17:08:34 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #dxwg
17:08:34 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2017/11/09-dxwg-irc
17:08:41 <kcoyle> rrsagent, make logs public
17:08:46 <dsr> dsr has joined #dxwg
17:09:42 <ScottSimmons> ScottSimmons has joined #dxwg
17:10:17 <DaveBrowning> DaveBrowning has joined #dxwg
17:10:17 <antoine> antoine has joined #dxwg
17:10:28 <antoine> present+ antoine
17:10:31 <RiccardoAlbertoni> present+ RiccardoAlbertoni
17:10:34 <DaveBrowning> present+
17:10:50 <kcoyle> present+
17:11:22 <ScottSimmons> present+ ScottSimmons
17:11:49 <Makx> ok now
17:11:52 <RiccardoAlbertoni> yes
17:12:05 <Linda_> Linda_ has joined #dxwg
17:12:31 <annette_g> annette_g has joined #dxwg
17:12:40 <kcoyle> https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/Meetings:F2F2017.11.09
17:13:00 <dsr> present+ Dave_Raggett
17:13:08 <PWinstanley> kcoyle: we'll do this as a meeting following the agenda and cover minutes of last meeting next time
17:13:26 <PWinstanley> ...Looking at the agenda we start with access,linking, and data info
17:13:33 <Caroline_> Caroline_ has joined #DXWG
17:13:42 <PWinstanley> ...there will be a break after
17:13:51 <PWinstanley> ...We start with "Access"
17:14:18 <PWinstanley> ...there is only one requirement, but it is complex, so we split into 2 parts
17:14:26 <Makx> q+
17:14:27 <Caroline_> Present+
17:14:38 <kcoyle> 6.21 Provide a way to specify access restrictions for both a dataset and a distribution.
17:14:49 <ericP> ericP has joined #dxwg
17:14:49 <kcoyle> ack Makx
17:15:12 <fab_gandon> fab_gandon has joined #dxwg
17:15:26 <PWinstanley> Makx: bacground - this cameup in the development of DCAT-AP.  There is information on licenses etc,but on the data you cannot filter
17:15:42 <PWinstanley> ...in DCAT-AP we added dct:accessRights for filtering
17:15:56 <PWinstanley> kcoyle: is this a request for specific access request?
17:15:59 <DaveBrowning> q+
17:16:06 <PWinstanley> Makx: it's just some place to put it
17:16:10 <kcoyle> ack DaveBrowning
17:16:18 <Makx> q-
17:16:58 <PWinstanley> DaveBrowning: thespecific example goes backto a summary level of access.  Is it a fully blown ODRL?
17:17:23 <PWinstanley> kcoyle: we are talking about a property, which could be a URI, so that people can use it for whatever their needs are
17:18:03 <PWinstanley> ...The second part, do we actually need it, or by passing the first part have we completed both requirements.  Makx,this seems to be an addition
17:18:41 <LarsG> q+ to ask about difference between access restriction an openness
17:18:50 <phila> phila has joined #dxwg
17:18:55 <PWinstanley> Makx: on profile in Norway required a mechanism to describe why something wasn#t open data - counter to a government policy of open by default.  I don't  know if it is the same property, or something different
17:19:33 <annette_g> q+
17:19:36 <kcoyle> ack LarsG
17:19:36 <Zakim> LarsG, you wanted to ask about difference between access restriction an openness
17:19:38 <PWinstanley> ... it depends on the solution,whether it can take other values that specify reasons.  The Norwegian idea was to express two things about a data set
17:19:38 <antoine> q+
17:20:03 <Makx> q+
17:20:04 <PWinstanley> LarsG: difference between access restriction and openness.  They are related but not the same
17:20:20 <PWinstanley> ... We have to beware mixing things up here
17:20:50 <PWinstanley> kcoyle: so you think there could be a property for access restriction and another for license?nde?
17:20:56 <PWinstanley> LarsG: yes
17:22:06 <PWinstanley> Makx: I think LarsG reads too much into the wording; access restriction gives you the specification of the restrictions,but in this case the wording should be to allow simple expression of access, it is not a replacement for ODRL
17:22:17 <PWinstanley> LarsG: could we call it usage constraints?
17:22:32 <PWinstanley> Makx: or 'levels of openness'?
17:22:51 <PWinstanley> kcoyle: can we conclude that we understand it properly?
17:22:57 <kcoyle> ack annette_g
17:23:01 <AndreaPerego> AndreaPerego has joined #dxwg
17:23:15 <kcoyle> ack antoine
17:23:18 <Makx> q+
17:23:19 <PWinstanley> annette_g: it sounds like the licensing and the access restrictions are two separate things
17:24:03 <PWinstanley> antoine: I agree with annette_g ; tryto avoid merging things .  the second part- the meaning / context/ rationale for the restriction, could be a third thing
17:24:34 <PWinstanley> ... there could be a technical solution that dealt with all at once, but it is better to keep them separated
17:24:40 <AndreaPerego> present+ AndreaPerego
17:25:00 <PWinstanley> kcoyle: we need two - one meeting the first sentence, and another relating to license terms
17:25:12 <Makx> can't hear
17:25:13 <PWinstanley> DaveBrowning: there is already a reference to license at the data set level
17:25:24 <annette_g> q+
17:25:29 <Makx> queue please
17:25:35 <kcoyle> ack Makx
17:25:41 <PWinstanley> kcoyle: 6.21 becomes two requirements;one referring to the first sentence, and another referring to licensing terms
17:26:03 <AndreaPerego> RRSAgent, draft minutes v2
17:26:03 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2017/11/09-dxwg-minutes.html AndreaPerego
17:26:40 <kcoyle> q?
17:26:43 <AndreaPerego> RRSAgent, make logs world
17:26:47 <AndreaPerego> RRSAgent, draft minutes v2
17:26:47 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2017/11/09-dxwg-minutes.html AndreaPerego
17:26:53 <PWinstanley> Makx: I want to separate this from licensing, because people understand that licensing is completely different.  In the CKAN world people set licenses to datasets and not distributions, but here we need to indicate the openness ofthe data in a way that is separate to licenses
17:26:55 <RiccardoAlbertoni> +1 to Makx
17:26:55 <kcoyle> ack annette_g
17:27:01 <Linda_> Linda_ has joined #dxwg
17:27:22 <PWinstanley> annette_g: is there anything about the current approach for licensing in DCAT that doesn't meet peoples' need
17:27:46 <PWinstanley> Makx: there is no current mechanism in DCAT to say something about openness
17:27:55 <LarsG> q+ to say that different distributions can have different licenses
17:28:17 <kcoyle> ack LarsG
17:28:17 <Zakim> LarsG, you wanted to say that different distributions can have different licenses
17:28:25 <PWinstanley> kcoyle: if we are talking about DCAT 1.1, and DCAT 1.0 already has something for licensing then we add
17:28:58 <PWinstanley> LarsG: isn't this something of a transitive closure?  Some data can be open and some can be closed from the same dataset
17:29:10 <Makx> q+
17:29:22 <Linda_> Linda_ has joined #dxwg
17:29:43 <PWinstanley> kcoyle: can't DCAT describe this for a separate distribution?  At what level can DCAT describe a distribution, and is it a point where the proprty for access restriction and license terms can be added?
17:30:02 <PWinstanley> LarsG: froma dataset you should be able to figure out if it isopen or closed
17:30:16 <Makx> q+
17:30:24 <kcoyle> ack Makx
17:31:02 <dsr> meeting: Data Exchange WG TPAC face to face
17:31:18 <dsr> chair: kcoyle
17:31:33 <LarsG> q+
17:31:44 <PWinstanley> Makx: I would get away from the word 'access restriction' - I prefer 'level of oppenness'.  I agree with LarsG  - there is a lot of processing in the alternative approaches in working out if the data is open or not, but we need to make it easy
17:31:56 <Linda_> Linda_ has joined #dxwg
17:32:27 <AndreaPerego> q+
17:32:34 <PWinstanley> ... if people think that it is sensible to make inferences then that's OK, but end users that I know need something simpler
17:32:44 <kcoyle> ack LarsG
17:33:01 <kcoyle> ack AndreaPerego
17:33:16 <PWinstanley> LarsG: I see what Makx is thinking about;  a 3 option
17:33:44 <RiccardoAlbertoni> pointer to the  related uses case https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/ucr/#ID17
17:36:18 <PWinstanley> AndreaPerego: we have 2 different levels in the use case; one solution is as Makx describes, the other is more related to the license restrictions.  We identified different categories - no limitations; need for authorisation; and registration required (anybody can register, so it is open without authorisation, but needs registration)
17:36:53 <PWinstanley> ... these 3 categories partially overlap with the others, but it helps the end user decide if they want to register or not
17:37:40 <PWinstanley> ...There is no recommended way in DCAT to specify the degree of openness.  Licenses are not about access, they are about usage conditions
17:37:51 <PWinstanley> ... they define 'how' data is used
17:38:03 <kcoyle> PROPOSED: accept 6.21 with a way to provide levels of openness (access). Consider creating best practices
17:38:04 <PWinstanley> ...We need to ensure we don't mix these up
17:38:56 <annette_g> q+
17:39:20 <PWinstanley> annette_g: do we want to have a proposal to do a best practices document?
