commit 81f4c4e4f6edf148de54f5073dd0e19af46a22b1
parent ddbbf38e4a4491732dbb13e0d2a82d55495f729e
Author: Bob Haugen <bob.haugen@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 16:26:50 -0500
Create 2015-10-20-minutes.txt
Diffstat:
1 file changed, 262 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/minutes/2015-10-20-minutes.txt b/minutes/2015-10-20-minutes.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,262 @@
+at
+Lynn Foster joined group chat.
+To list all available commands enter "/?".
+
+Michael Williams 3:00 PM
+https://github.com/valueflows/valueflows/wiki/Meetings
+
+me 3:00 PM
+round trip
+
+What do we need to do to complete a round trip example that works? Who should do what?
+
+@id vs. url
+
+https://github.com/valueflows/valueflows/issues/45
+
+owl:inverseOf
+
+https://github.com/valueflows/valueflows/issues/52
+
+types of relationships: existing vocab vs user defined types of relationships
+
+https://github.com/valueflows/agent/issues/38
+
+how specific is our relationship? (rdf:Property, vf:relationship, vf:agentRelationship)
+
+https://github.com/valueflows/valueflows/issues/63
+
+subclasses of Agent, which to support and which to use existing vocab for
+
+https://github.com/valueflows/agent/issues/51
+
+formatting relationship jsonld for discovery
+
+https://github.com/valueflows/valueflows/issues/59
+
+separation of concerns
+
+documenting current structure of repositories and which one stays responsible for which concerns
+Connor Turland joined group chat.
+
+me 3:04 PM
+round trip
+
+What do we need to do to complete a round trip example that works? Who should do what?
+
+@id vs. url
+
+https://github.com/valueflows/valueflows/issues/45
+
+owl:inverseOf
+
+https://github.com/valueflows/valueflows/issues/52
+
+types of relationships: existing vocab vs user defined types of relationships
+
+https://github.com/valueflows/agent/issues/38
+
+how specific is our relationship? (rdf:Property, vf:relationship, vf:agentRelationship)
+
+https://github.com/valueflows/valueflows/issues/63
+
+subclasses of Agent, which to support and which to use existing vocab for
+
+https://github.com/valueflows/agent/issues/51
+
+formatting relationship jsonld for discovery
+
+https://github.com/valueflows/valueflows/issues/59
+
+separation of concerns
+
+documenting current structure of repositories and which one stays responsible for which concerns
+https://github.com/valueflows/valueflows/wiki/Meetings
+Who's here: Mikey, Connor, Pavlik, Lynn, Bob
+Agenda: hard ones first:
+Round trip
+Types of relationships
+how specific is our relationship
+subclasses of Agent
+....
+Did we close off ID vs URL?
+Lynn thinks yes
+...
+What do we need to do to complete a round trip example that works? Who should do what?
+See the whole technology loop work.
+Is holodex far off?
+Mikey says, a lot of work to do it the way we want.
+Holodex is the longer range one, let's start with something simpler
+Put out from one app, read in to another.
+Then follow our nose.
+Get request.
+Later content negotiation.
+Simple get first.
+Do some simple HTML,
+simple lists,
+avatars.
+CORS headers
+3-4-5 servers on different subdomains.
+integrate data from multiple sources into a simple interface.
+Then add more complexity.
+Elf will play with Polymer, make something basic, simple graph.
+Lynn will get hers working, too.
+Holodex will come in later.
+Connor made simple profile form.
+Then display it.
+Small app to make relationships.
+Valuable, not a lot of work.
+Publish code, show how to do it.
+Data, schema, data, apps, to communicate to different audiences.
+Connor and Ishan discussing links between platforms, Connor working on the links, want graph platform to work with this kind of data.
+Browse links thru URL to URL.
+Regardless of how you keep the data, the navigator knows how to navigate and present it.
+Starting point, then follow your nose.
+http://en.lodlive.it/
+follows the linls
+links
+Connor: something like metamaps
+
+elf Pavlik 3:27 PM
+ACTION: elf to write minimal requirements for browser
+
+me 3:27 PM
+Mikey requests more visions, what is the end state we are shooting for
+....
+Mikey agrees ID vs URL is figured out.
+Data for browser to work with.
+json-ld for a particular resource is the missing part
+
+Lynn Foster 3:29 PM
+@id vs url - need the @id to link to a URI that returns LOD (jsonld)
+
+me 3:30 PM
+...
+types of relationships: existing vocab vs user defined types of relationships
+
+https://github.com/valueflows/agent/issues/38
+Places where we have vocab in development but not finished.
+In our app, all relationships are user defined, but have a behavior field that is usually a common relationship.
