14:52:32 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #csvw
14:52:32 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/02/25-csvw-irc
14:52:47 <danbri> rrsagent, this will be csvw
14:52:47 <RRSAgent> I'm logging. I don't understand 'this will be csvw', danbri.  Try /msg RRSAgent help
14:52:54 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #csvw
14:53:01 <danbri> zakim, this will be CSVW
14:53:01 <Zakim> ok, danbri; I see DATA_CSVWG()10:00AM scheduled to start in 7 minutes
15:00:45 <JeniT> JeniT has joined #csvw
15:01:25 <JeniT> hi dan
15:01:29 <danbri> hi
15:01:39 <danbri> about to dial in. don't see anyone else in irc yet
15:01:59 <JeniT> I didn’t send out an agenda :/
15:02:00 <danbri> skype tells me "You have lost internet connectivity or your status is Offline. Please check your connection or change your status and try again."
15:02:20 <danbri> I didn't either - sorry - california trip on tail end of that cold you saw
15:02:58 <DavideCeolin> DavideCeolin has joined #csvw
15:03:04 <Zakim> DATA_CSVWG()10:00AM has now started
15:03:12 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
15:03:26 <danbri> zakim not taking my codes now :-|
15:03:33 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #csvw
15:04:16 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
15:04:19 <danbri> zakim, IPcaller is danbri
15:04:19 <Zakim> +danbri; got it
15:04:24 <jtandy> jtandy has joined #csvw
15:04:26 <gkellogg> zakim, code?
15:04:26 <Zakim> the conference code is 2789 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), gkellogg
15:05:05 <danbri> agenda: https://www.w3.org/2013/csvw/wiki/Meetings#Standing_Agenda
15:05:07 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
15:05:13 <DavideCeolin> zakim, IPcaller is me
15:05:13 <Zakim> +DavideCeolin; got it
15:05:16 <Zakim> +??P2
15:05:23 <gkellogg> zakim, ??P2 is me
15:05:23 <Zakim> +gkellogg; got it
15:05:48 <jumbrich> jumbrich has joined #csvw
15:05:49 <Zakim> +??P5
15:06:00 <jtandy> zakim, ??P5 is me
15:06:00 <Zakim> +jtandy; got it
15:06:07 <danbri> scribnick: danbri
15:06:09 <Zakim> +??P0
15:06:19 <danbri> scribenick: danbri
15:06:19 <jumbrich> ??P0, zakim is me
15:07:19 <danbri> regrets: Ivan
15:07:33 <JeniT> https://github.com/w3c/csvw/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+label%3A%22Requires+telcon+discussion%2Fdecision%22
15:07:37 <danbri> jenit: standing issue-driven agenda
15:07:45 <JeniT> https://github.com/w3c/csvw/issues/223
15:07:49 <danbri> we started last week around unions of datatypes
15:08:02 <danbri> Allowing "unions" of datatypes? #223
15:08:06 <danbri> logger, pointer?
15:08:12 <danbri> rrsagent, pointer?
15:08:12 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2015/02/25-csvw-irc#T15-08-12
15:08:35 <danbri> jumbrich: we tried to get some hints on frequency of datatypes in cols
15:08:47 <danbri> we found our code slow, small/strange bugfeatures
15:09:04 <danbri> Starting at 93000 files, parsed until lunchtime around 10k.
15:09:27 <danbri> Most prominently noticed that datatypes are mixed with just strings and integer / numerical values, and that we had diff types of numerical values e.g. integers and floats
15:09:34 <danbri> jenit: how freq or common is that?
15:09:53 <danbri> jumbrich: roughly 1/3 of docs has a mix of char strings vs numerical values
15:10:11 <danbri> we parsed 9000 docs. In 2082 we found an alpha value i.e. chars, and a float combination
15:10:32 <danbri> danbri: how many (indep.) srcs are these things from?
15:11:03 <danbri> jumbrich: good point, couple files are from same host, … eg. with same date.  A lot from some brazilian portal who have a file per month. We looked at some gov uk…
15:11:25 <danbri> … for now most of the files they probably belong to a small set of providers. Might be biased in that way.
