19:49:15 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #dxwg
19:49:15 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2018/07/24-dxwg-irc
19:49:26 <PWinstanley> rrsagent, make logs public
19:49:38 <PWinstanley> chair: PWinstanley
19:50:31 <PWinstanley> regrets+ Alejandra Gonzalez-Beltran, LarsG
19:50:47 <PWinstanley> rrsagent, create minutes v2
19:50:47 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/07/24-dxwg-minutes.html PWinstanley
19:51:04 <PWinstanley> Meeting: DXWG Plenary
19:51:05 <kcoyle> kcoyle has joined #dxwg
19:51:07 <PWinstanley> rrsagent, create minutes v2
19:51:07 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/07/24-dxwg-minutes.html PWinstanley
19:55:37 <dsr> dsr has joined #dxwg
19:56:56 <PWinstanley> present+
19:59:01 <azaroth> azaroth has joined #dxwg
19:59:10 <azaroth> present+ Rob_Sanderson
19:59:12 <dsr> present+
19:59:43 <kcoyle> present+
20:00:31 <antoine> antoine has joined #dxwg
20:00:47 <PWinstanley> regrets+ Jaroslav Pullmann
20:00:59 <PWinstanley> rrsagent, create minutes v2
20:00:59 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/07/24-dxwg-minutes.html PWinstanley
20:03:16 <antoine> present+ antoine
20:04:12 <annette_g> annette_g has joined #dxwg
20:04:20 <ncar> ncar has joined #dxwg
20:04:32 <ncar> present+
20:05:08 <annette_g> present+
20:05:45 <antoine> scribenick: antoine
20:06:07 <antoine> Topic: admin
20:06:16 <SimonCox> SimonCox has joined #dxwg
20:06:22 <PWinstanley> https://www.w3.org/2018/07/17-dxwg-minutes
20:06:28 <antoine> Proposed: accept minutes of last call
20:06:28 <riccardoAlbertoni> riccardoAlbertoni has joined #DXWG
20:06:36 <kcoyle> +1
20:06:43 <roba> roba has joined #dxwg
20:06:44 <azaroth> +1
20:06:44 <annette_g> +1
20:06:46 <antoine> +1
20:06:53 <ncar> +1
20:07:05 <antoine> Resolved: accept minutes from last call
20:07:43 <roba> present+
20:07:47 <antoine> PWinstanley: reminder to register to TPAC
20:07:55 <antoine> ... deadline for early bird is approaching
20:08:01 <SimonCox> present+
20:08:12 <DaveBrowning> DaveBrowning has joined #dxwg
20:08:12 <antoine> Topic: open actions
20:08:16 <PWinstanley> https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/track/actions/open
20:08:56 <Ixchel> Ixchel has joined #dxwg
20:08:58 <antoine> PWinstanley: 156 was finished and 146 was related
20:08:58 <Ixchel> present+
20:09:06 <ncar> re 148: I am still waiting for Lars to choose a time for profileneg before polling for a time for profile guidance. I have prompted him
20:09:07 <DaveBrowning> present+
20:09:17 <antoine> ... we agreed it doesn't cover comments but substantive parts of text
20:10:03 <antoine> PWinstanley: is 94 done? Or is too far away in the past now?
20:10:13 <riccardoAlbertoni> present+
20:10:19 <antoine> dsr: if somebody can send me a pointer to the minutes I can do it.
20:10:35 <kcoyle> q+
20:10:48 <azaroth> link: https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/track/actions/145
20:11:08 <SimonCox> Minutes https://www.w3.org/2018/03/13-dxwg-minutes
20:11:12 <antoine> PWinstanley: the other is to set up github so that it can be archived in W3C's repository
20:11:20 <kcoyle> q-
20:11:21 <antoine> dsr: I can ask but I'm not sure what it entails.
20:11:40 <antoine> ... copying or cloning to give longevity guarantees
20:11:43 <antoine> PWinstanley: yes
20:11:48 <antoine> close action-146
20:11:48 <trackbot> Closed action-146.
20:11:56 <antoine> close action-156
20:11:56 <trackbot> Closed action-156.
