19:45:49 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #dxwg
19:45:49 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2018/06/12-dxwg-irc
19:45:59 <PWinstanley> rrsagent, make logs public
19:46:15 <PWinstanley> chair: PWinstanley
19:47:10 <PWinstanley> rrsagent, create minutes v2
19:47:10 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/06/12-dxwg-minutes.html PWinstanley
19:47:12 <PWinstanley> regrets+ Adam Sisco
19:47:57 <kcoyle> kcoyle has joined #dxwg
19:59:40 <PWinstanley> present+
20:01:19 <roba> roba has joined #dxwg
20:01:49 <antoine> antoine has joined #dxwg
20:02:12 <phila> phila has joined #dxwg
20:02:15 <annette_g> annette_g has joined #dxwg
20:02:18 <alejandra> alejandra has joined #dxwg
20:02:43 <roba> present+
20:03:13 <alejandra> present+
20:03:35 <antoine> present+
20:03:44 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> Jaroslav_Pullmann has joined #dxwg
20:04:07 <LarsG> LarsG has joined #dxwg
20:04:10 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> present+
20:04:11 <DaveBrowning> DaveBrowning has joined #dxwg
20:04:15 <LarsG> present+
20:04:35 <annette_g> present+
20:05:06 <kcoyle> present+
20:05:07 <phila> present+
20:06:11 <kcoyle> scribenick: kcoyle
20:06:14 <PWinstanley> https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2018.06.12
20:06:44 <kcoyle> TOPIC: Admin
20:06:56 <kcoyle> PROPOSED: approve minutes of June 5
20:07:01 <riccardoAlbertoni> riccardoAlbertoni has joined #dxwg
20:07:02 <alejandra> 0 (was absent)
20:07:07 <PWinstanley> https://www.w3.org/2018/06/05-dxwg-minutes
20:07:23 <riccardoAlbertoni> present+
20:07:26 <PWinstanley> +1
20:07:28 <antoine> +1 (and yes I've double-checked them!)
20:07:32 <alejandra> can meeting title, etc be added?
20:07:49 <DaveBrowning_> DaveBrowning_ has joined #dxwg
20:07:49 <roba> +1
20:07:51 <annette_g> +1
20:07:53 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> +1
20:07:53 <phila> meeting: Weekly DXWG
20:08:23 <phila> chair: PeterW
20:08:33 <DaveBrowning_> present+
20:08:34 <LarsG> 0 (wasn't there)
20:08:49 <kcoyle> RESOLVED: approve minutes of June 5
20:09:17 <kcoyle> TOPIC: open action items
20:09:46 <alejandra> https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/track/actions/open
20:09:52 <kcoyle> 127 and 128 are done - to be closed
20:09:57 <phila> agenda: https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2018.06.12
20:10:02 <phila> close 127
20:10:13 <phila> close action-127
20:10:13 <trackbot> Closed action-127.
20:10:22 <phila> close action-128
20:10:22 <trackbot> Closed action-128.
20:10:46 <riccardoAlbertoni> i think my action can be closed...
20:11:19 <phila> -> https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2018.06.12#Annotations Annotations
20:11:39 <kcoyle> roba: minutes from subgroups not getting onto meetings page
20:11:54 <phila> [[Category:Meeting]]
20:12:15 <kcoyle> phila: needs the annotations part in the agenda and the category:meeting statement
20:13:04 <kcoyle> close action-88
20:13:04 <trackbot> Closed action-88.
20:13:32 <kcoyle> TOPIC: requirements for conneg and profiles
20:13:59 <kcoyle> PWinstanley: there are 3 re-written requirements
20:14:14 <kcoyle> PROPOSED: accept "Requirement: Profiles may provide lists of values to pick from in order to populate data elements [ID46] (5.46)"
20:14:45 <PWinstanley> q?
20:14:52 <kcoyle> +1
20:14:59 <PWinstanley> +1
20:14:59 <phila> +1
20:15:00 <antoine> +1 (unsurprisingly, perhaps)
20:15:00 <roba> what does "provide"; mean?
