19:55:45 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #dxwg
19:55:45 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2018/04/17-dxwg-irc
19:55:56 <PWinstanley> rrsagent, make logs public
19:56:06 <PWinstanley> chair: PWinstanley
19:57:07 <PWinstanley> regrets+ JPullman
19:57:12 <PWinstanley> present+
19:57:40 <kcoyle> present+
19:59:44 <roba> roba has joined #dxwg
20:00:01 <LarsG> LarsG has joined #dxwg
20:00:10 <LarsG> present+
20:00:26 <annette_g> annette_g has joined #dxwg
20:00:38 <dsr> dsr has joined #dxwg
20:01:13 <roba> present+
20:01:37 <annette_g> present+
20:02:42 <SimonCox> SimonCox has joined #dxwg
20:03:07 <Ixchel> Ixchel has joined #dxwg
20:03:11 <phila> phila has joined #dxwg
20:03:22 <Ixchel> present+
20:03:35 <dsr> present+
20:03:36 <kcoyle> scribenick: kcoyle
20:03:46 <kcoyle> TOPIC: admin
20:03:50 <riccardoAlbertoni> riccardoAlbertoni has joined #DXWG
20:04:00 <kcoyle> PWinstanley: minutes of last meeting
20:04:03 <PWinstanley> https://www.w3.org/2018/04/03-dxwg-minutes
20:04:12 <LarsG> +0 (wasn't there)
20:04:30 <PWinstanley> 0
20:04:33 <antoine> antoine has joined #dxwg
20:04:40 <antoine> present+ antoine
20:04:41 <riccardoAlbertoni> +1
20:04:51 <riccardoAlbertoni> present+
20:05:01 <kcoyle> RESOLVED: approved minutes of April 3
20:05:34 <annette_g> wasn't there
20:06:29 <kcoyle> Topic: f2f4 (Lyon, late october)
20:06:42 <DaveBrowning> DaveBrowning has joined #dxwg
20:07:05 <kcoyle> PWinstanley: will create a table so that people can say if they are going
20:07:14 <DaveBrowning> present+
20:07:17 <SimonCox> present+
20:07:57 <kcoyle> kcoyle has given thurs and fri of that week, but we can change
20:08:09 <kcoyle> Topic: f2f3 Genoa, May 8-9
20:08:35 <kcoyle> PWinstanley: Riccardo has offered to arrange food 60 euros (breaks, lunch)
20:08:58 <kcoyle> ... this gives us possibility for long time with folks coming in from Australia by phone
20:09:07 <kcoyle> ... let us know if you opt out
20:09:13 <kcoyle> q+
20:09:26 <PWinstanley> https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/F2f3
20:09:29 <PWinstanley> ack kcoyle
20:09:40 <riccardoAlbertoni> +q
20:10:18 <kcoyle> PWinstanley: https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/F2f3 has planner for in person and remote participation
20:10:33 <kcoyle> ... has section for a dump of topics so we don't forget any
20:10:53 <PWinstanley> ack riccardoAlbertoni
20:11:22 <riccardoAlbertoni> https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/F2f3#Coffe_breaks_and_Lunches
20:11:36 <kcoyle> riccardoAlbertoni: about the food - table on planning page - please fill in any requirements
20:11:49 <Makx> Makx has joined #dxwg
20:11:49 <kcoyle> TOPIC: open items
20:11:59 <Makx> present+ Makx
20:12:12 <phila> present+
20:12:14 <kcoyle> https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/track/actions/open
20:12:56 <kcoyle> PWinstanley: # 83 - dsr doesn't know how, will ask
20:13:03 <kcoyle> ... # 94 is still open
20:13:38 <kcoyle> PWinstanley: asking Makx about 105
20:14:49 <kcoyle> roba: #88 - unknown?
20:14:58 <Makx> talking about https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/track/actions/84?