20:12:09 <SimonCox> But can we look at logs to see about rejected mails to comments
20:12:10 <antoine> PWinstanley: there was also the issue of the public comment list
20:12:25 <antoine> dsr: I've written Gerald about it, about lost feedback.
20:12:33 <antoine> ... not heard from him yet
20:12:34 <SimonCox> yes - there is a new post
20:12:38 <antoine> PWinstanley: can we test?
20:12:50 <antoine> ... SimonCox confirms it works
20:13:06 <SimonCox> don't close until we've checked the logs?
20:13:06 <antoine> ... so we can close the action
20:13:45 <antoine> dsr: the issue is that the queue was empty. It looks there was a problem identifying who submitted comments earlier.
20:13:54 <antoine> PWinstanley: it's ok. It will be a good reminder for people
20:13:59 <antoine> ... thanks for resolving this
20:13:59 <ncar> re 148: Lars has actually now picked a time so I will now poll
20:14:01 <SimonCox> See this new mail in comments https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dxwg-comments/2018Jul/0000.html
20:14:44 <antoine> ncar: I was waiting for Lars to set a time. Now I'll mail the group/
20:14:53 <antoine> PWinstanley: let's keep the action open
20:14:55 <antoine> q+
20:15:14 <PWinstanley> ack antoine
20:15:55 <antoine> PWinstanley: we keep 110 open
20:16:05 <AndreaPerego> AndreaPerego has joined #dxwg
20:16:08 <antoine> PWinstanley: 129 Alejandra is not here
20:16:11 <AndreaPerego> present+ AndreaPerego
20:16:28 <antoine> close action-155
20:16:28 <trackbot> Closed action-155.
20:17:11 <antoine> Topic: DCAT subgroup report
20:17:35 <antoine> PWinstanley: Now that we know we can't find lost emails we need to do comprehensive emailing
20:18:02 <AndreaPerego> RRSAgent, draft minutes v2
20:18:02 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/07/24-dxwg-minutes.html AndreaPerego
20:18:11 <antoine> SimonCox: last week meeting was about tidying up smaller issues
20:18:28 <antoine> ... a PR about unstructured catalogues is still on top of the stack
20:18:32 <antoine> ... this is the big issue now
20:18:34 <AndreaPerego> agenda: https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2018.07.24
20:18:37 <AndreaPerego> RRSAgent, draft minutes v2
20:18:37 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/07/24-dxwg-minutes.html AndreaPerego
20:18:46 <antoine> ... Progress is reasonable, 4-8 people at meetings
20:19:02 <antoine> ... not enormous but it's the right number to make decisions
20:19:14 <antoine> ... I'm still making most of the contributions but I'll have to back up
20:19:27 <PWinstanley> q?
20:19:29 <antoine> ... so I'm calling for others to be more involved now!
20:19:42 <ncar> q+
20:19:50 <antoine> Topic: Profile description subgroup
20:20:02 <AndreaPerego> RRSAgent, draft minutes v2
20:20:02 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/07/24-dxwg-minutes.html AndreaPerego
20:20:04 <antoine> ncar: there's been a gap of meeting. Both Lars and I were away
20:20:19 <antoine> ... we're going to meet now that there's a new schedule
20:20:30 <roba> of course all welcome :-)
20:20:54 <kcoyle> q?
20:20:57 <antoine> PWinstanley: we need to come with decisions/timing for deliverables.
20:21:06 <kcoyle> q+
20:21:09 <antoine> ncar: we need the profile guidance group to meet
20:21:21 <antoine> ... we need the overarching view of what we do with profiles
20:21:38 <antoine> ... so that we know where the http conneg and the ontology sit
20:22:09 <antoine> PWinstanley: at the plenary Lars said he would be unable to join.
20:22:20 <antoine> ... so we'll have to make sure communication works well
20:22:31 <antoine> ... possibly using the mailing list more.
