DXWG Fortnightly

29 May 2018

Meeting Minutes

<PWinstanley> https://‌www.w3.org/‌2017/‌dxwg/‌wiki/‌Meetings:Telecon2018.05.29

PWinstanley: Check that everyone agrees to the agenda

[no comment]

last meeting minutes

<PWinstanley> https://‌www.w3.org/‌2018/‌05/‌22-dxwg-minutes

previous minutes

PROPOSED: Accept previous minutes https://‌www.w3.org/‌2018/‌05/‌22-dxwg-minutes

<annette_g> +1

<antoine> +1

<PWinstanley> 0

<Jaroslav_Pullmann> +1

<kcoyle> +1

<LarsG> +1

Resolved: Accept previous minutes https://‌www.w3.org/‌2018/‌05/‌22-dxwg-minutes

<roba> +1


PWinstanley: Need to have a brief convo about the publicity for that
… Look at the spreadsheet of contacts
… Note actions already taken

PWinstanley: Two ontology and KD conferences in the UL recently have highlighted it

kcoyle: We got a note through twitter. There was a brief comment. I asked them to let the person know and to speak to the commnet list. Maybe I should post that comment myself

PWinstanley: This highlights... we need to be sure that comments are received and processed approipriately. That means acknowledging the comment, thanking them then puttin git into an action
… Needs to be taken up by the DCAT sub WG
… If you get a comment directly, pass it on pubicly - we need the sound evidence base
… Need to be able to show wide publicity
… Please fill in the spreadsheet appropriately
… It's the direct contact and conference presentations that gets the responses.

phila: I tweeted at https://‌twitter.com/‌philarcher1/‌status/‌999194608327380993 and got some traction

PWinstanley: After the Genoa F2F, we decided we'd have plenary meetings weekly again as the workload is increasing.

Profile Guidance Group

PWinstanley: I'd like to check the members are antoine, roba and LarsG

PWinstanley: Is there a schedule of meetings?

kcoyle: I know that Nick has expressed an interest
… we can add him of course.
… I updated the draft, which has very little in it at the moment, as proposed in Genoa. But we still don't have our requirements
… we need that before we start

roba: It's not so much the requirements, as open questions, what gets done where

roba: I'm concerned that we don't have enough people with experience of DCAT profiles in the group

PWinstanley: So we need cross-pollination from DCAT

antoine: In a way, the editorial group has started to work out the position of the documents.
… Not concrete progress but it takes a bit of time
… perhaps Karen's point about requiremnets is a good one

kcoyle: Just to remind folks that the guidance doc is not just about DCAT profiles.
… DCAT profile experience is only one part.
… My assumption is that the guidance is about profiles in general

<Zakim> phila, you wanted to mention Stijn

phila: Highlights that Stijn was important in the DCAT-AP story in his earlier work

Open Action Items


<trackbot> action-110 -- Karen Coyle to Find better wording for 216 especially "extend" -- due 2018-05-15 -- OPEN

<trackbot> https://‌www.w3.org/‌2017/‌dxwg/‌track/‌actions/‌110

kcoyle: I keep forgetting about that


<trackbot> action-119 -- Antoine Isaac to Remove the labels he proposed for removal -- due 2018-05-29 -- OPEN

<trackbot> https://‌www.w3.org/‌2017/‌dxwg/‌track/‌actions/‌119

antoine: I wanted another week on that


<trackbot> action-120 -- Antoine Isaac to Add requirements to the europeana use case -- due 2018-05-29 -- OPEN

<trackbot> https://‌www.w3.org/‌2017/‌dxwg/‌track/‌actions/‌120

antoine: Continuing
… but an important one


<trackbot> action-121 -- Antoine Isaac to Call for more clarification on candidate uc 239 -- due 2018-05-30 -- OPEN

<trackbot> https://‌www.w3.org/‌2017/‌dxwg/‌track/‌actions/‌121

antoine: I think I've done this

close action-121

<trackbot> Closed action-121.


