17:03:04 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #dxwg
17:03:04 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2017/11/10-dxwg-irc
17:03:06 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
17:03:06 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #dxwg
17:03:08 <trackbot> Meeting: Dataset Exchange Working Group Teleconference
17:03:09 <trackbot> Date: 10 November 2017
17:03:40 <Linda> Linda has joined #dxwg
17:03:55 <DaveBrowning> present+
17:03:58 <AndreaPerego> Yesterday's minutes: https://www.w3.org/2017/11/09-dxwg-minutes.html
17:04:51 <AndreaPerego> present+ AndreaPerego
17:05:37 <kcoyle> present+
17:05:43 <AndreaPerego> agenda: https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/Meetings:F2F2017.11.09
17:05:43 <PWinstanley> present+
17:05:51 <AndreaPerego> chair: Karen
17:05:52 <Makx> presnet+ Makx
17:05:52 <kcoyle> scribenick: PWinstanley
17:06:01 <Makx> present+ Makx
17:06:03 <AndreaPerego> RRSAgent, make logs world
17:06:10 <riccardoAlbertoni> present+
17:06:17 <AndreaPerego> RRSAgent, draft minutes v2
17:06:17 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2017/11/10-dxwg-minutes.html AndreaPerego
17:06:38 <PWinstanley> kcoyle: we have a duplication 6.5.1 that can be deleted
17:07:02 <PWinstanley> kcoyle: publication:  Makx  provided use cases
17:07:05 <Linda> Present+
17:08:23 <PWinstanley> Makx: when doing DCAT-AP we found that the way that dataset descriptions move during harvesting fromone catalogue to anothermakes it challenging to know which was the original source of the dataset description
17:08:28 <DaveBrowning> s/6.5.1/6.45.1/
17:08:44 <kcoyle> 6.29 Define means to explicitly control the re-publication of Dataset and Catalog descriptions among data portals (policies). Obligations might apply e.g. to disclose the original source or keep the copies synchronized.
17:10:06 <PWinstanley> kcoyle: this has to do with re-publication (which might include mirroring of the descriptions, the catalogued info)
17:11:28 <AndreaPerego> Description = metadata
17:11:33 <PWinstanley> Makx: dataset descriptors are harvested from regional portals and put in the national catalogue.  the metadata is copied.  this leads to 2 or more descriptors for the one data file.  How therefore does one identify the original catalogue entry
17:12:10 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> Jaroslav_Pullmann has joined #dxwg
17:12:11 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> present
17:12:14 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> present+
17:12:28 <PWinstanley> Makx: The issues are: is all or part of the data catalogue copied, is it changed, etc etc
17:12:49 <kcoyle> q?
17:12:50 <PWinstanley> kcoyle: there seems to be a difference between 'control' and 'document'
17:13:18 <Makx> q+
17:13:18 <kcoyle> q?
17:13:20 <PWinstanley> RubenVerborgh: we need to define 'control'.  what do we want?
17:13:32 <kcoyle> ack Makx
17:13:56 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> q+
17:14:34 <RubenVerborgh> RubenVerborgh: At the moment, 6.29 seems to be "source" (current 6.30) and "sync" (not yet in there). So if that's the only thing, we should split them into tht.
17:14:39 <RubenVerborgh> s/tht/that/
17:14:43 <PWinstanley> Makx: I'm relating the requirement to the use case, and it doesn't talk about control but explicit references to the original.  The control aspect was added as the requirement was derived fromthe use case.  Suggest 'track' rather than 'control'
17:14:56 <kcoyle> q?
17:15:01 <kcoyle> ack Jaroslav_Pullmann
17:15:44 <PWinstanley> Jaroslav_Pullmann: the last para of the use case; how should my metadata be handled by parties who want to copy it?
17:15:55 <AndreaPerego> q+ to say that, after all, we are talking about provenance information about metadata
17:16:07 <Makx> q+
17:16:09 <PWinstanley> kcoyle: but we covered permissions yesterday
17:16:26 <DaveBrowning> q+
17:16:45 <PWinstanley> Jaroslav_Pullmann: that might fit
17:17:00 <PWinstanley> DaveBrowning: but wasn't that about content, rather than metadata?
17:17:02 <kcoyle> ack AndreaPerego
17:17:02 <Zakim> AndreaPerego, you wanted to say that, after all, we are talking about provenance information about metadata
17:17:09 <PWinstanley> kcoyle: but we could apply the same approach
17:17:21 <DaveBrowning> q-
17:17:56 <PWinstanley> AndreaPerego: we need to know the provenance of the cataloguing data
17:19:23 <kcoyle> q?
17:20:11 <kcoyle> ack Makx
17:20:25 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> q?
17:20:46 <PWinstanley> Makx: Jaroslav_Pullmann is thinking of rights and licenses for metadata.  once you limit the usage of metadata the whole idea of sharing is broken.  people have to then maintain the chain of limitations and this precludes enrichment pipelines
17:21:06 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> q+
17:21:14 <kcoyle> ack Jaroslav_Pullmann
17:21:21 <PWinstanley> ...The requirement might include the original creation and the route,but we should avoid licensing issues for metadata
17:22:18 <PWinstanley> Jaroslav_Pullmann: this arose from non-DCAT area where there was varied metadata but there were restrictions on usage
17:22:28 <LarsG> LarsG has joined #dxwg
17:22:38 <kcoyle> q?
17:22:41 <Makx> q+
17:22:51 <AndreaPerego> s/AndreaPerego: we need to know the provenance of the cataloguing data/AndreaPerego: we need to know the provenance of the cataloguing data, especially in a federated environment, and especially when the original records follow a different metadata standard.
17:23:06 <PWinstanley> kcoyle: Jaroslav_Pullmann , are you suggesting that this might not be a requirement?
17:23:09 <LarsG> present+
17:23:26 <kcoyle> ack Makx
17:23:27 <PWinstanley> Jaroslav_Pullmann: it might not. My original use case was not a DCAT area
17:24:41 <PWinstanley> Makx: I didn't want to say it was not a valid requirement.  DCAT can be used for closed as well as open data.  If there is a requirement to protect/limit the reuse of metadata, then the requirement makes sense, but in open data areas it is potentially troublesome
17:24:49 <kcoyle> 6.29
17:25:42 <PWinstanley> kcoyle: we have 2 different things: DCAT metadata having provenance; DCAT metadata having expression of rights.  Do we need both?
17:25:45 <PWinstanley> Makx: yes
17:26:04 <riccardoAlbertoni> +1 to kcoyle
17:26:09 <PWinstanley> kcoyle: could 6.29 be the rights expression, and 6.30 be the provenance?
17:26:14 <PWinstanley> Jaroslav_Pullmann: yes
17:26:43 <PWinstanley> kcoyle: then we need to re-word 6.29 to ensure it refers to the metadata rather than the control mechanism
17:28:14 <PWinstanley> kcoyle: DCAT can be used for non-public data.  The rights we are talking about (re-use) ...
17:28:38 <PWinstanley> Jaroslav_Pullmann: e.g. when the metadata schema is re-formed
17:29:09 <kcoyle> PROPOSED: accept 6.29 reworded as: "Provide means to express rights relating to reuse of DCAT metadata"
17:29:23 <Makx> +1
17:29:26 <AndreaPerego> +1
17:29:27 <Linda> +1
17:29:29 <DaveBrowning> +1
17:29:29 <riccardoAlbertoni> +1
17:29:31 <PWinstanley> +1
17:29:32 <newton> +1
17:29:37 <RubenVerborgh> +1
17:29:41 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> +1
17:30:06 <kcoyle> RESOLVED: accept 6.29 reworded as: "Provide means to express rights relating to reuse of DCAT metadata"
17:30:14 <AndreaPerego> RRSAgent, draft minutes v2
17:30:14 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2017/11/10-dxwg-minutes.html AndreaPerego
17:30:30 <PWinstanley> kcoyle: 6.30 is related
17:30:46 <RubenVerborgh> q+
17:30:52 <kcoyle> ack RubenVerborgh
17:31:22 <PWinstanley> RubenVerborgh: simply provenance. it could be more elaborate than just a link to the source
17:31:24 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> q+
17:31:32 <kcoyle> ack Jaroslav_Pullmann
17:32:11 <PWinstanley> Jaroslav_Pullmann: this was partially discussed by rob .  the reference should be linkable and resolvable to discover the original resource
17:32:17 <Makx> q+
17:32:43 <PWinstanley> kcoyle: the use case talks about the original resource, the requirement doesnt
17:33:29 <newton> newton has joined #dxwg
17:33:33 <kcoyle> ack Makx
17:34:34 <PWinstanley> Makx: what is a DCAT resource?  we are talking about the metadata description.  there needs to be a way to identify the original source of hte DCAT metadata
17:35:05 <PWinstanley> Jaroslav_Pullmann: we don't know what has been copied, what has been added.
