2015-10-20-minutes.txt (9761B)
1 ## Agenda 2 3 #### round trip 4 5 What do we need to do to complete a round trip example that works? Who should do what? 6 7 #### @id vs. url 8 9 https://github.com/valueflows/valueflows/issues/45 10 11 #### owl:inverseOf 12 13 https://github.com/valueflows/valueflows/issues/52 14 15 #### types of relationships: existing vocab vs user defined types of relationships 16 17 https://github.com/valueflows/agent/issues/38 18 19 #### how specific is our relationship? (rdf:Property, vf:relationship, vf:agentRelationship) 20 21 https://github.com/valueflows/valueflows/issues/63 22 23 #### subclasses of Agent, which to support and which to use existing vocab for 24 25 https://github.com/valueflows/agent/issues/51 26 27 #### formatting relationship jsonld for discovery 28 29 https://github.com/valueflows/valueflows/issues/59 30 31 #### separation of concerns 32 33 documenting current structure of repositories and which one stays responsible for which concerns 34 35 36 Meeting chat: 37 38 at 39 Lynn Foster joined group chat. 40 To list all available commands enter "/?". 41 42 Michael Williams 3:00 PM 43 https://github.com/valueflows/valueflows/wiki/Meetings 44 45 me 3:00 PM 46 round trip 47 48 What do we need to do to complete a round trip example that works? Who should do what? 49 50 @id vs. url 51 52 https://github.com/valueflows/valueflows/issues/45 53 54 owl:inverseOf 55 56 https://github.com/valueflows/valueflows/issues/52 57 58 types of relationships: existing vocab vs user defined types of relationships 59 60 https://github.com/valueflows/agent/issues/38 61 62 how specific is our relationship? (rdf:Property, vf:relationship, vf:agentRelationship) 63 64 https://github.com/valueflows/valueflows/issues/63 65 66 subclasses of Agent, which to support and which to use existing vocab for 67 68 https://github.com/valueflows/agent/issues/51 69 70 formatting relationship jsonld for discovery 71 72 https://github.com/valueflows/valueflows/issues/59 73 74 separation of concerns 75 76 documenting current structure of repositories and which one stays responsible for which concerns 77 Connor Turland joined group chat. 78 79 me 3:04 PM 80 round trip 81 82 What do we need to do to complete a round trip example that works? Who should do what? 83 84 @id vs. url 85 86 https://github.com/valueflows/valueflows/issues/45 87 88 owl:inverseOf 89 90 https://github.com/valueflows/valueflows/issues/52 91 92 types of relationships: existing vocab vs user defined types of relationships 93 94 https://github.com/valueflows/agent/issues/38 95 96 how specific is our relationship? (rdf:Property, vf:relationship, vf:agentRelationship) 97 98 https://github.com/valueflows/valueflows/issues/63 99 100 subclasses of Agent, which to support and which to use existing vocab for 101 102 https://github.com/valueflows/agent/issues/51 103 104 formatting relationship jsonld for discovery 105 106 https://github.com/valueflows/valueflows/issues/59 107 108 separation of concerns 109 110 documenting current structure of repositories and which one stays responsible for which concerns 111 https://github.com/valueflows/valueflows/wiki/Meetings 112 Who's here: Mikey, Connor, Pavlik, Lynn, Bob 113 Agenda: hard ones first: 114 Round trip 115 Types of relationships 116 how specific is our relationship 117 subclasses of Agent 118 .... 119 Did we close off ID vs URL? 120 Lynn thinks yes 121 ... 122 What do we need to do to complete a round trip example that works? Who should do what? 123 See the whole technology loop work. 124 Is holodex far off? 125 Mikey says, a lot of work to do it the way we want. 126 Holodex is the longer range one, let's start with something simpler 127 Put out from one app, read in to another. 128 Then follow our nose. 129 Get request. 130 Later content negotiation. 131 Simple get first. 132 Do some simple HTML, 133 simple lists, 134 avatars. 135 CORS headers 136 3-4-5 servers on different subdomains. 137 integrate data from multiple sources into a simple interface. 138 Then add more complexity. 139 Elf will play with Polymer, make something basic, simple graph. 140 Lynn will get hers working, too. 141 Holodex will come in later. 142 Connor made simple profile form. 143 Then display it. 144 Small app to make relationships. 145 Valuable, not a lot of work. 146 Publish code, show how to do it. 147 Data, schema, data, apps, to communicate to different audiences. 148 Connor and Ishan discussing links between platforms, Connor working on the links, want graph platform to work with this kind of data. 149 Browse links thru URL to URL. 150 Regardless of how you keep the data, the navigator knows how to navigate and present it. 151 Starting point, then follow your nose. 152 http://en.lodlive.it/ 153 follows the linls 154 links 155 Connor: something like metamaps 156 157 elf Pavlik 3:27 PM 158 ACTION: elf to write minimal requirements for browser 159 160 me 3:27 PM 161 Mikey requests more visions, what is the end state we are shooting for 162 .... 163 Mikey agrees ID vs URL is figured out. 164 Data for browser to work with. 165 json-ld for a particular resource is the missing part 166 167 Lynn Foster 3:29 PM 168 @id vs url - need the @id to link to a URI that returns LOD (jsonld) 169 170 me 3:30 PM 171 ... 172 types of relationships: existing vocab vs user defined types of relationships 173 174 https://github.com/valueflows/agent/issues/38 175 Places where we have vocab in development but not finished. 