W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-bpmlod@w3.org > June 2013

[Minutes] BMLOD call 2013-06-20

From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 10:04:49 +0200
Message-ID: <51C2B7A1.5090206@w3.org>
To: "public-bpmlod@w3.org" <public-bpmlod@w3.org>
Hi all,

today's 1st call minutes are at
http://www.w3.org/2013/06/20-bpmlod-minutes.html
and below as text. If you have any corrections just let me know.

Best,

Felix

    [1]W3C

       [1] http://www.w3.org/

                                - DRAFT -

                                  BPMLOD

20 Jun 2013

    [2]Agenda

       [2] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpmlod/2013Jun/0004.html

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2013/06/20-bpmlod-irc

Attendees

    Present
           dom, felix, chaals, john, jorge, jose, michale,
           sebastianH, sebastianS, tatiana, phil, daveLewis

    Regrets
    Chair
           DomJorgeJose

    Scribe
           fsasaki

Contents

      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]meeting setup
          2. [6]topic classification
          3. [7]action health check
          4. [8]aob
      * [9]Summary of Action Items
      __________________________________________________________

meeting setup

    we discussed to use gotomeeting for the phone bridge and IRC
    for scribing. Self introductions have been sent to the list

topic classification

    [10]http://www.w3.org/community/bpmlod/wiki/Topic_classificatio
    n

      [10] http://www.w3.org/community/bpmlod/wiki/Topic_classification

    dom: like to have a telco for each topic. Want to publish that
    as a white paper on best practices

    discussing
    [11]http://www.w3.org/community/bpmlod/wiki/Topic_classificatio
    n

      [11] http://www.w3.org/community/bpmlod/wiki/Topic_classification

    dave: development of topics vs. development of use cases - how
    to manage that?

    jose: list of topics is a dynamic part. use cases is seperate
    ... tools can be links to implementation
    ... in rome people suggested that we talk about these aspects,
    that is why I put it here

    dave: agree, localization can be an important use case
    ... so better put this as a use case rather than a topic
    ... question: about publishing - is this publishing of LOD or
    content in general?

    jose: multilingual publishing in general
    ... what is the relation between multilingual LOD and
    multilingual publishing

    dave: publishing of content is like a use case
    ... publishing of multilingual LOD is an important best
    practices
    ... here we can look into what comes out of META-NET and e.g.
    DCAT

    dcat see [12]http://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-dcat/

      [12] http://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-dcat/

    meta-net see [13]http://www.meta-net.eu/meta-share

      [13] http://www.meta-net.eu/meta-share

    jose: so move these topics to use cases?

    dave, jorge agree

    <scribe> ACTION: jose to move topics as discussed at
    [14]http://www.w3.org/2013/06/20-bpmlod-irc#T07-29-44 recorded
    in
    [15]http://www.w3.org/2013/06/20-bpmlod-minutes.html#action01]

      [14] http://www.w3.org/2013/06/20-bpmlod-irc#T07-29-44

    <trackbot> Sorry, but this channel isn't in my configuration.

    people on the call agre on the general items of the topic
    classification

    sebastianH: wrt to topics - will we also talk about
    organization aspects, licensing etc.

    dave: these might be best practices

    jorge: will not avoid these topics, but thinks like licensing
    that are general to linked open data will not be focus here

    jose: agree

    sebastianH: for licensing we can liase with open data /
    linguistic group

    [16]http://linguistics.okfn.org/

      [16] http://linguistics.okfn.org/

    see above link

    sebastianS: licensing is just one aspect
    ... but there are other non technical aspects

    dom: licensing on multilingual LOD is interesting. focus here
    is technical. but having a section about licensing is ok, if
    people want to discuss that. Do people agree?

    jose: a section "non technical aspects"?

    phil: we also want to drive adoption

    dave: agree. If we have pointers about non technical issues,
    that will help for adoption

    dom: I will add in a non-technical aspects about licensing &
    legal issue

    phil: do we have a target date for publishing?

    dom: depends on people avail.
    ... we plan a bi monthly meeting
    ... 4 months - aiming for an initial draft by fall this year

    phil: sounds good

    milestones here
    [17]http://www.w3.org/community/bpmlod/wiki/Main_Page

      [17] http://www.w3.org/community/bpmlod/wiki/Main_Page

    dom&jorge: want to keep to these milestones

    michael: question on scope of group
    ... it is called "linked open data" - are we talking about
    "linked data" in general?

    dom: the charter says "Best Practices for Multilingual Linked
    (Open) Data (BP-MLOD)"
    ... "open" is in brackets
    ... I would hope that what we prouce can apply to both types of
    data sets

    jose: agree

    sebastianH: "open" has various facets, e.g. "open access" via
    HTTP
    ... that is different from "open" in the legal sense

    dom: will you add a paragraph on the charter about that?

    sebastianH: yes

    <scribe> ACTION: sebastianH to add a paragraph to the charter
    about what "open" means [recorded in
    [18]http://www.w3.org/2013/06/20-bpmlod-minutes.html#action02]

    <trackbot> Sorry, but this channel isn't in my configuration.

    see sebastianH docuemnt at
    [19]http://de.slideshare.net/kurzum/linked-data-for-abbreviatio
    ns-and-segmentation

