13:44:07 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #dxwg
13:44:07 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/09/25-dxwg-irc
13:44:30 <kcoyle> rrsagent, make logs public
13:51:22 <Caroline_> Caroline_ has joined #DXWG
13:51:40 <dsr> trackbot, start meeting
13:51:43 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
13:51:46 <trackbot> Meeting: Dataset Exchange Working Group Teleconference
13:51:46 <trackbot> Date: 25 September 2017
13:52:16 <dsr> chair: Karen
13:52:51 <dsr> chair: Caroline
13:59:29 <alejandra> alejandra has joined #dxwg
13:59:52 <dsr> dsr has left #dxwg
14:00:07 <dsr> dsr has joined #dxwg
14:02:02 <Caroline_> Present +
14:02:05 <alejandra> present+
14:02:18 <dsr> present+
14:03:01 <LarsG> LarsG has joined #dxwg
14:03:09 <LarsG> present+ LarsG
14:03:25 <kcoyle> present+
14:04:10 <annette_g> annette_g has joined #dxwg
14:04:25 <Caroline_> Scribe: alejandra
14:04:31 <Caroline_> https://www.w3.org/2017/09/18-dxwg-minutes
14:04:46 <alejandra> Caroline_: can we approve last week's minutes?
14:04:54 <Caroline_> +1
14:04:54 <annette_g> present+ annette_g
14:05:09 <alejandra> Caroline_: no comments, so we can approve them
14:05:21 <Ixchel> Ixchel has joined #dxwg
14:05:24 <Ixchel> present + Ixchel
14:05:39 <alejandra> RESOLVED Last week's minutes approved
14:05:48 <Stijn_Goedertier_AIV> Stijn_Goedertier_AIV has joined #dxwg
14:05:57 <Caroline_> https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2017.09.25
14:05:58 <Stijn_Goedertier_AIV> present+ Stijn_Goedertier_AIV
14:06:02 <alejandra> Caroline_: today we want to approve the requirements based on Jaro's email
14:06:04 <DaveBrowning> DaveBrowning has joined #dxwg
14:06:08 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> Jaroslav_Pullmann has joined #dxwg
14:06:12 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> present+
14:06:19 <Daniele_B> Daniele_B has joined #dxwg
14:06:22 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> q+
14:06:34 <AndreaPerego> AndreaPerego has joined #dxwg
14:06:34 <Caroline_> ack Jaroslav_Pullmann
14:06:35 <alejandra> Caroline_: it would be good to decide as a group how to proceed with voting/approving the requirements
14:06:42 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> a second
14:06:47 <DaveBrowning> Present+ DaveBrowning
14:06:54 <phila> phila has joined #dxwg
14:07:21 <alejandra> Jaroslav_Pullmann: I looked at two options for numbering the requirements
14:07:32 <alejandra> ... so I would like to discuss about this and resolve it
14:07:33 <AndreaPerego> present+ AndreaPerego
14:07:50 <alejandra> ... option 1: continuous indexing, but it prevents easy collaboration
14:08:02 <Daniele_B> present+ Daniele Bailo
14:08:04 <Caroline_> q?
14:08:09 <kcoyle> q+
14:08:09 <alejandra> ... option 2: grouping of requirements and number the groups
14:08:17 <Caroline_> ack kcoyle
14:08:23 <alejandra> ... this helps collaboration as different editors can work on different groups
14:08:48 <alejandra> kcoyle: this is somewhat complicated and I think it is best to discuss via email so that we can focus on the requirements today
14:09:20 <alejandra> Jaroslav_Pullmann: the action was on selecting a numbering scheme, so we did this and considered the options
14:09:38 <alejandra> Jaroslav_Pullmann: I'd like to spend a second to discuss about it
14:09:48 <alejandra> kcoyle: I don't think we are ready for this
14:09:55 <alejandra> kcoyle: we can consider the action completed
14:10:09 <alejandra> kcoyle: as there was so little discussion, we can ask people if they've looked at it
14:10:13 <alejandra> q+
14:10:20 <Caroline_> ack alejandra
14:10:31 <Caroline_> alejandra: I think any of the options is okay
14:10:45 <Caroline_> ... as long there are numbers
14:10:57 <Caroline_> ... the other point would be making them more visible
14:11:10 <Caroline_> ... group the requirements
14:11:20 <Caroline_> ... we could even to investigate to do it with javascript
14:11:53 <Caroline_> ... to have a list where we can see all the requirements together
14:12:19 <Caroline_> ... it would be nice to have it at the end of the document
14:12:34 <Caroline_> q+
14:12:46 <Caroline_> ack Caroline_
14:13:02 <Caroline_> https://www.w3.org/TR/dwbp/#requirements
14:13:06 <alejandra> Caroline_: what alejandra mentions, we did in the DWBP
14:13:33 <alejandra> +1, a summary table like that is useful
14:13:43 <Caroline_> q?
