[Minutes] 2017 06 26

The minutes of today's minutes are at 
https://www.w3.org/2017/06/26-dxwg-minutes with a snapshot below.

Thanks to Lars for scribing.

              Dataset Exchange Working Group Teleconference

26 June 2017

    [2]Agenda [3]IRC log

       [2] https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2017.06.26
       [3] http://www.w3.org/2017/06/26-dxwg-irc

Attendees

    Present
           achille_zappa, alejandra, annette_g, Caroline_,
           Dave_Browning, Jaroslav_Pullmann, kcoyle, LarsG, Makx,
           mathieu, MJ_Han, nandana, phila, RiccardoAlbertoni, Rob
           Atkinson, SimonCox, Thomas

    Regrets
           Antoine, Colleen_Fallaw, Eric_Stephan, Luiz, Martin,
           Newton, Peter_Winstanley, Ruben

    Chair
           Karen Coyle

    Scribe
           LarsG

Contents

      * [4]Meeting Minutes
          1. [5]Preliminaries
          2. [6]Approve last week's meeting minutes
          3. [7]new attendees?
          4. [8]Reports from sub-groups
          5. [9]Research Data
      * [10]Summary of Resolutions

Meeting Minutes

Approve last week's meeting minutes

    Resolved: approved last weeks minutes (NOTUC)

new attendees?

    No new attendees

Reports from sub-groups

    No reports from sub-groups

    kcoyle: wants to know if DCAT group has met

    alejandra: DCAT has exchanged a few emails but hasn't met yet.
    … will keep us posted

    kcoyle: so far we have approved three use cases
    … today we discuss are modelling temporal coverage,
    … modelling spatial coverage
    … and data access restrictions.

    <kcoyle> [11]https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/
    Use_Case_Working_Space#Modeling_temporal_coverage

      [11] 
https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/Use_Case_Working_Space#Modeling_temporal_coverage

    temporal coverage submitted by Andrea (who isn't here)

    <SimonCox> Make sure to use [12]https://www.w3.org/TR/owl-time/
    :-)

      [12] https://www.w3.org/TR/owl-time/

    ... DCAT say to use dct:temporal

    ... SimonCox proposes owl-time

    <alejandra> Can we add to the links the following ones:
    [13]http://github.com/biocaddie/WG3-MetadataSpecifications

      [13] http://github.com/biocaddie/WG3-MetadataSpecifications

    <alejandra> and [14]https://developers.google.com/search/docs/
    data-types/datasets

      [14] https://developers.google.com/search/docs/data-types/datasets

    <SimonCox> [15]https://www.w3.org/TR/owl-time/#time:hasEnd etc

      [15] https://www.w3.org/TR/owl-time/#time:hasEnd

    <alejandra> where also temporal coverage have been considered

    kcoyle: If people have more links, they can add that to the
    wiki page

    Makx: reacting to Andrea ADMS and DCAT-AP use schema:start and
    schema:end since owl-time looked too complicated
    … many European data portals use that, too

    <roba_> * online for next 30 mins

    alejandra: Question about process: When I have comments or
    links
    … can I modify the UC directly in the Wiki or should it go
    through the UC editors?

    <mathieu> owl-time seems complicated but there can be more
    complex things to represent than just start and end dates

    <roba_> +1 to put to working use cases document.

    Present__Ixchel: If it's something that hasn't been discussed
    yet, just add it so that it's there for the meeting. Otherwise
    send an email to the editors

    <Jaroslav_Pullmann> thanks!

    Present__Ixchel: and they'll add it

    alejandra: Agrees with that process.

    kcoyle: From XXX there is a link to the working space

    kcoyle: there is no way to see which UCs we have discussed just
    by looking at the list

    Roba: plans to put a link to the consolidate use case
    … status is more complicated
    … some things may be solved, others not
    … e. g. profile might be discussed but discovery of profiles
    not

    kcoyle: You can split the UCs to have more atomic parts.
    … important for people to see what is resolved

    <alejandra> I think that is good

    <alejandra> to add things to use cases that have not been
    discussed

    Makx: has put something in alejandra's UC. Has marked with his
    name but wants to know if that's OK

    Present__Ixchel: Good idea.

    <alejandra> I agree on pinging the original author

    Present__Ixchel: If you want the orig author to look at it
    again, send a mail to the author
    … and the list

    Jaroslav_Pullmann: Finds Makx's approach a good idea.
    … People can use the comment section
    … Status intended to be used as a progress indicator
    … has started to create a mind map for the UC (has lost
    overview)
    … prepares a graphical view of the UCs
    … will share the URL

    <kcoyle> ack

    kcoyle: should we mark this UC as good, can we vote?