      [19] 
http://de.slideshare.net/kurzum/linked-data-for-abbreviations-and-segmentation

    michael: will we have example data?

    jose: agree that this is a good approach, I often use a toy
    example
    ... in terms of implementation I'm not sure since we are a best
    practices group

    michael: a BP which is theoretical is not helpful for me

    discussion about what we can do in terms of offical w3c
    standardization

    dom: let's do BP by autumn
    ... if people are then interest let's do examples, data,
    implementations

    dave: agree wrt to "update" mentioned by phil
    ... trying applying things is then helpful

    felix: how about having a section on the wiki with data
    examples
    ... these can help also veryfing the BP

    <daveL> +1 on assembling examples as we go along

    chaals: problems that we can address wrt to what is open data
    and what is not open
    ... so we will not reject anything just because it does not
    conform to some definition of linked "open" data
    ... I'd hope that we describe from what people actually do
    ... should be looking at actual problems
    ... as the starting point

    dom: topic classification is what we extracted from rome
    ... chaals, do you feel that it represents what people are
    doing?

    chaals: yes, as a first paas

    dom: so let's go with the idea to discuss each of these in the
    group
    ... idea of "open vs. not open" is a separate aspect

    <daveL> +1 on driving work from what people are actually doing
    and on covering open and non-open

    dom: will start a thread to discuss that so that it is scoped
    out

    <scribe> ACTION: dom to get wording about open vs not open in
    the charter [recorded in
    [20]http://www.w3.org/2013/06/20-bpmlod-minutes.html#action03]

    <trackbot> Sorry, but this channel isn't in my configuration.

action health check

    <scribe> ACTION: dom to set up doodle poll about meeting time
    [recorded in
    [21]http://www.w3.org/2013/06/20-bpmlod-minutes.html#action04]

    <trackbot> Sorry, but this channel isn't in my configuration.

aob

    jorge: we wanted to comment on how to deal with use cases
    collection and spec
    ... possible starting point could be: everybody can go to the
    wiki and put name on it
    ... next telco we have a list of use cases that we can refine

    dom: agree. Topic classification is clear, but use cases is to
    be created
    ... use cases page is now in wiki at
    [22]http://www.w3.org/community/bpmlod/wiki/Use_cases_definitio
    n

      [22] http://www.w3.org/community/bpmlod/wiki/Use_cases_definition

    <scribe> ACTION: jose to work on use case definition template
    and then send a mail out to the list [recorded in
    [23]http://www.w3.org/2013/06/20-bpmlod-minutes.html#action05]

    <trackbot> Sorry, but this channel isn't in my configuration.

    dom: next call we will review topic classifiation, will discuss
    use case definition, then following call will break topics down
    in a topic per call to work on them

    agreement on the call

    dom: aob?

    dave: thanks a lot for the chairs for starting this?

    +1!

    dom: thanks to all for taking the call
    ... meeting adjourned, by all!

Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: dom to get wording about open vs not open in the
    charter [recorded in
    [24]http://www.w3.org/2013/06/20-bpmlod-minutes.html#action03]
    [NEW] ACTION: dom to set up doodle poll about meeting time
    [recorded in
    [25]http://www.w3.org/2013/06/20-bpmlod-minutes.html#action04]
    [NEW] ACTION: jose to move topics as discussed at
    [26]http://www.w3.org/2013/06/20-bpmlod-irc#T07-29-44 recorded
    in
    [27]http://www.w3.org/2013/06/20-bpmlod-minutes.html#action01]
    [NEW] ACTION: jose to work on use case definition template and
    then send a mail out to the list [recorded in
    [28]http://www.w3.org/2013/06/20-bpmlod-minutes.html#action05]
    [NEW] ACTION: sebastianH to add a paragraph to the charter
    about what "open" means [recorded in
    [29]http://www.w3.org/2013/06/20-bpmlod-minutes.html#action02]

      [26] http://www.w3.org/2013/06/20-bpmlod-irc#T07-29-44

    [End of minutes]
      __________________________________________________________


     Minutes formatted by David Booth's [30]scribe.perl version
     1.138 ([31]CVS log)
     $Date: 2013-06-20 08:02:24 $
      __________________________________________________________

      [30] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
      [31] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

    [Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.138  of Date: 2013-04-25 13:59:11
Check for newer version at [32]http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/
scribe/

      [32] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/topic: topics again//
Succeeded: s/topic: process of our group//
Succeeded: s/sebastian:/sebastianH:/
Succeeded: s/sebastian:/sebastianH:/
No ScribeNick specified.  Guessing ScribeNick: fsasaki
Inferring Scribes: fsasaki
Present: dom felix chaals john jorge jose michale sebastianH sebastianS
tatiana phil daveLewis
Agenda: [33]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpmlod/2013Jun/00
04.html
Got date from IRC log name: 20 Jun 2013
Guessing minutes URL: [34]http://www.w3.org/2013/06/20-bpmlod-minutes.ht
ml
People with action items: dom jose sebastianh

      [33] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpmlod/2013Jun/0004.html
      [34] http://www.w3.org/2013/06/20-bpmlod-minutes.html


    End of [35]scribe.perl diagnostic output]

      [35] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
Received on Thursday, 20 June 2013 08:05:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:08:40 UTC