15:21:33 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #dwbp
15:21:33 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2014/10/30-dwbp-irc
15:21:41 <phila> zakim, this will be dwbp
15:21:41 <Zakim> ok, phila; I see DATA_DWBP()11:30AM scheduled to start in 9 minutes
15:22:05 <phila> RRSAgent, this meeting spans midnight
15:22:39 <phila> Meeting: DWBP Face to face, TPAC 2014, Day 1
15:22:46 <CarlosIglesias> CarlosIglesias has joined #dwbp
15:24:31 <Zakim> DATA_DWBP()11:30AM has now started
15:24:39 <Zakim> +RiccardoAlbertoni
15:26:36 <RiccardoAlbertoni>  how remote partecipation is going to work? are we supposed to be connected only by irc or an audio connection is foreseen?
15:28:29 <Zakim> -RiccardoAlbertoni
15:28:30 <Zakim> DATA_DWBP()11:30AM has ended
15:28:30 <Zakim> Attendees were RiccardoAlbertoni
15:28:49 <phila> Hi RiccardoAlbertoni - you need to be on IRC as usual and the dial in number will work. We're still gathering here so I won't connect to zakim, just yet
15:29:25 <phila> My guess is a lot of people will assume we're starting at 09:00 (half an hour's time). No chairs here yet...
15:30:36 <Caroline__> Caroline__ has joined #DWBP
15:30:42 <Caroline__> Hello!!!
15:31:06 <RiccardoAlbertoni> ok, thanks .. then I will wait the actual start for calling by skype ..
15:31:36 <ericstephan> ericstephan has joined #dwbp
15:32:03 <Caroline__> We will call Zakim?
15:32:51 <phila> Yes, but not yet Caroline__
15:33:08 <phila> People are still gathering here in the room.
15:33:17 <Caroline__> ok! Please let me know when I should call
15:33:22 <phila> It's still early morning here...
15:34:20 <Caroline__> Good morning! :)
15:35:51 <JeniT> JeniT has joined #dwbp
15:38:48 <raphael> raphael has joined #dwbp
15:38:59 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/10/30-dwbp-minutes.html raphael
15:40:32 <Eric_Kauz> Eric_Kauz has joined #DWBP
15:44:13 <hadleybeeman> Hi all! Official declaration that we'll be starting at 9:00 (in 15 mins)
15:44:15 <gatemezi> gatemezi has joined #dwbp
15:44:22 <Caroline__> Ok! :)
15:44:25 <hadleybeeman> :)
15:44:39 <hadleybeeman> Morning, gatemezi. I just said we'll be starting in 15 mins
15:45:38 <gatemezi> Morning Hadley.. Thanks. Any other means to follow you remotely  apart from Zakim ?
15:45:39 <raphael> raphael has joined #dwbp
15:47:34 <phila> zakim, call SalonA
15:47:34 <Zakim> ok, phila; the call is being made
15:47:35 <Zakim> DATA_DWBP()11:30AM has now started
15:47:37 <Zakim> +SalonA
15:48:16 <raphael> Present+ Raphael_Troncy
15:48:24 <jtandy> jtandy has joined #dwbp
15:48:53 <laufer> laufer has joined #dwbp
15:48:56 <Ig_Bittencourt> Ig_Bittencourt has joined #dwbp
15:49:12 <phila> zakim, SalonA has Jeremy_Tandy, Laufer, Ig, JeniT, Bart, Chunming, Eric_Kauz, raphael, hadleybeeman, phila, Olivier, Annette, Erik_Mannens
15:49:13 <Zakim> +Jeremy_Tandy, Laufer, Ig, JeniT, Bart, Chunming, Eric_Kauz, raphael, hadleybeeman, phila, Olivier, Annette, Erik_Mannens; got it
15:50:08 <chunming> chunming has joined #dwbp
15:50:55 <Zakim> +RiccardoAlbertoni
15:51:39 <phila> zakim, salona has Kirby_Shabaga
15:51:40 <Zakim> +Kirby_Shabaga; got it
15:52:09 <phila> zakim, salona has Gary_Driscoll
15:52:09 <Zakim> +Gary_Driscoll; got it
15:52:50 <phila> chair: Hadley
15:52:58 <phila> Topic: Intro to the day
15:53:29 <phila> hadleybeeman: We plan to cover the big picture topic, what is the scope, what do we have the capacity to do etc.
15:53:56 <phila> ... More importantly I'm hoping we can get stuff writen down, work through issues, perhaps writing/editing as we go
15:54:15 <phila> ... we'll spend this morning reviuewing the requirements in the BP doc
15:54:24 <phila> ... ideally ending with a long list of issues in the tracker
15:54:40 <phila> ... this PM we'll split into groups and work on the BP doc and the 2 vocabs
15:54:55 <phila> ... may come back with specific questions for the group
15:55:02 <phila> ... likely to spread into tomorrow morning
15:55:14 <phila> ... ideally we want Editor's drafts by end of tomorrow
15:55:22 <Vagner_Br> Vagner_Br has joined #dwbp
15:55:26 <phila> ... we need to think about the use cases that we have
15:55:40 <phila> ... there seem to be UCs in our heads that need to be in the UCR doc
15:55:59 <phila> ... and we want to make the most of having everyoine here. So we need feedback and suggestions for making the best use of the time
15:56:05 <phila> scribe: philA
15:56:09 <phila> scribeNick:philA
15:56:30 <phila> bernadette: Before we split into groups I'd like to talk about the structure of the BP doc
15:56:37 <phila> hadleybeeman: OK, but probably tomorrow afternoon
15:57:06 <phila> zakim, SalonA has Vagner_Br, Bernadette
15:57:06 <Zakim> +Vagner_Br, Bernadette; got it
15:57:12 <phila> zakim, who is here?
