13:53:23 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #dxwg
13:53:23 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/08/28-dxwg-irc
13:53:25 <newton> newton has left #dxwg
13:53:33 <kcoyle> rrsagent, make logs public
13:56:24 <LarsG> LarsG has joined #dxwg
13:57:00 <LarsG> present+
13:57:54 <Stijn_Goedertier> Stijn_Goedertier has joined #dxwg
13:58:32 <kcoyle> present+
13:59:43 <Caroline_> Caroline_ has joined #DXWG
14:00:33 <Caroline_> Present+
14:01:52 <SimonCox> SimonCox has joined #dxwg
14:02:05 <SimonCox> present+ SimonCox
14:02:16 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> Jaroslav_Pullmann has joined #dxwg
14:02:16 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> present+
14:03:21 <Caroline_> Zakim, pick a scribe
14:03:21 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose Caroline_
14:03:41 <Caroline_> Zakim, pick a scribe
14:03:41 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose Caroline_
14:03:43 <kcoyle> chair: Caroline_
14:03:48 <Caroline_> Zakim, pick a scribe
14:03:48 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose kcoyle
14:03:58 <Ixchel> Ixchel has joined #dxwg
14:04:03 <kcoyle> scribenick: kcoyle
14:04:03 <Ixchel> present +
14:04:08 <Ixchel> present + Ixchel
14:04:31 <Stijn_Goedertier> present (on behalf of AIV, Thomas D'Haenens)
14:04:54 <Caroline_> https://www.w3.org/2017/08/21-dxwg-minutes
14:05:15 <kcoyle> RESOLVED: approve previous minutes
14:05:31 <annette_g> annette_g has joined #dxwg
14:05:32 <Makx> Makx has joined #dxwg
14:05:48 <kcoyle> TOPIC: Group reports
14:05:51 <Caroline_> https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/ucr/
14:06:10 <kcoyle> draft of UCR on github -
14:06:16 <Caroline_> Ack Jaroslav_Pullmann
14:06:22 <Caroline_> ack Ixchel
14:06:45 <kcoyle> Ixchel: checking back on wiki to make sure all use cases copied over
14:07:09 <annette_g> present+ annette_g
14:07:35 <kcoyle> Jaroslav_Pullmann: looking at referencing/inferencing issues -
14:08:01 <kcoyle> ... references between usecases and requirements
14:08:48 <kcoyle> ... done with a script from requirements to use cases
14:09:04 <kcoyle> ... added 'out of scope' tag
14:10:50 <kcoyle> ... will contact respec authors to clarify creation of dynamic links
14:11:15 <kcoyle> ACTION: Jaroslav_Pullmann contact respec authors to clarify creation of dynamic links
14:11:17 <trackbot> Created ACTION-35 - Contact respec authors to clarify creation of dynamic links [on Jaroslav Pullmann - due 2017-09-04].
14:11:20 <Caroline_> q?
14:11:42 <Makx> presnet+ Makx
14:11:43 <kcoyle> TOPIC: open actions
14:11:52 <Makx> present+ Makx
14:13:00 <kcoyle> Ixchel: couldn't close the actions 5, 11, 12
14:13:14 <kcoyle> ... these are done and can be closed
14:14:01 <kcoyle> Jaroslav_Pullmann: still working on ID25
14:15:05 <kcoyle> kcoyle: closed action 34
14:15:08 <Caroline_> q?
14:15:44 <Caroline_> scribenick: Caroline_
14:16:00 <Caroline_> kcoyle: we discussed on the mailing list and I rewrote it as a use case
14:16:27 <Caroline_> ... about creating a profile that includes the same information that may by a validation script and need to have that on the profile
14:16:33 <kcoyle> https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/Use_Case_Working_Space#ID48
14:16:37 <Caroline_> the link is above
14:17:39 <Caroline_> ... not sure about the requirements yey
14:17:39 <Caroline_> q?
14:17:56 <SimonCox> q+
14:18:03 <Caroline_> ack SimonCox
14:18:30 <Caroline_> SimonCox: the problem statement
14:18:47 <Caroline_> kcoyle: SHACL is a W3C standard
14:18:56 <Caroline_> ... I would be happy to not have it there
14:19:00 <Caroline_> ... we can remove that
14:19:10 <annette_g> Q+
14:19:13 <Caroline_> SimonCox: I suggest to change to machine readable
14:19:32 <Caroline_> kcoyle: I will modify it
14:19:44 <Caroline_> SimonCox: I don't think it change the requirements
14:19:59 <Caroline_> kcoyle: it does not change the requirements
14:20:10 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> q+
14:20:41 <Caroline_> annette_g: the first requirement listed "The profile must clarify any relationship between profiles and available validation documents or code " my concern is that they maybe not get created in that order
14:21:05 <Caroline_> ... I think the requirement should be that the profile shoud be completed by itself
14:21:19 <Caroline_> kcoyle: I like that because is the sense of the problem statement
14:21:25 <Caroline_> ... I will change this requirement
14:21:34 <Caroline_> ack annette_g '
14:21:42 <LarsG> s/shoud/should/
14:22:36 <Caroline_> kcoyle: the profile defines the metadata and the validation would validate it on the profile
14:22:49 <Caroline_> annette_g: I would put separate so you don't have to link them
14:23:37 <Caroline_> ... we can think about ways how relashionship could work better
14:23:54 <Caroline_> kcoyle: so validating the profile structure itsefl?
