12:58:56 RRSAgent has joined #dwbp 12:58:56 logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/03/20-dwbp-irc 12:58:58 RRSAgent, make logs 351 12:58:58 Zakim has joined #dwbp 12:59:00 Zakim, this will be DWBP 12:59:00 ok, trackbot; I see DATA_DWBP()9:00AM scheduled to start in 1 minute 12:59:01 Meeting: Data on the Web Best Practices Working Group Teleconference 12:59:01 Date: 20 March 2015 12:59:13 Adriano_C has joined #dwbp 12:59:17 SumitPurohit has joined #DWBP 12:59:32 DATA_DWBP()9:00AM has now started 12:59:40 +yaso 13:00:04 +SumitPurohit 13:00:34 MTCarrasco has joined #dwbp 13:00:40 +??P12 13:00:41 jerdeb has joined #DWBP 13:00:48 Zakim, yaso has carolilne 13:00:48 +carolilne; got it 13:00:53 zakim, ??P12 is me 13:00:53 +MTCarrasco; got it 13:01:03 ericstephan has joined #dwbp 13:01:04 Caroline has joined #DWBP 13:01:10 Zakim, yaso2 has Caroline 13:01:10 sorry, Caroline, I do not recognize a party named 'yaso2' 13:01:14 +??P15 13:01:16 zakim, mute me 13:01:16 MTCarrasco should now be muted 13:01:27 +annette_g 13:01:31 zakim, ??P15 is me 13:01:31 +jerdeb; got it 13:01:39 + +1.609.947.aaaa 13:01:42 Zakim, yaso has Caroline 13:01:42 +Caroline; got it 13:01:46 laufer has joined #DWBP 13:01:51 annette_g has joined #dwbp 13:02:02 +estephan 13:02:18 Eric_Kauz has joined #DWBP 13:02:57 Anyone wants to scribe? 13:03:13 Zakim, pick a victim 13:03:13 Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose SumitPurohit 13:03:16 antoine has joined #dwbp 13:03:19 Chair: Yaso 13:03:27 +[IPcaller] 13:03:36 zakim, IPcaller is me 13:03:36 +antoine; got it 13:04:00 riccardoAlbertoni has joined #DWBP 13:04:27 Zakim, yaso has newton 13:04:27 +newton; got it 13:04:49 laufer has joined #dwbp 13:04:49 newton has joined #dwbp 13:04:49 Hi all! Today I am online in chat mode. 13:05:36 Scribe: Caroline 13:05:52 BernadetteLoscio has joined #dwbp 13:06:01 http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/dwbp/2015-03-13 13:06:17 APPROVE: last week minutes http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/dwbp/2015-03-13 13:06:32 I think we need a "propose:" 13:06:34 PROPOSE: aprove last week minutes http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/dwbp/2015-03-13 13:06:38 +1 13:06:42 +1 13:06:43 thank you, ericstephan! 13:06:44 +1 13:06:45 +1 13:06:47 +1 13:06:48 +1 13:06:51 +1 13:06:51 +1 13:06:54 isn't it PROPOSED? 13:07:07 RESOLVED: aproved last week minutes http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/dwbp/2015-03-13 13:07:11 +1 13:07:15 yes, annette_g! Thank you! 13:07:40 +[IPcaller] 13:07:50 zakim, IPcaller is me 13:07:50 +laufer; got it 13:07:54 +RiccardoAlbertoni 13:08:00 zakim, mute me 13:08:00 laufer should now be muted 13:08:02 -RiccardoAlbertoni 13:08:21 +RiccardoAlbertoni 13:08:51 https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-wg/2014Oct/0181.html#start181 13:08:56 CarlosIglesias has joined #dwbp 13:09:10 +1 (delayed) 13:09:10 yaso2: we can talk about this issue https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-wg/2014Oct/0181.html#start181 and try to close it 13:09:27 q+ 13:09:38 Ack ericstephan 13:10:22 ericstephan: from the vocab perspective, if we have questions or ideas we could put together the issues and talk about them 13:10:33 ... so we could resolve them as a working group 13:11:27 ... I am not prepared to talk about specific issues, but I have some information that would be useful in the future 13:11:41 yaso2: could you talk about the data usage vocabulary 13:12:02 yaso2: we can start with the data usage 13:12:25 ericstephan: we can wait until the end of the call 13:13:10 http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/72 13:13:21 yaso2: we could start then talking about some issues on the BP document. I suggest that we start with more general issues, for example the data enrichment http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/72 