20:15:02 <DaveBrowning> DaveBrowning has joined #dxwg
20:15:04 <LarsG> +1
20:15:10 <annette_g> q+
20:15:10 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> +1
20:15:12 <riccardoAlbertoni> +1
20:15:17 <DaveBrowning> present+
20:15:18 <alejandra> +1
20:15:20 <phila> q+
20:15:20 <DaveBrowning> +1
20:15:23 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> that's fine, an example of value restriction by enumeration ..?
20:15:24 <PWinstanley> ack annette_g
20:15:27 <annette_g> 0
20:15:52 <kcoyle> q+
20:16:01 <phila> q- later
20:16:07 <AndreaPerego> AndreaPerego has joined #dxwg
20:16:15 <DaveBrowning> RRSAgent, make logs public
20:16:25 <AndreaPerego> present+ AndreaPerego
20:16:30 <roba> enumeration is very hard to get right and unchanging in practice - referencing a vocabulary is a lot more useful
20:16:33 <roba> q+
20:16:35 <antoine> q+
20:17:01 <DaveBrowning> RRSAgent, generate minutes v2
20:17:01 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/06/12-dxwg-minutes.html DaveBrowning
20:17:01 <PWinstanley> •    Requirement: Profiles are "named collections of properties" or metadata terms (if not RDF) [ID41] (5.41) [profile] [Accepted, 5 June] •    Requirement: Profiles can have human-readable definitions of terms and input instructions [ID46] (5.46) [profile]
20:17:22 <kcoyle> q-
20:17:51 <phila> q- later
20:17:57 <PWinstanley> ack phila
20:18:07 <PWinstanley> ack roba
20:19:56 <kcoyle> roba: does this mean closed lists and enumerations, or (and?) pointing to a list?
20:20:22 <annette_g> I think this was the pair:	1.	Requirement: Profiles may provide rules governing value validity [ID41] (5.41) [profile]
20:20:23 <annette_g> 
20:20:23 <annette_g> Requirement: Profiles can have rules for data value validation, including pick lists
20:20:28 <phila> q-
20:20:40 <kcoyle> phila: problem of enumerations - can change
20:20:52 <PWinstanley> ack antoine
20:20:56 <kcoyle> roba: practice is that inline lists are almost never used
20:21:42 <kcoyle> antoine: Europeana does have enumerated lists; the word provide does not specify how the list is made
20:21:45 <alejandra> +q
20:21:51 <kcoyle> ... whether by pick list or reference
20:22:10 <kcoyle> ... need to be careful when we enter solution space
20:22:20 <antoine> Profiles can have rules for data value validation, including pick lists [ID46]
20:22:31 <kcoyle> ... to annette, original requirement included rules for data value validation
20:22:42 <kcoyle> ... was considered redundant with 5.41
20:22:44 <antoine> Profiles may provide rules governing value validity [ID41] (5.41)
20:23:11 <kcoyle> ... this should eliminate redundancy with 5.46
20:23:29 <kcoyle> s/5.46/5.41
20:23:36 <alejandra> Potential rewrite: "Requirement: Profiles may provide lists of values to pick from, whether by enumeration or reference, in order to populate data elements [ID46] (5.46)"
20:23:52 <kcoyle> annette_g: do we need to strike out one of the requirements?
20:23:53 <phila> q+ to refer to ID41
20:23:54 <PWinstanley> ack alejandra
20:24:03 <kcoyle> antoine: no, don't need to because overlap is eliminated
20:24:34 <LarsG> q+ to talk about versions of subject headings
20:24:37 <kcoyle> alejandra: suggests a rewrite to include both pick lists and enumerations
20:24:38 <antoine> q+
20:24:48 <PWinstanley> ack phila
20:24:48 <Zakim> phila, you wanted to refer to ID41
20:24:52 <kcoyle> ... should include version of vocabulary or list?
20:25:43 <roba> q+
20:25:51 <kcoyle> phila: agree with alejandra. This came up in shacl - but wasn't accepted as a use case, because the list might change
20:25:52 <PWinstanley> ack LarsG
20:25:52 <Zakim> LarsG, you wanted to talk about versions of subject headings
20:26:18 <AndreaPerego> @alejandra, I think this should be more a caveat: if you use lists by reference, ensure that a proper versioning mechanism is in place.
