IRC log of dxwg on 2018-06-26

Timestamps are in UTC.

19:47:51 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #dxwg
19:47:51 [RRSAgent]
logging to
19:48:02 [PWinstanley]
rrsagent, make logs public
19:48:11 [PWinstanley]
chair: PWinstanley
19:49:00 [PWinstanley]
rrsagent, create minutes v2
19:49:00 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate PWinstanley
19:49:07 [PWinstanley]
regrets+ DaveBrowning , SimonCox, Alejandra, Ixchel
19:49:08 [PWinstanley]
19:50:23 [PWinstanley]
Meeting: DXWG Telecon2018.06.26
19:50:29 [PWinstanley]
rrsagent, create minutes v2
19:50:29 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate PWinstanley
19:50:54 [kcoyle]
kcoyle has joined #dxwg
19:52:21 [PWinstanley]
regrets+ RobSanderson
19:53:52 [kcoyle]
regrets+ DaveBrowning , SimonCox, Alejandra, Ixchel
19:54:23 [kcoyle]
19:55:45 [dsr]
dsr has joined #dxwg
19:59:57 [roba]
roba has joined #dxwg
20:00:59 [roba]
20:01:20 [LarsG]
LarsG has joined #dxwg
20:02:31 [LarsG]
20:04:29 [kcoyle]
scribenick: kcoyle
20:05:14 [annette_g]
annette_g has joined #dxwg
20:05:14 [dsr]
20:05:36 [Jaroslav_Pullmann]
Jaroslav_Pullmann has joined #dxwg
20:05:39 [Jaroslav_Pullmann]
20:06:43 [annette_g]
20:07:07 [antoine]
antoine has joined #dxwg
20:07:16 [antoine]
present+ antoine
20:07:24 [kcoyle]
20:07:55 [kcoyle]
PROPOSED: approve minutes of June 19
20:07:57 [PWinstanley]
20:08:19 [kcoyle]
20:08:22 [annette_g]
20:08:31 [LarsG]
20:08:37 [PWinstanley]
20:08:42 [Jaroslav_Pullmann]
20:09:03 [roba]
20:09:48 [kcoyle]
RESOLVED: approve minutes of June 19
20:11:33 [kcoyle]
TOPIC: open actions
20:11:40 [PWinstanley]
20:11:48 [kcoyle]
PWinstanley: kcoyle - # 110
20:12:00 [kcoyle]
kcoyle: no result yet - can't find a better wording
20:12:17 [kcoyle]
PWinstanley: dsr - add annette to march 13
20:12:21 [antoine]
20:12:37 [kcoyle]
PWinstanley: LarsG can close 131 133
20:12:41 [PWinstanley]
ack antoine
20:13:10 [kcoyle]
antoine: riccardo has complete 126; can be closed
20:13:49 [kcoyle]
kcoyle: action items closed
20:14:47 [kcoyle]
PWinstanley: note deadlines - publishing moratoria of w3c; deadlines are listed in the agenda. July4, July 25, plus around TPAC
20:15:01 [AndreaPerego]
AndreaPerego has joined #dxwg
20:15:15 [AndreaPerego]
present+ AndreaPerego
20:15:25 [kcoyle]
20:15:42 [kcoyle]
20:16:10 [kcoyle]
PWinstanley: any estimates on next drafts? will discuss in subgroup reports
20:16:17 [kcoyle]
TOPIC: sub-group reports
20:16:48 [AndreaPerego]
RRSAgent, make draft minutes v2
20:16:48 [RRSAgent]
I'm logging. I don't understand 'make draft minutes v2', AndreaPerego. Try /msg RRSAgent help
20:16:55 [AndreaPerego]
RRSAgent, draft minutes v2
20:16:55 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate AndreaPerego
20:16:58 [kcoyle]
PWinstanley: DCAT: was a small meeting so didn't do open issues
20:17:10 [kcoyle]
... talked about approach toward soliciting feedback from fpwd
20:17:25 [kcoyle]
... concerned about lack of response
20:17:51 [kcoyle]
... also heard from Stijn on positioning of DCAT vs other similar ones
20:18:19 [kcoyle]
... need to have more info in the draft about the motivation for DCAT vs the others
20:18:27 [kcoyle]
... based on broad interoperability
20:18:57 [kcoyle]
... we need to be able to show that people are looking at what we are doing
20:19:14 [kcoyle]
... need to keep up advertising, contacting folks for feedback
20:19:43 [kcoyle]
... otherwise unable to show that recommendation has been viewed by community
20:21:20 [kcoyle]
antoine: there is feedback that we have received and it needs to be answered
20:21:25 [Jaroslav_Pullmann]
20:21:36 [kcoyle]
PWinstanley: I'll make sure that gets onto agenda for DCAT
20:21:49 [antoine]
20:21:53 [PWinstanley]
ack Jaroslav_Pullmann
20:22:28 [kcoyle]
Jaroslav_Pullmann: Do we have a comparison of DCAT vs the other related standards?
