– DRAFT –
Dataset Exchange Working Group Teleconference

<SimonCox> I'm attending monthly meeting of ESIP Semantic Technologies Committee - unfortunately a clash for one in four-ish of the DXWG meetings

<PWinstanley> ok SimonCox

<SimonCox> Will keep IRC open on a corner of my screen just in case

<Jaroslav_Pullmann> ..sorry for the delay!

https://‌www.w3.org/‌2018/‌02/‌20-dxwg-minutes

+1

<kcoyle> +1

<LarsG> +1

<DaveBrowning> +1

<Jaroslav_Pullmann> 0 (was absent)

<PWinstanley> +1

Resolved: minutes agreed

PWinstanley: reminder to complete questionaire f2f

kcoyle: should send reminder to list
… b4 we complete planning work out where we are on deliverables and any affect on timelines

open action items

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

AndreaPerego: pending review - posted a revision some weeks ago

roba: action on me to complete #76 by responding to Ana

PWinstanley: no further feed back on UCR doc

profiles

<LarsG> roba: wondering what the plan is for profile subgroup planning

<LarsG> ... also looking at how profiles relate to OGC specs

<LarsG> ... will report shortly

<LarsG> ... Asks if we should try to formally publish DCAT 1.1 as a profile of DCAT 2

* thanks lars !

kcoyle: dont have a separate group of people from DCAT, at this stage.

i may need to join DCAT group then ..

LarsG: profiles negotiation group has a stake in profiles too

PWinstanley: do you have any objections to roba suggestions?

LarsG: no

DCAT 1.1 subgroup

PWinstanley: kcoyle drafting Resolutions...

DaveBrowning: some edits made it through to editor's draft - i am checking all actions to update are implemented

<AndreaPerego> DCAT subgroup meeting minutes: https://‌www.w3.org/‌2018/‌02/‌21-dxwgdcat-minutes

DaveBrowning: points of contention are those in next two resolutions - as addressed last plenary

* kcoyle can you post it plz

<PWinstanley> We will continue to use the existing DCAT namespace for DCAT 1.1 (or 2, if it is called that) terms.

PROPOSED: We will continue to use the existing DCAT namespace for DCAT 1.1 (or 2, if it is called that) terms.

Jaroslav_Pullmann: what is w3c process for versioning namespaces

<AndreaPerego> W3C does have a versioning policy.

<kcoyle> +1

<AndreaPerego> +1 to the proposal

<annette_g> +1

<PWinstanley> +1

<LarsG> +1

<DaveBrowning> +1

roba: summary - current advice is to not break existing implementations as long as semantically consistent

<Jaroslav_Pullmann> +1

+1

Resolved: We will continue to use the existing DCAT namespace for DCAT 1.1 (or 2, if it is called that) terms.

<PWinstanley> We will not align ADMS (as a whole) to DCAT; subgroup will look at ADMS identifier for possible reuse

<kcoyle> roba: wants different wording

PROPOSED: ADMS update to align with DCAT is out of scope for this WG

<kcoyle> +1

<LarsG> +1

<DaveBrowning> +1

<AndreaPerego> +1

+1

<annette_g> +1

<PWinstanley> +1

Resolved: ADMS update to align with DCAT is out of scope for this WG

<Jaroslav_Pullmann> .. thank you for clarification, AndreaPerego

AndreaPerego: we don not know what changes are needed yet, and we do not have resources to guarantee this. May revisit this is small changes only

PWinstanley: what about ADMS identifier

<kcoyle> +1 to Peter's suggestion

i have second proposal hot to paste in....

PROPOSED: DCAT subgroup will explore how ADMS identifier concept may be best incorporated

<AndreaPerego> +1

<PWinstanley> +1

<kcoyle> +1

<annette_g> +1

+1

<SimonCox> +1

<LarsG> +1

<Jaroslav_Pullmann> +1

Resolved: DCAT subgroup will explore how ADMS identifier concept may be best incorporated

Profile negotiation sub group

LarsG: some email conversation on scope - on negotiation rather than profile definition
… profile inheritance is the key common concern

meeting tomorrow at 9UTC - 12 hours ahead of DCAT

<Jaroslav_Pullmann> bye!

<annette_g> bye!

<SimonCox> roba: Should I add an item on the DCAT team agenda for you to report back?