minutes20140902
DCMI RDF AP Task Group
http://wiki.dublincore.org/index.php/RDF_Application_Profiles
Meeting date: Sept 2, 2014
Meeting link: https://meetings.webex.com/collabs/meetings/join?uuid=M6Q781TI6V1F3U84FUN7XWT8O0-JV0D
http://wiki.dublincore.org/index.php/RDF_Application_Profiles#Calls
Attendees: Antoine, Karen, Corey, Kai, Stefanie, Valentine, Mariana, Jeff
Regrets: Lars, Thomas
Agenda:
Contents |
Tutorials for various meetings
DL14 Conference London (Sept)
tutorial will include APs in general - Valentine: this was cancelled because only 3 participants registered 10 days before
DC2014 Austin (October)
half day: Tom, Stefanie, Kai, Thomas, Karen (coordinating)
outline at: http://wiki.dublincore.org/index.php/RDF_Application_Profiles/dc2014. One of the goals is to get people up to speed for Special Session (facilitated by Mark M): http://dcevents.dublincore.org/IntConf/index/pages/view/rdfAP
ACTION: Karen to Finalize outline and send Stuart a description of what our audience should come away with.
continuing the discussion from last call
http://etherpad.wikimedia.org/p/dcmi-ap-rdf-19-08-2014
Karen: outline at http://wiki.dublincore.org/index.php/RDF_Application_Profiles/dc2014
- Validation needs in a nutshell (Kai) (30 minutes)
- Properly structured data (required entities or properties; what is a "complete record"?)
- Valid values (value types; IRI sources)
- Use cases and analysis (Stefanie?)
- RDF and Validation: What is the issue? (kcoyle and/or TomB) (20-30 minutes)
- Difference between inferencing and validation
- OWL in an open world
- Validation techniques in use (Thomas) (45-60 minutes)
- SPIN, ICV, Shapes, etc.
- Open world vs. closed world approaches
- Validation on current data models (45 minutes)
- EDM (Stefanie)
- DPLA (Mark?)
- Application profiles as a possible solution (kcoyle and TomB) (45 minutes)
- DCAP
- BIBFRAME profiles
- DCMI RDF validation group work
Total time: 3.5 hours. Each section will need to leave some time for questions.
SWIB14 Bonn (Dec):
Kai Eckert, Lieke Ploeger, Evelyn Dröge, Dominique Ritze, Antoine Isaac, possibly Karen Coyle.
1PM to 7PM, with 3 breaks. Could have time for some hands on work with a validation tool.
Gathering requirements
requirements database: http://purl.org/net/rdf-validation
Progress report on DM2E/DDB/Europeana cases
- merging of use cases, continuing the discussion from last call
-
- http://etherpad.wikimedia.org/p/dcmi-ap-rdf-19-08-2014
- Stefanie: no time to work on it
- valentine; I've added all Europeana UCs
- wanted to link to the requirements.
- but I didn't understand the reqs currently in the system. They're really abstract.
- Stefanie: some of them were ok, some of them hard. Maybe we should discuss on mailing list. I could select requirements that I understand, some that I don't, and send them on the list
ACTION: Stefanie to send on the list 5 reqs she understands, and 5 that she doesn't. ACTION: chairs to ask on mailing list for shepherds for other cases, especially*
http://wiki.dublincore.org/index.php/CSC
http://wiki.dublincore.org/index.php/OER-world-map
http://wiki.dublincore.org/index.php/KIM-recommendations
http://wiki.dublincore.org/index.php/RFC-6906-Profiles
Scope discussion: relation between the TG work and previous AP work
http://dublincore.org/documents/profile-guidelines/
http://dublincore.org/documents/dc-dsp/
http://dublincore.org/documents/singapore-framework/
Karen working on DSP in relation to RDF/OWL http://wiki.dublincore.org/index.php/RDF_Application_Profiles/DSPanalysis. Basically the same as DSP but instead of DCAM types uses OWL property types.
Kai: DSP validation demonstrator: http://purl.org/net/rdfval-demo. Now has examples of validation constraints and instance data. Uses SPIN as a validation method. Will next have an OWL2 version.
Discussion of differences between validation in OWL, SPARQL and DSP. Kai: There may be differences, and so one can choose the one that works best.
A test suite could be used to compare validation capabilities.
Antoine: perhaps this method can guide the requirements; for each requirement one should be able to express a constraint in a constraint language. Requirements may be too abstract; if expressed in a constraint language they would be more precise
Kai: having examples for the requirements would be useful
Antoine: eventually we need the requirements in a constraint language
Kai: could add another class to the database of implementation examples; constraint languages are formal and therefore you don't have ambiguity
ACTION: Antoine to send an email to the list suggesting to record example in constraint languages in the database.
Antoine: we could do it for the examples circulated by Stefanie and Valentine
ACTION: Antoine to do it for two easy examples and two hard ones, from Stefanie's list.
First deliverable
From the charter: "Report on the current state, based on use cases gathered - first draft September 2014"
- Are all use cases that should be in the deliverable in the database or in the wiki?
Antoine: I think all wiki case studies are in scope, but they won't be worked out fully in time.
- Suggested scope of the deliverable:
- Collected case studies, use cases
- Requirements from the database used by our application profiles
- Short database description or description of the requirements collection?
- Links to the case studies on the wiki, case studies, use cases and requirements in the database
Antoine: all of this seems in scope (even though a bit redundant wording). Anyone disagrees? - (resounding silence)
- Is there an deliverable template? Otherwise I would use the one we have in DM2E and adept it (change logos, colors and main page) Evelyn
ACTION: Kai to find out what template is precisely needed. - Goal: keep it short :)
Coordination with W3C RDF Data shapes WG
running item - nothing for this week, but keep in agenda
prospective charter: http://www.w3.org/2014/rds/charter
discussion list: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-shapes/