20:26:19 <kcoyle> LarsG: In library domain, changes are made continuously, so there aren't versions
20:26:29 <AndreaPerego> q+
20:26:30 <PWinstanley> q?
20:26:31 <alejandra> +q
20:26:45 <PWinstanley> ack antoine
20:27:06 <kcoyle> antoine: warning to alejandra and phila, but the use case does not support this distinction in requirements
20:27:11 <PWinstanley> ack roba
20:27:13 <kcoyle> ... we probably need to extend the use case
20:28:05 <kcoyle> roba: agrees with antoine . asking phil: is there anything in W3C that allows us to reference an external vocabulary?
20:28:41 <kcoyle> phila: thinking about LarsG comment - you may not be able to validate against it?
20:28:47 <kcoyle> ... what does valid mean in that case?
20:28:48 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> .. which type  of change are we talking about - do the URIs / IDs remain the same?
20:29:11 <roba> q+
20:29:17 <kcoyle> q+
20:29:22 <alejandra> +1 to validating URI patterns as only option if the vocabulary changes daily
20:29:47 <kcoyle> LarsG: validate against URI pattern?
20:30:40 <kcoyle> phila: the reality is that people use these and that we cannot guarantee that the validation will hold for an arbitrary future
20:30:41 <PWinstanley> ack AndreaPerego
20:30:42 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> .. ist there any sort of standardized format for "lists" - RDF collections, taxonomies etc.?
20:30:51 <kcoyle> q-
20:30:52 <roba> q-
20:31:07 <kcoyle> AndreaPerego: distinguish between conceptual level and how this is implemented
20:31:17 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> q+
20:31:21 <kcoyle> ... conceptually we should support both options - pick list and external list
20:31:48 <kcoyle> ... yes there is an issue; include a caveat about using lists by reference
20:32:08 <kcoyle> ... this is what DCAP-AP uses for its shacl definition
20:32:21 <roba> I was going to point out RDF-QB allows binding to ConceptSchemes - and many registration processes  (eg W3C) use deprecated status and non-reuse of ids to keep validations valid..
20:32:43 <kcoyle> ... shouldn't prevent people from using either option; need to rely on community that maintains a list
20:34:05 <kcoyle> ... for shacl for dcap-ap considered all options; but couldn't include a full thesaurus in the shacl document
20:34:25 <roba> +1
20:34:42 <kcoyle> ... this has more to do with validation - may not be necessary for the guidance document
20:35:11 <PWinstanley> ack alejandra
20:35:15 <kcoyle> PWinstanley: as antoine said, the use case is simple; we've dived into something that may need a different use case
20:35:53 <kcoyle> alejandra: we have values coming from branches or children of ontologies; we should mention these issues
20:36:37 <alejandra> s/children of ontologies/children of a concept in an ontology
20:36:43 <roba> OGC is always referencing Corrdinate Reference systems which is a large externally managed vocabulary (management is a problem of course!)
20:36:46 <kcoyle> PWinstanley: two modes: this is the simple case; we need a well-described use case for the more complex situation
20:37:39 <kcoyle> ACTION: alejandra create new use case and requirements for more complex situation
20:37:41 <trackbot> Created ACTION-129 - Create new use case and requirements for more complex situation [on Alejandra Gonzalez Beltran - due 2018-06-19].
20:38:29 <PWinstanley> 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]
20:38:35 <AndreaPerego> RRSAgent, draft minutes v2
20:38:35 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/06/12-dxwg-minutes.html AndreaPerego
20:38:45 <kcoyle> PWinstanley: kcoyle rewrote 5.42 & 5.43 into two separate requirements
20:39:05 <kcoyle> proposed: Requirement: There needs to be a property in the profile where the rules for the descriptive content can be provided. This would apply to the entire profile. [ID42] (5.42)
20:39:58 <annette_g> +1
20:40:37 <alejandra> but do we add the mention of reference and enumeration?
20:41:02 <kcoyle> RESOLVED: accept "Profiles may provide lists of values to pick from in order to populate data elements [ID46] (5.46)"
20:41:26 <kcoyle> +1
20:41:46 <alejandra> +q
20:41:53 <antoine> +1
20:41:57 <PWinstanley> ack Jaroslav_Pullmann
20:42:16 <PWinstanley> ack alejandra
20:43:18 <roba> q?
