kcoyle: reminder that starting today we will be meeting every two weeks
… next meeting will be 17th April
… any comments about last meeting minutes?
… no comments, so approved
Resolved: approve minutes of March 27
kcoyle: two big things to cover today
… where we are with the FPWD of DCAT
… F2F meeting on 8-9 May in one of 3 locations
kcoyle: which location people prefer?
… Frankfurt Deutsche Bibliotek
… Zurich-Baar Thomson Reuters
… or Genoa, CNR
… please indicate your preference in that page
… for people travelling, we need to know fairly soon
Jaroslav_Pullmann: further option of meeting close to Cologne
… the logistics is a bit complicated
… we are sitting a bit far from the city
… so people may need to take taxis
… it is 10 km outside of Bonn
… not immediately in the city
kcoyle: it is convenient if it is near a train station
<SimonCox> ED is here https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/dcat/
SimonCox: at the last DCAT meeting we agreed to move this forward to this plenary
… and recommend to publish as FPWD
… however, there has been a discussion in the last couple of days in terms of the version
… the draft refers to DCAT 1.1.
… latest public version has a URL that ends up with DCAT_1_1
… which I made up
… in collaboration with Alejandra as a placeholder
… but it's been raised in the last few days that 1.1. might be a strong claim w.r.t. the changes we have
… so I prepared a Pull Request (PR) revising the versions
… when we mention the old DCAT version we refer to it as DCAT 2014
… we don't want to prejudge
<roba> belated comment - the concept of profiles is sprinkled through the document, but i dont see the working definition we agreed on included anywhere.
SimonCox: this document as it stands has been approved by the DCAT team to be issued as FPWD
… but there is this issue to resolve on how versions are referred
<AndreaPerego> The relevant GH issue: https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/184
SimonCox: with the suggestion to refer to the old one as DCAT 2014 and the new one as DCAT revised
phila: this is up to DaveR to decide
… I've seen some of the discussion, so I guess it will come down to as the nature of the changes
… you can provide an edited recommendation
… where the name doesn't change at all
… for that to be the case, it should be compatible
… the answer is 'I don't know'
… how big the changes are?
SimonCox: it is unclear at the moment
… members of the team are making it clear that we should be backward compatible
… so that old DCAT rdf wouldn't be inconsisten with the revised one
… however, we agreed to add some classes in last week minutes
… how these classes are going to be linked it is not clear
phila: are you deprecating terms?
SimonCox: I don't think so
phila: then you could still could call it DCAT
… HTML 5.2 is backward compatible with HTML 1.0
<phila> alejandra: With the changes we've discussed, we might keep the name
<phila> ... there are things I ave in mind. For e.g. even it's name, focuses on the catalogue. I want to describe datasets not in a catalogue
<phila> ... I don't mind keeping the name, but even expanding the defn of Dataset to outside a catalogue...
<phila> ... Does the name restrict future changes?
<AndreaPerego> Just to note that DCAT does not require datasets being linked to a catalogue.
<phila> ... I agree that we should be backwards compatible if possible
roba: the catalogue perspective suggets a number of use cases that we want to support
… there is no inconsistency at the moment
… but we might have different profiles in the future
… I don't find that the document provides a clear way of the profiling mechanism
… my feeling is that we could provide more guidance on the implications
<SimonCox> audio p[roblems
<kcoyle> we hear you
<SimonCox> Oh dear - wrong moment
<SimonCox> audio back
kcoyle: it sounds to me that Simon's solution will be fine
SimonCox: we've been unsuccessful to engage with the profiles group for a number of weeks
… we've been pushing for the target release of the FPWD
… I'm reluctant to delay the release
… so readers of the FPWD will be aware that the intention is to add more material
… but the document is pretty honest that more work is needed
… you're jumping ahead assuming that there won't be a new version needed
… I agree but I think it's best to wait until the dicussion happens
roba: a line about understanding about scopes
… the profile group hasn't met due to logistic challenges
… it doesn't have much to say about DCAT profiles
… some work we did do is the description of profiles that could be used cross-subgroups
<SimonCox> This is what we have https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/wiki/Application-profiles
roba: there is more to say that we can say
… I don't wish to hold up the release
AndreaPerego: for the time being (FPWD), the main issue is to decide what URI to use
… we might not be able to come up today what version we name it to be
… this can probably be decided later
… we need to decide today about the URI for the TR
<SimonCox> Here is my proposal to 'kick the can down the road" - https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/pull/187/files
AndreaPerego: maybe DCAT-rev
kcoyle: we may need to get hold of DaveR for that
<Zakim> phila, you wanted to offer a get out of jail card https://www.w3.org/TR/2017/WD-odrl-vocab-20170223/
<phila> FPWD of ODRL vocab
phila: yes, definitely
… for some comfort, the FPWD we called it vocab-odrl and then the WG decided to change it to odrl-vocab
<AndreaPerego> +1 to phila. Sounds like a good idea.