17:39:48 <PWinstanley> kcoyle: given it is not a deliverable, perhaps just a recommendation.  There will be a lot of areas that relate to this
17:39:51 <kcoyle> ack annette_g
17:40:09 <PWinstanley> dsr: you could use a 'resolution' to work on a BP doc
17:40:19 <annette_g> +1
17:40:21 <Makx> +1
17:40:23 <newton> +1
17:40:24 <DaveBrowning> +1
17:40:24 <dsr> +1
17:40:24 <PWinstanley> +1
17:40:25 <AndreaPerego> +1
17:40:30 <LarsG> +1
17:40:33 <antoine> +1
17:40:47 <kcoyle> RESOLVED: accept 6.21 with a way to provide levels of openness (access)
17:40:47 <RiccardoAlbertoni> +1
17:40:56 <Caroline_> +1
17:41:14 <AndreaPerego> RRSAgent, draft minutes v2
17:41:14 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2017/11/09-dxwg-minutes.html AndreaPerego
17:41:38 <PWinstanley> kcoyle: moving on to the topic of linking.  2 proposals:
17:41:41 <ericP> 6.22 Ability to represent the different relationships between datasets, including: versions of a dataset, collections of datasets, to describe their inclusion criteria and to define the 'hasPart'/'partOf' relationship, derivation, e.g. processed data that is derived from raw data RID20
17:42:01 <PWinstanley> ...second is:
17:42:15 <ericP> 6.38 Clarify the relationships between Datasets and zero, one or multiple Catalogs, e.g. in scenarios of copying, harvesting and aggregation of Dataset descriptions among Catalogs.
17:42:17 <Linda> Linda has joined #dxwg
17:42:18 <kcoyle> Q?
17:42:28 <PWinstanley> kcoyle: 6.22
17:42:37 <Makx> q+
17:42:38 <PWinstanley> ...who wants to discuss?
17:43:02 <kcoyle> ack Makx
17:43:17 <ericP> q+
17:43:50 <PWinstanley> Makx: This is a project in itself.  We have discussed versioning, subsets, etc.  The use case is clear, but it should be moved to the DCAT subgroup as it is too large a problem to decide here
17:43:55 <kcoyle> ack ericP
17:44:03 <Makx> q+
17:44:15 <PWinstanley> ericP: the DDI Alliance are working this into their own infrastructure - so perhaps let them solve it
17:44:28 <kcoyle> ack Makx
17:44:55 <PWinstanley> Makx: ericP is jumping into solution space; the requirement is clear and we already have contacts with DDI, so we should keep the requirement here
17:45:19 <kcoyle> PROPOSED: accept 6.22 as a requirement
17:45:29 <annette_g> +1
17:45:36 <newton> +1
17:45:37 <dsr> +1
17:45:37 <RiccardoAlbertoni> +1
17:45:39 <Makx> do we have contacts with DDI or more narrowly with PAV, or is that the same
17:45:40 <LarsG> +1
17:45:40 <PWinstanley> +1
17:45:43 <antoine> +1
17:45:45 <Makx> +1
17:45:48 <DaveBrowning> +1
17:45:55 <Caroline_> +1
17:46:00 <DaveBrowning> Q+
17:46:01 <kcoyle> RESOLVED: accept 6.22 as a requirement
17:46:58 <annette_g> q+
17:47:07 <Makx> hard to hear people away from the mike
17:47:13 <kcoyle> ACK DaveBrowning
17:47:43 <kcoyle> ack annette_g
17:47:43 <PWinstanley> DaveBrowning: I agree with the approach, but not all subsetting of datasets corresponds to a style where provenance is important. Subsets with no versioning - a simple subset - is just the simple case wihout the need for provenance, but there are cases where we do
17:47:47 <Makx> impossible to follow Dave
17:47:52 <PWinstanley> annette_g: we are moving into implementation
17:48:07 <PWinstanley> kcoyle: next one in linking
17:48:14 <annette_g> q+
17:48:18 <kcoyle> 6.38 Clarify the relationships between Datasets and zero, one or multiple Catalogs
17:48:24 <kcoyle> ack annette_g
17:48:25 <AndreaPerego_> AndreaPerego_ has joined #dxwg
17:48:30 <PWinstanley> annette_g: isn't this in 6.22?
17:49:15 <Linda> Linda has joined #dxwg
17:50:08 <kcoyle> q?
17:50:10 <RiccardoAlbertoni> q+
17:50:13 <Makx> q+
17:50:20 <kcoyle> ack RiccardoAlbertoni
17:51:09 <PWinstanley> RiccardoAlbertoni: annette_g was saying that this requirement was similar to 6.22, but IMO this is not the case; the requirement could be between a dataset and many catalogies
17:51:12 <kcoyle> ack Makx
17:52:33 <PWinstanley> Makx: I support RiccardoAlbertoni ;  same dataset in many catalogues - we have several catalogue entries.  People are struggling to find out if this has happened.  Therefore it might be for BP ( using identifiers or other solutions)
17:52:36 <Caroline_> q?
17:52:40 <kcoyle> PROPOSED: accept 6.38 requirement
17:52:45 <RiccardoAlbertoni> +1
17:52:47 <annette_g> +1
17:52:48 <Makx> +1
17:52:49 <newton> +1
17:52:49 <PWinstanley> +1
17:52:50 <dsr> +1
17:52:51 <DaveBrowning> +1
17:52:51 <Caroline_> +1
17:52:52 <LarsG> +1
17:52:53 <antoine> +1
17:52:57 <AndreaPerego> +1 -
17:53:08 <kcoyle> ACCEPTED: accept 6.38 requirement
17:53:09 <AndreaPerego> s/+1 -/+1/
17:53:23 <AndreaPerego> agenda: https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/Meetings:F2F2017.11.09
17:53:27 <AndreaPerego> chair: Karen
17:53:38 <AndreaPerego> RRSAgent, draft minutes v2
17:53:38 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2017/11/09-dxwg-minutes.html AndreaPerego
17:54:14 <PWinstanley> kcoyle: now to data info; several aspects, mainly getting more detailed data into DCAT
17:54:33 <PWinstanley> ... I will skip the  first (more difficult) and return later
17:54:36 <kcoyle> 6.36 Express summary statistics and descriptive metrics to characterize a Dataset.
17:55:14 <Linda> Linda has joined #Dxwg
17:55:43 <kcoyle> PROPOSED: accept requirement 6.36
17:55:49 <PWinstanley> +1
17:55:51 <newton> +1
17:55:53 <Caroline_> +1
17:55:54 <Makx> +1
17:55:55 <DaveBrowning> +1
17:56:02 <antoine> +1 even though there's no use case for this one?
17:56:05 <AndreaPerego> +1
17:56:18 <AndreaPerego> s/ACCEPTED: accept 6.38 requirement/RESOLVED: accept 6.38 requirement/
17:56:32 <LarsG> +1
17:56:45 <annette_g> search for the word "statistics"
17:57:25 <kcoyle> RESOLVED: accept requirement 6.36
17:57:35 <AndreaPerego> RRSAgent, draft minutes v2
17:57:35 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2017/11/09-dxwg-minutes.html AndreaPerego
17:58:19 <kcoyle> 6.44 Define a means to advertise any quality-related information; this might be text-based or more machine-processable
17:58:32 <PWinstanley> kcoyle: another 'nice to have'
17:58:52 <PWinstanley> ...this is not necessarily structured information
17:58:52 <AndreaPerego> Unclear what "advertise" mean here.
17:59:04 <Makx> q+
17:59:17 <kcoyle> ACK Makx
17:59:55 <RiccardoAlbertoni> q+
18:00:01 <PWinstanley> Makx: I was responsible for the use case.  in statistical agencies the quality is generally described in text, and we found a way of using DQV
18:00:32 <PWinstanley> ...this could be a separate requirement, bbut it couldbe linked with the DQV aspect
18:00:33 <kcoyle> ack RiccardoAlbertoni
18:01:11 <kcoyle> PROPOSED: accept requirement 6.44
18:01:12 <PWinstanley> RiccardoAlbertoni: ....