15:57:12 <Zakim> On the phone I see SalonA, RiccardoAlbertoni
15:57:13 <Zakim> SalonA has Vagner_Br, Bernadette
15:57:13 <Zakim> On IRC I see Vagner_Br, chunming, Ig_Bittencourt, laufer, jtandy, raphael, gatemezi, Eric_Kauz, JeniT, ericstephan, CarlosIglesias, RRSAgent, Zakim, phila, BartvanLeeuwen,
15:57:13 <Zakim> ... RiccardoAlbertoni, hadleybeeman, trackbot
15:57:44 <ericstephan> q+
15:58:50 <BernadetteLoscio> BernadetteLoscio has joined #dwbp
15:59:03 <olivier> olivier has joined #dwbp
15:59:26 <AdrianoC> AdrianoC has joined #dwbp
15:59:56 <phila> Topic: Intros
16:00:30 <phila> Tour de Table
16:00:33 <Caroline> Caroline has joined #DWBP
16:00:45 <phila> raphael: From EURECOM. Ghislain is one of my colleagues
16:00:56 <phila> (Only scribing guests)
16:01:24 <phila> chunming: From China Host, observing today but work on data in China
16:01:26 <Zakim> +Caroline_
16:01:38 <raphael> s/work on data/work on big data/
16:01:49 <annette_g> annette_g has joined #dwbp
16:01:49 <phila> Gary_Driscoll: Interested in all things data
16:01:58 <phila> JeniT: From ODI, co-chair of CSVW
16:02:44 <phila> zakim, SalonA has Ken_Laskey
16:02:44 <Zakim> +Ken_Laskey; got it
16:03:01 <phila> zakim, salona has Reinaldo
16:03:01 <Zakim> +Reinaldo; got it
16:03:49 <BernadetteLoscio> hello Carol!
16:04:11 <phila> jtandy: I'm jeremy Tandy from the UK Met Office. I'm an observer here but interested in taking down the barriers to others reusing data. Unanticiapted reuse is what we're aiming for
16:04:55 <phila> Adrian: From University of ?? where we work on data consumption. We're trying to complement and add value to what we call data enrichment
16:05:09 <Ig_Bittencourt> Adrian from University of Minas Gerais
16:05:14 <phila> Olivier: I'm from the BBC
16:05:32 <phila> annette_g: I work at the Lawrence Livermore Lab in the super computer centre
16:05:48 <phila> Kirby: I'm with Boeing in Seattle
16:06:02 <phila> reinaldo: I work in W3C Brasil office, observing today
16:06:18 <phila> ErikM: I'm observing today but my team is involved in a lot of groups
16:06:30 <phila> Ken: I'm with MITRE Corp
16:06:31 <annette_g> s/Lawrence LIvermore/Lawrence Berkeley
16:06:41 <hadleybeeman> zakim, who is here?
16:06:41 <Zakim> On the phone I see SalonA, RiccardoAlbertoni, Caroline_
16:06:42 <Zakim> SalonA has Reinaldo
16:06:42 <Zakim> On IRC I see annette_g, Caroline, AdrianoC, olivier, BernadetteLoscio, Vagner_Br, chunming, Ig_Bittencourt, laufer, jtandy, raphael, gatemezi, Eric_Kauz, JeniT, ericstephan,
16:06:42 <Zakim> ... CarlosIglesias, RRSAgent, Zakim, phila, BartvanLeeuwen, RiccardoAlbertoni, hadleybeeman, trackbot
16:06:56 <annette_g> s/Lawrence Livermore/Lawrence Berkeley
16:08:56 <phila> hadleybeeman: Explains overall aim of the WG
16:09:30 <phila> hadleybeeman: We're not a Linked data WG. We have a broad aim therefore. 2 quite specific vocabs and a general best practices doc
16:09:38 <phila> ... the use cases provide the grounding of course
16:09:39 <hadleybeeman> http://www.w3.org/TR/dwbp-ucr/
16:10:11 <kirby> kirby has joined #dwbp
16:10:23 <Vagner_Br> s/??/Minas Gerais, Brazil
16:10:28 <ericstephan> q-
16:10:29 <phila> hadleybeeman: Please keep thinking about use cases that we're missisng
16:10:40 <em> em has joined #dwbp
16:11:04 <hadleybeeman> scribe: hadleybeeman
16:11:34 <em> em has joined #DWBP
16:11:40 <phila> -> http://www.w3.org/TR/dwbp-ucr/#requirements-1 Requirements
16:11:46 <ericstephan> phila:  To make the best use of the time that we have we will skip the use cases and focus on requirements
16:11:55 <hadleybeeman> scribe: ericstephan
16:12:44 <ericstephan> phila:  It would be really good for people to go thru the use cases and make sure that everything is complete.  For the interest of time we will go thru the requirements together.  If we are missing a requirement now is the time to add new requirements.
16:13:13 <ericstephan> Bernadette:  Will we also filter out requirements to determine scope?
16:13:38 <ericstephan> phila:  We need to bring the use cases to something manageable
16:14:18 <ericstephan> The requirements are in different clusters and for most use cases you can follow the links that pertain to the use cases in the document.
16:14:38 <fjh> fjh has joined #dwbp
16:14:46 <fjh> zakim, who is here?
16:14:46 <Zakim> On the phone I see SalonA, RiccardoAlbertoni, Caroline_
16:14:47 <Zakim> SalonA has Reinaldo
16:14:47 <Zakim> On IRC I see fjh, em, kirby, annette_g, Caroline, AdrianoC, olivier, BernadetteLoscio, Vagner_Br, chunming, Ig_Bittencourt, laufer, jtandy, raphael, gatemezi, Eric_Kauz, JeniT,
16:14:47 <Zakim> ... ericstephan, CarlosIglesias, RRSAgent, Zakim, phila, BartvanLeeuwen, RiccardoAlbertoni, hadleybeeman, trackbot
16:14:55 <fjh> rrsagent, generate minutes
16:14:55 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/10/30-dwbp-minutes.html fjh
16:15:51 <fjh> Present+ Frederick_Hirsch
16:16:03 <Caroline> +q
16:16:13 <Reinaldo> Reinaldo has joined #dwbp
16:16:19 <KenL> KenL has joined #DWBP
16:17:10 <ericstephan> phila:  All the requirements have been derived from use cases.  Some requirements are absolutely basic baby steps.
16:17:34 <JeniT> q+
16:17:47 <JeniT> q+ to ask about the choice of a *suitable* format
16:17:48 <Caroline> q-
16:17:58 <ericstephan> phila:  Reviewing over section 4.1.1 requirements in UCR
16:18:04 <hadleybeeman> ack jeni
16:18:04 <Zakim> JeniT, you wanted to ask about the choice of a *suitable* format
16:18:49 <Caroline> Zakim, who is speaking?
16:18:50 <ericstephan> JeniT:  Is there a requirement for a suitable format?  If you are publishing for geographic data then you need a geographic format etc.