20:22:58 <ncar> q-
20:23:03 <PWinstanley> ack kcoyle
20:23:20 <antoine> kcoyle: I would like to set up some tasks so that the guidance group can start
20:23:49 <antoine> ... ncar to take an action to add the documentation for the profile description readme
20:24:05 <antoine> ... and create a github issue to make sure everyone understands
20:24:20 <antoine> ncar: yes.
20:25:00 <antoine> Action: ncar to update the README in the ProfileDesc directory to provide documentation and open a Github issue to begin discussion
20:25:03 <trackbot> Created ACTION-162 - Update the readme in the profiledesc directory to provide documentation and open a github issue to begin discussion [on Nicholas Car - due 2018-07-31].
20:25:33 <antoine> kcoyle: the other thing is to submit for the plenary a selection of outlines for the profile guidance document
20:25:41 <antoine> ... I'm not sure what it's going to take
20:25:49 <antoine> ... but there are some proposals on github
20:25:58 <antoine> ... can it be done asynchronously?
20:26:05 <PWinstanley> q?
20:26:37 <roba> * meta-guidance :-)
20:26:38 <antoine> Action: ncar to guide the guidance group to present some potential outlines
20:26:40 <antoine> q+
20:26:46 <trackbot> Error creating an ACTION: could not connect to Tracker.  Please mail <sysreq@w3.org> with details about what happened.
20:27:11 <antoine> PWinstanley: we ned fairly close milestone
20:27:18 <antoine> kcoyle: I could add them to the wiki page
20:27:26 <antoine> PWinstanley: good idea
20:27:44 <antoine> kcoyle: I'll set a milestone section
20:27:45 <PWinstanley> s/ned/need/
20:27:48 <antoine> q+
20:27:54 <PWinstanley> ack antoine
20:28:25 <kcoyle> q+
20:28:38 <PWinstanley> ack kcoyle
20:29:13 <antoine> antoine: wasn't ncar's action about continuing the discussion on the big github issue
20:30:02 <kcoyle> https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/ProfileRoundup#Proposed_Application_Profile_Guidance_document_outlines
20:30:07 <ncar> The profile wiki Karen was refering to: https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/ProfileRoundup
20:30:19 <ncar> Snap Karen!
20:30:23 <kcoyle> q+
20:30:26 <antoine> kcoyle: I have put two issues on the wiki page. ncar can start from there
20:30:29 <PWinstanley> ack kcoyle
20:30:37 <roba> q+
20:31:16 <PWinstanley> ack roba
20:31:21 <SimonCox> DCAT team is using milestones: https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/milestone/13 https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/milestone/4
20:31:32 <antoine> antoine: about milestones, we had created projects on github
20:31:53 <SimonCox> DCAT group removed all other issue-based milestones last week
20:32:00 <antoine> roba: we need consistency about groups.
20:32:20 <SimonCox> There reamin a bunch of milestones around profiles ... https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/milestones
20:32:31 <SimonCox> s/reamin/remain/
20:32:49 <antoine> Topic: profile negotiation
20:32:52 <AndreaPerego> RRSAgent, draft minutes v2
20:32:52 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/07/24-dxwg-minutes.html AndreaPerego
20:33:02 <antoine> ncar: I've commented on that in the previous section
20:33:46 <antoine> Topic: UCR
20:33:53 <AndreaPerego> RRSAgent, draft minutes v2
20:33:53 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/07/24-dxwg-minutes.html AndreaPerego
20:33:58 <kcoyle> q=
20:34:03 <antoine> PWinstanley: is the PR issue ongoing?
20:34:06 <roba> q+
20:34:07 <kcoyle> q+
20:34:10 <antoine> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dxwg-wg/2018Jul/0078.html
20:34:16 <antoine> AndreaPerego: still pending
20:34:17 <PWinstanley> ack roba
20:34:23 <kcoyle> q-
20:34:27 <antoine> roba: Jaro agreed to take this on in the last plenary
20:34:50 <PWinstanley> 12.3 Requirement: one can create a profile of profiles, with elements (constructs, axioms…) potentially inherited on several levels.