<trackbot> action-100 -- Jaroslav Pullmann to And ucr editors to take this to dcat group -- due 2018-04-10 -- OPEN

<trackbot> https://‌www.w3.org/‌2017/‌dxwg/‌track/‌actions/‌100

Jaroslav_Pullmann: tbh I don't remember this...
… If someone remembers...

Ixchel: It might be related to the comments we received?
… from Oystein?

Jaroslav_Pullmann: Ah yes, I think we've done this. We responded and put his points into GitHub issues

close action-100

<trackbot> Closed action-100.


<trackbot> action-88 -- Rob Atkinson to Investigate profile meeting minutes generation issue due 2018-03-14 -- due 2018-03-13 -- OPEN

<trackbot> https://‌www.w3.org/‌2017/‌dxwg/‌track/‌actions/‌88

roba: I raised that with the group. The minutes are being generated
… It's pushing the minutes into the meetings page that's a problem

PWinstanley: We'll keep it open


<trackbot> action-85 -- Andrea Perego to AndreaPerego to verify if changes to documentation of use of dct:license and dct:rights are needed -- due 2018-03-08 -- OPEN

<trackbot> https://‌www.w3.org/‌2017/‌dxwg/‌track/‌actions/‌85


<trackbot> action-86 -- Andrea Perego to AndreaPerego to consider if dct:accessRights should be inlcuded in DCAT -- due 2018-03-08 -- OPEN

<trackbot> https://‌www.w3.org/‌2017/‌dxwg/‌track/‌actions/‌86

AndreaPerego: Both stuck
… we have to trigger some discussion to move it forward

PWinstanley: We'll keep them in place then for now

<Zakim> LarsG, you wanted to talk about ACTION-83


<trackbot> action-83 -- Dave Raggett to Set up respec template for "profile negotiation" deliverable - or do we simply clone the directory structure? -- due 2018-03-07 -- OPEN

<trackbot> https://‌www.w3.org/‌2017/‌dxwg/‌track/‌actions/‌83

LarsG: I think we can close that one too as I think we have it covered.

close action-83

<trackbot> Closed action-83.

Use Cases and Requirements

PWinstanley: There were a number of things when we were dealing with the gathering of UCR that we didn't confirm and agree on
… these were the ones that tended to cover conneg and profiles
… Karen from Genoa has been pulling these together in a very organised way

<PWinstanley> https://‌docs.google.com/‌document/‌d/‌13hV2tJ6Kg2Hfe7e1BowY5QfCIweH9GxSCFQV1aWtOPg/‌edit#

PWinstanley: What we want to look at is agreement on these
… Please take a look at that and in the top couple of pages... a bunch of Reqs in red. Profile reqs 12-24
… We need agreement that these are the requiremnets that we need to work to.
… But if we take them one at a time, we're likely to be here until the middle of the summer
… So first proposal is to ask ...
… You should be familiar with the territory. Are you happy with the idea that we cover all 12-24 in one vote.

PROPOSED: That we cover requirements 12-24 at https://‌docs.google.com/‌document/‌d/‌13hV2tJ6Kg2Hfe7e1BowY5QfCIweH9GxSCFQV1aWtOPg/‌edit#heading=h.5l26dadqk5v7 in one vote

<AndreaPerego> Probably it is too much.

PWinstanley: The alternative, is to do it in blocks, or do it one by one

<annette_g> -1 to doing it all in one block

<Jaroslav_Pullmann> +1 for grouping

<roba> Use Case: Profiles of DCAT-AP and various implementation resources #238

roba: The first thing is that there is another UC not reflected here. There's a lot of implicit assumptions that weren't captured enough

<roba> Use Case: Profiles of DCAT-AP and various implementation resources #238

roba: So I teased out a new use case

roba: We renamed it to be explicit about what it is

roba: Tio make sure that the DCAT-AP use cases was being captured

kcoyle: First in response to Rob we'd have to vote on the UC and then see about the reqs/
… Not sure what new features it adds

<roba> excatly - the UC may help resolve the issue - it does not add any new requirements however

kcoyle: The other thing we could ask if there are any requirements in that group that people objected to.

Jaroslav_Pullmann: This is a huge bunch og reqs that might be unrelated.