16:19:01 <Zakim> Caroline, listening for 10 seconds I could not identify any sounds
16:19:03 <ericstephan> JeniT is speaking @Caroline
16:19:08 <hadleybeeman> ?
16:19:11 <hadleybeeman> q?
16:19:17 <taisuke_> taisuke_ has joined #dwbp
16:19:23 <yaso> yaso has joined #dwbp
16:19:26 <fjh_> fjh_ has joined #dwbp
16:19:57 <hadleybeeman> http://www.w3.org/TR/dwbp-ucr/#requirements-1
16:20:20 <ericstephan> phila:  Yes JeniT we do need to include a requirement for a suitable format
16:20:22 <KenL> Is the question a single format or unambiguously identifying the format that is being used?  Format =s will change and we need to understand how to interpret.
16:21:00 <hadleybeeman> @kenL: Sounds like we need to flesh that out
16:21:05 <ericstephan> phila:  R-FormatLocalize requirement, different parts of the world write in different formats the local can make a big difference when sharing data
16:21:31 <BernadetteLoscio> q+
16:21:48 <newton> newton has joined #dwbp
16:21:51 <ericstephan> ken:  question on locale::  Is it your local or the locale of the data?
16:21:54 <ErikM> ErikM has joined #DWBP
16:22:08 <ericstephan> bernadette:  is it a requirement for data format or metadata?
16:22:23 <BartvanLeeuwen> q+
16:22:44 <ericstephan> phila:  It is a requirement for the information about the data.
16:22:49 <jhund> jhund has joined #dwbp
16:23:19 <laufer> q+
16:23:31 <hadleybeeman> action: phil to add a requirement for a suitable format (as per jenit's suggestion)
16:23:31 <trackbot> Created ACTION-106 - Add a requirement for a suitable format (as per jenit's suggestion) [on Phil Archer - due 2014-11-06].
16:23:32 <ericstephan> phila:  The meaning about localize needs to become clearer.
16:23:54 <hadleybeeman> action: phil to clarify RFormatLocalize according to questions in the F2F discussion
16:23:54 <trackbot> Created ACTION-107 - Clarify rformatlocalize according to questions in the f2f discussion [on Phil Archer - due 2014-11-06].
16:23:59 <ericstephan> phila:  ....localize and format
16:24:09 <hadleybeeman> ack bern
16:24:20 <BartvanLeeuwen> q-
16:24:28 <hadleybeeman> ack laufer
16:24:36 <ericstephan> bart:  need to be making issues and actions as we go along.
16:25:09 <antoine> antoine has joined #dwbp
16:25:28 <ericstephan> laufer:  There are layers in data and metadata information.  Do we need to clarify inheritance when we discuss collections
16:26:20 <ericstephan> phila:  There is no requirement that covers inheritance, the current requirement for granularity doesn't cover it.
16:26:23 <hadleybeeman> action: phil to amend/expand R-GranularityLevels to cover Laufer's question about inheritance —metadata for the data itself and for the dataset
16:26:23 <trackbot> Created ACTION-108 - Amend/expand r-granularitylevels to cover laufer's question about inheritance —metadata for the data itself and for the dataset [on Phil Archer - due 2014-11-06].
16:26:31 <hadleybeeman> q?
16:26:38 <SumitPurohit> SumitPurohit has joined #DWBP
16:26:47 <ericstephan> Hi Sumit!
16:26:50 <JeniT> q+ to ask whether vocabularies cover code lists
16:26:51 <hadleybeeman> hello Sumit!
16:26:57 <SumitPurohit> Hi Eric
16:26:59 <raphael> q+ what is a "reference vocabularies"?
16:27:06 <SumitPurohit> Hello Hedley
16:27:11 <hadleybeeman> ack jeni
16:27:11 <Zakim> JeniT, you wanted to ask whether vocabularies cover code lists
16:27:24 <raphael> q+ to ask what is a "reference vocabularies"?
16:27:30 <ericstephan> phila:  4.1.2 discussed data vocabularies section
16:27:43 <jtandy> q+
16:27:46 <Zakim> + +1.509.372.aaaa
16:27:53 <Zakim> - +1.509.372.aaaa
16:27:57 <jtandy> q-
16:28:10 <Zakim> + +1.509.372.aabb
16:28:45 <jtandy> +1 to JeniT's comment about separating the "vocabulary data model" requirement from the "vocabulary code list" requirement
16:28:51 <Ig_Bittencourt> q+
16:29:08 <ericstephan> jeniT:  Is this about the format, we need to publish data that relates to code lists if they are available
16:29:11 <KenL> Shouldn't any vocabulary be covered and be able to be uniquely identified?
16:29:29 <ericstephan> jeniT:  It is very much like vocabularies..
16:30:11 <ericstephan> bernadette:  I think we had that in mind but maybe more focused on ontology specific vocabularies to supply the meaning.
16:30:32 <gatemezi> what about using a vocabulary such as SKOS for publishing code list ?
16:31:07 <ericstephan> phila:  currently the ucr doesn't include code lists....does the use cases include code lists?  This is an issue
16:31:25 <ericstephan> laufer:   A code list is a foreign key?
16:31:30 <hadleybeeman> issue: phil to look at whether the UCR doc sufficiently covers code lists
16:31:30 <trackbot> Created ISSUE-48 - Phil to look at whether the ucr doc sufficiently covers code lists.  Please complete additional details at <http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/48/edit>.
16:31:33 <ericstephan> phila:  Yes it is, it has to be there.
16:31:49 <ericstephan> bart:  If you don't have it you don't have a clue what the data means
16:31:55 <hadleybeeman> q?
16:32:00 <hadleybeeman> ack raphael
16:32:00 <Zakim> raphael, you wanted to ask what is a "reference vocabularies"?
16:32:03 <SumitPurohit> Now voice is clear...
16:32:19 <ericstephan> raphael:  I wonder if there is a definition of a reference vocabulary?
16:32:43 <ericstephan> bernadette:  We don't have a glossary....
16:33:29 <ericstephan> raphael:  a glossary would be helpful.
16:33:37 <KenL> q+ to ask if it matters what qualified as a vocabulary if way to identify is useful
16:33:42 <jtandy> q+
16:33:56 <jtandy> q-
16:33:57 <ericstephan> phila:  There are w3c documents around we need to point to them or expand upon them
16:34:03 <hadleybeeman> issue: Phil to Either improve on the definition of "reference vocabulary", or point to existing definitions
16:34:03 <trackbot> Created ISSUE-49 - Phil to either improve on the definition of "reference vocabulary", or point to existing definitions.  Please complete additional details at <http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/49/edit>.
