13:08:48 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #dwbp
13:08:48 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2014/08/29-dwbp-irc
13:09:04 <ivan> rrsagent, set log public
13:09:14 <cgueret> topic: minutes from last week
13:09:17 <deirdrelee> Today's agenda: https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20140829
13:09:31 <Zakim> +??P17
13:10:07 <Zakim> +??P18
13:10:09 <cgueret> PROPOSED: approve last week minutes http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/dwbp/2014-08-22
13:10:12 <markharrison> markharrison has joined #dwbp
13:10:28 <deirdrelee> +1
13:10:33 <cgueret> 0 - wasn't on the call
13:10:40 <laufer> +1
13:10:41 <ivan> +1
13:10:48 <antoine> +1
13:10:54 <markharrison> +1
13:10:54 <adler1> +1
13:10:58 <Ig_Bittencourt> 0
13:11:05 <RiccardoAlbertoni> 0
13:11:05 <cgueret> RESOLVED: approved last week minutes
13:11:09 <laufer> zakim, mute me
13:11:09 <Zakim> laufer should now be muted
13:11:26 <markharrison> No
13:11:31 <laufer> yes
13:11:32 <cgueret> TOPIC: TPAC
13:11:33 <deirdrelee> scribe: cgueret
13:11:48 <antoine> how many participants of the group are going there?
13:11:56 <cgueret> deirdrelee: not registered yet, not sure will go
13:12:08 <Ig_Bittencourt> I will probably be there.
13:12:17 <cgueret> ivan: best to register only if you know you'll really go ;-)
13:12:56 <cgueret> Zakim, who is speaking ?
13:13:09 <Zakim> cgueret, listening for 12 seconds I heard sound from the following: deirdrelee (32%), EricKauz (7%), adler1 (19%)
13:13:19 <Zakim> -??P17
13:13:19 <cgueret> EricKauz: not sure I will go either
13:13:42 <cgueret> deirdrelee: will there be remote participation ?
13:13:55 <laufer> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35125/TPAC2014/registrants#DWBP
13:13:56 <cgueret> ivan: not sure for video, phone will be available for sure
13:14:04 <Zakim> +??P17
13:14:30 <jerdeb> Zakim, ??P17 is me
13:14:30 <Zakim> +jerdeb; got it
13:15:06 <cgueret> ivan: advance reg closes on Oct 8, late is open until the day of the conference
13:15:59 <cgueret> Topic: open issues and raised issues
13:16:48 <cgueret> deirdrelee: there is a lot of properties we re-used across all the documents
13:17:05 <cgueret> ... applied in different contexts
13:17:17 <cgueret> ... made a table to visualise the situation
13:17:36 <cgueret> ... let's talk about it and from there look at all the issues
13:18:21 <cgueret> ... for instance for metadata we have all the keywords
13:18:59 <cgueret> ... shall all the concepts have all the properties associated to them ?
13:18:59 <antoine> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-wg/2014Aug/att-0081/DWBP_Requirements_Matrix.csv
13:19:16 <cgueret> ... or is there that, e.g. do not need to be machine readable
13:19:43 <cgueret> EricKauz: machine readable should be a req for all
13:19:54 <antoine> I've tried to summarize my points at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-wg/2014Aug/0083.html
13:20:31 <cgueret> ... difference between metadata and vocabs ?
13:21:02 <cgueret> deirdrelee: metadata are descriptions, vocabularies are things such as DCAT and OWL
13:21:13 <cgueret> EricKauz: vocabularies are fields of metadata, right ?
13:21:21 <EricKauz> not me  talking.
13:21:29 <cgueret> sorry :/
13:21:34 <antoine> s/EricKauz/steve
13:21:40 <laufer> zakim, unmute me
13:21:40 <Zakim> laufer should no longer be muted
13:21:44 <markharrison> adler1 is talking, I think
13:21:50 <deirdrelee> Q?
13:22:30 <cgueret> adler1: the vocabulary is a single instance used by all the metadata
13:22:34 <cgueret> +1 to this def
13:22:51 <Ig_Bittencourt> Ig_Bittencourt has joined #DWBP
13:22:58 <antoine> -1: refering to vocabularies as 'instance' is confusing
13:23:07 <antoine> ... but otherwise the intention is good
13:23:19 <cgueret> ... in practice metadata, formats and vocabularies are three facets of the same thing
13:23:40 <cgueret> ... is "provenance" lineage ?
