IRC log of dxwgdcat on 2019-03-06

Timestamps are in UTC.

20:56:49 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #dxwgdcat
20:56:49 [RRSAgent]
logging to
20:57:07 [PWinstanley]
rrsagent, make logs public
20:57:51 [PWinstanley]
regrets+ Alasdair Gray (ongoing), Erik Mannens (ongoing), Thomas D'Haenens (ongoing), Lars Svensson (ongoing)
20:58:27 [PWinstanley]
chair: alejandra
20:58:39 [PWinstanley]
meeting: Weekly DXWGDCAT
20:58:55 [PWinstanley]
rrsagent, create minutes v2
20:58:55 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate PWinstanley
20:59:15 [riccardoAlbertoni]
riccardoAlbertoni has joined #dxwgdcat
20:59:16 [Makx]
Makx has joined #dxwgdcat
20:59:44 [Makx]
21:00:24 [alejandra]
21:00:29 [alejandra]
21:00:34 [PWinstanley]
21:01:08 [riccardoAlbertoni]
21:03:19 [PWinstanley]
regrets+ DaveBrowning
21:03:26 [alejandra]
21:05:08 [SimonCox]
SimonCox has joined #dxwgdcat
21:05:08 [PWinstanley]
proposed: approve minutes
21:05:18 [SimonCox]
21:06:12 [alejandra]
21:06:39 [alejandra]
Topic: Approve minutes from last meetings:
21:06:55 [riccardoAlbertoni]
21:06:58 [alejandra]
21:07:02 [SimonCox]
21:07:07 [Makx]
21:07:09 [PWinstanley]
0 (not there)
21:07:20 [PWinstanley]
resolved: approve minutes
21:07:25 [alejandra]
Topic: Publication schedule
21:08:14 [alejandra]
21:08:22 [PWinstanley]
alejandra: as discussed in previous meetings, the target is mid-March. There are many editorial issues to resolve, e.g. how we display properties, but there are also many other issues
21:08:41 [riccardoAlbertoni]
I need access
21:08:44 [PWinstanley]
... Dave B made a spreadsheet. we have progressed
21:09:06 [alejandra]
21:09:12 [riccardoAlbertoni]
me now i can see it
21:09:59 [alejandra]
21:10:19 [PWinstanley]
alejandra: the spreadsheet requires analysis to see what really needs to be done
21:10:48 [PWinstanley]
... e.g. fundingSource was addressed by wasGeneratedBy,
21:11:07 [alejandra]
21:11:29 [PWinstanley]
... but it would be nice to see how to record a funding source, so we need an example
21:11:36 [alejandra]
21:11:44 [PWinstanley]
... because the requirement was couched in these terms
21:12:05 [PWinstanley]
alejandra: there is one issue about profile definition.
21:12:23 [PWinstanley]
... Perhaps not so fundamental - not a priority
21:12:43 [AndreaPerego]
AndreaPerego has joined #dxwgdcat
21:12:50 [PWinstanley]
... we haven't done dataset publications
21:12:52 [alejandra]
21:12:55 [AndreaPerego]
21:13:03 [riccardoAlbertoni]
+1 not to consider it as a priority
21:13:10 [alejandra]
21:13:16 [AndreaPerego]
RRSAgent, draft minutes v2
21:13:16 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate AndreaPerego
21:14:17 [riccardoAlbertoni]
s/ 1 not to consider it as a priority/ 1 not to consider issue 72 as a priority
21:16:02 [PWinstanley]
alejandra: dataset publications - I drafted something, but is incomplete.
