Resolved: approve last week's minutes
<antoine> sounds good
<kcoyle> https://www.w3.org/2017/09/25-dxwg-minutes#ResolutionSummary
kcoyle: asking for approving the requirement "6.7 Version indicator"
<kcoyle> https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/ucr/#RVer3
PROPOSED: accept RVer3 with name changed to version indicator
<Thomas> +1
+1
<annette_g> +1
<newton> +1
<AndreaPerego> +1
<Stijn_Goedertier_AIV> +1
<dsr_> +1
<Makx> isn't that 6.7 Version identifier [RVer3]?
<Makx> 6.9 is Version release date [RVer5]
<Ixchel> Provide a means to indicate a version (URI-segment, property, etc.). Clarify relationship to indicator of the subject resource.
Ixcchel: clarify the second sentence of requirement ..
<Ixchel> Provide a means to indicate the type of version (URI-segment, property, etc.). Clarify relationship to indicator of the subject resource.
<LarsG> +1
<roba> +0
<annette_g> Isn't that to indicate the version itself?
<AndreaPerego> Can I suggest we add an explicit pointer to https://www.w3.org/TR/dwbp/#VersioningInfo ?
I can't hear Makx ...?
o.k.
<PWinstanley> +1
<Makx> +1 to Andrea
Resolved: accept RVer3 with name changed to version indicator
<Makx> +1
Ixchel will update the UCR document
kcolye: please indicate presence in F2F
kcolye: register at time, this is needed to plan the room capacities
<Ixchel> Clarification: Ixchel is updating the UCR working document on Google Drive
kcolye: we'll have a remote connection, difficult because of Californian time zone
kcoyle: a number of previously "closed" actions appear in tracker as "open"
dsr: _ will clarify why
kcoyle: Ruben + Lars, please check conneg reqs.
<Zakim> LarsG, you wanted to talk about action-40
LarsG: we looked at it, created pulled requests, were accpeted today
kcoyle: will lcose corresponding actions once the tracker problem solved
<annette_g> s/licked/lloked/
kcoyle: the action 42 to be resolved next week, too short time note
<Zakim> LarsG, you wanted to ask if it's possible to have the github notifications sent to the dxwg list
kycoyle: we'll look at the proposed spreadsheet
LarsG: request to send the Github notifications to group
<AndreaPerego> +1 to LarsG proposal
<antoine> +1
dsr_: will look at the option to circulate GitHub pull request notification to DXWG mailing list
<antoine> we've talked about this after Phil moved. And it was one of the motivations for everyone accepting to move to github I think ;-)
Action: will look at the option to circulate GitHub pull request notification to DXWG mailing list
<trackbot> Error finding 'will'. You can review and register nicknames at <https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/track/users>.
Action: dsr_ will look at the option to circulate GitHub pull request notification to DXWG mailing list
<trackbot> Error finding 'dsr_'. You can review and register nicknames at <https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/track/users>.
Action: dsr to look at the option to circulate GitHub pull request notification to DXWG mailing list
kcoyle: back to spreadsheet..
<trackbot> Error creating an ACTION: could not connect to Tracker. Please mail <sysreq@w3.org> with details about what happened.
kcoyle: explaining the structure
<kcoyle> PROPOSED: UCR group to complete spread sheet and numbering for requirements discussion
<annette_g> +1
Jaroslav_Pullmann: will we stick to a general req. title or have dedicated label for each?
<roba> +1
<Thomas> +1
<Ixchel> +1
<dsr> +1
<newton> +1
<PWinstanley> +1
<LarsG> +1
<antoine> +1
Will this replace the more interactive wiki?
<riccardoAlbertoni_> +1
Resolved: UCR group to complete spread sheet and numbering for requirements discussion
<kcoyle> https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/pull/35/commits/a8ed32e797023d73a2509da0c4fdec5b8240dcfd
kcoyle: Peter had an action to update wording
… of https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/ucr/#RVer1
ktoyle: asks Peter co comment
PWinstanley: should we rely on DC isVersionOf or other mechanism
roba: afraid, that we are getting into a solution space
<Makx> +1 to roba
<riccardoAlbertoni_> +1 not to discuss about solutions at this stage
roba: we should word in more generally requesting group to finde right solution
<Makx> but also agree that dct:isVersionOf may well play a role when we get to potential solutions
<kcoyle> Jaroslav_Pullmann: as per alejandra we should define which resources need versioning
I expected this requirement be replaced by Alejandras proposal
Alejandras proposal was laid down in this action: https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/track/actions/44
kcoyle: we will discuss this later, when ther is a proposal from Alejandra
<kcoyle> PROPOSED: table ver1 for now; wait for Alejandra's action
<Makx> +1
<riccardoAlbertoni_> +1
LarsG: will "profiles" be considered "subject to versioning" as well?
kcoyle: good point, should be considered
<Makx> +1 to think about versioning profiles
roba: there are cross-references among deliverables
<antoine> +1 it would be very important
roba: therefore the solutions should bear this in mind
roba: make sure the backlinks to UCR document (from other deliverables) will work
there will be a deliverable tag in the GDoc spreadsheet
talking about: https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/track/actions/43
PWinstanley: definition of what is considered a version
antoine: as already said, I would not try to define the conditions of when to create a new version
antoine: this should be defined by communities/profiles
<Makx> +1 to antoine
<annette_g> +1 to Antoine
roba: do we want to define a canonical version model or provide a canonical way (hook) to attach whatever model to resource description
annette_g: allow people to use versioning at level of they needs
annette_g: I do not expect this to be that relevant with regard to search
roba: there are situations, where temporal ordering of versions might become important
<PWinstanley> s/thisshould/this should/
roba: simple string might not be suffcient
annette_g: how far should we go in defining a versioning model?
annette_g: people are used to their versioning methods and their hardly use a prescribed system
LarsG: supports annette_g
LarsG: do we have requirements demanding a structured version model?
<roba> -1 to list of microformats , -1 to prescribing a specific model :-)
PWinstanley: we should provide a conceptual definition of "version" and equally the out-of-scope def: what is not a version
<roba> is there a discussion planned around telcon times - now 2am for me after change in times :-(
antoine: summarizing Peter's proposal
<LarsG> I definitely don't want to prescribe a specific model but want to emphasise that if we think that something is important (e. g. finding out which is the latest version; finding out if version XY is a predecessor to YX) we should have requirements for that
PWinstanley: would we e.g. consider "deduplication" a rationale for version change?
<Stijn_Goedertier_AIV> +1 to Peter to provide some guidance on what should and should not be considered to be a version.
kcoyle: still open, will be discussed later on
<annette_g> Thanks folks!
<antoine> thanks!
<riccardoAlbertoni_> bye thanks
<LarsG> Thanks, bye
<Makx> ok thanks bye bye
<PWinstanley> thanks ... bye!!
bye!
<AndreaPerego> Thanks, and bye!
<Stijn_Goedertier_AIV> thanks everybody. bye
Succeeded: s/PROPOSAL/PROPOSED/
Succeeded: s/6.9 Version indicator/6.7 Version indicator/
Failed: s/licked/lloked/
Succeeded: s/lloked/looked/
Succeeded: s/Guthub/Github/
Succeeded: s/everyong/everyone accepting
Succeeded: s/intercative/interactive/
Succeeded: s/co/to/
Succeeded: s/affraid/afraid/
Succeeded: s/conisdered/considered/
Succeeded: s/thisshould/this should/
Failed: s/thisshould/this should/
Succeeded: s/equelly/equally/
Succeeded: s/dicussed/discussed/