yes, that's good to know that it can be changed later
kcoyle: I wonder if having the date in the TR is fine
phila: yes, that's for the permanent version
SimonCox: look at the PR
… I believe that implements what we are talking about
kcoyle: I'm going to propose a vote
<AndreaPerego> The relevant PR: https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/pull/187
SimonCox: we still have this issue that Roba raised
… the discussion on profiles is insufficient
<roba> i am happy yo propose an edit or raise an issue (add a pink box in motivation section?)
SimonCox: the document hasn't got many changes but just a list of points referring to the discussions we are having
… I've been insisting to people that we need the content to the document
kcoyle: I'd suggest that it doesn't need to be done for the FPWD
kcoyle: in the upcoming F2F meeting we are going to look at profiles
<kcoyle> PROPOSED: Accept FPWD of DCAT, with "DCAT rev" as its designation for now
kcoyle: and we can look at the content for profiles
<SimonCox> The DCAT team already voted to released this content
<roba> +0 (i would add a single issue reference with the profile definition we have also agreed on)
AndreaPerego: we can consider PhilA's proposal as plan B
… we can consider the option to use the version URL for the FPWD
phila: formally, short URLs are decided by the director
<Zakim> AndreaPerego, you wanted to say that we consider phila's proposal as plan B - in case vocab-dcat-rev won't be accepted for any reason.
<phila> alejandra: I believe we still need to add a couple of changes like removing mentions of 1.1 that are still in the doc?
<phila> ... But we can sort that out later
<phila> SimonCox: I thought I'd done it
<AndreaPerego> So the long URL should be something like: FPWD-vocab-dcat-201804XX
Resolved: Accept FPWD of DCAT, with "DCAT rev" as its designation for now
I would mention DCAT-rev whenever we refer to the new version
Action: kcoyle - get DaveR involved
<trackbot> Created ACTION-99 - - get daver involved [on Karen Coyle - due 2018-04-10].
<phila> PROPOSED: Thanks to the DCAT team
<AndreaPerego> +1 :)
<SimonCox> ... if you accept https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/pull/187 all 1.1 will go away including title
+1 (especially Simon!)
kcoyle: we need to reply back to this comment on the UCR
Jaroslav_Pullmann: we had a request to look at Øystein message
Ixchel: I looked at his most recent one and it is extremely detailed
… I haven't been involved in the subgroup meetings
… so it might be helpful to get an idea from them on how to respond
Jaroslav_Pullmann: we should look internally about the implications
… and prepare a response/ action on how to incorporate in the DCAT spec
… UCR editors could make a proposal for discussion with the DCAT group
Action: Jaroslav_Pullmann and UCR editors to take this to DCAT group
<trackbot> Created ACTION-100 - And ucr editors to take this to dcat group [on Jaroslav Pullmann - due 2018-04-10].
Jaroslav_Pullmann: can we spend some time in tomorrow's DCAT meeting
SimonCox: let's add it to the agenda
kcoyle: there will be many things that might not be resolved immediately
… can someone answer saying that we are looking at it in detail?
Action: Ixchel to respond at Øystein indicating that we are looking at the comments
<trackbot> Created ACTION-101 - Respond at Øystein indicating that we are looking at the comments [on Ixchel Faniel - due 2018-04-10].
SimonCox: Jaroslav_Pullmann there are a number of threads in this email from Øystein that would be more than one topic in the agenda tomorrow
… could you send me a suggestion on what to include in the agenda for tomorrow?
Jaroslav_Pullmann: next to Ixchel response we should say how we are dealing with the suggestions
<roba> Comments all seem to be about open issues not yet discussed in DCAT - but AFAICT will come down to profile mechanisms to choose common options around using additional properties - its all about finer grained description.
kcoyle: we will meet again in two weeks
… any other discussion topics?
kcoyle: we'll go ahead and publish the DCAT FPWD
… we can make a table of contacts of contacts. to distribute the info about the publication
kcoyle: talk to you in two weeks!
<riccardoalbertoni> bye, good night/day !
thanks, and bye!
<kcoyle> AndreaPerego: you still here? zakim is acting weird
Succeeded: s/a table/ a table of contacts.
Succeeded: s/a table/ a table of contacts/