21:00:57 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #dxwg
21:00:57 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2017/12/05-dxwg-irc
21:01:05 <Ixchel> Ixchel has joined #dxwg
21:01:08 <kcoyle> rrsagent, make logs public
21:01:41 <kcoyle> present+
21:02:32 <PWinstanley> present+
21:03:31 <Ixchel> present+Ixchel
21:03:32 <annette_g> present+
21:03:35 <roba> roba has joined #dxwg
21:03:48 <Ixchel> present+
21:03:54 <alejandra> alejandra has joined #dxwg
21:04:05 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> Jaroslav_Pullmann has joined #dxwg
21:04:30 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> present+
21:04:35 <DaveBrowning> DaveBrowning has joined #dxwg
21:05:26 <DaveBrowning> present+
21:05:31 <Caroline> scribe: annette_g
21:05:34 <Caroline> chair: Caroline
21:05:38 <Caroline> https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2017.12.05
21:06:00 <alejandra> present+
21:06:24 <annette_g> Caroline: do we need to make sure we officially vote for the UCR draft?
21:06:34 <roba> * in OGC meetings - will dial in in 15
21:06:42 <annette_g> kcoyle:  we just need to say 'resolved' unless anyone objects
21:06:52 <annette_g> caroline: any objections?
21:06:56 <annette_g> silence ensues
21:07:01 <kcoyle> RESOLVED: move UCR to FPWD
21:07:29 <annette_g> Caroline:  we still need to approve the minutes
21:07:41 <annette_g> PROPOSED: accept last week's minutes
21:07:52 <Caroline> https://www.w3.org/2017/11/28-dxwg-minutes
21:08:12 <alejandra> +1
21:08:13 <annette_g> +1
21:08:14 <Caroline> +1
21:08:20 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> +1
21:08:21 <kcoyle> +1
21:08:25 <LarsG> +1
21:08:39 <PWinstanley> +1
21:08:54 <annette_g> RESOLVED: accept last week's minutes
21:09:38 <Caroline> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1_f5CAZv7rgUjJH5YXkmD6w5xS6GX5X2AmEp_LMptAfQ/edit#gid=0
21:09:46 <annette_g> Caroline:  promoting the UCR FPWD. Dave will send the link (on vacation now).
21:10:39 <annette_g> that is the list of people who were at the workshop in Amsterdam.
21:11:02 <Makx> Makx has joined #dxwg
21:11:32 <annette_g> it would be nice if we all took a look and put our names in column C if you are able to contact people. We should also add more institutions and names that we know.
21:11:46 <Caroline> q?
21:11:55 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> q+
21:12:25 <annette_g> comments?
21:12:56 <annette_g> Jaroslav_Pullmann: I will contact the colleagues I've listed here. The email is requesting commenting on the publich draft, right?
21:13:05 <alejandra> it might be useful to write up a draft email
21:13:08 <alejandra> that we can customise
21:13:21 <annette_g> Caroline:  for all the drafts of DWBP, we wrote templates for getting comments.
21:13:45 <annette_g> can someone help write that?
21:14:13 <annette_g> ACTION: Caroline to create a template for soliciting comments, aided by kcoyle
21:14:14 <trackbot> Created ACTION-66 - Create a template for soliciting comments, aided by kcoyle [on Caroline Burle - due 2017-12-12].
21:14:31 <annette_g> Caroline:  other comments?
21:14:53 <Makx> present+ Makx
21:15:07 <annette_g> Jaroslav_Pullmann:  Dave is not on the call, but he wanted to approach you with the newest version in GitHub to start the publication process.
21:15:13 <alejandra> q+
21:15:19 <Caroline> ack Jaroslav_Pullmann
21:15:25 <annette_g> Caroline:  this week we'll publish officially.
21:15:46 <annette_g> the chairs thank Jaroslav_Pullmann
21:16:34 <annette_g> Jaroslav_Pullmann:  as alejandra suggested, we should have an acknowledgments section. The json file has no property for contributors.
21:17:03 <annette_g> Caroline:  one thing we were able to do is to put authors.