13:13:34 this is a closed issue, no? 13:13:40 ... does anyone have any comment about it? 13:13:55 ... yes it is closed 13:14:16 q+ 13:14:22 Ack annette_g 13:14:42 annette_g: maybe we can bring it up what we are talking by email 13:14:58 +??P25 13:15:03 http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/144 13:15:06 -??P25 13:15:12 ... the issue about linked data 13:15:20 +??P25 13:15:22 I think adriano was more linked to data enrichment, isn´t it? 13:15:23 yaso2: we were discussing it by email 13:15:36 I think so, laufer 13:15:56 zakim, ??P25 is me 13:15:56 +CarlosIglesias; got it 13:15:57 q+ 13:16:06 ack newton 13:16:12 ... did the group agree that we should propose semantic web and linked data? 13:16:45 newton: we can have general BP and be more specific on the approach implementation 13:16:57 +1 13:16:58 +1 newton 13:17:01 +1 13:17:07 +1 13:17:07 q+ 13:17:12 q+ 13:17:15 Ack ericstephan 13:17:38 ericstephan: I completely agree with newton and I understand we have an agreement by email that support newton's idea 13:18:07 +q 13:18:14 Ack CarlosIglesias 13:18:36 CarlosIglesias: I think LD ws never a problem 13:18:46 ... the problem is where to put LD in the document 13:19:04 q+ 13:19:15 q+ 13:19:15 zakim, unmute me 13:19:16 MTCarrasco should no longer be muted 13:19:31 ... we should keep the general BP neutral and provide as much as implementation techniques as we could 13:19:32 q? 13:19:34 ... my only point from the beggining it to keep the overall neutrel 13:19:36 Ack SumitPurohit 13:19:41 s/neutrel/neutral 13:20:00 SumitPurohit: we should focus and write in our document and provide concrete use cases 13:20:16 q? 13:20:18 q+ 13:20:24 Ack MTCarrasco 13:20:38 MTCarrasco: we must provide concrete examples of the most common use cases 13:20:54 q+ 13:20:56 q? 13:20:58 zakim, unmute me 13:20:58 laufer should no longer be muted 13:20:58 Laufer, probably there are aspects related to linked data that can be in the context of data enrichment, as you said! 13:20:59 Ack laufer 13:21:03 +[IPcaller] 13:21:04 ... the document can be more neutral, but there is the need of specific cases 13:21:05 zakim, ipcaller is BernadetteLoscio 13:21:05 +BernadetteLoscio; got it 13:21:06 zakim, unmute 13:21:06 I don't understand 'unmute', MTCarrasco 13:21:26 zakim, mute me 13:21:26 MTCarrasco should now be muted 13:21:26 laufer: I agree with the idea that the document could talk about all the types of distribution of data 13:21:26 ... 13:21:37 zakim, unmute me 13:21:37 MTCarrasco should no longer be muted 13:21:39 q+ 13:21:53 ... I think we have BP that can be neutral, but I am not sure if we need specific BP when we talk about LD 13:22:07 yaso2: laufer can you be more specific about your quesiton? 13:22:20 s/quesition/question 13:22:35 BPs should never be driven by any specific tech but by users needs 13:22:48 laufer: for LD we need some information like the number of a type of property for example 13:23:03 q? 13:23:06 +1 to CarlosIglesias 13:23:10 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_data 13:23:11 Ack ericstephan 13:23:19 zakim, mute me 13:23:19 laufer should now be muted 13:23:41 ericstephan: I am wondering if we have the definition of open data described well enough 13:23:45 We *must* provide clear examples for the most common cases - indeed, we could maintain a library of examples 13:24:01 ... to me LD is just one specialization of the open data concept 13:24:15 q? 13:24:23 ... maybe we are not defining open data cleary enough 13:24:26 http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData.html 13:24:27 CarlosIglesias has joined #dwbp 13:24:31 Ack annette_g 13:24:32 yaso2: maybe that take us to the question about the glossary 13:24:34 Back to the source 13:25:00 annette_g: maybe we could use the 5 starts or something like that to give priorities 13:25:15 q? 