– DRAFT –
DXWG Telecon2018.06.26
26 June 2018
PROPOSED: approve minutes of June 19
<PWinstanley> https://www.w3.org/2018/06/19-dxwg-minutes
+1
<annette_g> +1
<LarsG> +1
<PWinstanley> +1
<Jaroslav_Pullmann> +1
<roba> +1
Resolved: approve minutes of June 19
<PWinstanley> https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/track/actions/94
PWinstanley: kcoyle - # 110
kcoyle: no result yet - can't find a better wording
PWinstanley: dsr - add annette to march 13
PWinstanley: LarsG can close 131 133
antoine: riccardo has complete 126; can be closed
kcoyle: action items closed
PWinstanley: note deadlines - publishing moratoria of w3c; deadlines are listed in the agenda. July4, July 25, plus around TPAC
PWinstanley: any estimates on next drafts? will discuss in subgroup reports
PWinstanley: DCAT: was a small meeting so didn't do open issues
… talked about approach toward soliciting feedback from fpwd
… concerned about lack of response
… also heard from Stijn on positioning of DCAT vs other similar ones
… need to have more info in the draft about the motivation for DCAT vs the others
… based on broad interoperability
… we need to be able to show that people are looking at what we are doing
… need to keep up advertising, contacting folks for feedback
… otherwise unable to show that recommendation has been viewed by community
antoine: there is feedback that we have received and it needs to be answered
PWinstanley: I'll make sure that gets onto agenda for DCAT
Jaroslav_Pullmann: Do we have a comparison of DCAT vs the other related standards?
PWinstanley: We have a listing on home wiki page; there was something that makx reported to in an EC report
… but don't know of a comparison
Jaroslav_Pullmann: suggest that people create such a page
<AndreaPerego> About relationship with ISO 19115 (and SDMX), see the discussion in https://www.w3.org/2018/06/26-dxwg-minutes
PWinstanley: ISO 19115
<AndreaPerego> Sorry, the discussion is here: https://www.w3.org/2018/06/21-dxwgdcat-minutes
<PWinstanley> A report was published recently with an analysis of research metadata standards in relation to DCAT-AP, including CERIF. https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/document/research-data-analysis.
roba: 19115 is xml-based; but hard to profile xml schemas; results are very convoluted
PWinstanley: profile group
LarsG: there is some conflation between profile guidance and negotiation; hard to separate them
PWinstanley: do you think we should join the groups together?
LarsG: the same people were on each call
<Jaroslav_Pullmann> .. there is already a section on standards related to DCAT: https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/Main_Page#Related_non-W3C_vocabularies
AndreaPerego: answering Jaroslav_Pullmann about positioning of DCAT vs others; there is discussion in the minutes of the last call
… AndreaPerego has an action to draft something on this for the specification
… that's the last DCAT subgroup call
antoine: +1 for merging groups
<PWinstanley> kcoyle: afaik the profile guidance group hasn't met, does't have a chair. There is overlap in discussion, but ....
<PWinstanley> there hasn't been because we are going through the requirements
kcoyle & Roba - profile guidance hasn't met
<antoine> roba's recollection seems correct to me.
<PWinstanley> ... I have no problem with merging the group as long as we don't lose the ability to cover the topics
LarsG: discussed requirements from Google doc; proposed some wording changes
… those are on the agenda for this meeting
… how do we get re-worded requirements into the UCR?
… once accepted there should be an action on someone to generate a pull request on UCR document. Is that the right process?
roba: putting together UCR was a huge job to dedup etc. - UCR group should provide format support not content support
… don't want to repeat the past
<Zakim> antoine, you wanted to suggest to wait and see
LarsG: my action was to bring it to this group; makes sense to not have UCR group do all of the editorial work
antoine: I would suggest that we not worry about this until we finish the requirements
PWinstanley: be pragmatic and practical?
antoine: there may be other changes so it should wait until the end
Jaroslav_Pullmann: editors could take what comes out of discussions; they should pick up the results of the discussion here
PWinstanley: is this consensus?
