minutes20150312

DCMI RDF AP Task Group
http://wiki.dublincore.org/index.php/RDF_Application_Profiles
Meeting date: March 12, 2015
Meeting link: https://meetings.webex.com/collabs/#/meetings/detail?uuid=M6HJ26TSRK6VT1ESJ63JFOTGVP-JV0D&rnd=764135.08483

Attendees: Karen, Antoine, Corey, Evelyn, Tom, Valentine, Stefanie

1. DCMI Requirements
http://lelystad.informatik.uni-mannheim.de/rdf-validation/
https://etherpad.wikimedia.org/p/requirements_analysis 

New cleaned list: http://wiki.dublincore.org/index.php/RDF_Application_Profiles/Requirements

ACTION: Karen to complete new list of Reqs it as much as possible and call others to contribute --ONGOING
--ONGOING
ACTION: Tom to review new list of Reqs, see whether the definitions make sense. Start after Karen has finished a first section
--ONGOING 


Specific requirements to be discussed

R-171bis - Antoine submitted http://lelystad.informatik.uni-mannheim.de/rdf-validation/?q=node/455 
We agree it captures the requirement
This is about non-rdf resources. What about rdf resources?
Corey: how about checking the type of resources in statements via dereferencing?
Looks like RDF Resources are subsumed under "property range" : R35: http://lelystad.informatik.uni-mannheim.de/rdf-validation/?q=R-35-DATA-PROPERTY-RANGE
Karen: Wouldn't mind seeing the dereferencing spelled out in the requirement, or a separate requirement
W3C: Really focused on instance data, not necessarily ontologies & remote resources.

Discussion on whether R-35 includes de-referencing prior to checking the object of statements. Should we have a requirement for this?
Karen: I should write it for the W3C. I don't see this in their requirement

ACTION: Corey and Karen to write up cases of validation with de-referencing or local caches, to be sent to W3C

Corey's question: My question for the W3C group is whether they're definition of "instance data" includes local caches of remote resources. Example of LCSH on id.loc.gov. Over 480,000 skos concepts represented, of which I may need 10,000 in a local system, so I will use a separate triplestore or something like Linked Data Fragments to cache. I have validation needs around dereferencing these and confirming their shape. I also potentially have a validation need on when my cache is invalid .


R210 - is this redundant? [check - Karen]
R-67 - can this be combined with R210? 
They're different
We're fixed.


R-203 - wait and see what W3C comes up with
Remove - duplicates R67 (fixed in db: R-203 removed and UC-OER-4 linked to R-67)

R-71  - if you have a specific class, then another class is dependent;  context has other triggers - the presence or absence of any property or  the presence of a property with a particular value. Stefanie - EDM  should have examples of this. 
ACTION: Stefanie and Valentine find or  make up examples
--ONGOING

R-28
ACTION: antoine to move examples and UC from R-28 links to R-35 and remove from wiki
--DONE

R-223
&
R-35
ACTION: Antoine to remove from wiki and move links to UC from R-223 to R-35
--DONE
    
R-46 Need a better explanation of what W3C intends. [Karen]
ACTION: antoine need to move everything from R-46 to R-35
--DONE
there's no problem removing the link to W3C requirement "datatype propetty facets" because it's not an approved W3c req (it has been split into requirements that we have elsewhere)


2. Coordination with W3C
 
 Requirements: http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/data-shapes-ucr/
Draft spec: https://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/data-shapes-primer/no-class-templates.html
Test suite:
    W3C requires a test suite for standards. We should begin gathering data that reflects our use cases.
 
To  all to gather test records from our own system. They should be the  "not-cleaned" records to be able to check potential errors. 

It should be alright in RDF/XML

ACTION: Stefanie & Antoine to interlink DCAP Reqs with W3C Reqs and send result to W3C WG, after Karen and Tom have compiled the list of requirements
--Not really finished
We have to postpone it untile the W3C are a bit clearer.
Also we'll have to compare with DSP.

ACTION: Antoine to contact Thomas to circulate his analysis of BF profiles on wiki 


3. "Portland Common Data Model" (formerly the Fedora Community Data Model)
  Originates in shared work within the Fedora 4/Hydra/Islandora community
  PCDM - specific implementations involve mapping from LDP to Ruby classes and SOLR indexes that are becoming standard
  Not everyone supports application profiles. 
  https://wiki.duraspace.org/display/FF/Portland+Common+Data+Model
    documents and collections of documents, and how to represent these in RDF
    ordering, collections, ore:aggregations
    can we have a conversation with these folks? no one has time (but Mark M and Corey H are affiliated with this group)
ACTION: Karen: post this link to W3C group
ACTION: Corey: post our work to they Hydra List

4. AOB, next calls
Corey meeting at Stanford before Thursday, at risk for the call. Will report.