14:55:59 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #csvw
14:55:59 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/03/25-csvw-irc
14:56:01 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
14:56:01 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #csvw
14:56:03 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be CSVW
14:56:03 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see DATA_CSVWG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 4 minutes
14:56:04 <trackbot> Meeting: CSV on the Web Working Group Teleconference
14:56:04 <trackbot> Date: 25 March 2015
15:00:18 <gkellogg> zakim, code?
15:00:18 <Zakim> the conference code is 2789 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), gkellogg
15:00:30 <jtandy> jtandy has joined #csvw
15:01:08 <Zakim> DATA_CSVWG()11:00AM has now started
15:01:15 <Zakim> +Annette
15:01:17 <Zakim> +??P4
15:01:21 <gkellogg> zakim, I am ??P4
15:01:21 <Zakim> +gkellogg; got it
15:01:24 <ivan> zakim, Annette is me
15:01:24 <Zakim> +ivan; got it
15:02:51 <JeniT> JeniT has joined #csvw
15:02:56 <Zakim> +??P13
15:03:04 <jtandy> zakim, ??P13 is me
15:03:04 <Zakim> +jtandy; got it
15:03:30 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
15:03:45 <Zakim> -jtandy
15:03:55 <jtandy> I'll try another method
15:04:34 <Zakim> +??P14
15:04:42 <jtandy> zakim, ??P14
15:04:42 <Zakim> I don't understand '??P14', jtandy
15:04:47 <jtandy> zakim, ??P14 is me
15:04:47 <Zakim> +jtandy; got it
15:07:02 <ivan> http://bit.ly/19OJSLq
15:08:55 <jtandy> scribe: Jeremy Tandy
15:08:57 <JeniT> https://github.com/w3c/csvw/issues/389
15:09:03 <jtandy> scribenick: jtandy
15:09:19 <jtandy> JeniT: #389 - just a hangover - take out the relevant text
15:09:25 <jtandy> gkellogg: agreed
15:09:39 <JeniT> https://github.com/w3c/csvw/issues/391
15:09:42 <jtandy> ivan: [will do the necessary action]
15:09:51 <jtandy> JeniT: next - #391
15:10:09 <jtandy> gkellogg: we have some additional types of properties that [don't fit]
15:10:24 <jtandy> ... there's the foreign key
15:10:35 <jtandy> ivan: that's a separate issue
15:11:04 <jtandy> gkellogg: true - but still "reference" isn't a defined as a particular property type
15:11:17 <jtandy> ... #398 and #391 are overlapping
15:11:26 <jtandy> ... [lists a few of the properties]
15:11:52 <jtandy> ivan: but they clearly are a given type of property - so it's just an editorial thing
15:12:14 <jtandy> gkellogg: "references" (from foreign key) should be an object property
15:12:29 <jtandy> ivan: [is checking what his diagram says]
15:12:52 <jtandy> JeniT: the diagram already shows it as an object property
15:13:11 <jtandy> JeniT: editor action; agree with gkellogg's characterisation
15:13:31 <jtandy> gkellogg: [...] @language and @base have always bothered me
15:13:40 <jtandy> ... these are _really_ properties
15:13:55 <jtandy> JeniT: once merging is done, these have disappeared
15:14:12 <jtandy> ivan: and they don't appear in the diagram
15:14:31 <jtandy> gkellogg: how useful is the "top level properties" section
15:14:41 <jtandy> ... could it go in the JSON-LD description?
15:14:41 <ivan> +1 to Jeni
15:14:57 <jtandy> JeniT: this needs to be here - some folks won't look at JSON-LD stuff
15:15:13 <jtandy> gkellogg: [...] probably ok as it is then
15:15:22 <jtandy> ... lets treat them as atomic properties
15:15:32 <jtandy> ivan: should they be in the diagram?
15:15:53 <jtandy> JeniT: depends on how you're characterising the diagram
15:16:04 <jtandy> gkellogg: perhaps have @context ...
15:16:20 <jtandy> ... with @language and @base as separate items
15:16:22 <jtandy> [...]