20:23:02 [kcoyle]
PWinstanley: We have a listing on home wiki page; there was something that makx reported to in an EC report
20:23:44 [kcoyle]
... but don't know of a comparison
20:23:55 [kcoyle]
Jaroslav_Pullmann: suggest that people create such a page
20:24:03 [AndreaPerego]
About relationship with ISO 19115 (and SDMX), see the discussion in
20:24:09 [kcoyle]
PWinstanley: ISO 19115
20:24:27 [AndreaPerego]
Sorry, the discussion is here:
20:24:36 [PWinstanley]
A report was published recently with an analysis of research metadata standards in relation to DCAT-AP, including CERIF.
20:24:51 [kcoyle]
roba: 19115 is xml-based; but hard to profile xml schemas; results are very convoluted
20:25:07 [kcoyle]
PWinstanley: profile group
20:25:29 [AndreaPerego]
20:25:52 [kcoyle]
LarsG: there is some conflation between profile guidance and negotiation; hard to separate them
20:26:00 [kcoyle]
PWinstanley: do you think we should join the groups together?
20:26:06 [antoine]
20:26:18 [kcoyle]
LarsG: the same people were on each call
20:26:25 [kcoyle]
20:26:26 [Jaroslav_Pullmann]
.. there is already a section on standards related to DCAT:
20:27:23 [PWinstanley]
ack AndreaPerego
20:27:51 [kcoyle]
AndreaPerego: answering Jaroslav_Pullmann about positioning of DCAT vs others; there is discussion in the minutes of the last call
20:28:15 [kcoyle]
... AndreaPerego has an action to draft something on this for the specification
20:28:31 [PWinstanley]
ack antoine
20:28:34 [kcoyle]
... that's the last DCAT subgroup call
20:28:43 [PWinstanley]
ack kcoyle
20:28:57 [kcoyle]
antoine: +1 for merging groups
20:29:18 [roba]
20:29:37 [PWinstanley]
kcoyle: afaik the profile guidance group hasn't met, does't have a chair. There is overlap in discussion, but ....
20:29:41 [PWinstanley]
ack roba
20:29:56 [PWinstanley]
there hasn't been because we are going through the requirements
20:30:15 [kcoyle]
kcoyle & Roba - profile guidance hasn't met
20:30:18 [antoine]
roba's recollection seems correct to me.
20:30:25 [PWinstanley]
... I have no problem with merging the group as long as we don't lose the ability to cover the topics
20:31:29 [ncar]
ncar has joined #dxwg
20:31:33 [kcoyle]
LarsG: discussed requirements from Google doc; proposed some wording changes
20:31:41 [kcoyle]
... those are on the agenda for this meeting
20:31:42 [ncar]
20:32:08 [kcoyle]
... how do we get re-worded requirements into the UCR?
20:32:31 [kcoyle]
... once accepted there should be an action on someone to generate a pull request on UCR document. Is that the right process?
20:32:50 [kcoyle]
20:32:56 [PWinstanley]
ack kcoyle
20:32:59 [roba]
20:34:19 [PWinstanley]
ack roba
20:35:29 [kcoyle]
roba: putting together UCR was a huge job to dedup etc. - UCR group should provide format support not content support
20:35:43 [kcoyle]
... don't want to repeat the past
20:36:22 [antoine]
q+ to suggest to wait and see
20:36:24 [Jaroslav_Pullmann]
20:36:27 [PWinstanley]
ack antoine
20:36:27 [Zakim]
antoine, you wanted to suggest to wait and see
20:36:30 [kcoyle]
LarsG: my action was to bring it to this group; makes sense to not have UCR group do all of the editorial work
20:36:58 [kcoyle]
antoine: I would suggest that we not worry about this until we finish the requirements
20:37:23 [kcoyle]
PWinstanley: be pragmatic and practical?