15:12:00 <danbri> as I wrote in the mail there is some risk of bias, hope for more next week
15:12:19 <danbri> nothing in https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-csv-wg/2015Feb/ yet
15:12:58 <danbri> [aside: jumbrich can you take a look at http://danbri.org/words/2012/03/08/776 … I tried to workaround the bias issue with some rdf vocab stats]
15:14:02 <JeniT> https://github.com/w3c/csvw/issues/223
15:14:52 <JeniT> sorry, doorbell brb
15:15:34 <JeniT> back
15:15:36 <danbri> [discussion of null]
15:15:48 <jtandy> q+ to ask about multiple null values
15:15:54 <JeniT> ack jtandy
15:15:54 <Zakim> jtandy, you wanted to ask about multiple null values
15:16:02 <gkellogg> q+
15:16:19 <danbri> jtandy: sometimes the reason I'll use multiple null values, … each letter I use for a null is for a diff reason.
15:16:24 <danbri> would be useful to have this in the data
15:16:36 <danbri> …if it says M it means null for this reason, N for this reason, … etc
15:16:56 <danbri> but of course if it is a null value, the uri template gets to work on the canonicalized value, so M becomes null field, …
15:16:59 <JeniT> see https://github.com/w3c/csvw/issues/218
15:17:04 <danbri> in a URI template, null is always null
15:17:23 <danbri> jenit: union datatypes coudl give some way out
15:17:31 <danbri> … define a datatype w/ some string value
15:19:04 <danbri> gregg: how about literal from some other col?
15:19:25 <danbri> … could imagine source something or other, including name of col as way of retrieving, e.g. virtual variables
15:19:31 <danbri> … seems like a lot of complexity
15:19:45 <JeniT> ack gkellogg
15:20:19 <danbri> jenit: let's open a separate issue for this.
15:20:29 <danbri> gkellogg: impl of multiple datatypes is straightforward
15:20:40 <danbri> the complexity maybe the merge language since a datatype is an atomic value
15:20:45 <danbri> which does not otherwise take an array
15:21:02 <danbri> that's the potential complexity - i.e. how it complicates the merge language
15:21:17 <danbri> jenit: we'll revisit this again next week w/ more data from j. and ivan back
15:21:21 <JeniT> https://github.com/w3c/csvw/issues/260
15:21:27 <Zakim> -??P0
15:22:03 <danbri> jtandy: we have core annos defined for tables
15:22:17 <danbri> … e.g. to define the source, rows, cols, tables, … but not for table groups.
15:22:38 <danbri> … given that resources is a mandatory property should it not be handled as a table group annotation?
15:22:41 <danbri> jenit: makes sense
15:22:48 <danbri> +1
15:22:52 <jtandy> +1
15:22:53 <gkellogg> +1
15:22:55 <JeniT> +1
15:22:58 <DavideCeolin> +1
15:23:03 <Zakim> +??P0
15:23:06 <jumbrich> sorry
15:23:17 <jumbrich> zakim, ??P0, is me
15:23:17 <Zakim> sorry, jumbrich, I do not recognize a party named '??P0,'
15:23:26 <jumbrich> zakim, ??P0 is me
15:23:26 <Zakim> +jumbrich; got it
15:23:27 <JeniT> https://github.com/w3c/csvw/issues/261
15:23:56 <danbri> jtandy: re serializations, we talked about standard mode, and a minimal mode
15:24:12 <danbri> latter with just the resources described _in_ the table, without all the other paraphanalia
15:24:23 <danbri> … for latter we needed a property linking table to the things described by the table
15:24:30 <danbri> e.g. describes
15:24:34 <JeniT> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6892
15:24:39 <gkellogg> q+
15:25:00 <danbri> … i didn't find one, but there must be similar out there.
15:25:05 <danbri> maybe rdf dataa cube has such?
15:25:06 <JeniT> ack gkellogg
15:25:23 <danbri> gkellogg: my interpret. of the minimal mode, is that it would not include any table data at least in the rdf
15:25:25 <JeniT> http://www.w3.org/TR/powder-dr/#assoc-linking
15:25:28 <danbri> it would simply be the results
15:25:41 <danbri> q+
15:25:48 <JeniT> q+
15:26:26 <danbri> jtandy: i expected min mode to be a block describing table as dataset, and then have something saying 'all of these resources are described in this dataset'
15:26:43 <danbri> jenit: either way you'll need this relationship
15:26:45 <JeniT> ack danbri
15:27:58 <danbri> danbri: yup powder or something from skos/schema/foaf/whatever for the non-minimal. For minimal, focus on 'what the table tells you about the world'. Row links aren't minimal.
