See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 21 October 2015
> US Toll Number: tel:%2B1-617-324-0000
here: ivan, gregg, danbri,
jtandy on his way
jtandy arrived
<scribe> agenda: well-known? any other?
https://github.com/w3c/csvw/labels/For%20Proposed%20Rec
re #741
gkellogg: jeni needs to sign off on all tests, so we can finalize
leaving #741 highlighted in tracker, but is in Jeni's hands
gkellogg: only thing needing changes #481 is usecases
ivan de-tagged it
leaving only 2 , wellknown and measures
measures is with jeni ...
therefore: well-known
danbri invites ivan us to guide us through .well-known situation
<jtandy> https://github.com/w3c/csvw/issues/691
ivan: the group has advice from W3C TAG.
The argument from David has not changed that advice. At the moment, in
this sense, we are not in a position to change whatever we did on
previous request from TAG. That's all we can say right now. We have kept
it open for as long as possible, but at this moment we have to close the
issue. And the only [plausible] way we can close it is to keep the
feature in it.
... that being said, there may be 1 or 2 minor editorial things in the
document that we could address. Jeni added something in that direction
in her comments, copying here now -
<ivan> From Jeni, as an editorial comment: "I also suggest that we add a note encouraging people to link directly to metadata files rather than CSV files, or to use the Link header, wherever that is possible."
gkellogg: also need to address david's request that we add something saying it is a bad idea. Or is this what Jeni's note is intended to cover?
ivan: I believe it would be inappropriate in a recommendation [i.e. to say the design is a bad idea]
… I did miss that there is [currently] a default setup, so we have in effect in a slightly hidden way, that the fixed path is part of the doc, when wellknown isn't there
…. we can maybe add a remark in parenthesis in bullet points as an editorial change
… to avoid others making the same misreading as I did.
… these 2 ( fwd ref + jeni's comment ) plus removing the status note are what we need to do
gkellogg: 5.3 is clear
(url to spec please)
ivan: at v beginning of section 5, there are 4 items, giving priority. I think it actually no.3 that refers to this
… "in absense of a site-wide configuration file, use the defaults as…" etc
gkellogg: i can take a stab at those, jeni may decide my wording isn't ideal
thanks jtandy
<jtandy> editors draft: http://w3c.github.io/csvw/syntax/index.html#locating-metadata
<ivan> Proposal: we leave the .well-known mechanism in the standard, with two editorial changes (Jeni's text on clarification and the forward reference)
<jtandy> +1
<ivan> +1
<gkellogg> +1
+1
<ivan> RESOLVED: we leave the .well-known mechanism in the standard, with two editorial changes (Jeni's text on clarification and the forward reference)
<jtandy> (and we remove the issue marker: FEATURE AT RISK 555)
(yes, remove issue marker in the spec; that is implied I think)
action is on gregg to implement this change
<trackbot> Created ACTION-66 - On gregg to implement this change [on Ingo Simonis - due 2015-10-28].
(ignore that trackbot)
—
ivan: where are we exactly with the implementations and the reporting?
[jtandy merges something from gregg]
ivan: … implementations?
<jtandy> Pull Request 757 relating to Issue 755
gkellogg: we have my impl, which is complete w.r.t. current tests. Jeni's - couple more TODO. Was also going to do RDF. Once that is complete, and signed off that she agrees with all the tests, then we will have 2 complete implementations.
We also got notice from Davide of his partial implementation (in R) + impl report, which I will integrate.
Nothing from Austria yet.
Also Juan and Peter Mika may be able to make statements of support
ivan: we need to plan.
… I will be out for practically 2 weeks (TPAC + china)
… then 2 more travelling; won't be on calls
danbri: also at TPAC
jeremy, danbri, ivan … will all be at TPAC
ivan: what is a really realistic date for publication for a PR?
gkellogg: let's wait for impl stuff to settle
ivan: problem I have … possible dates for a PR transition call
nov 9, 10, 16, 17, 18
publication proper cannot happen before the 24
what I wonder is … is it possible to plan for let's say the 16, 17 or 18…
depends on jeni - ivan to ask by email
proposed rec 24th nov, REC by mid-january
or end january
leaves us 2 months to finalize the use case doc, if we want it done as a Note, and the question of a Primer
and an HTML Note
danbri: also saw Anastasia & friends, they have impl of the mapping part via (R2)RML
[...]
ivan: one more thing to discuss, gregg...
… it is one thing that we produce a report that is sort of frozen for the transition and archiving, but do we want to leave the testing mechanism open
like you guys did with the rdf testing
gkellogg: … json-ld, and rdfa, …
…repos remain open,. indeed even after publication and WG closure we have made changes later
… now have rdf-tests community group too
… seems to me that we can keep the csvw repository open. the impl report exists in there and the tests.
… w3c infrastructure points there
… when we point to the impl report from the rec do we point to a frozen report, or something more alive?
ivan: from the doc, the impl report has to be frozen
gkellogg: i disagree
danbri: not big deal. link to both. frozen is work of a chartered W3C WG, latter dynamic is work of an unconstrained community followup
(agreed)
<jtandy> +1
Adjourned.
thanks all!