17:35:21 <AndreaPerego> q+ to ask is this related the use of schema.org for publishing DCAT records
17:35:33 <DaveBrowning> q+
17:35:39 <PWinstanley> Makx: use the term "DCAT metadata" and refer to "original source"
17:36:18 <PWinstanley> kcoyle: the reference to the original version - is this the metadata, or the site it originated from?
17:36:46 <kcoyle> ack AndreaPerego
17:36:46 <Zakim> AndreaPerego, you wanted to ask is this related the use of schema.org for publishing DCAT records
17:36:46 <PWinstanley> Makx: we need a link directly to the source metadata (assuming it is not a URN)
17:37:49 <newton> newton has left #dxwg
17:37:58 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> q+
17:38:04 <PWinstanley> AndreaPerego: indexable by search engine?  this needs the full information in the original record
17:38:05 <newton> newton has joined #dxwg
17:39:05 <PWinstanley> DaveBrowning: this is what the provenance vocab is meant to handle.
17:39:12 <AndreaPerego> I was thinking that "indexable by search engines" is about publishing DCAT records by using schema.org.
17:39:27 <PWinstanley> ... the new bit is 'indexable'
17:39:46 <kcoyle> ack DaveBrowning
17:39:55 <kcoyle> ack Jaroslav_Pullmann
17:39:56 <PWinstanley> ...so do we want to understand the provenance, or do we want it to be searchable?
17:40:42 <PWinstanley> Jaroslav_Pullmann: the requirements have two things:  reference to original source; client should be able to access this source
17:41:25 <PWinstanley> ... a client with a reference to the original resource should be able to resolve it
17:41:56 <DaveBrowning> +1 to Jaroslav_Pullmann Interpretation
17:42:18 <kcoyle> PROPOSED: accept 6.30 reworded as: "Provide a way to reference the original DCAT metadata with a dereferenceable reference"
17:42:22 <AndreaPerego> +1
17:42:27 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> +1
17:42:39 <AndreaPerego> q+
17:42:43 <PWinstanley> +1
17:42:44 <newton> +1
17:42:57 <LarsG> +1
17:43:02 <DaveBrowning> +1
17:43:04 <riccardoAlbertoni> +1
17:43:13 <kcoyle> ack AndreaPerego
17:43:20 <Makx> +1
17:44:15 <Makx> +1 to Andrea
17:44:31 <riccardoAlbertoni> +1 to AndreaPerego's proposal
17:45:09 <AndreaPerego> Alternative proposal: "Provide a way to reference the original metadata with a dereferenceable reference"
17:45:28 <Caroline> Caroline has joined #DXWG
17:45:31 <Makx> apart from the duplication of the word 'reference'
17:45:43 <Caroline> Present+
17:45:44 <kcoyle> RESOLVED: accept 6.30 reworded as "Provide a way reference the original metadata with a dereferenceable reference"
17:45:49 <Makx> +1
17:45:55 <DaveBrowning> +1
17:46:35 <AndreaPerego> +1
17:46:37 <Makx> s/way reference/way to reference/
17:46:37 <PWinstanley> +1
17:46:44 <Linda> +1
17:47:02 <AndreaPerego> RRSAgent, draft minutes v2
17:47:02 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2017/11/10-dxwg-minutes.html AndreaPerego
17:47:06 <PWinstanley> kcoyle: 6.45 was done yesterday
17:47:21 <PWinstanley> ... now at 6.48
17:47:30 <kcoyle> 6.48 Metadata 'distribution' elements need a content model (see white paper referenced above) associated with links to communicate the protocol expected and the interchange formats (information model and encoding/serialization) available via the link.
17:48:42 <kcoyle> q?
17:49:07 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> q+
17:49:46 <kcoyle> ack Jaroslav_Pullmann
17:50:05 <Makx> q+
17:50:15 <RubenVerborgh> q+
17:50:50 <AndreaPerego> I wonder whether this is already covered by https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/ucr/#RID13
17:50:58 <AndreaPerego> Or is it different?
17:50:58 <PWinstanley> Jaroslav_Pullmann: a drawback with the current approach is missing parameters - we need to know which are mandatory and which are optional
17:51:00 <kcoyle> ack Makx
17:52:12 <PWinstanley> Makx: 2 things: dcat currently supposes that distributions are files and there are format and mediatype;  but we are talking about API access where parameters are needed for accessing services.
17:52:36 <kcoyle> ack RubenVerborgh
17:52:40 <AndreaPerego> The UC Makx is referring to is https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/ucr/#ID18
17:52:44 <riccardoAlbertoni> @max but this would be the requirement 6.15  afau
17:53:39 <PWinstanley> RubenVerborgh: I've been looking at 6.48.  I think they need deeper consideration - we need to know what profiles are available. does 5.21 say any more.  6.48 seems to criticise a potential solution
17:54:02 <kcoyle> q?
17:54:07 <PWinstanley> I don't see how 6.48 follows from 5.21
17:54:25 <PWinstanley> DaveBrowning: at best it is a duplicate of something already there
17:54:46 <PWinstanley> RubenVerborgh: we need to reconsider
17:55:09 <kcoyle> q?
17:56:16 <RubenVerborgh> q+
17:56:26 <RubenVerborgh> q-
17:57:16 <Makx> q+
17:57:54 <PWinstanley> kcoyle: the note includes profiles, web services,
17:58:16 <PWinstanley> ... it seems we have a use case around web services that is not simply a list of profiles
17:58:46 <kcoyle> ack Makx
17:59:38 <PWinstanley> Makx: I think there is a misunderstanding within the requirement.  It works from the perspective of a single link for a distribution, but DCAT doesn't work like that.  Different distributions would have different links
18:01:02 <PWinstanley> ... if this use case is about the expression of what is behind a download URL then format etc is adequate.  It isn't a content-negotiation matter.  The word 'profile' used in the requirement is more like the schema a particular distribution conforms to
18:01:10 <AndreaPerego> +1 to Makx
18:01:39 <PWinstanley> ... I think the requirement mixes up.  File formats is already covered by DCAT.  API issues are more like service-based data access
18:01:52 <PWinstanley> kcoyle: you're referring to 6.48
18:02:20 <PWinstanley> Makx: yes, but also 5.21 which has more detail.  'profile' here is confusing.
18:02:33 <kcoyle> q?
18:02:37 <AndreaPerego> This Req is unclear to me as well.
18:03:10 <PWinstanley> kcoyle: can we agree that 6.48 is not a valid requirement and so needs to be moved to the side?
18:03:12 <Makx> +1 to unclear
18:03:13 <RubenVerborgh> +1
18:03:15 <AndreaPerego> Or we can ask who contributed it to clarify - I think it was Simon
18:03:21 <DaveBrowning> +1
18:03:26 <riccardoAlbertoni> +1
18:03:38 <Makx> it was Stephen Richard
18:03:56 <PWinstanley> RubenVerborgh: do we also clarify 5.21?
18:04:04 <PWinstanley> kcoyle: the use case can remain
18:04:08 <kcoyle> RESOLVED: Eliminate 6.48 as being unclear and possibly erroneous in its assumptions
18:04:12 <Makx> +1
18:04:29 <AndreaPerego> +1
18:04:33 <PWinstanley> RubenVerborgh: is there anything else that is not with 5.5 (didfference between 5.21 and 5.5 matters to me)
18:05:03 <LarsG> +1
18:05:15 <riccardoAlbertoni> +1
18:06:11 <PWinstanley> kcoyle: part of 5.21 seems to be asking for the metadata to provide sufficient information to determine what is inside [5.5 being the list]
18:06:57 <PWinstanley> ... we are assuming that people know how to use 'format' and that the list is comprehensive
18:07:08 <AndreaPerego> s/didfference/difference/
18:07:54 <PWinstanley> DaveBrowning: 5.21 looks like a good use case, but it is too much in solution space
18:08:02 <Linda> Q+
18:08:18 <kcoyle> ack Linda
18:08:57 <PWinstanley> Linda: it sounds like they both want to describe the difference between different services, and also between content models/ semantic standards
18:10:32 <Makx> q+
18:10:41 <PWinstanley> kcoyle: we have something that says that a reference to a dataset definition or standard, don't we?