15:28:04 <danbri> jenit: let's open an issue on this
15:28:13 <JeniT> ack JeniT
15:28:14 <danbri> jtandy: we discussed minimal standard and maybe another
15:28:33 <JeniT> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6892
15:28:48 <danbri> jenit: see also rfc 6892 'describes'
15:29:23 <JeniT> “In accordance with the ATOM specification [RFC4287], the describedby relationship is a relative URI, the base of which is http://www.iana.org/assignments/relation/ - i.e. the full URI of describedby is http://www.iana.org/assignments/relation/describedby - and this is included in the ATOM registry [AREG].”
15:29:29 <danbri> (and in foaf we have xmlns.com/foaf/spec/#term_isPrimaryTopicOf … for things to docs and doc fragments)
15:29:38 <danbri> (dc has 'subject', schema has 'about', …)
15:30:02 <danbri> jenit: to close this issue, we'll need to pick something
15:30:42 <danbri> jtandy: we haven't used powder or foaf so far in output
15:30:49 <danbri> gkellogg: void would make a lot of sense
15:31:01 <danbri> jenit: but void describes a linked data dataset
15:31:19 <danbri> jtandy: i also agree that the rel between a void dataset and the thing is weak
15:31:36 <danbri> … all the triples belong to this dataset implicitly, so a little weird.
15:32:05 <danbri> jenit: I suggest, dc subject isn't strong enough, foaf would be the wrong vocabulary, so it comes down to schema.org or using the iana link relation
15:32:45 <danbri> (http://schema.org/Dataset (dcat inspired) is in schema, but no notion of Table or Row in there yet)
15:32:58 <danbri> jenit: so I'll propose isDescribedBy to have a candidate
15:33:05 <danbri> gkellogg: except url doesn't link to anything useful
15:33:09 <gkellogg> +1
15:33:11 <danbri> jtandy: which is kind of irritating
15:33:24 <danbri> jenit: so schema.org/about ? …
15:33:51 <danbri> also doesn't quite feel right
15:34:20 <danbri> jenit: will re-propose using linked relation isDescribedBy from POWDER
15:34:32 <JeniT> PROPOSAL: use http://www.iana.org/assignments/relation/describedby, as defined by POWDER, as relationship between entities & the table they are described within
15:34:40 <danbri> ( somewhat related - https://github.com/schemaorg/schemaorg/issues/301 )
15:34:59 <danbri> jtandy: so this is rel from resource to row?
15:35:03 <gkellogg> +1
15:35:05 <danbri> jenit: yes
15:35:08 <danbri> +1
15:35:23 <danbri> jtandy: how would that work in the json serialization?
15:35:33 <danbri> … you'd need a row object with all the things it describes in that row?
15:35:47 <danbri> jenit: you'd maybe want described by property, maybe with a prefix on it, to avoid name clashes, ...
15:36:38 <danbri> (discussion of fwd/back relation direction)
15:37:05 <danbri> gkellogg: even from rdf, if you are filtering on subjects or entity types, having the row refer to the subjects, … vs other way, seems like it allows similar filtering
15:37:10 <danbri> …and of course they're all triples.
15:37:20 <danbri> jenit: is that a proposal to use 'describes' instead?
15:37:42 <danbri> gkellogg: I guess 'describes' [from that rfc] would make more sense
15:37:59 <danbri> jenit: i think yes in the json you don't need the specific rel as containment can clarify this
15:38:06 <danbri> status of the rfc - informational
15:38:10 <danbri> RFC-6892
15:38:27 <Zakim> -jumbrich
15:38:28 <danbri> danbri: would it be normative?
15:38:39 <danbri> jenit: just saying use it as a property - not making normative statements about it?
15:38:54 <danbri> jtandy: the full ref to this would be www.iana.org/assignments/relations/describes ?
15:38:59 <danbri> yup
15:39:06 <danbri> (presumably http or https :// )
15:39:24 <danbri> jenit: this would/could make it easier to indicate what the table contains
15:39:48 <JeniT> PROPOSAL: use http://www.iana.org/assignments/relations/describes, as defined by RFC6892, as the relationship between a table/row and the entities that are described wtihin it
15:39:48 <Zakim> +??P9
15:39:53 <gkellogg> +1
15:39:53 <jumbrich> zakim, ??P9 is me
15:39:53 <Zakim> +jumbrich; got it
15:39:54 <jtandy> +1
15:39:57 <JeniT> +1
15:39:58 <DavideCeolin> +1
15:40:00 <danbri> +1
15:40:04 <jumbrich> +1
15:40:07 <gkellogg> "The relationship A 'describes' B asserts that resource A provides a description of resource B. There are no constraints on the format or representation of either A or B, neither are there any further constraints on either resource."