14:13:52 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> q+
14:13:56 <Caroline_> Jaroslav_Pullmann:
14:14:00 <Caroline_> ack Jaroslav_Pullmann
14:14:21 <alejandra> Jaroslav_Pullmann: do you refer to a graphical grouping, where requirements are clustered
14:14:33 <alejandra> Caroline_: I included the link to the specific section
14:15:13 <Caroline_> q+
14:15:15 <Caroline_> ack Caroline_
14:15:30 <alejandra> Caroline_: we need a review from the editors, not only from tagging
14:15:48 <alejandra> Caroline_: we need to have a review of the requirements
14:15:55 <kcoyle> q+
14:16:00 <alejandra> Jaroslav_Pullmann: what would we put in the left and right column?
14:16:12 <alejandra> Caroline_: grouping on the left and requirements on the right
14:16:45 <alejandra> ACTION: Jaroslav_Pullmann to create a tabular view on the requirements content
14:16:46 <trackbot> Created ACTION-42 - Create a tabular view on the requirements content [on Jaroslav Pullmann - due 2017-10-02].
14:16:58 <AndreaPerego> RRSAgent, draft minutes v2
14:16:58 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/09/25-dxwg-minutes.html AndreaPerego
14:16:58 <Caroline_> q?
14:17:04 <Caroline_> ack kcoyle
14:17:20 <AndreaPerego> RRSAgent, make logs public
14:17:29 <alejandra> kcoyle: it may be preferable to simple create a document
14:17:47 <AndreaPerego> RRSAgent, draft minutes v2
14:17:47 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/09/25-dxwg-minutes.html AndreaPerego
14:17:54 <alejandra> ... the UCR group can decide how to do this, but I think that the point here is that we need a very human readable document
14:18:04 <alejandra> ... whether or not can be automated or not, it is secondary
14:18:23 <Caroline_> q?
14:18:27 <alejandra> ... we should aim at the most readable document possible, even it is not an automated process
14:18:30 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> q+
14:18:36 <Caroline_> ack Jaroslav_Pullmann
14:18:38 <annette_g> annette_g has joined #dxwg
14:18:52 <alejandra> Jaroslav_Pullmann: yes, what is preventing readability at the moment
14:19:24 <alejandra> kcoyle: the DWBP is clearer
14:19:44 <alejandra> Caroline_: can we approve the requirements based on Jaroslav_Pullmann' message
14:19:46 <Caroline_> Can we vote to approve the requirements as a group based on Jarosval email? https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dxwg-wg/2017Sep/0051.html
14:20:04 <kcoyle> q+
14:20:23 <Caroline_> ack kcoyle
14:20:46 <alejandra> kcoyle: looking at last week's minute we had given Peter an action to rewrite the version definition requirement text
14:21:02 <alejandra> Caroline_: he's not on the call, he can ping him later
14:21:24 <alejandra> kcoyle: if we approve this, it will be pending to receiving that text
14:21:31 <AndreaPerego> s/he can ping/we can ping/
14:21:49 <Caroline_> https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/track/actions/open
14:22:35 <alejandra> kcoyle: it is on the minutes but not in the actions list - will add it now
14:22:47 <annette_g> Q+
14:22:54 <Caroline_> ack annette_g
14:23:23 <alejandra> annette_g: about versioning identifiers, I was wondering to what extent we want to be prescriptive about that
14:23:35 <alejandra> ... it might be that we want to give some guidance about that
14:23:59 <alejandra> ... for people that are versioning already, it may become a barrier to use DCAT if it doesn't follow their versioning scheme
14:24:00 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> q+
14:24:00 <kcoyle> q+
14:24:02 <LarsG> annette_g: +1
14:24:07 <Caroline_> ack Jaroslav_Pullmann
14:24:14 <alejandra> ... so I would suggest that we support multiple version schemes
14:24:30 <alejandra> Jaroslav_Pullmann: I'm referring to version identifiers
