19:45:06 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #dxwg
19:45:06 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2018/07/17-dxwg-irc
19:45:15 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #dxwg
19:45:23 <kcoyle> rrsagent, make logs public
19:45:44 <kcoyle> meeting: DXWG plenary
19:45:50 <kcoyle> chair: Karen Coyle
19:46:55 <kcoyle> regrets: Riccardo Albertoni, Andrea Perego, Alejandra Gonzalez-Beltran, Simon Cox, Dave Browning
19:53:54 <PWinstanley> PWinstanley has joined #dxwg
19:56:31 <ncar> ncar has joined #dxwg
19:56:37 <ncar> present+
19:58:57 <phila> phila has joined #dxwg
19:59:08 <phila> regrets+ phila
19:59:47 <PWinstanley> present+
19:59:54 <kcoyle> present+
20:00:05 <azaroth> azaroth has joined #dxwg
20:00:12 <LarsG> LarsG has joined #dxwg
20:00:22 <azaroth> present+ Rob_Sanderson
20:00:36 <LarsG> present+
20:01:59 <roba> roba has joined #dxwg
20:02:42 <annette_g> annette_g has joined #dxwg
20:02:47 <roba> present+
20:03:01 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> Jaroslav_Pullmann has joined #dxwg
20:03:25 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> present+
20:03:44 <antoine> antoine has joined #dxwg
20:04:02 <antoine> present+ antoine
20:04:09 <LarsG> scribeNick: LarsG
20:04:16 <LarsG> Topic: Admin
20:04:20 <annette_g> present+
20:04:58 <LarsG> kcoyle: lots of regrets (northern hemisphere summer time...)
20:05:14 <kcoyle> https://www.w3.org/2018/07/10-dxwg-minutes
20:05:30 <LarsG> PROPOSED: Accept minutes from last meeting
20:05:34 <antoine> +1
20:05:39 <PWinstanley> +1
20:05:40 <azaroth> +1
20:05:41 <LarsG> 0 wasn't there...
20:05:43 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> +1
20:05:52 <annette_g> +1
20:05:52 <roba> +1
20:05:54 <LarsG> RESOLVED: Accept minutes from last meeting
20:06:15 <LarsG> TOPIC: open actions
20:06:24 <LarsG> https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/track/actions/open
20:06:54 <ncar> For https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/track/actions/148, I am waiting for the ProfileNeg meeting time to be locked in before I propose a meeting
20:06:57 <LarsG> kcoyle: please add comments to actions assigned to you
20:07:10 <LarsG> action-139?
20:07:10 <trackbot> action-139 -- Antoine Isaac to 239 needs more discussion by conneg group and reading and comments by everyone -- due 2018-07-10 -- OPEN
20:07:10 <trackbot> https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/track/actions/139
20:07:34 <LarsG> antoine: can be closed
20:07:54 <LarsG> action-143?
20:07:54 <trackbot> action-143 -- Jaroslav Pullmann to Construct examples of relations from real catalogs -- due 2018-07-12 -- OPEN
20:07:54 <trackbot> https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/track/actions/143
20:08:04 <LarsG> Jaroslav_Pullmann: save for DCAT meeting
20:08:16 <LarsG> action-145?
20:08:16 <trackbot> action-145 -- Dave Raggett to Set up regular github dump to w3.org -- due 2018-07-17 -- OPEN
20:08:16 <trackbot> https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/track/actions/145
20:08:36 <LarsG> kcoyle: other groups get regular dumps to W3 so that should be possible
20:08:54 <kcoyle> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dxwg-wg/2018Jul/0114.html
20:09:00 <LarsG> action-146?
20:09:00 <trackbot> action-146 -- Dave Raggett to Look into adding a disclaimer for ip in the github readme to cover the wg for contributions by non-members as possible solution - or find a better solution -- due 2018-07-17 -- OPEN
20:09:00 <trackbot> https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/track/actions/146
20:09:29 <LarsG> kcoyle: has found examples of disclaimers from other groups
20:09:46 <LarsG> ... can anyone volunteer to copy those to our repo?
20:10:00 <LarsG> PWinstanley: I volunteer
20:10:19 <kcoyle> action: PWinstanley to copy IP info to our github repo
20:10:21 <trackbot> Created ACTION-156 - Copy ip info to our github repo [on Peter Winstanley - due 2018-07-24].
