20:53:20 RRSAgent has joined #dxwgdcat 20:53:20 logging to https://www.w3.org/2018/02/21-dxwgdcat-irc 20:53:47 present+ 20:53:57 regrets: JaroslavPullman 20:54:01 chair: SimonCox 20:54:24 agenda: https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/Meetings:DCAT-Telecon2018.02.21 20:55:20 PWinstanley has joined #dxwgdcat 21:01:33 Are you all joining webex? 21:01:45 Stijn_Goedertier_AIV has joined #dxwgdcat 21:01:45 Need to turn on your audio! 21:01:50 present+ 21:02:36 DaveBrowning has joined #dxwgdcat 21:03:21 I can hear you stijn 21:03:26 do you not hear me? 21:03:35 PWinstanley has joined #dxwgdcat 21:03:44 present+ 21:04:38 present+ 21:05:35 riccardoAlbertoni has joined #dxwgdcat 21:05:48 topic: confirm agenda 21:06:03 alejandra has joined #dxwgdcat 21:06:12 present+ 21:06:39 present+ 21:06:48 https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/Meetings:DCAT-Telecon2018.02.21 21:08:31 will you join audio riccardoAlbertoni ? 21:08:49 NicholasCar has joined #dxwgdcat 21:09:02 Apologies from me folks: kids need readying for school now 21:10:48 AndreaPerego has joined #dxwgdcat 21:10:48 scribenick: alejandra 21:10:55 present+ AndreaPerego 21:11:14 https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/Meetings:DCAT-Telecon2018.02.21 21:11:45 SimonCox: going through agenda items 21:12:44 ... any better suggestions for agenda items? 21:12:55 topic: approve minutes from last meeting 21:13:00 ... agenda confirmd 21:13:00 +1 21:13:07 s/confirmd/confirmed 21:13:16 https://www.w3.org/2018/02/14-dxwgdcat-minutes 21:13:41 headings 5. and 6. need to be switched 21:13:43 SimonCox: there was some problem with topic headings, needed to switch headings 5 and 6 21:13:58 ... discussion was largely about constraint axioms 21:14:21 ... made a request to Dave to change those 21:14:35 AndreaPerego: yes, AFAIK Dave has to do it 21:14:36 s/+1// 21:14:45 +1 21:14:46 +1 21:14:47 otherwise +1 21:14:50 +1 21:14:51 +1 21:14:53 SimonCox: approve the minutes modulo resolving those issues? 21:14:54 +1 21:15:03 +1 by PWinstanley 21:15:39 RESOLVED: meetings approved 21:15:40 Topic: fpwd dcat 1.x 21:15:59 PWinstanley_ has joined #dxwgdcat 21:15:59 here is the artefact - https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/dcat/ 21:16:05 SimonCox: reminder that the artifact we are working on is DCAT 1.1 21:16:06 present+ 21:16:12 prexent+ 21:16:18 present+ 21:16:23 ... in the text of the editor draft is 99% taken from DCAT 1.0 21:16:34 ... you can see a bunch of notes and issues 21:16:50 ... the issues are linked to github issues (I think in all cases) 21:17:02 ... in one case I put a discussion about what the issue is 21:17:02 s/meetings approved/last meeting minutes approved, modulo switching headings 5 and 6 (Dave)/ 21:18:09 SimonCox: given that we haven't made a substantial decision on issues, so we will make very obvios the areas where changes have been considered 21:18:20 ... the ones we have dealt with so far as the easy ones 21:18:34 s/obvios/obvious/ 21:18:34 ... it'd be good if more people would take a look at that 21:19:04 ... modify the document in the standard way: create a branch, commit changes to the branch, send a pull request 21:19:07 q+ 21:19:09 +1 to the approach followed for preparing the FPWD, It makes perfectly sense to me 21:19:16 ack DaveBrowning 21:19:41 DaveBrowning: simple procedural question, when we merge, does the document gets rebuilt automatically? 21:19:44 SimonCox: yes 21:20:27 SimonCox: named editors have been working on a workflow on how the document will be managed in github 21:20:55 q? 21:21:00 ... in the latest merged PR (pull request), I made the changes, Alejandra reviewed them and DaveBrowning merged them 21:21:26 SimonCox: we have a transparent process with proper review in place 21:21:48 ... requirement to issue this FPWD by 1st quarter of this year 21:21:56 ... so we've got a month and a half 21:22:06 ... it'd be great to resolve a few more issues, but it is not a problem 21:22:18 ... most important things are transparency and communication 21:22:20 topic: packaging dcat 21:23:58 SimonCox: sharing screen to describe packaging 21:24:29 ... a number of discussions about axiomatization and changes to DCAT 21:24:33 ... domain and ranges 21:25:17 ... looking ath PR #94 21:25:33 https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/pull/94 21:26:32 https://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-ssn/#Modularization 21:26:34 ... group Spatial Data on the Web WG and SSN vocabulary 21:27:10 q+ 21:27:22 ... discussed modularization 21:27:32 ... each block in the diagram represents a separate RDF graph 21:27:39 ... describing aspects of the SSN