20:43:42 RRSAgent has joined #dxwg 20:43:42 logging to https://www.w3.org/2017/10/31-dxwg-irc 20:43:52 rrsagent, make logs public 20:53:31 PWinstanley has joined #dxwg 20:53:42 present+ 20:55:05 present+ 21:02:16 roba has joined #dxwg 21:02:33 Jaroslav_Pullmann has joined #dxwg 21:02:35 present+ 21:02:38 present+ 21:03:24 Caroline has joined #DXWG 21:03:35 Present+ 21:04:04 SimonCox has joined #dxwg 21:04:04 annette_g has joined #dxwg 21:04:08 Makx has joined #dxwg 21:04:19 DaveBrowning has joined #dxwg 21:04:22 present+ 21:04:31 present+ annette_g 21:04:46 present+ DaveBrowning 21:05:14 scribenick: PWinstanley 21:05:45 kcoyle: approval of last week's minutes 21:06:01 As I was not present, no comments 21:06:21 https://www.w3.org/2017/10/23-dxwg-minutes 21:06:26 https://www.w3.org/2017/10/23-dxwg-minutes 21:06:28 ditto 21:06:51 RESOLVED: approve last week's minutes 21:07:26 kcoyle: Open Actions: 21:07:47 ...Makx sent in on action #18 21:09:36 Can we consider Action 18 completed? 21:09:52 yes as far as i am concerned 21:10:07 it's just that I did not know where to put the stuff 21:10:39 kcoyle: Action #18 will be closed. Makx sent in a use case that is now in the wiki doc but needs to be moved to the definitive doc 21:11:01 I put it in https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/Use_Case_Working_Space 21:11:14 There are too many routes to add UC's! 21:11:15 kcoyle: Jaroslav_Pullmann will do this 21:11:31 At https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/Use_Case_Working_Space#Quality_information 21:12:08 SimonCox: this highlights a problem - the multiple routes to creating a UC 21:12:16 It's also that I don't know how to fork GitHub 21:12:22 kcoyle: we had decided using issues in github 21:12:48 ACTION: Jaroslav_Pullmann move Makx's new use case into UCR draft 21:12:50 Created ACTION-52 - Move makx's new use case into ucr draft [on Jaroslav Pullmann - due 2017-11-07]. 21:12:56 ... we can also mark documents on the home page as being obsolete and this should make it more obvious that it is not the route to use 21:13:02 OK, my fault then 21:13:07 ...Any other completed actions? 21:13:08 q+ 21:13:19 ack Jaroslav_Pullmann 21:13:38 Jaroslav_Pullmann: I worked on content for Action #48 21:13:47 https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/General_versioning_considerations 21:13:51 wiki states this "!!This document was for draft discussions and is now inactive. Further development has now moved to structured documentation on the github at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/blob/gh-pages/ucr/index.html" 21:13:56 ... the wiki page I created contains the graphics 21:14:25 Yes roba I saw that after I addded the UC. My fault. 21:14:38 maybe it ought to say "submit an issue" - what about people outside the group - email ? 21:14:41 ... this is a first, quick analysis of the levels we should consider, but they have different lifecycles and there needs to be some profiling 21:14:57 kcoyle: I will put this in with the 'versioning' section in the F2F 21:15:57 presnt+ Makx 21:15:59 ... I will also get together with Caroline and annette_g (who will help me chair) and we need an agenda that fits with the times that people accessing remotely will be present 21:16:04 presenet+ Makx 21:16:05 q? 21:16:10 present+ Makx 21:16:29 s/presnt+ Makx 21:16:37 s/presenet+ Makx/ 21:17:12 q+ 21:17:14 kcoyle: at the F2F we should complete all the requirements and allocate them to deliverables. Can people look at the categories roba developed, and Alejandra's doc 21:17:26 ack Jaroslav_Pullmann 21:18:13 Jaroslav_Pullmann: I will contribute further to the topic - to determine the levels that we have and to relate these to the profiles. This refers to the wiki page 21:19:12 kcoyle: I hope that we will have our meeting next week on Tues (the F2F is Thu and Fri) as it gives us a last minute chance for planning 21:19:24 kcoyle: Moving to requirements: 21:19:46 ... #614 'provide fine-grained metadata for DCAT distributions' 21:20:19 q+ 21:20:36 ack roba 21:21:45 roba: I grouped a range of disparate special cases requirements all about fine grained metadata for distributions, and I interpreted specific requests about essentially being the same issue, viz how can communities provide models/ Are there any common attributes that should go into DCAT, and what is to go in profiles 21:21:59 +1 21:22:31 i think deal with the general case 21:22:32 kcoyle: roba do you think we should consider as a group, or just go ahead? 