20:43:31 <roba> q+
20:43:36 <PWinstanley> ack roba
20:44:11 <kcoyle> roba: "property" is too solution-oriented
20:44:22 <alejandra> Maybe... "Requirement: There needs to be an association between a profile and the rules for the descriptive content can be provided. This would apply to the entire profile. [ID42] (5.42)"?
20:44:31 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> q+
20:44:48 <annette_g> q+
20:44:49 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> .. I am wondering where the term standard has gone?
20:44:57 <kcoyle> PWinstanley: take out solution space language
20:45:07 <alejandra> New rewrite... "Requirement: There needs to be an association between a profile and the rules for its descriptive content. This would apply to the entire profile. [ID42] (5.42)"?
20:45:31 <alejandra> kcoyle: 'descriptive content' is cultural heritage speech
20:45:34 <phila> q+
20:45:42 <alejandra> ... the rules that define how to describe things
20:45:47 <PWinstanley> ack Jaroslav_Pullmann
20:45:47 <antoine> q+
20:45:48 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> .. I had sth. like following in mind: Profiles may indicate standards a constituent and its value(s) must conform t
20:46:00 <alejandra> I agree that 'descriptive content' is not too clear
20:46:00 <phila> q+ to wonder whether 'style guide' might be relevant to this?
20:46:34 <kcoyle> Jaroslav_Pullmann: profiles refer to standards; this should be made explicity
20:46:43 <kcoyle> s/explicity/explicit
20:47:11 <roba> a profile MAY provide rules and guidance for expression of descriptive metadata
20:47:12 <roba> ?
20:47:23 <alejandra> kcoyle: standard is not really what 'descriptive content' means
20:47:43 <alejandra> ... an organisation's rules are a standard?
20:47:56 <alejandra> ... 'standard' has a lot of baggage
20:47:59 <AndreaPerego> Probably better to use "specification" rather than "standard".
20:48:15 <roba> +1 for specification
20:48:17 <PWinstanley> ack annette_g
20:48:22 <alejandra> +1 to specification
20:48:45 <PWinstanley> ack phila
20:48:45 <Zakim> phila, you wanted to wonder whether 'style guide' might be relevant to this?
20:49:00 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> .. an example of how colleagues look at (industrial) standards: http://i40.semantic-interoperability.org/sto/index-en.html
20:49:04 <alejandra> New rewrite... "Requirement: There needs to be an association between a profile and a specification. This would apply to the entire profile. [ID42] (5.42)"?
20:49:31 <alejandra> phila: when reading the requirement I thought about 'style guide'
20:49:38 <kcoyle> phila: 'style guide' - ?
20:49:39 <PWinstanley> ack antoine
20:49:49 <alejandra> kcoyle: yes, but it should include style + content
20:49:59 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> q+
20:50:01 <kcoyle> antoine: how about mentioning standards and style guides?
20:50:14 <LarsG> kcoyle: in the library domain it's generally referred to as "cataloguing rules"
20:50:15 <kcoyle> ... descriptive content - descriptive metadata?
20:50:20 <annette_g> q+
20:50:25 <roba> "a profile MAY provide rules and guidance for expression of descriptive metadata" ?
20:50:37 <PWinstanley> ack Jaroslav_Pullmann
20:51:11 <kcoyle> Jaroslav_Pullmann: thought it was reference to value standards
20:51:30 <PWinstanley> ack annette_g
20:51:41 <kcoyle> annette_g: make this more 'can' than 'must'
20:52:12 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> yes
20:52:13 <AndreaPerego> +1
20:52:40 <kcoyle> PROPOSED: accept "Requirement: Profiles should be able to indicate which external standards are expected to be applied to values of individual properties. [ID43] (5.43)"
20:52:54 <annette_g> +1
20:52:57 <riccardoAlbertoni> +1
20:53:01 <PWinstanley> +1
20:53:01 <antoine> +1
20:53:02 <phila> +1
20:53:02 <LarsG> +1
20:53:03 <kcoyle> +1
20:53:04 <roba> specitifcartions?