13:25:23 Ack BernadetteLoscio 13:26:01 BernadetteLoscio: I would like to know from the group if there is a difference between publishing LD and using it as a concept 13:26:22 ... the other thing is that we are proposing to use the LD concept to publish data 13:26:33 q? 13:26:36 q 13:26:38 ... maybe the LD concept will hel to publish the data in a proper way 13:26:53 q+ 13:26:57 q+ 13:26:58 yaso2: may we can use RDF concepts in use cases that are not LD, if I undertood tour question 13:27:31 BernadetteLoscio: jus tto make clear. About the use cases, I wanted to understand what do you mean abotu LD concepts. 13:27:41 Eric_Kauz has joined #DWBP 13:27:51 yaso2: I think that using RDF or RDFa 13:28:01 ... using Web APIs maybe is not LD 13:28:23 ... using microdata is not necessarly LD 13:28:49 ... about the use cases, I could see14 use cases that explicit mentioned LD in the approaches 13:29:06 ... maybe we could work with more use cases that do not mention LD 13:29:14 q+ 13:29:22 "When someone looks up a URI, provide useful information, using the standards": RDF is *not* necessarily LD - "When someone looks up a URI, provide useful information, using the standards" - 13:29:30 +1 yaso2 13:29:33 ... I think it is okay to be biased towards linked data, because the 5 stars 13:29:34 http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData.html 13:29:42 q? 13:29:48 q+ 13:30:25 BernadetteLoscio: I just think that fact that we have use cases that mention LD does not mean that the requirements mention to publish LD 13:30:26 zakim, unmute me 13:30:26 laufer should no longer be muted 13:30:28 Ack laufer 13:30:29 ... it says to publish data 13:30:32 q- 13:30:40 BernadetteLoscio - you raise a very interesting point 13:30:46 laufer: I think we have Semantic Web concepts, LD concepts and publishing concepts 13:31:07 Linked data has highly influenced open data 13:31:20 ericstephan: agree 13:31:30 ... some concepts such as publishing metadata, sometimes we get confused about semantic web. When we talk about metadata we are not talking about Semantic Web or LD 13:31:39 +1 to laufer 13:31:46 q? 13:31:50 ... it is a concept of publishing data 13:31:52 zakim, mute me 13:31:52 laufer should now be muted 13:31:52 Ack annette_g 13:32:05 annette_g: I think you can do linked data with an API 13:32:49 ... the BPs should be as netural as possible 13:32:51 +1 13:33:01 ... people could see LD as an alternative 13:33:09 Ack MTCarrasco 13:33:22 s/netural/neutral 13:33:41 MTCarrasco: LD was written by Tim Berners Lee. LD is about publishing a structure data 13:34:02 ... it doesn't have to use RDF 13:34:02 I disagree 13:34:16 q? 13:34:17 ... this is essential to create higher level 13:34:23 ... of semantics 13:34:34 +1 annette_g I agree that BPs should be neutral. And I don't see any problem in show approaches to implementation close related to semantic web or LD concepts, such as using RDFa, using some vocabs 13:34:34 ... the essential part is that the data is structural 13:34:41 http://5stardata.info 13:34:42 http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/68 13:34:58 structured is 2 stars 13:35:00 yaso2: this discussion about structured data is in an open issue, where it says we should define structure 13:35:04 a csv file is structured too but is not LD 13:35:13 ... we must discuss these open issues 13:35:28 the LD glossay explicitly mentions RDF: http://www.w3.org/TR/ld-glossary/ 13:35:29 Its interesting that it calls it the 5 star Open Data not LD system annette_g 13:35:43 q? 13:35:56 ... our charter mentions data on the web. There is a definition about data on the web. Is data on the web somehow connected with LD concept? 