20:55:47 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #dxwgdcat
20:55:47 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2018/02/28-dxwgdcat-irc
20:55:58 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #dxwgdcat
20:56:26 <SimonCox> meeting: DCAT vocabulary team 2018-02-28
20:56:39 <SimonCox> chair: SimonCox
20:56:56 <SimonCox> regrets: Riccardo
20:59:18 <SimonCox> present+
20:59:21 <NicholasCar> NicholasCar has joined #dxwgdcat
20:59:54 <PWinstanley> PWinstanley has joined #dxwgdcat
21:00:04 <alejandra> alejandra has joined #dxwgdcat
21:01:15 <DaveBrowning> DaveBrowning has joined #dxwgdcat
21:01:38 <NicholasCar> present+
21:01:58 <DaveBrowning>  present+
21:03:55 <alejandra> present+
21:03:57 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> Jaroslav_Pullmann has joined #dxwgdcat
21:05:00 <SimonCox> scribenick: PWinstanley
21:05:28 <Stijn_Goedertier_AIV> Stijn_Goedertier_AIV has joined #dxwgdcat
21:05:37 <Stijn_Goedertier_AIV> present+
21:06:29 <PWinstanley> present+
21:06:50 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> present+
21:06:53 <arminhaller> arminhaller has joined #dxwgdcat
21:06:55 <SimonCox> topic: confirm agenda
21:07:00 <SimonCox> https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/Meetings:DCAT-Telecon2018.02.28
21:07:04 <PWinstanley> topic: Admin
21:07:06 <arminhaller> present+
21:07:30 <PWinstanley> SimonCox: review of the agenda
21:07:52 <SimonCox> topic: approve minutes of last meeting
21:08:02 <SimonCox> https://www.w3.org/2018/02/21-dxwgdcat-minutes
21:08:16 <SimonCox> +1
21:08:21 <alejandra> +1
21:08:23 <DaveBrowning> +1
21:08:29 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> 0 (absent)
21:08:30 <PWinstanley> +1
21:08:32 <NicholasCar> +1
21:08:54 <PWinstanley> resolved: minutes approved
21:08:58 <SimonCox> topic: current draft
21:09:03 <Stijn_Goedertier_AIV> +1
21:09:10 <SimonCox> https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/dcat/#issue-summary
21:10:15 <PWinstanley> SimonCox: the main thing is having a doc which when released gives people an idea of the areas where change is proposed
21:10:43 <DaveBrowning> q+ to ask what we need to do for FPWD
21:11:06 <PWinstanley> ... It doesn't reflect all the issues in the tracker, so please consider including into the draft any change proposals that are not already mentioned in the draft
21:11:30 <SimonCox> topic: github etiquette
21:12:10 <PWinstanley> ... A reminder (from Nic) about github etiquette - merges only done by the nominated editors please
21:12:12 <alejandra> +q to propose that we put as reviewers all the editors in the tracker (explore github groups)
21:12:38 <PWinstanley> ... Note that editors don't merge their own proposals
21:13:13 <AndreaPerego> AndreaPerego has joined #dxwgdcat
21:13:22 <SimonCox> q?
21:13:30 <SimonCox> ack DaveBrowning
21:13:30 <Zakim> DaveBrowning, you wanted to ask what we need to do for FPWD
21:13:38 <AndreaPerego> present+ AndreaPerego
21:14:00 <PWinstanley> DaveBrowning: How do we know when we're ready for producing the FPWD?
21:14:45 <PWinstanley> SimonCox: my understanding is that there is a time box.  This team doesn't vote, that's for the plenary to decide on release schedule
21:15:08 <SimonCox> ack alejandra
21:15:08 <Zakim> alejandra, you wanted to propose that we put as reviewers all the editors in the tracker (explore github groups)
21:16:29 <SimonCox> q?
21:16:33 <PWinstanley> alejandra: going back to etiquette - I want to propose that pull requests are not one of the editors but using github groups (there is a problem in that it might not notify) .  This would allow any one of us to review and merge
21:16:38 <PWinstanley> SimonCox: sounds reasonable
21:17:31 <PWinstanley> alejandra: if we assign the group we (the editors group) all get a notification, and that could distribute the load easier
21:19:34 <SimonCox> topic: RDF files
21:19:49 <SimonCox> https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/134
21:20:29 <PWinstanley> SimonCox: issue 134 attempts to simplify the SDOW approach of modularising the RDF
21:20:46 <AndreaPerego> s/SDOW/SDWWG/
21:21:05 <PWinstanley> ...the underlying goal is to permit clean documents and discussions
21:22:12 <SimonCox> q?