15:41:24 <danbri> jtandy: and the prefix would be what?
15:41:43 <danbri> gkellogg: [missed]
15:41:50 <danbri> .. how does rdf reference link relations?
15:42:02 <danbri> not in http://www.w3.org/2011/rdfa-context/rdfa-1.1
15:42:14 <danbri> powder is in there
15:43:35 <danbri> it points to http://www.iana.org/assignments/link-relations/link-relations.xml
15:43:41 <danbri> jenit: I would use 'rel'
15:44:23 <danbri> or http://www.iana.org/go/rfc5988:foo ?
15:44:29 <danbri> er rfc5988:foo
15:44:42 <danbri> jenit: it does not exactly matter exxcept in examples
15:45:04 <danbri> jtandy; when i use it in plain json, do i use unqualified 'describes'? no prefix?
15:45:14 <danbri> jenit: you could use document containment hierarchy?
15:45:23 <danbri> jtandy: you need a property to attach the array
15:45:33 <danbri> jenit: yes then 'describes' without prefix
15:45:51 <JeniT> https://github.com/w3c/csvw/issues/245
15:46:07 <danbri> "Separate RDF savy implementations? #245"
15:46:14 <danbri> jenit: would be better with Ivan here
15:46:43 <danbri> gkellogg: also https://github.com/w3c/csvw/issues/193 ("Documenting the processing steps for metadata #193") but also needs Ivan really.
15:47:02 <danbri> … main point on that is that there is a finalization step to the metadata, pieces that are logically there are substantialized
15:47:06 <danbri> e.g. name/title of a col
15:47:47 <danbri> … what we have is consistent with the way we have been describing things so far.
15:48:09 <danbri> … if we look at this as a consensus process, I think Ivan has a different feeling on that and I'd be wary of closing this issue without his involvement.
15:48:48 <danbri> jenit: I see it as same result either way, comes down just to how it is described in the doc and whether it is clear to people. Let's revisit this once other changes are merged in, probably after we publish the next drafts. Reasonable?
15:49:02 <danbri> gkellogg: I think what we should revisit is the finalization
15:49:32 <danbri> … important for next set of pubs. Separate that bit about finalizing. There's text to review, … if we can include this info sooner and preserve finalization for a later round.
15:49:36 <danbri> jenit: yes
15:49:50 <danbri> … as long as we have covered saying what propertty values are
15:50:01 <danbri> … and revisit after seeing the draft
15:50:20 <danbri> (jenit to progress this issue)
15:50:29 <danbri> aob?
15:50:57 <danbri> jtandy: am planning a chunk of work on the conv docs this weekend, which should get through my resolved-but-not-yet-actioned issues.
15:50:59 <danbri> jenit: great
15:51:13 <danbri> … when done we can all review before aiming to publish as discussed end of March.
15:51:18 <jtandy> s/weekend/week/
15:51:28 <danbri> Adjourned.
15:51:32 <danbri> rrsagent, please draft minutes
15:51:32 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/02/25-csvw-minutes.html danbri
15:51:35 <Zakim> -JeniT
15:51:51 <danbri> rrsagent, please make minutes public
15:51:51 <RRSAgent> I'm logging. I don't understand 'please make minutes public', danbri.  Try /msg RRSAgent help
15:52:12 <Zakim> -gkellogg
15:52:16 <Zakim> -DavideCeolin
15:52:32 <Zakim> -jumbrich
15:52:36 <jumbrich> jumbrich has left #csvw
15:53:16 <danbri> jtandy, https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webschema/file/b4c3ad199322/schema.org/ext/weatherforecast.html
15:53:58 <Zakim> -jtandy
15:53:59 <Zakim> -danbri
15:53:59 <Zakim> DATA_CSVWG()10:00AM has ended
15:53:59 <Zakim> Attendees were JeniT, danbri, DavideCeolin, gkellogg, jtandy, jumbrich
16:05:47 <danbri> rrsagent, make minutes public
16:05:47 <RRSAgent> I'm logging. I don't understand 'make minutes public', danbri.  Try /msg RRSAgent help
16:07:27 <danbri> I don't see command to make logs public
16:07:31 <danbri> rrsagent, make logs public
16:07:36 <danbri> ah, logs vs minutes
17:59:19 <Zakim> Zakim has left #csvw
18:15:44 <danbri> danbri has joined #csvw
18:29:02 <danbri> danbri has joined #csvw
18:30:16 <danbri1> danbri1 has joined #csvw