16:34:25 <hadleybeeman> ack ig
16:34:26 <jtandy> q+
16:34:29 <hadleybeeman> ack ken
16:34:29 <Zakim> KenL, you wanted to ask if it matters what qualified as a vocabulary if way to identify is useful
16:34:43 <raphael> There are many dimensions that can be use (authority, persistency, popularity, etc.) to decide whether a vocabulary is a reference one or not. Perhaps one could at this stage provides examples of reference vocabularies and others that are not
16:35:01 <ericstephan> Ken:  What qualifies as a vocabulary?  If you can have something that is well documented can't the vocabulary be more fluid?
16:35:23 <ericstephan> hadley:  Are we talking about the definition of a vocabulary or reference to vocabulary?
16:35:27 <CarlosIglesias> wondering whether "vocabulary" is a too semantic web/linked data biassed terms
16:35:32 <ericstephan> Ken:  I don't know if I care...
16:35:47 <CarlosIglesias> we may be talking more generically about "data models"
16:36:05 <gatemezi> me Caroline, sue this link http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/49/edit
16:36:13 <gatemezi> s/sue/use
16:36:16 <ericstephan> Ken:  URIs to identify vocabularies if I think its one and you think its one, that's ok
16:36:24 <Ig_Bittencourt> q+
16:36:35 <hadleybeeman> ack jtandy
16:37:19 <ericstephan> Jtandy:  One of the things that inhibits people is knowing which vocabulary to use.  Helping people use to start with would be a great outcome and take away the excuse
16:37:34 <rhiaro_> rhiaro_ has joined #dwbp
16:37:36 <hadleybeeman> q+ to respond re recommending vocabs
16:37:41 <ericstephan> Jtandy:  establishing a procedure for where to look would be really useful
16:38:07 <SumitPurohit> +q
16:38:11 <hadleybeeman> ack ig
16:38:18 <ericstephan> Ig:  The reference vocabulary should take into account of ontological commitment.  I advocate the use of ontology
16:39:09 <yaso> q+
16:39:15 <ericstephan> hadley:  I agree with Jtandys point but at the same time recommending vocabularies for an infinite number of use cases might be a very hard problem
16:39:16 <laufer> q+
16:39:32 <gatemezi> Jtandy : There was an attempt in a previous WG on how to find/look for vocabularies. Maybe this link here http://www.w3.org/TR/ld-bp/#VOCABULARIES can be a good starter to look at
16:39:35 <hadleybeeman> q+ jtandy
16:40:13 <ericstephan> sumit:  I have a suggestion, we should explicitly say what we mean by vocabulary so we will be on the same page.  We should take it as an action item to define what we mean
16:40:17 <hadleybeeman> ack sumit
16:40:19 <KenL> q+ saying terms and definitions was meant as an example and not a firm recommendation. Also, choosing vocabulary can be matter of policy or current practice, and these may change. Identifying vocabulary is important point and is first step to mediating between vocabularies.
16:40:21 <hadleybeeman> ack me
16:40:22 <Zakim> hadleybeeman, you wanted to respond re recommending vocabs
16:40:25 <yaso> q-
16:40:34 <hadleybeeman> ack laufer
16:40:58 <KenL> q+ to sayi terms and definitions was meant as an example and not a firm recommendation. Also, choosing vocabulary can be matter of policy or current practice, and these may change. Identifying vocabulary is important point and is first step to mediating between vocabularies.
16:41:18 <yanai> yanai has joined #dwbp
16:41:23 <newton_> newton_ has joined #dwbp
16:41:28 <ericstephan> laufer:  we are talking about suggestions for vocabulary that could be useful.  This would be a huge problem, we should restrict the metadata about the collection ....
16:41:51 <hadleybeeman> ack j
16:42:14 <BernadetteLoscio> q+
16:42:21 <BartvanLeeuwen> q+ isn't this part of best practices?
16:42:27 <antoine> antoine has joined #dwbp
16:42:28 <yaso> q+
16:42:35 <BartvanLeeuwen> q+ to isn't this part of best practices?
16:42:44 <ericstephan> jtandy:  responding back to hadley, I wasn't advocating a list of vocabularys that would be obsolete very quickly.  I am advocating a way of registering vocabularies to find the things that may or may not be useful to them
16:42:51 <Ig_Bittencourt> q+
16:43:15 <hadleybeeman> ack ken
16:43:15 <Zakim> KenL, you wanted to sayi terms and definitions was meant as an example and not a firm recommendation. Also, choosing vocabulary can be matter of policy or current practice, and
16:43:18 <Zakim> ... these may change. Identifying vocabulary is important point and is first step to mediating between vocabularies.
16:43:43 <phila> q+
16:43:57 <hadleybeeman> ack bernadette
16:44:02 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
16:44:07 <ericstephan> kenL:  I didn't want to get into definitions of vocabularies, this might change from case to case
16:44:15 <antoine> zakim, IPcaller is me
16:44:15 <Zakim> +antoine; got it
16:44:21 <hadleybeeman> ack yaso
16:44:44 <ericstephan> yaso:  We should recommend best practices on making vocabularies?
16:44:46 <BernadetteLoscio> q+
16:45:00 <BartvanLeeuwen> ack me
16:45:00 <hadleybeeman> ack bart
16:45:01 <Zakim> BartvanLeeuwen, you wanted to isn't this part of best practices?
16:45:34 <ericstephan> bart:  I am wondering if this is something that goes to vocabularies about best practices to select vocabularies
16:45:34 <laufer> +1 to bart
16:45:37 <hadleybeeman> ack ig
16:45:57 <Ig_Bittencourt> http://lov.okfn.org/dataset/lov/
16:46:01 <ericstephan> ig:  I agree with Ken and Raphael, not to propose a vocabulary but a place for people to find the vocabulary.
16:46:36 <ericstephan> Ig:  To Yaso are we interested in how to use a vocabulary or create a vocabulary
16:46:43 <hadleybeeman> ack phil
16:46:46 <hadleybeeman> scribe: hadleybeeman
16:47:22 <KenL> so one piece of metadata for a vocabulary would be the documented formalism in which the vocabulary is expressed.
