13:54:51 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #dxwg
13:54:51 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/10/09-dxwg-irc
13:55:07 <kcoyle> rrsagent, make logs public
14:00:42 <alejandra> alejandra has joined #dxwg
14:01:25 <LarsG> LarsG has joined #dxwg
14:01:30 <LarsG> present+
14:01:41 <kcoyle> present+
14:01:49 <kcoyle> chair: Karen Coyle
14:01:52 <annette_g> annette_g has joined #dxwg
14:02:42 <riccardoAlbertoni> riccardoAlbertoni has joined #dxwg
14:03:59 <Ixchel> Ixchel has joined #dxwg
14:04:02 <Ixchel> present + Ixchel
14:04:04 <antoine> antoine has joined #dxwg
14:04:10 <antoine> present+ antoine
14:04:12 <Stijn_Goedertier_AIV> Stijn_Goedertier_AIV has joined #dxwg
14:04:22 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> Jaroslav_Pullmann has joined #dxwg
14:04:23 <Stijn_Goedertier_AIV> present+ Stijn_Goedertier_AIV
14:04:23 <dsr> present+
14:04:31 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> present+
14:05:11 <alejandra> present+
14:05:47 <alejandra> alejandra has joined #dxwg
14:05:54 <alejandra> present+
14:06:04 <riccardoAlbertoni> no sorry i am in a noisy place
14:06:48 <kcoyle> scribenick: Ixchel
14:06:52 <annette_g> annette_g has joined #dxwg
14:07:20 <newton> newton has joined #dxwg
14:07:33 <annette_g> present+ annette_g
14:07:34 <riccardoAlbertoni> present+
14:08:02 <AndreaPerego> AndreaPerego has joined #dxwg
14:08:11 <AndreaPerego> present+ AndreaPerego
14:08:27 <Ixchel> kcoyle: first up approval of meeting meetings
14:08:35 <kcoyle> RESOLVED: approve last week's minutes
14:09:03 <Ixchel> kcoyle: reminder about face to face in Nov please sign up
14:09:22 <kcoyle> TOPIC: meeting time
14:09:47 <Ixchel> kcoyle: daylight savings and time zone changes are an issue for some
14:10:01 <DaveBrowning> DaveBrowning has joined #dxwg
14:10:01 <alejandra> a+
14:10:02 <Ixchel> kcoyle: doodle poll will be emailed to group
14:10:03 <alejandra> q+
14:10:16 <AndreaPerego> s/a+//
14:10:20 <kcoyle> ack alejandra
14:10:36 <Ixchel> alejandra: created a doodle poll and sent around as well
14:11:05 <DaveBrowning> Present+ DaveBrowning
14:11:10 <Ixchel> alejandra: doodle poll updated for week in November
14:11:19 <newton> present+
14:11:21 <AndreaPerego> Thanks, Alejandra.
14:11:29 <Ixchel> alejandra: can we use the one I created
14:11:30 <alejandra> https://beta.doodle.com/poll/n66t9dth6u5gfi2t
14:11:56 <Ixchel> kcoyle: will look at alejandra's poll and respond as to next steps
14:12:33 <Ixchel> kcoyle: note that the time for people in southern hemisphere, it's the next day. so can't include Friday because it will be their Saturday
14:12:55 <Ixchel> kcoyle: only will be asking about Monday-Thursday in the doodle poll
14:13:44 <Ixchel> ...next checking open action items
14:14:00 <LarsG> Topic: Open action items
14:14:11 <Ixchel> ...if anyone has an open action item that is included please let us know
14:14:32 <Ixchel> TOPIC: Use Case Requirements
14:15:10 <annette_g> annette_g has joined #dxwg
14:15:50 <Ixchel> kcoyle: ended up with 2 points of view on one of the reqs
14:16:04 <Ixchel> ...DCAT need to decide what is vs. is not a version
14:16:24 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> q+
14:16:24 <Ixchel> ...should this not be decided because communities already have decided on that
14:16:32 <kcoyle> q?