20:15:12 <kcoyle> LarsG: didn't have much of a last meeting; couldn't get webex to work
20:15:35 <Makx> I did #105
20:15:36 <kcoyle> ... keep 88
20:15:55 <Makx> Can reiterate propsals for #84
20:16:23 <kcoyle> kcoyle: close 97, 99
20:16:52 <kcoyle> close 101; by Ixchel
20:17:12 <Makx> close #105 please
20:17:16 <AndreaPerego> AndreaPerego has joined #dxwg
20:17:22 <AndreaPerego> present+ AndreaPerego
20:18:03 <Makx> #105 https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/tree/dcat-topic104-makx
20:18:18 <kcoyle> PWinstanley: #96 (Jaro) can be closed
20:18:48 <kcoyle> PWinstanley: #105 done by Makx
20:19:38 <kcoyle> ... #84 still open (Makx) - similar to #85 (andrea)
20:19:51 <kcoyle> Topic: DCAT subgroup
20:20:29 <kcoyle> PWinstanley: issues need to be clarified
20:21:03 <kcoyle> SimonCox: been away for a week; has looked at editorial questions; sent mail to chairs list
20:21:22 <kcoyle> ... some small issues of broken links (syntax checker); but two issues still hanging
20:21:57 <kcoyle> ... due to respec template, won't accept same ID in multiple places in document
20:22:05 <kcoyle> ... asking DaveR how to resolve this
20:22:30 <PWinstanley> q?
20:23:11 <kcoyle> ... some of the broken links are incomplete but will be; also a legacy link that goes to some older UK documents
20:23:23 <kcoyle> ... has pinged owners of the links, and they will fix those
20:24:05 <kcoyle> ... some small syntax issues; thinks to have answered all of dsr's questions
20:24:59 <kcoyle> ... but still a pull request regarding including services in FPWD; so far no objections; waiting for an editor to accept this pull request
20:25:03 <AndreaPerego> To sort this out, it may be worth having a resolution now.
20:25:35 <kcoyle> dsr: there's a link checker and css checker; as per multple IDs - can be fixed by hand, albeit a pain to do
20:26:06 <kcoyle> SimonCox: I used respec syntax to drop in links in multiple places in the document because referred to in multiple places
20:26:27 <kcoyle> ... this is causing multiple IDs in the document
20:26:54 <kcoyle> ... this makes sense from the meaning of the document, but respec rejects
20:27:15 <kcoyle> dsr: script might be fixed, but for now it may be easier to make document changes
20:28:33 <kcoyle> SimonCox: issue of whether new dcat will actually replace old; so identity of the document depends on a decision
20:29:04 <kcoyle> ... in the meanwhile, as soon as we push fpwd, this replaces original 2014
20:29:26 <kcoyle> dsr: dated URL still points to original dcat
20:29:42 <Makx> I think we can't replace a recommendation by a working draft
20:29:51 <kcoyle> ... latest version doesn't have a date; would point to fpwd
20:30:01 <Makx> draft should live in differnt place, final recommendation might replace old one
20:30:18 <AndreaPerego> Just to note that the option is to have (or not) a separate URI for the spec. The DCAT namespace URI won't change (http://www.w3.org/ns/dcat#).
20:30:40 <kcoyle> PWinstanley: as makx points out, shouldn't overlay a rec with a fpwd; this is a w3c decision
20:30:41 <phila> q+
20:31:08 <kcoyle> ... unless you know to drill down you won't see the current document
20:31:22 <kcoyle> dsr: people need to read the text at the beginning of the document
20:31:49 <kcoyle> PWinstanley: how can we make it more obvious?
20:32:05 <kcoyle> dsr: main question is whether this updates DCAT or provides a new rec
20:32:18 <Makx> People don't read introductions
20:32:30 <SimonCox> q?
20:32:31 <AndreaPerego> ack phila
20:32:31 <PWinstanley> ack phila
20:33:01 <kcoyle> phila: makx is right (people don't read), dsr is right. question is: what is the long term aim?
20:33:28 <Makx> Long term I'd say new rec overwrites old rec
20:33:36 <kcoyle> ... two things 1) in the links at the top you can add in "current rec" link
20:33:39 <Makx> But drafts do not overwrite old rec
20:33:55 <annette_g> I agree with Makx
20:34:09 <kcoyle> ... 2) or create a temporary short URL
20:34:32 <Makx> I vote fdor both 1 and 2
20:34:40 <annette_g> q+
20:34:46 <PWinstanley> ack annette_g
20:34:47 <kcoyle> ... sometimes short URL is changed - e.g. dcat1.1 could later point to dcat
20:34:57 <roba> q+
20:34:57 <AndreaPerego> Temporary short URL looks safer - we have time to decide whether we are going or not to replate previous REC.