20:10:55 <LarsG> TOPIC: DCAT group report
20:11:08 <roba> simon posted rteport
20:11:32 <LarsG> noone who attended the last meeting is at this meeting...
20:11:35 <PWinstanley> s/rteport/report/
20:11:40 <ncar> q+
20:11:50 <kcoyle> ack ncar
20:12:03 <LarsG> topic: profile guidance group report
20:12:25 <LarsG> ncar: waiting for new time for the profile negotiation group meeting
20:13:05 <LarsG> kcoyle: we should aim for asynchronous work due to time zone constraints
20:13:30 <LarsG> ... we should also check in on our strategy for the profile guidance document
20:13:38 <roba> +1
20:13:46 <LarsG> ... progress is slow since we're still discussing requirements.
20:14:00 <roba> q+
20:14:05 <LarsG> ... How can we move forward? kcoyle would want to hear those now or on the list
20:14:05 <kcoyle> ack roba
20:14:43 <LarsG> roba: +1 to start and then report back to the group although
20:14:51 <LarsG> ... not all requirements are set yet
20:15:29 <LarsG> kcoyle: if there are requirements the group needs that aren't set yet we
20:15:38 <LarsG> ... can add those to the next agenda
20:16:04 <kcoyle> LarsG: profile negotiation group report; no meetings for last 2 weeks; looking for new meeting time
20:16:13 <azaroth> Apologies for the logistic headache that I introduce!
20:16:34 <ncar> q+
20:16:47 <annette_g> q+
20:16:56 <kcoyle> ack ncar
20:17:40 <kcoyle> ack annette_g
20:17:42 <LarsG> ncar: six am could be OK
20:17:52 <LarsG> annette_g: suggests alternating meeting times
20:18:38 <LarsG> topic: UCR
20:18:49 <LarsG> Jaroslav_Pullmann: We're working through the pull requests
20:19:00 <LarsG> kcoyle: Tries to keep track of rewordings etc.
20:19:36 <LarsG> topic: Requirements
20:19:49 <LarsG> kcoyle: Europeana requirement
20:20:13 <LarsG> ... 12.2
20:20:24 <kcoyle> profiles may or may not be "exclusive" of other profiles
20:21:03 <LarsG> kcoyle: "some profiles may forbid the use of other profiles"
20:21:08 <antoine> q+
20:21:14 <kcoyle> ack antoine
20:21:42 <LarsG> antoine: context: req comes from a time when we discussed if a dataset
20:21:52 <roba> q+
20:21:54 <LarsG> ... could comply to two profiles at the same time
20:22:05 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> q+
20:22:12 <kcoyle> ack roba
20:22:13 <LarsG> ... so we should make it explicit that we don't think so any more
20:22:42 <LarsG> roba: difference between forbidding things and having constraints that
20:22:54 <LarsG> ... are mutually exclusive
20:23:18 <LarsG> antoine: the discussion at that time was closed-world: it's one profile or the other
20:23:28 <LarsG> roba: may be
20:23:32 <azaroth> +1 to RobA
20:23:38 <LarsG> antoine: yes, but that's a different level
20:23:44 <kcoyle> ack Jaroslav_Pullmann
20:23:45 <LarsG> roba: we need to reword this
20:24:05 <LarsG> Jaroslav_Pullmann: is it about technical incompatibility?
20:24:27 <LarsG> ... we have discussed this and talked about preference rules. Is this
20:24:29 <kcoyle> q+
20:24:39 <LarsG> ... a formal statement about compatibility?
20:24:40 <annette_g> q+
20:24:45 <kcoyle> ack kc
20:25:09 <PWinstanley> +1 to ODRL similarity
20:25:11 <antoine> q+
20:25:15 <LarsG> kcoyle: this is very similar to what ODRL says (there is a way to set precedence)
20:25:30 <LarsG> ... They can set rules if there are conflicts
20:25:32 <kcoyle> ack annette_g
20:25:48 <roba> so is this a profile language problem, or a profile description requirement?
20:25:54 <LarsG> annette_g: is the question perhaps more about to prevent a profile to
20:26:02 <roba> q+
20:26:10 <LarsG> ... have conflicting base profiles and not about the downstream
20:26:30 <LarsG> ... processing? We should talk more about the downstream part.
