– DRAFT –
Dataset Exchange Working Group Teleconference

<kcoyle> https://‌www.w3.org/‌2017/‌dxwg/‌wiki/‌F2f2#Attendance

<kcoyle> https://‌www.w3.org/‌2017/‌dxwg/‌wiki/‌Meetings:Telecon2017.11.07

<kcoyle> last week's minutes: https://‌www.w3.org/‌2017/‌10/‌31-dxwg-minutes

<kcoyle> i've lost audio also

<kcoyle> could someone unmute and try speaking?

<Ixchel> I never had audio. I haven't heard anyone speak since I joined.

<Ixchel> I just heard someone.

<kcoyle> Peter are you speaking? we don't hear anything

<Ixchel> I hear two talking now.

<kcoyle> not for me yet ...

<annette_g> /me ah

scribenick roba

<kcoyle> https://‌www.w3.org/‌2017/‌10/‌31-dxwg-minutes

+1

<AndreaPerego> +0 - I was not there

<annette_g> +1

<alejandra> +0 was not present

Action: dsr to add Alejandra to regrets on https://‌www.w3.org/‌2017/‌10/‌31-dxwg-minutes

<trackbot> Created ACTION-53 - Add alejandra to regrets on https://‌www.w3.org/‌2017/‌10/‌31-dxwg-minutes [on Dave Raggett - due 2017-11-14].

Resolved: approve minutes of Oct 31

<kcoyle> https://‌www.w3.org/‌2017/‌dxwg/‌track/‌actions/‌open

kcoyle: no way everyone can be present for all items that may interest them

<alejandra> maybe this one: https://‌www.w3.org/‌2017/‌dxwg/‌wiki/‌Meetings:F2F2017.11.09

kcoyle: @ F2F

<kcoyle> https://‌www.w3.org/‌2017/‌dxwg/‌wiki/‌Meetings:F2F2017.11.09B

Jaroslav_Pullmann: will be present for version - but have a use case on publication late friday - cant be present

<alejandra> how many people are going to be there in person?

<AndreaPerego> I have a use case on identifiers...

kcoyle: idnetifers moved to afternoon, publication & distribution earlier
… look at requirement groups, pass off to interested parties. noting 1 hour telecons spent on single requirements not going to get us over the line

PWinstanley: people like me are under -representing - weighted to academic and publishing communities. Gentle reminder that there is a bigger world out there interested in identifiers
… government, logistics, distribution etc. Context independence needed - i.e. ISBN is a domain rabbit-hole

+1

<annette_g> +1

Jaroslav_Pullmann: are we aiming for Dec publishing deadline

kcoyle: hope to have draft by Dec deadline (early in Dec) - aim for F2F to achieve this

Jaroslav_Pullmann: what are the tasks needed to achieve this

kcoyle: requirement is document group can sign off on
… first drafts may still need editorial, formatting

dsr: can help

alejandra: will running minutes be produced?

dsr: just use RSSAgent to do this automatically. link in irc

kcoyle: action to trigger minutes frequently

<kcoyle> https://‌www.w3.org/‌2017/‌dxwg/‌wiki/‌General_versioning_considerations

<kcoyle> https://‌docs.google.com/‌spreadsheets/‌d/‌1csCcOEWF4Rh-ghIjxaqKQ4qryfjiQlIpvV6_aFDJn5k/‌edit#gid=113335154

roba: I like the single-mechanism, multiple targets perspective here...

Jaroslav_Pullmann: the subject is still to be nailed down - aiming at ontologies not individual terms.

<DaveBrowning_> +1 to Roba’s comment

Jaroslav_Pullmann: Profiles are versioned externally, but negotiation may need to ref a specific versions

alejandra: agree profiles for versions needed, but UC do not specifically reference this

Jaroslav_Pullmann: should be considered because of "symmetry". This is partially a gap analysis of UC.

<kcoyle> roba: as I pulled out requirements I was reading between the lines and thinking of symmetry

<kcoyle> ... so I made those connections as implicit requirements

<riccardoAlbertoni> +1 to use "symmetry" and reading between the lines

roba: when editing, there were general requirements when talking about artefacts, so when a new artefact identified, then applies same logic to these implicitly

<annette_g> I think we need to make versioning work for any kind of document

<kcoyle> +1

<annette_g> and we can't list every possible type in our use cases

+1 to both points

<annette_g> so how can we expect to find a use case for any arbitrary type of doc like a profile

kcoyle: important to be "correct" - even if we find something not explicitly covered in the UC

<Jaroslav_Pullmann> the types of "subjects" are quite at a meta-level, all of them ar documents at different layers

<AndreaPerego> I tend to agree, but we need to consider that different types of documents/resources may have different versioning requirements

<alejandra> I agree with Rob that we can read between the lines and determine what entities require versioning, even if not explicit in the use cases, and the spreadsheet exercise meant to try to go back to the UCs in conjunction with the Requirements to see if there was something explicit about versioning for other entities, apart from datasets

kcoyle: make sure requirements are general

<annette_g> +1 to Andrea

<alejandra> +1 to Andrea

Makx: we have UC for DCat instances
… me may need UC for vocabularies and profiles as documents
… what do relationships mean between artefacts - datasets may have different needs.

kcoyle: where they are the same use the same mechanism..

<riccardoAlbertoni> +1 to kcoyle "where they are the same we want to use the same"

roba: remembering the suggestion re version operations (equal, next, later etc). Explicitly called out in requirement.

kcoyle: warning: no coffee!!!
… speakerphone on WebEx and IRC

<riccardoAlbertoni> bye thanks

<AndreaPerego> Thanks, and bye!

<PWinstanley> bye!!

<alejandra> thanks! bye

<Jaroslav_Pullmann> bey!

<annette_g> bye!

<Caroline> bye!