Jaroslav_Pullmann: Groupings of similar reqs would make sense

PWinstanley: There are links with IDs

Jaroslav_Pullmann: This was fantastic work by Karen, I;m trying to support the grouping. These back refs ... would such a statement of a use case motivate such a req and it's not always the case.
… I think an update of the UC statement might be helpful.
… But I'm in favour of grouping

kcoyle: One of the things about having this in a Google Doc... there are things that GH doesn't do very well.

kcoyle: WE've got some comments, Lars provided alternate wording etc.
… People should do that soon.

AndreaPerego: Another option for grouping is to identify reqs that will be a SHOULD and those that would be a MAY
… we may not have an agreement yet, but it might be useful exercise.
… leads to idea of core requirements, nice to haves etc.

AndreaPerego: not all reqs might need to be fully supported

PWinstanley: There is a waterfall process We need to do things in sequence. The UCR needs to support the Rec on profiles

<roba> so lets look at the UC first

PWinstanley: I was trying to see what scope there is for moving as quickly as possible without losing hte opportunity for appropriate consideration
… we didn't get them all agreed when we were sorting out the ones that are the basis for DCAT
… The challenge is that if we're looking for groupings, then it may take us less time than doing it one by one, but we'll still need a proposal for how to block them
… It has to be done at the plenary meeting

Jaroslav_Pullmann: I was asked to support Karen which I will do on Thursday this week.

Action: Jaroslav to propose initial grouping of the requirements 12-24

<trackbot> Error creating an ACTION: could not connect to Tracker. Please mail <sysreq@w3.org> with details about what happened.

PWinstanley: You're saying that sounds possible, AndreaPerego, but annette_g maybe not

AndreaPerego: You can think of a matrix, split into reqs that are SHOULD, those that are MUSTS etc.
… The Gh mailing list isn't clear what are the core requirements

annette_g: I think it's too big a chunk is too much, but a logical grouping makes sense

roba: I agree with the comment about the UCs not motivating all the reqs clearly, hence to proposed new UC

roba: I've attempted to capture what's missing which might be useful

PWinstanley: We also have some additional chunks of UC work {missed a bit]

Jaroslav_Pullmann: These aren't related to profiles
… at least mine isn't
… I need to put it back on the screen but it's not relevant in the discussion we had

PWinstanley: And what about the Flanders one and the one below that (modelling permissions)

Jaroslav_Pullmann: The UC from Stijn - I commented that there is already a related UC. We share an understanding of where DCAT is used. Is it a base or an interop/exchange standard
… One of the important parts of the description...

PWinstanley: Is this already dealt with?

Jaroslav_Pullmann: Yes, descriptions already handled elsewhere, but we could alter the UC to talk about DCAT as an exchange standard at interop level.
… To enable interop by interchange of DCAT artifacts
… A slight rewording of the use case then it will make sense. Internal use, no, but as an interchange standard

kcoyle: I'm looking at that the DCAT-AP. GH issue 238
… It refers specifically to DCAT-AP and profiles, that's really not in our charter. Is here a general profile issue?

PWinstanley: Yep

kcoyle: I'm a bit reluctant fr us to add profile management at this point
… I can see it as a topic within the profile guideline And from Makx's presentation, we cojuld come up with some issues in profile management, but I don't think it's related to programming languages and interop

PWinstanley: The charter is clear that we're generalists

roba: The use case doesn;t talk about management, it talks about the experience of DCAt-Ap
… It's an example for the need for descriptions
… Most of the UCs talk about ... in this specific case... this is no different in that regard
… It doesn't provide any new reqs but it does provide a clearer traceability for some of the reqs we already have, eg the Europeana one

<Zakim> AndreaPerego, you wanted to restate roba's point about examples, and to make a suggestion

roba: I don't think a mischaracterisation of its scope makes it irrelevant The issue... people aren't disagreeing about the use cases, more that we can't always trace back to the UC

AndreaPerego: Examples in the doc... I think it wold be important ... we give a sense of how things are done in different UCs.
… We should probably include profiles that are not just about metadata
… GML is an example, designed for use with profiles

<roba> happy not toi include this - but not if we then revert to arguing about the lack of UC!

