14:55:24 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #gld
14:55:24 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/12/19-gld-irc
14:58:29 <Zakim> T&S_GLDWG()10:00AM has now started
14:58:36 <Zakim> +Sandro
14:58:41 <HadleyBeeman> trackbot, start meeting
14:58:43 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
14:58:45 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be GLD
14:58:45 <Zakim> ok, trackbot, I see T&S_GLDWG()10:00AM already started
14:58:46 <trackbot> Meeting: Government Linked Data Working Group Teleconference
14:58:47 <trackbot> Date: 19 December 2013
14:59:46 <PhilA> PhilA has joined #gld
14:59:52 <MakxDekkers> MakxDekkers has joined #gld
15:00:20 <Zakim> +bhyland
15:00:47 <Zakim> + +33.4.93.00.aaaa
15:00:50 <PhilA> I will be there shortly
15:01:06 <MakxDekkers> On slow and unstable line today because of rain
15:01:09 <gatemezi> gatemezi has joined #gld
15:02:21 <Zakim> +Makx_Dekkers
15:02:22 <PhilA> Hadley and I are just finishing another call
15:02:25 <gatemezi> zamil, +33.4.93.00.aaaa is me
15:02:26 <HadleyBeeman> sorry, all — philA and I are nearly there
15:02:26 <sandro> Zakim, who is on the call?
15:02:26 <Zakim> On the phone I see Sandro, bhyland, +33.4.93.00.aaaa, Makx_Dekkers
15:03:36 <Zakim> +HadleyBeeman
15:04:04 <PhilA> zakim, code?
15:04:04 <Zakim> the conference code is 45394 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), PhilA
15:04:19 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
15:04:24 <PhilA> zakim, ipcaller is me
15:04:24 <Zakim> +PhilA; got it
15:05:22 <PhilA> chair: bhyland
15:05:47 <PhilA> bhyland: Thanks to everyone for the input. My apologies for the confusion  over Tuesday's meeting
15:05:57 <PhilA> bhyland: Sandro kindly called the vote
15:06:05 <PhilA> scribe: PhilA
15:06:10 <PhilA> scribeNick: PhilA
15:06:12 <bhyland> Frozen version of BP doc is    https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/gld/raw-file/4dbafa673d70/bp/index.html
15:06:41 <PhilA> bhyland: We had 17 or so votes. Mostly with +1, but some with fractions
15:07:02 <PhilA> bhyland: But a 0 from Dave Reynolds and a -1 from MakxDekkers
15:07:19 <PhilA> bhyland: Do we have any room to address MakxDekkers' concerns
15:08:37 <PhilA> sandro: I think so. Procedurally we can make changes as long as everyone's happy with them. The question is how can we assess that everyone's happy with them within the time frame we have
15:08:56 <HadleyBeeman> q+
15:08:56 <PhilA> ... so if the changes discussed on this call are non-controversial then we should be OK
15:09:33 <PhilA> bhyland: I'll say on behalf of the editors that we'll make these changes. The suggestions are right, there's no push back on the changes proposed and we're happy to fix them
15:09:41 <PhilA> sandro: You mean in Makx's e-mail
15:09:45 <PhilA> bhyland: Yes
15:09:50 <HadleyBeeman> Makx
15:09:55 <HadleyBeeman> Makx's email http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-gld-wg/2013Dec/0093.html
15:10:01 <PhilA> bhyland: His and Dave Reynolds' concerned too
15:10:09 <PhilA> s/concerned/concerns/
15:10:33 <PhilA> bhyland: Dave was questioning the 5 star scheme usage - and I agree
15:10:52 <HadleyBeeman> Dave Reynolds's email: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-gld-wg/2013Dec/0080.html
15:10:56 <PhilA> bhyland: He was questioning the word Web site - I didn't know what else to call it. OK#
15:11:19 <PhilA> bhyland: He had other concerns with which I don't disagree
15:11:32 <PhilA> sandro: Several people talked about the 5 star - how do you plan to address that?
15:11:47 <PhilA> sandro: I heard people being unhappy with 'diluting the 5 star brand'
15:12:15 <PhilA> bhyland: I'm happy to delete it altogether as long as there's a link to the 5 star system in the glossary then I'm happy to have it out of the BP doc
15:12:36 <PhilA> sandro: Anyone else?