21:16:05 [alejandra]
21:16:20 [riccardoAlbertoni]
21:16:29 [AndreaPerego]
21:16:30 [alejandra]
ack riccardoAlbertoni
21:17:14 [PWinstanley]
riccardoAlbertoni: the quality example; I'm considering having this in the primer
21:17:57 [alejandra]
21:18:02 [alejandra]
ack AndreaPerego
21:18:24 [PWinstanley]
AndreaPerego: the publicaitons - scientific papers or reports about the datasets - I can provide examples
21:18:46 [PWinstanley]
... we have not included in the spec a way to point to a publication
21:18:57 [alejandra]
21:19:04 [riccardoAlbertoni]
s/the publicaitons/the publications
21:19:11 [PWinstanley]
alejandra: yes, but there is an incomplete PR I submitted today for this - perhaps we can discuss later
21:19:32 [PWinstanley]
AndreaPerego: I contributed a use case on how this is done
21:19:35 [alejandra]
21:20:22 [alejandra]
21:20:27 [PWinstanley]
alejandra: the data quality model is completed, but the example is designated as incomplete (yellow)
21:20:55 [PWinstanley]
alejandra: project context - been partially dealt with - qualified relations
21:21:10 [alejandra]
21:21:23 [SimonCox]
21:21:38 [alejandra]
ack SimonCox
21:22:26 [PWinstanley]
SimonCox: I haven't done any more work because we're busy wiht other things - it is not essential, but perhaps needs to be in a WG note. no action needed at the moment
21:23:01 [alejandra]
21:23:04 [PWinstanley]
alejandra: I want to agree today what we are not considering for the final pub. we can then see what is essential and can estimate time needed to complete
21:23:54 [PWinstanley]
... mapping of qualified / non-qualified forms - closed. we said that it will not be addressed
21:23:57 [alejandra]
21:24:24 [Makx]
+1. to won't fix
21:24:26 [PWinstanley]
SimonCox: I have done a few, but not specifically from DCAT ... DC mapping to PROV
21:24:46 [PWinstanley]
... it is not hard, but we need to determine importance
21:25:24 [alejandra]
21:25:36 [PWinstanley]
alejandra: we had already decided that this was niche
21:25:53 [PWinstanley]
... #79 has been addressed
21:26:00 [alejandra]
21:26:01 [alejandra]
21:26:08 [alejandra]
21:26:31 [alejandra]
21:26:32 [PWinstanley]
... related datasets has already been addressed. we need examples, but that is the same for all
21:27:05 [PWinstanley]
... then we have - do we want it in the spec?
21:27:10 [alejandra]
21:27:16 [SimonCox]
21:27:22 [alejandra]
ack SimonCox
21:27:28 [PWinstanley]
... we singled out this one due to its importance
21:27:46 [alejandra]
21:28:14 [PWinstanley]
SimonCox: it is in the non-normative section. the table I included is still there, but AndreaPerego made a suggestion that some code would do it better
21:28:18 [alejandra]
ack alejandra
21:28:43 [AndreaPerego]
The SPARQL implementation of the mappings is at
21:29:06 [alejandra]
alejandra: there was a collab notebook with a SPARQL construct
21:29:25 [PWinstanley]
SimonCox: it is perhaps better to move this into an annex
21:29:26 [alejandra]
21:29:46 [Makx]
+1 to move it out of the body
21:29:54 [PWinstanley]
... don't get rid of it altogether, but remove it from the core doc into an informative section
21:29:54 [alejandra]
21:29:58 [AndreaPerego]
21:30:03 [alejandra]
ack alejandra
21:30:53 [alejandra]
ack AndreaPerego
21:30:58 [PWinstanley]
alejandra: I agree that it should be away into a primer or another informative section. There were concerns because of the lax nature of that mapping might not be accurate
21:31:10 [SimonCox]
21:31:47 [alejandra]
21:32:22 [PWinstanley]
AndreaPerego: I support the alejandra proposal. 2 issues: is released often and changes, so it should be clear when we do this that it is version dependent
21:32:26 [PWinstanley]
21:33:19 [alejandra]
21:33:56 [PWinstanley]
... and the mapping relationship using a sparql query will require reshaping the query. Perhaps the relationships should be described discursively rather than through a query
21:34:23 [PWinstanley]
... this may raise some discussion about equivalence.
21:34:46 [alejandra]
alejandra: an implementation is probably more useful for the community
21:34:56 [alejandra]
ack SimonCox
21:35:29 [PWinstanley]
SimonCox: I have reluctance to drop entirely. we don't have a primer, but there are timing risks.