14:17:10 <Ixchel> Jaroslav_Pullmann: agrees on the summary but can we look at the defintion of version which aspects of dataset should be consider which type of changes might indicate transition to a new version
14:17:26 <kcoyle> ack Jaroslav_Pullmann
14:17:32 <Ixchel> kcoyle: question stands should be have a defintion
14:17:39 <Ixchel> ...wants a straw poll
14:17:54 <kcoyle> 1) need a definition 2) better not to define
14:18:05 <kcoyle> 0,0
14:18:20 <antoine> -1,+1
14:18:34 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> +1,-1
14:18:34 <annette_g> Wait, why two`/
14:18:34 <AndreaPerego> -1,+1
14:18:35 <riccardoAlbertoni> 0,1
14:19:12 <annette_g> I pick 2
14:19:24 <annette_g> -1, +1
14:19:39 <LarsG> 0,+1
14:19:41 <newton> 0,1
14:19:43 <DaveBrowning> 0,+1
14:19:48 <Stijn_Goedertier_AIV> +1,0
14:19:54 <newton> s/0,1/0,+1
14:20:01 <DaveBrowning> q+
14:20:14 <kcoyle> ack DaveBrowning
14:20:18 <Ixchel> DaveBrowning: i missed last weeks meeting and a bit behind
14:20:22 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> the "definition" would not define what a change is per se, but what aspects should be considered when judging if there is a "version"-alike change ..?
14:20:40 <Ixchel> ...2 weeks ago talked about having a version identifer is this question about that or some semantics that we apply to the identifer
14:20:50 <kcoyle> https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2017.10.09
14:21:34 <Ixchel> kcoyle: Peter suggested wording for the first two requirements in versioning and during the disucssion you can see his defintion is that we should specify what is vs. is not a version
14:21:44 <Ixchel> ...some in group did not agree
14:21:58 <Ixchel> DaveBrowning: understands now given the recap
14:22:08 <Ixchel> kcoyle: still a split in the group given voting
14:22:13 <AndreaPerego> s/disucssion/discussion/
14:22:15 <alejandra> +q
14:22:26 <Ixchel> ...so not sure how to resolve at this point may move on
14:22:37 <kcoyle> ack alejandra
14:22:40 <Ixchel> alejandra: trying to think about what is the best thing
14:23:00 <Ixchel> ...if have a version need to decide what it is for
14:23:01 <annette_g> Q+
14:23:19 <Ixchel> ...looking at other ontologies, don't say how created but talk about previous versions
14:23:42 <Ixchel> ...maybe we should vote on a specific defintion, but not sure what mean by no definition
14:23:53 <Ixchel> ...if we talk about version we need something, it could be generic
14:24:40 <Ixchel> kcoyle: Peter added two specific things - consider domain and range and provide illustrations when a new version would not be recommended - e.g. in de-duplication
14:24:49 <alejandra> as references, HCLS dataset description referred to versioning relying on PAV
14:24:49 <antoine> Tally: option 1: six 0s, one +1s, three -1s ; option 2: two 0s, seven +1s, one -1s (if I count well)
14:24:51 <alejandra> see the links: https://www.w3.org/TR/hcls-dataset/
14:24:54 <Ixchel> ...agreee with what you say alejandra, but need wording we can vote on
14:24:57 <alejandra> https://pav-ontology.github.io/pav/
14:25:08 <Ixchel> ...Peter's wording more specific than expecting
14:25:12 <alejandra> +1, I think we need some wording to be able to vote
14:25:33 <Ixchel> ...if someone would like to propse alternative wording for what Peter has (in email) then please do that
14:25:36 <kcoyle> q?
14:25:43 <kcoyle> ack annette_g
14:25:44 <Ixchel> annette_g: do think need to figure out answer to this
14:25:57 <Ixchel> ...suggest think about defining a list of types of versions
14:26:05 <Ixchel> ...i'm assigning this type of version to this
14:26:09 <Ixchel> ...it might be a middle ground
14:26:14 <alejandra> q+
14:26:51 <Ixchel> ...example - there is a short of of 4 versions - is it a complete re-write, just changing a date, that type of thing, but not just amount of change
14:26:58 <Ixchel> ...there were 4 logical categories
14:26:59 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> q+
14:27:07 <Ixchel> kcoyle: so maybe we adopt that?
14:27:16 <Ixchel> annette_g: yes.