14:24:48 <alejandra> ... to have a dependable logic where someone wants to identify versions of particular resources, they can do so
14:25:06 <alejandra> ... this is not about the syntax of the identifiers
14:25:17 <alejandra> annette_g: I agree with the idea, the wording needs to be more precise
14:25:25 <alejandra> Jaroslav_Pullmann: it is not about the version or the value
14:25:41 <alejandra> annette_g: they are related, if someone is using semantic versioning, it is in the identifier
14:26:01 <alejandra> Jaroslav_Pullmann: we need to provide guidance on version identifier syntax
14:26:12 <alejandra> Jaroslav_Pullmann: three levels of versions, dates, etc
14:26:17 <alejandra> ... this would be a recommendation
14:26:25 <Caroline_> ack kcoyle
14:26:27 <alejandra> ... but we don't prescribe what it goes in the identifier value
14:26:35 <alejandra> kcoyle: Antoine wrote this last time
14:26:44 <alejandra> ... I think the problem here is the word 'identifier'
14:26:53 <alejandra> ... we should limit the word to speaking about IRIs
14:27:05 <alejandra> ... here it isn't saying that you would have an IRI for a version
14:27:16 <alejandra> ... basically that there would be a clear statement of what the version is
14:27:25 <alejandra> ... and we shouldn't use identifiers for that
14:27:25 <phila> (OWL uses version info)
14:27:42 <alejandra> annette_g: are you saying that the identifier for each version should be an IRI?
14:27:49 <alejandra> kcoyle: that is not what we want
14:27:57 <alejandra> ... the word identifier is causing confusion
14:28:07 <alejandra> Jaroslav_Pullmann: the version is the resource
14:28:14 <LarsG> version designator?
14:28:17 <alejandra> ... it is a resource that has been given a new revision/version
14:28:38 <alejandra> kcoyle: if you are saying that each version of a dataset would have an identifier, then it is not under versioning
14:28:51 <alejandra> ... we already assume that each dataset will have an identifier
14:28:55 <alejandra> Jaroslav_Pullmann: I mean a version identifier
14:29:09 <alejandra> ... a markup
14:29:15 <phila> q+
14:29:15 <alejandra> kcoyle: markup is not an identifier
14:29:22 <alejandra> ... markup is a description, not an identifier
14:29:35 <alejandra> kcoyle: we are assuming that every accesible dataset will have an IRI
14:30:08 <Caroline_> q?
14:30:12 <Caroline_> ack phila
14:30:17 <phila> -> https://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/#VersionInformation OWL Version Information
14:30:19 <annette_g> HI Phil!!
14:30:32 <alejandra> phila: this discussion makes me look at OWL version info
14:30:41 <alejandra> ... there are various annotation properties
14:30:51 <alejandra> ... you can annotate an OWL ontology with different things about version
14:30:57 <Caroline_> q?
14:30:59 <alejandra> ... and I think this might cover Jaroslav_Pullmann's point
14:31:12 <Daniele_B> Hi Phil :)
14:31:14 <alejandra> Jaroslav_Pullmann: what do you suggest for the wording?
14:31:28 <alejandra> phila: a human readable text
14:32:01 <alejandra> ... essentially it is mean for humans, you can data type it
14:32:13 <alejandra> ... this is orthogonal to the IRI of the dataset itself
14:32:23 <alejandra> kcoyle: we can call this version description
14:32:33 <alejandra> Jaroslav_Pullmann: yes, this is right
14:32:40 <annette_g> Q+
14:32:44 <Caroline_> ack annette_g
14:32:58 <alejandra> annette_g: for me description is text
14:33:13 <alejandra> ... so I would be cautious to use 'description'
14:33:19 <Caroline_> q?
14:33:22 <alejandra> ... maybe 'version name' or 'version identifier'
14:33:39 <alejandra> Caroline_: we should have a group decision on what to use
14:33:50 <alejandra> why not simply version?