14:24:05 <Caroline_> annette_g: using the profile to validate any metadate
14:24:12 <Caroline_> s/metadate/metadata
14:24:19 <Caroline_> kcoyle: that was my dream!
14:24:32 <Caroline_> ... but I think it is more than what people would be willing to accept
14:24:55 <Caroline_> annette_g: it could say if the metadata would match or not that profile
14:25:03 <Caroline_> kcoyle: we can keep it that in mind
14:25:08 <Caroline_> q?
14:25:11 <Caroline_> ack annette_g
14:25:15 <Caroline_> ack Jaroslav_Pullmann
14:25:35 <Caroline_> Jaroslav_Pullmann: we should be technology agnostic as it was said before and mention machine processing
14:25:54 <Caroline_> ... how the profile state any requirements of valid dataset when is no formula to express
14:26:05 <Caroline_> kcoyle: I think this is the task of the profile doc
14:26:22 <Caroline_> Jaroslav_Pullmann: this is type of definition of the valid criteria for profile
14:26:31 <Caroline_> kcoyle: I think it is going to come up in the profile taks
14:26:43 <Caroline_> ... we don't know yet if it is possible
14:27:01 <Caroline_> Jaroslav_Pullmann: I would like to ask LarsG if in his experience is that sort of formalization
14:27:05 <kcoyle> q+
14:27:31 <Caroline_> LarsG: there is a difference between human and machine readable
14:27:54 <Caroline_> ... I agre with kcoyle that it is something defines what a profile is
14:28:05 <Caroline_> Jaroslav_Pullmann: it could be introduced in the description of the use case
14:28:17 <Caroline_> ... the profile target is humans and not machines
14:28:26 <annette_g> Q+
14:28:38 <Makx> See https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/asset/dcat_application_profile/asset_release/dcat-ap-v11 for various formats of the DCAT-AP profile
14:28:44 <Caroline_> ... if remains as it is we will not be able to define a certain criteria
14:28:55 <Caroline_> LarsG: this is getting conceptual
14:29:00 <Caroline_> ... the profile is abstract
14:29:19 <Caroline_> ... it can be a profile document that can be described to humans
14:29:20 <Makx> Text, RDF schema, SHACL source all with the same information
14:29:27 <Caroline_> ... we can figure out as we go along
14:29:41 <Caroline_> Jaroslav_Pullmann: it could be ilustrative
14:29:53 <Caroline_> ack kcoyle
14:30:27 <Caroline_> kcoyle: as an example the DublinCore profile was implemented in XML partly because the most logical serialization at the time
14:30:40 <Caroline_> ... you can display to users very well in XML
14:30:43 <Caroline_> q?
14:30:47 <Caroline_> annette_g:
14:30:54 <Caroline_> ack annette_g
14:31:11 <Caroline_> the reaseon to have it in human readable is the same to have in machine readable
14:31:17 <Caroline_> +1 to annette_g
14:31:19 <Caroline_> q?
14:31:58 <kcoyle> PROPOSED: approve use case 48 as in scope
14:31:59 <Caroline_> scribenick: kcoyle
14:32:02 <kcoyle> scribenick: kcoyle
14:32:09 <annette_g> +1
14:32:11 <SimonCox> +1
14:32:13 <Stijn_Goedertier> +1
14:32:14 <kcoyle> +1
14:32:14 <LarsG> +1
14:32:19 <Caroline_> +1
14:32:19 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> +1
14:33:16 <kcoyle> RESOLVED: approve use case 48 as in scope, with changes as discussed
14:33:18 <Makx> +1
14:33:58 <Caroline_> The profile must clarify any relationship between profiles and available validation documents or code
14:34:04 <Caroline_> s/The profile must clarify any relationship between profiles and available validation documents or code /
14:34:13 <Caroline_> https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/ucr/#RID5
14:34:32 <kcoyle> TOPIC: requirements 6.5-6.9
14:35:49 <kcoyle> q+
14:35:50 <Caroline_> q?
14:36:05 <Caroline_> kcoyle:
14:36:08 <Caroline_> ack kcoyle
14:36:25 <Caroline_> this is a group of background that seemed to be related to each other
14:36:46 <Caroline_> ... it seems that version is something that we agreed to be needed
14:36:53 <SimonCox> q+
14:36:55 <Caroline_> ... we need to give them a context while discussing it
14:37:21 <Caroline_> ... this is a statement to the editors to thinks what might be the best way to approach in agreing modifying the requirement
14:37:31 <Caroline_> ack SimonCox
14:37:36 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> q+
14:38:17 <kcoyle> SimonCox: in 6.5, the what is meant by "version in this context"? is context a dataset instance? or is it more general?