20:35:21 <annette_g> q+
20:35:31 <kcoyle> q+
20:35:38 <PWinstanley> ack annette_g
20:36:09 <roba> +1
20:36:11 <roba> q+
20:36:15 <PWinstanley> ack kcoyle
20:36:20 <antoine> annette_g: we need to figure out what 'inherited' means
20:36:45 <antoine> kcoyle: it says what the solution is, but what is the problem
20:36:52 <antoine> q+
20:37:03 <PWinstanley> ack roba
20:37:06 <antoine> ... why would one create a profile of profiles
20:37:35 <antoine> roba: there were two use cases: Europeana and DCAT-AP
20:37:54 <AndreaPerego> Sorry, wrt my pending PRs, these have been actually merged by Jaro. Sorry for missing it - and, thanks, Jaro!
20:37:54 <azaroth> q+ to briefly describe CIDOC-CRM -> linked.art -> exhibitions
20:38:00 <antoine> ... GeoDCAT-AP as a profile of DCAT-AP which is a profile of DCAT
20:38:19 <antoine> ... we need to define them in a inherited way because of interoperability concerns
20:38:28 <antoine> ... ncar is doing it
20:38:47 <PWinstanley> ack antoine
20:39:19 <ncar> There is likely to be an Aust gov profile of DCAT that is then further profiled for particular govt sectors
20:39:44 <PWinstanley> ack azaroth
20:39:44 <Zakim> azaroth, you wanted to briefly describe CIDOC-CRM -> linked.art -> exhibitions
20:39:44 <roba> +1
20:39:46 <annette_g> q+
20:39:51 <antoine> ... we separate flattening from inheriting
20:40:07 <antoine> antoine: two motivations: consistency and economy of building profiles
20:40:47 <antoine> azaroth: another case: profiling CIDOC-CRM, selecting a part of it and then sub-profiling this selection for specific types of objects
20:40:49 <kcoyle> q+
20:40:51 <PWinstanley> ack annette_g
20:41:25 <antoine> annette_g: I want to be sure that we don't end up with people publishing long chains of profiles
20:41:49 <antoine> ... it could be hard to manage for humans
20:41:49 <azaroth> q+ to assert inevitability of chains
20:42:01 <antoine> q+
20:42:32 <roba> thats still implementation choice, whether such profiles are "packaged" flat - perhaps we need a UC that talks about the engineering issues
20:42:42 <antoine> ... since profiles may not be maintained by standardization bodies we could allow some laxity in how robust these links are
20:42:51 <SimonCox> q+ to ask 'what is a standards organization'?
20:43:17 <antoine> PWinstanley: it could be similar to what happens in object programming (e.g. Java libraries), where tooling help a lot.
20:43:24 <PWinstanley> ack kcoyle
20:43:38 <roba> machinery needs to handle version change detection...
20:43:51 <antoine> kcoyle: consistency and economy of building profile make sense to me
20:44:04 <SimonCox> q+ to ask 'what is a standards organization'? and whether we should prohibit all cases because of potential failures of a few
20:44:18 <antoine> ... but there could be a difference between declaration and enforcing
20:44:44 <antoine> ... we could have to develop some pretty strict rules
20:44:52 <antoine> PWinstanley: could rather than must or should?
20:45:04 <antoine> kcoyle: I don't know anyway except for code
20:45:06 <roba> +1 validation is an implementation choice - its bound up in contstrain language design
20:45:13 <antoine> s/anyway/any way
20:45:24 <roba> +1
20:45:31 <antoine> kcoyle: roba it's true but we're not getting into implementation
20:45:38 <roba> q+
20:45:40 <PWinstanley> ack azaroth
20:45:40 <Zakim> azaroth, you wanted to assert inevitability of chains
20:45:45 <antoine> ... how far could we go?
20:46:10 <antoine> azaroth: on the chain issue: I think chains are inevitable.
20:46:35 <antoine> ... in DC and OAI-PMH, OAI-PMH had to create a 'record type'
20:46:40 <antoine> ... it's still a chain
20:46:53 <antoine> ... it's also happening in the ontology world
20:47:10 <antoine> ... we won't be able to prevent long chains with rules
20:47:25 <antoine> ... for documentation: doc and specs are different
20:47:46 <antoine> ... providing documentation can be done in one package.