18:01:16 <AndreaPerego> Or replace "advertise" with "model".
18:01:36 <Makx> +1
18:01:52 <LarsG> q+
18:02:01 <RiccardoAlbertoni> the requirement..
18:02:44 <PWinstanley> LarsG: the word 'advertise' is neither in UC nor requirement.
18:02:44 <Makx> q+
18:02:51 <AndreaPerego> s/bbut/but/
18:03:15 <PWinstanley> kcoyle: I will make a note to change spreadsheet wording to 'provide'
18:03:21 <kcoyle> PROPOSED: accept requirement 6.44 changing "advertise" to "provide'
18:03:28 <annette_g> +1
18:03:30 <Makx> -1
18:03:32 <AndreaPerego> +1
18:03:32 <Caroline_> +1
18:03:36 <PWinstanley> +1
18:03:41 <DaveBrowning> +1
18:03:46 <LarsG> +1
18:03:49 <Makx> q+
18:04:41 <PWinstanley> Makx: I think the proposal is incorrect - I think the exact text of the requirement should be in the spreadsheet
18:05:06 <PWinstanley> ... define a way to 'associate'
18:05:16 <Makx> +1
18:05:16 <dsr> +1
18:05:19 <RiccardoAlbertoni> +1
18:05:21 <AndreaPerego> +1
18:05:27 <LarsG> q-
18:05:33 <kcoyle> RESOLVED: accept requirement 6.44 assuming the wording in UCR is correct
18:05:49 <AndreaPerego> RRSAgent, draft minutes v2
18:05:49 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2017/11/09-dxwg-minutes.html AndreaPerego
18:05:54 <antoine> +1
18:06:05 <PWinstanley> kcoyle: 6.16
18:06:11 <kcoyle> 6.16 Provide a recommended way to attach usage notes to data descriptions.
18:06:28 <Makx> q+
18:06:39 <kcoyle> ack Makx
18:07:08 <PWinstanley> Makx: the text is loose - talking about data descriptions.  we should talk about datasets
18:07:24 <AndreaPerego> +1 to Makx
18:07:27 <PWinstanley> ...we use dataset to refer to the descriptions of datasets
18:07:30 <kcoyle> q?
18:08:02 <annette_g> q+
18:08:19 <Linda> Q+
18:08:33 <kcoyle> ack annette_g
18:08:35 <PWinstanley> annette_g: we need to make it clear that usage notes isn't about usage situations, it is about how to use the dataset
18:08:51 <PWinstanley> Linda: usage notes sounds generic
18:08:51 <AndreaPerego> +1
18:09:14 <Makx> The use case says "information on how to use the data"
18:09:41 <annette_g> +1 to Linda
18:09:44 <PWinstanley> Linda: could is be 'notes on how to use the data'
18:10:00 <PWinstanley> kcoyle: let's reword the requirement to reflect the UC
18:10:16 <newton> maybe usage instructions
18:10:55 <kcoyle> PROPOSED: accept 6.16 but changing the wording to "provide information on how to use the data"
18:11:06 <PWinstanley> +1
18:11:07 <LarsG> +1
18:11:08 <Linda> +1
18:11:09 <Caroline_> +1
18:11:09 <annette_g> +1
18:11:10 <antoine> +1
18:11:12 <newton> +1
18:11:12 <Makx> +1
18:11:14 <DaveBrowning> +1
18:11:18 <AndreaPerego> +1
18:11:28 <RiccardoAlbertoni> +1
18:11:53 <kcoyle> RESOLVED: accept 6.16 but changing the wording to "provide information on how to use the data"
18:12:02 <AndreaPerego> RRSAgent, draft minutes v2
18:12:02 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2017/11/09-dxwg-minutes.html AndreaPerego
18:12:15 <PWinstanley> kcoyle: 6.17
18:12:21 <kcoyle> 6.17 Provide a way to link publications about a dataset to the dataset.
18:12:50 <DaveBrowning> +1
18:12:50 <annette_g> thumbs up
18:13:05 <Caroline_> q?
18:13:27 <PWinstanley> DaveBrowning: is this a one-way or bidirections?
18:13:43 <kcoyle> q?
18:13:44 <PWinstanley> kcoyle: it needs to be worked out
18:13:52 <kcoyle> ack Linda
18:14:00 <DaveBrowning> +1
18:14:01 <LarsG> q+
18:14:31 <PWinstanley> LarsG: no comment
18:14:34 <kcoyle> PROPOSED: accept 6.17 as is
18:14:39 <PWinstanley> +1
18:14:39 <Makx> +1
18:14:40 <RiccardoAlbertoni> +1
18:14:41 <Linda> +1
18:14:41 <DaveBrowning> +1
18:14:42 <newton> +1
18:14:42 <AndreaPerego> +1
18:14:42 <kcoyle> ack LarsG
18:14:43 <LarsG> +1
18:14:54 <Caroline_> +1
18:14:59 <kcoyle> RESOLVED: accept 6.17 as is
18:15:05 <annette_g> +1
18:15:14 <AndreaPerego> RRSAgent, draft minutes v2
18:15:14 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2017/11/09-dxwg-minutes.html AndreaPerego
18:15:28 <PWinstanley> kcoyle: 6.18
18:15:35 <kcoyle> 6.18 Provide a way to link to structured information about the provenance of a dataset
18:15:42 <annette_g> q+
18:15:49 <kcoyle> ack annette_g
18:15:52 <PWinstanley> annette_g: support
18:16:09 <PWinstanley> kcoyle: I might want to reconsider 'structured'
18:16:57 <PWinstanley> fab_gandon: how would you position the request in relation to PROV-O primitives?  You want to introduce a way to link, and this is already in PROV-O
18:17:01 <PWinstanley> q+
18:17:17 <kcoyle> ack PWinstanley
18:17:45 <ericP> PWinstanley: you might find out that you don't want metadata that's as dense as what's provided in PROV-I
18:17:55 <kcoyle> PROPOSED: accept 6.18
18:17:56 <ericP> s/PROV-I/PROV-O/
18:18:08 <DaveBrowning> +1
18:18:09 <PWinstanley> +1
18:18:10 <Linda> +1
18:18:11 <newton> +1
18:18:11 <dsr> +1
18:18:13 <annette_g> +1
18:18:13 <Makx> +1
18:18:17 <LarsG> +1
18:18:24 <AndreaPerego> q+
18:19:57 <PWinstanley> AndreaPerego: looking at the UC and requirements, there is no recommended way to add provenance information
18:20:27 <PWinstanley> ...perhaps we should be addressing the need to define how provenance should be modelled?
18:20:36 <Linda_> Linda_ has joined #Dxwg
18:20:43 <PWinstanley> kcoyle: should we provide BP guidance?
18:20:46 <PWinstanley> AndreaPerego: OK
18:21:02 <kcoyle> RESOLVED: accept 6.18, will the caveat that recommendations and/or best practices may be needed
18:21:07 <annette_g> +1
18:21:10 <PWinstanley> +1
18:21:13 <DaveBrowning> +1
18:21:13 <dsr> +1
18:21:24 <Makx> best practice is good but we need to be careful not to move too much to work that we are not going to do in this group
18:21:25 <AndreaPerego> +1
18:21:28 <annette_g> q+
18:21:34 <kcoyle> ack AndreaPerego
18:21:36 <RiccardoAlbertoni> +1
18:21:39 <kcoyle> ack annette_g
18:21:40 <Makx> +1
18:22:19 <PWinstanley> annette_g: I have no problem with that going in , but if the vocabulary gives the guidance then that would be adequate
18:22:55 <kcoyle> 6.20 Identify common modeling patterns for different aspects of data quality based on frequently referenced data quality attributes found in existing standards and practices
18:23:14 <RiccardoAlbertoni> q+
18:23:23 <kcoyle> ack RiccardoAlbertoni
18:23:31 <RiccardoAlbertoni> https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/ucr/#RID18
18:23:40 <PWinstanley> RiccardoAlbertoni: it could be more understandable if we look at the description in the document
18:23:53 <RiccardoAlbertoni> https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/ucr/#RID18
18:23:53 <AndreaPerego> q+
18:24:20 <Linda__> Linda__ has joined #dxwg
18:24:29 <Makx> q+
18:24:32 <ScottSimmons> q+
18:24:57 <RiccardoAlbertoni> q+
18:25:03 <kcoyle> ack AndreaPerego
18:25:07 <kcoyle> ack Makx
18:25:13 <AndreaPerego> q+
18:26:05 <PWinstanley> Makx: 6.20 is more general - relate to 6.44;  we need to have some BO for expressing data quality, most likely using DQV.  The formulation is difficult to understand.