    <phila> -> [16]https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/
    Use_Case_Working_Space#Modeling_temporal_coverage

      [16] 
https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/Use_Case_Working_Space#Modeling_temporal_coverage

    <phila> [17]Modelling Temporal Coverage

      [17] 
https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/Use_Case_Working_Space#Modeling_temporal_coverage

    <kcoyle> [18]https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/
    Use_Case_Working_Space#Modeling_temporal_coverage

      [18] 
https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/Use_Case_Working_Space#Modeling_temporal_coverage

    kcoyle: question is: Is it a valid UC that reflects
    requirements?

    annette_g: There are more complicated cases
    … they should be expanded through discussion

    alejandra: Edge cases not so important

    SimonCox: Title is wrong. More about serialisation (how to
    serialise beginning and end)

    <roba_> modelling is covered by scope of [19]http://
    w3c.github.io/sdw/qb4st/

      [19] http://w3c.github.io/sdw/qb4st/

    SimonCox: the description points out that in DCAT a URI is used
    to describe the time. That is considered cumbersome
    … it's about the representation, not the content
    … per se
    … that is an old problem, when the issue is about modelling and
    when about syntax/representation

    kcoyle: Suggests to change the title

    roba_: It's neither syntax nor modelling, but more about a
    summary: DCAT proposes simplified view. Author might
    … be simple, but provenance more deeply modelled
    … spatio-temporal extent can be done through QB4ST as begun in
    SDW

    Jaroslav_Pullmann: agrees. This is more about representation
    (date format) and might break down into simple properties
    … part of an overall modelling context
    … and that way put into a bigger relation

    Present__Ixchel: speaking from the user perspective. It's about
    understanding the different kind of temporal coverage. E. g.
    start and end of
    … data acquisition. It's about bringing data together using
    their temporal contexts

    alejandra: Agrees. We also need to discuss the capabilities of
    DCAT. Obvious cases are dataset creation and modification. But
    also acceptance on DataCite.

    <phila> +1 to alejandra I was going to same something similar

    alejandra: We need a very flexible way to handle different
    kinds of dates

    Makx: Wonders if it's useful to change the scope of a UC. The
    UC builds on a real need and is a simple requirement.
    … There are also a wider issue of modelling temporal aspects
    … but not in this UC

    <Thomas> Agreed, Makx

    Jaroslav_Pullmann: relevance of the data is also important when
    searching for data in a catalogue.
    … Some dates are fixed (distribution etc.).
    … DCAT already has the catalogue record element for such
    things.
    … Makx's focus is the temporal data itself, not of the dataset

    kcoyle: Do we need another UC?

    <SimonCox> types of dates - will it be a closed list?

    Jaroslav_Pullmann: Yes, maybe a meta-UC

    kcoyle: There is a problem putting too much into a single UC
    … better to have simple specific UCs
    … Who can do that?

    alejandra: DataCite has specific types of dates.
    … that's an existing approach we can follow
    … E. g. when the data was collected. That goes into processes

    <Makx> keep this one as it is, please

    roba_: This UC is about what we want to put into simple
    properties in DCAT. Should have a simple model.
    … We probably don't need another UC for that
    … but should have one simple UC (as a meta-UC) and one more
    deeply into modelling
    … We can add another UC to the working space and map that to
    the existing

    <riccardoAlbertoni> +1 to kcoyle "adding further use cases on
    time issues" and keep this uc simple.

    Jaroslav_Pullmann: Would this be a UC like "temporal aspects in
    DCAT"?
    … and then bring everything temporal into that

    kcoyle: we shouldn't be too abstract

    <Makx> +1 to keeping things practical

    kcoyle: when we look at UCs at a high level they have much in
    common
    … but we need to keep it practical

    Jaroslav_Pullmann: thought we could have one for all temporal
    dimensions in DCAT (API availability) all rooted in one meta-UC

    kcoyle: Jaroslav_Pullmann shouldn't hesitate to create one if
    needed

    <Makx> I vote for keeping it

    kcoyle: shall we edit the UC first or can we vote directly?

    <annette_g> +1 for keeping it but adding what's missing

    Jaroslav_Pullmann: agrees with Makx that we should edit the UC
    first

    <Makx> what is missing?

    <roba_> agree with keeping it but rename it - its not
    modelling..