13:23:53 <cgueret> ... should be then a field in the metadata ?
13:23:54 <markharrison> +q to say that interoperability is a desirable outcome and that machine-readable + standardised are things we can do (as best practices) in order to support this desired outcome.
13:23:54 <antoine> q+
13:25:02 <cgueret> adler1: SLA may be a clause in a license
13:25:14 <cgueret> ... whereas provenance can be a string
13:25:35 <cgueret> ... need many fields than can be all recorded in metadaat
13:25:48 <adler1> q+
13:26:33 <cgueret> markharrison: looking at the table I think "interoperable" could be dropped as "machine-readable" is a req for this
13:26:57 <cgueret> adler1: so remove interoperable column ?
13:27:16 <cgueret> markharrison: can not be practicaly implemented unless you do machine readable and standardised
13:28:01 <deirdrelee> Q+ to ask if differeint standard application-profile still implies interoperability?
13:28:06 <deirdrelee> ack markharrison
13:28:06 <Zakim> markharrison, you wanted to say that interoperability is a desirable outcome and that machine-readable + standardised are things we can do (as best practices) in order to support
13:28:09 <Zakim> ... this desired outcome.
13:28:15 <deirdrelee> ack antoine
13:28:22 <adler1> q-
13:29:22 <cgueret> antoine: had licence provenance and SLA has type of metadata
13:29:27 <cgueret> s/has/as
13:29:47 <cgueret> adler1: vocabulary is the template of the metadata to describe the data
13:30:00 <cgueret> ... SLA is a form of a licence term
13:30:07 <markharrison> +q to say provenance is closer to being an intrinsic property of the data - its sources and transformations, irrespective of how it is licenced.  Both are aspects of metadata (data about the data).  Of course, there may be a provenance aspect of licence, e.g. for GPL licenced components that have impacts on the resulting licence for derived works.
13:30:30 <laufer> vocabulary is the language to describe the metadata
13:30:36 <cgueret> deirdrelee: ok to drop available and interoperable
13:30:43 <adler1> well said laufer
13:31:11 <MakxDekkers> MakxDekkers has joined #dwbp
13:31:16 <antoine> q+
13:31:46 <deirdrelee> ack deirdrelee
13:31:46 <Zakim> deirdrelee, you wanted to ask if differeint standard application-profile still implies interoperability?
13:32:09 <cgueret> antoine: if someone creates an application profiles that is not interop it is probably because this was needed
13:32:27 <cgueret> ... application profiles should then be a minimal level of compatibility
13:32:52 <antoine> q+
13:33:35 <cgueret> proposed: drop interoperable
13:34:23 <laufer> q+
13:35:01 <cgueret> ?: license can be changed without changing provenance
13:35:18 <antoine> s/?/markharrison
13:35:37 <antoine> ack markharrison
13:35:37 <Zakim> markharrison, you wanted to say provenance is closer to being an intrinsic property of the data - its sources and transformations, irrespective of how it is licenced.  Both are
13:35:37 <markharrison> +q to respond to Deidre that the interoperability of two application profiles that are both machine-readable and aligned with standardised terms may also depend on intersection of the machine-readable standards used - if no intersection in format or vocabulary, they may not be interoperable
13:35:41 <Zakim> ... aspects of metadata (data about the data).  Of course, there may be a provenance aspect of licence, e.g. for GPL licenced components that have impacts on the resulting licence
13:35:41 <Zakim> ... for derived works.
13:35:47 <cgueret> adler1: lot of good points but those are vocabulary issues
13:35:59 <CarlosIglesias> CarlosIglesias has joined #dwbp
13:35:59 <laufer> +1 in respect to drop interoperable
13:36:05 <cgueret> +1 too
13:36:18 <deirdrelee> ack antoine
13:36:30 <adler1> +1 to drop interoperable
13:36:37 <cgueret> antoine: agree with Mark about what he said on provenance
13:36:49 <cgueret> ... license prov and SLA should be kept explicit somewhere
13:36:55 <Zakim> +??P20
13:36:58 <markharrison> +1
13:37:12 <CarlosIglesias> zakim, ??P20 is really me
13:37:12 <Zakim> +CarlosIglesias; got it
13:37:26 <cgueret> laufer: we have to talk about standardized instead of just interop
13:37:33 <cgueret> ... interopable is about standardd]\
13:38:08 <cgueret> ... see what is interop with what thing
13:38:11 <adler1> q
13:38:16 <deirdrelee> q?
