– DRAFT –
DXWG DCAT subgroup teleconference

<SimonCox> regrets Lars

<alejandra> discussing the use case of datasets as a bunch of files

<alejandra> discussion about using dct:relations as catch all

<alejandra> rather than what happened until now that dcat:distribution was catching all situations

Confirm agenda

alejandra: Should we discuss the persistance issue and what that means for draft?

<Makx> 7me trying

SimonCox: Depends on view on Microsoft future attitude. We should revisit towards end of the work?

Approve minutes from last meeting

<SimonCox> https://‌www.w3.org/‌2018/‌07/‌05-dxwgdcat-minutes

<SimonCox> +1

<alejandra> +1

+1

Resolved: minutes approved

Some mopping up by editors

SimonCox: Describes changes for mopping up (as per agenda)
… now viewd/merged

<SimonCox> (iii) Note on reduced scope of dcat:Distribution https://‌github.com/‌w3c/‌dxwg/‌pull/‌299

SimonCox: Two other issues got some attention

<SimonCox> ... see https://‌rawgit.com/‌w3c/‌dxwg/‌dcat-issue52-simon/‌dcat/‌index.html#class-distribution

SimonCox: provides explanation that we have narrowed the definition, why, and what the intention is

<alejandra> https://‌github.com/‌w3c/‌dxwg/‌issues/‌52

SimonCox: some other concerns need discussion but this pull request is just on the point of the explanation

<alejandra> 7me trying//7me trying/

alejandra: Provided we're clear, lack of backward compatiblity should be okay

<SimonCox> Proposed: text offered in https://‌github.com/‌w3c/‌dxwg/‌pull/‌299 satisfies Makx concerns

<Makx> Just small addition ...

<Makx> can we say something about ...

SimonCox: Change in defintion already included, this was to provide a clearer warning

<Makx> receiving applications to be aware that "older" implementations could still have services as distributions?

<Makx> Or is this implicit in proposed warning?

<Makx> Services = feeds, APIs

<SimonCox> I could add additional note to that effect - OK with that.

<Makx> Then OK with me

AndreaPerego: Can we look at the context here - do we really want a service to be a replacement for a distribution?
… Is that the intention here?

SimonCox: In the Genoa meeting, Jaroslav_Pullman was asking for a clearer definition around distribution and services
… this work aims to have distributions as (essentially) serialisations while services are services
… and disentangles the two that was implicit in 2014 rev

AndreaPerego: So a distribution can be replaced by a service?

SimonCox: The proposed text aims to make that clear by being explicit around the dcat:accessService/AccessURL/downloadURL

AndreaPerego: Will have a closer look. Is there a relationship between the properties we have here?

SimonCox: No subproperty relationship, but there is a property chain (clearer in the picture)

Action: SimonCox add pointer to Figure 1 from green box about dcat:Distribution

<trackbot> Sorry, but no Tracker is associated with this channel.

Action: SimonCox add note about expectations from DCAT clients relating to backward compatibility

<trackbot> Sorry, but no Tracker is associated with this channel.

SimonCox: The other part of the mopping up /easy win was in issue 55

<SimonCox> proposal can be seen https://‌rawgit.com/‌w3c/‌dxwg/‌dcat-issue55-simon/‌dcat/‌index.html#class-distribution

SimonCox: to introduce dct:conformsTo

<SimonCox> https://‌rawgit.com/‌w3c/‌dxwg/‌dcat-issue55-simon/‌dcat/‌index.html#Property:distribution_conformsto

<alejandra> and this is the issue: https://‌github.com/‌w3c/‌dxwg/‌issues/‌55

<SimonCox> Can we change definitions of externally defined properties?

AndreaPerego: Looking at dct:conformsTo definition, perhaps we should make it clear we are using it in the broader sense

alejandra: Agree if we use the property then people will look at that, not our usage notes

SimonCox: And that brings the 'baggage' of standard....

AndreaPerego: If we make it really clear we are using it in the broader sense

Action: SimonCox to further clarify defnition/usage notes for conformsTo to note that 'standard' means 'specification'

<trackbot> Sorry, but no Tracker is associated with this channel.

SimonCox: We will need to think about the RDF form of this (where conformsTo comes from dct:)

alejandra: Think its okay to clarify in (our) usage note

alejandra: Fine to merge after this?

<Makx> +1

<AndreaPerego> +1

+1

Resolved: OK to close #55 this way

<alejandra> +1

<SimonCox> +1

Next Public Working Draft?

<SimonCox> External comments are coming through GitHub

<SimonCox> ... but not mailing list

SimonCox: Do we want to commit to another draft, noting the tech issues around some comments

alejandra: Last draft was May, so perhaps its time

Action: DaveBrowning to do some real editorial work on DCAT draft

<trackbot> Sorry, but no Tracker is associated with this channel.

<SimonCox> Proposed: Add a milestone for new draft around one month's time

<SimonCox> +1

<Makx> +1

+1

Action: alejandra to create milestone in GitHub

<trackbot> Sorry, but no Tracker is associated with this channel.

AndreaPerego: Fine to have frequent releases. On timing - July/August may be quiet - is September a better target?

<Makx> early September OK

alejandra: Will include the issues/usecases to be covered in the milestone.

<Makx> bye