20:37:36 [PWinstanley]
ack Jaroslav_Pullmann
20:37:41 [kcoyle]
antoine: there may be other changes so it should wait until the end
20:38:15 [kcoyle]
Jaroslav_Pullmann: editors could take what comes out of discussions; they should pick up the results of the discussion here
20:38:36 [kcoyle]
PWinstanley: is this consensus?
20:39:00 [antoine]
I'm fine with it - if editors take their time and wait until we're finished with the current effort :-)
20:39:17 [kcoyle]
PWinstanley: can we combine the two groups?
20:39:23 [kcoyle]
20:39:29 [PWinstanley]
ack kcoyle
20:40:07 [roba]
20:40:23 [PWinstanley]
kcoyle: I see some dangers of putting them together - there are different functionality (technical in negotiattion, but best practice in the profiles)
20:40:27 [PWinstanley]
... so although we discuss what a profile 'is' they are different topics
20:40:31 [PWinstanley]
ack roba
20:41:13 [kcoyle]
roba: tend to agree but think we can wait and see; discussion in conneg group weighs in on nature of profiles
20:41:42 [kcoyle]
... and the ability to describe profiles; but otherwise wait until requirements are done
20:41:54 [kcoyle]
... have to re-org anyway
20:41:58 [kcoyle]
20:42:13 [PWinstanley]
ack kcoyle
20:43:05 [PWinstanley]
... interested parties can join in as appropriate
20:43:11 [PWinstanley]
kcoyle: If there is an agenda posted before the meetings then people can join in at the right points
20:44:07 [kcoyle]
PWinstanley: ID42
20:44:20 [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) (github)
20:44:40 [antoine]
20:44:46 [PWinstanley]
Topic: Requirements
20:44:48 [kcoyle]
20:44:51 [PWinstanley]
20:44:55 [LarsG]
20:44:57 [annette_g]
20:45:04 [AndreaPerego]
20:45:07 [roba]
20:45:12 [PWinstanley]
ack roba
20:45:19 [Jaroslav_Pullmann]
20:45:55 [kcoyle]
roba: this is a duplication
20:46:07 [kcoyle]
PWinstanley: we can allow duplicate
20:46:10 [kcoyle]
20:46:15 [PWinstanley]
ack kcoyle
20:47:02 [antoine]
20:47:53 [kcoyle]
antoine: this is #19, and it has been re-written
20:48:07 [roba]
20:48:08 [kcoyle]
RESOLVED: in scope 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.
20:48:15 [AndreaPerego]
RRSAgent, draft minutes v2
20:48:15 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate AndreaPerego
20:48:35 [kcoyle]
PWinstanley: ID2 - Requirement: Clients should be able to determine which profiles are supported by a server, and with which content types.
20:48:56 [kcoyle]
PWinstanley: also: Requirement: There should be a way for a client to look up additional information about a profile. for ID2
20:49:18 [kcoyle]
... reworded as "There should be a way to look up additional information about a profile - this may be machine readable for run-time mediation or used to develop or configure a client".
20:49:28 [kcoyle]
... rewording done by conneg group in their meeting
20:49:47 [ncar]
20:49:53 [PWinstanley]
20:49:54 [annette_g]
20:50:00 [PWinstanley]
ack antoine
20:50:11 [PWinstanley]
ack annette_g
20:50:18 [kcoyle]
PROPOSED: accept both ID2 requirements
20:50:33 [roba]
20:50:36 [AndreaPerego]
+1 (although it would be better to specify what we mean with "additional information")
20:50:46 [LarsG]
20:50:54 [Jaroslav_Pullmann]
20:50:57 [antoine]
20:50:59 [kcoyle]
+1 (but agree with AndreaPerego - that could be an action)
20:51:02 [ncar]
20:51:06 [PWinstanley]
20:51:08 [PWinstanley]
ack ncar
20:51:12 [annette_g]
+1 under the condition that we aren't specifying it be through conneg
20:51:42 [kcoyle]
ncar: we purposely left "additional information" open because it would have been huge
20:51:43 [annette_g]
20:51:59 [annette_g]
I mean the first one
20:52:01 [kcoyle]
PWinstanley: yes, to annette, not necessarily conneg
20:52:25 [kcoyle]
RESOLVED: ACCEPT both ID 2 requirements
20:52:26 [annette_g]
20:52:30 [AndreaPerego]
RRSAgent, draft minutes v2
20:52:30 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate AndreaPerego
20:52:45 [PWinstanley]
ack annette_g
20:53:12 [kcoyle]
