13:39:26 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #dxwg
13:39:26 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/08/21-dxwg-irc
13:39:38 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #dxwg
13:39:48 <kcoyle> rrsagent, make logs public
13:46:56 <roba> roba has joined #dxwg
13:55:26 <PWinstanley> PWinstanley has joined #dxwg
13:55:35 <PWinstanley> present+
13:56:35 <kcoyle> present+
13:59:19 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> Jaroslav_Pullmann has joined #DXWG
13:59:24 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> present+
14:01:12 <SimonCox> SimonCox has joined #dxwg
14:02:08 <antoine> antoine has joined #dxwg
14:02:40 <Makx> Makx has joined #dxwg
14:03:44 <antoine> present+ antoine
14:03:57 <Ixchel> Ixchel has joined #dxwg
14:04:00 <Ixchel> present + Ixchel
14:04:12 <SimonCox> present+ SimonCox
14:05:19 <kcoyle> scribenick PWinstanley
14:06:10 <roba> roba has joined #dxwg
14:06:19 <roba> present+
14:06:19 <PWinstanley> kcoyle: first step to approve last week's minutes
14:06:39 <kcoyle> RESOLVED: approved last week's minutes
14:06:55 <SimonCox> https://www.w3.org/2017/08/14-dxwg-minutes
14:07:14 <PWinstanley> kcoyle: brinef update from UCR group - impromtu meeting at the beginning of tada's mtg
14:07:25 <PWinstanley> roba: nothing further to add
14:07:35 <PWinstanley> Ixchel: nothing to add
14:07:45 <roba> we should schedule a UCR meeting later this week.
14:07:53 <PWinstanley> kcoyle: can you set a deadline for 1st draft?
14:08:38 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> q+
14:08:45 <PWinstanley> ... there is no hard dates between now and Nov1, but it would be good to have done weeks before because nov 9-10 there is the second F2F and we need to discuss requirements
14:09:02 <PWinstanley> ...so it woul dbe good to have them in late stages of development so that they can be finalised then
14:09:19 <PWinstanley> roba: hope to get  finalised by end next week
14:09:42 <PWinstanley> Jaroslav_Pullmann: it currenlty reads quite well.  There may be need for additional work
14:10:06 <PWinstanley> ... Peter mentioned KWIC index - might be useful
14:10:48 <PWinstanley> Jaroslav_Pullmann: Ididn't write down use cases that we didn't consider for continueation. Was there a resolution on how to proceed?
14:10:59 <PWinstanley> kcoyle: no - is there an out of scope tag?
14:11:17 <PWinstanley> Jaroslav_Pullmann: Thomas just closed them -  that is just the input I wokred on
14:11:36 <PWinstanley> kcoyle: can we actually mark them as being out of scope, so that the decision is explicit?
14:11:45 <PWinstanley> kcoyle: I will send you a list
14:12:28 <PWinstanley> Jaroslav_Pullmann: I will add a new tag, update the wiki etc, and mark them as out of scope on the wiki (retained, but marked as out of scope)
14:12:39 <PWinstanley> kcoyle: yes, the document will be part of the archive
14:13:08 <PWinstanley> Jaroslav_Pullmann: How should I proceed wiht the requirements list - some (e.g. INSPIRE) have many requirements?
14:13:35 <SimonCox> q+
14:13:47 <kcoyle> ack Jaroslav_Pullmann
14:13:51 <PWinstanley> kcoyle: If the authors still think the requirements are relevant then they can add a slimmer use case
14:14:13 <PWinstanley> Jaroslav_Pullmann: What about requirements on the profile?  They should be atomic
14:14:33 <PWinstanley> ... should we attempt to have more complex and self-contained requirements?
14:14:36 <antoine> q+
14:14:58 <PWinstanley> kcoyle: essentially up to you/the group.  As we discuss requirements we will see which style works best
14:15:00 <kcoyle> ack SimonCox
14:15:11 <antoine> q-
14:15:18 <DaveBrowning> DaveBrowning has joined #dxwg
14:15:48 <roba> q+
14:16:03 <PWinstanley> SimonCox: With UCR doc, it is a collation from the wiki into the doc proper.  The discussions in the meetings - is that implied by the UC being in the doc.  I don't see anything about status
14:16:04 <DaveBrowning> present+ DaveBrowning
14:16:34 <PWinstanley> roba: if they have been marked out of scope by the dicussion then that is recorded
14:17:34 <PWinstanley> ...the UCs are edited and curated to provide a testable set - there is no significance re: order.  There is a lot of duplication and I have been editing and curating to simplify and dedupe.  There is still some work to do
14:17:52 <kcoyle> q?