14:27:28 <kcoyle> ack alejandra
14:27:41 <Ixchel> alejandra: agree can find a middle ground
14:28:19 <Ixchel> ...need something broad enough so people can specify their own types of versions, so put a links on IRC see above
14:28:54 <AndreaPerego> q+
14:28:58 <Ixchel> kcoyle: think we need to give someone the task of making a proposal
14:29:16 <Ixchel> ...alejandra annette_g anyone willing
14:29:31 <kcoyle> ack Jaroslav_Pullmann
14:29:36 <Ixchel> ...annette_g will propose something
14:29:51 <annette_g> Can you assign me an action for that?
14:30:14 <Ixchel> Jaroslav_Pullmann: confusion now to indicate which properties are used other side the type of version is intersting to consumers of the dataset, should look at from point of view of client
14:30:44 <Ixchel> ...data didn't change but properties changed, what are they interested in with respect to the change?
14:30:57 <Ixchel> ...differentation with respect to type of change would be interseting
14:30:57 <AndreaPerego> s/intersting/interesting/
14:31:26 <Ixchel> ...not lookign at how to indicate but which aspects should be consider when talking about a new version
14:31:39 <AndreaPerego> s/lookign/looking/
14:31:40 <Ixchel> ...could propose a client oriented view regarding consumers/clients
14:31:54 <Ixchel> kcoyle: sounds like what Peter was aiming at, so look at his response
14:31:57 <AndreaPerego> q-
14:32:07 <Stijn_Goedertier_AIV> * +1 to Jaroslav... For consumers, these could perhaps be interesting types of versions: language version, format version, revision to the content (minor corrections), revision to the API, major revisions to the content, ...
14:32:41 <Ixchel> ...he says definition consideration should be given where creation of new version should not be recommended, but you would let people know what type of version should be created
14:32:59 <Ixchel> Jaroslav_Pullmann: interested in evidence of change
14:33:29 <Ixchel> kcoyle: annette_g is that something you could work in or should be give a separate action to Jaroslav
14:33:38 <Ixchel> Jaroslav_Pullmann: we can sychrnoize
14:34:01 <Ixchel> kcoyle: annette_g will put in email and then will be discussed via group
14:34:20 <Ixchel> kcoyle: can we move on to other versioning reqs even though this issue isn't solved?
14:34:40 <Ixchel> ...talked above version identifer that we changed to indicator
14:34:55 <Ixchel> ...next requirement is Version Status
14:35:02 <annette_g> Q+
14:35:18 <kcoyle> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16JmtNCz_aCWtTCSntriDWLvyPY2x-Y9dZFhAHFl55r0/edit#gid=0
14:35:42 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> q+
14:35:52 <Ixchel> ...sounds like Version Status will be very tied up with the identifer and defintition lets move to version release date
14:35:55 <kcoyle> 6.9.1
14:36:09 <Ixchel> ...this is 6.9.1 in the google doc
14:36:09 <kcoyle> ack annette_g
14:36:20 <Ixchel> Jaroslav_Pullmann: so the status is question how it would look
14:36:39 <Ixchel> ...assumption is if indicator not structured it would not provide hint of quality of current version
14:36:52 <Ixchel> ...so these are just examples
14:36:55 <kcoyle> ack Jaroslav_Pullmann
14:36:57 <AndreaPerego> RRSAgent, draft minutes v2
14:36:57 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/10/09-dxwg-minutes.html AndreaPerego
14:37:01 <Ixchel> kcoyle: suggesting table Version Status
14:37:14 <Ixchel> Jaroslav_Pullmann: Yes.  Okay so release date, no question about the need to have this
14:37:19 <AndreaPerego> RRSAgent, make logs world
14:37:23 <AndreaPerego> RRSAgent, draft minutes v2
14:37:23 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/10/09-dxwg-minutes.html AndreaPerego
14:37:23 <annette_g> Q+
14:37:28 <Ixchel> kcoyle: anyone have anything else re: Version Release Date
14:37:30 <kcoyle> ack annette_g
14:37:46 <Ixchel> annette_g: some people version things with date
14:37:58 <Ixchel> ...we would not want to say if have a date also need a version
14:38:16 <Ixchel> kcoyle: we have not talked about requirements for that type. anyone else?
14:38:16 <LarsG> q+
14:38:25 <kcoyle> ack LarsG
14:38:52 <Ixchel> LarsG: if we want to make it easy data consumers probably need to have release date something they can sort on even if people use it as a version indicator
14:38:55 <annette_g> +1
14:39:07 <Ixchel> ...otherwise people would have to look at two things
14:39:21 <AndreaPerego> Re version release date, this can be simply modelled as the issue date of that version.