21:17:18 <annette_g> Jaroslav_Pullmann:  that should work
21:17:24 <Caroline> http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/
21:17:33 <annette_g> Caroline: here is an example ^
21:17:34 <Caroline> ack alejandra
21:18:05 <roba> present+
21:18:14 <Caroline> s/http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/ / https://www.w3.org/TR/dwbp//
21:18:16 <kcoyle> q+
21:18:20 <annette_g> alejandra:  I don't want to delay publication, but in email, I think on the access requirements I would change slightly the wording, or would that be complicated? what is the best process?
21:19:19 <roba> distributions describe ways of access...
21:19:35 <annette_g> alejandra:  the requirements refer to access restrictions. I think it should be a little more general. There are cases, like public content, where access would include describing a way of accessign through an API or whatever. So my question is if it's going to go into FPWD, do these changes need to be processed and voted on again?
21:19:41 <Caroline> ack kcoyle
21:20:07 <annette_g> kcoyle:  I would suggest we leave it as is for now, to get this milestone achieved, but we can look carefully into the wording for the next version.
21:20:27 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> q+
21:20:39 <annette_g> These are the kind of things that make a big difference when you're achieving it but less in terms of understanding the intention.
21:20:42 <alejandra> I'm referring to this: https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/ucr/#RDSA
21:20:57 <alejandra> it is for both dataset and distribution
21:20:59 <annette_g> kcoyle:  we are barely squeaking by in terms of timing to publish.
21:21:17 <annette_g> Caroline:  it's very common to make comments, but it's not a big deal to change it afterwards.
21:21:31 <annette_g> alejandra:  should I add an issue in the tracker?
21:21:32 <Caroline> ack Jaroslav_Pullmann
21:21:36 <annette_g> kcoyle:  yes
21:21:41 <annette_g> alejandra:  I will
21:22:19 <annette_g> Jaroslav_Pullmann: sometimes it's hard to understand the relationships between linked entities in the doc. We should take a critical look at that as well.
21:23:20 <annette_g> Caroline:  next item is how to promote the work on DCAT. We should talk more about how the subgroup will work.
21:23:49 <alejandra> +q to ask if we could use the same doodle poll to select a potential time slot for the DCAT group too apart from the profile group
21:23:51 <annette_g> We have the editors. It would be nice to understand how people plan to contribute.
21:23:58 <Caroline> ack alejandra
21:23:58 <Zakim> alejandra, you wanted to ask if we could use the same doodle poll to select a potential time slot for the DCAT group too apart from the profile group
21:24:36 <annette_g> alejandra:  I was assuming we would need to meet separately. Can we reuse the doodle poll that Karen created?
21:24:45 <kcoyle> q+
21:24:51 <Caroline> ack kcoyle
21:25:23 <alejandra> yes, but I mean reusing the votes to choose the highest availability slot
21:25:32 <alejandra> ok
21:25:40 <annette_g> kcoyle:  in a sense, I've already reused it for the profiles group. I reused the hours. I think you may need to do it again, do another Doodle poll.
21:26:35 <annette_g> Caroline:  one thing to clarify to subgroups is that we still need to have the whole working group voting on the resolutions.
21:27:07 <annette_g> Of course, you can take actions, but you need the whole group voting on the content of the document.
21:27:27 <annette_g> Caroline:  how do we promote the work on profiles?
21:27:45 <kcoyle> q+
21:27:46 <annette_g> anyone else interested?
21:27:50 <alejandra> that's the doodle poll that Karen created
21:27:56 <Caroline> ack kcoyle
21:28:26 <annette_g> kcoyle:  I did a Doodle poll, and we ended up with either Wednesday or Thursday in exactly this time slot. That inlcudes people from Europe and the other hemisphere.
21:29:04 <annette_g> kcoyle:  we don't have anyone who has agreed to be the primary organizer yet.It's not clear yet how the meetings will be organized. I assume it would be as needed, not every week.
21:29:15 <RubenVerborgh> q+ to step forward
21:29:30 <annette_g> kcoyle:  It would be great if someone stepped forward and volunteered to be that organizer.
21:29:33 <Caroline> ack RubenVerborgh
21:29:33 <Zakim> RubenVerborgh, you wanted to step forward
21:29:56 <kcoyle> q+
21:29:58 <annette_g> RubenVerborgh: I can do the profile things. My only constraint is a family event happening next week. I can start in January.