<antoine> I'm fine with it - if editors take their time and wait until we're finished with the current effort :-)
PWinstanley: can we combine the two groups?
<PWinstanley> kcoyle: I see some dangers of putting them together - there are different functionality (technical in negotiattion, but best practice in the profiles)
<PWinstanley> ... so although we discuss what a profile 'is' they are different topics
roba: tend to agree but think we can wait and see; discussion in conneg group weighs in on nature of profiles
… and the ability to describe profiles; but otherwise wait until requirements are done
… have to re-org anyway
<PWinstanley> ... interested parties can join in as appropriate
<PWinstanley> kcoyle: If there is an agenda posted before the meetings then people can join in at the right points
PWinstanley: ID42 https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/255
<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)
<antoine> +1
+1
<PWinstanley> +1
<LarsG> +1
<annette_g> +1
<AndreaPerego> +1
<Jaroslav_Pullmann> +1
roba: this is a duplication
PWinstanley: we can allow duplicate
antoine: this is #19, and it has been re-written
<roba> +1
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.
PWinstanley: ID2 - Requirement: Clients should be able to determine which profiles are supported by a server, and with which content types.
PWinstanley: also: Requirement: There should be a way for a client to look up additional information about a profile. for ID2
… 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".
… rewording done by conneg group in their meeting
<ncar> +1
<PWinstanley> +1
PROPOSED: accept both ID2 requirements
<roba> +1
<AndreaPerego> +1 (although it would be better to specify what we mean with "additional information")
<LarsG> +1
<Jaroslav_Pullmann> +1
<antoine> +1
+1 (but agree with AndreaPerego - that could be an action)
<PWinstanley> +1
<annette_g> +1 under the condition that we aren't specifying it be through conneg
ncar: we purposely left "additional information" open because it would have been huge
<annette_g> :)
<annette_g> I mean the first one
PWinstanley: yes, to annette, not necessarily conneg
Resolved: ACCEPT both ID 2 requirements
annette_g: which item are we talking about - my concern was about the first one - that it not be limited to conneg
… needs to be supported not just within the header
LarsG: there are ways to resolve this requirement but conneg is not the only way
roba: it's a requirement for content negotiation; that info should be accessible in other ways
ncar: we've discussed this a lot; we want to be sure that if there are different ways to do things they are aligned
<annette_g> yes
<PWinstanley> Profiles must support discoverability via search engines (UC 5.40) #222 (Github discussion) ID40 (5.40)
antoine: we found this was a dcat requirement
<antoine> discussion was at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/222
roba: this is about DCAT
PWinstanley: Fix our agenda and bring this back next week - something copied wrong
<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]
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
annette_g: discussion on github; this is about a single profile is pulling together elements from other profiles; if so, I support it
<AndreaPerego> Is this feasible with conneg?
antoine: annette_g's reading is partly right; it is even more general - conformance may not be through a mediating profile
… it could be just a gathering of data that conforms to several profiles directly
AndreaPerego: unclear how this can be implemented with conneg. is this going too far?
… is this feasible?
PWinstanley: could the group discuss feasibility while still considering the request valid
antoine: suggested: Some data can conform to multiple profiles at the same time
annette_g: in the simplest form a profile can take definitions from other schemas; and can be presented as flat
<Zakim> LarsG, you wanted to ask if antoine's proposal really is a requirement
LarsG: antoine's proposed wording isn't a requirement, just a fact of life
roba: we came up with a different wording of that. let's take this offline and look for the re-wording
PWinstanley: this brings up the question of inheritance;
… given the time we have to take this one offline
<Zakim> LarsG, you wanted to discuss cneg subgroup
<Jaroslav_Pullmann> bye!
<AndreaPerego> Thanks, and bye!
<ncar> bye
Succeeded: s/decided/found/