176 In our app, all relationships are user defined, but have a behavior field that is usually a common relationship. 177 Pavlik says, let's publish the data and get more experience and then revisit. 178 When we want to integrate and query across multiple sources, we will confront the issues that need to be solved. 179 Lynn mentions issue of filtering. 180 Asks do we want to agree on a set of types? 181 Pavlik: work thru examples first. 182 We have different perspectives and backgrounds, make examples, discuss, propose alternatives. 183 Lynn proposes small set to discuss. 184 Sensorica Affiliate same as Member. 185 DHen has role-based relationships: Harvesting site, Harvester, Drying site 186 Harvesting site sounds like a resource. 187 Lynn says it's modeled as a farm, which is an agent (group agent). 188 Pavlik urges formalizing examples. 189 Lynn says if we start getting into resources, we won't get agents done. 190 So let's work with things we can agree are agents. 191 http://dhen.webfactional.com/accounting/agent-jsonld/ 192 193 Michael Williams 3:41 PM 194 https://github.com/valueflows/valueflows/tree/master/use-cases 195 196 me 3:43 PM 197 Agents should have agency, are they all really agents 198 Lynn suggests discuss Affiliate 199 is it a valid relationship? 200 They might change it again. 201 In our software, we know it is like a member. 202 Is there a label, preferred label? 203 Pavlik returns to the idea of waiting until we need to integrate data. 204 Lynn asks does it make sense to make define a type of relationship called Member 205 or a small set of relationships that have known behjavior and sub-property off those? 206 Or deviate from those if necessary? 207 Mikey agrees with putting everything out for now and then look for the overlaps later. 208 We are agreed, integrate and refine later. 209 210 Lynn Foster 3:49 PM 211 relationship is instance of rdf:Property 212 213 me 3:49 PM 214 premature to amke superclasses 215 216 Lynn Foster 3:49 PM 217 super-properties 218 219 me 3:50 PM 220 we all agree that: "relationship is instance of rdf:Property" 221 How specific are relationships? 222 I.e. are Agent<->Agent relationships necessarily different from Agent<->Resource relationships? 223 Pavlik suggests focusing on Agent<->Agent 224 Once we move on the Agent<->Resource we can look at those and know more precisely what relationships we want. 225 Lynn is concerned about backtracking after holodex, tibor, etc etc are already using it 226 Pavlik says we can make it clear that they are experimentatl 227 don't promise stability 228 wait for experience with integrating data across sources 229 ....next topic.... 230 subclasses of Agent 231 232 Lynn Foster 3:59 PM 233 we agreed on keeping general for now, get more experience with how the LOD technology works, then be more specific as we need to 234 so rdf:Property for now 235 236 me 3:59 PM 237 which ones do we want to support 238 Mikey's opinion, don't worry about it yet. 239 Let people define from their own data and see what the commonality is. 240 We agree on Agent as the top level. 241 vf:Agent for awhile instead of FOAF:Agent? 242 yes, convert later 243 Can we agree on Person and Group as subclasses? 244 Pavlik wants to stick with those two for now. 245 Lynn says we in NRP land will need more subclasses 246 Pavlik says subclass in data as required 247 says we can use inference to distinguish e.g. Network 248 We all agree on user-defined types 249 Pavlik reiterates, publish formalized examples, integrate, then discuss how to create the common vocab. 250 As long as we don't modify the common context, we have complete freedom to publish examples. 251 We all agree "As long as we don't modify the common context, we have complete freedom to publish examples." 252 ... 253 New topic: separation of concerns 254 255 documenting current structure of repositories and which one stays responsible for which concerns 256 Connor explains why he is here: 257 listening to different conversations in different groups 258 helping to create bridges 259 elf's statement will help to create links 260 feeling from different platforms 261 wanting to create mappings between groups 262 nodes in graphs 263 taxonomies 264 events, intentions will also show up in hylo 265 implementing them in different platforms 266 Connor will be traveling around trying to make bridges between platforms 267 Mikey likes it 268 Lynn thinks its fabulous 269 Pavlik says thanks, circles are closing 270 Connor Turland left group chat. 271 272 me 4:19 PM 273 Wrap up time 274 Mikey says, keep the rhythm going 275 Checkouts: 276 Mikey is appreciating the energy 277 some gravity puling everyone in 278 moving to a tighter orbit 279 Lynn totally agrees about the energy and the diverse opinions, 280 glad we got some agreements. 281 feel like I can go forward 282 Pavlik also glad we met again 283 likes puce bubbles 284 likes agreement on workflow 285 very optimistic 286 excited to work on the json-ld of this meeting 287 An adventure 288 Lynn appreciates elf keeping us on track 289 Mkey things there is no way we could go wrong 290 291 elf Pavlik 4:23 PM 292 Bob - agrees with everybody 293 294 Lynn Foster 4:23 PM 295 bob: agrees with everybody 296 happy about what connor is doing 297 298 me 4:24 PM 299 teeshirts!