20:35:17 <SimonCox> q+ to note that short name would be /dcat-rev not /dcat-1-1
20:35:25 <kcoyle> annette_g: feel strong that the current rec should be the one at the default url; what we are doing should eventually take that place
20:35:28 <SimonCox> q?
20:35:32 <Makx> +1 to simon
20:35:46 <kcoyle> ... meanwhile have dcat 2014 point to working draft
20:35:47 <Makx> annette_g +1
20:35:47 <PWinstanley> ack roba
20:36:30 <kcoyle> roba: 3 things: original version; revised version; current version - these all need URLs
20:36:43 <PWinstanley> ack SimonCox
20:36:43 <Zakim> SimonCox, you wanted to note that short name would be /dcat-rev not /dcat-1-1
20:36:44 <kcoyle> ... give this a fpwd a unique uri
20:37:23 <kcoyle> SimonCox: dave already pointed out that there are separate ids for this; what is unfriendly is that there are the two dated versions
20:37:46 <kcoyle> ... what we are arguing about whether "current" should point to original or revised
20:37:53 <annette_g> I want https://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-dcat/ to point to a full recommendation always.
20:38:06 <antoine> annette_g++
20:38:09 <AndreaPerego> Should be /dcat-rev -> /vocab-dcat-rev
20:38:10 <Makx> +1 annette_g
20:38:37 <kcoyle> ... #2 we are not going to call the new version DCAT 1.1; we decided this already
20:38:59 <kcoyle> ... we're calling original 2014; revision DCAT revision
20:39:33 <SimonCox> q+
20:39:37 <kcoyle> PWinstanley: can we have current always be a final version?
20:39:37 <phila> apologies, I had forgotten, but had known, that it'll be called dcat-rev
20:39:41 <annette_g> q+
20:40:04 <kcoyle> dsr: the latest should get the "plain" url
20:40:32 <PWinstanley> ack SimonCox
20:40:54 <Makx> I'd say the drafts live under /vocab-dcat-rev. When agreed as new rec, then goes under /vocab-dcat/
20:40:56 <kcoyle> SimonCox: what we're uncovering is an issue in w3c policy around priorities of documents; seems to say
20:41:00 <Makx> with link to previous version
20:41:06 <kcoyle> ... that undated points to the most recent
20:41:10 <PWinstanley> ack annette_g
20:41:17 <kcoyle> ... our sense is that the undated should point to the one with the higher status
20:41:48 <Makx> +1
20:41:58 <antoine> +1
20:42:04 <kcoyle> annette_g: "revision" - is that a numbered revision or just a revision?
20:42:24 <SimonCox> q+
20:42:33 <Makx> Revisions also have dated URLs
20:42:34 <PWinstanley> ack SimonCox
20:42:36 <kcoyle> dsr: if we are creating a new standard then having version in the name would be a mistake
20:43:05 <kcoyle> SimonCox: We concluded that at this point we do not know if it will be a distinct thing; depends on backward compatibility
20:43:11 <Makx> Undated /vocab-dcat-rev/ should point to latest draft
20:43:46 <kcoyle> ... if compatible, then no version designator is needed; so we have finessed this by removing the version # in the document
20:44:07 <kcoyle> PWinstanley: as per makx, dcat-rev would point to latest draft
20:44:29 <antoine> q+
20:44:34 <kcoyle> annette_g: seems wiser to assume that a number would be helpful, not "rev-rev"
20:44:55 <Makx> No numbers please!
20:45:16 <kcoyle> SimonCox: reiterates uncertainty about compatibility at this point in the process
20:45:26 <PWinstanley> ack antoine
20:45:36 <PWinstanley> q?
20:46:00 <kcoyle> antoine: still puzzled about original requirement in discussion; for now, why not used a numbered or dated version?