18:11:13 <AndreaPerego> It's more about the data schema, in my understanding.
18:11:57 <kcoyle> ack Makx
18:12:27 <PWinstanley> Makx: it doesn't make sense to have format and mediatype
18:13:19 <PWinstanley> ... in DCAT-AP people said there was a need to point to a schema to which the data in the file conforms to.  In this we included conformsTo in the DCAT-AP
18:13:57 <AndreaPerego> q+
18:13:58 <PWinstanley> .. this is separate from passing parameters to services
18:14:57 <PWinstanley> kcoyle: Do we need a requirement for DCAT to point to the schema that the data conforms to
18:15:00 <PWinstanley> Makx: yes
18:15:56 <PWinstanley> kcoyle: 6.14 or 6.48?  We are dropping 6.48.  If 6.14 doesn't cover it then we need another
18:16:06 <PWinstanley> Makx: yes, 6.14 covers it
18:16:26 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> q+
18:17:15 <AndreaPerego> q-
18:17:29 <AndreaPerego> BTW, the requirement about service information in distributions is here https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/ucr/#RID13
18:17:30 <kcoyle> ack Jaroslav_Pullmann
18:18:10 <LarsG> q+ to talk about schema types
18:18:24 <PWinstanley> Jaroslav_Pullmann: reference to a schema is something I agree with.  if the schema is there we need a hint to the type
18:18:38 <PWinstanley> Makx: I disagree
18:18:40 <kcoyle> ack LarsG
18:18:40 <Zakim> LarsG, you wanted to talk about schema types
18:19:28 <Makx> q+
18:19:47 <kcoyle> ack Makx
18:19:54 <PWinstanley> LarsG: then when it comes to schema type we need a mediatype for every schema type there is.  There are several RDF or JSON approaches, and we cannot infer from the mediatype
18:20:33 <PWinstanley> Makx: the schema type isn't a property of the distribution.
18:21:00 <kcoyle> q+
18:21:04 <PWinstanley> ... sometimes there is xml+rdf that informs us about types.
18:21:09 <kcoyle> ack kcoyle
18:21:32 <LarsG> s/xml+rdf/rdf+xml/
18:21:59 <PWinstanley> kcoyle: in the absence of an identifier for the schema, we just have to work within these limitations.  It is not the role of DCAT to fix this
18:22:16 <Makx> q+
18:22:23 <AndreaPerego> It could be either - better a URI if we have it.
18:22:28 <PWinstanley> ...Is this intended to be a name or a URI?  Does it matter?  could it be either?
18:23:17 <kcoyle> ack Makx
18:23:35 <PWinstanley> Makx: I think URIs are a good way to identify schema, but that is solution space
18:23:36 <riccardoAlbertoni> +1 to Makx
18:24:02 <Linda> Q+
18:24:11 <Makx> q+
18:24:13 <kcoyle> ack Linda
18:24:29 <PWinstanley> Linda: I think it covers service types as well.  in 6.14
18:24:48 <PWinstanley> kcoyle: what is meant by service types?
18:25:03 <AndreaPerego> There's one specific to services - 6.15
18:25:07 <PWinstanley> Linda: data could be a download, but also a service
18:25:45 <kcoyle> q?
18:26:03 <PWinstanley> DaveBrowning: in some cases you are interrogating a datasets via an API
18:26:45 <Linda> Q+
18:26:45 <kcoyle> ack Makx
18:26:54 <LarsG> q+
18:27:10 <Linda> Q-
18:27:16 <PWinstanley> Makx: 2 things are unrelated;  the second I read as being a file as a distribution.  the first is about services where there is a datastore that is accessible via a query.  there are 2 different requirements with the service being more complicated
18:27:46 <PWinstanley> ... at SDSVoc we discussed this; a small set of parameters needed to access the information
18:27:51 <kcoyle> ack LarsG
18:27:54 <PWinstanley> kcoyle: what about 6.15?
18:28:27 <Linda> Q+
18:28:30 <PWinstanley> LarsG: in 6.14 I don't see anywhere where the second note only talks about files - could it also be for APIs
18:28:47 <Makx> q+
18:29:24 <PWinstanley> kcoyle: that note makes sense to me, but what is the extent that we need to define the requirement for services?
18:29:49 <kcoyle> ack Linda
18:30:21 <PWinstanley> Linda: I agree with LarsG ; the second note could refer to the schema of the data retrieved from an API or WS request
18:30:42 <PWinstanley> kcoyle: for me the question is where does DCAT fit here
18:30:42 <kcoyle> ack Makx
18:31:40 <PWinstanley> Makx: I think there are 2 different requirements; one for files (in DCAT-AP a property points to a schema), and the WS/API requirement which is more complex.
18:31:44 <annette_g> annette_g has joined #dxwg
18:31:51 <kcoyle> PROPOSED: accept 6.14 re-worded as: "define a way to include identification of the schema the described data conforms to"
18:32:09 <riccardoAlbertoni> +1
18:32:13 <RubenVerborgh> +1
18:32:16 <Linda> +1
18:32:26 <LarsG> +1
18:32:26 <PWinstanley> +1
18:32:31 <Makx> +1
18:32:33 <DaveBrowning> +1
18:32:37 <AndreaPerego> +1
18:33:03 <kcoyle> RESOLVED: accept 6.14 re-worded as: "define a way to include identification of the schema the described data conforms to"
18:33:11 <AndreaPerego> RRSAgent, draft minutes v2
18:33:11 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2017/11/10-dxwg-minutes.html AndreaPerego
18:34:48 <Makx> related to thje service-based data access, this discussion (long read): https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/discussion/dt2-service-based-data-access
18:36:44 <Makx> somewhere in the discussion at https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/discussion/dt2-service-based-data-access, there is a post by AndreaPerego dated 12/12/2016 - 22:41 that reports on the discussion at SDSVov
18:37:11 <Makx> s/SDSVov/SDSVoc/
18:39:25 <AndreaPerego> Should be this one: https://www.w3.org/2016/12/01-sdsvoc-minutes#item17
18:40:20 <Linda> Linda has joined #dxwg
18:40:35 <Makx> Thanks Andrea, was looking for that link
18:44:20 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> is there a planned break now?
18:48:32 <newton> newton has joined #dxwg
18:49:09 <annette_g> annette_g has joined #dxwg
19:02:23 <DaveBrowning> DaveBrowning has joined #dxwg
19:02:41 <RubenVerborgh> RubenVerborgh has joined #dxwg
19:03:47 <Caroline> Present+
19:03:58 <annette_g> q?
19:04:02 <DaveBrowning>  present+
19:04:09 <RubenVerborgh> q+
19:04:09 <PWinstanley> present+
19:04:15 <Makx> https://www.w3.org/2016/12/01-sdsvoc-minutes#item17
19:04:17 <annette_g> ack RubenVerborgh
19:04:18 <Linda> Linda has joined #dxwg
19:04:39 <kcoyle> kcoyle has joined #dxwg
19:04:42 <kcoyle> scribenick: kcoyle
19:04:47 <kcoyle> 6.15 now
19:05:16 <kcoyle> RubenVerborgh: too broad - we'll never solve this because there is no general description for apis
19:05:26 <kcoyle> ... this will need boundaries
19:05:42 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> the use case mentiones web sevrvices (~ SOAP/REST?)
19:06:11 <kcoyle> RubenVerborgh: provide an extension point
19:06:18 <Makx> q+
19:06:37 <annette_g> ack Makx
19:06:46 <kcoyle> Makx: Rubin, what is an extension point?
19:07:14 <kcoyle> RubenVerborgh: a way to connect a DCAT distribution to a description
19:07:20 <annette_g> q?