vocabulary 21:27:46 ... in the centre SOSA module 21:28:00 ... SOSA lists the key classes and properties in the SSN vocabulary 21:28:08 ... without axiomatization 21:28:10 ... no domain and ranges 21:28:20 ... it does include annotation properties 21:28:35 ... goal was to provide a vocabulary usable in a schema.org context, very general context 21:28:46 ... schema.org annotations are hints, no entailment 21:28:57 ... it was deemed as useful 21:29:10 ... for the web community in general, not just SW community 21:29:34 ... SSN module: added the axiomatization, imports SOSA and adds subclass relationships and constraints 21:30:05 ... a user can load the SOSA graph with week axiomatization 21:30:17 ... and load the SSN graph if they are interested in the full axiomatization 21:30:22 arminhaller has joined #dxwgdcat 21:30:49 ... other relevant feature is PROV alignment module 21:31:03 ... importing SOSA and PROV-O, providing a mapping between both 21:31:40 ... this approach addresses the issue of allowing profiles 21:32:06 ... not directly and issue of this team but it would help with the connection with the profiles 21:32:30 ... we can split the different issues into separate RDF graphs 21:32:45 q? 21:32:55 ack pw 21:32:59 ack PWinstanley_ 21:33:24 PWinstanley_: could you explain the impact of the context of the type of information that you've been dealing in the design? 21:34:19 ... it seems we've got two completely different types of data and I was wondering if it has to do with the nature of the data 21:34:55 SimonCox: some sensor data is streamed but most of the use cases were not about high volume stuff 21:35:01 ... internet of things 21:35:36 ... now showing Fig 23 21:36:13 ... expectation is that there will be reasoning involved 21:36:44 ... I don't think that the use case is what you are imagining 21:38:19 ... now describing property alignment 21:39:00 ... my proposal for DCAT / PROV alignment 21:40:07 ... is to have a new file (prov.ttl) with the alignment 21:41:01 ... it would be normative for people that want a PROV alignment 21:41:17 ... reusing the modularization package of SSN 21:41:31 ... the approach 21:41:56 +q 21:42:05 q? 21:42:09 ack alejandra 21:42:59 q+ 21:43:59 alejandra: I agree with the approach and I think that following a similar modularization as SSN is very appropriate for the requirements we need to deal with 21:44:05 ack PWinstanley_ 21:44:18 ... I was cautious to merge the PR until we had this discussion 21:44:36 PWinstanley_: it looks like we are promoting bringing in something new 21:44:52 ... my concern is how adequately can be tested for real 21:45:07 ... is there any history of this new approach being rolled out in real life 21:45:17 SimonCox: I can point to what we've done in SSN 21:45:31 ... a number of these modules are labelled as non-normative 21:45:49 ... only a small number of modules are normative 21:45:57 ... the non-normative are FYIs 21:46:05 ... but we believe they are informative 21:46:25 q+ 21:46:39 ack AndreaPerego 21:46:48 ... the non-normative haven't been tested much 21:47:03 AndreaPerego: I was wondering if we can also consider another option for the alignment between DCAT and PROV 21:47:09 ... normalisation process of the data cube 21:47:26 ... subclasses can be added to a graph containing records written in DCAT by using SPARQL queries 21:47:38 ... instead of having a separate definition using RDF 21:47:55 q+ to ask if SPARQL queries is just an alternative way to document? 21:48:10 ack SimonCox 21:48:10 SimonCox, you wanted to ask if SPARQL queries is just an alternative way to document? 21:48:30 ... when I have it in the triple store, the SPARQL can be used 21:48:43 SimonCox: could we have both approaches? 21:48:50 AndreaPerego: yes 21:49:04 ... they are not mutually exclusive 21:49:15 +q 21:49:20 q+ 21:49:41 a- 21:49:42 q- 21:49:44 q+ to point out that the meta-issue is the idea of modularizing additional axioms or rules into different graphs/files/artefacts 21:49:54 AndreaPerego: using SPARQL queries can be done pretty easily 21:50:11 ack riccardoAlbertoni 21:50:12 ... depending on the uses, we need other representations (OWL, SHACL, etc) 21:51:05 riccardoAlbertoni: some concerns related to best practices in linked data 21:51:21 ... term coming from a vocabulary, returned by HTTP 21:51:25 regrets: Makxdekkers 21:51:34 ... it is ok to split the definitions of DCAT in different RDF files 21:51:39 About the normalisation algorithm I mentioned, used in RDF Data Cube: https://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-data-cube/#normalize-algorithm 21:51:55 ... but at the same time we should try to have a system having the full semantics 21:52:09 q+ to ask riccardoAlbertoni if is enough for assembly? 