Government Linked Data Working Group Teleconference -- 23 May 2013

<trackbot> Date: 23 May 2013

<olyerickson> PhilA is an octave lower than everyone else...

<hadleybeeman> http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20130523

<olyerickson> +1 fadmaa !

<scribe> scribe: fadmaa

<PhilA> fadmaa++

<hadleybeeman> http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/gld/2013-05-16

PROPOSAL: accepting last telco minutes

<olyerickson> +1 to last week's minutes... well formatted etc

<james> +1

<hadleybeeman> +1

<DaveReynolds> +1 to minutes

<gatemezi> +1 to last week's minutes

<olyerickson> All Hail the Hail in Mother Englang!

<Biplav> +1

<olyerickson> (England...)

RESOLUTION: accept last week minutes

Data Cube

DaveReynolds: for ORG we decided it is not necessary to track all implementations and the use of every term
... exit criteria for SKOS are weaker than we proposed for ORG
... marking properties that are not used twice as "at risk" didn't fly
... we decide to track implementations at the feature level
... I grouped properties in features

hadleybeeman: thanks for all the work Dave

<gatemezi> s/TOPIC: Data Cube / TOPIC:ORG

DaveReynolds: we need to clarify the exit criteria
... for example we can have two implementations of every feature and one implementation for every term
... I will write this down in an email

<PhilA> The topic is a report on the transition call yesterday that discussed ORG and QB which we're hoping will move to CR

DaveReynolds: Given the integrity constraints in data cube, it is more straightforward to define exit criteria
... integrity constraints do not address all the terms
... tracking all the implementations on the term level for Data Cube is challenging
... we won't be tracking abstract classes for example

hadleybeeman: do we need further help regarding the implementation reports and hosting a tool for that?

<hadleybeeman> and executing the CR exit criteria assessment.

DaveReynolds: I am not clear on the actual execution

<BenediktKaempgen> did we get the report on the transition call per mail?

sandro: Dave and me can discuss via emails, maybe we can find some shortcut

PhilA: getting into a CR is one thing but getting out of it needs to be kept in mind

DaveReynolds: agree
... we need a clear idea about the future of the working group

<PhilA> DaveReynolds++

<olyerickson> +1 to DaveReynolds !

<DaveReynolds> Thanks!

Extension to the working group's charter

hadleybeeman: we have only one week left

sandro: nothing has changed re. our chances of getting an extension
... we need to get into a CR
... which looks very much doable
... hard to confirm whether having a CR is sufficient to get an extension
... we need to wait for a formal meeting which might not happen soon
... but we still can work for a week or so even before confirming the extension
... we need to formally capture that people are willing to continue working on the pending items

PhilA: there is an approval for the working group that will continue work in this broad area
... starting around September

<gatemezi> @Dave: I'll send you the file and a capture of the error

hadleybeeman: from work perspective, we need to get Cube and Org into PR and DCAT into CR
... and get the notes into transition

<olyerickson> sorry lost my skype...

<olyerickson> dialing in again :(

<olyerickson> +1 to carrying on

Biplav: one direction is to finish remaining work, the other direction is what's next
... I found the email from Phil on open API very interesting
... so far we focused only on data

<olyerickson> I think DCAT will be quick....

<Biplav> For some reason, I cannot hear anything

<Biplav> Dropping-off, and reconnecting

Transition ADMS into Note

<PhilA> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/gld/raw-file/default/adms/index.html

PhilA: I followed up on all the comments that have been made. ADMS is a DCAT profile now
... still waits for DCAT to add contactPoint
... it is being used extensively by the European Commision
... if there is no comments on it ,I'd like to publish it as a note

sandro asks about the identifier in ADMS

<MakxDekkers> +1

<olyerickson> re adms:Identifier see: https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/gld/raw-file/default/adms/index.html#dt_identifier

PROPOSAL: transition ADMS to a working group note

<james> +1

<BartvanLeeuwen> +1

<DaveReynolds> +1

<Biplav> +1

<hadleybeeman> +1 for Sandro

<PhilA> sandro says +1

<BenediktKaempgen> +1

<PhilA> +1

<martinA> +1

<tinagheen> +1

<gatemezi> +1

<olyerickson> +1

<olyerickson> +1 to PhilA !

<JoaoPauloAlmeida> +1

RESOLUTION: transitioning ADMS into a working group note

sandro: what about the references? dcat is referred to as a working draft

RegOrg https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/gld/raw-file/default/legal/index.html

PhilA: RegOrg is now in alignment with Org
... it defined some new properties, it refers to ADMS identifier
... its main usecase is describing corporates
... if no comment on it, I'd like to publish it as a note

PROPOSAL: transition RegOrg to a working group note

<olyerickson> +1

<PhilA> +1

<tinagheen> +1

<martinA> +1

<gatemezi> +1

<JoaoPauloAlmeida> +1

<BartvanLeeuwen> +1

<DaveReynolds> +1

<sandro> +1

<olyerickson> Makes reference to org:identifier

<olyerickson> is there another browser than Chrome?

gatemezi: the references don't appear on my browser

PhilA: yes donot appear correctly on Chrome

<BenediktKaempgen> +1

<james> +1

RESOLUTION: transitioning RegOrg into a working group note

<gatemezi> +1

<PhilA> Thank you everyone

<olyerickson> Seriously, this is browser-dependent? Whoa...

DCAT Issues

olyerickson: we went through all the issues

<hadleybeeman> fadmaa: we've had proposals for all the issues. We've closed a couple of them. Half issues are on the editing side, still left to be done.

<olyerickson> Need URL...

