– DRAFT –
Dataset Exchange Working Group Teleconference

<Caroline> https://‌www.w3.org/‌2017/‌dxwg/‌wiki/‌Meetings:Telecon2017.12.05

Caroline: do we need to make sure we officially vote for the UCR draft?

<roba> * in OGC meetings - will dial in in 15

kcoyle: we just need to say 'resolved' unless anyone objects

caroline: any objections?

silence ensues

Resolved: move UCR to FPWD

Caroline: we still need to approve the minutes

PROPOSED: accept last week's minutes

<Caroline> https://‌www.w3.org/‌2017/‌11/‌28-dxwg-minutes

<alejandra> +1

+1

<Caroline> +1

<Jaroslav_Pullmann> +1

<kcoyle> +1

<LarsG> +1

<PWinstanley> +1

Resolved: accept last week's minutes

<Caroline> https://‌docs.google.com/‌spreadsheets/‌d/‌1_f5CAZv7rgUjJH5YXkmD6w5xS6GX5X2AmEp_LMptAfQ/‌edit#gid=0

Caroline: promoting the UCR FPWD. Dave will send the link (on vacation now).

that is the list of people who were at the workshop in Amsterdam.

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.

comments?

Jaroslav_Pullmann: I will contact the colleagues I've listed here. The email is requesting commenting on the publich draft, right?

<alejandra> it might be useful to write up a draft email

<alejandra> that we can customise

Caroline: for all the drafts of DWBP, we wrote templates for getting comments.

can someone help write that?

Action: Caroline to create a template for soliciting comments, aided by kcoyle

<trackbot> Created ACTION-66 - Create a template for soliciting comments, aided by kcoyle [on Caroline Burle - due 2017-12-12].

Caroline: other comments?

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.

Caroline: this week we'll publish officially.

the chairs thank Jaroslav_Pullmann

Jaroslav_Pullmann: as alejandra suggested, we should have an acknowledgments section. The json file has no property for contributors.

Caroline: one thing we were able to do is to put authors.

Jaroslav_Pullmann: that should work

<Caroline> /w3c.github.io/dwbp/ / https://‌www.w3.org/‌TR/‌dwbp///‌w3c.github.io/‌dwbp/

Caroline: here is an example ^

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?

<roba> distributions describe ways of access...

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?

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.

These are the kind of things that make a big difference when you're achieving it but less in terms of understanding the intention.

<alejandra> I'm referring to this: https://‌w3c.github.io/‌dxwg/‌ucr/#RDSA

<alejandra> it is for both dataset and distribution

kcoyle: we are barely squeaking by in terms of timing to publish.

Caroline: it's very common to make comments, but it's not a big deal to change it afterwards.

alejandra: should I add an issue in the tracker?

kcoyle: yes

alejandra: I will

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.

Caroline: next item is how to promote the work on DCAT. We should talk more about how the subgroup will work.

We have the editors. It would be nice to understand how people plan to contribute.

<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

alejandra: I was assuming we would need to meet separately. Can we reuse the doodle poll that Karen created?

<alejandra> yes, but I mean reusing the votes to choose the highest availability slot

<alejandra> ok

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.

Caroline: one thing to clarify to subgroups is that we still need to have the whole working group voting on the resolutions.

Of course, you can take actions, but you need the whole group voting on the content of the document.

Caroline: how do we promote the work on profiles?

anyone else interested?

<alejandra> that's the doodle poll that Karen created

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.

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.

kcoyle: It would be great if someone stepped forward and volunteered to be that organizer.

<Zakim> RubenVerborgh, you wanted to step forward

RubenVerborgh: I can do the profile things. My only constraint is a family event happening next week. I can start in January.

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.

<alejandra> it is the same timeline for both deliverables: profiles and DCAT, right?

kcoyle: we need to decide if this encompasses both profile guidance and content negotiation.

<kcoyle> +1

RubenVerborgh: maybe we should first find out if we have sufficient material for two separate things.

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.

<Zakim> alejandra, you wanted to ask if it is the same timeline for both deliverables: profiles and DCAT

alejandra: Are the timelines the same for DCAT and profiles work?

Caroline: yes, because we changed DCAT.

<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

Caroline: any other discussion about that?

silence reigns

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.

roba: do we need to do anything to release the UCR doc?