21:22:17 <PWinstanley> ... To establish the proposition that more than one RDF file can be involved, I want to suggest that modularisation is the approach we use
21:22:30 <alejandra> I agree
21:22:32 <PWinstanley> q+
21:22:42 <SimonCox> ack PWinstanley
21:23:10 <alejandra> +q
21:23:19 <SimonCox> ack alejandra
21:23:32 <PWinstanley> PWinstanley: are there any heuristics do help determine when it becomes too complex
21:24:45 <PWinstanley> alejandra: The issue initially is regarding PROV, but addressing the complexity  I think we can use the PROV discussion to see how the modularisation approach simplifies / facilitates the discussion
21:25:15 <PWinstanley> ... I think it is a good to solution to help the discussion
21:25:37 <SimonCox> q?
21:25:39 <PWinstanley> ... It also seems a good practice (from the sensor networks vocab example)
21:25:45 <AndreaPerego> +1 from me, to allow us work in parallel on possible DCAT extensions, leaving at a later moment the decision on how they should be integrated.
21:25:58 <DaveBrowning> +1 from me, too
21:26:13 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> +q
21:26:21 <SimonCox> ack Jaroslav_Pullmann
21:27:08 <alejandra> s/... It also seems a good practice (from the sensor networks vocab example)/... It is also good modularization practice in vocabularies (and demonstrated in the sensor networks vocabulary)/
21:27:10 <PWinstanley> Jaroslav_Pullmann: Idenitification of the normative and the optional parts of DCAT isn't the easiest task
21:27:29 <PWinstanley> s/Idenitification /Identification /
21:28:01 <PWinstanley> SimonCox: as alejandra  mentiones, anything that isn't underpinned by requirements is probably not normative
21:28:18 <PWinstanley> s/mentiones/mentions/
21:29:22 <SimonCox> q?
21:29:26 <PWinstanley> Jaroslav_Pullmann: most of the requirements are looking at extensions, so they are perhaps additional to the 'core'
21:29:54 <SimonCox> motivations should be driven by data! - see https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/137
21:30:03 <PWinstanley> ... We could use e.g. the European Open Data portal to review how DCAT is currently being used to determine the 'core'
21:30:30 <PWinstanley> SimonCox: The new issue 137 anticipated this need for test data sets
21:30:52 <PWinstanley> ... It will help us build the evidence base for our recommendations
21:31:03 <SimonCox> Proposed: Additional RDF files can be created alongside dcat.ttl to test proposals around modularization and alignment with other RDF vocabularies. Note: These may or may not be merged into fewer or one RDF files prior to publication.
21:31:16 <SimonCox> q?
21:31:23 <alejandra> +1
21:31:26 <SimonCox> +1
21:31:28 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> +1
21:31:29 <DaveBrowning> +1
21:31:30 <PWinstanley> +1
21:31:31 <Stijn_Goedertier_AIV> +1
21:31:35 <AndreaPerego> +1
21:31:45 <NicholasCar> +1
21:31:46 <arminhaller> +1
21:32:01 <PWinstanley> RESOLVED: Additional RDF files can be created alongside dcat.ttl to test proposals around modularization and alignment with other RDF vocabularies. Note: These may or may not be merged into fewer or one RDF files prior to publication.
21:32:16 <alejandra> I can now merge https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/pull/94
21:32:18 <SimonCox> topic: profiles
21:32:28 <SimonCox> q?
21:32:51 <alejandra> +q
21:33:06 <alejandra> q-
21:33:06 <SimonCox> topic: license and rights
21:33:44 <PWinstanley> alejandra: When was the profiles meeting?