18:26:05 <kcoyle> ack ScottSimmons
18:26:19 <Makx> can't hear
18:26:35 <PWinstanley> ScottSimmons: quality is domain-specific, so it is hard to prescribe
18:26:40 <kcoyle> q?
18:26:50 <kcoyle> ack RiccardoAlbertoni
18:27:26 <PWinstanley> RiccardoAlbertoni: replying to Makx , partially the requirement relates to what Makx mentioned, but other aspects might not be entirely wihtin DQV
18:27:36 <kcoyle> ack AndreaPerego
18:27:48 <LarsG> s/wihtin/within/
18:28:56 <Linda> Linda has joined #dxwg
18:29:19 <PWinstanley> AndreaPerego: agreeing with Makx .  differing aspects of data quality and modelling conformity ;  we need a way to promote best practices, but I don't know if this is just one requrement or more than one
18:29:54 <PWinstanley> ...at present I don't have a complete proposal, but we need to beware clumping too many things together
18:30:21 <kcoyle> q?
18:30:24 <annette_g> q+
18:30:29 <PWinstanley> kcoyle: the creation of the requirement oftenclumps concepts.  perhaps we need to review this and 6.44 and develop separate requirements coming fromthe UCs
18:30:32 <Makx> makes sense to me
18:30:35 <kcoyle> ack annette_g
18:31:17 <RiccardoAlbertoni> +q
18:31:24 <kcoyle> ack RiccardoAlbertoni
18:31:27 <PWinstanley> annette_g: the UCs that I see don't give any more detail than the requirements.  RiccardoAlbertoni , is themotivation coming from DQV and is there an expectation that DCAT will pass through some of this ability
18:32:03 <AndreaPerego> s/oftenclumps/often clumps/
18:32:15 <AndreaPerego> s/fromthe/from the/
18:32:44 <PWinstanley> RiccardoAlbertoni: DQV allows modelling of quality.  I suspect that in the UCs there are issues that are not completely covered in DQV.  we may need to dig around in theUC to deliver more precise requirements, or we could keep in general
18:32:52 <AndreaPerego> s/wihtin/within/
18:33:18 <PWinstanley> ... Determining if a UC is covered by DQV could be complicated to do on a case by case basis
18:33:28 <Makx> Also https://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/earl could be in the solution space for testing results
18:33:34 <kcoyle> PROPOSED accept 6.20 but ask for more attention to the specifics in the related use cases
18:33:52 <Makx> +1
18:33:57 <annette_g> q+
18:34:00 <PWinstanley> RiccardoAlbertoni: being specific means find a solution
18:34:13 <PWinstanley> kcoyle: we are proposing to ask the DCAT group to do that
18:34:46 <PWinstanley> annette_g: The UCs don't give much guidance - there is little distinction between the requirements
18:34:50 <DaveBrowning> q+
18:35:10 <kcoyle> ack annette_g
18:35:12 <PWinstanley> kcoyle: they do seem to be connected with redundancy, but there will probably be one solution
18:35:48 <PWinstanley> DaveBrowning: I agree with what you've said, but I am suspicious of the phrase 'fine-grained'
18:36:00 <PWinstanley> ... I agree that we pass to DCAT team
18:36:31 <Makx> +1
18:36:32 <PWinstanley> kcoyle: 'fine-grained' is present in many places
18:36:35 <DaveBrowning> +1
18:36:40 <annette_g> +1
18:36:45 <RiccardoAlbertoni> +1
18:36:50 <newton> +1
18:36:54 <PWinstanley> +1
18:37:13 <Caroline_> +1
18:37:26 <kcoyle> RESOLVED: accept 6.20 but ask for more attention to the specifics in the related use cases
18:37:34 <AndreaPerego_> AndreaPerego_ has joined #dxwg
18:37:37 <kcoyle> BREAK UNTIL 11:00
18:37:46 <PWinstanley> kcoyle: we now have a break for 23minutes
18:37:52 <PWinstanley> until 11:00
18:37:59 <AndreaPerego_> RRSAgent, draft minutes v2
18:37:59 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2017/11/09-dxwg-minutes.html AndreaPerego_
18:50:58 <LarsG> lars.svensson@web.deRs7HKa37z5uZZ7DHccz1
18:51:17 <LarsG> s/lars.svensson@web.deRs7HKa37z5uZZ7DHccz1//
19:00:55 <LarsG> rrr
19:01:03 <LarsG> s/rrr//
19:01:43 <dsr> dsr has joined #dxwg
19:03:33 <LarsG> RRSAgent, draft minutes v2
19:03:33 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2017/11/09-dxwg-minutes.html LarsG
19:04:01 <DaveBrowning> DaveBrowning has joined #dxwg
19:04:13 <DaveBrowning> present+
19:04:34 <newton> present+
19:05:19 <annette_g> annette_g has joined #dxwg
19:05:21 <DaveBrowning> scribenick: DaveBrowning
19:05:54 <Linda> Linda has joined #dxwg
19:06:40 <kcoyle> q+
19:06:51 <annette_g> ack DaveBrowning
19:07:05 <annette_g> ack kcoyle
19:07:53 <RiccardoAlbertoni> +1 to kcoyle
19:08:10 <DaveBrowning> kcoyle: 6.5.1 is really the 'obvious' requirement from the current work
19:08:15 <kcoyle> 6.5.1 Identify DCAT resources that are subject to versioning, i.e. Catalog, Dataset, Distribution.
19:09:24 <annette_g> RESOLVED accecpt 6.5.1 as is
19:09:34 <annette_g> s/accecpt/accept/
19:09:40 <Makx> +1
19:09:40 <annette_g> +1
19:09:51 <DaveBrowning> +1
19:09:53 <RiccardoAlbertoni> +1
19:09:55 <PWinstanley> +1
19:10:25 <RiccardoAlbertoni> s/RESOLVED/Proposed/
19:10:37 <kcoyle> 6.6.1 Provide a conceptual definition of what is considered a version with regard to modifications of the respective subject. The definition should provide a clear guidance on conditions, type and severity of a resource's update
19:11:06 <Makx> q+
19:11:07 <annette_g> q?
19:11:14 <annette_g> ack Makx
19:11:39 <newton> q+
19:11:39 <DaveBrowning> makx: This is probably impossible and wouldn't be used by many people
19:12:03 <Linda> Linda has joined #dxwg
19:12:25 <RiccardoAlbertoni> q+
19:12:26 <Makx> q+
19:12:35 <DaveBrowning> newton: If we don't have this - people would like some guidance (e.g. as part of DWBP)
19:12:36 <annette_g> ack RiccardoAlbertoni
19:13:06 <annette_g> q?
19:13:10 <DaveBrowning> RiccardoAlbertoni: I agree with Makx - is there something in mind?
19:13:19 <hadleybeeman> hadleybeeman has joined #dxwg
19:13:21 <annette_g> ack Makx
19:13:28 <DaveBrowning> ...some idea that be progressed
19:13:49 <annette_g> q+
19:14:18 <annette_g> ack newton
19:15:06 <DaveBrowning> kcoyle: There was a requirement...if I can find it
19:15:19 <Makx> q+
19:15:45 <DaveBrowning> annette_g: Specific groups will have differnet ways to do this - we risk frightening people away and raising barriers
19:15:52 <annette_g> ack annette_g
19:15:56 <annette_g> ack Makx
19:16:39 <Linda> Linda has joined #dxwg
19:16:40 <DaveBrowning> Makx: In DCAT-AP - was discussed at length.  But in practice noone is using the structures provided
19:17:13 <DaveBrowning> q+
19:17:16 <annette_g> q?
19:17:21 <annette_g> ack DaveBrowning
19:18:37 <Makx> +1 to DaveBrowning
19:19:14 <annette_g> q?
19:19:53 <DaveBrowning> DaveBrowning: versioning techniques are very important in many places (esp if multiple consumers) but the details are very domain specific
19:20:32 <Makx> can we reject a requirement?
19:20:51 <DaveBrowning> kcoyle: the requirement as stated goes too far
19:20:55 <annette_g> q?
19:21:22 <Makx> q+
19:22:31 <LarsG> q+
19:22:48 <DaveBrowning> dsr: If we want to add a feature to DCAT we should know what any new features are to be used
19:23:20 <annette_g> ack Makx
19:24:04 <kcoyle> q+
19:24:34 <DaveBrowning> Makx: requirement seems more prescriptive than the use case.  If there are examples, perhaps we should gather them...
19:24:46 <LarsG> q-
19:25:01 <annette_g> ack LarsG
19:25:10 <annette_g> q?