20:26:37 <kcoyle> ack ant
20:26:52 <LarsG> antoine: this req was only to counter affirmations that data can be
20:27:04 <LarsG> ... compliant with only one profile
20:27:08 <kcoyle> ack roba
20:27:38 <LarsG> roba: haven't we agreed on this already? All constraint languages
20:28:16 <antoine> q+
20:28:26 <LarsG> ... should be able to handle this. If constraints are not compatible
20:28:35 <LarsG> ... that should be explicit.
20:29:02 <azaroth> q+ to be dubious
20:29:05 <kcoyle> ack antoine
20:29:09 <LarsG> kcoyle: This req gives the option to construct profiles that are not
20:29:21 <LarsG> ... useable with other profiles. Do we want that?
20:29:53 <LarsG> antoine: agrees with roba. in gh 287 there's a long discussion about this
20:30:17 <LarsG> ... suggestion to rephrase to "may conform to several profiles at the same time"
20:30:23 <kcoyle> ack aza
20:30:23 <Zakim> azaroth, you wanted to be dubious
20:30:30 <roba> we can make a explanatory note that its possible that profiles may not be compatible, and that data must not be declared to conform to multiple incompatible profiles ?
20:30:50 <LarsG> azaroth: agrees with roba, antoine. Data can easily conform to several
20:32:02 <LarsG> ... profiles at the same time. everything else seems unintuitive and useless.
20:32:19 <PWinstanley> q+
20:32:29 <kcoyle> ack PWinstanley
20:32:44 <azaroth> q+
20:32:48 <LarsG> PWinstanley: this is not about compatibility of data to profiles, it's about
20:32:51 <kcoyle> ack azaroth
20:32:57 <LarsG> ... compatibility of profiles with profiles
20:33:32 <LarsG> azaroth: in the end it's always about data being compatible with profiles.
20:34:14 <annette_g> q+
20:34:16 <LarsG> ... Having a profile that is not compatible with other profiles is in the
20:34:20 <kcoyle> ack annette_g
20:34:26 <LarsG> ... end that the data isn't compatible
20:34:36 <roba> q+
20:34:37 <LarsG> annette_g: is anyone in favour of this prohibition?
20:34:42 <kcoyle> ack roba
20:35:16 <LarsG> roba: this is about expression and we can drop it since it's
20:35:35 <LarsG> ... implicit through the constraints (we can have incompatible constraints)
20:36:03 <LarsG> ... the req is out of scope since the profile definition mechanism
20:36:05 <kcoyle> PROPOSED: withdraw 12.2 as no meaningful use case found, nor methodology to implement
20:36:12 <LarsG> ... should take care of that
20:36:17 <annette_g> +1
20:36:19 <LarsG> +1
20:36:21 <azaroth> +1
20:36:26 <antoine> -1 until we accept the other requirement ;-)
20:36:30 <azaroth> :P
20:36:51 <PWinstanley> +1
20:36:54 <roba> +1
20:36:55 <antoine> changing to +1
20:36:57 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> +1
20:37:13 <kcoyle> RESOLVED: withdraw 12.2 as no meaningful use case found, nor methodology to implement
20:37:47 <kcoyle> # 4 https://docs.google.com/document/d/13hV2tJ6Kg2Hfe7e1BowY5QfCIweH9GxSCFQV1aWtOPg/edit#heading=h.ptcn17nv183e
20:38:00 <kcoyle> "A profile can be modular, with a given response made up of more than one module. A server can indicate that a response conforms to multiple, modular profiles. "
20:38:15 <azaroth> +1 to dropping "modular"
20:38:18 <kcoyle> “some data may conform to several profiles at once”
20:38:27 <azaroth> q+
20:38:39 <kcoyle> ack azaroth
20:39:22 <antoine> q+
20:39:23 <roba> +1 to two simple requirements - they are different aspects
20:39:26 <LarsG> azaroth: there are two sentences
20:39:28 <kcoyle> ack antoine
20:39:41 <antoine> https://www.w3.org/2018/06/20-dxwgcneg-minutes.html
20:40:10 <LarsG> antoine: discussion in cneg goes this way, so we have agreement
20:40:21 <LarsG> s/sentences/requirements/
20:40:33 <LarsG> kcoyle: breaking up into 4a and 4b
20:41:00 <azaroth> +1
20:41:00 <roba> aye
20:41:04 <annette_g> +1 to break it up
20:41:09 <LarsG> ... 4b will be the conneg one
20:41:14 <antoine> +1
20:41:32 <LarsG> ... 4a: some data may conform to several profiles at once
20:42:24 <LarsG> PROPOSED: Accept text " some data may conform to several profiles at once"
20:42:29 <annette_g> +1
20:42:33 <azaroth> +1
20:42:34 <LarsG> +1
20:42:36 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> +1
20:42:46 <PWinstanley> +1
20:42:56 <antoine> +1
20:43:13 <roba> +1
20:43:16 <annette_g> +1 to vote
20:43:22 <LarsG> RESOLVED: Accept text "some data may conform to several profiles at once"
20:43:44 <kcoyle> Proposed: Requirement 4 b) A server can indicate that a response conforms to multiple, modular profiles.