14:33:54 <AndreaPerego> Just recalled that ADMS has a property for "version notes": https://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-adms/#adms-versionnotes
14:34:04 <alejandra> Jaroslav_Pullmann: we don't require this to be a number
14:34:20 <annette_g> Q+
14:34:26 <alejandra> Jaroslav_Pullmann: so 'version name' would be good
14:34:33 <alejandra> kcoyle: another term would be 'designation'
14:34:35 <Caroline_> ack annette_g
14:34:43 <DaveBrowning> q+
14:34:59 <Caroline_> https://www.w3.org/TR/dwbp/#dataVersioning
14:35:00 <alejandra> annette_g: it might be good to try to be consistent across documents with DWBP
14:35:31 <alejandra> so, 'version indicator'
14:35:41 <DaveBrowning> q-
14:35:43 <alejandra> Jaroslav_Pullmann: both 'version indicator' and 'version identifier' are used
14:35:44 <annette_g> +1 for indicator
14:35:53 <DaveBrowning> +1 for indicator\
14:35:56 <alejandra> +1 for indicator
14:36:28 <Caroline_> +1 for indicator
14:36:37 <AndreaPerego> If we use indicator, I would suggest we explicitly refer to the relevant DWBP BP, so readers have a clear definition of what we mean.
14:36:54 <alejandra> DaveBrowning: I think picking something for which people have preconceptions (like name or identifier) is not the best
14:37:04 <alejandra> ... so I think that 'indicator' or 'designator' are the best options
14:37:08 <Caroline_> q?
14:37:18 <alejandra> Caroline_: so, we can vote on that
14:37:38 <alejandra> APPROVE: use 'version indicator' and refer to the DWBP BP
14:37:42 <alejandra> +1
14:37:43 <AndreaPerego> +1
14:37:45 <Caroline_> +1
14:37:45 <LarsG> +1
14:37:45 <annette_g> +1
14:37:46 <DaveBrowning> +1
14:37:46 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> +1
14:37:48 <dsr> +1
14:37:49 <Stijn_Goedertier_AIV> +1
14:37:51 <Daniele_B> +1
14:37:56 <kcoyle> +1
14:38:00 <Ixchel> +1
14:38:08 <alejandra> RESOLVED: use 'version indicator' and refer to the DWBP BP
14:38:10 <kcoyle> s/APPROVE/PROPOSED
14:39:06 <Caroline_> q?
14:39:12 <alejandra> Caroline_: any other comment about the group of requirements for versioning?
14:39:26 <kcoyle> q+
14:39:30 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> q+
14:39:35 <Caroline_> ack kcoyle
14:39:42 <alejandra> q+
14:39:43 <Stijn_Goedertier_AIV> q+
14:40:02 <alejandra> kcoyle: we have 'version delta' for a description or a text
14:40:08 <alejandra> ... describing what changed
14:40:31 <alejandra> ... are we thinking that there would be some basic suggested ones?
14:40:43 <annette_g> Q+
14:40:46 <Caroline_> ack Jaroslav_Pullmann
14:40:56 <Stijn_Goedertier_AIV> q-
14:40:59 <alejandra> Jaroslav_Pullmann: I think we could give some recommendation on it, and provide examples
14:41:09 <alejandra> ... but I wouldn't prescribe the content of change management
14:41:17 <alejandra> ... maybe collect best practices
14:41:29 <Caroline_> ack alejandra
14:42:07 <Caroline_> alejandra: if it is just a text describing is one think, I would remove that
14:42:20 <alejandra> Jaroslav_Pullmann: we thought about actions
14:42:26 <kcoyle> q+
14:42:31 <alejandra> ... command-oriented formats
14:42:36 <alejandra> ... indicating what has been changed
14:42:36 <Caroline_> Jaroslav_Pullmann: we have expressed on command actions
14:42:46 <Caroline_> ack annette_g
14:42:48 <Caroline_> s/Jaroslav_Pullmann: we have expressed on command actions/
14:42:53 <alejandra> annette_g: I agree with Jaroslav_Pullmann, it should be flexible
14:42:53 <Caroline_> ack kcoyle
14:43:01 <alejandra> ... we cannot be prescriptive about it
14:43:04 <AndreaPerego> As I typed in earlier in the IRC, ADMS uses "version notes" for this purpose: https://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-adms/#adms-versionnotes
14:43:27 <alejandra> kcoyle: there are some common languages coming out of database environments
14:43:32 <alejandra> ... with types of update files
14:43:47 <annette_g> Q+
14:43:48 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> thanks Andrea, adms:versionNotes is apparently only a text
14:43:53 <alejandra> ... it would be good to gather some examples of this
14:43:55 <AndreaPerego> Yep.