19:25:21 <annette_g> ack kcoyle
19:25:28 <DaveBrowning> DaveBrowning: I can provide some examples from the financial data space
19:26:07 <annette_g> PROPOSED: rewrite requirement 6.6.1
19:26:18 <kcoyle> +1
19:26:21 <DaveBrowning> +1
19:26:22 <annette_g> +1
19:26:22 <Linda> +1
19:26:23 <newton> +1
19:26:45 <dsr> +1
19:26:52 <annette_g> RESOLVED: rewrite requirement 6.6.1
19:26:52 <PWinstanley> +1
19:27:25 <Makx> +1
19:27:30 <annette_g> ACTION: annette_g to rewrite requirement 6.6.1
19:27:33 <trackbot> Created ACTION-54 - Rewrite requirement 6.6.1 [on Annette Greiner - due 2017-11-16].
19:28:09 <fab_gandon> fab_gandon has joined #dxwg
19:28:18 <annette_g> q?
19:28:59 <kcoyle> 6.8.1 Indicate the status of a version in terms stability, fidelity etc. (e.g. major, minor, stable). The version identifier might refer to the version status (semantic version)
19:29:22 <annette_g> q?
19:29:23 <Makx> q+
19:29:29 <annette_g> ack Makx
19:30:02 <newton> http://semver.org
19:30:39 <annette_g> q?
19:30:52 <PWinstanley> q+
19:30:59 <DaveBrowning> Makx: How does the status mentioned here relate to the actual data set?
19:31:22 <annette_g> ack PWinstanley
19:31:31 <DaveBrowning> ... last sentence moves in solution space...
19:32:23 <DaveBrowning> PWinstanley: We appear to be thinking linearly around versions without acknowledging forking/merging etc
19:32:49 <annette_g> q?
19:33:10 <DaveBrowning> dsr: We probably need that more sophisticate model
19:33:14 <annette_g> q+
19:33:23 <DaveBrowning> dsr: We probably need that more sophisticated model
19:33:29 <Makx> q+
19:34:11 <DaveBrowning> dsr: There is probably an rdf solution....
19:34:37 <DaveBrowning> PWinstanley: Perhaps there is already a solution in the source code space for example
19:34:44 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> Jaroslav_Pullmann has joined #dxwg
19:34:48 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> present+
19:34:54 <DaveBrowning> q+
19:35:01 <annette_g> ack Makx
19:35:14 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> dear all, please excuse me being late, my train was delayed ..
19:35:29 <annette_g> q?
19:35:33 <annette_g> ack annette_g
19:36:27 <DaveBrowning> Makx: This seems to be broader than the requirement we're talking about.  The version delta or version notes were used in DCAT-AP to provide the description
19:36:29 <annette_g> q?
19:36:35 <annette_g> ack DaveBrowning
19:37:01 <PWinstanley> DaveBrowning: the intersection between new versions
19:37:21 <PWinstanley> ...and the coverage of a dataset mean that this is more multi-dimensional than the source code example
19:37:45 <PWinstanley> ... the situation might have business drivers
19:37:54 <PWinstanley> ... and appear arbitrary
19:38:27 <annette_g> q?
19:38:27 <PWinstanley> ...The source code example refers to structure, but there is also versioning relating to coverage/usage
19:39:06 <AndreaPerego> s/thism orning/this morning/
19:39:16 <DaveBrowning> annette_g: Perhaps the heart of this is on stability/fidelity aspects?
19:40:12 <DaveBrowning> kcoyle: we already have statements of quality etc which overlap with some part of this.
19:40:30 <DaveBrowning> annette_g: is there anything here that isn't covered elsewhere?
19:40:33 <Makx> let's reject this one
19:41:01 <DaveBrowning> ... Any objections?
19:41:43 <annette_g> PROPOSED: reject requirement 6.8.1 in favor of covering its contents in other requirements.
19:41:53 <Makx> +1
19:41:57 <DaveBrowning> +1
19:41:58 <Linda> +1
19:42:04 <newton> +1
19:42:04 <kcoyle> +1
19:42:05 <RiccardoAlbertoni> +1
19:42:09 <annette_g> +1
19:42:12 <AndreaPerego> +0 - not attending all the discussion
19:42:23 <PWinstanley> +1
19:42:38 <AndreaPerego> No, I'm ok
19:42:51 <annette_g> RESOLVED: reject requirement 6.8.1 in favor of covering its contents in other requirements.
19:42:55 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> Will teher be a replacement for the "status" ?
19:43:05 <AndreaPerego> RRSAgent, draft minutes v2
19:43:05 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2017/11/09-dxwg-minutes.html AndreaPerego
19:43:15 <AndreaPerego> s/teher/there/
19:43:16 <DaveBrowning> 6.10.1 Indicate the change delta from one version to the next.
19:43:39 <annette_g> q?
19:43:41 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> q+
19:43:53 <annette_g> ack Jaroslav_Pullmann
19:44:52 <DaveBrowning> Jaroslav_Pullmann: idea was to include an incremental description - not formalised
19:44:57 <Makx> q+
19:44:58 <annette_g> q?
19:45:03 <annette_g> ack Makx
19:45:59 <DaveBrowning> Makx: Could open problems - since it implies a delta from some previous thing
19:46:27 <annette_g> q?
19:46:37 <DaveBrowning> ...using "notes" would be better than "delta"
19:47:17 <kcoyle> q+
19:47:33 <DaveBrowning> LarsG: its more of a hint
19:48:08 <Linda> I think that wasn’t LarsG he just left
19:48:11 <annette_g> ack kcoyle
19:48:17 <annette_g> q?
19:48:34 <DaveBrowning> s/LarsG/Jaroslav
19:49:03 <AndreaPerego> s/I think that wasn’t LarsG he just left//
19:49:15 <DaveBrowning> kcoyle: Is this really about dataset or about distribution?
19:50:09 <annette_g> q?
19:50:12 <Linda> Q+
19:50:24 <DaveBrowning> kcoyle: So version is not a separate thing - its part of dataset, distribution etc - wouldn't the description cover this?
19:50:31 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> +1  for distingusihing description from version info
19:50:45 <annette_g> q?
19:50:52 <annette_g> ack Linda
19:51:25 <Makx> q+
19:51:31 <DaveBrowning> Linda: The requirement sounds like you will always have this - is that the idea?  Or is it optional?
19:51:32 <annette_g> ack Makx
19:52:20 <DaveBrowning> Makx: Good to have way to express the difference because of versioning.  (Also everything is optional in DCAT)
19:53:00 <DaveBrowning> ... if you want to put lots of info in there then they can
19:53:20 <annette_g> q?
19:53:21 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> q+
19:53:27 <annette_g> ack Jaroslav_Pullmann
19:54:23 <kcoyle> q+
19:54:28 <annette_g> ack kcoyle
19:54:33 <DaveBrowning> Jaroslav_Pullmann: Retain distinction on version info  from description.  Could provide guidance as part of solution
19:54:57 <Makx> q+
19:55:08 <annette_g> ack Makx
19:55:37 <DaveBrowning> kcoyle: should we expand this one to talk about version note rather than delta
19:56:17 <DaveBrowning> Makx: that would be possible (It could be used as a delta, but that would be a specific/profile issue)
19:56:22 <AndreaPerego> Being able to use a "delta" to regenerate a dataset could be also considered as part of provenance information.
19:56:41 <annette_g> q?
19:57:27 <Makx> "providce information about the changes from one version to the next
19:57:42 <Makx> s/proidce/provode/
19:57:52 <kcoyle> PROPOSED: ACCEPT 6.10.1 generalizing the wording to include various information about the version
19:57:57 <Makx> s/providce/provide/
19:58:09 <Linda> +1
19:58:15 <PWinstanley> +1
19:58:21 <Makx> +1
19:58:22 <DaveBrowning> +1
19:58:24 <newton> +1
19:58:26 <AndreaPerego> +1
19:58:28 <annette_g> +1
19:58:40 <kcoyle> +1
19:58:55 <RiccardoAlbertoni> +1
19:59:47 <DaveBrowning> Jaroslav_Pullmann: The idea was that the semantics of the change would be apperent
20:00:07 <DaveBrowning> s/apperent/apparent/
20:00:39 <annette_g> q?
20:01:01 <DaveBrowning> Jaroslav_Pullmann: would this restated requirement be testable?