20:44:00 <annette_g> do we need modular in there?
20:44:07 <roba> -modular
20:44:11 <azaroth> +1 to deleting modular
20:44:16 <antoine> +1 to removing
20:44:29 <PWinstanley> q+
20:44:34 <kcoyle> Proposed: Requirement 4 b) A server can indicate that a response conforms to multiple profiles
20:44:42 <kcoyle> ack PWinstanley
20:44:52 <annette_g> q+
20:44:58 <azaroth> +1
20:44:59 <kcoyle> ack annette_g
20:45:00 <LarsG> PWinstanley: Does this mean "one or more" or does it only apply to multiple?
20:45:01 <roba> _can_
20:45:34 <LarsG> annette_g: The server needs to be able to say that it's one or more
20:45:59 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> ".. to possibly multiple"?
20:46:12 <azaroth> No difference to me, assuming that there's another requirement that says servers can indicate the response conforms to a profiole
20:46:16 <kcoyle> Proposed: Requirement 4 b) A server can indicate that a response conforms to =>1 profiles
20:46:40 <azaroth> q+
20:46:41 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> q+
20:47:10 <kcoyle> ack azaroth
20:47:16 <LarsG> azaroth: should it be possible to say that a response conforms to zero known profiles?
20:47:18 <annette_g> +0 or more to that
20:47:23 <roba> thats what can means - vs must ?
20:47:23 <antoine> q+
20:47:43 <kcoyle> ack Jaroslav_Pullmann
20:47:57 <roba> q+
20:48:01 <LarsG> Jaroslav_Pullmann: is this optional? we have a list-profiles operation
20:48:11 <kcoyle> ack antoine
20:48:11 <annette_g> q+
20:48:22 <LarsG> ... this is a response to a particular request so we should change CAN to SHOULD
20:48:44 <LarsG> antoine: agrees that it could be possible that data conforms to zero  profiles
20:48:46 <azaroth> +1 to going back to use cases!
20:48:48 <kcoyle> ack roba
20:48:51 <LarsG> ... but that's not the UC
20:49:07 <ncar> q+
20:49:15 <LarsG> roba: There might be legacy systems that cannot report which profiles
20:49:20 <LarsG> ... the data conformst to
20:49:22 <LarsG> q+
20:49:26 <azaroth> Also +1 to SHOULD for 1+ profiles
20:49:37 <kcoyle> ack annette_g
20:49:52 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> q+
20:49:56 <LarsG> annette_g: this gets into a can-of-worms: the proposal for conneg was
20:50:15 <LarsG> ... assuming registration of profiles. There might be unknown profiles.
20:50:17 <kcoyle> ack ncar
20:50:49 <kcoyle> ack LarsG
20:50:53 <LarsG> ncar: wrote a new UC about no known profile. needs time to discuss this
20:51:00 <ncar> UC: https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/306
20:51:18 <annette_g> annette_g: if profiles aren't registered, publishers would not know what profiles exist that their data might adhere to.
20:51:32 <azaroth> +1 to Lars
20:51:39 <annette_g> q?
20:51:40 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> q?
20:51:40 <LarsG> q?
20:51:41 <roba> q?
