Mark: I was to give an example using actors of use case, Ken was going to continue vision collaboration and Megan on requirements for collaboratory
Ken and Ted discuss W3C process, liaisons etc
Ken: more on rules and procedures for lower level data modeling
Ted: unless there is something that runs counter to W3C process doc, I think we are fine and should simply make it available where people will be making contributions eg github and collaboratory
Clemens: isn't this more like a charter?
Ken: somewhat. is the collaborative environment a W3C product or just what it produces?
Mark: I am not aware of a specification for collaboration process for standard data models
Ken: I hope we have data models
as well
... the big distinction is it is a work product that is never
complete
... what we have are individual elements
Mark: we are working at pattern instead of document level at this point. we want to converge, accept and publish data models
Clemens: this is happening elsewhere eg at ISO and W3C evergreen process also intends to cover that
https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2002/ipr-notice-20021231#Copyright
https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2015/doc-license
https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2015/06-invited-expert.html
Mark: we should make clear
license for contributions
... we may want an overall statement 'if a copyright statement
is not made for a pattern, it is x'
@@collab and github can receive separate contributions, aligning licenses of the two and for contributions if excerpt or whole under separate license
Ken: I can see separate
submittals and allowing different copyrighted material licenses
than they would otherwise
... taking things from other SDO like ISO may be a problem
George: OGC has ways to jointly
publish with W3C and similar with ITS, it is document or
snippet based
... maybe more of a registry and each entry can have its own
copyright
... we provide description of a thing to be registered
... that is less onerous
Ted: depends on what we produce? promote an existing ontology then registry, a hybrid for eg route gets complicated
Mark: if we want to take a mix of registered patterns that is fine and then leave it to ISO, OGC, W3C to figure out how to produce derived spec
George: there is some sort of 10% rule for ISO work...
Mark: we are creating snippets
and each pattern will go through review process
... we can register it within the collaboratory and github. it
is possible for a SDO to take these registered patterns into a
specification with appropriate attribution...
Ted: registry probably easiest and will discuss with colleagues
Mark: can you put into github what you shared last time?
Megan: I sent a document to
github, listing requirements based on discussions
... Clemens has added a couple points
https://github.com/w3c/tocc/blob/master/requirements_spec.md
Megan: the idea is trying to
figure out using collaboratory mediawiki and github
... there may be some back and forth based on process Ken is
working on
... need to support use cases, classes and properties from
existing standards cf registry discussion and ability to add
description logic
... model elements
... we need to be able to specify relationships between classes
and properties from different standards
... across standards is part of what we are trying to
recognize
... there needs to be way to discuss during review
... it has potential to get big so navigation/categorization
will be important
... we want to guide and enforce definition requirements and
specific formats
... ease of use so as not to deter contributors
Mark: I would maybe rephrase the
goal some for the representation of core concepts. we are not
necessarily trying to align existing standards
... coordination statement
Ken: we might want to rethink the term core
Mark: concepts and properties are
good, but we should be using ontology design pattern
... relationships relation to other concepts, focus on core in
the middle
Next meeting: 11 July at 11am EST