– DRAFT –
DXWG DCAT subgroup teleconference

<Jaroslav_Pullmann> # Example Log: http://‌www.w3.org/‌2002/‌11/‌07-ws-arch-irc

Confirm agenda

<AndreaPerego> +1 from me.

<alejandra> +1

<Jaroslav_Pullmann> +1

+1

Approve minutes from last meeting – https://‌www.w3.org/‌2018/‌04/‌25-dxwgdcat-minutes

<alejandra> +1

<AndreaPerego> +1

+1

<DaveBrowning> +1

<RiccardoAlbertoni> 0 ( i was absent)

<PWinstanley> +1

Resolved: meetings of the last meeting approved

<Jaroslav_Pullmann> +1

actions to finalize FPWD

DaveBrowning: asks about the status, who is doing what

Alejandra: The publication of the FPWD is in the hands of Dave Ragget

DaveBrowning: I assume that we can no longer merge pull requests in GitHub

<RiccardoAlbertoni> +1 to have a branch ..

Alejandra: I confirm this is the case. I propose that we tag the commit that is to be used for the FPWD.

<AndreaPerego> What about creating a "release"? see: https://‌help.github.com/‌articles/‌creating-releases/

<PWinstanley> +1 to the idea of a branch - easier to find than a version point

<PWinstanley> or a 'release'

DaveBrowning: I am in favour of identifying the FPWD either by creating a tag or a branch

<alejandra> +1, I meant to have a release

Alejandra: Indeed, as Andrea points out, we can create a tag on git and it will show as a release on GitHub

<alejandra> https://‌help.github.com/‌articles/‌working-with-tags/

<alejandra> release is a particular tag

<DaveBrowning> proposed: on alejandra to contact Dave Raggett and co-ordinate setting up a release

+1

<DaveBrowning> +1

<alejandra> +1

<RiccardoAlbertoni> +1

<PWinstanley> +1

<AndreaPerego> +1

<Jaroslav_Pullmann> +1

<DaveBrowning> action on alejandra to contact Dave Raggett and co-ordinate setting up a release

<trackbot> Sorry, but no Tracker is associated with this channel.

Action: alejandra to contact Dave Raggett and co-ordinate setting up a release

<trackbot> Sorry, but no Tracker is associated with this channel.

PWinstanley: We need to ask for feedback on the FPWD. For DCAT to be a global standard, we also need to encourage people to give feedback across the globe.

PWinstanley: we need to see how the wider W3C community can help us with that

DaveBrowning: show we take this action to the plenary DXWG session, where there is a broader audience?

PWinstanley: We need to stimulate a broader discussion. We need to connect with more than the EC, JRC, ... there is lots of activity going on. We need to make sure that what we deliver is fit for purpose.

PWinstanley: We also need to reach out to America, Asia, Africa,...

<AndreaPerego> What helped in previous groups (as the SDW WG) was organising sessions / workshop in specific events / conferences.

stijn_goedertier_aiv: we can make a list of mailing lists, contact persons to notify ... e.g. on the wiki

Jaroslav_Pullmann: we already have a Google docs for this

PWinstanley: we need an active, personal engagement strategy to get feedback. There is too much GitHub traffic. We need to approach our personal contacts in a direct fashion.

Jaroslav_Pullmann: I agree. Therefore, we can use the UCR mechanism: the mailinglist and a Google docs to coordinate contacting people personally.

<AndreaPerego> +1. But besides this, it wouldn't harm some visibility via social media. As far as I remember, the UCR doc didn't even got a tweet from W3C official account - as it should have been.

<PWinstanley_> We need to develop a brief engagement strategy with a timetable

PWinstanley: emphasises that we need to connect with other geographies... we need to make a start with localising DCAT.

<PWinstanley_> W3C already has a global network of partner organisations ... they could work for us

alejandra: Conferences are a good channel. We could also contact organisations.

PWinstanley: We need to indicate on which topics we need feedback. We also need to summarise the areas where we have made changes and ask for feedback on those.

<DaveBrowning> propose: DaveBrowning to draft a short comms strategy to highlight priorities and mechanisms to drive engagement on FPWD

<Jaroslav_Pullmann> +1

<PWinstanley_> +1

+1

AndreaPerego: another approach is a W3C blog post that can be quite effective to attract feedback (incl. promotion on social media).

<RiccardoAlbertoni> +1

<Jaroslav_Pullmann> +1

<PWinstanley_> is there a technical press that we can engage with?

<alejandra> +1

Action: DaveBrowning to draft a short comms strategy to bring together the above ideas

<trackbot> Sorry, but no Tracker is associated with this channel.

Resolved: DaveBrowning to draft a short comms strategy to highlight priorities and mechanisms to drive engagement on FPWD

DCAT activity at 3rd F2F

<alejandra> Agenda for F2F is here: https://‌www.w3.org/‌2017/‌dxwg/‌wiki/‌F2f3

DaveBrowning: asks for feedback on the agenda

DaveBrowning: the agenda does not really leave the opportunity for the DCAT sub group to discuss on DCAT in particular. Most of the F2F will be devoted to profiles and conneg.

PWinstanley: Karen and I are collecting ideas (by Monday 7/5 morning) for additional items to include on the F2F agenda

<PWinstanley_> Put anything you want considered for the agenda into the "disorganised list" in the https://‌www.w3.org/‌2017/‌dxwg/‌wiki/‌F2f3 doc

Expanded scope of dcat:Catalog

https://‌github.com/‌w3c/‌dxwg/‌issues/‌172

<alejandra> This is the link to Simon's represention of the chosen solution: https://‌github.com/‌w3c/‌dxwg/‌wiki/‌Cataloguing-data-services#chosen-solution

alejandra: Simon has elaborated the proposal based on the previous meeting. It includes a generic class 'CataloguedItem' that could include (data) Services, such as a DataDistributionService, DataTransformationService, etc.

<PWinstanley_> but 'data' could include authentication and authorisation services, couldn't it?

alejandra: I wonder if we should rather call 'Service' to be 'DataService'. I also wonder whether we would really need to distinguish all these types of service.

AndreaPerego: I agree that it may be difficult to come up with a complete typology (e.g. a code list) of services. This is probably better addressed in each specific domain. I think the major step forward is recognising the fact that we can use DCAT to describe generic resources like DataService.

<DaveBrowning> +1

<RiccardoAlbertoni> +1 to the chosen solution, and agreeing with andrea about taxonomy of services

<Makx_> +1 to Andrea

AndreaPerego: Regarding 'DataService', the services in a catalogue may not necessarily be classified as a 'DataService'.

DaveBrowning: suggests to continue to discussion next week or the week after.

<RiccardoAlbertoni> bye

<Jaroslav_Pullmann> bye!

<AndreaPerego> Thanks, bye bye!

<Makx_> bye