-InWeb> annette_g: I can try it, describing this issue
19:02:28 <ericstephan> +1 phila
19:03:00 <phila> action: phila to take another run at the BP Use persistent URIs as identifiers
19:03:00 <trackbot> Created ACTION-204 - Take another run at the bp use persistent uris as identifiers [on Phil Archer - due 2015-10-01].
19:03:11 <yaso> ack BernadetteLoscio
19:03:27 <AdrianoCesar-InWeb> BernadetteLoscio: we can close the 3 open issues... ok
19:03:31 <phila> close issue-145
19:03:31 <trackbot> Closed issue-145.
19:03:36 <phila> close issue-163
19:03:36 <trackbot> Closed issue-163.
19:03:36 <yaso> http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#dataVersioning
19:03:42 <phila> close issue-194
19:03:42 <trackbot> Closed issue-194.
19:03:48 <AdrianoCesar-InWeb> yaso: next topic - Discuss the versioning section and resolve open issues (30 min.)
19:03:53 <yaso> ISSUE-193
19:03:53 <trackbot> ISSUE-193 -- Data Versioning -- open
19:03:53 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/193
19:04:08 <BernadetteLoscio> q+
19:04:16 <yaso> ack BernadetteLoscio
19:04:40 <AdrianoCesar-InWeb> BernadetteLoscio: in the last Draft (last F2F) we discuss about data versioning...
19:05:12 <AdrianoCesar-InWeb> there was a diagram and we had discussed by email about this... about the meaning of a versioning
19:05:24 <yaso> q?
19:05:32 <AdrianoCesar-InWeb> We agree that time series is not a case of versioning...
19:05:48 <yaso> q?
19:05:50 <AdrianoCesar-InWeb> We try to explain better the meaning for versioning for this document
19:06:26 <deirdrelee> q+
19:06:29 <yaso>  	http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/193
19:06:35 <BernadetteLoscio> http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#dataVersioning
19:06:36 <phila> http://philarcher1.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#dataVersioning
19:06:36 <AdrianoCesar-InWeb> BernadetteLoscio: annette_g, do you agree with this proposal? Look in agenda, item 193
19:07:18 <AdrianoCesar-InWeb> BernadetteLoscio: one thing is our definition of data versioning
19:07:21 <phila> s/ http://philarcher1.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#dataVersioning//
19:07:26 <Caroline> https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/F2F_S%C3%A3o_Paulo_-_Agenda_Proposal_DWBP
19:07:35 <phila> http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#dataVersioning
19:07:36 <Caroline> http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#dataVersioning
19:07:36 <BernadetteLoscio> http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#dataVersioning
19:08:48 <yaso> close issue-193
19:08:48 <trackbot> Closed issue-193.
19:08:49 <AdrianoCesar-InWeb> yaso: is it ok to close this issue (193)?
19:09:02 <yaso> ack deirdrelee
19:10:03 <ericstephan> I have to leave in 20 minutes unfortunately...
19:10:04 <Makx> I need to leave in 20 minutes, dinner time
19:10:15 <RiccardoAlbertoni> I am going to stay only for 10/20 minutes
19:10:18 <Seiji> need to leave
19:10:53 <yaso> so we are going for more 20 min
19:10:57 <Caroline> scribe: WagnerMeiraJr
19:11:32 <phila> issue-168?
19:11:32 <trackbot> issue-168 -- Dataset versioning -- open
19:11:32 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/168
19:11:49 <WagnerMeiraJr> yaso: Going to issue 168. Newton, can you start?
19:12:22 <WagnerMeiraJr> newtoncalegari: I was working on this issue in the 1st part of the meeting: which vocabulary to use in versioning?
19:12:28 <yaso> q?
19:12:50 <WagnerMeiraJr> BernadetteLoscio: I'd like to know what is the suggestion for using when defining versions?
19:12:59 <WagnerMeiraJr> yaso: Any other suggestions?
19:13:30 <WagnerMeiraJr> phila: We cannot make a normative dependency. It is one possible way, but I do not want to do it.
19:13:41 <WagnerMeiraJr> BernadetteLoscio: It is just to give an example.
19:13:50 <annette_g> link?
19:14:16 <phila> -> http://pav-ontology.github.io/pav/ PAV
19:14:17 <WagnerMeiraJr> yaso: I think that it is ok to use for sake of an example section.
19:14:29 <antoine> +1 to use Memento as a (quite different) alternative to PAV
19:14:55 <WagnerMeiraJr> newtoncalegari: There is an issue (3), the beginning of data version that motivates it.
19:15:18 <WagnerMeiraJr> yaso: Seems ok to me.
19:16:25 <yaso> q?
19:16:37 <antoine> q+
19:16:37 <WagnerMeiraJr> BernadetteLoscio: It is not just because it is an open issue that it is worth doing it. We will close issues 92 and 68. What's the opinion of the group regarding changes in the data. It is not clear whether updating the schema is a new version or not. Does this new attribute justify a new version?
19:16:38 <newtoncalegari> q
19:16:43 <Giancarlo_Guizzardi> q+
19:16:47 <yaso> ack antoine
19:16:48 <Seiji> q+
19:16:53 <WagnerMeiraJr> antoine: Not sure I understood the point.
