– DRAFT –
(MEETING TITLE)

scrinenick nNicholasCar

scribenick NicholasCar

<Jaroslav_Pullmann> sorry for the delay!

<PWinstanley> https://‌www.w3.org/‌2017/‌dxwg/‌wiki/‌Meetings:Telecon2018.06.05

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

Action Items

many actions have been completed but perhaps not all marked so on the list

Antoine has completed his actions

Jaroslav has completed his ACTION-122

kcoyle: reminds people we are passing around DCAT FPWG to others for comment

Requirements for Profiles

we want to put Requirements in 3 groups: In Scope, Out of Scope or questionable, for discussion

<annette_g> do it!!!!

kcoyle: suggests removal of Reqs in 6.1 since they have been superceeded

<antoine> https://‌github.com/‌w3c/‌dxwg/‌issues/‌205

roba: could we link new issues to the old ones

all the Reqs are here: https://‌github.com/‌w3c/‌dxwg/‌milestone/‌8

<kcoyle> https://‌docs.google.com/‌spreadsheets/‌d/‌16JmtNCz_aCWtTCSntriDWLvyPY2x-Y9dZFhAHFl55r0/‌edit#gid=0

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

<Zakim> antoine, you wanted to ask where they are

kcoyle: we are using CAN, SHOULD etc in Reqs since this is for a guidance document, not just RDF

<Jaroslav_Pullmann> * sorry for the confusion!

<kcoyle> PROPOSED: accept Requirement: Profiles are "named collections of properties" or metadata terms (if not RDF) [ID41] (5.41) [profile]

<PWinstanley> +1

<annette_g> +1

<Jaroslav_Pullmann> +1

<DaveBrowning> +1

<antoine> +1 (in fact I can even volunteer the Europeana use case to support them :-) )

<roba> +1

+1

Resolved: Requirement: Profiles are "named collections of properties" or metadata terms (if not RDF) [ID41] (5.41) [profile] IS IN SCOPE

<annette_g> +1

<kcoyle> PROPOSED: accept as in scope Requirement: Profiles can have human-readable definitions of terms and input instructions [ID46] (5.46) [profile]

<annette_g> +1

<antoine> +1

+1

<PWinstanley> +1

<Jaroslav_Pullmann> +1

<DaveBrowning> +1

<roba> +1

Resolved: accept as in scope Requirement: Profiles can have human-readable definitions of terms and input instructions [ID46] (5.46) [profile]

<roba> "have" ?

<kcoyle> PROPOSED: accept as in scope Requirement: Profiles can have what is needed to drive forms for data input or for user display. [ID46] (5.46) [profile]

<PWinstanley> contain?

<annette_g> can "include"?

<antoine> +1

<annette_g> +1

<PWinstanley> +1

<roba> +1

<DaveBrowning> +1

<Jaroslav_Pullmann> +1

+1

<annette_g> but I'm a little concerned that I don't understand Rob's concern.

<annette_g> okay

<roba> interpretations - profiles may be defined by collections of resources - "have" will be by reference

Resolved: accept as in scope Requirement: Profiles can have what is needed to drive forms for data input or for user display. [ID46] (5.46) [profile]

<roba> are 2 and 4 the same?\

<kcoyle> PROPOSED: accept as in scope Requirement: Profiles may provide rules on cardinality of terms (including “recommended”) [ID41] (5.41) [profile]

<annette_g> +1

<antoine> +1

<PWinstanley> +1

<roba> +1

+1

<DaveBrowning> +1

<Jaroslav_Pullmann> +1

Resolved: accept as in scope Requirement: Profiles may provide rules on cardinality of terms (including “recommended”) [ID41] (5.41) [profile]

<roba> +1

<kcoyle> PROPOSED: accept as in scope Requirement: Profiles may provide rules governing value validity [ID41] (5.41) [profile]

<annette_g> +1

<antoine> +1

<Jaroslav_Pullmann> +1

<PWinstanley> +1

+1

<DaveBrowning> +1

Resolved: accept as in scope Requirement: Profiles may provide rules governing value validity [ID41] (5.41) [profile]

+1

<kcoyle> PROPOSED: accept as in scope Requirement: Profiles may express dependencies between elements of the vocabulary (if A then not B, etc.) [ID41] (5.41) [profile]

<annette_g> +1

<DaveBrowning> +1

<antoine> +1

<roba> +1

<PWinstanley> +1

<Jaroslav_Pullmann> +1

+1

<roba> thats just repeating the original UCR rewriting and deduplicating. Happy for someone else to try next time though..

Joaroslav_Pullmann: asks about regularising content in the Guidance document

kcoyle: suggests this is best undertaken while editing the document when most information about content it known - this is a tasks for the editors

Resolved: accept as in scope Requirement: Profiles may express dependencies between elements of the vocabulary (if A then not B, etc.) [ID41] (5.41) [profile]

can you please paste the text?

<kcoyle> Profiles can have rules for data value validation, including pick lists [ID46] (5.46) [profile]

<roba> picklists - does this include external vocabulary references? do we need to separate in-profile and external controlled vocab cases?

PWinstanley: suggests taking out "data value validation,"

Action: antoine to re-write requirement from ID46 "Profiles can have rules for data value validation, including pick lists [ID46] (5.46) [profile]"

<trackbot> Created ACTION-127 - Re-write requirement from id46 "profiles can have rules for data value validation, including pick lists [id46] (5.46) [profile]" [on Antoine Isaac - due 2018-06-12].

Resolved: will rewrite Profiles can have rules for data value validation, including pick lists [ID46] (5.46) [profile]

<kcoyle> PROPOSED: accept as in scope Requirement: Profiles should be able to indicate what external standards are expected to be applied to the data provided. [ID42, ID43] (5.42, 5.43) [profile]

<Jaroslav_Pullmann> .. I tried to understand like this: Profiles may indicate standards a constituent and its value(s) must conforms to.

Action: kcoyle re-write Requirement: Profiles should be able to indicate what external standards are expected to be applied to the data provided. [ID42, ID43] (5.42, 5.43) [profile]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-128 - Re-write requirement: profiles should be able to indicate what external standards are expected to be applied to the data provided. [id42, id43] (5.42, 5.43) [profile] [on Karen Coyle - due 2018-06-12].

kcoyle: we have considered all the Reqs tabled, is there discussion about others?

<annette_g> • Requirement: Profiles may provide rules governing acceptable values, including pick lists [ID41] (5.41) [profile]

<annette_g> • Requirement: Profiles can have rules for data value validation [ID46] (5.46) [profile]

<annette_g> ^possible rewrite of 2 and 4 under Expressing Data Constraints

<annette_g> oh, sorry, I didn't realize that was the same one you were working on.

<annette_g> I was just hoping the first one could be a little broader.

<antoine> annette_g, we're going to have both levels so maybe one of your suggestion can still be made!

<annette_g> antoine, I'll let you work on it.

PWinstanley: we must follow procedure and determine status of all Reqs

kcoyle: people with wording changes, please make suggestions on the Google Doc

<annette_g> Bye all!

<Jaroslav_Pullmann> bye, thanks!