21:35:55 [AndreaPerego]
21:36:08 [alejandra]
what about a separate note?
21:36:34 [Makx]
as an annex?
21:37:05 [PWinstanley]
... however, all the comments made earlier are valid. But we need to face the lack of appetite of developers to read docs. we need to be specific about the version. It needs to be in an annex
21:37:22 [riccardoAlbertoni]
+1 to include in the annex, removing the middle column, specifying it is an attempt and referring to a specific scheme version
21:37:23 [alejandra]
ack PWinstanley
21:37:52 [alejandra]
PWinstanley: my recollection of the discussion about not completing it was related to what AndreaPerego said about frequent changes to
21:38:16 [alejandra]
... the proposal was made that should do the mapping to the revised DCAT rather than viceversa
21:38:20 [alejandra]
21:38:28 [alejandra]
... does it need to be complete?
21:38:34 [alejandra]
... yes, specify version
21:38:37 [alejandra]
ack AndreaPerego
21:39:08 [PWinstanley]
AndreaPerego: could there be a seperate doc just about this - it could be a standalone note linked to from the spec.
21:39:27 [alejandra]
21:39:56 [alejandra]
ack alejandra
21:40:15 [alejandra]
21:40:22 [riccardoAlbertoni]
21:40:35 [alejandra]
ack riccardoAlbertoni
21:41:10 [PWinstanley]
riccardoAlbertoni: we should deal with vocab mappings in the next issue
21:41:38 [alejandra]
21:41:59 [PWinstanley]
...are there any others that we consider important
21:42:00 [AndreaPerego]
21:42:04 [alejandra]
ack AndreaPerego
21:42:07 [PWinstanley]
alejandra: in earlier discussions we did recognise the importance of there is an (empty) section on prov-o
21:43:22 [PWinstanley]
AndreaPerego: the main issue is timing. we have already mappings from SimonCox . we need a separate doc. I think we need to revise the section. I can add the ones to DCAT-AP.
21:43:40 [alejandra]
21:44:18 [PWinstanley]
... makes sense to me, but the main concern is to keep to schedule
21:45:10 [riccardoAlbertoni]
+1 I agree on keep the aligning with, and abandon the others.
21:45:19 [PWinstanley]
alejandra: timing is priority. is a special case due to its wide adoption. othrewise vocabs mapping can remain unaddressed
21:45:50 [alejandra]
21:45:51 [Makx]
21:45:58 [riccardoAlbertoni]
+1 to annex
21:46:09 [SimonCox]
+1 to annex
21:46:23 [PWinstanley]
proposed: to move mapping to an annexe (or other doc)
21:47:41 [PWinstanley]
AndreaPerego: I think a separate doc is better - it will then be clearly side work to the main specification
21:47:52 [AndreaPerego]
21:48:19 [PWinstanley]
alejandra: yes, we want the spec to be long lived
21:48:22 [alejandra]
21:48:26 [riccardoAlbertoni]
I agree that a separate doc is better but considering the time matters..