<antoine> https://‌lists.w3.org/‌Archives/‌Public/‌public-dxwg-wg/‌2018May/‌0391.html

antoine: I wanted to talk briefly about Rob's use case. I see it's trying to capture some of the issues that I posted. It ewas a report of the varuous profiles of DCAT around Eu
… I think Rob's use case was trying to go towards
… I think it could help us

PWinstanley: Does it need a bit of editing?

antoine: Rob was welcoming the input of people involved in this effort to flesh out his UC, so yeas

<Zakim> phila, you wanted to tall about Rob's UC

phila: Supports Rob's use case if it clarifies the relationship with a key target market

Weekly Meetings

<AndreaPerego> +1 from me

<Jaroslav_Pullmann> +1

PWinstanley: It seems to me, based on what we've just been talking about, we'll need weekly meetings for a while yet

<annette_g> +1 for weekly meetings

<antoine> +1

<DaveBrowning> +1

<LarsG> +1

PWinstanley: Are we all happy with the idea of weekly meetings for the foreseebale future (next 3-4 meetings)

<roba> + uggh

<PWinstanley> +1

<roba> +1 uggh

<Ixchel> +1

PWinstanley: I think that's where we're at.
… The next meeting therefore will be in a week's time
… The actions we have are on Jaro to clump those UCs associated with the profiles
… preferably by next week, if not the week after

PWinstanley: We can tease out the ones we're going to work on and get rid of others.
… AndreaPerego was also suggesting a prioritisation

PWinstanley: Would you have time to help AndreaPerego?

AndreaPerego: I'll do my best

PWinstanley: So it's incumbent on everyone to follow the Google doc. Jaro will make some suggestions
… It's important that we get this done so the profiles doc work can start.
… Any other suggestions?

Jaroslav_Pullmann: I'll start with a reqs grouping and see if they are motivated by the UCs, or as Karen said, put some comments on them where justification is missing

roba: The potential role of the additional clarifying UC will be included in that review?

PWinstanley: I think there's enough support for that to be brought to the table

kcoyle: I would offer that we should vote on it now

PROPOSED: Include Rob's Clarifying Use Case on DCAT-AP


<annette_g> +1

<antoine> +1

<PWinstanley> +1

<kcoyle> +0

<DaveBrowning> +1

<roba> +1

<Jaroslav_Pullmann> +1

<AndreaPerego> +1

<LarsG> +1

<Ixchel> +1

Resolved: Include Rob's Clarifying Use Case on DCAT-AP

<antoine> This said it would be good if it was marked work in progress

Jaroslav_Pullmann: Last week we had a discuion on the problem statement which seemed to be missing.

<kcoyle> +1

Jaroslav_Pullmann: Can you, Rob, please revise the problem statement and make sure it's clear

roba: I think the problem was the dissonance with the title which I've tried to resolve

PWinstanley: And there was Antoine's comment on some diting

<antoine> It's probably the same issue as with the Europeana case.

reports from DCAT sub group

PWinstanley: Postponed to next time
… Busy meeting. Please prepare your calendars so that you're freed up for the next few meetings. I think the next few will be quite meaty.

PWinstanley: Thanks everyone for attending

<AndreaPerego> Thanks, bye bye!


<Jaroslav_Pullmann> bye!

<LarsG> Thanks, bye

Summary of Action Items

  1. Jaroslav to propose initial grouping of the requirements 12-24

Summary of Resolutions

  1. Accept previous minutes https://‌www.w3.org/‌2018/‌05/‌22-dxwg-minutes
  2. Include Rob's Clarifying Use Case on DCAT-AP
Minutes formatted by Bert Bos's scribe.perl version 2.41 (2018/03/23 13:13:49), a reimplementation of David Booth's scribe.perl. See CVS log.


Succeeded: s/importsnt/important

Succeeded: s/hte/the/

Succeeded: s/WE/We/

Succeeded: s/Rib/Rob/

Succeeded: s/one/case