19:17:10 <newtoncalegari> q+ ask about versioning data in streams
19:17:11 <annette_g> +1 to letting the publisher decide
19:17:16 <newtoncalegari> q?
19:17:32 <WagnerMeiraJr> antoine: In the case you mentioned it does not sound to me it is the case to create a new version.
19:17:52 <phila> q+ to say we shouldn't define when a new version is a new version
19:17:54 <WagnerMeiraJr> BernadetteLoscio: Sometimes the published does not know whether it is the case of creating a new version.
19:18:00 <laufer> q+
19:18:02 <WagnerMeiraJr> antoine: Let the publisher decide.
19:18:06 <annette_g> q+
19:18:13 <yaso> ack Giancarlo_Guizzardi
19:18:46 <yaso> ack Seiji
19:18:48 <WagnerMeiraJr> Giancarlo_Guizzardi: If we use the vocab and onto, there could be changes in them that do not change the semantics, but if the latter change, it should be anew evrsion.
19:18:57 <newtoncalegari> q+ to ask about versioning in data streams
19:18:57 <WagnerMeiraJr> Seiji: Same comment of Giancarlo_Guizzardi
19:19:03 <antoine> q+
19:19:12 <yaso> ack phila
19:19:12 <Zakim> phila, you wanted to say we shouldn't define when a new version is a new version
19:19:20 <WagnerMeiraJr> BernadetteLoscio: The publisher may decide, but we at least sign about it.
19:19:40 <WagnerMeiraJr> phila: When does something change enough? It is such a difficult question.
19:19:42 <Makx> yes, it's a can of worms
19:19:46 <yaso> q?
19:20:05 <WagnerMeiraJr> BernadetteLoscio: We tried to define based on the discussions.
19:20:31 <yaso> ack laufer
19:20:43 <WagnerMeiraJr> BernadetteLoscio: We should give some guidance to the publisher. If the definition is not good enough, we should not do it.
19:20:59 <phila> Mind you, I like the text in http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#dataVersioning
19:21:29 <BernadetteLoscio> q+
19:21:47 <Makx> +q
19:22:00 <WagnerMeiraJr> laufer: The term version is used with several meanings. It also varies depending on the language. We need a way to talk about relations among datasets. People saying that one thing is a version of other is not just because it is a change, they may be in completely different languages.
19:22:23 <WagnerMeiraJr> BernadetteLoscio: There is a confusion among several terms that are used differently: version, distribution etc
19:22:44 <phila> q+
19:22:53 <WagnerMeiraJr> BernadetteLoscio: A time series is not a new version of a dataset. We are trying to define and let the publisher to decide.
19:23:07 <yaso> q?
19:23:30 <Giancarlo_Guizzardi> q+
19:23:34 <WagnerMeiraJr> BernadetteLoscio: This new dataset is derived or is a version of other dataset. If the publisher does not know what is a version how come he will decide what to do.
19:23:35 <yaso> ack annette_g
19:23:59 <newtoncalegari> q-
19:24:02 <WagnerMeiraJr> annette_g: A language is not version specific. We may need to perform the same change in several languages at once.
19:24:02 <newtoncalegari> q+
19:24:28 <WagnerMeiraJr> annette_g: If you make a change in a dataset, you may create a new version depending on the publisher.
19:24:53 <WagnerMeiraJr> annette_g: It is sort of a editorial work to make a change and evaluate how different it is.
19:25:25 <WagnerMeiraJr> laufer: I'm not saying that different languages are different versions. We have to define our concept of version.
19:25:28 <yaso> ack antoine
19:25:28 <deirdrelee> q+
19:26:00 <BernadetteLoscio> q-
19:26:08 <WagnerMeiraJr> antoine: Imagine your updates are not used by the dataset in question, then it does not produce a new version of the dataset.
19:26:52 <WagnerMeiraJr> antoine: What are the principles we want to follow when discussing versions? Should we discuss these?
19:27:19 <WagnerMeiraJr> antoine: Versioning means that you change something that affects your dataset.
19:27:30 <yaso> ack Makx
19:27:36 <deirdrelee> q-
19:27:47 <WagnerMeiraJr> Makx: It is very hard to define what a version is for a particular person.
19:28:06 <deirdrelee> q+
19:28:21 <WagnerMeiraJr> Makx: They should not throw away old data upon a new version. People may be using it.
19:28:34 <yaso> ack phila
19:29:26 <deirdrelee> q-
19:29:49 <WagnerMeiraJr> phila: Agree with Makx . I like the text and want to add: we can't antecipate everything and tell when a new version makes sense. I would encourage consistency. It may be every six weeks, publishing a new version.
19:30:01 <Makx> +1 to Phil
19:30:02 <WagnerMeiraJr> phila: They may decide and stick to it.
19:30:02 <yaso> ack Giancarlo_Guizzardi
19:30:37 <laufer> q+
19:30:58 <BernadetteLoscio> q+
19:31:20 <WagnerMeiraJr> Giancarlo_Guizzardi: I agree that it is useful to give guidelines, including handling deprecated content and vocab changes. I agree that defining it is very interesting. But it is extremely hard.  We tried recently to characterize versions for software and it is hard.