15:16:41 <jtandy> [discussion on how the diagram should look]
15:17:27 <jtandy> see http://w3c.github.io/csvw/metadata/index.html#metadata-format for the diagram
15:18:18 <jtandy> JeniT: I suggest putting a separate box labelled @context with properties @base and @language
15:18:23 <jtandy> ivan: I will do that
15:18:44 <jtandy> JeniT: [updates the issue]
15:19:16 <jtandy> JeniT: is @type an atomic property or link property
15:19:37 <jtandy> gkellogg: link properties resolve according the base - this is not the case for @type
15:19:39 <JeniT> https://github.com/w3c/csvw/issues/393
15:19:40 <jtandy> JeniT: ok
15:19:50 <jtandy> JeniT: next - #393
15:19:58 <jtandy> gkellogg: events catching up with us
15:20:39 <jtandy> ... tableSchema takes on two different characteristics depending on usage
15:21:06 <jtandy> ... suggest changing the usage in foreignKey to schemaReference
15:21:22 <jtandy> ... [discussion based on text of issue]
15:21:55 <jtandy> JeniT: agreement all around
15:22:10 <jtandy> ivan: [updates the labels on the issue]
15:22:22 <jtandy> JeniT: schemaReference sounds correct
15:22:35 <jtandy> gkellogg: need to update the namespace doc and the metadata doc
15:22:38 <JeniT> https://github.com/w3c/csvw/issues/398
15:22:46 <jtandy> ivan: i will update the diagrma
15:22:55 <jtandy> s/diagrna/diagram/
15:23:12 <jtandy> JeniT: next #398
15:23:51 <jtandy> gkellogg: easiest thing is to add some text on the array property of "foreignKeys"
15:24:06 <jtandy> ... describing how to normalise these values
15:24:21 <jtandy> JeniT: look at the definition of foreignKey
15:24:26 <jtandy> ... [looking for ref]
15:24:40 <JeniT> http://w3c.github.io/csvw/metadata/#table-foreignKeys
15:25:08 <jtandy> gkellogg: this should be "schema foreignkeys"
15:25:11 <jtandy> JeniT: yep
15:25:18 <jtandy> gkellogg: I'll fix that
15:25:33 <jtandy> ... need to tighten up the language here
15:26:00 <jtandy> ... schemaReference [discussed earlier] will be a link property
15:26:20 <jtandy> ... [... discussed the normalisation algorithm]
15:26:47 <jtandy> JeniT: I think for the normalisation that for objects you go into the objects and nornalise them
15:26:58 <jtandy> ... otherwise you get stuck on schemas
15:27:11 <jtandy> gkellogg: yes - but the wording is not [clear] enough
15:27:28 <jtandy> JeniT: [updates the issue to reflect the new text]
15:27:37 <jtandy> s/new/recommended/
15:27:59 <jtandy> JeniT: "Agreed on telcon: normalisation language needs to include normalising properties of objects, including properties of objects in arrays."
15:28:21 <jtandy> ivan: so - JeniT and gkellogg have some editor action, I must update the diagram
15:28:29 <jtandy> ... then we reach equilibrium
15:28:34 <jtandy> JeniT: yes
15:28:45 <jtandy> ... what are Ivan's publication constraints?
15:28:59 <jtandy> ivan: we publish on tue and thu
15:29:16 <jtandy> ... we can't assume the web master can review on easter monday
15:29:35 <jtandy> ... we can say that the docs are ready by Friday 27th for internal review
15:29:38 <jtandy> JeniT: yes
15:29:48 <jtandy> gkellogg: I can do all my updates today
15:29:59 <jtandy> ivan: how much time do we need to re-read the doc
15:30:16 <jtandy> gkellogg: many of my issues relate to reading through the doc
15:30:30 <jtandy> ... still need the line by line review tho
15:30:44 <jtandy> JeniT: we need telcon signoff with quorum
15:30:51 <jtandy> ivan: can do by email
15:31:05 <jtandy> q+ to ask ivan about the outstanding PR
15:31:22 <jtandy> JeniT: shall we aim for publication on 14th april?
