– DRAFT –
Weekly DXWG

<kcoyle> can anyone scribe?

<kcoyle> scribe?

<kcoyle> anyone?

<PWinstanley> https://‌www.w3.org/‌2018/‌06/‌26-dxwg-minutes

Administration

<alejandra> +0 (was absent)

<antoine> +1

Resolved: accept minutes of June 26

opena actions

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

the most actions relate to DCAT

kcoyle: will compare the list of requirements to ensure nothing was left out

<PWinstanley> https://‌www.w3.org/‌2017/‌dxwg/‌track/‌actions/‌129

alejandra: there is an issue relating UC on profiles considering branches of ontologies, to be discussed with antoine

subgroup report on DCAT

DCAT subgroup report

alejandra: apologies, was absent last week

<kcoyle> https://‌github.com/‌w3c/‌dxwg/‌issues/‌239 use case discussed in DCAT subgroup

kcoyle: looking for past DCAT meeting contents ..

PWinstanley: this should be approved by the plenary, the UC owners are not present

PWinstanley: could the DCAT group move ahead with this UC, but it was felt to be officially voted on

<annette_g> is it controversial?

roba: this is a UC I am familiar with - arose from CONNEG group, UC to ensure it is valid for user to receive the right profile

antoine: maybe a redundant note, why this was brought to DCAT subgroup

antoine: this UC needs to be approved by the right people (CONNEG)

antoine: it's quite complex, hard to decide in this moment

<alejandra> https://‌github.com/‌w3c/‌dxwg/‌issues/‌256

alejandra: this is not the UC DCAT subgroup was discussing, this was a mistake ;o)

<kcoyle> Jaroslav_Pullmann: this is about legacy datasets that people encounter

alejandra: this is really a valid UC and we might vote on

kcoyle: comming back to UC 239, it demands more discussion ..

Action: 239 needs more discussion by conneg group and reading and comments by everyone

<trackbot> Error finding '239'. You can review and register nicknames at <https://‌www.w3.org/‌2017/‌dxwg/‌track/‌users>.

Action: Antoine: 239 needs more discussion by conneg group and reading and comments by everyone

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

kcoyle: now at UC 256

<annette_g> okay

Action: Antoine: UC239 needs more discussion by conneg group and reading and comments by everyone

<trackbot> Created ACTION-140 - Uc239 needs more discussion by conneg group and reading and comments by everyone [on Antoine Isaac - due 2018-07-10].

<kcoyle> PROPOSED: accept use case "Catalogues in which dataset is a bag of files" #256

<PWinstanley_> +1

<antoine> +1

<alejandra> +1

+1

<roba> +1

<annette_g> +1

Resolved: accept use case "Catalogues in which dataset is a bag of files" #256

kcoyle: looking at requirements on profiles now

<roba> the onus is on someone to demonstrate this is not necessary as every known example does this...

<kcoyle> https://‌github.com/‌w3c/‌dxwg/‌issues/‌238

roba: we might work on the wording but there are no obvious counterexamples

annette_g: there was a similar UC/requirements voted on last week .. let's find

kcoyle: which one was it?

kcoyle: comparing and guessing..

<roba> this link is to a Use Case, not the requirement by the way: https://‌github.com/‌w3c/‌dxwg/‌issues/‌238

annette_g: acknowledging, that profiles refer to standards ..?

roba: UC was discussed in the CONNEG meeting

<annette_g> there is discussion in the end of last week's meeting

roba: raising the question about de-duplication, how to deal with (is this a duplicate and if, how to deal with?)

roba: this was a general question

annette_g: what is the delta compared to the another UC?

antoine: we stopped to identify duplicates (in CONNEG talk?) and did not finished the wording

<kcoyle> Antoine suggests: “some data may conform to several profiles at once” and that we should remove modular.

kcoyle: there is a confusion which UCs are we comparing / consideing duplicates

<kcoyle> https://‌github.com/‌w3c/‌dxwg/‌issues/‌238

<roba> i'm happy to consider them both and deduplicate now :-)

<roba> https://‌github.com/‌w3c/‌dxwg/‌issues/‌238 is an example to show its necessary - doesnt mean that profiles can't have a depth of 1 level of specification...