15:12:40 <MakxDekkers> +1 for removing it
15:12:49 <PhilA> sandro: My inclination is just to remove it but it's not a show stopper for me
15:13:15 <bhyland> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/gld/raw-file/4dbafa673d70/bp/index.html#VOCABULARIES
15:13:24 <bhyland> scroll down a bit to the "Vocabulary Creation"
15:13:28 <bhyland> section
15:13:34 <HadleyBeeman> q-
15:14:05 <PhilA> MakxDekkers: I had 3 major points.
15:14:31 <PhilA> ... in section 3 it says that the doc will highlight how LD modelling differs from other formats - but then it doesn't
15:14:40 <PhilA> ... so either that needs to be removed or we need to add what it says
15:15:12 <PhilA> bhyland: I think step N needs to be in the BP doc. I'm disappointed that I didn't I didn't add more on that. My preference is to put in another paragraph
15:15:39 <PhilA> .... I think there should be a paragraph there. I think there was some language that got cut out. So I want to propose some non-controversial language
15:15:46 <PhilA> ... I'd like the opportunity to put it back in
15:16:00 <PhilA> ... but I don't want to upset anyone at this stage
15:16:13 <PhilA> ... but I think I can write something there that's not controversial
15:16:26 <PhilA> sandro: Do you think you have that para written somewhere?
15:16:37 <PhilA> bhyland: No, but I can follow up directly after the call
15:16:57 <PhilA> bhyland: I don't want to start searching around for the old version that has it
15:17:34 <PhilA> MakxDekkers: The second part is under provide basic metadata - the way it's formulated now, it sort of says that you must give those descriptors but they're not all always relevant
15:18:02 <PhilA> ... I also know from experience that not all of things are always available or relevant. My proposal is to say 'may include' not must
15:18:14 <PhilA> ... and MAY, not SHOULD
15:18:30 <PhilA> bhyland: So better qualification
15:19:24 <gatemezi> I don't see the SHOULD here "When modeling Linked Data, it is a best practice to provide basic metadata, including MIME type, publishing organization and/or agency, creation date, modification date, version, frequency of updates, contact email for the data steward(s). In subsequent sections, further guidance on the use of vocabularies, as well as a vocabulary "checklist" are provided as further informative guidance as they play a key role in the Linked Dat[CUT]
15:19:30 <PhilA> bhyland: This is a problem in real life is that agencies overlook this. I don't think using MAY not SHOULD will change behaviour. Some of those things get missed when they really shouldn't be optional
15:19:38 <gatemezi> Am I missing something?
15:20:05 <PhilA> MakxDekkers: The first argument is that you have some resources where those things don't exist. For e.g. I don't get updated
15:20:20 <PhilA> MakxDekkers: The implication is a MUST - and it's context-dependent
15:20:36 <PhilA> ... the basic metadata is different for differnet kinds of resource
15:20:49 <PhilA> bhyland: How about we say 'if it is available, one may include'
15:21:05 <HadleyBeeman> "… in can be helpful to include…"?
15:21:10 <HadleyBeeman> s/in/it
15:21:11 <PhilA> MakxDekkers: Say it as you like as long as people who read this afresh don't think that they MUST provide these descriptiors
15:21:46 <PhilA> MakxDekkers: And in section 8 - that's a show stopper for me. It really should say follow your nose
15:21:55 <PhilA> bhyland: I agree completely. That was an oversight. it must be in there
15:21:57 <gatemezi> s/descriptiors/descriptors
15:22:49 <PhilA> MakxDekkers: And then for consistency with DCAT - you should mention the Loc URI sets. I like Lexvo but it's maintained by one person. I'd be happy to keep it, but the LoC URI set is the most authoritative for this kind of info
15:23:07 <PhilA> PhilA: MakxDekkers - LoC and not EUPO NAL??
15:23:42 <PhilA> bhyland: I don't think we should link to a one person project
15:23:44 <bhyland> q?
15:23:49 <PhilA> bhyland: Any other opinions about this?
15:24:20 <PhilA> sandro: I'm not familiar with Lexvo, but yes, we should link to LoC
15:24:43 <PhilA> bhyland: Thank you - I will go back and re-read your past messages. I need to do that
15:24:45 <gatemezi> q+