21:48:55 [AndreaPerego]
21:49:02 [alejandra]
ack AndreaPerego
21:50:54 [alejandra]
21:50:55 [PWinstanley]
AndreaPerego: there is scope for a community group to maintain a separate doc
21:51:02 [PWinstanley]
resolved: to move mapping to an annex
21:51:20 [AndreaPerego]
RRSAgent, draft minutes v2
21:51:20 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate AndreaPerego
21:52:32 [PWinstanley]
alejandra: ways of accessing items in a dataset
21:52:33 [alejandra]
21:52:59 [AndreaPerego]
21:53:04 [alejandra]
ack AndreaPerego
21:53:25 [PWinstanley]
AndreaPerego: there is no link in the UCR doc
21:53:38 [PWinstanley]
alejandra: perhaps it hasn't been added
21:54:43 [PWinstanley]
... we will leave it for now
21:54:49 [alejandra]
21:54:52 [PWinstanley]
... there is no associated requirement
21:55:46 [PWinstanley]
alejandra: spatial coverage - has not yet been addressed, though there has been movement from the spatial resolution discussion (about the range of the prop)
21:56:16 [AndreaPerego]
21:56:22 [alejandra]
ack AndreaPerego
21:56:30 [PWinstanley]
alejandra: to me this is important and necessary
21:56:40 [PWinstanley]
SimonCox: I was drawing attention to this issue - a perennial difficulty. do we be prescriptive, or descriptive
21:57:37 [PWinstanley]
AndreaPerego: the problem is, as SimonCox mentioned, the absence of a common way to specify an area - the most standard way is using geoSPARQL
21:58:06 [PWinstanley]
... there is a need to specify a relationship between the object and the dataset
21:58:43 [alejandra]
21:59:00 [PWinstanley]
... in some cases you just use a representative point rather than a boundary (e.g. centroid)
21:59:24 [PWinstanley]
... this was discussed on the spatial data on the web group, but as no vocab was described there was minimal guidance
21:59:45 [alejandra]
Location Core Vocabulary:
22:00:18 [PWinstanley]
... it is important to recommend a solution - we are needing to be prescriptive
22:01:58 [alejandra]
22:02:13 [PWinstanley]
...another important issue is that the vocabs we have at present can specify the geography, but only by a single point and by a bounding box. at the moment we cannot specify this information about what it is. This is an approximation, not a real point or boundary. might provide some help as it is based on only WGS84 - but this is not enough as people need to use their own coordinate system
22:02:18 [alejandra]
22:02:59 [PWinstanley]
... my continuing concern with is the frequent change, and the chance that at some point some properties might not be there or be re-specified
22:03:13 [PWinstanley]
alejandra: I agree that we should define our own
22:03:16 [alejandra]
22:04:16 [Makx]
me bye now
22:04:18 [PWinstanley]
AndreaPerego: I should work with SimonCox to bring forward a proposal
22:05:20 [alejandra]
22:05:25 [PWinstanley]
22:06:01 [SimonCox]
we need to assign some actions ...
22:06:13 [PWinstanley]
alejandra: next is #60. dataset aspects; fine-grained semantics
22:06:20 [PWinstanley]
... important for roba
22:06:28 [alejandra]
22:06:31 [AndreaPerego]
action: AndreaPerego to work out a proposal to address
22:06:31 [trackbot]
Sorry, but no Tracker is associated with this channel.
22:06:35 [PWinstanley]
... I think it is important and needs resolution
22:06:51 [alejandra]
22:08:06 [PWinstanley]
AndreaPerego: I think this is partially similar to others where we have to decide which instrument you want to use to get the data.
22:08:21 [SimonCox]
I created the original UC, and now I think we need to push this off to profiles
22:08:58 [PWinstanley]
... DCAT needs to point to the instrument description, and not provide that description nor define how it should be described
22:09:20 [SimonCox]
I don't think we have time to address this or enough detail in the UCs
22:09:29 [SimonCox]
22:09:32 [alejandra]
22:09:47 [alejandra]
ack SimonCox
22:09:54 [PWinstanley]
... I'm a bit leery about this - there are so many potential use cases, and we really need a generic way otherwise we will only do a partial job
22:11:01 [PWinstanley]
SimonCox: Jaroslav was the UCR doc editor covering this but I wrote the original and it reflects concerns and requirement that are genuine, but on mature reflection can be handled elsewhere
22:11:10 [PWinstanley]
... let's close this with a note that there will be application profiles that will cover this requirement
22:11:18 [riccardoAlbertoni]
I agree with simon, it seems a can of worms, are we sure we want to open it considered the time matters ?!?
22:11:25 [PWinstanley]
22:11:29 [AndreaPerego]
22:12:01 [riccardoAlbertoni]
22:12:06 [alejandra]
ack riccardoAlbertoni
22:12:10 [PWinstanley]
alejandra: the stuff on versioning. riccardoAlbertoni made a PR.