14:39:32 <kcoyle> PROPOSED: accept requirement 6.9.1 version release date
14:39:36 <Ixchel> Ixchel: So is this wording good: 6.9.1 Indicate the date when specific version was created (released). The version identifier might refer to the release date.
14:39:38 <AndreaPerego> q+
14:39:41 <riccardoAlbertoni> +1
14:39:53 <AndreaPerego> 0
14:40:01 <kcoyle> ack AndreaPerego
14:40:11 <Ixchel> AndreaPerego: what do we mean with version release date seems like just the issue date
14:40:38 <Ixchel> kcoyle: not sure understood the question
14:40:38 <Stijn_Goedertier_AIV> https://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-dcat/#Property:dataset_release_date
14:41:11 <Ixchel> AndreaPerego: the creation, issue or last modify date so why need version release date if already have these others?
14:41:24 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> q+
14:41:25 <Ixchel> kcoyle: referring to dates already in DCAT?
14:41:34 <Ixchel> AndreaPerego: yes, but thinking more conceptually.
14:41:37 <LarsG> q+
14:41:50 <Ixchel> ...i would like to understand the proposal better because it is not clear
14:41:55 <kcoyle> ack Jaroslav_Pullmann
14:42:12 <kcoyle> ack LarsG
14:42:14 <Ixchel> Jaroslav_Pullmann: i don't think there is a contradition. think they are equivalent release=issue date
14:42:37 <Ixchel> LarsG: seconds that, especially considering release date re: link it IRC is the same thing
14:42:53 <Ixchel> kcoyle: is it the same thing?
14:42:55 <annette_g> annette_g has joined #dxwg
14:43:10 <Ixchel> LarsG: andreaperego is the expert
14:43:13 <annette_g> +1 that they are the same
14:43:19 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> q+
14:43:20 <AndreaPerego> [blushing]
14:43:29 <Ixchel> kcoyle: if they are the same then do we need a release date
14:43:34 <alejandra> I agree with AndreaPerego - I don't think we need a version release date
14:43:40 <kcoyle> ack Jaroslav_Pullmann
14:43:53 <riccardoAlbertoni> +1 to Jaroslav_Pullmann
14:43:57 <alejandra> dates should be associated with the dataset, which will also have version information
14:44:16 <Ixchel> Jaroslav_Pullmann: just needed to make requirements full/complete. agree already handled by DCAT, but should look at how handles versions in DCAT because not versions at the moment
14:44:37 <Ixchel> ...just a reminder to us. it might be already solved if use the same properties
14:44:49 <Ixchel> kcoyle: is the suggestion that release date in DCAT would be renamed?
14:44:54 <Ixchel> ...right now these all say version.
14:44:59 <Ixchel> ...what would happen to release date
14:45:08 <alejandra> +q
14:45:16 <kcoyle> ack alejandra
14:45:17 <alejandra> https://www.w3.org/TR/hcls-dataset/
14:45:38 <Ixchel> alejandra: just point to resources see link in IRC how divides summary level info see section 5
14:46:10 <Ixchel> ...there is a distinction re: date created it is not on the summary level but maybe we can take this approach
14:46:30 <Ixchel> kcoyle: so saying unversioned release date would be made obosolete
14:47:07 <Ixchel> alejandra: more about where to put the date summary or distribution
14:47:14 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> q+
14:47:24 <Ixchel> kcoyle: so if we accept this could the deliverable group work this out
14:47:55 <Ixchel> alejandra: yes. at some point we need to resolve it, not sure at requirements level or development of the vocabulary level
14:48:11 <Ixchel> kcoyle: can we pass it to the sub-group or is that cheating
14:48:17 <kcoyle> ack Jaroslav_Pullmann
14:48:30 <Ixchel> Jaroslav_Pullmann: supports alejandra's view. dates are a property of the versions
14:48:50 <annette_g> Q+
14:49:05 <Ixchel> ...all resources which have a lifecycle that do change should have a property attached release or issue, not sure what to call it
14:49:18 <kcoyle> ack annette_g
14:49:20 <Ixchel> ...it's conceptual reference to temporal aspect of publishing a new version
14:49:41 <LarsG> q+ to ask if there is a "summary level"
14:49:47 <Ixchel> annette_g: can the requirement be simplified, it must be possible to assign a date to a unqiue version and hte group can run with that to see how it fits
14:49:53 <Ixchel> kcoyle: so is that a rewording?