21:30:00 <Caroline> ack kcoyle
21:30:38 <annette_g> kcoyle:  our timeline asks us to have a FPWD by the end of the first quarter. If we can work in email for now, that might be fine.
21:30:44 <alejandra> it is the same timeline for both deliverables: profiles and DCAT, right?
21:30:57 <RubenVerborgh> q+
21:31:02 <Caroline> ack RubenVerborgh
21:31:17 <annette_g> kcoyle:  we need to decide if this encompasses both profile guidance and content negotiation.
21:31:26 <kcoyle> +1
21:31:26 <roba> q+
21:31:31 <Caroline> ack roba
21:31:34 <annette_g> RubenVerborgh:  maybe we should first find out if we have sufficient material for two separate things.
21:32:18 <alejandra> +q to ask if it is the same timeline for both deliverables: profiles and DCAT
21:32:35 <annette_g> roba:  My intention with profiles is to implement services that actually read the description of profiles from DCAT and do conneg appropriately. My vote is that we keep things together.
21:32:37 <Caroline> ack alejandra
21:32:37 <Zakim> alejandra, you wanted to ask if it is the same timeline for both deliverables: profiles and DCAT
21:32:57 <annette_g> alejandra:  Are the timelines the same for DCAT and profiles work?
21:33:10 <annette_g> Caroline:  yes, because we changed DCAT.
21:33:11 <AndreaPerego> AndreaPerego has joined #dxwg
21:33:16 <Caroline> Use Cases and Requirements FPWD Q3-4 2017 FPWD for DCAT 1.1 Q3-4 2017 (Q1 2018) FPWD for Conneg by application profile Q1 2018 CR for all Rec Track documents Q4 2018
21:33:37 <AndreaPerego> present+ AndreaPerego
21:34:08 <annette_g> Caroline:  any other discussion about that?
21:34:14 <annette_g> silence reigns
21:35:12 <annette_g> Caroline:  when we had our chairs call, we were wondering what else we should talk about in this meeting. We want to get through the actions if nobody else has other topics.
21:35:23 <roba> q+
21:35:28 <Caroline> ack roba
21:35:45 <annette_g> roba:  do we need to do anything to release the UCR doc?
21:35:51 <annette_g> Caroline:  no
21:36:05 <Caroline> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1_f5CAZv7rgUjJH5YXkmD6w5xS6GX5X2AmEp_LMptAfQ/edit#gid=0
21:36:22 <annette_g> take a look at the list of institutions we've gathered for spreading the word.
21:37:22 <Caroline> https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/track/actions/open
21:37:22 <annette_g> Caroline:  open actions - do some still need to be done or closed?
21:37:42 <annette_g> some are very old. I can close those later.
21:37:44 <kcoyle> I think # 58 is closed
21:38:01 <annette_g> Caroline:  one for Jaroslav_Pullmann, action 50. Is that done?
21:38:17 <DaveBrowning> q+
21:38:22 <AndreaPerego> About spreading the word, Simon and I can take care of promoting it to RDA (https://www.rd-alliance.org/).
21:38:33 <annette_g> Jaroslav_Pullmann:  no, not really. we were looking at spatiotemporal context. I thin this will go into the next iteration of the document.
21:38:45 <roba> Re outreach: I will forward call to OGC technical committee - which will reach many of those organisations - but it won't hurt having personal contacts as well.
21:38:51 <annette_g> Caroline:  we can change the deadline. Do you agree?
21:39:21 <annette_g> Jaroslav_Pullmann:  yes, let's change it to when the comments come in from the UCR doc. mid January.
21:39:23 <Caroline> q?
21:39:28 <Caroline> ack DaveBrowning
21:39:56 <annette_g> DaveBrowning:  I think you can close 61. people picked up what I wrote there, and it's been taken up into the UCR.
21:40:10 <kcoyle> 64 is also done
21:40:13 <annette_g> Caroline:  anyone else want to comment?
21:40:22 <roba> q+
21:40:35 <Caroline> ack roba
21:40:38 <annette_g> Caroline:  for Rob, that's done. HIs two can be closed.