14:43:59 <alejandra> ... and include them in the document
14:44:01 <Caroline_> ack annette_g
14:44:11 <alejandra> annette_g: do you mean the actual SQL syntax?
14:44:24 <alejandra> kcoyle: no, I have to dig them up
14:44:48 <Caroline_> q?
14:44:59 <alejandra> q+
14:45:08 <Caroline_> ack alejandra
14:45:18 <kcoyle> kcoyle has joined #dxwg
14:45:26 <Caroline_> alejandra: the comment andrea sent As I typed in earlier in the IRC, ADMS uses "version notes" for this purpose: https://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-adms/#adms-versionnotes
14:45:58 <Caroline_> ... to mention semantics
14:46:13 <Stijn_Goedertier_AIV> A diff could be an example of a version delta. For example: https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/commit/1567da7ea2d71745e94951e611631b11af190c22#diff-47605d4269ba7b112b6a0f92a3f10d15
14:46:13 <Caroline_> ... if it is just a list of terms
14:46:28 <alejandra> alejandra: I think we should remove 'formal semantics' here
14:47:06 <alejandra> Stijn_Goedertier_AIV: I represent the Flemish Information Agency
14:47:06 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> fine, I'll do
14:47:29 <alejandra> Stijn_Goedertier_AIV: diffs allow you to see the changes and it could be an example of a version delta
14:47:37 <alejandra> ... this is more formal than release/version notes
14:47:44 <alejandra> ... and you would need a resource to describe it
14:47:51 <alejandra> ... rather than some text
14:47:58 <Caroline_> For example: https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/commit/1567da7ea2d71745e94951e611631b11af190c22#diff-47605d4269ba7b112b6a0f92a3f10d15
14:48:05 <Stijn_Goedertier_AIV> q+
14:48:09 <alejandra> Stijn_Goedertier_AIV: I also have a more general comment
14:48:10 <Caroline_> ack Stijn_Goedertier_AIV
14:48:16 <alejandra> ... related to the first requirement on versioning
14:48:22 <alejandra> ... the 'version subject'
14:48:36 <alejandra> ... how the requirement is phrased now, it is solution oriented
14:48:42 <alejandra> ... it is not phrased as a requirement
14:48:52 <alejandra> ... it would be more helpful for the DCAT editors what is the real requirement
14:48:57 <alejandra> ... what is the real subject
14:49:04 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> q+
14:49:09 <alejandra> ... datasets or different formats, different language versions
14:49:26 <alejandra> ... how to represent it is something for the DCAT subgroup to figure out
14:49:29 <Caroline_> ack Jaroslav_Pullmann
14:49:47 <alejandra> Jaroslav_Pullmann: the subject is not only dataset, but also distributions or profiles
14:49:52 <alejandra> +q
14:50:24 <Caroline_> ack alejandra
14:50:46 <Caroline_> alejandra: we want to version not only the dataset and other resources as well
14:50:52 <Caroline_> ... I agree with Stijn_Goedertier_AIV
14:51:13 <Caroline_> ... we should be looking into the use cases to define what requirements we have
14:51:38 <Caroline_> ... the requirement has to be specific. Ex. we need versions for...
14:51:47 <Stijn_Goedertier_AIV> q+
14:51:52 <Caroline_> Jaroslav_Pullmann: I think this is to the DCAT group to decide
14:52:07 <annette_g> +1 to Alejandra
14:52:10 <Caroline_> alejandra: I think that should come from the use cases and the requirements should be specific by now
14:52:13 <DaveBrowning> q+
14:52:14 <Caroline_> +1 to alejandra
14:52:27 <Caroline_> ack Stijn_Goedertier_AIV
14:52:45 <alejandra> Stijn_Goedertier_AIV: it is up to us to specify the requirements
14:53:01 <alejandra> ... there are several dimensions of versioning
14:53:10 <alejandra> ... that we might put in this requirement
14:53:21 <alejandra> ... for example you can version the metadata
14:53:34 <alejandra> ... the requirement can be 'we want to version the metadata record'
14:53:40 <Caroline_> q?