19:08:38 <Makx> https://www.w3.org/2016/12/01-sdsvoc-minutes#item17
19:08:42 <kcoyle> Makx: shared a link to a solution
19:09:04 <kcoyle> ... an analysis and potential solution
19:09:13 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> q+
19:09:21 <annette_g> ack Jaroslav_Pullmann
19:09:29 <kcoyle> RubenVerborgh: type of service should be out of scope
19:10:24 <kcoyle> Jaroslav_Pullmann: dcat should not tackle description of services; extension point should define options for implementing this feature
19:10:51 <kcoyle> ... so that we not have heterogeneous description of services
19:11:12 <kcoyle> ... if we don't specific the type of description it isn't clear how it will be interpreted
19:11:35 <annette_g> q?
19:11:54 <kcoyle> ... for example dcat should suggest use of openAPI for services
19:12:58 <kcoyle> ... needs to be detailed but not semantically enabled; point to WSDL documents
19:13:43 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> https://www.w3.org/TR/wsdl20/
19:14:28 <kcoyle> ... must be formal description of service; should it be expressed in a specific vocabulary?
19:14:44 <Linda> Q+
19:14:45 <kcoyle> annette_g: link to documentation that exists, not describe through dcat
19:14:57 <PWinstanley> q+
19:15:42 <kcoyle> Jaroslav_Pullmann: dcat should say which standards to use
19:16:48 <kcoyle> ... should we prescribe which standards?
19:16:54 <annette_g> q?
19:17:01 <annette_g> ack Linda
19:17:29 <annette_g> ack PWinstanley
19:17:30 <kcoyle> Linda: in favor of pointing to service description, but mandating specific standards, no
19:18:04 <kcoyle> PWinstanley: ditto to what Linda said. Things move too quickly to make specific recommendations
19:18:08 <kcoyle> q+
19:18:43 <kcoyle> ... don't even define object type as a string - could be anything
19:18:53 <annette_g> ack kcoyle
19:18:55 <annette_g> q?
19:20:13 <kcoyle> kcoyle: should we use "web" or just services?
19:20:25 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> q+
19:22:06 <kcoyle> DaveBrowning: could be logging into a proprietary database
19:22:12 <annette_g> ack Jaroslav_Pullmann
19:22:17 <kcoyle> ... dropping web doesn't cost us anything
19:23:11 <kcoyle> Jaroslav_Pullmann: some of the services do not have formal descriptions;
19:23:24 <kcoyle> ... important to know how will we describe the service
19:24:27 <kcoyle> ... afraid without this it will introduce ambiguity; too much freedom would not be good, unless we assume only humans will read it
19:24:55 <kcoyle> annette_g: can imagine users looking for a particular api type
19:26:16 <newton> newton has joined #dxwg
19:26:19 <Linda> Q+
19:26:34 <kcoyle> Jaroslav_Pullmann: specific either formal description or just a string
19:26:47 <AndreaPerego> q+
19:26:58 <annette_g> ack Linda
19:27:52 <kcoyle> Linda: ref. 6.48 refers to machine-actionable descriptions, UC 5.21
19:28:55 <kcoyle> ... can we go back to the author of 6.48 and get a better idea of what is meant?
19:30:17 <AndreaPerego> I think the UCs attributed to Stephen Richard have been actually added by Simon.
19:31:19 <kcoyle> DaveBrowning: these services are likely to be very domain specific
19:31:52 <kcoyle> ... and possibly additional metadata to be able to make choices
19:32:26 <kcoyle> ... 1) ability to extend 2) should make it possible to make intelligent choices
19:33:11 <annette_g> q?
19:33:20 <annette_g> ack AndreaPerego
19:33:23 <kcoyle> AndreaPerego:
19:34:00 <AndreaPerego> UC: https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/ucr/#ID18
19:34:05 <kcoyle> requirement is a bit too generic; the use case has a number of issues
19:34:20 <kcoyle> .... 1) ability to understand the type of distribution
19:35:00 <kcoyle> ... 2) provide information about type of service
19:35:19 <kcoyle> ... 3) description of how to query the service
19:36:23 <kcoyle> ... no general solution for type of service;
19:37:20 <kcoyle> ... primary issue - when you get to distribution you get a note describing the service and users don't know what to do with that
19:37:32 <annette_g> q?
19:37:34 <Linda> Q+
19:37:42 <annette_g> ack Linda
19:38:17 <kcoyle> Linda: agree with 1 & 2, we need those. But how to query the services goes too far
19:39:02 <kcoyle> ... users don't understand the services, but that's not something we can solve in DCAT
19:39:12 <annette_g> q?
19:39:16 <AndreaPerego> q+
19:39:29 <hadleybeeman> present+ hadleybeeman
19:39:33 <annette_g> ack AndreaPerego
19:40:01 <PWinstanley_> PWinstanley_ has joined #dxwg
19:41:53 <annette_g> q?
19:41:58 <kcoyle> AndreaPerego: there are examples in geo data - using specific aspects of the standard; dcat could have a flag that indicates the services when the distribution is not just files
19:43:10 <kcoyle> PROPOSED: accept 6.15 with 1) ability to describe the type of distribution and 2) provide information about the type of service
19:43:16 <Linda> +1
19:43:19 <Makx> +1
19:43:21 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> +1
19:43:24 <AndreaPerego> +1
19:43:29 <annette_g> q?
19:44:06 <RubenVerborgh> +1
19:44:19 <LarsG> +1
19:44:56 <DaveBrowning> +1
19:45:05 <PWinstanley> +1
19:45:24 <kcoyle> RESOLVED: accept 6.15 with ability 1) to describe the type of distribution and 2) provide information about the type of service
19:45:32 <AndreaPerego> RRSAgent, draft minutes v2
19:45:32 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2017/11/10-dxwg-minutes.html AndreaPerego
19:46:23 <Makx> q+
19:46:23 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> q+
19:47:04 <annette_g> ack Makx
19:47:41 <kcoyle> 6.23 Define way to specify content of packaged files in a Distribution. For example, a set of files may be organised in an archive format and then compressed, but dct:hasFormat property only indicates the encoding type of the outer layer of packaging
19:48:07 <kcoyle> Makx: can only say it is a zip file, not what format is in the zip file
19:48:34 <annette_g> q?
19:48:39 <annette_g> ack Jaroslav_Pullmann
19:48:43 <DaveBrowning> q+
19:49:11 <Makx> q+
19:49:31 <kcoyle> Jaroslav_Pullmann: this makes sense; distinguish packaging / compression from file format
19:50:04 <annette_g> q?
19:50:10 <kcoyle> ... could be recursive - archives within archives; what to do about that?
19:50:12 <annette_g> ack DaveBrowning
19:51:33 <annette_g> ack Makx
19:51:40 <kcoyle> DaveBrowning: agree it's a real problem. i wouldn't want to explain zipping independently; it could be covered by fine-grained metadata
19:52:46 <LarsG> q+ to talk about two requirements (packages and compression)
19:52:55 <kcoyle> Makx: could include this in fine-grained info, because there could be packages within packages. Let dcat group see if it fits in 6.14
19:53:23 <annette_g> q?
19:53:48 <annette_g> ack LarsG
19:53:48 <Zakim> LarsG, you wanted to talk about two requirements (packages and compression)
19:54:41 <kcoyle> LarsG: may be two requirements; one could be a simple encoding, the other a tar with multiple files
19:54:49 <annette_g> q?
19:55:24 <Makx> nod
19:55:30 <kcoyle> PROPOSED: accept 6.23, which may be resolved by the solution to 6.14
19:55:35 <Makx> +1
19:55:36 <Linda> +1
19:55:37 <annette_g> +1
19:55:40 <DaveBrowning> +1
19:55:42 <RubenVerborgh> +1
19:55:44 <LarsG>  +1
19:55:44 <kcoyle> +1
19:55:46 <PWinstanley> +1
19:55:52 <Caroline> +1
19:56:01 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> +1
19:56:04 <kcoyle> RESOLVED: accept 6.23, which may be resolved by the solution to 6.14
19:56:34 <kcoyle> 6.37 now
19:56:51 <Makx> q+
19:57:15 <annette_g> ack Makx
19:57:59 <kcoyle> Makx: comes out of DCAT-AP: what are the allowable differences between distributions? people didn't find an agreement
19:58:40 <kcoyle> ... same data different serializations? different data same series?