13:36:06 I think we are talking abot publishing datasets on the web 13:36:07 q+ 13:36:13 Ack annette_g 13:36:16 The key aspect is that the data is *structured* - the format is secondary - in our case it must be web-friendly 13:36:18 yes... open data doesn't mention RDF 13:36:23 I will raise then the same question as usual, could somebody say that RESTful APIs are not data on the web for example? 13:36:29 +1 annette_g 13:36:39 annette_g: using URI is also part of it 13:36:42 q? 13:37:01 MTCarrasco: without links we cannot go to the gigher level of semantics 13:37:07 q+ 13:37:08 ... there must be links to all the data 13:37:15 .... to create semantic aspects 13:37:15 you can use links without semantics REST shows you can link data to web pages 13:37:31 yaso2: microdata don't presupose that we should URIs 13:37:32 If we enter in this discussion, the data of out meeting is also data on the web... 13:37:39 q? 13:37:55 MTCarrasco: can you write down? 13:37:56 type it? 13:37:58 our meeting 13:38:03 q? 13:38:03 please, type it! :) 13:38:12 Ack BernadetteLoscio 13:38:37 BernadetteLoscio: in the LD glossary there is also teh 5 stars for linked open data and it mentions the RDF 13:38:44 ... the 5 star is about RDF and URI 13:38:50 http://www.w3.org/TR/ld-glossary/ 13:38:59 q? 13:39:01 please note that 5 starts of linked open data is about *linked* open data 13:39:15 +1 13:39:18 as its name makes clear 13:39:22 yaso2: should we close these issues? 13:39:41 Perhaps we need to start talking about general open data (1-3 stars) and linked data (4-5 stars) 13:39:42 http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/open 13:39:56 5 star is a path to LD... if one does not want to go to LD, 5 stars is not an answer... 13:39:58 yes.... open data and data on the web are not just about RDF 13:40:01 q+ 13:40:11 ericstephan, could you detail your proposal? 13:40:33 yaso2: should we focus on closing the issues that help to define the general concepts? 13:40:42 ... defining structure, datasets, etc 13:40:43 q? 13:40:45 5 stars is Linked RDF - http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData.html 13:41:05 BernadetteLoscio: thinking about definition related to terminology I am not sure we can close them now 13:41:12 yaso2: they might delivery some actions 13:41:16 Ack CarlosIglesias 13:41:17 If we center our doc in the 5 stars we will be saying that people should follow the 5 star idea... 13:41:18 Caroline, I guess I was just following the discussion and wondering based on what annette_g had suggested that we be explicit using the 5 star range to say what is open and linked data 13:41:42 thank you, ericstephan! 13:41:48 laufer is that a bad idea? 5 13:42:17 I am not sayin yes or no, eric... just pointing what we will say... 13:42:18 it is an open data scale not LD scale though 13:42:18 CarlosIglesias: we can use LD as a case to produce data on the web document 13:42:36 q? 13:42:37 okay laufer :-) 13:42:45 not only RDF: +1 13:43:02 CarlosIglesias could you type what you just said, please? 13:43:04 q? 13:43:42 ... I don't know what is the big issue. I provided recommendation how to address all of them 13:43:44 q+ 13:44:00 ... if we focus on these specific issues 13:44:29 yaso2: do you mean your comments on google document? 13:44:31 q+ 13:44:32 CarlosIglesias: yes 13:44:52 BernadetteLoscio: the document is the previous version 13:45:07 ... the comments were about the previous version 13:45:24 CarlosIglesias: are you saying that the suggestions that CarlosIglesias made are already in the document? 13:45:34 BernadetteLoscio: we must check the published document 13:45:50 yaso2: CarlosIglesias could you check the pubilshed document 13:45:53 q? 13:45:56 zakim, unmute me 13:45:56 laufer should no longer be muted 13:45:59 q- 13:46:13 ACTION for CarlosIglesias to review the BP document and check his previews suggestions 13:46:13 Error finding 'for'. You can review and register nicknames at . 