20:47:59 <antoine> ... 'flattening" can be done in different ways
20:48:23 <PWinstanley> ack antoine
20:49:00 <kcoyle> antoine: 1) danger of chains: I agree with annette_g - but this issue also happens for a level 1 profile
20:49:39 <kcoyle> ... 2) kcoyle's on rules and enforcement: leave that to implementation level; validation language
20:49:48 <kcoyle> ... could enforce rules against profiles
20:50:10 <PWinstanley> ack SimonCox
20:50:10 <Zakim> SimonCox, you wanted to ask 'what is a standards organization'? and to ask 'what is a standards organization'? and whether we should prohibit all cases because of potential
20:50:13 <Zakim> ... failures of a few
20:50:46 <antoine> SimonCox: on earlier arguments about standardization. It sounds like "it might break so let's prohibit it"
20:51:08 <antoine> ... if it can be useful we shouldn't prohibit it, if chains exist conceptually
20:51:55 <PWinstanley> ack roba
20:52:04 <antoine> ... likewise, we shouldn't restrict profiles to be produced by standard organizations. It's dangerous.
20:52:17 <AndreaPerego> +1
20:52:33 <PWinstanley> proposed:  Accept 12.3 Requirement: one can create a profile of profiles, with elements (constructs, axioms…) potentially inherited on several levels.
20:52:33 <antoine> roba: the requirement evidenced by the UC is straightforward. We can move the discussion to the Profile Guidance group
20:52:37 <kcoyle> q+
20:52:44 <antoine> ... there doesn't seem a disagreement.
20:52:46 <PWinstanley> ack kcoyle
20:53:15 <PWinstanley> proposed:  Accept 12.3 Requirement: one can create a profile of profiles, potentially inherited on several levels.
20:53:22 <azaroth> +1
20:53:24 <ncar> +1
20:53:24 <antoine> kcoyle: I would like to suggest that we say that one can create [...] leaving out the part "constructs, axioms...."
20:53:31 <antoine> +1 even if I wrote it ;-)
20:53:34 <SimonCox> +1
20:53:34 <kcoyle> +1
20:53:36 <PWinstanley> +1
20:53:36 <riccardoAlbertoni> +1
20:53:41 <DaveBrowning>  +1
20:53:42 <roba> +1
20:53:45 <AndreaPerego> +1
20:53:47 <annette_g> +1
20:54:00 <antoine> Resolved: 12.3 Requirement: one can create a profile of profiles, with elements potentially inherited on several levels.
20:54:04 <PWinstanley> 12.4 Requirement: from the perspective of management of profiles, and guidance to users and data experts, ecosystems of profiles should be properly described (e.g. in profile catalogues/repositories), especially documenting the relationships between profiles and what they are based on, and between profiles that are based on other profiles.
20:54:11 <AndreaPerego> RRSAgent, draft minutes v2
20:54:11 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/07/24-dxwg-minutes.html AndreaPerego
20:54:32 <antoine> q+
20:54:33 <annette_g> +1 to that!!
20:54:40 <kcoyle> +1
20:54:45 <PWinstanley> ack antoine
20:55:01 <roba> needs to be shortened - the requirement is for a canonical way to describe relationships between profiles\
20:55:11 <kcoyle> q+
20:55:11 <AndreaPerego> +1 to stressing the documentation part
20:55:12 <roba> q+
20:55:18 <antoine> antoine: the first part is motivation, the second part is the gist
20:55:19 <PWinstanley> ack roba
20:56:02 <antoine> roba: completely agree. Not sure what is canonical. The requirement suggests that descriptions are interoperable
20:56:20 <antoine> q+
20:56:21 <PWinstanley> ack kcoyle
20:56:39 <antoine> PWinstanley: it's about descriptions
20:56:46 <roba> -> the requirement is for an interoperable way to describe relationships between profiles
20:56:57 <antoine> kcoyle: I hope we leave the 'ecosystem' in
20:57:07 <antoine> ... to me it was about documentation
20:57:19 <kcoyle> +1
20:57:22 <PWinstanley> ack antoine
20:57:52 <antoine> PWinstanley: it could be about documenting the lack of exclusivity
20:58:06 <PWinstanley> proposed:  accept 12.4 Requirement: from the perspective of management of profiles, and guidance to users and data experts, ecosystems of profiles should be properly described (e.g. in profile catalogues/repositories), especially documenting the relationships between profiles and what they are based on, and between profiles that are based on other profiles.