annette_g: which item are we talking about - my concern was about the first one - that it not be limited to conneg
20:53:25 [LarsG]
20:53:26 [roba]
20:53:37 [PWinstanley]
ack LarsG
20:53:37 [ncar]
20:53:37 [kcoyle]
... needs to be supported not just within the header
20:53:55 [PWinstanley]
ack roba
20:53:58 [kcoyle]
LarsG: there are ways to resolve this requirement but conneg is not the only way
20:54:17 [PWinstanley]
ack ncar
20:54:22 [kcoyle]
roba: it's a requirement for content negotiation; that info should be accessible in other ways
20:55:00 [kcoyle]
ncar: we've discussed this a lot; we want to be sure that if there are different ways to do things they are aligned
20:55:03 [annette_g]
20:55:31 [PWinstanley]
Profiles must support discoverability via search engines (UC 5.40) #222 (Github discussion) ID40 (5.40)
20:56:02 [antoine]
20:56:08 [roba]
20:56:25 [PWinstanley]
ack antoine
20:56:57 [kcoyle]
antoine: we decided this was a dcat requirement
20:57:26 [PWinstanley]
ack roba
20:57:28 [antoine]
20:57:41 [antoine]
discussion was at
20:57:46 [LarsG]
20:57:56 [kcoyle]
roba: this is about DCAT
20:58:18 [PWinstanley]
ack LarsG
20:59:26 [kcoyle]
PWinstanley: Fix our agenda and bring this back next week - something copied wrong
20:59:27 [PWinstanley]
Requirement: Profiles can be modular, with a given response made up of more than one module. Servers can indicate that a response conforms to multiple, modular profiles. ID3 (5.3) [conneg] [profile]
20:59:51 [annette_g]
20:59:55 [kcoyle]
PROPOSED: accept Requirement: Profiles can be modular, with a given response made up of more than one module. Servers can indicate that a response conforms to multiple, modular profiles. ID3 (5.3
20:59:57 [PWinstanley]
ack annette_g
21:00:32 [antoine]
21:00:42 [PWinstanley]
ack antoine
21:00:43 [kcoyle]
annette_g: discussion on github; this is about a single profile is pulling together elements from other profiles; if so, I support it
21:00:45 [AndreaPerego]
Is this feasible with conneg?
21:01:17 [kcoyle]
antoine: annette_g's reading is partly right; it is even more general - conformance may not be through a mediating profile
21:01:34 [kcoyle]
... it could be just a gathering of data that conforms to several profiles directly
21:02:10 [kcoyle]
AndreaPerego: unclear how this can be implemented with conneg. is this going too far?
21:02:17 [kcoyle]
... is this feasible?
21:02:28 [antoine]
21:02:33 [PWinstanley]
ack antoine
21:02:42 [kcoyle]
PWinstanley: could the group discuss feasibility while still considering the request valid
21:03:03 [annette_g]
21:03:12 [kcoyle]
antoine: suggested: Some data can conform to multiple profiles at the same time
21:03:27 [PWinstanley]
ack annette_g
21:03:32 [LarsG]
q+ to ask if antoine's proposal really is a requirement
21:03:35 [roba]
21:03:41 [kcoyle]
annette_g: in the simplest form a profile can take definitions from other schemas; and can be presented as flat
21:03:51 [PWinstanley]
ack LarsG
21:03:51 [Zakim]
LarsG, you wanted to ask if antoine's proposal really is a requirement
21:04:08 [PWinstanley]
ack roba
21:04:25 [kcoyle]
LarsG: antoine's proposed wording isn't a requirement, just a fact of life
21:04:57 [kcoyle]
roba: we came up with a different wording of that. let's take this offline and look for the re-wording
21:05:09 [kcoyle]
PWinstanley: this brings up the question of inheritance;
21:05:16 [kcoyle]
... given the time we have to take this one offline
21:05:57 [LarsG]
q+ re cneg subgroup
21:06:05 [PWinstanley]
ack LarsG
21:06:05 [Zakim]
LarsG, you wanted to discuss cneg subgroup
21:06:57 [Jaroslav_Pullmann]
21:07:02 [AndreaPerego]
Thanks, and bye!
21:07:05 [Jaroslav_Pullmann]
21:07:06 [ncar]
21:07:07 [PWinstanley]
rrsagent, create minutes v2
21:07:07 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate PWinstanley
21:07:16 [annette_g]
annette_g has left #dxwg
21:07:36 [AndreaPerego]
21:07:39 [AndreaPerego]
RRSAgent, draft minutes v2
21:07:39 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate AndreaPerego