– DRAFT –
Data Exchange Working Group Teleconference

Caroline_: Scribenick: SimonCox

newton: present+

Caroline_: https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2017.09.11

annette_g: Present+ annette_g

SimonCox: Topic: approve minutes of last meeting

Caroline_: https://www.w3.org/2017/09/04-dxwg-minutes

roba: present+

SimonCox: Missing regrets added - thanks Dave

aisaac joined the chat room.

SimonCox: Resolution: minutes of last meeting approved

aisaac: present+ antoine

Jaroslav_Pullmann: q+

fanieli joined the chat room.

fanieli: present + Ixchel

SimonCox: Topic: grouping requirements

Caroline_: ack Jaroslav_Pullmann

fanieli left the chat room.

DaveBrowning joined the chat room.

Jaroslav_Pullmann: go on, I'll setup my audio please

SimonCox: No sound from Jaro

Ixchel joined the chat room.

Ixchel: present + Ixchel

Stijn_Goedertier_AIV joined the chat room.

SimonCox: SOunds like a ronbot now

SimonCox: s/ronbot/robot/

Stijn_Goedertier_AIV: present+ Stijn_Goedertier_AIV

SimonCox: Jaroslav_Pullmann: no new work on requirements sorting

SimonCox: ... not much work done.

DaveBrowning: present+ DaveBrowning

SimonCox: ... thematic grouping, but no prioritization

SimonCox: ... reqs are mostly one-liners, no more structure.

SimonCox: ... need to understand what is expected from re-organization of requirements

alejandra: q+

Caroline_: Comparison and analysis of W3C UCR documents https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/Comparison_and_analysis_of_W3C_UCR_documents

SimonCox: ... work on content, make more precise?

Caroline_: q?

Caroline_: ack alejandra

SimonCox: alejandra: catching up after missing a few weeks

RiccardoAlbertoni joined the chat room.

SimonCox: ... read emails, html now allows to filter

Zakim joined the chat room.

SimonCox: ... had in mind that each req could become GitHub issue, for tracking purposes

SimonCox: ... classification as labels in GitHub - easier than lots of JS in HTMl doc!

SimonCox: s/HTMl/html

SimonCox: Caroline_: yes, was discussed. We will use GitHub to track issues.

SimonCox: alejandra: does this also include Requirements?

achille_zappa joined the chat room.

SimonCox: ... can close req/issues when they have been implemented.

roba: q+

• Zakim sees roba on the speaker queue

SimonCox: Caroline_: resolution was to use GitHub comprehensively

SimonCox: ... now need to group requirements. (per this Topic!)

Caroline_: ack roba

• Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue

RiccardoAlbertoni: present+ RiccardoAlbertoni

SimonCox: roba: Tried to see if stylesheet woudl do grouping in UCR document

SimonCox: ... lots of separate requirements. Trade off between grouping and emumeration of all simple cases

Makx_ joined the chat room.

SimonCox: ... editing risk --> repeating requirements

SimonCox: ... grouping is best compromise. Have not yet finished going through individual UCs and grouping

SimonCox: ... propose to work through a couple to see how process works

Jaroslav_Pullmann: q+

• Zakim sees Jaroslav_Pullmann on the speaker queue

SimonCox: ... premature to throw them all into GitHub

Caroline_: ack Jaroslav_Pullmann

• Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue

alejandra: sure, rob, thanks

SimonCox: Jaroslav_Pullmann: GitHub supports good traceability

SimonCox: ... some analysis needed before transition to GH

Makx_: presnt+ Makx

Makx_: presnet Makx

Caroline_: s/presnt/Present

Makx_: present+ Makx

Caroline_: q?

• Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue

AndreaPerego joined the chat room.

SimonCox: Makx spelling challenge

SimonCox: Caroline_: already grouped 6.5 - 6.9

SimonCox: ... start discussing those?

AndreaPerego: present+ AndreaPerego

• AndreaPerego apologises for being late.

Makx left the chat room. (Ping timeout: 180 seconds)

• Caroline_ welcome AndreaPerego

SimonCox: Jaroslav_Pullmann: grouping of reqs not yet concluded. WHat do groups look like?

SimonCox: ... broad thematic groups, or highly focussed

SimonCox: ... currently up to three hierarchy level of requirements

SimonCox: roba: first few sets - 6.1-6.4 Profiles, 6.5-6.9 Versions are cleanly separated

SimonCox: ... subsequent ones not yet classified or grouped, unclear how they will work

SimonCox: ... Versioning is a good group now

SimonCox: ... 6.17 might join versioning group

SimonCox: ... need to decide if level of detail is correct on Versioning group

SimonCox: In case anyone wants to check - this document https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/Comparison_and_analysis_of_W3C_UCR_documents

• AndreaPerego wonders why RRSAgent is not available.

SimonCox: AndreaPerego - possibly because someone didn't do something they shoudl have?

RRSAgent joined the chat room.

RRSAgent: logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/09/11-dxwg-irc

Jaroslav_Pullmann: q+

• Zakim sees Jaroslav_Pullmann on the speaker queue

Caroline_: should we vote on requirements in groups?

Jaroslav_Pullmann: still unclear what are meaningful groupings for requirements
… should we extend the tagset?

Jaroslav_Pullmann vanished from voice :-(

<Jaroslav_Pullmann> Sorry, I have to reload Webex, no audio at all

roba: proposed to do initial tryout on first groupings

<Caroline_> can you hear us Jaroslav_Pullmann ?