14:17:52 <PWinstanley> kcoyle: we are still considering new use cases
14:18:50 <kcoyle> ack roba
14:18:55 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> q+
14:19:48 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> present-
14:19:53 <PWinstanley> Jaroslav_Pullmann: I will have a version of UC by end of next week, as Rob mentioned, ready for discussion
14:19:54 <kcoyle> ack Jaroslav_Pullmann
14:20:15 <PWinstanley> kcoyle: any report on activity of the DCAT group?
14:20:49 <PWinstanley> SimonCox: Nothing to report.  Holiday time, perhaps.  My sense is that a lot of activity is predicated on the UCR doc being finalised
14:21:00 <PWinstanley> kcoyle: Open Action Items:
14:21:40 <PWinstanley> kcoyle: Peter, you have one?
14:22:46 <PWinstanley> PWinstanley: Done, but I have a clash in numbering that I will resolve today
14:23:49 <PWinstanley> kcoyle: we have 2 use cases -
14:24:05 <PWinstanley> ...I introduced those on the mailing list - there has been some discussion
14:24:11 <kcoyle> https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/Use_Case_Working_Space#ID49
14:24:14 <PWinstanley> ...there is also UC 49
14:24:39 <kcoyle> q?
14:25:19 <PWinstanley> SimonCox: The UC comes from a meeting wiht a colleague, we realised that a lot of data discovery in the domains we work in uses project context as an angle for discovery
14:26:32 <PWinstanley> ...generalising a little bit, there is perhaps a business context  for this.  We set out a use case and related to others, but putting it explicitly, we think a minimal decription of a project or business context is helpful
14:26:49 <kcoyle> q?
14:27:19 <PWinstanley> roba: my feeling is to accept 'as is'
14:28:08 <PWinstanley> ...there is overlap with other requirements - the ability to connect with a deeper level of another model.  We can't solve now, but it is consistent with other UCs
14:29:26 <PWinstanley> ...The class for a project is a specific solution, but the description can help develop a more generlisable solution
14:29:29 <PWinstanley> q+
14:29:37 <kcoyle> ack PWinstanley
14:32:43 <roba> q+
14:33:38 <kcoyle> ack roba
14:34:22 <kcoyle> PROPOSED: accept UC 49 as in scope
14:34:25 <antoine> +1
14:34:27 <SimonCox> +1
14:34:29 <PWinstanley> +1
14:34:30 <roba> +1
14:34:31 <DaveBrowning> +1
14:34:42 <Ixchel> +1
14:34:48 <Makx> +1
14:35:22 <kcoyle> RESOLVED: accept UC 49 as in scope
14:36:05 <PWinstanley> kcoyle: next is #47
14:36:07 <kcoyle> https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/Use_Case_Working_Space#ID47
14:37:32 <roba> q+
14:37:39 <DaveBrowning> q+
14:37:45 <kcoyle> ack roba
14:38:18 <antoine> q+
14:38:29 <PWinstanley> roba: partly this appears to be provenance - there is also a quesiton about versions and additional metadata.  There is also predicting the update cycle, which doesn't fit into both of the above
14:38:43 <PWinstanley> kcoyle: no, but that is an interesting question
14:38:56 <antoine> q-
14:39:00 <kcoyle> q?
14:39:10 <PWinstanley> roba: DCAT doesn't currently have a space for a rich model of this additional metadata on the type of update
14:39:19 <antoine> q+
14:39:53 <kcoyle> ack DaveBrowning
14:41:31 <PWinstanley> DaveBrowning: I agere with the UC.  The only issue, we have already touched on this, there is a complex interaction between versions and e.g. timepoints.  Important for financial markets where there is no tight versioning and more a continuous stream of data
14:42:22 <PWinstanley> ...some codificaiton compatible with DCAT wouldbe helpful.  But we need to be cautious about inferences on e.g. version publication etc.  I think the UC pushes discussion in the right direction
14:42:25 <kcoyle> ack antoine
14:43:00 <PWinstanley> antoine: does the UC asks for a definition, or is it just a placeholder?
14:43:24 <PWinstanley> kcoyle: it doesn't determine .  this can be done as DCAT 1.1 gets developed
14:43:36 <PWinstanley> antoine: do you have examples of methods ?
14:44:22 <PWinstanley> kcoyle: I only included one - the transaction file.  In the mailing list discussion others (esp Makx) had a description of various types, so we will have to generate a list of types/methods
14:44:55 <PWinstanley> antoine: I anticipate an exhaustive list will be difficullt to generate, and this use case will only be easy to satisfy if we have a suitable link
14:45:14 <Makx> If we're taking this task on for DCAT 1.1, we need to be very clear what kinds of update mechanisms we need to model
14:45:31 <PWinstanley> kcoyle: if there is a list of methods then it will be easier - we don't want everyone mkaing up their own list.  I don't know of a suitable existing vocab.