21:41:05 <AndreaPerego> Just added RDA to the spreadsheet.
21:41:07 <annette_g> Caroline:  last one is for AndreaPerego to write up a general case for requriements. How is that going?
21:42:02 <Caroline> s/requriements/requirements
21:42:06 <annette_g> the problem was that the use case was linked to a requirement that was not completely clear. That use case was a generalization about the relationship between datasets and other resources.
21:42:26 <annette_g> I can try to explain better the use case by giving examples.
21:42:42 <annette_g> shoudl this be done before we go public?
21:42:48 <annette_g> Caroline:  afterwards is fine.
21:43:04 <annette_g> it can be on the next draft if you like.
21:43:07 <Caroline> s/shoudl/should
21:43:28 <annette_g> AndreaPerego:  I can try to do it before christmas.
21:44:18 <annette_g> AndreaPerego:  about spreading the word, we have an event about sharing research data and can spread the word there.
21:44:38 <annette_g> there's another one concerning issues about optimizing data discovery.
21:45:11 <annette_g> the working group in OGC is using DCAT for spatial data, too.
21:45:48 <annette_g> the technical committee in New Zealand is also interested in the work of this group.
21:46:23 <annette_g> I'm not the only one involved in this activity, so I can try to get others to work with me to spread the word.
21:46:49 <annette_g> Caroline:  please put those groups on the list. Oh you already did!
21:47:27 <annette_g> Caroline:  this will help us avoid duplication and share the work
21:48:12 <annette_g> AndreaPerego:  the OGC work may also overlap with DXWG work, so we want to let them know we are working on potentially conflicting solutions. We need to coordinate as much as possible.
21:48:21 <kcoyle> +1
21:48:51 <annette_g> Caroline:  we can even schedule a call between the two groups. We did that in DWBP, and it was very useful.
21:48:51 <roba> q+
21:48:55 <Caroline> ack roba
21:49:12 <annette_g> roba:  I am at the O- . . .
21:49:22 <roba> at OGC TC meeting
21:49:42 <roba> i made sure group was mentioned in DCAT group
21:50:14 <annette_g> roba:  I will miss the DCAT meeting, but I'll chase down any feedback.
21:50:30 <annette_g> I'll do everything I can.
21:50:47 <annette_g> I'm building the OGC knowledge management infrastructure, so I have a chance to help guide the process.
21:50:52 <Caroline> q?
21:50:53 <annette_g> Caroline:  any other comments?
21:51:00 <annette_g> all is quiet
21:51:37 <roba> clarification - at least the registry and description of specifications and profiles as a Linked Data resource aspect of the KM infrastructure...
21:51:52 <annette_g> Caroline:  we should go ahead with scheduling meetings as soon as possible. And we have a lot of promoting work to do this week, so I'll try to finish the template tomorrow.
21:52:28 <annette_g> the deadline to receive comments, does anyone know what that is?
21:52:50 <roba> q+
21:52:52 <annette_g> kcoyle:  I don't think there's an actual set timeline.
21:53:00 <annette_g> we could give one in our template
21:53:14 <Caroline> ack roba
21:53:35 <annette_g> roba:  when these are joint WGs, we need to align the timelines, but this isn't technically joint.
21:53:46 <dsr> dsr has joined #dxwg
21:53:58 <annette_g> Caroline:  we should at least have a try at working in parallel.
21:54:05 <roba> 4 weeks at least - allow people to read over christmas :-)
21:54:49 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> q+
21:54:54 <annette_g> for the working draft, we are very close to holidays, but we still need to answer the comments. It's important to have a time schedule and some coordination. We have to have all comments solved.
21:54:55 <dsr> rrsagent, set logs public
21:55:03 <dsr> rrsagent, make minutes
21:55:03 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2017/12/05-dxwg-minutes.html dsr
21:55:07 <Caroline> ack Jaroslav_Pullmann
21:55:12 <annette_g> Caroline:  even if the answer is "we don't have the answer now"
21:55:14 <dsr> rrsagent, make minutes v2
21:55:14 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2017/12/05-dxwg-minutes.html dsr
21:55:45 <annette_g> Jaroslav_Pullmann:  what will the template look like? Will it be named?