22:14:16 [PWinstanley]
alejandra: Jaroslav was preparing something
22:14:27 [PWinstanley]
... we need something in this version
22:15:24 [PWinstanley]
22:15:33 [alejandra]
ack PWinstanley
22:15:57 [AndreaPerego]
22:16:43 [alejandra]
ack AndreaPerego
22:17:16 [PWinstanley]
PWinstanley: we need something, but it can quickly get complex so we need to constrain our expectations
22:17:24 [PWinstanley]
AndreaPerego: I agree with PWinstanley
22:17:32 [SimonCox]
action: SimonCox to streamline DCAT-sdo mapping and move to Annexe.
22:17:32 [trackbot]
Sorry, but no Tracker is associated with this channel.
22:18:14 [PWinstanley]
... re: github issues, is the lifecycle of a dataset or a catalog record versioning, or not?
22:19:08 [PWinstanley]
... and even if this happens, the metadata will still be valid
22:19:17 [PWinstanley]
... usually a dataset has a lifecycle, but it can then be discontinued or withdrawn - and users need to be informed about this otherwise they will be inappropriately using data
22:19:21 [alejandra]
22:20:10 [PWinstanley]
... it might be too late in the process to contribute this - there are more controversial issues, but if people agree that this is about versioning I can provide something
22:20:19 [PWinstanley]
alejandra: I see it as a separate issue.
22:21:15 [PWinstanley]
... most of this is for the informative sections
22:21:23 [PWinstanley]
AndreaPerego: there is official material across EU institutions. In the USA there is similar LoC labels for status / lifecycle
22:21:27 [alejandra]
22:21:53 [alejandra]
22:22:19 [AndreaPerego]
scribenick: AndreaPerego
22:22:24 [AndreaPerego]
topic: Provenance information
22:22:43 [SimonCox]
This is pretty much it ...
22:22:48 [AndreaPerego]
alejandra: There are a few proposals by ncar. It seems to be also about qualified form.
22:22:54 [alejandra]
22:23:05 [SimonCox]
22:23:24 [AndreaPerego]
... Some of these elements have been covered.
22:23:35 [alejandra]
22:23:46 [AndreaPerego]
... Do we want to specify relationship to software as well?
22:24:06 [alejandra]
22:24:09 [SimonCox]
This was nick car's thing of course, and he has been totally occupied with Profiles
22:24:23 [AndreaPerego]
22:24:28 [alejandra]
ack AndreaPerego
22:24:51 [SimonCox]
and I'm basically comfortable with
22:25:00 [SimonCox]
what we have in these sections
22:25:17 [SimonCox]
yes - we can always use more examples, but the basic pointers are there now
22:25:28 [alejandra]
22:25:37 [AndreaPerego]
AndreaPerego: In theory, using PROV, this should be possible.
22:25:50 [AndreaPerego]
... The software will be an agent.
22:26:00 [riccardoAlbertoni]
+1 to software as an agent see prov:SoftwareAgent
22:26:07 [AndreaPerego]
alejandra: I put it as yellow, to see if its havee been covered.
22:26:12 [AndreaPerego]
topic: Publication source
22:26:35 [AndreaPerego]
alejandra: This is about referencing the original metadata with its identifier.
22:26:56 [alejandra]
22:27:12 [AndreaPerego]
22:27:28 [alejandra]
ack AndreaPerego
22:27:39 [AndreaPerego]
See also a specific issue
22:28:16 [SimonCox]
of course dcat:Dataset rdfs:subClassOf prov:Entity is entailed by the use of prov:wasGeneratedBy predicate - so it does not actually need to be asserted ...
22:29:46 [SimonCox]
Apologies folk - I have to sign off now
22:30:12 [SimonCox]
rrsagent, draft minutes v2
22:30:12 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate SimonCox
22:31:38 [riccardoAlbertoni]
+q to say I thought the andreas' case was partially covered by dcat:catalog, but I might be worg
22:31:46 [AndreaPerego]
alejandra: How much you think is this important?
22:32:02 [AndreaPerego]
AndreaPerego: I think it is important, but still my concern is timing.
22:32:25 [AndreaPerego]
... So probably we can make it gray, and come back to it if we have time.
