<roba> * on road and delayed with limited connectivity - hope to join in more fully second half
<PWinstanley> rob, did you call in by phone?
<SimonCox> PWinstanley: you can kick them off - it is your call
Proposal: approve last meeting minutes
<SimonCox> not present, can't say
<Jaroslav_Pullmann> +0 (absent last time)
<riccardoAlbertoni__> 0 ( i was absent)
PWinstanley: I was there but not on the list
Resolved: approve last meeting minutes https://www.w3.org/2018/01/23-dxwg-minutes on the condition to add Peter's name
PWinstanley: there are a number of actions that are pending review
… where do they go to?
… they need to move forward
… but first let's tackle the open ones
kcoyle: I forgot, will do soon
Ixchel: I think Rob sent something on the public list
… there's a comment that just came in
… Rob, Jaro and I will discuss them and bring to this call when needed
<PWinstanley> ack Jaroslav_Pullmann
Jaro: I have to look at the comments and react
… there is a deadline in the request for comments
PWinstanley: 20th January, but we also agreed that people could comment through members of the WG
kcoyle: I though Ixchel said comments had been answered
… but I don't see one for Ana Baptista
Ixchel: my understanding was that Rob would develop an answer to send her.
kcoyle: there are complications in what she brings up
… we should discuss it on the list
PWinstanley: should I propose that there can be a range of APs?
… it seems that she is hinting that there's work going beyond what we were originally speaking about
kcoyle: she also proposes new requirements
Ixchel: Rob had an action on a short profile definition
kcoyle: I think it's different
PWinstanley: can we close?
kcoyle: I think we can close, and thank AndreaPerego
… we should link to AndreaPerego's email from the front page
AndreaPerego: I didn't do it
kcoyle: I can do it
PWinstanley: so we close this action
PWinstanley: anything beyond Ana Baptista's mail
Ixchel: there was another mail. I think we're alright.
PWinstanley: this is an item that we keep in the agenda for next meetings
PWinstanley: any volunteer?
kcoyle: I have a feeling that 3 deliverables may be a bit much
… people are working on DCAT they might not have the time to work on something else
… maybe we can defer the profile work
<PWinstanley> antoine: Maybe we can do a short deliverable
<PWinstanley> ... or something that can be moved into the conneg one
<PWinstanley> ... Also, what is the timing for the Profile def?
kcoyle: timing was left off the charter
… this was an error. We gave it the same timing as the others
… FPWD in 1st quarter 2018
SimonCox: both the profile and the conneg have wider scope than DCAT
… we may find ourselves in the position to discussion webarch issues
… I'm not sure the rest of the group will be able to follow
roba: I was prompted by Phil Archer
… profile was a hole in the architecture
… Phil wanted to have the discussion in this group
PWinstanley: is there anything in Ana Baptista's comment that helps us move forward
… or would discourage us?
roba: I still have to look at
… she mentions 3 different issues
… I didn't see any fundamental requirement for a change of direction
PWinstanley: there's nobody to lead us
… to progress on this
roba: what is needed
PWinstanley: a description of a profile
roba: I thought I had done it. We discussed it with the profile negotiation sub-group
PWinstanley: so I guess you're the leader
roba: all I've done is teasing out a definition from ISO, try to adapt it.
… fairly simple process.
kcoyle: I think rob has worked on defining profiles
<SimonCox> (is that ISO 10000?)
kcoyle: so that the conneg group can move forward
… that's different from doing a description
<annette_g> where is the strawman?
<annette_g> Is it the one under Rob's name?
antoine: about to volunteer, but not much time.
<roba> no - the one pulled out to the top of the document, discussion below saved for context.
antoine: maybe kcoyle's suggestion to postpone is better
… and rely on roba's definition
SimonCox: kcoyle and antoine have been involved in Dublin Core and Europeana
… is it a cautionary tale? usable?
kcoyle: it is very difficult to come with a technology
… what DC has done is to come with guidelines
… maybe they could be generalized
… I could come with a draft (drafty!)
… and we could see whether this is what we mean by guidelines.
AndreaPerego: basically what we have done is to identify the core classes and properties
… but this was informal
… classes and controlled vocabularies
… mandatory and optional
… later on we worked with SHACL
… the work I've done was to complement DCAT with a spec of what one should use
… from informal to formal (SHACL)
… the AP was developed as a data interchange format
… it can be used internally or externally
… distributed harvesting of data
roba: there are profiles out there and tools to formalize them
… there's no canonical means to represent the relation
… we need a lightweight ontology that describes at a high-level how profiles are attached
… and how documentation and formal specs are attached to profile
… it doesn't have to be prescriptive
… I believe we can do sthg
PWinstanley: proposal that we accept as a draft the definition that Rob has prepared
… so that we can progress on the basis of this definition
PWinstanley: it needs a bit of editing but it's not a big project.
<roba> happy to take on editorial responsibility to update as group provides and agrees on evidence and change proposals to def.
kcoyle: Ruben has a couple of objections
… I would not feel confident about voting
antoine: I've tried to answer Ruben's comments
PWinstanley: we could handle this in the next meeting depending on Ruben's availability
roba: I think we need to agree on what is an objection
… I think some claims are too general
PWinstanley: we need to carry this one over
… please continue discussion on mailing list
<SimonCox> Unfortunately I was also not in that meeting
<roba> will need evidence for any assertion that definitions are incompatible with other ideas and more importantly requirements in UCR
PWinstanley: we pushed ahead
… we discussed two items
<AndreaPerego> DCAT subgroup meeting minutes: https://www.w3.org/2018/01/24-dxwgdcat-minutes
PWinstanley: 1. we agreed to using Github
… there were concerns though
2. we agreed to have a piece of work for reviewing how the comments are tagged
roba: we talked through the definition and the issue of tagging accuracy for use cases and requirements
… there was an action to make sure tags are correct
… we reviewed the direction and resourcing and goals
PWinstanley: in the table we don't have a link to the minutes of this meeting
… can someone check with Dave?
kcoyle: I think if I change it in the agenda it will appear
roba: Lars undertook the process to be on top of the commands
… we should attach it to the minutes
kcoyle: were minutes taken?
PWinstanley: did you use IRC/Zakim?
… we decided to record the actions
PWinstanley: will you be able to use IRC/Zakim for the next meeting?
PWinstanley: Dave was going to bring them to the meeting but he's on the road
kcoyle: I wanted to send an email that mails with links to the minutes should mention what was done
… short abstract
Jaroslav_Pullmann: we plan to visit a workshop on Privacy and Linked Data in Vienna
… April 17-18
PWinstanley: I've mentioned it to my colleagues. Very interesting
Jaroslav_Pullmann: one area is application of ODRL
… one missing thing is guidance on applying ODRL
PWinstanley: related to the work of Ben, Dave's colleague
<annette_g> thanks all!
<riccardoAlbertoni__> thanks, bye
<Jaroslav_Pullmann> Data Privacy Controls and Vocabularies
Succeeded: s/the/the one/
Succeeded: s/DCT/DCAT subgroup/
Succeeded: s/??/Privacy and/