IRC log of dxwgdcat on 2018-02-28

Timestamps are in UTC.

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