19:31:24 <yaso> ack newtoncalegari
19:31:42 <yaso> ack laufer
19:31:42 <newtoncalegari> q+
19:32:12 <Makx> We discussed this for a long time for the DCAT-AP in Europe and could not resolve it ;-(
19:32:14 <WagnerMeiraJr> laufer: I don't know whether it is feasible, but you may encourage the publisher to define what is a version.
19:32:18 <yaso> q?
19:32:22 <yaso> ack BernadetteLoscio
19:33:00 <Makx> We were hoping that DWBP could give guidance ;-)
19:33:22 <ericstephan> Talk to you tomorrow everyone.  Sorry to take off in the middle of discussion.
19:33:38 <WagnerMeiraJr> BernadetteLoscio: It is interesting and I agree that it is hard to define and I was trying to write about. I'm going to rewrite it considering our discussion here, towards help the publisher to decide. I'll rewrite the introduction and ask for feedback.
19:33:42 <BernadetteLoscio> bye bye Eric!
19:33:55 <WagnerMeiraJr> newtoncalegari: How to version data stream?
19:34:08 <deirdrelee> q+
19:34:13 <WagnerMeiraJr> newtoncalegari: DCAT has a version modified.
19:34:21 <yaso> q?
19:34:27 <yaso> ack newtoncalegari
19:34:34 <yaso> ack deirdrelee
19:34:51 <WagnerMeiraJr> newtoncalegari: A change in data stream will be treated as such just when the schema changes.
19:34:53 <phila> s/DCAT has a version modified./DCAT uses dcterms:modified.
19:34:54 <annette_g> 2 separate issue
19:34:58 <annette_g> issues
19:35:02 <Makx> Even that is not agreed by everyone, Deirdre
19:35:21 <WagnerMeiraJr> deirdrelee: Just when the API changes?
19:35:31 <yaso> q?
19:35:51 <yaso> q?
19:35:51 <Makx> Apologies, I have to sign off. Will be back tomorrow.
19:35:55 <WagnerMeiraJr> BernadetteLoscio: Newton's concern is that you have a stream and there should not be a new version.
19:36:07 <deirdrelee> deirdrelee: if the API changes it doesn't matter, because an API is related to data access, not data structure or content
19:36:07 <annette_g> q+
19:36:14 <BernadetteLoscio> bye bye Makx!!!
19:36:24 <yaso> ack annette_g
19:37:00 <WagnerMeiraJr> annette_g: API related versioning is really hard to define.
19:37:34 <WagnerMeiraJr> newtoncalegari: Don't we need to worry to track changes in data streams?
19:37:53 <WagnerMeiraJr> yaso: It does not seem to be necessary.
19:38:00 <yaso> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/192
19:38:09 <WagnerMeiraJr> yaso: We were discussing 192.
19:38:47 <WagnerMeiraJr> newtoncalegari: We are not going to recommend and we may close the issue.
19:38:49 <yaso> close issue-192
19:38:49 <trackbot> Closed issue-192.
19:38:55 <WagnerMeiraJr> newtoncalegari: We have no examples.
19:39:23 <phila> There is an alternative to PAV at http://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-adms/ but I prefer PAV which is better developed
19:39:30 <yaso> close ISSUE-168
19:39:30 <trackbot> Closed ISSUE-168.
19:39:31 <WagnerMeiraJr> yaso: It looks like we are done for today.
19:40:02 <WagnerMeiraJr> yaso: Thanks everyone.
19:40:13 <annette_g> I won't be on until 6 PT
19:40:19 <annette_g> which is 10
19:40:19 <phila> Thanks everyone. God night/good afternoon
19:40:22 <yaso> neither us, annette_g
19:40:29 <WagnerMeiraJr> deirdrelee: Is it fine to start at 8AM BST.
19:40:31 <phila> Ack annette_g
19:41:01 <yaso> so tomorrow is 8:00 am
19:41:05 <laufer> bye annette... good lunch...
19:41:06 <WagnerMeiraJr> yaso: We will start at 8:00 AM.
19:41:06 <annette_g> bye!
19:41:07 <RiccardoAlbertoni> Enjoy your staying in sao paolo.. thanks for the interesting discussions , bye
19:41:14 <phila> RRSAgent, generate minutes
19:41:14 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/09/24-dwbp-minutes.html phila
19:41:17 <laufer> bye all...
19:41:36 <yaso> Thanks, RiccardoAlbertoni and annette_g and others attending remote :-)
19:43:32 <phila> s/God night/Good night/
19:43:36 <phila> RRSAgent, generate minutes
19:43:36 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/09/24-dwbp-minutes.html phila
19:44:16 <phila> s/at 8AM BST/at 8AM Sao Paulo/
19:44:32 <phila> RRSAgent, generate minutes
19:44:32 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/09/24-dwbp-minutes.html phila
19:48:37 <antoine> bye everyone enjoy the beer and see you tomorrow
19:52:45 <annette_g> annette_g has left #dwbp
21:41:35 <Zakim> Zakim has left #dwbp