14:46:15 <Makx> Would we be looking at a 'generailsed' update method inside datasets or would we limit it to particular types of data, e.g. bibliographic records?
14:46:42 <Makx> s/generailsed/generalised/
14:46:47 <PWinstanley> kcoyle: we would be looking at a generalised method
14:47:05 <PWinstanley> ... users must be able to discover the update method
14:47:08 <kcoyle> RESOLVED: accept ID 47 as in scope
14:47:22 <Makx> +1
14:47:26 <kcoyle> s/RESOLVED/PROPOSED
14:47:31 <SimonCox> +1
14:47:32 <roba> +1
14:47:32 <DaveBrowning> +1
14:47:32 <PWinstanley> +1
14:47:34 <antoine> +1
14:47:41 <Ixchel> +1
14:48:15 <kcoyle> RESOLVED: accept ID 47 as in scope
14:48:35 <kcoyle> https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/Use_Case_Working_Space#ID48
14:49:54 <roba> q+
14:49:56 <PWinstanley> kcoyle: this is another complicated one that is about how the profile relates to validation - important because DC profiles developed >10y ago and they included all the information to inderstand the dataset - including the information now in SHACL/SHEX - a description of a metadata schema
14:50:42 <PWinstanley> ... we are assuming that people will use a validaiton lang.  How much of this should go into the profile (so that they are human friendly, but it also a validation language - how do we set the balance)
14:50:50 <kcoyle> q?
14:50:59 <kcoyle> ack roba
14:51:35 <PWinstanley> roba: I feel this UC reads more like a requirement than a UC.  I agree with the proposition and hope that I've copied it right in the way I've pulled out the requirements for profiles
14:52:08 <Makx> DCAT-AP v1.1 is defined in a file that combines OWL and SHACL: e.g. https://github.com/SEMICeu/dcat-ap_shacl/blob/master/shacl-latest/dcat-ap.shapes.ttl
14:52:14 <PWinstanley> ...generally speaking validation for artifacts will pull out some of the aspects, but perhaps not all of them (e.g. validating a response doesn't validate performance).
14:52:52 <PWinstanley> ...if we get the generalised model of a profile right then that will work for this UC
14:53:07 <PWinstanley> ... but it might be redundant
14:53:21 <PWinstanley> kcoyle: when do you mean by 'validate DCAT profiles'?
14:54:35 <PWinstanley> roba: if there is a specific validation required then there is no UC and so one needs to be written, but if not then it's not a UC in its current form.  So, rewrite if there is a nuance that you think we are missing
14:54:45 <PWinstanley> kcoyle: are there other UCs that you think cover this?
14:56:23 <roba> 6.4 Create a way to retrieve more information about a profile.  Create a way to retrieve more information about a profile. This must be flexible enough to support human and machine readable resources, such as input and editing guidance, validation resources, usage notes etc.  6.1 Definition of an application profile 6.3 Create a way to list the profiles implemented by a dataset or a specific distribution  5.2 Detailing and requesting additional constraints (profiles
14:56:53 <PWinstanley> roba: there are many UC basically about the same thing
14:57:30 <PWinstanley> ...it may be an imperfect approach, but the intent is exactly what's required here - so please rewrite
14:58:26 <PWinstanley> kcoyle: I will rewrite - it is a matter of deciding how much the validation information can be carried in a profile, or whether that should be in a validation language
14:58:59 <PWinstanley> roba: working out the definition of a 'profile' wiill be helpful here.  validation languages are 'meta' profiles
14:59:50 <PWinstanley> ... when we start talking about negotiation by profile, we will then need to go into this more deeply
14:59:58 <kcoyle> ACTION: on kcoyle - rewrite UC48
14:59:59 <trackbot> Error finding 'on'. You can review and register nicknames at <https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/track/users>.
15:00:20 <kcoyle> ACTION: kcoyle to rewrite UC48
15:00:20 <trackbot> Created ACTION-34 - Rewrite uc48 [on Karen Coyle - due 2017-08-28].
15:00:28 <PWinstanley> roba: from a UC perspective, pre and post-conditions are helpful.  Intended effect etc
15:00:38 <kcoyle> q?
15:01:07 <PWinstanley> bye
15:01:40 <Makx> Just added link to DCAT-AP OWL/SHACL tp ID48
15:01:57 <Makx> bye
15:01:58 <roba> bye all
15:02:06 <kcoyle> rrsagent, create minutes v2
15:02:06 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/08/21-dxwg-minutes.html kcoyle