20:58:09 <antoine> antoine: 'described' meant both machine-readbale and human-documented
20:58:14 <kcoyle> +1
20:58:15 <annette_g> +1
20:58:16 <antoine> +1
20:58:17 <riccardoAlbertoni> +1
20:58:18 <AndreaPerego> +1
20:58:19 <PWinstanley> +1
20:58:22 <SimonCox> +1
20:58:23 <DaveBrowning> +1
20:58:24 <azaroth> +1
20:58:24 <ncar> +1
20:58:27 <roba> +1
20:58:39 <antoine> Resolved: accept 12.4 Requirement: from the perspective of management of profiles, and guidance to users and data experts, ecosystems of profiles should be properly described (e.g. in profile catalogues/repositories), especially documenting the relationships between profiles and what they are based on, and between profiles that are based on other profiles.
20:58:44 <AndreaPerego> RRSAgent, draft minutes v2
20:58:44 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/07/24-dxwg-minutes.html AndreaPerego
20:58:48 <roba> rewording will be guidance group problem :-)
20:58:52 <PWinstanley> 12.5 Requirement: a profile should have human-readable documentation that expresses for humans the main components of a profile, which can also be available as machine-readable resources (ontology or schema files, SHACL files, etc). This includes listing of elements in the profile, instructions and recommendations on how to use them, constraints that determine what data is valid according to the profile, etc. [From the documents accessible from refe[CUT]
20:59:20 <ncar> +1
20:59:21 <AndreaPerego> Looks very similar to the previous one - should they be merged?
20:59:23 <antoine> PWinstanley: is this in scope?
20:59:27 <roba> +1
20:59:34 <SimonCox> +1
20:59:35 <azaroth> q+
20:59:37 <AndreaPerego> +1
20:59:38 <annette_g> +1
20:59:42 <DaveBrowning> +1
20:59:42 <PWinstanley> ack azaroth
20:59:50 <antoine> PWinstanley: AndreaPerego we don't mind if they are related. Main point is whether it's in scope
21:00:08 <kcoyle> q+
21:00:09 <antoine> azaroth: including elements in a profile, is it a MUST?
21:00:11 <roba> "should" is our friend
21:00:26 <antoine> PWinstanley: at the moment we can't determine
21:00:27 <PWinstanley> ack kcoyle
21:00:33 <AndreaPerego> Ack'ed, PWinstanley. It's in scope for me.
21:00:39 <azaroth> Propose to reduce to:  a profile should have human-readable documentation that expresses for humans the main components of a profile.
21:00:51 <azaroth> Propose to reduce to:  a profile should have human-readable documentation that expresses the main components of a profile.
21:01:04 <antoine> kcoyle: it seems that what we need are the elements (necessary) of an AP
21:01:13 <azaroth> Propose to reduce to:  a profile should have human-readable documentation that expresses its main components.  (Sorry, keep shortening)
21:01:29 <kcoyle> +1 short is better
21:01:44 <AndreaPerego> azaroth, not sure. What people are looking for is full documentation on how to use profiles, including examples.
21:01:58 <roba> need to remember we have rejected previous deduplication and rewording - so the UCR needs to be rewritten after sub-groups have discussed wording...
21:02:00 <antoine> PWinstanley: how do people feel about the shortening?
21:02:10 <roba> q+
21:02:14 <azaroth> AndreaPerego: expresses at least its main components ?
21:02:14 <PWinstanley> ack roba
21:02:18 <antoine> ... can I suggest to accept with a suggestion for re-writing
21:02:45 <antoine> roba: about process. we're looking at UC, extracting requirements verbatim.