20:46:24 <kcoyle> ... we don't want our in progress work replacing the stable one
20:46:51 <Makx> Dated versions are OK in any case, the question is do we really need a short  URL?
20:46:59 <SimonCox> Sorry for jumping across the queue. I didn't want the discussion to overlook the earlier resolutions.
20:47:03 <annette_g> why not admit that we are revising? Old uses can still point to the original URI.
20:47:24 <SimonCox> q+
20:47:26 <kcoyle> q+
20:47:30 <PWinstanley> ack SimonCox
20:48:35 <kcoyle> SimonCox: versioning very difficult in RDF practice; if you use version then you don't know you have the same term
20:48:41 <antoine> q+
20:48:52 <kcoyle> ... not clear what has and what has not changed
20:49:07 <Makx> I liked the eqrlier proposal: vocab-dcat always links the the current rec; vocab-dcat-rev always links to the latest draft. everything else can be done with dated URL, pointing backwards
20:49:15 <kcoyle> ... do not change uri when there is no change in the intention
20:49:31 <annette_g>  Sorry, but I don't think what we are making is the same thing, by intention.
20:49:55 <Makx> -1 annette_g
20:50:02 <kcoyle> ... also applies to documentation; challenge is that we do not know what the compatibility will be
20:50:34 <PWinstanley> ack kcoyle
20:50:40 <PWinstanley> q?
20:50:44 <Makx> Let's look at DCMI for guidance
20:51:05 <PWinstanley> ack antoine
20:51:35 <kcoyle> kcoyle: others have done this, so we should consider that we have a choice, even if more work
20:51:55 <AndreaPerego> q+ to say that temporary short URL seems to leave all doors open
20:51:58 <kcoyle> antoine: all production usage is the current rec; therefore this version will never be used
20:52:21 <kcoyle> PWinstanley: vocab-dcat is current, vocab-dcat-rev for the in-progress
20:52:26 <riccardoAlbertoni> +1 to peter
20:52:26 <SimonCox> +1
20:52:27 <AndreaPerego> +1
20:52:29 <annette_g> +1
20:52:30 <Makx> +1
20:52:40 <AndreaPerego> q-
20:52:45 <PWinstanley> q?
20:52:45 <kcoyle> PROPOSED: vocab-dcat is current, vocab-dcat-rev for the in-progress
20:52:47 <DaveBrowning> +1
20:53:02 <Makx> suggest current=current rec
20:53:02 <AndreaPerego> +1
20:53:14 <antoine> +1 even if I don't see the need for a permanent alias (-rev) for refering to the working versions
20:53:31 <kcoyle> Proposed: vocab-dcat is current, vocab-dcat-rev for the in-progress, and they are dated and point to the undated uris
20:53:36 <Makx> -1
20:53:50 <Makx> needs to say current rec!
20:54:16 <PWinstanley> Makx can you explain please?
20:54:23 <antoine> Makx just makes a comment on the wording of the first part
20:54:31 <riccardoAlbertoni> s\current,\current rec,
20:54:34 <annette_g> "Proposed: vocab-dcat is current rec"
20:54:36 <Makx> if we say current, someone could thing 'current draft'
20:54:37 <SimonCox> dsr: I will need some assistance with config.js
20:55:04 <AndreaPerego> Proposed: vocab-dcat is current rec, vocab-dcat-rev for the in-progress, and they are dated and point to the undated uris
20:55:05 <Makx> ok with change by riccardo
20:55:26 <Makx> also add a noun after 'in-progress'
20:55:27 <kcoyle> PROPOSED: vocab-dcat is current rec, vocab-dcat-rev for the in-progress work, and they are dated and point to the undated uris
20:55:35 <Makx> perfect!