20:04:13 <SimonCox> SimonCox has joined #dxwg
20:04:14 <kcoyle> PROPOSED: accept 6.10.1 renaming the emphasis to version change information
20:04:25 <SimonCox> present+
20:04:38 <Makx> +1
20:04:39 <PWinstanley> q+
20:04:40 <newton> +1
20:04:41 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> +1
20:04:41 <kcoyle> +1
20:04:45 <annette_g> +1
20:04:49 <AndreaPerego> +1
20:04:53 <DaveBrowning> +1
20:04:53 <annette_g> ack PWinstanley
20:06:25 <DaveBrowning> PWinstanley: The important element is if the change is substantive
20:06:44 <DaveBrowning> ...to the information content
20:07:04 <DaveBrowning> q+
20:08:11 <annette_g> ack DaveBrowning
20:10:16 <DaveBrowning> kcoyle: the substantive changes could be described in the note - but probablly not machine readable
20:11:17 <annette_g> q?
20:13:01 <SimonCox> For many scholarly applications, the issue is whether the change to the data would change the results of any analysis done using it - i.e. reproducibility
20:13:15 <DaveBrowning> kcoyle: Should we go back to 6.8.1 - re-write it to support this kind of thing?
20:13:40 <Linda> Linda has joined #dxwg
20:14:37 <DaveBrowning> PWinstanley: Example from image processing - lossy vs not.  These have different information  content
20:14:39 <AndreaPerego> AndreaPerego has joined #dxwg
20:15:35 <annette_g> q?
20:17:34 <SimonCox> Folks - unfortunately I'm in UK this week so about to go to bed (after a long day on family matters) so will not be able to join you on 6.46
20:17:37 <DaveBrowning> kcoyle: maybe we can extend 6.10.1 to include Peter's ideas
20:18:13 <annette_g> back in one hour
20:18:18 <SimonCox> For 6.46 also see https://dr-shorthair.github.io/ont/project/
20:19:12 <AndreaPerego> RRSAgent, draft minutes
20:19:12 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2017/11/09-dxwg-minutes.html AndreaPerego
20:45:45 <dsr> dsr has joined #dxwg
20:47:47 <dsr_> dsr_ has joined #dxwg
20:48:56 <Linda> Linda has joined #dxwg
20:59:18 <Linda> Linda has joined #dxwg
21:04:11 <annette_g> annette_g has joined #dxwg
21:04:37 <Linda_> Linda_ has joined #dxwg
21:12:46 <Linda_> Linda_ has joined #dxwg
21:20:30 <dsr> dsr has joined #dxwg
21:21:35 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> Jaroslav - I am back as well
21:22:11 <kcoyle> kcoyle has joined #dxwg
21:29:01 <dsr> scribenick: dsr
21:29:19 <annette_g> possible rewrite of 6.6.1: Provide guidance on how to express the conditions, type, and extent of a resource's update.
21:29:34 <DaveBrowning> DaveBrowning has joined #dxwg
21:30:04 <DaveBrowning> present+
21:30:28 <kcoyle> present+
21:30:47 <Linda> Linda has joined #dxwg
21:31:25 <dsr> We had a short discussion on versioning over lunch looking at what we have agreed so far
21:31:44 <kcoyle> 6.6.1 Provide a conceptual definition of what is considered a version with regard to modifications of the respective subject. The definition should provide a clear guidance on conditions, type and severity of a resource's update that motivate the creation of a new version in scenarios like dataset evolution, conversion, translations etc.
21:32:10 <dsr> This is what we had earlier
21:32:28 <PWinstanley> PWinstanley has joined #dxwg
21:32:37 <PWinstanley> present+
21:32:40 <kcoyle> 6.6.1: Provide guidance on how to express the conditions, type, and extent of a resource's update
21:32:53 <annette_g> ^ this is what is proposed
21:32:55 <dsr> This is what we have now
21:33:17 <Makx> q+
21:33:23 <dsr> The new text replaces the old
21:33:28 <kcoyle> ack Makx
21:33:37 <annette_g> q+
21:33:50 <kcoyle> ack annette_g
21:34:34 <dsr> Would be better to say “reasons” rather than “conditions”?
21:35:56 <dsr> annette_g: we took conditions from the original text
21:37:25 <annette_g> Provide guidance on how to express the motivation, type, and extent of a resource's update.
21:37:32 <dsr> DaveBrowning: “reasons” seems a better fit
21:38:13 <dsr> s/fit/fit compared to “conditions”/
21:38:24 <Makx> motivation is OK for me too
21:38:33 <dsr> kcoyle: anyone feel strongly about this?
21:38:59 <kcoyle> PROPOSED: accept 6.6.1 with the new wording "Provide guidance on how to express the motivation, type, and extent of a resource's update."
21:39:06 <annette_g> +1
21:39:08 <Makx> +1
21:39:09 <Linda> +1
21:39:10 <DaveBrowning> +1
21:39:10 <dsr> +1
21:39:12 <kcoyle> +1
21:39:12 <PWinstanley> +1
21:39:43 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> +1
21:40:08 <kcoyle> RESOLVED: accept 6.6.1 with new wording
21:40:44 <kcoyle> https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/General_versioning_considerations
21:41:07 <dsr> kcoyle: during the break we began to look at Jaroslav_Pullmann’s diagram
21:42:02 <dsr> Karen summarises …
21:43:14 <dsr> The version refers to the dataset and possibily the distribution, although that’s something for us to decide
21:43:45 <dsr> We have a date which allows for sorting and filtering
21:44:10 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> q+
21:44:10 <dsr> We have free form text that describes what has changed in the dataset.
21:44:17 <kcoyle> ack Jaroslav_Pullmann
21:44:22 <dsr> The metadata could have its own versioning
21:45:23 <annette_g> q+
21:45:42 <kcoyle> ack annette_g
21:45:49 <ScottSimmons> ScottSimmons has joined #dxwg
21:46:35 <dsr> annette_g: Jaroslav_Pullmann’s diagram seems to imply semantic versioning
21:48:13 <dsr> I want people to allow versioning that isn’t semantic versioning
21:49:15 <kcoyle> q+
21:49:19 <newton> newton has joined #dxwg
21:49:30 <dsr> Jaroslav_Pullmann concurs
21:50:55 <dsr> kcoyle: what is the difference between version status and version delta?
21:51:25 <dsr> Jaroslav_Pullmann: delta is a formal text for what has changed
21:51:32 <annette_g> q+
21:51:46 <dsr> version status …
21:52:16 <kcoyle> ack kcoyle
21:53:02 <dsr> Jaroslav_Pullmann: version status could cover the expected durability of the new version
21:53:42 <Makx> q+
21:53:49 <kcoyle> ack annette_g
21:54:57 <dsr> annette_g discusses the intent of 6.8.1
21:55:15 <kcoyle> ack Makx
21:56:04 <dsr> Makx: I don’t how you distinguish the status of the version from the status of the dataset
21:56:10 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> q+
21:56:42 <annette_g> q+
21:56:42 <dsr> Makx: we would be better with a dataset status field
21:56:59 <annette_g> q-
21:57:58 <dsr> annette_g: I have to disagree
21:58:48 <dsr> how would you express the cases where you have different versions of the same dataset?
21:58:57 <dsr> kcoyle: they would be different datasets
21:59:10 <Makx> q+
21:59:40 <kcoyle> ack Jaroslav_Pullmann
21:59:45 <dsr> annette_g: if you look at W3C technical reports, different versions have their own status
22:00:26 <kcoyle> q?
22:01:34 <dsr> kcoyle: not everyone needs the version status
22:01:37 <annette_g> q+
22:01:37 <kcoyle> ack Makx
22:01:45 <dsr> Jaroslav_Pullmann: yes, so the status is optional
22:02:07 <dsr> Makx: it is wrong to say they is a difference between documents and data sets
22:03:00 <dsr> The status is about the document/dataset not the version as such
22:03:44 <kcoyle> ack annette_g
22:04:01 <newton> newton has joined #dxwg
22:06:29 <dsr> dsr:  I agree with Makx that the status is just a piece of metadata for the dataset where this metadata has change from one version to the next
22:07:17 <Makx> q+
22:07:23 <dsr> kcoyle asks Jaroslav_Pullmann to add data to the next version of the diagram
22:07:34 <kcoyle> ack Makx
22:07:54 <dsr> s/data/date/
22:08:14 <dsr> Makx: the date should be the date of the dataset
22:08:21 <Makx> q+
22:08:31 <kcoyle> ack Makx
22:08:55 <dsr> kcoyle: we don’t have a requirement for status, which seems to be a gap
22:09:15 <kcoyle> 6.8.1 Indicate the status of the dataset
22:09:20 <Makx> +1 to status ot the Dataset
22:09:20 <annette_g> Provide a means to ...