14:49:57 <AndreaPerego> +1 to annette_g
14:49:58 <Ixchel> annette_g: yes. think so
14:50:16 <AndreaPerego> s/hte group/the group/
14:50:45 <kcoyle> PROPOSED: accept 6.9.1 reworded: it must be possible to assign a date to a unique version
14:51:02 <annette_g> +1
14:51:07 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> +1
14:51:10 <LarsG> -1
14:51:12 <Stijn_Goedertier_AIV> +1
14:51:16 <alejandra> for reference, this is the old wording: "6.9.1 Indicate the date when specific version was created (released). The version identifier might refer to the release date."
14:51:24 <alejandra> +1
14:51:28 <DaveBrowning> +1
14:51:43 <antoine> +1
14:51:53 <AndreaPerego> "Identifier" or "indicator"?
14:52:11 <alejandra> I think it should be "indicator", as we decided two weeks ago
14:52:13 <Ixchel> kcoyle: with this wording means group and decide to create a new date property or to rename the previous date property
14:52:57 <Ixchel> LarsG: unsure of two things 1. the term summary level and 2. unique version
14:53:11 <Ixchel> ...if look at DCAT there is no summary level
14:53:17 <Ixchel> ...everything is versioned
14:53:31 <alejandra> the concept of "summary level" didn't come from DCAT, but from HCLS dataset description
14:53:34 <Ixchel> ...is that right?
14:53:41 <AndreaPerego> Yep.
14:53:42 <alejandra> q+
14:54:03 <kcoyle> ack LarsG
14:54:03 <Zakim> LarsG, you wanted to ask if there is a "summary level"
14:54:07 <kcoyle> ack alejandra
14:54:29 <Ixchel> alejandra: DCAT doesn't deal with version was refering to HCLS dataset description
14:54:36 <Ixchel> ...in case we think it is useful
14:54:44 <Ixchel> LarsG: think it is extremely useful
14:54:53 <LarsG> +1
14:54:56 <Ixchel> kcoyle: so willing to accept the new wording?
14:54:57 <antoine> q+
14:55:16 <kcoyle> ack antoine
14:55:20 <Ixchel> antoine: how doesn't mess with resolution
14:55:36 <annette_g> Q+
14:55:39 <Ixchel> ...just wanted to double check are there strong feelings re: word unique
14:55:58 <Ixchel> ...rewording mentions unique version. is unique needed?
14:56:02 <kcoyle> ack annette_g
14:56:03 <Ixchel> ...would we lose alot
14:56:05 <AndreaPerego> +1 to antoine
14:56:19 <Ixchel> annette_g: maybe not just more clear talking at  version and not distribution level
14:56:48 <Ixchel> ...not saying data is unique saying version is unqiue
14:57:07 <Ixchel> kcoyle: would there be objections to dropping the word unique
14:57:19 <Ixchel> annette_g: not sure what gaining with drop but thinks it still works
14:57:21 <kcoyle> ACCEPTED: accept 6.9.1 reworded: it must be possible to assign a date to a version
14:57:47 <kcoyle> RESOLVED: accept 6.9.1 reworded: it must be possible to assign a date to a version
14:57:57 <Ixchel> q+
14:58:43 <kcoyle> ack Ixchel
15:00:46 <annette_g> Thanks folks!
15:00:47 <AndreaPerego> Thanks, and bye!
15:00:51 <riccardoAlbertoni> bye thanks
15:00:53 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> bye
15:00:59 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> present-
15:01:00 <LarsG> Cheers
15:01:06 <Stijn_Goedertier_AIV> thanks all, bye
15:01:17 <dsr> rrsagent, set logs public
15:01:23 <dsr> chair: karen
15:01:33 <dsr> meeting: DXWG telecon
15:01:45 <dsr> rrsagent, make minutes v2
15:01:45 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/10/09-dxwg-minutes.html dsr
15:02:06 <AndreaPerego> regrets+ Caroline, Ruben, Thomas, Simon, Rob
15:02:28 <AndreaPerego> agenda: https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2017.10.09
15:02:33 <AndreaPerego> RRSAgent, draft minutes v2
15:02:33 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/10/09-dxwg-minutes.html AndreaPerego