15:31:28 <jtandy> ivan: that would work
15:31:56 <jtandy> JeniT: 9th would be ok - but would that give enough time for making changes following editorial review
15:32:19 <jtandy> ivan: can we get jürgen and davide to read with their fresh eyes -
15:32:42 <jtandy> ... we will not see the errors [because we read what we think it says]
15:32:51 <gkellogg> q+
15:33:06 <jtandy> ... can we get all the docs through snapshot / respec by 9/10th
15:33:14 <jtandy> ... and let the web master review
15:33:26 <jtandy> JeniT: we can confirm this at our meeting on 8april
15:33:44 <jtandy> ivan: would like a decision so that I can notify the web master that things are coming
15:33:58 <jtandy> ivan: this is an internal milestone - but we need to show wide review
15:34:21 <jtandy> ... can JeniT and danbri create a list of the groups in W3C who we need to review
15:34:31 <jtandy> ... security, internationalisation
15:34:46 <jtandy> JeniT: also some TAG level issues - inclined to ask their review too
15:35:01 <jtandy> ivan: we're not at last call yet - this is good
15:35:08 <jtandy> ... we can get the issues early
15:35:18 <jtandy> JeniT: how long before we can go to LC?
15:35:32 <jtandy> ivan: difficult to say; depends on the response
15:35:39 <jtandy> ... sometime in Junish
15:35:48 <jtandy> ... also depends on the implementations
15:36:03 <jtandy> ... if we get into LC with 2 implementations then LC can be very quick
15:36:21 <jtandy> ... we should reach out to those people who said they would implement
15:36:26 <jtandy> ... make sure they are ready
15:36:44 <jtandy> JeniT: others too - adam retter , raphael
15:36:54 <jtandy> ivan: we should be noisy when we publish
15:37:05 <jtandy> gkellogg: they will need to provide the test suite
15:37:28 <jtandy> ivan: let's list the test suite in the blog communication
15:37:48 <jtandy> JeniT: lets tell people that we have the start of the test suite; please add more tests as you go
15:38:06 <jtandy> ... please write additional tests and contribute as you go
15:38:08 <jtandy> gk
15:38:38 <jtandy> gkellogg: my main worry is that we'll have too many tests - there are many variations
15:38:59 <jtandy> gkellogg: there's a reference to data package spec in the docs - is this still correct
15:39:41 <jtandy> JeniT: let's change this ref to say that it's "based on" rather than still close to
15:40:20 <jtandy> JeniT: also inclined to change Rufus to be an author rather than editor on this spec
15:40:42 <jtandy> ivan: shall we add anyone else
15:40:53 <jtandy> JeniT: what about ivan - credit for the diagram
15:41:02 <jtandy> ivan: i'll sleep better!
15:41:08 <jtandy> ... what about danbri
15:41:24 <jtandy> JeniT: not really - you could list the entire WG for contribution
15:41:43 <jtandy> ivan: we should have the WG acknowledged for all 4 specs
15:41:53 <jtandy> gkellogg: i'll take care of that
15:42:04 <jtandy> ... all - or active members?
15:42:11 <jtandy> ivan: active
15:42:15 <jtandy> ... here's the list
15:42:28 <jtandy> ... danbri
15:42:38 <jtandy> ... davide
15:42:58 <jtandy> not phila
15:43:20 <jtandy> ivan: anatasia - yes
15:43:35 <jtandy> ... she helped danbri
15:43:44 <jtandy> ... paul downey - no
15:43:57 <jtandy> ... alf eaton - yes
15:44:12 <ivan> Fukuno, Taisuke - no
15:44:26 <ivan> https://www.w3.org/2000/09/dbwg/details?group=68238
15:44:40 <ivan> Gutteridge, Christopher
15:45:00 <ivan>  - yes
15:45:07 <ivan> Herman, Ivan
15:45:16 <jtandy> [laughter]
15:45:29 <ivan>  - no :-)
15:45:29 <ivan> Hu, Chunming
15:45:36 <jtandy> [I propose YES for ivan]
15:45:56 <ivan>  - no
15:45:56 <ivan> ngram, William ( - yes