<kcoyle> https://‌docs.google.com/‌document/‌d/‌13hV2tJ6Kg2Hfe7e1BowY5QfCIweH9GxSCFQV1aWtOPg/‌edit#heading=h.poqzq68p2cgj

<kcoyle> 12.1 Requirement: a vocabulary or data model can be a profile of several other vocabularies or data models at once

<roba> = multiple inheritance

roba: this will introduce effectively multiple inheritance (pattern)

azaroth: may I ask for a general recap, esp. distinction of profile vs. vocabulary - what does define a profile

annette_g: there is no real reference to what a profile does

roba: reusing vocabs is not exactly what a profile does - it's about constraints

<kcoyle> A <dfn>profile</dfn> is a named set of constraints on one or more identified base specifications, including the identification of any implementing subclasses of datatypes, semantic interpretations, vocabularies, options and parameters of those base specifications necessary to accomplish a particular function.

<kcoyle> https://‌github.com/‌w3c/‌dxwg/‌blob/‌gh-pages/‌profiles/‌index.html

roba: ... to compare conformat instance to

roba: the itent is a different one: profile -> constraint specification

alejandra: agree with this view

alejandra: we migth clarify a requirement on profiles - profiles as a function applied on an entity (e.g. vocabulary)

phila: vocabularies are set of terms, profiles: indication of re-usability constraints

<roba> +1 phil

<alejandra> +1 to Phil

<roba> also +1

<phila> +1 to annette_g

<roba> only speclialise - not change - as per working definition

<phila> Yes, that azaroth

azaroth: .. what about modify in UC, may a profile change semantics (of a term)?

<annette_g> +1 to antoine

antoine: there is no UC for a profile that would modify the meaning

<azaroth> +1

<azaroth> A profile that /includes/ terms from schema and dc, or a profile /of/ those vocabularies?

kcoyle: could we capture this clarified notion of "profile"

roba: statement of how to interoperate by means of conformance
… that ideally can be tested

<azaroth> Something like: A profile may use terms [weasel-words] from several other vocabularies, profiles or data models at the same time, adding additional constraints to the semantics or usage, but without having that usage be incompatible with data instances that use those terms without the profile.

<phila> +1 to roba

roba: profile is a statement of interoperability

annette_g: how to deal with extension of (enumarated) lists

<azaroth> +1 to RobA

<antoine> +1

roba: conformance to profile = conformance to "base specification"

<Zakim> azaroth, you wanted to be -0.9 on expanding

kcoyle: there might be mor than one "base specification"

azaroth: difference between enumerations and code lists

<Zakim> azaroth, you wanted to ask about OWL axioms and rules as counting towards profiles?

kcoyle: refer to vocabulary as a "minimal" constraint

<azaroth> I can make an issue for it :)

azaroth: are OWL axioms valid means of profiling?

<roba> thats an issue with prov - not the concept of profiules

<antoine> +1 to expand a bit the definition, rather than the original requirement that we started with :-)

kcoyle: how to proceed with the UC?

<annette_g> +1 for rewording at this point

<roba> we need it - if we need it reworded so be it...

antoine: not in favor of rewording - better to add to profile definition itself

<alejandra> The requirement we were discussing was: "12.1 Requirement: a vocabulary or data model can be a profile of several other vocabularies or data models at once"

<azaroth> Yes a definition, not a use case!

antoine: we should add it to definition of profile document

<phila> try this - A vocabulary/schema provides terms within a data model, which may be fairly broad. A profile sets out how a vocabulary, or set of vocabularies are used, usually as a set of constraints that ensure that systems are interoperable.

<roba> +1

kcoyle: suggestion to accept and add to document

<antoine> +1 I feel I could discuss 'constraints' but I think we should call it a day :-)

alejandra: .. profile of "what"? What is the entity a profile is applied on?

antoine: profile of one or more vocabularies

Action: on phila to add his wording to the profiles document

<trackbot> Error finding 'on'. You can review and register nicknames at <https://‌www.w3.org/‌2017/‌dxwg/‌track/‌users>.

Action: phila: add his wording to the profiles document

<trackbot> Created ACTION-141 - Add his wording to the profiles document [on Phil Archer - due 2018-07-10].

kcoyle: we'll meet next week

please circulate topics you'd like to discuss

<alejandra> thanks, and bye!

<annette_g> bye!

rrsagent: draft minutes v2

bye!

<kcoyle> rrsagent: draft minutes v2