21:22:49 if there is something not easy to catch then spin out a special case req 21:23:43 q+ 21:23:50 roba: I think I would gather similar issues, and if there is anything unique then that goes in a specif requirement 21:24:45 roba: we should dive into solution space and see if there is a canonical connection point for detailed metadata, or do we leave it for the application profile 21:25:41 ... We have made progress by introducing the AP approach to allow communities flexibility. But, we need a clear mechanism for extension that uses a pattern consistent with the ways we are implementing elsewhere in the DCAT 21:25:50 q? 21:25:57 ack Jaroslav_Pullmann 21:26:00 ...We need a generlisable solution for incorporating 3rd party vocabs 21:26:15 Jaroslav_Pullmann: is the wording clear enough for general users 21:26:43 ...Should we state more clearly that this is a metareuirement of the ability to define speccific extensions 21:27:11 kcoyle: This is one of those areas where a short .... 21:27:19 q+ 21:28:01 kcoyle: the heading and the more detailed description are different. 21:28:20 +1 to KCoyle 21:28:23 q- 21:28:23 ... the heading should read "...provide for fine grained metadata .." 21:28:31 i have no problems with that :-) 21:28:47 q+ 21:28:48 ...so essentially we can make that change 21:28:52 ...Any other comments? 21:28:57 ack Jaroslav_Pullmann 21:29:31 update the spreadsheet, and i will transcribe to UCR in a batch later (after groupings sorted out) 21:29:51 examples are described partially by links back to UC 21:29:51 q+ 21:30:05 q+ 21:30:06 q+ 21:30:11 Jaroslav_Pullmann: shouldn't we provide examples of the dynamic distributions or the domains we are about to attach via profiles? What types of fine-grained metadata will come in through these extensions? 21:30:24 FWIW link to editor's draft https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/ucr/#RID12 21:30:47 ack Makx 21:31:23 ack annette_g 21:31:31 Makx: I am with Jaroslav_Pullmann . If I look at #614 and #615 they don't say much. There are cases where if the work we are doing in the EC came across (dynamic datasets, service bsed profiles) . We need to be more specific detiling the things people are encountering 21:32:22 annette_g: We need to thingk about the actual UC. The desfription is for a general feature. If we knew the need we can respond and make the solution more specific 21:32:30 q+ 21:32:36 ack roba 21:33:44 roba: as SimonCox pointed out, on the editors draft there are examples. there are links to the UCs . There are examples in Void, and other linked data vocabs there are examples. fine-grained is a catch-all that we are not considering as a first-class DCAT component 21:34:33 q- 21:34:39 ... there is always a need for fine-grained detail, but this doesn't stop us from standardising widely used types of fine-grained metadata 21:34:47 q+ 21:34:50 +1 to defining the requirement as enabling usage of classes/terms from other vocabs. 21:34:56 +1 to roba 21:34:57 q+ 21:34:58 ack Jaroslav_Pullmann 21:35:03 ... There needs to be the general mechanism for handling things that are not in core DCAT 21:35:20 q- 21:35:46 +1 to clear extension points + patterns 21:36:02 Jaroslav_Pullmann: the focus is to provide defined extension points and guidance on extending where the vocabu in the next evolution will be described as part of DCAT. The proposal of extension points for profile work is the focus of this requirement 21:36:15 kcoyle: can someone provide new wording? 21:36:37 Define a way to attach finer grained metadata for dcat:Distribution instances associated to a dcat:Dataset 21:36:57 let me try 21:37:01 +1 21:37:02 ... can this either be rewritten on the fly, or else someone take an actions 21:37:34 Define a way to attach finer grained metadata where DCAT does not specify an appropriate property. 21:37:39 Define a way to attach metadata from external vocabularies to dcat:distributions or dcat:datasets. 21:38:08 kcoyle: roba and annette_g have provided alternative wordings 21:38:11 happy with Annettes 21:38:15 Sorry - I have to drop off now to catch a bus 21:38:39 i too have to dissappear in the next minute or too :-( 21:38:53 q+ 21:39:01 kcoyle: we have a new wording proposal from annette_g for #614 21:39:04 just noting this covers 6:13 as well! 21:39:11 PROPOSED: accept requirement 6.14 using Annette's wording 21:39:20 this seems to be quite generic, see UC ID26 21:39:40 ack Jaroslav_Pullmann 21:40:41 Jaroslav_Pullmann: this is quite generic. The UC on providing extension points and examples was there at the beginning. We need to be clear about what is to be in new DCAT and what will be in the AP. We need to be cautious about being too abstract/generic. 