20:53:05 <DaveBrowning> +1
20:53:13 <AndreaPerego> q+
20:53:13 <roba> or even specifications?
20:53:21 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> .. "to be applied" or "is compliant with"?
20:53:31 <LarsG> s/specitifcartions?/specifications?/
20:53:33 <annette_g> +1 to specifications
20:53:36 <alejandra> yes, specifications is better
20:53:36 <antoine> happy with roba 's suggestion
20:53:49 <PWinstanley> q?
20:53:54 <PWinstanley> ack AndreaPerego
20:54:15 <kcoyle> AndreaPerego: is this different from lists vs enumeration?
20:54:17 <roba> its broader requirement
20:54:26 <alejandra> I would add a note to indicate that a specification may be a standard, but doesn't need to be
20:54:37 <antoine> q+
20:54:40 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> .. the spec/standard may even refer to structure..
20:54:59 <kcoyle> AndreaPerego: could be broader than a standard
20:55:05 <alejandra> this is listing the external specifications
20:55:08 <alejandra> +q
20:55:13 <kcoyle> ... is the previous one sub this one?
20:55:14 <PWinstanley> ack antoine
20:55:20 <kcoyle> PWinstanley: no, they are separate
20:55:49 <phila> I struggle to see an essential difference between the two but won't make a fuss
20:55:57 <kcoyle> antoine: not necessary one broader than the other
20:56:10 <annette_g> Does this fix #1? Requirement: There needs to be a way to associate a profile with a specification that would apply to the entire profile. [ID42] (5.42)
20:56:14 <PWinstanley> ack alejandra
20:56:37 <kcoyle> alejandra: this says that the profile could have a list of external specifications
20:56:53 <kcoyle> ... it would be good to cluster them to show what is different between them
20:57:15 <kcoyle> RESOLVED: accept "accept "Requirement: Profiles should be able to indicate which external standards are expected to be applied to values of individual properties. [ID43] (5.43)" with specifications in stead of standards
20:57:20 <PWinstanley> PROPOSED: accept "Requirement: Profiles should be able to indicate which external specifications are expected to be applied to values of individual properties. [ID43] (5.43)"
20:57:20 <AndreaPerego> RRSAgent, draft minutes v2
20:57:20 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/06/12-dxwg-minutes.html AndreaPerego
20:57:24 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> q+
20:57:37 <roba> +1
20:57:38 <PWinstanley> ack Jaroslav_Pullmann
20:57:50 <alejandra> +1
20:58:03 <kcoyle> q+
20:58:14 <antoine> q+
20:58:25 <roba> not null ?
20:58:27 <PWinstanley> ack kcoyle
20:58:28 <antoine> q-
20:58:28 <AndreaPerego> Maybe we should say "content" instead of "values".
20:59:06 <kcoyle> RESOLVED: accept "Requirement: Profiles should be able to indicate which external specifications are expected to be applied to values of individual properties. [ID43] (5.43)"
20:59:22 <PWinstanley> Requirement: There needs to be a property in the profile where the rules for the descriptive content can be provided. This would apply to the entire profile. [ID42] (5.42)
20:59:29 <roba> q+
20:59:49 <PWinstanley> ack roba
21:00:13 <kcoyle> ACTION: kcoyle create github issue for ID42
21:00:16 <trackbot> Created ACTION-130 - Create github issue for id42 [on Karen Coyle - due 2018-06-19].
21:00:50 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> +1
21:00:54 <AndreaPerego> +1
21:01:01 <kcoyle> PWinstanley: meet weekly (until we get through this?)
21:01:45 <riccardoAlbertoni> bye, Thanks, good night!
21:01:47 <AndreaPerego> RRSAgent, draft minutes v2
21:01:47 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/06/12-dxwg-minutes.html AndreaPerego
21:01:48 <PWinstanley> bye
21:01:52 <annette_g> :O
21:01:53 <alejandra> thanks, and bye!
21:01:55 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> bye!
21:01:57 <annette_g> bye all!
21:01:58 <roba> bye
21:01:58 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> present-
21:03:58 <AndreaPerego> RRSAgent, draft minutes v2
21:03:58 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/06/12-dxwg-minutes.html AndreaPerego