Dataset Exchange Working Group Teleconference

23 October 2017

Meeting Minutes

Topc: Admin

<Caroline_> https://‌www.w3.org/‌2017/‌10/‌16-dxwg-minutes

Proposed: Approve last weeks minutes

<Caroline_> +1

0 wasn't there...

<Jaroslav_Pullmann> +1

<DaveBrowning> +1

Resolved: Approve last week's minutes

<roba> +1

Meeting time post-daylight savings

Caroline_: Meeting time changes to 21:00 UTC from next week
… until further notice

Open Actions


Caroline_: check if open actions can be closed


... assigned to PWinstanley__

<Caroline_> /www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/track/actions/21//www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/track/actions/21

... can we close?

PWinstanley__: will come back

Caroline_: https://‌www.w3.org/‌2017/‌dxwg/‌track/‌actions/‌18
… assigned to Makx

Makx: not aware of that action...

Caroline_: due to bug in tracker we're not sure if actions are open or not

<PWinstanley__> @caroline, that was wrapped up in the work on types of versioning

Makx: will come back on that one

<Caroline_> https://‌www.w3.org/‌2017/‌dxwg/‌track/‌actions/‌24

Caroline_: dsr had an action regarding GitHub https://‌www.w3.org/‌2017/‌dxwg/‌track/‌actions/‌24

dsr: should be done (the right people have write access to the repository)

Caroline_: https://‌www.w3.org/‌2017/‌dxwg/‌track/‌actions/‌36 and https://‌www.w3.org/‌2017/‌dxwg/‌track/‌actions/‌38

<Caroline_> https://‌www.w3.org/‌2017/‌dxwg/‌track/‌actions/‌36

Caroline_: assigned to Jaroslav_Pullmann

<Caroline_> https://‌www.w3.org/‌2017/‌dxwg/‌track/‌actions/‌48

Jaroslav_Pullmann: has created a visual description and a wiki page for discussion
… will close the action today
… needs to be discussed next week

<Caroline_> https://‌www.w3.org/‌2017/‌dxwg/‌track/‌actions/‌40

LarsG: can be closed

<Caroline_> https://‌www.w3.org/‌2017/‌dxwg/‌track/‌actions/‌41

Ixchel: can be closed, it's all in the spreadsheet

PWinstanley__: https://‌www.w3.org/‌2017/‌dxwg/‌track/‌actions/‌43 can be closed

Caroline_: https://‌www.w3.org/‌2017/‌dxwg/‌track/‌actions/‌44

<Caroline_> /www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/track/actions/44//www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/track/actions/44

alejandra: not yet completed but there is a spreadsheet
… with a different classification of requirements
… also looking at other versioning requirements

<alejandra> spreadsheet classifying the requirements per entity: https://‌docs.google.com/‌spreadsheets/‌d/‌1csCcOEWF4Rh-ghIjxaqKQ4qryfjiQlIpvV6_aFDJn5k/‌edit#gid=113335154

alejandra: can copy the relevant mail into the wiki
… some requirements require fine grained metadata
… those are probably under-specified
… need to follow on regarding application profiles
… not very much in the UC regarding versioning, still going
… through these and will write to the list

Caroline_: https://‌www.w3.org/‌2017/‌dxwg/‌track/‌actions/‌45

dsr: still open

Caroline_: https://‌www.w3.org/‌2017/‌dxwg/‌track/‌actions/‌49 assigned to Annette
… Annete is not present, we'll discuss next week

<Caroline_> https://‌docs.google.com/‌spreadsheets/‌d/‌16JmtNCz_aCWtTCSntriDWLvyPY2x-Y9dZFhAHFl55r0/‌edit#gid=1131839466


Caroline_: Looking at headings

roba: sent a list of suggestions for headings
… for ordering the spreadsheet
… a few related to alignment to DCAT and other standards
… including equivalences to schema.org
… a number are related to the issue of citation and managing identification
… in the case of federation (multiple copies)
… some relate to fine-grained machine-readable descriptions
… some to profiles
… and others to the fitnesse for usefulness in a specific case
… and some more not quite worked out yet (action constraints etc.)
… should be reasonably coherent

kcoyle: thinks that we should look at how those interact with alejandra's proposal

roba: that's fine, the substantial issue is to get the requirements right

kcoyle: yes, the two spreadsheets should inform each other and figure out where there are gaps

alejandra: we can explore both and they should be complementary.
… Rob's is more topical, alejandra's is more about common aspects among entities
… it's good to have the flexibility to have different classifications

Caroline_: agrees with alejandra's proposal to explore both

<Caroline_> 6.13 Describe fine grained semantics and structure of datasets

roba: OGC provides data exchange schemas, in W3C there is SHACL etc
… constraints on use of vocabularies etc
… which is all about fine grained semantics
… Also W3C QB

<alejandra> https://‌w3c.github.io/‌dxwg/‌ucr/#RID11

roba: so there is some evidence that fine grained semantics is a concern
… in order to understand the data
… and have a formal description of it.
… But there is no standard way to attach that semantics to the data and tell people which vocabularies we use to attach the descriptions

alejandra: one of the examples whe has referred to before since the title of the requirement is to generic
… should be more about dimensions and vocabularies.
… Suggests to go back to the Use Cases and look at the terminology used there
… and the requirements should be refined to better mirror what's in the use case
… perhaps split into several requirements

kcoyle: agrees with alejandra , should be more specific
… perhaps rather a function for the profile
… or a link between DCAT and the profile
… This information might be too community-specific and thus out of scope for DCAT

roba: agrees with kcoyle re community specificity
… depending on which platform is used
… sometimes the meta-model is given and it's only a matter of the headings
… in other cases there is more freedom
… The question is if we want to model it in detail or just link the dataset description to a profile
… we need to think of that first and then we can decide on how to describe it (in DCAT or outside)
… Not sure if there is a use case for that

Jaroslav_Pullmann: finds it important to find the parts that refer to a world context (feature of interest etc.).
… other parts of semantic expression is the data itself
… perhaps we should split: real world entities vs. data gained
… we should be clear about the outcome of the requirement
… suggests to split off the two meanings of semantics

<roba> should we remove word "semantics" from this definition - make it "formal description of aspects" ?