21:52:34 ack SimonCox 21:52:34 SimonCox, you wanted to point out that the meta-issue is the idea of modularizing additional axioms or rules into different graphs/files/artefacts and to ask riccardoAlbertoni if 21:52:37 ... is enough for assembly? 21:53:24 SimonCox: about assembly set of information 21:53:35 ... OWL provides 'imports' 21:54:10 ... is that enough? 21:54:27 q+ 21:54:57 ack alejandra 21:54:59 riccardoAlbertoni: we need to discuss the different RDF files 21:55:40 alejandra: the two complementary solutions may help resolve riccardoAlbertoni problem 21:55:55 ... create the mapping on-the-fly 21:56:38 ... by SPARQL. While the OWL axiomatization relies on owl:imports 21:56:59 ... OWL axiomatization allows use-as required 21:57:09 ... need to go back and look at UCR. 21:57:19 +1 to alejandra to go back to UCRs 21:57:19 ... be careful that everything is tested 21:57:22 q? 21:57:58 SimonCox: what I'd like to get agreement on 21:58:08 q+ 21:58:15 ... is to deal with the different issues by modularizing in to multiple RDF files 21:58:34 ... we are unclear about impact of modifying dcat.ttl 21:58:45 ... so if we have additional RDF files 21:58:46 q? 21:58:51 ack PWinstanley_ 21:58:52 q+ 21:58:58 ... we don't need to make a normative commitment at this point 21:59:22 PWinstanley_: I'm not against it, but modulirization brings some complexity 21:59:26 ... e.g. versioning 21:59:33 ... reminds me of unit testing, etc 21:59:56 SimonCox: yes, managing complexity by creating a coreagraphy complexity is a riks 22:00:03 s/riks/risk 22:00:12 ack riccardoAlbertoni 22:00:17 q? 22:00:19 SimonCox: we can work in independent files as a way of discussion 22:00:22 s/modulirization/modularisation/ 22:00:29 ... and we can decide to merge them as a later point 22:00:40 s/coreagraphy/choreography/ 22:01:06 riccardoAlbertoni: I would second the solution proposed by AndreaPerego, but I need to analyse this issue in more depth 22:01:10 q? 22:01:12 s/reminds me of unit testing/reminds me of unit testing microservices/ 22:01:39 SimonCox: I will create a specific issue around the proposition I was just making 22:02:07 ... as there is no consensus 22:02:08 q+ 22:02:11 ... we can continue the discussion 22:02:57 q? 22:03:03 ack AndreaPerego 22:03:25 AndreaPerego: PWinstanley_ raised a concerned that we didn't get much feedback on UCR 22:04:00 ... I was wondering whether to bring something about the work done to the RDA community in Berlin 22:04:09 ... too late to organise a specific session 22:04:15 ... but maybe we can do sth 22:04:16 q+ 22:04:37 NicholasCar and SimonCox are represneting the 'australian' community, in particular around ANDS. 22:05:06 AndreaPerego, NicholasCar and SimonCox need to trigger some feedback from RDA community - opportunity at P11 plenary in Berlin 22:05:28 ack NicholasCar 22:05:49 NicholasCar: discussion about interaction with other RDA groups 22:05:56 ... this group has come up a few times 22:06:02 AndreaPerego? can you coordinate us at RDA - I'll back you. 22:06:10 ... expecting to have more feedback 22:06:29 ... another RDA group: storage definition group 22:06:46 I'll give it a try, SimonCox [scared] 22:06:50 ... interested in distributions - I presented the work on distributions to them 22:06:54 s/riccardoAlbertoni: I would second the solution proposed by AndreaPerego, but I need to analyse this issue in more depth/riccardoAlbertoni: I would second the solution proposed by AndreaPerego for mapping into third-party voc, and modularization to manage with different level of formalization but I need to analyse this issue in more depth 22:07:47 bye 22:07:50 thanks all bye bye 22:07:52 Bye 22:08:13 bye 22:08:23 rrsagent, make logs public 22:08:35 rrsagent, draft minutes 22:08:35 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/02/21-dxwgdcat-minutes.html SimonCox 22:09:22 rrsagent, generate minutes 22:09:22 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/02/21-dxwgdcat-minutes.html SimonCox 22:12:46 regrets+ Jaroslav 22:12:56 RRSAgent, draft minutes v2 22:12:56 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/02/21-dxwgdcat-minutes.html AndreaPerego 22:13:31 meeting: DXWG DCAT subgroup teleconference 22:13:33 RRSAgent, draft minutes v2 22:13:33 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/02/21-dxwgdcat-minutes.html AndreaPerego 22:16:49 and a beautiful set of minutes they are too! 23:16:08 arminhaller has joined #dxwgdcat 23:21:03 arminhal_ has joined #dxwgdcat 23:21:44 arminhaller has joined #dxwgdcat 23:23:02 arminhaller has joined #dxwgdcat 23:32:36 arminhaller has joined #dxwgdcat