<roba> Describe title/group "Versioning" ?

<Jaroslav_Pullmann> yes, I am back

<roba> Are the set of requirements complete?

<roba> Are the descriptions simple yet meaningful (in the context of the group)

<roba> Are there other requirements that need to be in this group

<annette_g> +1 for tags

Jaroslav_Pullmann: Are there multiple dimensions of classification?

Thanks @dsr

<roba> How are these requirements applicable to multiple deliverables - e.g. version semantics in DCAT, extended version models in guidance, negotiation by profile (also version?)

1. Describe title/group "Versioning" ? 2. Are the set of requirements complete? 3. Are the descriptions simple yet meaningful (in the context of the group) 4. How are these requirements applicable to multiple deliverables - e.g. version semantics in DCAT, extended version models in guidance, negotiation by profile (also version?)

(Roba suggestions to focus treatment)

Caroline_: makes sense to me

Jaroslav_Pullmann: Is there a single hierarchy/classification dimension?
… is a requirement part of versioning, QA, distribution
… multiple tags required to detect that a requirement applies to several groupings

<Caroline_> SimonCox: it feels like we had a group as part of the use cases and the we are teasing them apart to get the requirements

<Caroline_> ... I like roba suggestion that we run through an exercise to see how it goes but I am concerned how long we will take

roba: grouping in UCs was not so formal
… tags in UC document not so formal or useful. Allowed us to test the JS ;-)
… is it reasonable to say "here are all the versioning requirements"
… we will know that when we've given it a try
… all very complicated, trying to mitigate risk of multiple incompatible solutions
… to requirments that weren't quite grouped right

<Makx_> +1 to alejandra

alejandra: lets analyse the requirements and not burn time grouping

Caroline_: maybe we can give actions to some group members who are willing to work on specific res
… e.g. who is willing to work on Versioning group?

<Jaroslav_Pullmann> Caroline, what would be the "set"?

Jaroslav_Pullmann: good proposal - use groupings to govern work programme

<Caroline_> annette_g:

Jaroslav_Pullmann: lets look at groups now and get volunteers

<Caroline_> s/annette_g:

annette_g: grouping should be 'by deliverable'

<aisaac> annette_g++

annette_g: worried about smaller groupings, applying to small pieces of deliverable
… requirements should inform the deliverables systematically
… editors need list per deliverable

Jaroslav_Pullmann: tags for deliverables already in place
… when can we shring them down to more practical lots of work

annette_g: lets see requirements sorted by deliverable

Jaroslav_Pullmann: will change JS prototype to achieve this
… filtering

Action: Jaroslav_Pullmann to provide different views on filtered content in UCR document

<trackbot> Created ACTION-37 - Provide different views on filtered content in ucr document [on Jaroslav Pullmann - due 2017-09-18].

Again: this document https://‌www.w3.org/‌2017/‌dxwg/‌wiki/‌Comparison_and_analysis_of_W3C_UCR_documents

This is the one we are working on https://‌w3c.github.io/‌dxwg/‌ucr/

roba: 'profiles', 'versioning', 'functional descriptions of distributions' so far
… the rest look a bit like 'lots more metadata' ...
… will now try to pull out next set of groups
… are the descriptions of requirements (and groupings) OK as they are currently in https://‌w3c.github.io/‌dxwg/‌ucr/

Caroline_: tagging is important, but more important to have 'overview', not just tags

Action: all to provide feedback to UCR editors on requirements organization

<trackbot> Error finding 'all'. You can review and register nicknames at <https://‌www.w3.org/‌2017/‌dxwg/‌track/‌users>.

<annette_g> @caroline do you mean a summary for each group?

<roba> two needs going forward: the "next group" to organise and feedback on the level of detail on the groups already made (profiles, versions, fine grained description of datasets and distributions

Jaroslav_Pullmann: could we agree to select one of the groupings, assign responsibilities
… Jaroslav_Pullmann will looka t versioning, see if grouping/wording is complete
… etc

Action: Jaroslav_Pullmann to review 'versioning' group

<trackbot> Created ACTION-38 - Review 'versioning' group [on Jaroslav Pullmann - due 2017-09-18].

roba: will not review his own work!
… someone else to find next priority group?

<Ixchel> I agree with roba on his point.

Caroline_: Volunteers to do the requested review?

Sorry - not me, I'm travelling then on vacation next three weeks (yipee!)

Caroline_: Any hands up??? People!

Profiles ?

roba: maybe reuben, lars on Profiles?

Action: Caroline_ to ping lars and Reuben re reviewing Profiles grouping

<trackbot> Created ACTION-39 - Ping lars and reuben re reviewing profiles grouping [on Caroline Burle - due 2017-09-18].

<Caroline_> +1 to alejandra that all group should review the requirements

alejandra: all should try to contribute

Caroline_: did Jaroslav_Pullmann do Action 31?

Jaroslav_Pullmann: yes, but could not close

Caroline_: Any other actions to close today?
… meeting good in moving forward understanding, not so many closed actions.

<Makx> thanks, bye bye

<RiccardoAlbertoni> bye

<annette_g> Bye all!

<Stijn_Goedertier_AIV> thanks, bye

<alejandra> thanks and bye all!

<AndreaPerego> Bye!

<Jaroslav_Pullmann> Bye!

@dsr we will need your help massaging minutes - do you need my text log?

<dsr> yes, I have saved the irc log and will patch up the minutes tomorrow