14:53:51 <alejandra> ... we shouldn't include the solution
14:53:55 <annette_g> Q+
14:53:58 <alejandra> ... in the requirements
14:54:03 <Caroline_> ack DaveBrowning
14:54:29 <alejandra> DaveBrowning: we can phrase requirements about the things that change without talking about changes in representation
14:54:39 <alejandra> ... and then it becomes a requirement in the distribution change
14:55:00 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> q+
14:55:02 <alejandra> ... we can write the requirements in a way that don't directly refer to the solution
14:55:05 <Caroline_> ack annette_g
14:55:13 <alejandra> ... even if that is what we've got on the back of our heads
14:55:29 <alejandra> annette_g: I'm not convinced that we need to consider versioning for the metadata itself
14:55:36 <alejandra> ... where does it stop?
14:55:41 <Caroline_> ack Jaroslav_Pullmann
14:55:46 <alejandra> ... we should stick to versioning datasets and distributions
14:55:54 <alejandra> Jaroslav_Pullmann: we should have a decision of this
14:56:23 <Stijn_Goedertier_AIV> +1 Annette (it was just an example of "version" dimension)
14:56:23 <alejandra> ... what are the target resources that will have changes and for which we want to indicate those changes
14:56:25 <Caroline_> q?
14:57:00 <alejandra> q+
14:57:16 <Caroline_> ack alejandra
14:58:06 <Caroline_> alejandra: I expect to find the versioning resources in the use cases we already have
14:58:23 <Caroline_> ... we should look for these answers on the use cases we have
14:58:35 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> q+
14:58:56 <Caroline_> ack Jaroslav_Pullmann
14:59:05 <alejandra> Jaroslav_Pullmann: looking at the use cases, you have datasets and distributions
14:59:20 <kcoyle> PROPOSED: Go back to use cases to discover which resources need versioning, and create specific requirements
14:59:23 <annette_g> Q+
14:59:57 <Caroline_> ack annette_g
15:00:17 <alejandra> annette_g: I was going to say that a use case aims to limit what the actual requirements are
15:00:22 <alejandra> q+
15:00:29 <Caroline_> ack alejandra
15:00:56 <alejandra> +1
15:01:02 <annette_g> +1
15:01:04 <Caroline_> +1
15:01:08 <Stijn_Goedertier_AIV> +1
15:01:09 <kcoyle> +1
15:01:13 <DaveBrowning> +1
15:01:15 <Ixchel> +1
15:01:18 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> +1
15:01:23 <dsr> +1
15:01:46 <alejandra> RESOLVED:  Go back to use cases to discover which resources need versioning, and create specific requirements
15:01:59 <alejandra> ACTION: alejandra to go back to use cases to discover which resources need versioning, and create specific requirements
15:02:00 <trackbot> Created ACTION-44 - Go back to use cases to discover which resources need versioning, and create specific requirements [on Alejandra Gonzalez Beltran - due 2017-10-02].
15:02:17 <annette_g> Bye all!
15:02:18 <alejandra> bye and thanks!
15:02:20 <Daniele_B> thanks, see you next week
15:02:21 <Stijn_Goedertier_AIV> thanks and bye bye!
15:02:27 <AndreaPerego> Thanks, and bye!
15:02:30 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> present-
15:02:34 <kcoyle> rrsagent, generate minutes v2
15:02:34 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/09/25-dxwg-minutes.html kcoyle
15:02:40 <phila> present+ phila
15:03:06 <phila> rrsagent, generate minutes v2
15:03:06 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/09/25-dxwg-minutes.html phila
15:03:27 <AndreaPerego> agenda: https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2017.09.25
15:03:42 <AndreaPerego> regrets+ Makx, Ruben, Antoine, Simon
15:03:47 <AndreaPerego> RRSAgent, draft minutes v2
15:03:47 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/09/25-dxwg-minutes.html AndreaPerego
15:05:56 <AndreaPerego> s/RESOLVED Last week's minutes approved/RESOLVED: Last week's minutes approved/
15:05:57 <AndreaPerego> RRSAgent, draft minutes v2
15:05:57 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/09/25-dxwg-minutes.html AndreaPerego
15:22:49 <daniele_bailo> daniele_bailo has joined #dxwg
17:08:49 <Zakim> Zakim has left #dxwg