Makx: from practical experience: they made a specific AP for statistical data in order to give semantics to those dimensions
… but often it's a matter of domain specific dimensions and then it might not make sense to have common properties

… agrees with Makx. Asks Makx to add a use case for features of interest. This was discussed at the Oxfort F2F (real world objects)

Jaroslav_Pullmann: sees a twofold topic:
… 1) what is considered the source of data
… 2) how to interpret that
… the first is a contextual reference (real world domain entity)
… could be an invoice, a shipment

Makx: has nothing to do with the comment.
… some data might be in Data qb, others in SDMX

<Caroline_> s/ack Jaroslav_Pullmann

Makx: if you have particular domains with particular data then that domain might have a particular
… interest to expose certain internals of their data at the dataset level

Jaroslav_Pullmann: only referred to structured data
… felt that there are many references in the UC that refer to the real world
… but nothing talking about the data points

(hope I got that right...)

roba: fine grained detail in observations and measurements often gets blurred
… end users have different perspectives (related but not the same)
… suggests to push things to profiles and then have best practices
… for domain-specific applications
… thinks there will be specialisations of general profiles
… suggests to remove the word "semantics" and replace with "specific aspects"

<alejandra> or "formal aspects"

kcoyle: sounds as if Jaroslav_Pullmann talks about things that help with discovery, suggests to provide a UC for that since there is none

Jaroslav_Pullmann: will do , agrees that that's the aspect

kcoyle: suggests that we consider this as something to relegate to profiles and to use roba's language for that
… and assumes that the profile will be linked to the dataset using a to-be-defined property

<trackbot> Error finding 'on'. You can review and register nicknames at <https://‌www.w3.org/‌2017/‌dxwg/‌track/‌users>.

Action: Jaroslav_Pullmann to create use case relating to real world entities as source of data

<trackbot> Created ACTION-50 - Create use case relating to real world entities as source of data [on Jaroslav Pullmann - due 2017-10-30].

roba: there are a number of specialised requirements here so there are some different examples of the same requirement

kcoyle: is there a link from the req to the UC?

roba: yes, and the forward-links from UC to requirement isn't done yet

Jaroslav_Pullmann: the forward-links from UC to req are normally created automatically
… in order to have just one source to maintain

<kcoyle> PROPOSED: accept 6.13 using Rob's suggest rewording; associate with profiles

<PWinstanley> can hear you caroline

<riccardoAlbertoni> \me yes

<Caroline_> can you hear me?

<kcoyle> suggests to remove the word "semantics" and replace with "specific aspects" [07:46] <alejandra> or "formal aspects"

Jaroslav_Pullmann: wants to mention the aspect of interpretation of data

kcoyle: the wording should be specific aspects or formal aspects

roba: should be fomalisations of descriptions of data (for discovery or whatever)

Jaroslav_Pullmann: not very happy with that (yet)

<alejandra> +1 to Jaroslav_Pullmann I think it would still be too vague

Jaroslav_Pullmann: thinks we should express what the intention of the description is and put that in the requirement title

<Caroline_> PROPOSED: accept 6.13 using Rob's suggest rewording; associate with profiles


<kcoyle> +1

<Caroline_> +1

<Jaroslav_Pullmann> +1

<DaveBrowning> +1

<roba> +1

<Stijn_Goedertier_AIV> +1

<dsr> +1

<riccardoAlbertoni> +1

<PWinstanley> +1

<alejandra> I think the proposal is not too clear

Resolved: accept 6.13 using Rob's suggest rewording; associate with profiles

<Makx> +1

<AndreaPerego> +1 - but agree with alejandra that it needs to be clarified

alejandra: wants to vote on the reworded requirement instead

kcoyle: Ixchel has already made a similar proposal

<alejandra> this is the text kcoyle said

<alejandra> "6.13.1 Provide recommendations and mechanisms for data providers to describe datasets with fine grained semantics (e.g. instrument/sensor used, spatial feature, observable property, quantity kind)."

<alejandra> we should have discussed that text

<Caroline_> https://‌www.w3.org/‌2017/‌dxwg/‌wiki/‌F2f2

Action: Ixchel to update text in 6.13

<trackbot> Created ACTION-51 - Update text in 6.13 [on Ixchel Faniel - due 2017-10-30].

<riccardoAlbertoni> Thanks you bye

<AndreaPerego> Thanks, and bye!

<PWinstanley> bye

<Makx> bye

<Jaroslav_Pullmann> bye

<alejandra> thanks, and bye!

Caroline_: reminds all to add F2F attendance to the wiki


Summary of Action Items

  1. Jaroslav_Pullmann to create use case relating to real world entities as source of data
  2. Ixchel to update text in 6.13

Summary of Resolutions

  1. Approve last week's minutes
  2. accept 6.13 using Rob's suggest rewording; associate with profiles
Minutes formatted by Bert Bos's scribe.perl version 2.27 (2017/09/01 13:12:43), a reimplementation of David Booth's scribe.perl. See CVS log.


Succeeded: s/prsent/present/

Succeeded: s/https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/track/actions/21

Succeeded: s/???/dsr

Succeeded: s/https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/track/actions/44/

Succeeded: s/ACTION: on Jaroslav_Pullmann to create use case relating to real world entities as source of data//