+Pavlik says, let's publish the data and get more experience and then revisit.
+When we want to integrate and query across multiple sources, we will confront the issues that need to be solved.
+Lynn mentions issue of filtering.
+Asks do we want to agree on a set of types?
+Pavlik: work thru examples first.
+We have different perspectives and backgrounds, make examples, discuss, propose alternatives.
+Lynn proposes small set to discuss.
+Sensorica Affiliate same as Member.
+DHen has role-based relationships: Harvesting site, Harvester, Drying site
+Harvesting site sounds like a resource.
+Lynn says it's modeled as a farm, which is an agent (group agent).
+Pavlik urges formalizing examples.
+Lynn says if we start getting into resources, we won't get agents done.
+So let's work with things we can agree are agents.
+http://dhen.webfactional.com/accounting/agent-jsonld/
+
+Michael Williams 3:41 PM
+https://github.com/valueflows/valueflows/tree/master/use-cases
+
+me 3:43 PM
+Agents should have agency, are they all really agents
+Lynn suggests discuss Affiliate
+is it a valid relationship?
+They might change it again.
+In our software, we know it is like a member.
+Is there a label, preferred label?
+Pavlik returns to the idea of waiting until we need to integrate data.
+Lynn asks does it make sense to make define a type of relationship called Member
+or a small set of relationships that have known behjavior and sub-property off those?
+Or deviate from those if necessary?
+Mikey agrees with putting everything out for now and then look for the overlaps later.
+We are agreed, integrate and refine later.
+
+Lynn Foster 3:49 PM
+relationship is instance of rdf:Property
+
+me 3:49 PM
+premature to amke superclasses
+
+Lynn Foster 3:49 PM
+super-properties
+
+me 3:50 PM
+we all agree that: "relationship is instance of rdf:Property"
+How specific are relationships?
+I.e. are Agent<->Agent relationships necessarily different from Agent<->Resource relationships?
+Pavlik suggests focusing on Agent<->Agent
+Once we move on the Agent<->Resource we can look at those and know more precisely what relationships we want.
+Lynn is concerned about backtracking after holodex, tibor, etc etc are already using it
+Pavlik says we can make it clear that they are experimentatl
+don't promise stability
+wait for experience with integrating data across sources
+....next topic....
+subclasses of Agent
+
+Lynn Foster 3:59 PM
+we agreed on keeping general for now, get more experience with how the LOD technology works, then be more specific as we need to
+so rdf:Property for now
+
+me 3:59 PM
+which ones do we want to support
+Mikey's opinion, don't worry about it yet.
+Let people define from their own data and see what the commonality is.
+We agree on Agent as the top level.
+vf:Agent for awhile instead of FOAF:Agent?
+yes, convert later
+Can we agree on Person and Group as subclasses?
+Pavlik wants to stick with those two for now.
+Lynn says we in NRP land will need more subclasses
+Pavlik says subclass in data as required
+says we can use inference to distinguish e.g. Network
+We all agree on user-defined types
+Pavlik reiterates, publish formalized examples, integrate, then discuss how to create the common vocab.
+As long as we don't modify the common context, we have complete freedom to publish examples.
+We all agree "As long as we don't modify the common context, we have complete freedom to publish examples."
+...
+New topic: separation of concerns
+
+documenting current structure of repositories and which one stays responsible for which concerns
+Connor explains why he is here:
+listening to different conversations in different groups
+helping to create bridges
+elf's statement will help to create links
+feeling from different platforms
+wanting to create mappings between groups
+nodes in graphs
+taxonomies
+events, intentions will also show up in hylo
+implementing them in different platforms
+Connor will be traveling around trying to make bridges between platforms
+Mikey likes it
+Lynn thinks its fabulous
+Pavlik says thanks, circles are closing
+Connor Turland left group chat.
+
+me 4:19 PM
+Wrap up time
+Mikey says, keep the rhythm going
+Checkouts:
+Mikey is appreciating the energy
+some gravity puling everyone in
+moving to a tighter orbit
+Lynn totally agrees about the energy and the diverse opinions,
+glad we got some agreements.
+feel like I can go forward
+Pavlik also glad we met again
+likes puce bubbles
+likes agreement on workflow
+very optimistic
+excited to work on the json-ld of this meeting
+An adventure
+Lynn appreciates elf keeping us on track
+Mkey things there is no way we could go wrong
+
+elf Pavlik 4:23 PM
+Bob - agrees with everybody
+
+Lynn Foster 4:23 PM
+bob: agrees with everybody
+happy about what connor is doing
+
+me 4:24 PM
+teeshirts!