22:33:05 [AndreaPerego]
topic: Usage notes.
22:33:08 [riccardoAlbertoni]
22:33:27 [AndreaPerego]
alejandra: ncar commented that this is provenance use case.
22:33:45 [alejandra]
22:33:49 [alejandra]
Data Use Ontology
22:33:50 [AndreaPerego]
... there are a number of suggested vocabularis, but they are no W3C ones.
22:34:04 [AndreaPerego]
... There's also DUV.
22:34:23 [alejandra]
22:34:30 [AndreaPerego]
riccardoAlbertoni: I'm not sure which supports DUV will provide.
22:34:53 [alejandra]
22:35:00 [AndreaPerego]
alejandra: Considering the little participation in that issue, I would mark it as won't fix
22:35:47 [AndreaPerego]
riccardoAlbertoni: Maybe we can check first DUV / DQV if they may provide something useful.
22:35:48 [AndreaPerego]
22:36:19 [AndreaPerego]
alejandra: So we may mark it for investigation.
22:36:46 [AndreaPerego]
... But do we have time?
22:37:03 [AndreaPerego]
riccardoAlbertoni: If the deadline is next week, it would be difficult.
22:37:05 [alejandra]
ack AndreaPerego
22:40:06 [riccardoAlbertoni]
put me on 86
22:41:31 [AndreaPerego]
An example
22:44:12 [AndreaPerego]
But this is about lineage (dct:provenance).
22:47:42 [alejandra]
22:47:48 [riccardoAlbertoni]
22:47:58 [alejandra]
ack riccardoAlbertoni
22:48:52 [AndreaPerego]
AndreaPerego: DUV is more complex that a simple property to link to a piece of narrative text. An option is to provide both examples.
22:51:11 [AndreaPerego]
riccardoAlbertoni: I partially agree, but providing different options may lead to confusion.
22:52:32 [AndreaPerego]
topic: Dataset / catalog relation
22:52:57 [AndreaPerego]
alejandra: I think there are some implications that a dataset must be in the catalog.
22:53:07 [AndreaPerego]
riccardoAlbertoni: I don't think there is this constraint.
22:53:44 [alejandra]
22:53:52 [AndreaPerego]
alejandra: [checking the DCAT spec] Actually, it doesn't seem to be a requirement. So why people raised this issue?
22:56:46 [AndreaPerego]
AndreaPerego: The related use case was contributed by Makx, so maybe we should ask him. I only partially guess what is about, but it is unclear which is the proposed solution.
22:57:12 [AndreaPerego]
alejandra: Maybe we need to rephrase a few things in DCAT.
22:58:41 [AndreaPerego]
... Maybe it's the current definition of catalog is misleading.
22:58:42 [AndreaPerego]
topic: Temporal coverage
23:03:58 [AndreaPerego]
AndreaPerego: the problem is DCAT 2014 didn't provide properties to specify start/end dates, and in DCAT-AP the decision was to use But now is not longer using them for the same purpose (now they use schema:temporalCoverage).
23:04:30 [AndreaPerego]
... To address this, we could simply define two properties dcat:startDate and dcat:endDate.
23:04:48 [AndreaPerego]
alejandra: AndreaPerego, I will then ask you to make a proposal.
23:05:13 [AndreaPerego]
action: AndreaPerego to draft a proposal to addres
23:05:13 [trackbot]
Sorry, but no Tracker is associated with this channel.
23:05:47 [AndreaPerego]
RRSAgent, draft minutes v2
23:05:47 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate AndreaPerego
23:10:47 [AndreaPerego]
alejandra: I think we can close now.
23:11:00 [alejandra]
RRSAgent, draft minutes v2
23:11:00 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate alejandra
23:11:13 [AndreaPerego]
[meeting adjourned]
23:11:15 [AndreaPerego]
RRSAgent, draft minutes v2
23:11:15 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate AndreaPerego
23:13:19 [AndreaPerego]
s/more complex that/more complex than/
23:13:21 [AndreaPerego]
RRSAgent, draft minutes v2
23:13:21 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate AndreaPerego