16:47:24 <hadleybeeman> phila: Thanks to all — I don't disagree with anything I've heard.  I've written about how you choose a vocab in W3C namespace and European Commission sites.
16:47:48 <hadleybeeman> ... It does list some vocabularies.  Schema.org, Dublin Core, etc. That could be found and incorporated/improved upon.
16:48:00 <hadleybeeman> ... LOV — linked open vocabularies — is a project run by Raphael.
16:48:23 <hadleybeeman> ... If you're thinking of coming up for a term for a bus, it tells you all the schemas and vocabularies that have anything to do with the term "bus".
16:48:35 <hadleybeeman> ... The Research Data Alliance are tryign to build something similar
16:48:49 <ericstephan> @hadleybeeman I can take over again
16:48:56 <gatemezi> http://lov.okfn.org/dataset/lov/search?q=bus
16:48:56 <hadleybeeman> ... On new vocabularies:  It is a different subject, but we have been offered some useful text on that by the Multilingual Web group
16:49:01 <hadleybeeman> scribe: ericstephan
16:49:04 <fjh> https://rd-alliance.org
16:49:45 <hadleybeeman> q?
16:49:53 <jtandy> @gatemezi ... wow, there are 73 results already for http://lov.okfn.org/dataset/lov/search?q=bus
16:49:59 <hadleybeeman> ack bernadette
16:50:06 <ericstephan> phila:  To summarize yes we are talking requirements, kens point is really well taken not defining to narrowly, provide guidance and the bp document should provide this
16:50:10 <SumitPurohit> +1 Phil
16:51:03 <gatemezi> @jtandy.. yep! More details on the right column: 49 classes, 24 properties... and the domain of the vocabularies ;
16:51:23 <ericstephan> bernadette:  We are going to have requirements for vocabularys themselves and best practices for vocabularies themselves.  We need more than what we currently have to help guide this.
16:51:48 <ericstephan> bernadette:  If we are going to work on vocabularies we need this tree and more
16:51:57 <ericstephan> bernadette:  pointing to 4.1.2
16:52:21 <hadleybeeman> issue:  Bernadette to help us find more use cases on the vocabulary itself (including creating a vocabulary)
16:52:21 <trackbot> Created ISSUE-50 - Bernadette to help us find more use cases on the vocabulary itself (including creating a vocabulary).  Please complete additional details at <http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/50/edit>.
16:52:27 <phila> q?
16:52:34 <ericstephan> bernadette:  when I look at 4.1.2 this is not for people using the vocabularies not the people creating the vocabularies
16:52:57 <ericstephan> s/not the people/it is for the people/
16:53:13 <jtandy> q+ to ask if we should talk about "discovery metadata"
16:53:17 <JeniT> q+ to ask whether there are particular metadata requirements
16:53:24 <BernadetteLoscio> q+
16:53:26 <ericstephan> phila:  4.1.3  Are there other requirements for metadata?
16:53:28 <phila> ack jtandy
16:53:29 <Zakim> jtandy, you wanted to ask if we should talk about "discovery metadata"
16:53:33 <yaso> q?
16:54:25 <ericstephan> jtandy:  when I see the word metadata, its so broad in its meaning, do we want to refine the metadata to define as discovery metadata usage metadata (which is much richer)
16:54:44 <annette_g> * +1 for usage metadata
16:54:46 <laufer> q+
16:55:02 <ericstephan> jtandy:  for scoping I recommend focusing on discovery metadata...
16:55:03 <phila> ack JeniT
16:55:03 <Zakim> JeniT, you wanted to ask whether there are particular metadata requirements
16:55:15 <ericstephan> phila:  I agree and I think we will need to have some usage metadata
16:55:29 <phila> ack BernadetteLoscio
16:55:41 <Zakim> +SumitPurohit
16:55:45 <Zakim> - +1.509.372.aabb
16:55:51 <KenL> q+ to say distinguishing discovery metadata vs. use metadata is sometimes a slippery distinction because what I would use as a criteria for discovery could be what you want for use (and other variations)
16:55:57 <ericstephan> bernadette:  We are thinking about different kinds of metadata
16:56:14 <KenL> best not to try to silo the metadata
16:56:34 <Eric_Kauz> +1
16:56:44 <ericstephan> bernadette:  We haven't defined this yet we should consider what laufer said about the levels.  Some metadata related to collection and some related to the data itself.
16:57:20 <ericstephan> jtandy:  We've steered away from provenance metadata at this point (csv working group)
16:57:28 <Ig_Bittencourt> q+
16:57:51 <hadleybeeman> ack laufer
16:58:11 <ericstephan> bernadette:  The collection could consist of different kinds of data, the metadata can be nonspecific to each particular type of data in the data set.
16:58:19 <jtandy> (or at least we've steered away from making a recommendation about inclusion of provenance metadata at this point in order to keep our scope tight)
16:58:46 <hadleybeeman> q?
16:59:00 <BernadetteLoscio> q+
16:59:15 <ericstephan> laufer:  We could classify the data by the collection or specific data schema.  Someone could define a profile ....
16:59:29 <hadleybeeman> q+ to talk about which metadata — and our scope
16:59:51 <ericstephan> laufer:  I think its a good hint that we don't have to focus on metadata for the schema
16:59:56 <BernadetteLoscio> q-
16:59:59 <jtandy> q+ to ask how these requirements might actually be tested ... which might help determine if a given requirement should be included in the doc
17:00:08 <hadleybeeman> ack ken
17:00:08 <Zakim> KenL, you wanted to say distinguishing discovery metadata vs. use metadata is sometimes a slippery distinction because what I would use as a criteria for discovery could be what
17:00:10 <ericstephan> laufer:  data about the data, not to clarify the items of the schema.
17:00:11 <Ig_Bittencourt> q-
17:00:11 <Zakim> ... you want for use (and other variations)
17:00:54 <hadleybeeman> ack hadley
17:00:54 <Zakim> hadleybeeman, you wanted to talk about which metadata — and our scope
17:01:01 <ericstephan> ken:  If we are taking about different kinds of metadata on discover and usage.  If you can keep it as flat as possible that's what I could recommend.
17:01:49 <ericstephan> hadley:  We could take on describing best practices for metadata and not be particularly useful.  What is stopping other people for using my data?