13:46:31 q+ 13:46:36 ACTION: CarlosIglesias to review the BP document and check his previews suggestions 13:46:36 Created ACTION-145 - Review the bp document and check his previews suggestions [on Carlos Iglesias - due 2015-03-27]. 13:46:40 q+ 13:46:45 I like that laufer 13:46:52 laufer: the group should vote if we should support the 5 stars 13:46:58 q+ 13:47:03 q+ 13:47:07 laufer: +1 13:47:07 or use 5 star to describe open data overall 13:47:09 ... so we decide if go to LD is what we want to do 13:47:11 zakim, unmute me 13:47:11 laufer was not muted, laufer 13:47:17 Ack CarlosIglesias 13:47:21 q- 13:47:26 CarlosIglesias: I don't understand why 13:47:36 q? 13:47:42 ack laufer 13:48:27 ... if we put that in our document it should be based on the reality 13:48:43 ... that is the reason for my doubts 13:48:43 zakim, unmute me 13:48:43 laufer was not muted, laufer 13:49:30 for your reference: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ecwweAM5t4UVFEjcXnFhXmCUBnRDvwZ1smRLtiKkBEI/edit#heading=h.oa5hnn7ctefr 13:49:36 q+ 13:49:39 q? 13:49:52 laufer: if we need a neutral document and we talk about the 5 stars, it says that the best way to do it is going through LD 13:50:01 ... I am not saying it is good or bad 13:50:06 zakim, mute me 13:50:06 laufer should now be muted 13:50:11 5 stars is not neutral 13:50:16 ack annette_g 13:50:17 is a linked data scale 13:50:27 as its name clearly reads 13:50:28 is what I am saying, carlos 13:50:35 Laufer, are you talking about publishing RDF? 13:50:40 q? 13:50:51 annette_g, please type it, I cannot understand 13:51:18 Ack MTCarrasco 13:51:20 q+ 13:51:26 I believe that 5 stars was originally thought of the "vision" for going to linked data, but why don't we change this to just state varying degrees of open data. 13:51:30 I think support for LD and saying it's best are two different things. 13:51:42 Bernadette, I am talking about our bias in the group that is reflected in the document... 13:51:47 I support LD but don't believe it's always best 13:51:55 MTCarrasco: LD it is what it is in the Tim Berners Lee document 13:51:59 +1 to annette_g 13:52:02 ... we cannot redefine it 13:52:02 +1 anette 13:52:12 q? 13:52:18 Ack BernadetteLoscio 13:52:19 ... we should not confuse the 5 stars with LD 13:52:41 BernadetteLoscio: I want to understand what laufer means when he says that we should support or not LD 13:52:42 zakim, unmute me 13:52:42 laufer should no longer be muted 13:53:08 laufer: I am not talking about support LD, I am talking about support the 5 stars 13:53:12 supporting the 5 stars of linked data is supporting linked data 13:53:27 +1 to CarlosIglesias 13:53:37 +1 to CarlosIglesias 13:54:14 on the other hand, again, i'm very in favor of supporting linked data 13:54:14 BernadetteLoscio: I want to understand in what context you are talking about 13:54:17 A) DWBP: LD and not LD - though 1 star LD is any data in the web B) LD: it is what is is in the TBL note C) Rating system: yes but not using 13:54:20 but among many other technologies 13:54:35 laufer: I am saying that if we talk about this we are supporting it in our document 13:54:39 Can we adopt the 5 circle system? 13:54:45 zakim, mute me 13:54:45 laufer should now be muted 13:54:48 yaso2: we are runing out of time 13:54:48 q+ 13:54:48 ack ericstephan 13:54:49 5 stars must be with RDF 13:55:05 Carlos, in your opinion, linked data is about RDF? 13:55:06 ericstephan: I agree that the 5 stars 13:55:06 I'm closing the queue :-) 13:55:26 ericstephan, sorry, I cannot understand, can you type, please 13:55:31 you can link data on the web also without using rdf 13:55:35 guizzardi has joined #DWBP 13:55:38 1 star LD is any data in the web 13:55:45 ok ;) 13:55:58 q? 13:55:59 e.g. restful apis and hateoas 13:56:16 ack SumitPurohit 13:56:25 but Linked Data is a concept that is different of the broad idea of linking data, Carlos... 13:56:26 ... we are all looking for describe open data and distinguishe ir from linked data 13:56:52