22:09:27 <annette_g> +1
22:09:35 <dsr> +1
22:09:39 <annette_g> +1
22:09:46 <DaveBrowning> +1
22:09:47 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> q+
22:09:56 <kcoyle> ack Jaroslav_Pullmann
22:10:17 <Linda> Linda has joined #dxwg
22:10:39 <Makx> +1
22:10:44 <Makx> nod
22:11:01 <Makx> catalog
22:11:03 <dsr> kcoyle: are assuming that the versioning metadata could be on the distribution of a dataset?
22:11:36 <annette_g> see 6.5.1
22:12:01 <Caroline> Caroline has joined #DXWG
22:12:06 <Caroline> Present+
22:12:11 <kcoyle> PROPOSED: 6.81 provide a means to indicate the status of the subject being described
22:12:24 <Makx> subject or resource?
22:12:27 <annette_g> q+
22:12:44 <kcoyle> s/subject/resource
22:12:56 <alejandra> alejandra has joined #dxwg
22:13:07 <kcoyle> ack annette_g
22:13:07 <Makx> q+
22:13:36 <kcoyle> ack Makx
22:13:41 <dsr> annette_g: we should provide some paranthetical examples of what we’re talking about
22:14:02 <dsr> s/paranthetical/parenthetical/
22:14:59 <dsr> Makx: when we write up the versioning section we should cite the use of the status field
22:15:02 <alejandra> present+
22:16:11 <AndreaPerego> RRSAgent, draft minutes
22:16:11 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2017/11/09-dxwg-minutes.html AndreaPerego
22:16:36 <annette_g> q+
22:16:44 <kcoyle> ack annette_g
22:17:20 <dsr> annette_g: a change delta is the last stanza of a version history, i.e. the difference between this version of the dataset and the previous version
22:17:29 <DaveBrowning> q+
22:17:45 <kcoyle> ack DaveBrowning
22:17:56 <alejandra> q+
22:18:08 <dsr> DaveBrowning: I agree but lets make it clear that this is not expected to be machine interpretable
22:18:24 <dsr> s/lets/let’s/
22:18:34 <kcoyle> ack alejandra
22:19:07 <annette_g> q+
22:19:11 <newton_> newton_ has joined #dxwg
22:19:29 <alejandra> thanks!
22:19:32 <dsr> kcoyle: we’re on the agenda section 11-12:30, and 6.10.1 (versioning)
22:20:10 <ericP> ericP has left #dxwg
22:21:55 <dsr> annette_g: people will fill this out in a domain/publisher specific way
22:22:56 <kcoyle> PROPOSED: accept 6.10.1 with proposed wording : provide a way to indicate the change delta or other change information from the previous version
22:23:21 <annette_g> +1
22:23:22 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> +1
22:23:23 <DaveBrowning> +1
22:23:25 <Linda> +1
22:23:26 <dsr> +1
22:23:26 <alejandra> +1
22:23:31 <Makx> +1
22:23:34 <Caroline> +1
22:23:35 <PWinstanley> +1
22:23:39 <AndreaPerego> +1
22:24:20 <kcoyle> RESOLVED: accept 6.10.1 with proposed wording : provide a way to indicate the change delta or other change information from the previous version
22:24:38 <AndreaPerego> RRSAgent, draft minutes
22:24:38 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2017/11/09-dxwg-minutes.html AndreaPerego
22:24:52 <alejandra> sorry, just thinking that it would be good to also mention something like "change delta (description of the change, and/or possibly machine-readable description of the change)"?
22:24:55 <alejandra> maybe not needed
22:25:02 <alejandra> but we need to remember
22:25:05 <kcoyle> 6.11.1 Provide a means to search and discover existing versions of a DCAT resource. This should include both metadata elements referencing previous and next versions, lists of versions, and by implication the ability to search catalogs for related versions
22:25:40 <annette_g> "It should be possible to use DCAT to search and discover …"
22:26:31 <annette_g> q+
22:26:45 <kcoyle> ACK annette_g
22:27:28 <alejandra> q+
22:27:55 <alejandra> re-phrase as "Provide metadata enabling search and discovery..."
22:28:09 <alejandra> q-
22:29:11 <kcoyle> q?
22:29:41 <dsr> we briefly chat about enabling rich search results akin to schemsa.org
22:29:55 <dsr> s/schemsa.org/schema.org/
22:31:20 <annette_g> q+
22:31:27 <dsr> PWinstanley: it is a matter of how you can used existing fields
22:33:00 <kcoyle> q?
22:33:01 <Makx> q+
22:33:34 <kcoyle> ack annette_g
22:33:36 <Makx> q-
22:33:44 <kcoyle> ack Makx
22:34:05 <dsr> We discuss the need for a link to a previous version of a datatset
22:34:32 <ScottSimmons> ScottSimmons has joined #dxwg
22:34:39 <Makx> q+
22:35:24 <kcoyle> ack Makx
22:35:57 <alejandra> I was thinking in PAV too, which as pav:previousVersion pav:hasCurrentVersion etc
22:36:19 <dsr> Makx: I agree with the need for provenance metadata
22:36:38 <dsr> kcoyle: is PROV-O etc. sufficient?
22:36:43 <dsr> Makx: yes
22:37:54 <alejandra> yes, it is PAV more than PROV-O (https://pav-ontology.github.io/pav/)
22:38:11 <dsr> I don’t think we have a current requirent for pointers to previous versions etc.
22:38:27 <Linda> Linda has joined #dxwg
22:38:39 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> q+
22:38:48 <Makx> q+
22:39:01 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> q-
22:39:04 <Makx> q-
22:39:23 <kcoyle> PROPOSED: 6.11.1 is out of scope
22:39:30 <Makx> +1
22:39:34 <annette_g> +1
22:39:42 <dsr> +1
22:39:44 <DaveBrowning> +1
22:39:48 <PWinstanley> +1
22:39:48 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> 1
22:39:52 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> +1
22:40:07 <alejandra> could you put the link to what you discussed about relationships of datasets please?
22:40:21 <kcoyle> RESOLVED: 6.11.1 out of scope; pointers between datasets and versions provided in 6.22
22:40:30 <alejandra> +0 (as I didn't follow the previous discussion)
22:41:27 <AndreaPerego_> AndreaPerego_ has joined #dxwg
22:41:54 <kcoyle> 6.45.1 Indicate the update method of a Dataset description, e.g. whether each new dataset entirely supercedes previous ones (is stand-alone), or whether there is a base dataset with files that effect updates to that base.
22:42:02 <Makx> q+
22:42:14 <kcoyle> ack Makx
22:42:53 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> q+
22:42:56 <dsr> Makx: I see two parts to 6.45
22:43:27 <annette_g> q+
22:43:58 <kcoyle> ack annette_g
22:44:26 <kcoyle> ack Jaroslav_Pullmann
22:44:34 <dsr> annette_g: if we have a patch update to a base dataset, we need point to that base dataset
22:46:11 <dsr> Jaroslav_Pullmann: does a new version always replace the former one?
22:46:21 <dsr> kcoyle: no, that is not always the case
22:47:29 <dsr> imagine updates with additions, revisions and deletions, what would you call that?
22:47:54 <DaveBrowning> q+
22:48:10 <annette_g> q+
22:48:15 <Makx> q+
22:48:22 <kcoyle> ack DaveBrowning
22:48:28 <dsr> kcoyle: this occurs in the real world
22:48:42 <dsr> DaveBrowning: for us this is a dominant use case for us
22:48:54 <kcoyle> q?
22:50:32 <dsr> DaveBrowning: a dataset could be a set of transactions for changes
22:50:56 <annette_g> q-
22:52:00 <kcoyle> ack Makx
22:52:00 <dsr> I see this as the first of a set of related topics
22:52:38 <kcoyle> q+
22:52:39 <annette_g> q+
22:52:40 <dsr> Makx: this is difficult to wrap my head around due to the different ways people are talking
22:53:15 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> q+
22:53:34 <dsr> We don’t have in DCAT any way to describe data that changes data sets
22:54:30 <Linda> Linda has joined #dxwg
22:57:19 <annette_g> q-
22:57:40 <dsr> kcoyle: it looks like we can surface this in 6.2.2 (relationships between datasets)
22:57:42 <kcoyle> ack kcoyle
22:57:46 <kcoyle> ack Jaroslav_Pullmann
22:57:47 <AndreaPerego> +1
22:58:22 <kcoyle> PROPOSED: Include requirements from 6.45.1 in the 6.22 requirement
22:58:28 <Linda> +1
22:58:29 <dsr> +1
22:58:32 <annette_g> +1
22:58:32 <alejandra> +1
22:58:34 <AndreaPerego> +1
22:58:37 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> +1
22:58:42 <DaveBrowning> +1
22:59:08 <kcoyle> RESOLVED: Include requirements from 6.45.1 in the 6.22 requirement
22:59:20 <AndreaPerego> RRSAgent, draft minutes
22:59:20 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2017/11/09-dxwg-minutes.html AndreaPerego
22:59:25 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> q+
23:00:13 <kcoyle> ack Jaroslav_Pullmann
23:00:47 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> present-
23:03:35 <Linda> Linda has joined #dxwg
23:10:47 <annette_g> annette_g has joined #dxwg
23:11:34 <newton> newton has joined #dxwg
23:21:32 <dsr> dsr has joined #dxwg
23:24:02 <Caroline> Caroline has joined #DXWG
23:27:24 <AndreaPerego> AndreaPerego has joined #dxwg
23:27:59 <annette_g> annette_g has joined #dxwg
23:31:32 <DaveBrowning> DaveBrowning has joined #dxwg
23:32:00 <annette_g> Hi Caroline!