21:55:59 <annette_g> Will the comments be gathered on GitHub?
21:56:02 <alejandra> according to the refspec is the dxwg mailing list
21:56:21 <annette_g> Jaroslav_Pullmann:  it's important to have the reply-to correct.
21:56:27 <roba> dxwg mailing list - but this is moderated for non-members isnt it?
21:56:28 <kcoyle> q+
21:56:38 <roba> so we need the moderator to allow comments through...
21:56:38 <Caroline> ack kcoyle
21:56:40 <annette_g> Jaroslav_Pullmann:  will it be personal email or a mailing list or ??
21:56:52 <annette_g> kcoyle:  there is a comments email and it goes to that list.
21:57:04 <AndreaPerego> AndreaPerego has joined #dxwg
21:57:05 <annette_g> We have to decide how we respond to comments.
21:57:30 <annette_g> In m experience, you don't get a lot of comments on a FPWD, but soemone in the group has to respond.
21:57:46 <annette_g> But there is an actual comments mailing list that it goes to.
21:57:47 <roba> autorespond with a thank you - then address on a case by case basis ?
21:58:04 <LarsG> s/In m experience/In my experience/
21:58:15 <annette_g> Caroline:  we usually at least cc any response to the group.
21:58:17 <Makx> public-dxwg-comments@w3.org is the e-mail address
21:58:23 <Makx> q+
21:58:29 <Caroline> ack Makx
21:58:43 <annette_g> Makx:  we are all automatically on that mailing list.
21:59:01 <Makx> q
21:59:03 <Makx> q+
21:59:07 <annette_g> Caroline:  if someone sends just to one member, we can copy it to the public comments list.
21:59:10 <Caroline> ack Makx
21:59:39 <annette_g> Makx:  that might be illegal, if you receive a personal email to forward to a public mailing list. You may want to ask the sender first, or send to the closed members list.
21:59:46 <annette_g> Caroline:  you are right.
21:59:51 <LarsG> q+ to ask about closed members' list
21:59:58 <alejandra> what is the closed mailing list? don't we always use the public one?
22:00:02 <Caroline> ack LarsG
22:00:02 <Zakim> LarsG, you wanted to ask about closed members' list
22:00:10 <annette_g> Caroline:  the thing is to ask permission and then send to the list if you get it.
22:00:37 <annette_g> LarsG:  is there such a thing as a closed list? the lists are public.
22:00:43 <annette_g> Caroline:  that is right.
22:01:06 <PWinstanley> q+
22:01:09 <annette_g> Caroline:  so the best thing is to check permission. I don't think we're going to get the case where people say no.
22:01:19 <Caroline> ack PWinstanley
22:02:00 <annette_g> PWinstanley:  we're getting perilously close to GDPR. My recollection is that when you post to these lists, there is a verification that you are okay with making the content public. We just have to make sure the right protocol is followed.
22:02:59 <annette_g> Makx:  this is nothing to do with the GDPR. I think it would be good to put a note on the call for comments that says these things are made public. GDPR is more about what is kept as public data.
22:03:28 <Makx> GPDR is about personal data
22:03:29 <alejandra> thanks all! bye!
22:03:31 <annette_g> Caroline:  let's see what happens and come back to this discussion if needed. For now, ask everyone to use the public comment email.
22:03:34 <LarsG> Thanks, bye
22:03:35 <AndreaPerego> Thanks, and bye!
22:03:40 <annette_g> bye all!
22:03:51 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> present-
22:03:57 <kcoyle> rrsagent, generate minutes
22:03:57 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2017/12/05-dxwg-minutes.html kcoyle
22:04:01 <annette_g> annette_g has left #dxwg
22:04:06 <kcoyle> rrsagent, generate minutes v2
22:04:06 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2017/12/05-dxwg-minutes.html kcoyle
22:04:35 <AndreaPerego> meeting: Dataset Exchange Working Group Teleconference
22:05:04 <AndreaPerego> agenda: https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2017.12.05
22:05:15 <AndreaPerego> RRSAgent, draft minutes v2
22:05:15 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2017/12/05-dxwg-minutes.html AndreaPerego