19:58:49 <DaveBrowning> q+
19:59:07 <kcoyle> ... wording in DCAT too vague
19:59:30 <annette_g> q?
19:59:48 <annette_g> ack DaveBrowning
20:00:30 <kcoyle> DaveBrowning: "all distributions have to be informationally equivalent"
20:01:01 <kcoyle> ... ability to relate datasets provides functionality that people are using distributions for
20:01:04 <Makx> +1 to DaveBrowning
20:01:10 <annette_g> q?
20:01:42 <kcoyle> PROPOSED: accept 6.37 (with particular attention to the use case)
20:01:46 <Linda> +1
20:01:47 <annette_g> +1
20:01:50 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> +1
20:01:51 <DaveBrowning> +1
20:01:56 <RubenVerborgh> +1
20:02:19 <kcoyle> +1
20:02:23 <Caroline> +1
20:02:32 <kcoyle> RESOLVED: accept 6.37 (with particular attention to the use case)
20:02:39 <Makx> +1
20:03:08 <annette_g> q?
20:03:29 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> q+
20:03:37 <annette_g> ack Jaroslav_Pullmann
20:05:14 <annette_g> thanks for helping, Makx!
20:05:30 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> bye!
20:05:31 <annette_g> thanks Jaroslav!
20:05:42 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> present-
20:05:46 <Makx> bye
20:05:56 <LarsG> Bye all
20:07:38 <annette_g> 1:00 we come back
20:07:46 <annette_g> (one hour from now)
20:43:25 <kcoyle> kcoyle has joined #dxwg
20:56:05 <AndreaPerego> RRSAgent, draft minutes v2
20:56:05 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2017/11/10-dxwg-minutes.html AndreaPerego
20:58:05 <newton> newton has joined #dxwg
20:58:30 <AndreaPerego> meeting: Data Exchange WG TPAC face to face - Day 2
20:58:31 <AndreaPerego> RRSAgent, draft minutes v2
20:58:31 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2017/11/10-dxwg-minutes.html AndreaPerego
20:59:24 <AndreaPerego> s/presnet+ Makx//
20:59:25 <AndreaPerego> RRSAgent, draft minutes v2
20:59:25 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2017/11/10-dxwg-minutes.html AndreaPerego
21:00:57 <RubenVerborgh> RubenVerborgh has joined #dxwg
21:01:36 <newton> newton has joined #dxwg
21:04:04 <newton> newton has left #dxwg
21:04:09 <newton> newton has joined #dxwg
21:04:32 <kcoyle_> kcoyle_ has joined #dxwg
21:04:46 <DaveBrowning> DaveBrowning has joined #dxwg
21:05:24 <Caroline> Caroline has joined #DXWG
21:05:32 <DaveBrowning> present+
21:05:36 <Caroline> Present+
21:05:49 <AndreaPerego> present+
21:07:41 <newton> scribe: newton
21:07:45 <Linda> Linda has joined #dxwg
21:07:52 <AndreaPerego> scribenick: newton
21:08:29 <annette_g> annette_g has joined #dxwg
21:08:39 <newton> kcoyle: we're going to cover profiles until the break and then we'll work on identifiers citation
21:09:22 <RubenVerborgh> q+
21:09:28 <newton> … are profile machine actionable or only documents for provide guidelines?
21:09:47 <newton> … what people think about it?
21:09:55 <kcoyle> ack RubenVerborgh
21:10:26 <newton> RubenVerborgh: profile can be expressed in machine readable way
21:10:34 <PWinstanley> PWinstanley has joined #dxwg
21:10:36 <newton> … one profile has multiple expressions
21:10:44 <PWinstanley> present+
21:10:59 <newton> kcoyle: should the dcat profile be machine actionable?
21:11:23 <kcoyle> q?
21:11:34 <newton> RubenVerborgh: a generic profile doesn't need to be machine actionable
21:11:58 <newton> … specific profile can be expressed in machine readable
21:12:08 <RubenVerborgh> correcting myself: a generic profile does not necessarily need a machine-readable expression
21:12:12 <RubenVerborgh> a DCAT profile might
21:12:27 <annette_g> q+
21:13:08 <kcoyle> ack annette_g
21:13:40 <newton> annette_g: [reading about profiles on the charter]
21:14:58 <newton> kcoyle: it's up to us to clarify whether profile should be machine actionable or not
21:15:20 <annette_g> q+
21:15:28 <newton> DaveBrowning: the profile definition doesn't need to be machine readable
21:15:56 <newton> q?
21:16:08 <kcoyle> ack annette_g
21:16:16 <RubenVerborgh> q+
21:16:28 <newton> annette_g: in order to validate something against the profile you need a profile machine actionable
21:16:39 <RubenVerborgh> q-
21:16:46 <RubenVerborgh> q+
21:16:59 <kcoyle> ack RubenVerborgh
21:18:23 <newton> RubenVerborgh: I would like to see a explicity distinction between generic profiles and DCAT AP
21:18:36 <RubenVerborgh> http://profilenegotiation.github.io/I-D-Accept--Schema/I-D-accept-schema.txt
21:18:58 <newton> RubenVerborgh: shares a definition of profile
21:19:59 <newton> kcoyle: are we asking for more than an AP?
21:20:15 <newton> … is it enough to say the profile group will propose a definition?
21:21:01 <newton> … profiles will have to be defined.
21:22:38 <newton> DaveBrowning:  we might get distract by details when trying to define principles of this?
21:22:59 <newton> kcoyle: there are 4 UC related to profile
21:23:35 <newton> … 6.1.1 is very vague. let's go to the next ones
21:24:42 <newton> … we will start with 6.1.3
21:24:51 <newton> … 6.1.3 Profiles have URI identifiers that resolve to more detailed descriptions
21:25:21 <annette_g> q+
21:25:48 <Linda> Q+
21:26:21 <newton> kcoyle: the way I read it it provides more information for the content type
21:26:44 <newton> RubenVerborgh: profiles don't provide syntax, but does provide semantic constraints
21:27:19 <newton> … we need a distinction between Content Type and a Profile
21:27:28 <newton> … a content type is related to the syntax
21:28:11 <kcoyle> Q?
21:28:16 <newton> … a profile is layered on top of a content type, but it doesn't provide information about about syntax, it provides information about the semantics and how the file could be interpreted
21:28:18 <annette_g> q-
21:28:23 <kcoyle> ack Linda
21:28:55 <newton> Linda: agrees with RubenVerborgh, the profile doesn't provide info about syntax
21:29:23 <newton> … but in my mind profile will have URI identifiers and will link with other resources
21:29:38 <annette_g> +1
21:30:15 <newton> kcoyle: profiles may have links pointing to aditional  information
21:30:22 <annette_g> q+
21:30:56 <newton> RubenVerborgh: what matters is that the URI resolves to some resource useful, either for human or machines
21:31:10 <newton> kcoyle: basically saying profile can link to other resources
21:31:32 <newton> Linda: it could be XML schema, for instance
21:32:18 <newton> kcoyle: there are human beings involved on the creation of metadata
21:32:22 <newton> PWinstanley: +1
21:33:10 <newton> annette_g: the way its written isn't good
21:33:23 <newton> kcoyle: it says profile can link to other documents
21:33:44 <newton> kcoyle: suggest rewording
21:34:04 <newton> annette_g: is it a good practice to profile have URLs?
21:34:08 <newton> kc
21:34:16 <newton> s/kc/
21:34:18 <newton> kc
21:34:22 <newton> s/kc/
21:34:25 <newton> kcoyle: yes
21:34:52 <kcoyle> http://dublincore.org/documents/singapore-framework/
21:37:30 <newton> kcoyle: a resource like this would be a general model
21:37:37 <newton> … then we would specify for dcat
21:39:41 <newton> kcoyle: none of the use cases were about the abstract level of a profile
21:40:07 <newton> RubenVerborgh: should we be more specific in this requirement?