23:34:37 <kcoyle> scribenick: kcoyle
23:36:53 <newton> newton has joined #dxwg
23:39:14 <annette_g> we are starting up
23:39:59 <kcoyle> 6.35 Provide means to describe the funding (amount and source) of a Dataset (or entire Catalog)
23:40:00 <annette_g> q?
23:40:25 <PWinstanley> PWinstanley has joined #dxwg
23:40:28 <PWinstanley> present+
23:40:32 <newton> present+ newton
23:40:50 <DaveBrowning> Present+
23:40:52 <kcoyle> PWinstanley: this is more an application profile issue
23:41:25 <kcoyle> ... comes from academic end
23:41:47 <kcoyle> ... people looking at dcat will think: this isn't for me, it's academic
23:41:58 <Caroline> Present+
23:42:47 <kcoyle> PWinstanley: could be in a profile for cost centers, etc.
23:42:52 <kcoyle> q+
23:42:54 <annette_g> q+
23:44:29 <annette_g> q?
23:44:35 <annette_g> ack kcoyle
23:45:19 <kcoyle> kcoyle: seems pretty generic
23:46:24 <kcoyle> ... could be a legal requirement
23:46:56 <kcoyle> DaveBrowning: being a requirement doesn't mean it can't be in a profile
23:47:26 <annette_g> q?
23:47:30 <annette_g> q-
23:48:06 <kcoyle> annette_g: balance between value and how much it looks academic
23:48:38 <kcoyle> PWinstanley: a primer could show non-academic examples
23:48:53 <kcoyle> dsr: should be in context of provenance
23:49:19 <kcoyle> annette_g: could be in lieu of a full provenance entry
23:49:51 <kcoyle> ... provenance as 'this was derived by ...' vs 'this was funded by'
23:50:44 <annette_g> q?
23:51:13 <kcoyle> kcoyle: Look at 6.46 - it's the project that provides the funding
23:51:32 <kcoyle> ... they need to go together
23:52:28 <kcoyle> annette_g: keep it simple
23:52:34 <kcoyle> PWinstanley: yes, that's important
23:52:59 <annette_g> PROPOSED: accept 6.35 and 6.46
23:53:41 <kcoyle> +1
23:53:50 <annette_g> RESOLVED: remove "e.g. class" from 6.46
23:53:57 <DaveBrowning> +1
23:54:02 <newton> +1
23:54:05 <annette_g> +1
23:54:45 <annette_g> RESOLVED: accept 6.35 and 6.46
23:55:13 <annette_g> RESOLVED: remove "e.g. a property" from 6.47
23:55:25 <kcoyle> 6.47 Provide a means to indicate the relation of Datasets to a project.
23:57:46 <kcoyle> annette_g: context of use or of publication?
23:58:10 <AndreaPerego> I think this is related to the funding req.
23:59:06 <newton> q?
00:00:15 <kcoyle> kcoyle: is there a difference between 6.46 and 6.47?
00:00:40 <AndreaPerego> I think it is more on the level of detail on how to specify a "funding reference".
00:03:51 <kcoyle> DaveBrowning: this seems plausible but could become a big structure and a distance from dcat
00:04:47 <annette_g> q?
00:05:48 <kcoyle> can we ask that these be re-viewed by DCAT group as possibly handled by PROV-O or some other vocabulary
00:06:05 <AndreaPerego> +1
00:06:25 <annette_g> PROPOSED: accept 6.35, 6.46, and 6.47 with the proviso that it may be a need fulfilled by extensions to DCAT rather than DCAT itself.
00:06:34 <kcoyle> +1
00:06:35 <AndreaPerego> +1
00:06:39 <annette_g> +1
00:06:41 <Caroline> +1
00:06:42 <DaveBrowning> +1
00:06:43 <newton> +1
00:06:43 <dsr> +1
00:06:48 <PWinstanley> +1
00:06:59 <annette_g> RESOLVED: accept 6.35, 6.46, and 6.47 with the proviso that it may be a need fulfilled by extensions to DCAT rather than DCAT itself.
00:07:12 <AndreaPerego> RRSAgent, draft minutes
00:07:12 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2017/11/09-dxwg-minutes.html AndreaPerego
00:08:10 <kcoyle> annette_g: next three are relations to other vocabularies
00:08:36 <kcoyle> these are requirements for the dcat group process
00:08:38 <annette_g> q?
00:09:49 <kcoyle> kcoyle: schema is less directly related than the other
00:10:25 <annette_g> PROPOSED: accept requirement 6.39 and 6.40
00:10:34 <kcoyle> +1
00:10:37 <PWinstanley> +1
00:10:38 <AndreaPerego> +1
00:10:41 <DaveBrowning> +1
00:10:41 <annette_g> +1
00:10:49 <newton> +1
00:10:50 <dsr> +1
00:11:05 <annette_g> RESOLVED: accept requirement 6.39 and 6.40
00:11:14 <AndreaPerego> RRSAgent, draft minutes
00:11:14 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2017/11/09-dxwg-minutes.html AndreaPerego
00:11:41 <kcoyle> kcoyle: I see this as an extra
00:12:59 <kcoyle> DaveBrowning: schema has life-cycle characteristics; designed to be slightly fuzzy
00:13:19 <kcoyle> ... the two can coexist but not force them too closely
00:13:50 <annette_g> q?
00:15:44 <kcoyle> can we consider 6.41 optional?
00:16:13 <annette_g> PROPOSED: reject 6.41 as a requirement, considering it as interesting but optional
00:16:26 <newton> +1
00:16:32 <kcoyle> +1
00:16:35 <DaveBrowning> +1
00:16:39 <dsr> +1
00:16:40 <annette_g> +1
00:16:49 <PWinstanley> +1
00:17:08 <annette_g> RESOLVED: reject 6.41 as a requirement, considering it as interesting but optional
00:19:31 <AndreaPerego> q+
00:19:45 <annette_g> ack AndreaPerego
00:26:43 <kcoyle> kcoyle: these requirements need to be re-written to state that they are requiring the creation of best practices
00:26:56 <AndreaPerego> +1
00:27:03 <kcoyle> .... that related to qualified forms, not new functionality for DCAT itself
00:27:12 <annette_g> PROPOSED: rewrite 6.27 and 6.28 to be about giving guidelines rather than defining new terms or functionality in DCAT.
00:27:12 <kcoyle> ... but in using existing vocabularies
00:27:35 <kcoyle> +1
00:27:36 <AndreaPerego> +1
00:27:39 <newton> +1
00:27:42 <PWinstanley> +1
00:27:53 <DaveBrowning> +1
00:27:59 <annette_g> +1
00:28:26 <annette_g> RESOLVED: rewrite 6.27 and 6.28 to be about giving guidelines rather than defining new terms or functionality in DCAT.
00:28:29 <AndreaPerego> RRSAgent, draft minutes
00:28:29 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2017/11/09-dxwg-minutes.html AndreaPerego
00:29:12 <kcoyle> adjourn until tomorrow
00:29:58 <annette_g> ACTION: AndreaPerego to rewrite 6.27 and 6.28
00:29:59 <trackbot> Created ACTION-55 - Rewrite 6.27 and 6.28 [on Andrea Perego - due 2017-11-17].
00:30:43 <AndreaPerego> RRSAgent, draft minutes
00:30:43 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2017/11/09-dxwg-minutes.html AndreaPerego
00:35:36 <newton> newton has joined #dxwg
00:44:10 <AndreaPerego> RRSAgent, draft minutes v2
00:44:10 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2017/11/09-dxwg-minutes.html AndreaPerego
00:44:12 <dsr> dsr has joined #dxwg
00:45:59 <roba> roba has joined #dxwg
02:20:03 <Zakim> Zakim has left #dxwg