    <kcoyle> PROPOSE: accept ID29 and edit it to be specifically
    about start and end dates; and modify title to remove modeling

    SimonCox: does that mean start and end date of the data set
    (the record)?

    <Makx> this is the data itself

    <Makx> no this is not want the UC is about

    <roba_> record is overloaded term.. be careful

    Jaroslav_Pullmann: it's about the adding to the catalogue (the
    record) not the contents of the data set.

    <roba_> i think we are talking about the temporal coverage of
    the data - but we need to narrow down the semantics -
    observation time or phenomemon time

    SimonCox: the date of an observation is not always the same as
    what we are interested in (e. g. geological discovery vs.
    geological event)
    … there are properties for that

    <kcoyle> acvk SimonCox

    <kcoyle> PROPOSED: accept ID29 and edit it to be specifically
    about start and end dates of the dataset; and modify title to
    remove modeling

    <alejandra> +1

    Makx: wants to clarify: it's about the year the (budget) data
    applies to, not about when the dataset was created

    Jaroslav_Pullmann: So it's about the temporal context of the
    data (phenomenon time), not about observation time

    SimonCox: Yes

    annette_g: Thought this would be more about deep thoughts about
    start and end dates. We shouldn't remove those from the UC or
    the discussion

    <Makx> disagree with extending use cases too much

    alejandra: the UC talks about start and end date. But when you
    work with time series you want intermediate points, too. That's
    also part of temporal coverage

    <Makx> intermittent periods is covered because dct:coverage is
    repeatable

    alejandra: similar things in other UCs

    kcoyle: we need more UCs on that topic

    SimonCox: we need to be more clear about specific requirements
    vs cross-domain reqs
    … [other WG had 13 different kinds of dates]
    … that was a very specialised application (weather forecasting)
    … and there might be scientific cases in the future
    … which leaves us with the dilemma that DCAT is
    … general purpose which needs to be applicable in several
    … domains but also needs to be applied to specific communities'
    needs
    … We need to find the right balance

    Thomas: doesn't think we can capture all semantics in one
    simple model
    … the dataset describer needs to use what works for them
    … In specialist datasets there are dates that care for
    phenomenon time

    annette_g: we shouldn't try to make DCAT work for all
    scientific communities, but it should be easier to use if for
    the scientific community (uptake has been slow)

    <kcoyle> PROPOSED: accept ID27 and edit it to be specifically
    about start and end dates of the dataset; and modify title to
    remove modeling

    <Makx> +1

    <roba_> +1

    <SimonCox> +1

    <annette_g> +1

    <Caroline_> +1

    <Thomas> +1

    <mathieu> +1

    <Jaroslav_Pullmann> +1

    <achille_zappa> +1

    <riccardoAlbertoni> +1

    <phila> +1

    <Dave_Browning> +1

    <nandana> +1

    +1

    <Present__Ixchel> it's ID27

    <MJ_Han> +1

    <Present__Ixchel> +1

    alejandra: if we remove modelling, does that mean that we only
    talk about start and end dates?

    <alejandra> +1

    <roba_> Can we review UC1 to see if it covers general modelling
    of aspects, including time and suggest improvements please

    kcoyle: we can add modelling back again if necessary, but for
    now, yes

    <roba_> review offline

    <MJ_Han> In Requirements, spatial should be temporal.

    kcoyle: yes, roba_ , we can do that on the list or at the
    Oxford F2F

Research Data

    phila: Talked to WG chairs of RDA and then with people at
    CODATA (umbrella body for science unions)
    … much potential interest in this WG but also in the general
    … idea of research data as shared information on the web
    … phila plans to continue with this
    … RDA und CODATA watch this WG in order to make the web
    … a large information space

    <annette_g> +1 exciting stuff!

    <SimonCox> As phila mentioned, I'm involved with RDA and CODATA
    so will keep links intact

    kcoyle: next week we'll discuss more UCs

    phila: If we discuss the outputs of this group in a subgroup,
    keep the mailing list in the loop to have it public

    <Caroline_> +1 to discuss in public :)

    <Caroline_> bye! thank you!

    <roba_> bye all

    <annette_g> bye!

    <riccardoAlbertoni> bye...

    <SimonCox> good night

    <Dave_Browning> bye

    <Present__Ixchel> bye

    <kcoyle> Thanks Lars for scribing!!

Summary of Resolutions

     1. [20]approved last weeks minutes (NOTUC)

Received on Monday, 26 June 2017 15:15:34 UTC