Dataset Exchange Working Group Teleconference
31 July 2017
<antoine> I can scribe
alejandra: I am still waiting on seeing the acknowledgement on the catering for the Oxford minutes
Karen: we’re still working on the F2F minutes.
If there are no adjustments to last week’s teleconference minutes let’s vote on that
<SimonCox> was not present
<SimonCox> 'NOTUC' == No Objection to Unanimous Consent
<alejandra> https://www.w3.org/2017/07/24-dxwg-minutes
Resolved: we accept the minutes for 24 July 2017 teleconference.
Karen: I don’t see any new people today, so I think we’ve covered everyone.
Our next face to face will be at TPAC on November 9-10, which will take place near to San Francisco airport.
Everyone should note that there is a fee to support W3C’s hosting costs for TPAC.
<kcoyle> http://htmlpreview.github.io/?https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/blob/gh-pages/ucr/index.html
Rob acknowledges the contribution by Jaroslav who can’t attend todays call
Rob: I’ve started on the de-duplication process, and there is a fair bit of work to be done there, and would appreciate a sanity check before I get too stuck in
There are some notes in the draft that describe the main discussion points.
<Zakim> RubenVerborgh, you wanted to ask how to edit
Probably two days more work on the de-duplication of requirements
Ruben: if we have edits how should be provide those, as a pull request?
<annette_g> 5.8 has been edited in the wiki since this was set up.
<annette_g> It should be accepting the pull request
Rob: the pull request hasn’t yet propagated despite it being about 10 hours ago
Dave: that feels like something’s gone wrong as it should be quicker than that
<alejandra> https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/ucr/
<alejandra> it should be shown there
<alejandra> with the latest changes
<annette_g> Maybe a different page got updated?
Rob: I will look into this with Dave, but if you clone the document you can view it locally.
<Zakim> antoine, you wanted to ask about duplicated links across UCs
Rob: if you have edits, please generate a pull request
<SimonCox> pull-request, assign to editors
Antoine: I’ve seen some duplicated links across UCs, 35, 36 …
alejandra: if we could have some label to know which requirements have been addressed that would make it easier to focus on those that are still to be clarified
<Zakim> riccardoAlbertoni, you wanted to say that there are similar issue on id23 id24
riccardoAlbertoni: there are similar issue on id23 id24
Rob: any help that you can provide on checking the use cases would be appreciated
Karen: we have an agenda item on how to move forward …
<alejandra> +1 to put the tags to the requirements
Rob: I am happy to provide tags for easier tracking
Karen: we haven’t yet made clear the responsibilities …
Rob: we ought to bring work together on the same page relating to profiles
Karen: the other group report we’re looking for is on the DCAT group work
<riccardoAlbertoni> +1 to setting up a doodle poll ;)
alejandra: we’re considering a doodle poll to find a timeslot for the discussions on that
<Makx> +1 doodle
The work is dependent on getting the requirements, so we can’t do a lot just yet
Action: alejandra to get the DCAT group to do an analysis of the current profile
<trackbot> Created ACTION-32 - Get the dcat group to do an analysis of the current profile [on Alejandra Gonzalez Beltran - due 2017-08-07].
Karen: the DCAT group hasn’t yet been formally defined, but we have some expressions of interest from a few people
<SimonCox> We did select editors at an earlier meeting
<Makx> EoI Makx for DCAT
<SimonCox> me!
<alejandra> editors selected before: Peter, Simon, Thomas and me
<alejandra> but yes, hopefully everyone will contribute
Simon has volunteered to be an editor
Phil created an empty template document for us to work with.
<alejandra> here the skeleton of the document: https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/dcat/
Antoine: I am reassured, it is looking good for me.
<Zakim> riccardoAlbertoni, you wanted to suggest adding the editors for each deliverable in the group wiki page
riccardoAlbertoni: we should add he editors for each deliverable in the group wiki page
<annette_g> At some point, there will be only editors
Ruben: 27 was about links, I’ve put some text on the wiki, if you want a pull request let me know
<alejandra> so, do we stop using the wiki and we start using github for UCR work?
Ruben: 28 I’ve completely rewritten the use case following the suggestions from the F2F
Karen: we should put use case 28 back on our agenda for discussion (next week)
annette_g: I had an action for UC 8, and have done that on the wiki, but it isn’t on the github pages. I will make a pull request for it
Andrea: I can make a pull request from my cloned repo, do we want to follow that or to get everyone write access
Rob: if everyone has write permission it can make it hard to organise reviews
<alejandra> I think it is better to do Pull Requests and reviews
<alejandra> even if everyone has write access
Andrea: I can’t do anything to the repo as I don’t have write access - e.g., add labels to issues and PRs
Simon: this is controlled by the repo owner
Simon: in the spatial data WG everyone had write access, and we created branches and pushed these to the W3C main repo
Karen: could you please write up how that worked and email it to the public list and we can then see what others think
<kcoyle> https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/Use_Case_Working_Space#ID37
Karen: this was previously unresolved.
Karen invites Antoine to summarise where we got to
Antoine: one question is whether UC37 needs to be split and clarified
Karen: any comments?
Antoine: would members of the group be happy if the use case didn’t specifically name …
Karen: would people prefer if the use case was generalised in terms of requirements?
Rob: the generalisation is well underway, I am not too worried about duplication, but am not quite sure what to do about the last one
Karen: do people feel comfortable enough to vote on UC 37?
Rob raises a question about APIs and whether this is in scope for what we’re talking about here?
Karen: you could put this into the requirements and we could then discuss them along with the others and decide which ones are going too far …
<riccardoAlbertoni> +1 to discussing when we discuss requirements how far we bring each requirements
antoine: I may have over generalized this one.
<kcoyle> PROPOSED: accept UC 37
<annette_g> +1
<riccardoAlbertoni> +1
<antoine> +1
<alejandra> +1
+1
<Makx> +11
<AndreaPerego> +1
Karen: we can refine the requirements when we discuss them
<Makx> +1
Resolved: accept UC 37
antoine: one last point - we’re ready to discuss the requirements when you are, if anyone has doubts, pleaae let us know
<Makx> i clicked on the link on the meeting page, no password asked
Karen: we will meet again next Monday, please look at your actions and we will look forward to discussing how we want to use github
<annette_g> Bye!
<Caroline> thank you! Bye
<AndreaPerego> Thanks, and bye!
<Makx> bye
<riccardoAlbertoni> Bye
Karen: end of meeting …
meeting; Data Exchange WG teleconference
Succeeded: s/a TPAC/at TPAC/
Succeeded: s/editors/edits/
Succeeded: s/5 hours/10 hours/
Succeeded: s/Simon /Simon: /
Succeeded: s/Simon /Simon: /
Succeeded: s/I can’t do anything to the repo as I don’t have write access/I can’t do anything to the repo as I don’t have write access - e.g., add labels to issues and PRs/