21:03:02 <antoine> ... last time I tried to merge things and it didn't work perfectly after
21:03:04 <riccardoAlbertoni> +1 to keep the requirement as it is
21:03:10 <antoine> ... so now we shouldn't look at perfect wording.
21:03:15 <annette_g> +1 to accept as is.
21:03:19 <antoine> PWinstanley: yes we've made it clear
21:03:45 <kcoyle> +1
21:03:46 <roba> yep
21:03:49 <PWinstanley> +1
21:03:50 <riccardoAlbertoni> +1
21:03:50 <AndreaPerego> +1
21:03:51 <antoine> Proposal: accept (maybe with tiny rewording) 12.5 Requirement: a profile should have human-readable documentation that expresses for humans the main components of a profile, which can also be available as machine-readable resources (ontology or schema files, SHACL files, etc). This includes listing of elements in the profile, instructions and recommendations on how to use them, constraints that determine what data is valid according to the profile, etc.
21:03:54 <SimonCox> +1
21:03:55 <azaroth> +0
21:03:56 <annette_g> +1
21:03:58 <AndreaPerego> +1
21:03:58 <riccardoAlbertoni> +1
21:03:58 <DaveBrowning> +1
21:04:02 <antoine> +1
21:04:05 <roba> +1
21:04:09 <kcoyle> +1
21:04:12 <ncar> +1
21:04:22 <roba> * azaroth - "should" means requirement isnt strict ...
21:04:22 <Ixchel> +1
21:04:55 <SimonCox> yes, that's SHOULD which is recommended but not mandatory
21:05:00 <antoine> Resolved: accept (maybe with tiny rewording) 12.5 Requirement: a profile should have human-readable documentation that expresses for humans the main components of a profile, which can also be available as machine-readable resources (ontology or schema files, SHACL files, etc). This includes listing of elements in the profile, instructions and recommendations on how to use them, constraints that determine what data is valid according to the profile, etc.
21:05:04 <AndreaPerego> RRSAgent, draft minutes v2
21:05:04 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/07/24-dxwg-minutes.html AndreaPerego
21:05:24 <antoine> s/(maybe with tiny rewording)/(with tiny rewording as part of UCR work)
21:05:26 <azaroth> Agree "should" ... but should have human readable documentation, and then ... MAY / SHOULD / MUST ? list elements, etc
21:05:28 <ncar> present-
21:05:31 <riccardoAlbertoni> bye thanks a lot for the discussion
21:05:32 <antoine> PW: adjourned
21:05:34 <AndreaPerego> Thanks, bye bye
21:05:41 <annette_g> annette_g has left #dxwg
21:05:48 <antoine> rrsagent, please draft minutes
21:05:48 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/07/24-dxwg-minutes.html antoine
21:08:20 <AndreaPerego> RRSAgent, draft minutes v2
21:08:20 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/07/24-dxwg-minutes.html AndreaPerego
22:51:44 <roba> roba has joined #dxwg
22:51:44 <hadleybeeman> hadleybeeman has joined #dxwg
22:51:44 <rhiaro> rhiaro has joined #dxwg
22:53:38 <roba> roba has joined #dxwg
22:53:38 <hadleybeeman> hadleybeeman has joined #dxwg
22:53:38 <rhiaro> rhiaro has joined #dxwg
22:59:44 <roba> roba has joined #dxwg
22:59:44 <hadleybeeman> hadleybeeman has joined #dxwg
22:59:44 <rhiaro> rhiaro has joined #dxwg
23:01:44 <roba> roba has joined #dxwg
23:01:44 <hadleybeeman> hadleybeeman has joined #dxwg
23:01:44 <rhiaro> rhiaro has joined #dxwg
23:10:56 <roba> roba has joined #dxwg
23:10:56 <hadleybeeman> hadleybeeman has joined #dxwg
23:10:56 <rhiaro> rhiaro has joined #dxwg
23:16:15 <roba> roba has joined #dxwg
23:16:15 <hadleybeeman> hadleybeeman has joined #dxwg
23:16:15 <rhiaro> rhiaro has joined #dxwg
23:23:01 <Zakim> Zakim has left #dxwg