15:46:05 <ivan> Kellogg, Gregg - yes
15:46:18 <ivan> Konstantopoulos, Stasinos - yes
15:46:34 <ivan> Mannens, Erik - no
15:47:02 <ivan> Mannens, Erik - yes
15:47:10 <ivan> Metcalf, Christopher
15:47:14 <jtandy> JeniT: Erik did turn up to the f2f - am inclined to include
15:47:38 <ivan>  - no
15:47:48 <ivan> Noriega, Alfonso
15:47:49 <gkellogg> s/to include/not to include/
15:47:52 <ivan>  -no
15:47:57 <jtandy> JeniT: don't include yet - but Christopher Metcalf could be an implementor
15:47:59 <ivan> Polleres, Axel - yes
15:48:09 <ivan> Pollock, Rufus -yes
15:48:09 <JeniT> I said Erik *should* be included because of coming to the F2F
15:48:29 <ivan> Retter, Adam - yes
15:48:29 <ivan> Seaborne, Andy - yes
15:48:42 <ivan> Simonis, Ingo
15:48:56 <ivan>  - no
15:49:01 <ivan> Stephan, Eric ( - yes
15:49:10 <ivan> Tandy, Jeremy - yes
15:49:18 <ivan> Tennison, Jeni  - maybe
15:49:25 <ivan> Thomas, Mathew
15:49:36 <ivan>  no
15:49:59 <ivan> Troncy, Raphaël - no
15:50:01 <ivan> Umbrich, Jürgen - yes
15:50:10 <ivan> ZERGAOUI, Mohamed - no
15:50:40 <ivan> + Yakov - yes
15:50:47 <jtandy> q+
15:50:56 <gkellogg> q-
15:51:04 <ivan> Tim Finin ?
15:51:38 <jtandy> JeniT: also go through the contributors in the UC doc
15:51:47 <jtandy> ivan: gkellogg - will you take care of this?
15:51:59 <jtandy> gkellogg: yes - but will pass to JeniT & ivan etc. for review
15:52:21 <JeniT> ack jtandy
15:52:21 <Zakim> jtandy, you wanted to ask ivan about the outstanding PR and to
15:52:39 <jtandy> https://github.com/w3c/csvw/pull/395
15:53:16 <jtandy> ivan: will check for consistency
15:53:47 <jtandy> gkellogg: formally the "json" datatype is uppercase, with a lowercase alias
15:54:17 <jtandy> JeniT: lowercase is the term we use in the datatype property for consistency with others; xml, html
15:54:31 <jtandy> ... capitalised version is used elsewhere
15:54:56 <jtandy> gkellogg: in the namespace I've defined them as uppercase with a lowercase alias
15:55:04 <jtandy> ivan: what to use in the doc?
15:55:17 <jtandy> ... in the diagram?
15:55:27 <jtandy> ... is the diagram ok as it?
15:55:45 <jtandy> q+ to ask about email on list about linked-csv to rdf
15:56:29 <jtandy> [discussion about upper and lowercase datatype names]
15:57:14 <jtandy> JeniT: [this] is very confusing ... you're not supposed to have the uppercase versions in the metadata
15:57:23 <jtandy> ivan: think the metadata doc is ok as it
15:57:38 <jtandy> gkellogg: keep the namespace doc the same
15:57:52 <jtandy> gkellogg: also need to move forward on the validation tests
15:58:08 <jtandy> ... positive validation tests should have json and rdf output
15:58:20 <jtandy> ... negative validation tests return errors
15:58:27 <jtandy> JeniT: one or more errors
15:58:31 <jtandy> ... agreed
15:58:34 <JeniT> ack jtandy
15:58:34 <Zakim> jtandy, you wanted to ask about email on list about linked-csv to rdf
15:59:13 <jtandy> JeniT: thanks! enjoy holidays ...
15:59:23 <jtandy> ... I won't be around next week
15:59:24 <Zakim> -gkellogg
15:59:25 <Zakim> -JeniT
15:59:25 <Zakim> -ivan
15:59:35 <Zakim> -jtandy
15:59:35 <Zakim> DATA_CSVWG()11:00AM has ended
15:59:35 <Zakim> Attendees were gkellogg, ivan, jtandy, JeniT
15:59:49 <ivan> trackbot, end telcon
15:59:49 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
15:59:49 <Zakim> sorry, trackbot, I don't know what conference this is
15:59:57 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
15:59:57 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/03/25-csvw-minutes.html trackbot
15:59:58 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
15:59:58 <RRSAgent> I see no action items