20:55:38 <AndreaPerego> +1
20:55:39 <riccardoAlbertoni> +1
20:55:42 <annette_g> +1
20:55:43 <Makx> +1
20:55:46 <kcoyle> +1
20:55:46 <SimonCox> +1
20:55:46 <PWinstanley> +1
20:55:49 <phila> +1
20:55:50 <LarsG> +1
20:55:51 <antoine> +1
20:55:54 <roba> +1
20:55:56 <DaveBrowning> +1
20:55:58 <kcoyle> RESOLVED: vocab-dcat is current rec, vocab-dcat-rev for the in-progress work, and they are dated and point to the undated uris
20:56:01 <AndreaPerego> q+ to ask if we can have a resolution for https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/pull/183
20:56:05 <Ixchel> +1
20:56:09 <PWinstanley> ack AndreaPerego
20:56:09 <Zakim> AndreaPerego, you wanted to ask if we can have a resolution for https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/pull/183
20:56:24 <Makx> sorry 'undated uris' or 'dated uris'?
20:56:49 <Makx> I think 'dated uris'
20:56:54 <kcoyle> dated uris point to the undated, no?
20:57:08 <SimonCox> Proposed: merge https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/pull/183
20:57:09 <Makx> no i think it is the other way around
20:57:20 <SimonCox> +1
20:57:24 <kcoyle> +1
20:57:24 <DaveBrowning> +1
20:57:28 <roba> +1
20:57:28 <AndreaPerego> +1
20:57:36 <PWinstanley> +1
20:57:55 <annette_g> +1
20:57:57 <Makx> ok sorry for confusing things
20:58:02 <AndreaPerego> Resolved: merge https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/pull/183
20:58:28 <kcoyle> PWinstanley: what is the workflow for pull requests?
20:58:35 <antoine> q+
20:58:48 <kcoyle> LarsG: haven't thought about that
20:59:13 <kcoyle> PWinstanley: who in the group is reviewing and merging PRs?
20:59:21 <AndreaPerego> RRSAgent, draft minutes v2
20:59:21 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/04/17-dxwg-minutes.html AndreaPerego
20:59:33 <kcoyle> LarsG: Any editors can merge (only 3 in the group, all 3 are editors)
20:59:52 <AndreaPerego> RRSAgent, make logs world
20:59:58 <SimonCox> q+
21:00:03 <PWinstanley> q?
21:00:11 <antoine> https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/pull/198
21:00:17 <PWinstanley> ack antoine
21:00:42 <SimonCox> See https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/GitHub_etiquette
21:00:56 <PWinstanley> ack SimonCox
21:01:00 <kcoyle> antoine: points to pull request from this morning; didn't know who would approve; now clearer
21:01:05 <roba> q+
21:01:39 <kcoyle> SimonCox: we tried to write the rules for this (see last link); only designated editors are merging
21:01:40 <PWinstanley> ack roba
21:01:46 <kcoyle> ... but do not merge their own proposals
21:02:12 <kcoyle> roba: work that nick and I are doing is closer to dcat group than negotiation group
21:02:44 <kcoyle> ... may need its own activity eventually; now working on a separate branch and pull request will go to dcat editors
21:03:05 <antoine> actually I think my confusion comes from the fact that there's no general group on profiles. I thought PR 198 was not about negotiation per se.
21:03:17 <SimonCox> I have to leave to another meeting
21:03:32 <kcoyle> rrsagent, draft minutes v2
21:03:32 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/04/17-dxwg-minutes.html kcoyle
21:03:43 <riccardoAlbertoni> bye ! goodnight/ goodday!
21:03:46 <LarsG> Good night everyone
21:03:47 <annette_g> bye!
21:04:01 <PWinstanley> bye
21:04:13 <phila> RRSAgent, draft minutes v2
21:04:13 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/04/17-dxwg-minutes.html phila
21:04:23 <AndreaPerego> meeting: Dataset Exchange Working Group Teleconference
21:04:32 <phila> meeting: DXWG Weekly Telco
21:04:37 <AndreaPerego> agenda: https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2018.04.17
21:04:41 <phila> RRSAgent, draft minutes v2
21:04:41 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/04/17-dxwg-minutes.html phila
21:04:49 <Makx> bye
21:05:07 <PWinstanley> thanks Phil & Andrea.
21:05:10 <PWinstanley> Bye all
21:14:52 <AndreaPerego> regrets+ Alejandra
21:14:58 <AndreaPerego> RRSAgent, draft minutes v2
21:14:58 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/04/17-dxwg-minutes.html AndreaPerego