21:40:16 <newton> kcoyle: we need to rewrite it
21:41:03 <newton> kcoyle: suggests to move to the identifiers part
21:41:21 <RubenVerborgh> q+ to suggest to move to 6.2 instead
21:41:45 <annette_g> q-
21:41:49 <newton> DaveBrowning: I don't see a requirement for guidance
21:42:12 <newton> … as we mentioned in the beginning of this part
21:42:36 <newton> … I think the kind of guidance on how to construct a profile should be a requirement
21:43:21 <newton> kcoyle: some of those guidance requirements don't appear on the use cases
21:43:56 <newton> … the way those requirements are written doesn't help us with the guidance
21:44:18 <newton> … maybe we should ask for the profile guidance group to come up with a suggestion on it
21:44:21 <newton> q?
21:44:50 <newton> RubenVerborgh: suggests to move to 6.2
21:45:11 <newton> … just want to say it looks good to me
21:45:15 <newton> … :)
21:46:19 <kcoyle> q?
21:46:21 <newton> … but it's written in a specific way, look likes the answer will be content negotiation
21:46:24 <kcoyle> ack RubenVerborgh
21:46:24 <Zakim> RubenVerborgh, you wanted to suggest to move to 6.2 instead
21:46:26 <annette_g> thumbs up
21:46:41 <kcoyle> PROPOSED: accept 6.2.1
21:46:56 <DaveBrowning> +1
21:46:57 <newton> +1
21:46:59 <Linda>   +1
21:47:01 <RubenVerborgh> +1
21:47:01 <annette_g> +1
21:47:12 <Caroline> +1
21:47:28 <PWinstanley> +1
21:47:47 <kcoyle> RESOLVED: accept 6.2.1
21:48:02 <newton> kcoyle: what about the 6.3.1
21:48:28 <newton> RubenVerborgh: there's a note on the 6.3.1, but I don't think it should be there
21:49:50 <newton> … the 6.3.1 isn't covered in the 6.2.1, they are different
21:50:43 <kcoyle> q?
21:50:56 <kcoyle> PROPOSED: accept 6.3.1
21:51:04 <annette_g> +1
21:51:05 <RubenVerborgh> +1 without the note
21:51:06 <DaveBrowning> +1
21:51:06 <PWinstanley> +1
21:51:08 <newton> +1
21:51:09 <Linda> Linda has joined #dxwg
21:51:30 <kcoyle> RESOLVED: accept 6.3.1
21:51:48 <newton> kcoyle: how about 6.4.1 ?
21:53:05 <kcoyle> Q?
21:54:00 <kcoyle> PROPOSED: accept 6.4.1, but note redundancy with 6.1.3 and 6.1.7, etc.
21:54:03 <RubenVerborgh> +1
21:54:07 <Caroline> +1
21:54:07 <Linda> +1
21:54:08 <newton> +1
21:54:08 <DaveBrowning> +1
21:54:08 <PWinstanley> +1
21:54:13 <annette_g> -1
21:54:41 <newton> annette_g: I don't think the use cases are talking about more detail about the profile
21:55:08 <newton> RubenVerborgh: we have profile as a concept and we also have concrete representation
21:55:26 <newton> kcoyle: I believe it's more information to support the profile
21:55:43 <newton> annette_g: I believe the profile should be self explanatory
21:56:30 <newton> … is it a way to express the profile itself more richly?
21:56:36 <newton> RubenVerborgh: yes
21:57:00 <kcoyle> RESOLVED: accept 6.4.1, but note redundancy with 6.1.3 and 6.1.7, etc.
21:57:01 <annette_g> I'm okay with having an option to express the profile with more richness.
21:58:11 <newton> kcoyle: now about 6.42.1
21:58:20 <newton> … could it be a specific property?
22:00:03 <newton> … say about an example of data in a specific standard. when it's the case you may want to which standard is this
22:00:18 <newton> DaveBrowning: is it related to data creation rules?
22:00:21 <newton> kcoyle: yes
22:01:24 <kcoyle> q?
22:01:46 <newton> PWinstanley: what do we mean by a profiled … ?
22:01:49 <Linda> Q+
22:02:05 <kcoyle> ack Linda
22:02:06 <newton> kcoyle: it's a typo (???)
22:02:25 <newton> Linda: why do you want it to be in a profile?
22:02:37 <annette_g> q+
22:03:03 <newton> kcoyle: it's link to guidance resources, standard informations, it's not a machine actionable thing
22:04:39 <newton> Linda: why should it be in a profile? maybe it should be in the metadata property in dcat
22:05:49 <newton> DaveBrowning: when we create a profile we want to apply a set of rules to the content
22:05:50 <kcoyle> q?
22:07:04 <newton> … I think it could be a model or schema that dcat links to it
22:07:16 <newton> … because it's about the data and not about the metadata
22:07:37 <newton> kcoyle: I think profile is a community specific DCAT
22:09:05 <newton> annette_g: a dcat property can have a url linking to that resource
22:09:47 <kcoyle> PROPOSED: accept 6.42.1 into DCAT
22:09:53 <annette_g> +1
22:10:03 <Linda> Linda has joined #dxwg
22:10:05 <newton> +1
22:10:18 <Linda> +1
22:10:19 <DaveBrowning> +1
22:10:19 <PWinstanley> +1
22:10:43 <Caroline> +1
22:11:20 <kcoyle> RESOLVED: accept 6.42.1 into DCAT worded as: Ability to express "guidance rules" or "creation rules" in DCAT
22:13:00 <newton> kcoyle: starting identifiers discussion
22:13:14 <newton> https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/Meetings:F2F2017.11.09
22:13:20 <Linda> Linda has joined #dxwg
22:14:24 <DaveBrowning> RRSAgent: draft minutes v2
22:14:25 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2017/11/10-dxwg-minutes.html DaveBrowning
22:14:40 <newton> kcoyle: I see it 6.24 e 6.25 as contradictory
22:15:30 <newton> s/I see it 6.24 e/I see 6.24 and/
22:16:18 <AndreaPerego> q+ to explain the "contradiction"
22:16:38 <newton> hadleybeeman: we had the same kind of discussion in the past (at TAG and at DWBP)
22:16:53 <newton> … I would argue we have to use web identifiers
22:18:29 <newton> DWBP #9 https://www.w3.org/TR/dwbp/#UniqueIdentifiers
22:18:39 <newton> "Best Practice 9: Use persistent URIs as identifiers of datasets"
22:19:25 <hadleybeeman> https://www.w3.org/TR/dwbp/#DataIdentifiers
22:20:23 <newton> DaveBrowning: we haven't made the distinction so far, if we had made we could use hadley's suggestion
22:20:33 <newton> kcoyle: we also have identifiers that are URN
22:21:23 <newton> hadleybeeman: as WG you can propose a definition for identifier
22:21:59 <newton> … but I warn if you come up with a very distinct definition it will be hard to get an approval when it goes to wide review
22:22:03 <newton> q?
22:22:56 <newton> kcoyle: we don't need to make a decision about the kind of identifiers
22:23:03 <AndreaPerego> Related UC already lists some modelling options: https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/ucr/#ID11
22:23:12 <annette_g> q-
22:23:13 <newton> … communities use sometimes your own identifiers
22:24:26 <newton> kcoyle: I would be reluctant to tell people how to form their own identifiers
22:24:33 <newton> … or how they should look like
22:24:58 <newton> hadleybeeman: to solve which problem?
22:25:20 <newton> … if there's a interoperability problem it is worth to solve
22:30:52 <newton> kcoyle: if you have and url as identifier do you also need to identify the type?
22:31:21 <newton> AndreaPerego: people can use both the URI and literals as identifiers
22:31:47 <newton> kcoyle: it seems to me you use literal for search and URI to retrieve something
22:32:38 <newton> PWinstanley: a vehicle can be identified by its registration plate, but it can change
22:33:00 <newton> … the vehicle definitive identifier is the VIN number
22:33:07 <hadleybeeman> People can also use URIs and both dereferenceable links and as literals.
22:33:55 <newton> …it's part of the primary and second id
22:33:56 <AndreaPerego> AndreaPerego has joined #dxwg
22:34:10 <newton> s/second/secondary
22:35:14 <AndreaPerego> AndreaPerego has joined #dxwg
22:35:19 <AndreaPerego> q+
22:35:36 <hadleybeeman> q+
22:36:20 <newton> kcoyle: sometimes there's no identifier
22:36:33 <newton> … there are only literals
22:37:09 <newton> … and sometimes each organization chooses a specific model for identifier
22:37:28 <newton> hadleybeeman: it doesn't seem relevant to don't have URI
22:38:00 <newton> … on the semantic web context is very important to have URIs, because they are universal identifiers and also can be resolvable
22:38:30 <AndreaPerego> I think our main focus should be on "standard" identifiers, as DOIs, ISBNs, ISNIs, ORCIDs.