21:34:12 <PWinstanley> PWinstanley: 09:00 UTC on 28th Feb
21:34:20 <SimonCox> ca. 12 hours ago - no one here
21:34:27 <SimonCox> topic: license and rights
21:34:28 <Makx> Makx has joined #dxwgdcat
21:34:35 <Makx> present+ Makx
21:34:40 <alejandra> it would be good that these meetings are announced in the mailing list (and notes distributed)
21:34:51 <SimonCox> https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/104 https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/114
21:35:03 <PWinstanley> SimonCox: let's consider issues 104 and 114
21:35:15 <PWinstanley> ... the main proponents are NicholasCar  and Makx
21:36:04 <PWinstanley> NicholasCar: The intention is to enable us to indicate sophisticated/machine-readable licensing in a form other than free text
21:36:52 <PWinstanley> ... URIs might link to RDF objects that would allow reasoning
21:36:53 <SimonCox> ... and aisaac involved in license-document discussion as well
21:37:20 <SimonCox> q+
21:37:47 <PWinstanley> ... the recently published ODRL might provide a class or two that describes the intention that I'm looking for that, unlike dct:license, doesn't have a document as the rance
21:37:48 <SimonCox> we are talking about #114 first
21:37:59 <PWinstanley> s/rance/range/
21:38:05 <alejandra> ODRL link: https://www.w3.org/TR/odrl-model/
21:38:59 <SimonCox> Definition of dct:LicenseDocument ```dcterms:LicenseDocument     dcterms:hasVersion <http://dublincore.org/usage/terms/history/#LicenseDocument-001> ;     dcterms:issued "2008-01-14"^^<http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#date> ;     a rdfs:Class ;     rdfs:comment "A legal document giving official permission to do something with a Resource."@en ;     rdfs:isDefinedBy <http://purl.org/dc/terms/> ;     rdfs:label "License Document"@en ;     rdfs:subClassOf[CUT]
21:39:18 <SimonCox> http://dublincore.org/2012/06/14/dcterms#LicenseDocument
21:39:21 <PWinstanley> Makx: you cannot redefine dct:license .  Antoine mentioned that the current usage of putting a URL to a license there is not in line with the model, but it is common practice
21:39:25 <SimonCox> ack SimonCox
21:40:06 <NicholasCar> q+
21:40:50 <Makx> q+
21:40:52 <SimonCox> q?
21:40:58 <SimonCox> ack NicholasCar
21:40:59 <PWinstanley> SimonCox: Is the restriction from the range of dct:license as onerous as is being implied.  The RDF definition of a license document is a shell, it doesn't being any other entailments along.  Is there any problem?  the entailment implied is that the range would also be classified as a dct:license doc
21:41:24 <SimonCox> what is the harm from the target of dct:license being a dct:LicenseDocument?
21:41:27 <AndreaPerego> q+
21:41:34 <SimonCox> There are no strong entailments ...
21:41:38 <PWinstanley> NicholasCar: technically there might not be, but there is an ongoing issue - we would need to let people know that it might be more than a document
21:41:51 <PWinstanley> ... we would need to put that into notes
21:41:54 <SimonCox> q+
21:42:25 <SimonCox> q+ to note that 'document' is a rather general concept on the web
21:42:33 <PWinstanley> ... Technically we might not be constrained, but we would do ourselves a disservice if we didn't indicate that other more sophisticated objects might be used as the range
21:42:35 <SimonCox> ack Makx
21:43:26 <AndreaPerego> Definition of dct:LicenseDocument: "A legal document giving official permission to do something with a Resource."
21:43:45 <PWinstanley> Makx: looking in detail, it relates to a legal document
21:44:10 <PWinstanley> ... an ODRL resource would be outwith the specification provided by DCMI
21:44:32 <SimonCox> ack AndreaPerego
21:44:42 <PWinstanley> NOTE: Makx's audio dropped at this point
21:45:19 <PWinstanley> AndreaPerego: we should focus on usage rather than the DCMI spec
21:46:33 <PWinstanley> Makx: There could be people who have problems with the DCMI definition limiting the way that dct:license is used
21:46:45 <SimonCox> q+ also to note 'legal' may be seen differently in statutory vs common-law traditions ...
21:46:56 <PWinstanley> ... If we don't want to put ODRL into dct:license then this is wider that just DCAT
21:47:21 <SimonCox> ack AndreaPerego
21:47:22 <PWinstanley> ... Maybe we need to talk to ODRL and see how they envisage pointing to a rights object
21:48:32 <SimonCox> AndreaPerego: dct:license is only about _use_ conditions
21:48:56 <SimonCox> q?
21:49:20 <PWinstanley> AndreaPerego: there is a distinction between access and usage rights
21:49:36 <alejandra> dct:license and dct:rights
21:49:59 <PWinstanley> ... it is important to keep these two separate
21:50:45 <PWinstanley> ... I don't have a problem in using ODRL for license, but this should be for usage and not for access
21:50:45 <SimonCox> ODRL is only about use conditions, not access
21:50:52 <SimonCox> q?
21:51:00 <SimonCox> ack SimonCox
21:51:00 <Zakim> SimonCox, you wanted to note that 'document' is a rather general concept on the web and to note 'legal' may be seen differently in statutory vs common-law traditions ...