20:51:56 <kcoyle> LarsG: Open world for profiles: the data might adhere to profiles the server does not know about; say "zero profiles known to the server"
20:52:02 <kcoyle> ack Jaroslav_Pullmann
20:52:08 <LarsG> Jaroslav_Pullmann: can we add "compliant" server?
20:52:24 <azaroth> As the publisher of the data, we are explicitly saying there are no profiles we know of that this resource (or representation?) conforms to.
20:52:24 <LarsG> ... we should only talk about compliant servers and supporting endpoints.
20:52:41 <azaroth> Is my hypothesis for a requirement, and I agree it needs further discussion :)
20:52:47 <antoine> q+
20:52:47 <roba> describing servers is a can of worms :-( - i think its just can vs should?
20:52:51 <LarsG> kcoyle: more work on server response
20:52:54 <roba> q+
20:52:56 <ncar> q+
20:53:04 <roba> +1 antoine
20:53:04 <LarsG> antoine: we can improve the version with one or more
20:53:05 <kcoyle> ack antoine
20:53:06 <roba> q-
20:53:09 <annette_g> +1 to antoine
20:53:14 <azaroth> +1 to Antoine
20:53:15 <kcoyle> ack ncar
20:53:19 <LarsG> ... but we need a requirement for zero or more profiles
20:53:32 <LarsG> ncar: there is more work to be done on server responses
20:53:51 <annette_g> q+
20:53:52 <LarsG> ... this is difficult area.
20:54:13 <azaroth> q+ to push back on registration
20:54:15 <LarsG> annette_g: registration of profiles is an issue
20:54:22 <LarsG> ... we need registration
20:54:29 <kcoyle> Proposed: Requirement 4 b) A server can indicate that a response conforms to one or more profiles
20:54:33 <LarsG> kcoyle: conneg people should take this on
20:54:37 <azaroth> +1
20:54:38 <kcoyle> ack nn
20:54:40 <PWinstanley> +1
20:54:42 <kcoyle> ack annette_g
20:54:51 <roba> :-) no shared concept identity without a registration process IMHO
20:54:53 <LarsG> ... not ready to deal with this yet
20:55:17 <roba> +1
20:55:31 <antoine> +1
20:55:32 <annette_g> +1
20:55:38 <LarsG> +1
20:55:38 <ncar> +1
20:55:48 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> +1 (can -> should?)
20:56:17 <kcoyle> RESOLVED: Requirement 4 b) A server can indicate that a response conforms to one or more profiles
20:56:28 <LarsG> kcoyle: can -> should might be. We need more reqs for server responsed
20:56:29 <roba> let conneg group discuss "should" and registration !
20:56:34 <kcoyle> ack azaroth
20:56:34 <Zakim> azaroth, you wanted to push back on registration
20:56:37 <LarsG> s/responsed/responses/
20:56:49 <LarsG> azaroth: registration?
20:56:55 <roba> q+
20:57:03 <LarsG> kcoyle: do we need a UC or requirements to deal with that?
20:57:37 <annette_g> q+
20:57:45 <LarsG> azaroth: using URIs avoids name collisions. A registry is not required
20:58:06 <LarsG> ... and might be antithetical to web architecture. And who should
20:58:10 <kcoyle> ack roba
20:58:11 <LarsG> ... maintain this registry?
20:58:38 <LarsG> roba: registration collides with URIs and as long you can dereference
20:58:53 <kcoyle> ack annette_g
20:59:04 <LarsG> ... the URIs to get descriptions we should be fine (that's what profileDesc is about)
20:59:40 <LarsG> annette_g: URIs don't prevent duplications or collisions (and there's link rot)
20:59:45 <roba> +1
20:59:55 <LarsG> kcoyle: suggests that conneg group takes this on
21:00:07 <LarsG> ... (no objections)
21:00:31 <LarsG> bye all
21:00:33 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> thank you, bye!
21:00:34 <PWinstanley> rrsagent, create minutes v2
21:00:34 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/07/17-dxwg-minutes.html PWinstanley
21:00:39 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> present-
21:00:59 <kcoyle> rrsagent, make logs public
21:01:09 <ncar> present-
21:01:15 <kcoyle> rrsagent, create minutes v2
21:01:15 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/07/17-dxwg-minutes.html kcoyle
21:02:02 <PWinstanley> https://github.com/w3c/dxwg