22:38:32 <newton> s/resolvable/dereferenceable
22:39:32 <newton> PWinstanley: in other contexts they have a hard coded mapping for identifiers
22:39:47 <newton> … for employees in a organization, for instance
22:40:02 <newton> … the real world is messy
22:40:44 <newton> kcoyle: getting back to our issue
22:41:01 <AndreaPerego> q+
22:41:09 <newton> … there's use case for non-URI identifiers
22:41:28 <Linda> Q+
22:41:30 <newton> …. the question is how do you specify the kind of identifier used
22:41:43 <AndreaPerego> There's dct:identifier and adms:Identifier.
22:42:32 <newton> hadleybeeman: [points to the DWBP data identifiers section]
22:44:11 <AndreaPerego> The search is made on the ID type, and the prefix URI cannot be (safely) used to denote it.
22:44:32 <kcoyle> ACK AndreaPerego
22:44:32 <Zakim> AndreaPerego, you wanted to explain the "contradiction" and to  and to
22:45:17 <hadleybeeman> @kcoyle: This is a Google search to return links with  the string "dwbp" in them: https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b&ei=qisGWrqTHOKq0gLEi47wBQ&q=link%3Adwbp&oq=link%3Adwbp&gs_l=psy-ab.3...28538.29282.0.29597.4.4.0.0.0.0.82.254.4.4.0....0...1..64.psy-ab..0.0.0....0.clOHx_5ExZU
22:48:12 <annette_g> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/10/world/middleeast/saudi-arabia-lebanon-france-macron.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news could be found by searching for world/middleeast/saudi-arabia-lebanon-france-macron
22:50:45 <annette_g> kcoyle: I'm suggesting do we want to rewrite 6.2.4 and 6.2.5 to specify the linking for one of them and searching for the other. Would that meet your needs.
22:51:15 <annette_g> AndreaPerego: okay
22:51:18 <Linda> Q-
22:51:21 <hadleybeeman> q-
22:52:01 <kcoyle> RESOLVED: need a re-write of 6.24 and 6.25 focusing on the functionality desired: 1) linking (identifying) and 2) discovery
22:52:07 <AndreaPerego> +1
22:52:08 <Linda> +1
22:52:08 <annette_g> +1
22:52:19 <PWinstanley> +1
22:52:22 <DaveBrowning> +1
22:52:47 <AndreaPerego> q+
22:53:05 <annette_g> kcoyle: now let's look at 6.26
22:53:53 <annette_g> AndreaPerego: Some identifiers are secondary. In some communities there is a need to distinguigh primary and secondary ones.
22:53:55 <PWinstanley> q+
22:54:27 <PWinstanley> s/distinguigh/distinguish/
22:54:41 <annette_g> hadleybeeman: can you give an example?
22:55:07 <hadleybeeman> q+
22:55:27 <annette_g> AndreaPerego: an introduction may have an identifier separate from the thing itself (?)
22:55:49 <annette_g> kcoyle: we include even invalid identifiers
22:56:10 <annette_g> kcoyle: what would we want to see happen if more than one identifier were included?
22:56:58 <kcoyle> q?
22:57:05 <AndreaPerego> q-
22:57:08 <annette_g> AndreaPerego: we need he distinction between primary and secondary
22:57:12 <kcoyle> ack annette_g
22:57:15 <annette_g> s/he/the
22:57:18 <kcoyle> ack AndreaPerego
22:57:24 <kcoyle> q+ annette_g
22:57:34 <annette_g> hadleybeeman: I would encourage avoiding the terms primary and secondary
22:57:41 <annette_g> q-
22:57:42 <hadleybeeman> ack me
22:57:45 <kcoyle> ack PWinstanley
22:58:15 <annette_g> PWinstanley: we have to be careful about providing illustrations about this, where things might appear to be the same in the short term but not in the long term.
22:58:26 <annette_g> PWinstanley: Naive usage can end up with a mess.
22:58:46 <annette_g> kcoyle: we don't seem to have a strong case for calling things primary and secondary.
22:58:49 <kcoyle> PROPOSED: consider 6.26 out of scope
22:58:53 <AndreaPerego> +1
22:58:57 <annette_g> +1
22:58:57 <PWinstanley> +1
22:59:04 <DaveBrowning> +1
22:59:18 <hadleybeeman> +1
22:59:26 <Linda> +1
22:59:45 <kcoyle> RESOLVED: 6.26 is out of scope
23:00:21 <annette_g> kcoyle: 6.43.1 not sure why it's in this section
23:00:23 <DaveBrowning> q+
23:00:25 <newton> newton has joined #dxwg
23:00:40 <kcoyle> ack DaveBrowning
23:00:45 <annette_g> 6.43.1 Define a means to identify a serialized DCAT Data(sub)set (i.e. a particular Distribution of a Dataset or its subset).
23:01:21 <annette_g> hadleybeeman: this comes up in versioning, when do you issue a new version in time series?
23:01:50 <kcoyle> q?
23:01:50 <annette_g> DaveBrowning: we already have a requirement to support subsets of datasets.
23:02:16 <annette_g> kcoyle: can we say it's implicit in the other requirements
23:02:32 <kcoyle> PROPOSED: 6.43.1 is not needed because covered already in other requirements
23:02:37 <PWinstanley> +1
23:02:39 <Linda> +1
23:02:41 <DaveBrowning> +1
23:02:42 <annette_g> +1
23:03:04 <kcoyle> RESOLVED: 6.43.1 is not needed because covered already in other requirements
23:03:28 <AndreaPerego_> AndreaPerego_ has joined #dxwg
23:03:55 <AndreaPerego_> s/RRSAgent: draft minutes v2//
23:04:03 <hadleybeeman> For/re 6.19 https://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-duv/
23:04:07 <AndreaPerego_> RRSAgent, draft minutes v2
23:04:07 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2017/11/10-dxwg-minutes.html AndreaPerego_
23:32:30 <annette_g> annette_g has joined #dxwg
23:32:32 <Linda> Linda has joined #dxwg
23:34:09 <annette_g> annette_g has joined #dxwg
23:34:22 <newton> newton has joined #dxwg
23:34:38 <Linda> Linda has joined #dxwg
23:35:17 <annette_g> 6.19 Provide a way to specify information required for data citation (e.g., dataset authors, title, publication year, publisher, persistent identifier) https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/ucr/#RID17
23:35:43 <AndreaPerego> q+
23:35:58 <DaveBrowning> DaveBrowning has joined #dxwg
23:36:01 <PWinstanley> PWinstanley has joined #dxwg
23:36:03 <DaveBrowning> present+
23:36:07 <annette_g> q?
23:36:08 <PWinstanley> present+
23:36:13 <DaveBrowning> scribe: DaveBrowning
23:36:15 <annette_g> ack AndreaPerego
23:37:38 <DaveBrowning> AndreaPerego: Introduces use case - include the full set of terms such as persistant id, full set of authors for citation
23:38:41 <annette_g> q?
23:38:44 <DaveBrowning> ... perhaps including guidance pointing at the full range of info needed
23:39:06 <kcoyle> q+
23:39:39 <DaveBrowning> annette_g: Summarising - we have  much of this already, so its mainly going to be guidance?
23:40:09 <PWinstanley> q+
23:40:11 <DaveBrowning> AndreaPerego: Yes.  Perhaps we should make it explicit what you have to do for full citation support
23:40:47 <annette_g> ack kcoyle
23:41:10 <kcoyle> https://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-duv/#Citation_Model
23:42:10 <DaveBrowning> kcoyle: DUV covers most of this - suggests accept requirement, point at DUV and leave to DCAt team to explore if more is needed
23:42:21 <annette_g> PROPOSED: accept req 6.19 but suggest the group looks at DUV as a gap analysis.