13:38:16 <cgueret> q?
13:38:19 <deirdrelee> ack laufer
13:38:21 <Zakim> +??P22
13:38:32 <deirdrelee> q+
13:38:52 <MakxDekkers> zakim, ??P22 is me
13:38:52 <Zakim> +MakxDekkers; got it
13:39:03 <cgueret> markharrison: interoperability is about profiles that are machine readable and aligned with vocabularies
13:39:15 <cgueret> ... interop depends on vocabularies used
13:39:30 <cgueret> ... machine readable without same vocabularies used is not interopable
13:39:59 <deirdrelee> PROPOSED Remove 'interoperability' as a separate requirement
13:40:08 <antoine> +1
13:40:09 <markharrison> +1
13:40:11 <EricKauz> +1
13:40:13 <laufer> +1
13:40:14 <ivan> +1
13:40:16 <deirdrelee> +1
13:40:17 <cgueret> deirdrelee: we agree to remove interopable as a specific req and instead merge it with machine readable
13:40:17 <RiccardoAlbertoni> +1
13:40:18 <cgueret> +1
13:40:19 <jerdeb> +1
13:40:33 <deirdrelee> RESOLVED Remove 'interoperability' as a separate requirement
13:40:55 <cgueret> deirdrelee: second proposal about avbailability
13:41:06 <antoine> q+
13:41:13 <cgueret> ... maybe we can include it into another req
13:41:18 <markharrison> q-
13:41:21 <deirdrelee> q-
13:41:47 <cgueret> antoine: available should apply to licenses, prov and SLA to record that they should be provided
13:41:56 <cgueret> ... and that would be the only req for these
13:42:10 <laufer> what about data schema
13:42:18 <cgueret> deirdrelee: do not agree, for some of them there are more reqs
13:42:54 <adler1> q+
13:43:39 <cgueret> deirdrelee: prov. sla and license could inherint everything from metadata
13:43:46 <cgueret> ... so we don't repeat it
13:44:05 <cgueret> adler1: of course metadata should be available but it's not implying all the fields should be there
13:44:16 <deirdrelee> ack antoine
13:44:20 <antoine> q+
13:44:22 <deirdrelee> ack adler
13:44:22 <cgueret> ... someone may have a license but chosen not to create an SLA clause
13:44:49 <cgueret> ... you can't insist everything is available
13:45:54 <cgueret> ... strugling a bit with the meaning of "available" actually
13:46:11 <laufer> it sounds like a may, should and must issues...
13:46:26 <cgueret> deirdrelee: that's something to work on, suggesting remove metadata as available req
13:46:35 <deirdrelee> PROPOSED Remove 'metadata-availability' as a separate requirement
13:46:48 <antoine> +1
13:46:49 <adler1> +1
13:46:52 <RiccardoAlbertoni> +1
13:46:53 <cgueret> +1
13:46:54 <laufer> +1
13:46:56 <markharrison> +1
13:46:56 <deirdrelee> +1
13:47:15 <deirdrelee> RESOLVED Remove 'metadata-availability' as a separate requirement
13:47:22 <jerdeb> +1
13:47:51 <cgueret> deirdrelee: SLA, prov and licenses are type of metadata
13:48:10 <laufer> q+
13:48:24 <cgueret> ... we can remove all of those in the table
13:48:48 <cgueret> antoine: they should be available when applicable
13:48:54 <markharrison> +1 to Antoine's e-mail suggesting to fold availability into other requirements e.g. 'should be made available as/in....'
13:48:57 <cgueret> ... if it's there it should be expressed
13:49:01 <cgueret> +1 to Antoine
13:49:31 <cgueret> deirdrelee: best practice should be there should always be a license there
13:50:48 <cgueret> ... maybe something to do through all the documents, see which keyword to use where
13:51:22 <cgueret> laufer: most important thing is the schema
13:51:27 <deirdrelee> Q+
13:51:28 <cgueret> ... this is the first meta-data
13:51:43 <antoine> q+
13:51:56 <cgueret> ... why don't we have it as a type of metadata ?