<hadleybeeman> fadmaa: Last version has contactPoint added now

<hadleybeeman> … Two main issues to discuss (now or by email). Licences/rights and date formats.

<gatemezi> fadmaa: there are 2 main issues lefted to be discussed..re using License and Date format

olyerickson: there is a suggestion to use dct:rights instead of dct:license

<PhilA> issue-60?

<trackbot> ISSUE-60 -- dct:license vs. dct:rights -- raised

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/track/issues/60

olyerickson: most notably from Jeni Tennison
... rights is "looser" which makes it broader

<MakxDekkers> DCMI does not agree with the "looser" interpretation

olyerickson: the proposal is to use dct:rights instead of dct:license

MakxDekkers: DCMI states that dct:rights range is a resource

olyerickson: I am happy with defining dct:rights with a suggestion that using dct:license is also possible

<gatemezi> fadmaa: support to use dct:rights

<MakxDekkers> +1

<gatemezi> hadleybeeman: are you happy for the conclusion of the issue?

<MakxDekkers> +1 for dct:rights

<PhilA> issue-63?

<trackbot> ISSUE-63 -- How to treat underspecified dates in DCAT? -- raised

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/track/issues/63

<gatemezi> hadleybeeman: So, could we close issue-60?

olyerickson: Phil's suggestion is to drop the recommendation to use a specific format

<olyerickson> Phil's suggestion is to drop this and say something like: use a date formatted as one of the formats defined in XSD such as xdd:year, xdd:date, etc.

<DaveReynolds> +1 to Phil's suggestion on this

<olyerickson> Someone else talk if you can't hear me :(

PhilA: in my experience asking for a specific format as for example xsd:datetime forces people to make inaccurate statements

<PhilA> rdfs Literal using the relevant ISO 8601 Date and Time compliant string and typed using the appropriate XML Schema datatype [[XMLSCHEMA-2]]

<olyerickson> +!

<gatemezi> fadmaa: versioning is not included in DCAT

<gatemezi> hadleybeeman: when do you think we can go to LC?

<gatemezi> fadmaa: some editions task to do...but do we need to answer to all the questions received?

<gatemezi> fadmaa: Richard is quite busy, but will answer wording with olyerickson

<olyerickson> so be quick...

<scribe> ACTION: fadmaa to finish editing DCAT SPEC and reply to feedback email by next Tuesday [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/05/23-gld-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-140 - Finish editing DCAT SPEC and reply to feedback email by next Tuesday [on Fadi Maali - due 2013-05-30].

<olyerickson> +1 to continuing GLD WG to whenever

<olyerickson> ;)

<sandro> PROPOSED: We'd like to extend the Working Group so that we can finish our NOTES and see our three Rec-Track documents through to REC.

<hadleybeeman> +1

<sandro> +1

<Biplav> +1

<gatemezi> +1 to continuing GLD WG for 2 months

<BenediktKaempgen> +1

<tinagheen> +1

<james> +1

<martinA> +1

<olyerickson> +1 to what sandro proposed

<BartvanLeeuwen> +1

<DaveReynolds> +1

<MakxDekkers> +1

<sandro> RESOLVED: We'd like to extend the Working Group so that we can finish our NOTES and see our three Rec-Track documents through to REC.

<olyerickson> Bye!

<BenediktKaempgen> +1

<BenediktKaempgen> i can give the status of qb ucr

BenediktKaempgen: I received some feedback regarding the qb ucr
... both editorial and content-related feedback
... requirements in the documents need to be changed as some of them are relevant to tools but not to the vocabulary
... DaveReynolds asks if it is still worth the efforts of continuing this
... I can address the comments I got but can't add new parts to it
... I suggest that I do the required editing and then publish it as a first public working draft
... if people are not happy with the document, I am fine with not publishing it

PhilA: good to hear that BenediktKaempgen is willing to continue working ont he document
... I am trying to figure out the purpose of the document as Cube is done so it won't inform it
... the question is whether the document is useful outside the scope of the vocabulary design

hadleybeeman: I think Sandro said that having a ucr is good from the implementer perspective
... is it worth having the document as input for implementers?

<DaveReynolds> sounds like a lot more work to me!

BenediktKaempgen: currently the ucr document is an overview of the tools and application that could use and benefit from the Cube vocabulary
... it help someone to make the decision whether to use the vocabulary
... the spec helps someone who already decided to use the vocabulary

<PhilA> Can I emphasise again that I was not making a criticism. You wanna see me try and write German?

<hadleybeeman> :)

DaveReynolds: I am not sure if there exists a working draft status for note in the W3C process

hadleybeeman: we did it for the best practices to get multiple rounds of feedback
... what is your recommendation?

BenediktKaempgen: I can give it a try. implement the feedback I got (mostly the editorial ones)
... then I can ask for feedback and then we can decide accordingly

<PhilA> Just publish it as a Note

BenediktKaempgen: whether to continue toward publishing the document as a note

<PhilA> It can be updated if desired or it can be left as is

<PhilA> +1

<BenediktKaempgen> +1

<sandro> yes

<BenediktKaempgen> Thanks all!

<hadleybeeman> thanks again, fadmaa!

<hadleybeeman> :) have a good week

thanks hadleybeeman

s/rdfs: Literal/rdfs Literal/

- DRAFT -

Government Linked Data Working Group Teleconference

23 May 2013

Attendees

Contents

Data Cube

Extension to the working group's charter

Transition ADMS into Note

RegOrg https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/gld/raw-file/default/legal/index.html

DCAT Issues

Summary of Action Items

Scribe.perl diagnostic output