17:02:20 <jtandy> ack jtandy
17:02:20 <Zakim> jtandy, you wanted to ask how these requirements might actually be tested ... which might help determine if a given requirement should be included in the doc
17:02:20 <hadleybeeman> ack j
17:02:25 <ericstephan> hadley:  If we think about about people not using my metadata because its not tidy?  I am interested to hear what you have to say
17:02:54 <annette_g> q+
17:03:14 <ericstephan> jtandy:  I agree hadley, you have to ask specific questions, how do you actually test these requirements?  How are you going to demonstrate whether they work or not if you are going to put this in an IRC document?
17:03:29 <ericstephan> s/IRC document/recommendation/
17:03:53 <Zakim> -SumitPurohit
17:04:17 <ericstephan> phila:  Being able to think about this is useful, we do have to think about how the best practices are based on the requirements.  How you validate this.
17:04:42 <ericstephan> jtandy:  How do you validate this because its really hard to test?
17:04:44 <Makx> Makx has joined #dwbp
17:05:00 <KenL> q
17:05:06 <hadleybeeman> q?
17:05:23 <BernadetteLoscio> q+
17:05:24 <hadleybeeman> ack annette
17:05:32 <ericstephan> phila:  We've got to be able to narrow down the scope because the current scope is vast.
17:06:26 <ericstephan> annette:  In the science world usage is a pervasive problem.   Unless you can say this column represents this it is meaningless to others.
17:06:35 <hadleybeeman> ack bern
17:06:51 <hadleybeeman> scribe: hadleybeeman
17:07:33 <hadleybeeman> Bernadette: I'm not sure if we need a requirement of how to associate the metadata to the data collection? The collection will be a set of data, a set of files — the metadata will be in another file.  We need a requirement to say how we are going to link these things.
17:07:53 <hadleybeeman> phila: It's in the requirements. R-Citable, asking for a persistent and unique identifier.
17:08:02 <hadleybeeman> Hadley: maybe we need to explain it a bit more?
17:08:14 <hadleybeeman> phila: If people are raising questions, we need to clarify it.
17:08:27 <hadleybeeman> jtandy:  the metadata needs to cite the data, not the other way around.
17:08:30 <ericstephan> q+
17:08:42 <hadleybeeman> ack erics
17:08:59 <hadleybeeman> ericstephan: Re Validation: Are we allowed to specify technical approaches for best practices?
17:09:00 <hadleybeeman> phila: yes
17:09:24 <BernadetteLoscio> q+
17:09:35 <hadleybeeman> ericstephan:  We've talked about using JSON, JSON-LD and RDF as examples for metadata.  Choosing one or all of them.
17:09:55 <jtandy> (what I meant was that the metadata should cite the data _and_ there should be a way to find the metadata from the data - e.g. like a link header)
17:10:00 <hadleybeeman> q?
17:10:05 <hadleybeeman> ack bernadette
17:10:31 <gatemezi> @jtandy : now it's clear enough.. +1
17:10:33 <hadleybeeman> bernadette: for the best practices, we can have more than one implementation for a best practice.  The technical approach can expressed be in different implementations
17:10:59 <hadleybeeman> philA: on to Requirements for Licenses.
17:11:28 <hadleybeeman> ... I'm sorry to report that an Eu project we thought might help didn't get funded. But we did say, and the ODI has made plain, that data should be associated with a license.
17:11:38 <hadleybeeman> ...The ODI recommends rights rather than a license.
17:11:42 <hadleybeeman> JeniT: Well, both
17:12:04 <hadleybeeman> Phila: This is more of a commercial angle stuff. What liability do you have as a user, or as a publisher?
17:12:19 <jtandy> +1 ... and if you are publishing data under a free usage license then you should say so - not assume that people will infer that!
17:12:29 <hadleybeeman> ...We don't have the legal expertise to develop this, (what licenses are, or what right statements may be) — but this is explicitly out of scope for the group.
17:12:35 <hadleybeeman> ...We can just say "stick a license on it."
17:12:36 <ErikM> ErikM has joined #DWBP
17:12:37 <JeniT> q+ to say it should also say rights are explicit
17:12:52 <hadleybeeman> ...If the group has the capacity to go further, then we're open to it.
17:13:19 <deirdrelee> deirdrelee has joined #dwbp
17:13:19 <hadleybeeman> jenit: I think it should also say "information about rights are available", which is a separate thing.  For example, the data may have some third party rights restrictions.
17:13:34 <hadleybeeman> ... This should be a separate requirement.  Not to specify what that could be, but that it's worth including.
17:13:53 <hadleybeeman> philA:  Lee Dodds wants us to do more.
17:14:01 <hadleybeeman> jeniT: I'm sure there is more to do there.
17:14:15 <hadleybeeman> ...Also, why pull out liability terms? There are lots of terms and conditions to put on the use of data.
17:14:36 <hadleybeeman> ...Maybe better to say "Requirements for legal compliance".  Info about rights, about licenses, and clear terms and conditions (which may include liability)
17:14:48 <hadleybeeman> philA: I think the liability came from Steve Adler
17:14:54 <hadleybeeman> Steve: I'm not sure
17:15:25 <hadleybeeman> BREAK FOR COFFEE,  back in 15 mins
17:16:37 <Zakim> -antoine
17:17:40 <em> em has joined #DWBP
17:24:56 <RiccardoAlbertoni> Sorry but I have to leave, Hope you'll  continue  the good discussion  after the coffee..
17:25:14 <Zakim> -RiccardoAlbertoni
17:28:05 <jtandy> jtandy has joined #dwbp
17:31:13 <BernadetteLoscio> BernadetteLoscio has joined #dwbp
17:32:08 <yaso> yaso has joined #dwbp
17:33:23 <KenL> KenL has joined #DWBP
17:33:33 <jtandy_> jtandy_ has joined #dwbp
17:34:32 <fjh> q+
17:34:37 <Eric_Kauz> PhilA: Provinance
17:34:38 <jtandy_> q+
17:34:41 <JeniT> q-
17:35:00 <JeniT> s/Provinance/Provenance/
17:35:05 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
17:35:13 <antoine> zakim, IPCaller is me
17:35:13 <Zakim> +antoine; got it
17:35:14 <Eric_Kauz> Phila: Who created this data?
17:35:14 <ericstephan> q+
17:35:22 <laufer> q+
17:35:33 <Eric_Kauz> KenL: Who created it or who owns it.
17:35:53 <JeniT> ack fjh
17:35:55 <Eric_Kauz> Kenl: this gets into policy.