Caroline: no

<Caroline> https://‌docs.google.com/‌spreadsheets/‌d/‌1_f5CAZv7rgUjJH5YXkmD6w5xS6GX5X2AmEp_LMptAfQ/‌edit#gid=0

take a look at the list of institutions we've gathered for spreading the word.

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

Caroline: open actions - do some still need to be done or closed?

some are very old. I can close those later.

<kcoyle> I think # 58 is closed

Caroline: one for Jaroslav_Pullmann, action 50. Is that done?

<AndreaPerego> About spreading the word, Simon and I can take care of promoting it to RDA (https://‌www.rd-alliance.org/).

Jaroslav_Pullmann: no, not really. we were looking at spatiotemporal context. I thin this will go into the next iteration of the document.

<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.

Caroline: we can change the deadline. Do you agree?

Jaroslav_Pullmann: yes, let's change it to when the comments come in from the UCR doc. mid January.

DaveBrowning: I think you can close 61. people picked up what I wrote there, and it's been taken up into the UCR.

<kcoyle> 64 is also done

Caroline: anyone else want to comment?

Caroline: for Rob, that's done. HIs two can be closed.

<AndreaPerego> Just added RDA to the spreadsheet.

Caroline: last one is for AndreaPerego to write up a general case for requirements. How is that going?

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.

I can try to explain better the use case by giving examples.

should this be done before we go public?

Caroline: afterwards is fine.

it can be on the next draft if you like.

AndreaPerego: I can try to do it before christmas.

AndreaPerego: about spreading the word, we have an event about sharing research data and can spread the word there.

there's another one concerning issues about optimizing data discovery.

the working group in OGC is using DCAT for spatial data, too.

the technical committee in New Zealand is also interested in the work of this group.

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.

Caroline: please put those groups on the list. Oh you already did!

Caroline: this will help us avoid duplication and share the work

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.

<kcoyle> +1

Caroline: we can even schedule a call between the two groups. We did that in DWBP, and it was very useful.

roba: I am at the O- . . .

<roba> at OGC TC meeting

<roba> i made sure group was mentioned in DCAT group

roba: I will miss the DCAT meeting, but I'll chase down any feedback.

I'll do everything I can.

I'm building the OGC knowledge management infrastructure, so I have a chance to help guide the process.

Caroline: any other comments?

all is quiet

<roba> clarification - at least the registry and description of specifications and profiles as a Linked Data resource aspect of the KM infrastructure...

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.

the deadline to receive comments, does anyone know what that is?

kcoyle: I don't think there's an actual set timeline.

we could give one in our template

roba: when these are joint WGs, we need to align the timelines, but this isn't technically joint.

Caroline: we should at least have a try at working in parallel.

<roba> 4 weeks at least - allow people to read over christmas :-)

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.

Caroline: even if the answer is "we don't have the answer now"

Jaroslav_Pullmann: what will the template look like? Will it be named?

Will the comments be gathered on GitHub?

<alejandra> according to the refspec is the dxwg mailing list

Jaroslav_Pullmann: it's important to have the reply-to correct.

<roba> dxwg mailing list - but this is moderated for non-members isnt it?

<roba> so we need the moderator to allow comments through...

Jaroslav_Pullmann: will it be personal email or a mailing list or ??

kcoyle: there is a comments email and it goes to that list.

We have to decide how we respond to comments.

In my experience, you don't get a lot of comments on a FPWD, but soemone in the group has to respond.

But there is an actual comments mailing list that it goes to.

<roba> autorespond with a thank you - then address on a case by case basis ?

Caroline: we usually at least cc any response to the group.

<Makx> public-dxwg-comments@w3.org is the e-mail address

Makx: we are all automatically on that mailing list.

<Makx> q

Caroline: if someone sends just to one member, we can copy it to the public comments list.

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.

Caroline: you are right.

<alejandra> what is the closed mailing list? don't we always use the public one?

<Zakim> LarsG, you wanted to ask about closed members' list

Caroline: the thing is to ask permission and then send to the list if you get it.

LarsG: is there such a thing as a closed list? the lists are public.

Caroline: that is right.

Caroline: so the best thing is to check permission. I don't think we're going to get the case where people say no.

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.

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.

<Makx> GPDR is about personal data

<alejandra> thanks all! bye!

Caroline: let's see what happens and come back to this discussion if needed. For now, ask everyone to use the public comment email.

<LarsG> Thanks, bye

<AndreaPerego> Thanks, and bye!

bye all!