13:52:09 <Zakim> -MakxDekkers
13:52:23 <deirdrelee> ack antoine
13:52:30 <deirdrelee> ack laufer
13:52:34 <cgueret> antoine: that relates to the req for vocabularies
13:52:48 <cgueret> deirdrelee: the metadata schema is adressed through all the reqs
13:53:05 <cgueret> ... there all applied to the metadata schema
13:53:12 <markharrison> +q to propose that licence info should be stated explicitly where possible, since this helps data consumers and application developers to know whether they can use that data as a source.  It the licence is unspecified, there may be too much risk of using the dataset (if the data consumer cannot work with whatever licence might be specified in future)
13:53:14 <Zakim> +??P8
13:53:27 <cgueret> ... license prov and SLA are mentionned explicitely as they were highlihted in the UCR document
13:53:39 <cgueret> ... this is why they are specified
13:54:19 <cgueret> laufer: ok but why having vocabularies and not schema ?
13:55:25 <cgueret> adler1: we don't have to worry about omitting licenses
13:55:39 <cgueret> ... it's an obvious req
13:55:59 <laufer> ok, antoine
13:56:05 <cgueret> ... the interesting discussion is about the SLA
13:57:10 <markharrison> +1 to adler1 re lack of stable SLA and licence potentially limiting reliance on open data
13:57:29 <deirdrelee> PROPOSED Remove metadata repeated requirements from License, SLA and provenance, and specify they are types of metadata
13:57:48 <antoine> +1
13:57:48 <cgueret> +1
13:57:50 <RiccardoAlbertoni> +1
13:57:50 <adler1> +1
13:57:51 <jerdeb> +1
13:57:52 <laufer> +1
13:57:53 <EricKauz> +1
13:57:54 <Ig_Bittencourt> +!
13:57:56 <Ig_Bittencourt> +1
13:57:59 <Zakim> -??P8
13:58:05 <markharrison> +1
13:58:22 <deirdrelee> RESOLVED Remove metadata repeated requirements from License, SLA and provenance, and specify they are types of metadata
13:58:42 <cgueret> adler1: thx deirdrelee for a great table that focused a lot of discussion
13:58:59 <cgueret> deirdrelee: close issues via e-mail ?
13:59:36 <cgueret> ... is that ok with W3C practices ?
13:59:59 <Zakim> -Ivan
14:00:17 <laufer> bye, nice weekend for all
14:00:20 <cgueret> deirdrelee: end of meeting
14:00:23 <Zakim> -EricKauz
14:00:25 <RiccardoAlbertoni> bye
14:00:25 <markharrison> bye!
14:00:29 <cgueret> bye!
14:00:29 <jerdeb> bye
14:00:31 <Zakim> -RiccardoAlbertoni
14:00:32 <Zakim> -laufer
14:00:33 <Zakim> -adler1
14:00:34 <Zakim> -jerdeb
14:00:36 <Zakim> -antoine
14:00:39 <CarlosIglesias> bye!
14:01:03 <Zakim> -CarlosIglesias
14:01:12 <cgueret> deirdrelee: do we need to launch any command before closing the chat ?
14:01:13 <antoine> we have to close issues in calls but we can record proposal and agreement of people involved in issue
14:01:34 <Zakim> -??P18
14:01:40 <deirdrelee> cgueret, just checking
14:02:08 <Zakim> -cgueret
14:02:37 <Zakim> -deirdrelee
14:02:37 <Zakim> DATA_DWBP()9:00AM has ended
14:02:37 <Zakim> Attendees were antoine, EricKauz, deirdrelee, cgueret, +1.516.353.aaaa, adler1, RiccardoAlbertoni, laufer, Ivan, jerdeb, CarlosIglesias, MakxDekkers
14:03:38 <deirdrelee> no, they seem to be here already http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/dwbp/2014-08-29
14:03:54 <deirdrelee> bye
14:04:00 <cgueret> great
14:04:02 <cgueret> bye
17:37:58 <ivan> ivan has joined #dwbp