17:36:07 <Ig_Bittencourt> q+
17:36:25 <Eric_Kauz> fjh: which provinence matters, need a bit more guidance.
17:36:33 <BernadetteLoscio> q+
17:36:44 <JeniT> ack jtandy
17:37:19 <Eric_Kauz> Jtandy: where did this data come from, do I trust this data, only one facet of provinence.
17:37:24 <annette_g> annette_g has joined #dwbp
17:37:41 <Eric_Kauz> jtandy: provinence means all things to all people. ambiguous.
17:37:44 <fjh> q?
17:38:20 <Eric_Kauz> Phila: originating organisation with contact details
17:38:59 <Ig_Bittencourt> q-
17:39:08 <hadleybeeman> Ack ericstephan
17:39:08 <Eric_Kauz> ericstephan: should not put this requirement on everybody, originator creator would be sufficient.
17:39:13 <hadleybeeman> Ack laufer
17:39:20 <deiu> deiu has joined #dwbp
17:40:35 <Eric_Kauz> laufer: give the organisation, should be sufficient
17:40:35 <hadleybeeman> Q+ ericstephan
17:40:47 <phila> phila has joined #dwbp
17:41:08 <phila> q?
17:41:36 <ericstephan_> ericstephan_ has joined #dwbp
17:41:38 <KenL> q+ to say suggest we accept Phil's original requirement as placeholder because we can spend days trying to resolve this.  Defer until later.
17:41:41 <ericstephan_> +1 bernadette
17:41:45 <Eric_Kauz> BernadetteLoscio: is this just simple metadata about who created the data?
17:41:54 <hadleybeeman> Ack eric
17:41:55 <Caroline> +1 BernadetteLoscio
17:42:01 <hadleybeeman> Ack been
17:42:08 <hadleybeeman> Ack BernadetteLoscio
17:42:09 <Eric_Kauz> ericstephan_: we need to be explicit about provinance and what it means.
17:43:13 <Eric_Kauz> phila: can we simplifiy this to originating organisation
17:43:16 <hadleybeeman> q+ to ask if we are developing use cases in this discussion
17:43:53 <Eric_Kauz> BernadetteLoscio: If we define organisation, we have to define other metadata
17:44:02 <ericstephan_> q+
17:44:13 <hadleybeeman> Ack Ken
17:44:13 <Zakim> KenL, you wanted to say suggest we accept Phil's original requirement as placeholder because we can spend days trying to resolve this.  Defer until later.
17:44:57 <Eric_Kauz> hadleybeeman: talking about different things, origin and creator is a specific use case, needs to be backed up by UC and evidence,
17:45:12 <phila> phila has joined #dwbp
17:45:14 <BartvanLeeuwen> q+
17:45:21 <BartvanLeeuwen> ack hadleybeeman
17:45:21 <Zakim> hadleybeeman, you wanted to ask if we are developing use cases in this discussion
17:45:30 <BernadetteLoscio> q+
17:45:34 <laufer> q+
17:45:40 <Eric_Kauz> hadleybeeman: otherwise have to define for all other metadata, is there another word
17:46:02 <jtandy_> q+
17:46:07 <hadleybeeman> Q?
17:46:20 <Eric_Kauz> phila: do we need to change provAvailable
17:47:05 <Eric_Kauz> hadleybeeman: make it an issue that word provenance is unclear and needs to be better defined.
17:47:55 <phila> q?
17:47:58 <hadleybeeman> issue: Phil to clarify the use of the word "provenance" any potential confusion it causes
17:47:59 <trackbot> Created ISSUE-51 - Phil to clarify the use of the word "provenance" any potential confusion it causes.  Please complete additional details at <http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/51/edit>.
17:48:01 <Eric_Kauz> hadleybeeman: proposed as an issue,
17:48:15 <kirby> kirby has joined #dwbp
17:48:24 <Eric_Kauz> ericstephan_: need to establish an minimum set of provenance
17:48:42 <annette_g> * +1 to Eric
17:48:50 <hadleybeeman> q?
17:48:51 <Eric_Kauz> ericstephan_: provenance vocabulary is highly complex. Need to identify minimum requirements set
17:48:54 <hadleybeeman> ack eric
17:48:56 <HZ> HZ has joined #DWBP
17:49:04 <BartvanLeeuwen> ack me
17:49:25 <BernadetteLoscio> q-
17:49:38 <jtandy_> +1 to ericstephan_ ... agreed that the provenance requirement should start by indicating a minimal set of requirements
17:49:40 <jtandy_> q-
17:49:41 <Eric_Kauz> BartvanLeeuwen: are we differing from the process. we are discussing each item over again.
17:49:46 <hadleybeeman> ack laufer
17:50:33 <Eric_Kauz> laufer: we are discussing meaning of it, not that we have to give all information. We have an example of people wanting simple, but there are others that are more complex.
17:50:45 <jtandy_> agree with laufer ... if people can (& want) to provide complex provenance information they should be able to do so
17:50:54 <Eric_Kauz> hadleybeeman: what do we do regarding confusion on terms
17:51:14 <ericstephan_> I agree jtandy, but I think we need to have a minimal set defined for validation
17:51:19 <Ig_Bittencourt> q+
17:51:23 <hadleybeeman> issue: lauter to help us think about how to address our confusion of terms. (glossary?)
17:51:23 <trackbot> Created ISSUE-52 - Lauter to help us think about how to address our confusion of terms. (glossary?).  Please complete additional details at <http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/52/edit>.
17:51:46 <Eric_Kauz> Phila:requirements for industry reuse, goes to motivation of work group, if we are building eco system, we need SLAs.
17:52:10 <Eric_Kauz> phila: data should be suitable for industry reuse is vague.
17:52:18 <jtandy_> q+
17:52:19 <BartvanLeeuwen> q+
17:52:43 <Eric_Kauz> phila: service level agreeements are at heart of it.
17:52:44 <hadleybeeman> ack ig
17:53:12 <laufer> q+
17:53:18 <Eric_Kauz> Ig_Bittencourt: difference regarding reuse, should be data should be available for reuse. not currently good requirement
17:53:19 <hadleybeeman> q+ to suggest changing this from a "should" to a "may"
17:53:22 <hadleybeeman> ack j
17:54:00 <JeniT> q+ to say that there’s a point of publishing data for access rather than reuse
17:54:01 <Eric_Kauz> jtandy_: what is criteria for suitable for reuse for an industry., revenue stream should be removed.