21:51:02 <Makx> q+
21:51:23 <PWinstanley> SimonCox: 2 technical points:  document used in a web context refers to a serialisation
21:51:58 <AndreaPerego> s/dct:rights/dct:accessRights, both subproperties of dct:rights/
21:52:27 <PWinstanley> .... #2, responding to Makx  who focused on 'legal' - there are issues with common law jurisdictions in relation to contract.  There may be culturally specific issues to consider here
21:53:09 <PWinstanley> SimonCox: re: ODRL, Makx  is suggesting that we reach out to the ODRL group to get their input
21:54:11 <PWinstanley> SimonCox: Makx , please can you get a clarification from the ODRL group
21:55:07 <PWinstanley> ... this discussion relates to issue #114 .  Can some of this discussion be added to that / alert Antoine to this conversation
21:55:15 <AndreaPerego> q+
21:55:27 <SimonCox> ack Makx
21:55:46 <SimonCox> ack AndreaPerego
21:55:51 <PWinstanley> Makx: I am ok with using dct:license with ODRL
21:56:32 <SimonCox> AndreaPerego: is concerned that we also clarify distinction between access and use rights
21:56:35 <PWinstanley> AndreaPerego: we should also ask the ODRL about use / access.  A permission relates to an action over an asset.  This could be access
21:57:13 <PWinstanley> SimonCox: in the current documentation do you AndreaPerego see opportunity for improving the wording?
21:57:40 <SimonCox> should dcat also refer to dct:accessRights ?
21:58:06 <Makx> q+
21:58:13 <PWinstanley> SimonCox: potentially you are proposing that dct:accessRights be mentioned in the DCAT doc
21:58:18 <Makx> q-
21:58:21 <SimonCox> ack Makx
21:59:30 <Makx> will do this in the next couple of days
21:59:46 <NicholasCar> must go, bye!
21:59:48 <Makx> hope to have an answer by next week
21:59:56 <AndreaPerego> bye, NicholasCar !
22:00:13 <PWinstanley> ACTION: Makx  to clarify the expections of ODRL about the use of ODRL in the contect of dct:license
22:00:13 <trackbot> Sorry, but no Tracker is associated with this channel.
22:00:21 <alejandra> Is IRC already linked to the action tracker?
22:00:36 <AndreaPerego> Nope.
22:00:51 <AndreaPerego> q+
22:01:10 <Makx> ok thanks see ou next time
22:01:28 <Stijn_Goedertier_AIV> bye bye
22:01:28 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> bye  & thanks!
22:01:33 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> present-
22:01:43 <alejandra> thanks, and bye
22:01:57 <SimonCox> Action: AndreaPerego to verify if changes to documentation of use of dct:license and dct:rights are needed
22:01:57 <trackbot> Sorry, but no Tracker is associated with this channel.
22:02:03 <AndreaPerego> q-
22:02:22 <SimonCox> Action: AndreaPerego to consider if dct:accessRights should be inlcuded in DCAT
22:02:22 <trackbot> Sorry, but no Tracker is associated with this channel.
22:02:53 <SimonCox> Action: SimonCox to add some notes to #114 pointing to this discussion, so aisaac can get caught up on the discussion
22:02:53 <trackbot> Sorry, but no Tracker is associated with this channel.
22:03:13 <SimonCox> rrsagent draft minutes
22:03:23 <SimonCox> rrsagent: draft minutes
22:03:23 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/02/28-dxwgdcat-minutes.html SimonCox
22:03:50 <SimonCox> rrsagent, make logs public
22:04:20 <SimonCox> rrsagent: draft minutes
22:04:20 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/02/28-dxwgdcat-minutes.html SimonCox
22:04:56 <SimonCox> bye
22:05:32 <AndreaPerego> agenda: https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/Meetings:DCAT-Telecon2018.02.28
22:05:42 <AndreaPerego> RRSAgent, draft minutes v2
22:05:42 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/02/28-dxwgdcat-minutes.html AndreaPerego
22:07:47 <AndreaPerego> s/rrsagent draft minutes//
22:08:04 <AndreaPerego> s/rrsagent: draft minutes//
22:08:05 <AndreaPerego> s/rrsagent: draft minutes//
22:08:07 <AndreaPerego> RRSAgent, draft minutes v2
22:08:07 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/02/28-dxwgdcat-minutes.html AndreaPerego
22:15:53 <arminhaller> arminhaller has joined #dxwgdcat
22:30:59 <arminhaller> arminhaller has joined #dxwgdcat
22:37:30 <arminhal_> arminhal_ has joined #dxwgdcat
22:58:31 <arminhaller> arminhaller has joined #dxwgdcat