14:38:47 <Caroline_> ack Jaroslav_Pullmann
14:39:46 <kcoyle> Jaroslav_Pullmann: needs to be coordinated with definitions in data exchange working group documents
14:40:27 <kcoyle> SimonCox: concern - hope we are not intending to impose a limited set of versioning styles; perhaps can describe a few common practices
14:40:38 <kcoyle> ... not appropriate to limit to any versioning rules
14:40:47 <Ixchel> q+
14:41:14 <kcoyle> Jaroslav_Pullmann: context = related to this group;
14:41:28 <kcoyle> ... e.g. dataset not for distribution
14:41:29 <Caroline_> ack Ixchel
14:42:10 <kcoyle> Ixchel: agree that it needs clarification; taken directly from use case
14:42:28 <kcoyle> ... get clarification from group
14:43:08 <Caroline_> q?
14:44:28 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> q+
14:44:37 <Caroline_> ack Jaroslav_Pullmann
14:44:45 <annette_g> Q+
14:45:11 <kcoyle> Jaroslav_Pullmann: derive a requirement that refers to scope of versioning for dcat - what aspects will be versioned?
14:45:29 <kcoyle> ... will be specified in relation to entities of dcat model?
14:45:39 <Caroline_> ack annette_g
14:46:00 <kcoyle> annette_g: when we talk about versioning there's a big challenge in terms of how much to define
14:46:16 <kcoyle> ... very domain-specific, and not likely to change
14:46:53 <kcoyle> ... so we shouldn't get into defining versions, but make an inclusive vocabulary that people can encode what they call a version
14:46:56 <kcoyle> +1
14:47:01 <Caroline_> q?
14:48:08 <kcoyle> q+
14:48:12 <Makx> +1 to annette_g: find ways to describe not prescribe
14:48:13 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> q+
14:48:21 <Caroline_> ack kcoyle
14:49:15 <Caroline_> ack Jaroslav_Pullmann
14:49:23 <kcoyle> kcoyle: look at less controversial version requirements
14:49:48 <kcoyle> Jaroslav_Pullmann: 6.5 should be split into more concrete requirements
14:50:08 <kcoyle> ... what is there isn't actionable for dcat subgroup work
14:50:54 <annette_g> Q+
14:50:59 <kcoyle> q+
14:51:25 <Caroline_> ack annette_g
14:52:17 <kcoyle> annette_g: do we assume that we should not conflict with other w3c recommendations?
14:52:18 <SimonCox> q+
14:52:24 <Caroline_> kcoyle:
14:52:30 <Caroline_> ack kcoyle
14:52:47 <Caroline_> kcoyle: I think we are suppose to take other W3C recommendations into consideration
14:53:02 <Caroline_> ... if we have any requirements that they could fulfill
14:53:25 <Caroline_> also you said something important that we should check if there is no confliction with other standards
14:54:18 <Caroline_> ... about Jaroslav_Pullmann comments one of the things that happens on the life of the group is that people start off and then don't continue. So we can take over that work and go on updating it
14:54:32 <kcoyle> Jaroslav_Pullmann: if can't reach authors, we'll take on the requirements
14:55:08 <kcoyle> ... requirements need to be made concrete for sub-groups
14:55:12 <Caroline_> ack SimonCox
14:56:04 <kcoyle> SimonCox: what we do does not have to be totally consistent with previous w3c work, but best that we not conflict
14:56:30 <kcoyle> ... re:potential conflicts with PROV, ... is there something?
14:56:51 <kcoyle> annette_g: don't see conflicts, but PROV does address this, so we should look at it
14:57:00 <kcoyle> ... it might provide a framework for us
14:57:06 <Caroline_> q?
14:57:20 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> q+
14:57:28 <Caroline_> ack Jaroslav_Pullmann
14:58:15 <kcoyle> Jaroslav_Pullmann: not ready to vote, esp. on 6.5. look at PROV and VOID. action to editors to look at prov and void and align them with ours
14:58:56 <kcoyle> ACTION: Jaroslav_Pullmann and editors look at PROV and VOID
14:58:57 <trackbot> Created ACTION-36 - And editors look at prov and void [on Jaroslav Pullmann - due 2017-09-04].
14:59:12 <Caroline_> q?
14:59:23 <Makx> thanks, bye bye
14:59:29 <LarsG> Thanks, bye!
14:59:32 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> present-
14:59:48 <Caroline_> rssagent generate v2
15:00:03 <Caroline_> RRSAgent generate minutes v2
15:00:06 <kcoyle> rrsagent generate minutes v2
15:00:27 <kcoyle> rrsagent, make the minutes v2
15:00:27 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/08/28-dxwg-minutes.html kcoyle
15:00:44 <Caroline_> rrsagent, make the minutes public
15:00:44 <RRSAgent> I'm logging. I don't understand 'make the minutes public', Caroline_.  Try /msg RRSAgent help
15:01:01 <Caroline_> rrsagent, make the logging public
15:01:01 <RRSAgent> I'm logging. I don't understand 'make the logging public', Caroline_.  Try /msg RRSAgent help