17:54:03 <hadleybeeman> ack bart
17:54:04 <BernadetteLoscio> q+
17:54:14 <JeniT> q+ to talk about guarantees for availability separate from SLAs
17:54:47 <hadleybeeman> ack laufer
17:54:48 <phila> q+
17:54:54 <Eric_Kauz> BartvanLeeuwen: was breakout session on financial benefits, no one is giving out figures on monetary advantages of using open data.
17:55:10 <chunming> q+
17:55:20 <KenL> q+ to say SLA should be replaced with Applicable Policies because agreement is two sided and here we are stating conditions of use by owner/provider
17:55:25 <Eric_Kauz> laufer: are we talking about contracts? All of them are requirements.
17:56:07 <Eric_Kauz> steve: if there is no service level agreement, companies will not use it.
17:56:09 <JeniT> q+ to say that SLAs should definitely be separate from licence
17:56:53 <Eric_Kauz> steve: 90 percent of open data sites do not have an SLA, it is out there but can be removed anytime.
17:57:49 <Eric_Kauz> steve: many license agreements have restrictions.  Say they have ability to remove the data anytime, potential revenue is a misnomer
17:58:23 <hadleybeeman> ack me
17:58:23 <Zakim> hadleybeeman, you wanted to suggest changing this from a "should" to a "may"
17:58:23 <jtandy_> +1 to steve ... the SLA needs to be included as a separate item to indicate a data publisher's commitment to keeping data available or that it will be refreshed on a particular frequency etc.
17:58:45 <erikmannens> erikmannens has joined #DWBP
17:59:05 <Eric_Kauz> hadleybeeman: there is a question of how these are put in requirements vs. how we are going to discuss it in best practices
17:59:36 <phila> ISSUE: Whether SLA is/can be thought of as part of the licence or whether it needs to be pulled out spearately?
17:59:36 <trackbot> Created ISSUE-53 - Whether sla is/can be thought of as part of the licence or whether it needs to be pulled out spearately?.  Please complete additional details at <http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/53/edit>.
17:59:44 <Eric_Kauz> hadleybeeman: industry is a vague term,
18:00:17 <phila> RRSAgent, draft minutes
18:00:17 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/10/30-dwbp-minutes.html phila
18:00:27 <Eric_Kauz> hadleybeeman: proposes change section from SLA should be available .. ..... do not want to stop someone from using an SLA
18:00:35 <hadleybeeman> q?
18:00:41 <JeniT> ack JeniT
18:00:41 <Zakim> JeniT, you wanted to say that there’s a point of publishing data for access rather than reuse and to talk about guarantees for availability separate from SLAs and to say that
18:00:44 <Zakim> ... SLAs should definitely be separate from licence
18:01:19 <Eric_Kauz> JeniT: plenty of times people are publishing to provide access to data
18:01:53 <jtandy_> am happy to concede to JeniT's point :-)
18:02:16 <hadleybeeman> q?
18:02:17 <Eric_Kauz> JeniT: distinction regarding api availability, also important for users to have quaranteed availability over a long period of time not just up time.
18:02:19 <jtandy_> q+
18:02:39 <hadleybeeman> Perhaps we need to be clear about what we mean when we say "service level agreement"
18:03:09 <laufer> q+
18:03:10 <hadleybeeman> q?
18:03:14 <Eric_Kauz> JeniT: api will be available for example 5 years, also SLA should be different than licenses.
18:03:17 <hadleybeeman> ack bernadette
18:03:18 <jtandy_> in addition to commitment for availability, an 'SLA' might include the refresh rate for the data
18:03:22 <jtandy_> q-
18:03:59 <Eric_Kauz> BernadetteLoscio: why should this be different for industry and not for someone else.
18:04:19 <phila> issue-53?
18:04:19 <trackbot> issue-53 -- Whether sla is/can be thought of as part of the licence or whether it needs to be pulled out spearately? -- raised
18:04:19 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/53
18:04:35 <phila> q?
18:04:42 <phila> ack me
18:04:52 <yanai> yanai has joined #dwbp
18:04:53 <Zakim> -antoine
18:05:11 <BernadetteLoscio> +1
18:05:14 <Eric_Kauz> phila: proposal is that industry reuse and potential revenue be deleted.
18:05:27 <chunming> +1
18:05:34 <yanai> +1
18:05:38 <JeniT> +1 (observer)
18:05:39 <BernadetteLoscio> +1
18:05:42 <laufer> +1
18:05:46 <Ig_Bittencourt> +1
18:05:46 <Eric_Kauz> +1
18:05:48 <Caroline> +1
18:05:48 <yaso> +1
18:05:50 <phila> PROPOSED: Delete R-IndustryReuse and R-PotentialRevenue as requirements
18:05:51 <jtandy_> +1
18:05:53 <ericstephan_> +1
18:05:53 <hadleybeeman> +1
18:05:56 <Caroline> +1
18:05:56 <chunming> i would like the 3rd party reuse
18:05:58 <newton_> +1
18:06:00 <BartvanLeeuwen> +1
18:06:03 <phila> RESOLVED: Delete R-IndustryReuse and R-PotentialRevenue as requirements
18:06:11 <phila> ack chunming
18:06:52 <erikmannens> erikmannens has joined #DWBP
18:07:13 <Eric_Kauz> chunming: sla, static data sets or dynamic data sets. If static, sla is related to trust of data, dynamic data sets there would be other metrics freshness, real time guarantee,
18:07:26 <jtandy_> +1 to comment from chunming
18:07:46 <Eric_Kauz> chunming: maybe we can find another terminology to use instead of SLA
18:08:07 <jtandy_> @Caroline ... Eric has minuted his comment fairly well
18:08:21 <Eric_Kauz> phila: static and dynamic data is coming up. Timeliness and quality are being covered.
18:08:35 <hadleybeeman> q?
18:08:40 <hadleybeeman> ack ken
18:08:40 <Zakim> KenL, you wanted to say SLA should be replaced with Applicable Policies because agreement is two sided and here we are stating conditions of use by owner/provider
18:09:35 <jtandy_> @Caroline ... happy to help :-)
18:09:36 <Eric_Kauz> KenL: what is SLA is not defined in day job, we are talking about conditions of use, describing what you are getting. SLA is wrong term.