23:42:26 <AndreaPerego> +1
23:42:28 <DaveBrowning> ... Gap analysis would be interesting
23:43:55 <DaveBrowning> PWinstanley: This an area with quite a bit of work already done - need for a 'receipe book' approach.  DCAT provides basis but the building blocks exist
23:44:05 <DaveBrowning> ... e.g SERIF etc\
23:45:43 <PWinstanley> s/SERIF/CERIF/
23:45:49 <kcoyle> +1
23:45:50 <Linda> +1
23:45:53 <DaveBrowning> +1
23:45:54 <annette_g> +1
23:45:59 <PWinstanley> +1
23:46:01 <PWinstanley> http://www.eurocris.org/cerif/main-features-cerif
23:46:04 <newton> +1
23:46:33 <AndreaPerego> +1
23:46:53 <annette_g> RESOLVED: accept req 6.19 but suggest the group looks at DUV as a gap analysis.
23:46:58 <AndreaPerego> RRSAgent, draft minutes v2
23:46:58 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2017/11/10-dxwg-minutes.html AndreaPerego
23:47:09 <annette_g> 6.32 Allow for specification of the start and/or end date of temporal coverage. https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/ucr/#RID27.1
23:47:18 <AndreaPerego> q+
23:47:28 <annette_g> ack PWinstanley
23:47:47 <annette_g> ack AndreaPerego
23:48:18 <AndreaPerego>  dct:temporal <http://reference.data.gov.uk/id/quarter/2006-Q1> ;
23:49:37 <DaveBrowning> AndreaPerego: Currently has a somewhat complex support, but nothing easy like 'start date' and 'end date'
23:50:35 <annette_g> q?
23:50:38 <PWinstanley> q+
23:50:42 <annette_g> ack PWinstanley
23:51:17 <DaveBrowning> PWinstanley: perhaps needs to be date time rather than just date?
23:51:25 <AndreaPerego> The current solution in DCAtT-AP, following ADMS, is dct:temporal + dct:PeriodOfTime + schema:startDate / schema:endDate
23:51:47 <AndreaPerego> s/DCAtT-AP/DCAT-AP/
23:52:21 <AndreaPerego> data or data time are both supported - is a matter of datatype.
23:52:41 <AndreaPerego> s/data or data/date or date/
23:53:04 <annette_g> PROPOSED: accept req. 6.32 but also including the ability to specify time rather than just dates.
23:53:17 <Linda> +1
23:53:21 <newton> +1
23:53:32 <kcoyle> +1
23:53:34 <DaveBrowning> +1
23:53:34 <PWinstanley> +1
23:53:36 <annette_g> +1
23:53:43 <AndreaPerego> +1
23:53:56 <annette_g> RESOLVED: accept req. 6.32 but also including the ability to specify time rather than just dates.
23:54:22 <annette_g> 6.34 Provide means to specify spatial coverage with geometries
23:54:53 <kcoyle> q+
23:55:55 <DaveBrowning> AndreaPerego: This covers co-ordinate systems but also boundary boxes etc (see use case).
23:56:19 <annette_g> ack kcoyle
23:57:05 <DaveBrowning> ... DCAt only covers dct:spatial rather than random boundary boxes
23:58:01 <AndreaPerego> Example from SDW BP: https://www.w3.org/TR/sdw-bp/#ex-geodcat-ap-bag-addresses
23:58:16 <annette_g> q?
23:59:35 <DaveBrowning> PWinstanley: Can we avoid this becoming a rabbit hole - there are lots of reference system in astronomy?
23:59:55 <DaveBrowning> Linda: These are much more standard
00:00:12 <annette_g> PROPOSED: accept req. 6.34
00:00:16 <kcoyle> +1
00:00:17 <Linda> +1
00:00:18 <annette_g> +1
00:00:19 <DaveBrowning> annette_g: This could be worked through by the DCAT team
00:00:19 <PWinstanley> +1
00:00:21 <DaveBrowning> +1
00:00:25 <AndreaPerego> +1
00:00:28 <newton> +1
00:00:40 <annette_g> RESOLVED: accept req. 6.34
00:00:51 <AndreaPerego> RRSAgent, draft minutes v2
00:00:51 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2017/11/10-dxwg-minutes.html AndreaPerego
00:01:01 <annette_g> 6.33 Provide means to specify the reference system(s) used in a dataset
00:01:05 <annette_g> q?
00:01:17 <AndreaPerego> CRS on SDW BP: https://www.w3.org/TR/sdw-bp/#CRS-background
00:01:37 <DaveBrowning> AndreaPerego: This has been widely discussed in geospatial.
00:01:44 <PWinstanley> q+
00:03:41 <annette_g> ack PWinstanley
00:04:49 <DaveBrowning> PWinstanley: So this is suggested for geospatial but other reference systems exist in other domains (UCUM)
00:05:35 <kcoyle> q+
00:05:37 <DaveBrowning> ... suggestion - should we aim to support this wider remit for other numerical data
00:05:53 <annette_g> ack kcoyle
00:05:54 <AndreaPerego> Makes sense to me.
00:06:28 <annette_g> q+
00:07:04 <DaveBrowning> kcoyle: Concerned that the more general case gets very complicated
00:07:17 <AndreaPerego> q+
00:08:18 <annette_g> ack annette_g
00:09:59 <annette_g> ack AndreaPerego
00:11:45 <kcoyle> q+
00:13:23 <DaveBrowning> AndreaPerego: This could be associated at the distribution as well
00:13:35 <DaveBrowning> ... should be added to requirement
00:13:39 <annette_g> ack kcoyle
00:14:41 <DaveBrowning> kcoyle: this could be in a profile rather than the core DCAT
00:15:15 <annette_g> PROPOSED: accept req. 6.33 and include application to distributions. It is not for spatial data alone.
00:15:21 <Linda> +1
00:15:21 <DaveBrowning> +1
00:15:22 <newton> +1
00:15:23 <kcoyle> +1
00:15:29 <PWinstanley> +1
00:15:29 <annette_g> +1
00:16:02 <annette_g> RESOLVED: accept req. 6.33 and include application to distributions. It is not for spatial data alone.
00:16:24 <annette_g> 6.31 Define extension points (e.g. properties) for integration of external, specialized vocabularies.
00:18:17 <AndreaPerego_> AndreaPerego_ has joined #dxwg
00:19:13 <annette_g> q?
00:19:20 <AndreaPerego> RRSAgent, draft minutes v2
00:19:20 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2017/11/10-dxwg-minutes.html AndreaPerego
00:20:11 <annette_g> q?
00:20:42 <annette_g> PROPOSED: reject req. 6.31 as it is covered in other requirements already.
00:20:47 <PWinstanley> +1
00:20:51 <annette_g> +1
00:20:51 <AndreaPerego> RRSAgent, draft minutes v2
00:20:51 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2017/11/10-dxwg-minutes.html AndreaPerego
00:20:56 <Linda> +1
00:20:56 <DaveBrowning> +1
00:20:57 <AndreaPerego> +1
00:21:02 <newton> +1
00:21:16 <kcoyle> +1
00:21:20 <annette_g> RESOLVED: reject req. 6.31 as it is covered in other requirements already.
00:21:29 <AndreaPerego> +1
00:21:31 <AndreaPerego> RRSAgent, draft minutes v2
00:21:31 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2017/11/10-dxwg-minutes.html AndreaPerego
00:21:38 <AndreaPerego> s/+1//
00:23:42 <annette_g> ACTION: kcoyle to put out a call for use cases for profiles
00:23:45 <trackbot> Created ACTION-56 - Put out a call for use cases for profiles [on Karen Coyle - due 2017-11-18].
00:24:37 <annette_g> ACTION: kcoyle to write up changes to UCR doc implied by F2F resolutions
00:24:38 <trackbot> Created ACTION-57 - Write up changes to ucr doc implied by f2f resolutions [on Karen Coyle - due 2017-11-18].
00:25:18 <DaveBrowning> RRSAgent: draft minutes v2
00:25:18 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2017/11/10-dxwg-minutes.html DaveBrowning
00:30:39 <DaveBrowning> :)
00:33:20 <annette_g> thank you for persevering!
00:33:22 <AndreaPerego> RRSAgent, draft minutes v2
00:33:22 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2017/11/10-dxwg-minutes.html AndreaPerego
02:28:00 <Zakim> Zakim has left #dxwg