21:40:53 q+ 21:40:54 q+ 21:41:07 ack PWinstanley 21:41:53 sorry i have to go. 21:41:57 ack annette_g 21:42:35 annette_g: I see nothing wrong with being more specific, but it requres those who want it to define what they are looking for 21:42:44 kcoyle: how do you feel about the UCs? 21:42:48 q+ 21:43:14 ack Makx 21:43:23 annette_g: we need to make DCAT extendable, but I don't know why we need to be more specific 21:44:26 Makx: We can get the specific examples from the UC, but (agreeing wiht PW) there is a need to give people examples. So, going back to the UC (e.g. the one on web services and interfaces) we can be specific about what is needed 21:44:29 q+ 21:44:41 ...maybe the requirement should be made more concrete 21:45:41 kcoyle: I am looking to see if the web services became .... for some UC there are specific requirements 21:46:16 ... It seems we need an action to create a specific requirment for those where one does not currently exist 21:46:25 q? 21:46:47 ack Jaroslav_Pullmann 21:47:43 Jaroslav_Pullmann: I think this is a good example of what Makx mentioned - e.g. web servisces might be http , but they might be other protocols. We need to be able to describe in a DCAT-compatible manner the provision of a web service by another protocol 21:48:24 ... maybe '614 should be decided at the end, being a waste bin for what we don't care about right now, and then we can provide examples 21:48:41 kcoyle: I propose we put aside until we can determine if we really need it 21:48:56 kcoyle: #620 21:49:06 ... this seems more specific 21:49:06 https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/ucr/#RID18 21:50:41 q+ 21:51:00 ack Jaroslav_Pullmann 21:51:41 q+ 21:52:04 Jaroslav_Pullmann: can data quality vocbulary be used here? 21:52:08 antoine and riccardo are primary authors of DQV 21:53:33 Makx: we have done some work on textual quality information. but we haven't looked into the rest of DQV which is about metrics etc. 21:54:07 DQV doc intro says "The Data Quality Vocabulary (DQV) presented in this document is foreseen as an extension to the DCAT vocabulary" 21:54:12 kcoyle: there are a number of UC from Alejandra about modelling quality and performance 21:54:31 q+ 21:54:34 ... any comments? 21:55:39 q- 21:55:49 ack Jaroslav_Pullmann 21:56:38 kcoyle2 has joined #dxwg 21:57:21 Jaroslav_Pullmann: we were talking about data quality modelling. we need to assess what is mandatory and is a candidate for part of the new DCAT, and what needs to be left over for optional work that might be mandatory for specific communities but irrelevant for others 21:57:37 ... we need to work out the quiality aspects that are general 21:57:39 q+ 21:57:58 ack annette_g 21:57:59 ack annette_g 21:58:02 annette_g: The qay DQV was conceived was to make it flexible 21:58:18 ... it is more about giving people what they need for their domain. 21:58:27 q+ 21:58:29 ... This should address Jaroslav_Pullmann concerns 21:58:30 s/qay/way 21:58:42 ack Makx 21:59:30 q+ 21:59:32 Makx: I agree with annette_g , but DQV is young and not widely used. It is also a W3C note and so doesn't need use. We need to talk to Antoine to see if it is used in Europeana 21:59:40 ack annette_g 21:59:59 annette_g: Maybe for a requirement we don't need to focus on DQV, but we need to consider quality 22:00:40 kcoyle2: Can we consider the proposal for considering quality as part of DCAT 1.1? 22:00:49 +1 for voting, +1 for the requirement 22:01:00 PROPOSED: accept requirement 6.20 22:01:08 +1 22:01:11 +1 22:01:14 +1 22:01:14 +1 22:01:15 +1 22:01:20 +1 22:01:48 RESOLVED: accept requirement 6.20 22:02:13 RESOLVED: defer requirement 6.14 22:02:35 OK bye bye 22:02:42 bye! 22:02:42 kcoyle2: a first draft of the F2F will be available shortly 22:02:46 present- 22:03:21 rrsagent please draft minutes 22:03:21 rrsagent, please draft minute 22:03:21 I'm logging. I don't understand 'please draft minute', kcoyle2. Try /msg RRSAgent help 22:04:08 rrsagent, draft minutes 22:04:08 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2017/10/31-dxwg-minutes.html kcoyle2 22:27:50 AndreaPerego has joined #dxwg 22:29:46 meeting: Dataset Exchange Working Group Teleconference 22:30:06 agenda: https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2017.10.31 22:30:13 RRSAgent, draft minutes 22:30:13 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2017/10/31-dxwg-minutes.html AndreaPerego 22:31:16 s/presnt+ Makx// 22:31:18 RRSAgent, draft minutes 22:31:18 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2017/10/31-dxwg-minutes.html AndreaPerego 22:31:45 s/presnt+ Makx// 22:31:47 RRSAgent, draft minutes 22:31:47 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2017/10/31-dxwg-minutes.html AndreaPerego 22:32:01 s/s\/// 22:32:02 RRSAgent, draft minutes 22:32:02 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2017/10/31-dxwg-minutes.html AndreaPerego 22:33:05 chair: Karen 22:33:07 RRSAgent, draft minutes 22:33:07 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2017/10/31-dxwg-minutes.html AndreaPerego 22:33:41 regrets+ Andrea, Riccardo Albertoni, LarsG 22:33:43 RRSAgent, draft minutes 22:33:43 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2017/10/31-dxwg-minutes.html AndreaPerego 22:41:39 s/rrsagent please draft minutes// 22:41:42 RRSAgent, draft minutes v2 22:41:42 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2017/10/31-dxwg-minutes.html AndreaPerego