19:42:24 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #dxwg
19:42:24 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2018/07/31-dxwg-irc
19:42:35 <PWinstanley> rrsagent, make logs public
19:42:48 <PWinstanley> Meeting: DXWG Plenary
19:43:01 <PWinstanley> chair: Karen Coyle
19:43:56 <PWinstanley> regrets+ Simon Cox, LarsG
19:44:06 <PWinstanley> rrsagent, create minutes v2
19:44:06 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/07/31-dxwg-minutes.html PWinstanley
19:49:37 <kcoyle> kcoyle has joined #dxwg
19:50:04 <PWinstanley_> PWinstanley_ has joined #dxwg
19:50:51 <PWinstanley_> rrsagent, create minutes v2
19:50:51 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/07/31-dxwg-minutes.html PWinstanley_
19:52:27 <PWinstanley_> present+
19:59:11 <roba> roba has joined #dxwg
19:59:45 <azaroth> azaroth has joined #dxwg
19:59:56 <ncar> ncar has joined #dxwg
20:00:00 <ncar> present+
20:00:13 <azaroth> present+ Rob_Sanderson
20:00:40 <annette_g> annette_g has joined #dxwg
20:01:02 <antoine> antoine has joined #dxwg
20:01:02 <roba> * is it webex or me this morning?
20:01:21 <ncar> must be you roba!
20:01:41 <antoine> present+ antoine
20:03:26 <kcoyle> present+
20:03:26 <Ixchel> Ixchel has joined #dxwg
20:03:30 <Ixchel> present+
20:03:49 <annette_g> present+
20:03:59 <roba> present+
20:04:09 <azaroth> scribenick: azaroth
20:05:00 <azaroth> kcoyle: Start by looking at the minutes for last week
20:05:03 <azaroth> TOPIC: Admin
20:05:04 <kcoyle> https://www.w3.org/2018/07/24-dxwg-minutes
20:05:24 <azaroth> kcoyle: Looking at actions and resolutions, always extensive. Antoine types really well.
20:05:38 <azaroth> ... Two actions for Nick, we'll get to those. Resolutions for three requirements.
20:05:49 <azaroth> ... Very productive meeting.
20:05:54 <kcoyle> PROPOSED: accept minutes of last meeting
20:05:56 <azaroth> +1
20:06:00 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> Jaroslav_Pullmann has joined #dxwg
20:06:00 <annette_g> +1
20:06:00 <kcoyle> +1
20:06:01 <antoine> +1
20:06:02 <PWinstanley_> +1
20:06:05 <Ixchel> +1
20:06:07 <roba> +1
20:06:12 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> present+
20:06:28 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> +1
20:06:29 <azaroth> RESOLUTION: accept minutes of last meeting
20:06:34 <ncar> +1
20:06:50 <azaroth> kcoyle: Okay, done that. Next is to look at the list of open actions.
20:06:56 <azaroth> TOPIC: Open Action Items
20:07:04 <kcoyle> https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/track/actions/open
20:07:17 <azaroth> kcoyle: Let's see if we have any to mark off.
20:07:35 <azaroth> ... Won't go through DCAT ones, assume we'll do them in the DCAT meeting.  One on Dave for the github dump.
20:07:59 <azaroth> ... Dave ... is not on Webex.
20:08:14 <azaroth> ... Nicholas has to establish a meeting (#148), which is in progress
20:08:26 <azaroth> ncar: That's right. Likely in the other time slot than conneg.
20:08:44 <azaroth> kcoyle: Suggested that you pick another timeslot for Australia and CET, might want to look at that.
20:09:02 <azaroth> ... adding in west coast time makes it hard. See if there's something that works, as I'll be in CET in fall.
20:09:08 <azaroth> ncar: Will wait another half day for interest.
20:09:34 <azaroth> ... only 10 hours difference, but this 6am slot does suit some of us here. Will put the inverse to the group and see if there's interest
20:10:06 <azaroth> kcoyle: What we've seen so far is 10pm in CET more than once a week is starting to provide stress. Lars can do one but not both.
20:10:21 <azaroth> ... think we might be able to get more participation. There aren't many of us in the California timezone
20:10:33 <azaroth> ... checked with Rob and Annette. Neither intended to be part of the group, so just me.
20:10:38 <azaroth> ... don't want to make things more difficult
20:10:52 <azaroth> ncar:  two of three timezones is easier.
20:11:03 <azaroth> kcoyle: 3 of 3 is hellish!
20:11:18 <azaroth> ... update profiledesc documentation, and following that, work on some potential outlines
20:11:28 <azaroth> ... I looked at the profileDesc docs, hasn't been done?
20:11:41 <azaroth> ncar: Thanks for hte prompting. Will try and do that today.
20:12:02 <azaroth> kcoyle: DOn't think we can do too much, have to get some consensus around the ontology before we can go very far
20:12:09 <azaroth> ... it informs the nature of the guidance document.
20:12:31 <azaroth> ... Sooner the better.  That seems to be all of the actions that are likely to be discussed. Let's move on.
20:12:32 <DaveBrowning> DaveBrowning has joined #dxwg
20:12:42 <azaroth> ... Anyone able to update us on DCAT?
20:12:47 <azaroth> TOPIC:  Updates
20:12:52 <azaroth> SUBTOPIC: DCAT
20:12:57 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> q+
20:12:59 <azaroth> kcoyle: Anyone attend the mtg?
20:13:07 <kcoyle> ack Jaroslav_Pullmann
20:13:23 <azaroth> Jaroslav_Pullmann: Reference to projects with context of providing a dataset.
20:13:47 <azaroth> ... One of the aspects that got discussed. The provenance of datasets, per project. Some presented project ontology.
20:13:54 <DaveBrowning>  present+
20:13:56 <roba> q+
20:13:56 <azaroth> ... all monitored in the meeting notes
20:14:03 <kcoyle> ack roba
20:14:17 <azaroth> roba: A little addendum. Discussion about specialized properties or qualified forms for describing things.
20:14:35 <azaroth> ... Short term consensus around specialized properties for various types of relationships, but not fully resolved
20:14:41 <azaroth> kcoyle: Thanks, that's a hard one!
20:14:59 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> s/Some presented project ontology/Simon presented project ontology/
20:14:59 <azaroth> SUBTOPIC: Profile Guidance Group
20:15:04 <antoine> q+
20:15:08 <azaroth> kcoyle: Looking for a time, need documentation.
20:15:09 <kcoyle> ack antoine
20:15:22 <azaroth> antoine: Maybe you were going to discuss about hte outline you proposed.
20:15:38 <azaroth> ... Have a little question about how to discuss and make suggestions.  Put that on the general mailing list, will go back to GH
20:15:47 <azaroth> ... you said to suggest a new outline, but will make the thread on GH really long
20:15:54 <azaroth> ... a small suggestion, can you just change the outline?
20:15:57 <azaroth> ... easier to follow.
20:16:02 <azaroth> kcoyle: Yes, let me post what we're talking about
20:16:07 <kcoyle> https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/242#issuecomment-408916364
20:16:23 <azaroth> ... GH is not the greatest place for comments on documents.  You can't do what you can in google docs.
20:16:30 <roba> q+
20:16:37 <azaroth> ... don't know how we want to look at different suggestions and talk about them
20:17:17 <azaroth> ... this particular one I posted is very similar, could pull them out and put them side by side, but this instead of breaking up between what is a profile and profile descriptions, it folds a lot into an administrative metadata section
20:17:28 <azaroth> ... so you what is a profile, and then a number of chapters about the profile
20:17:30 <kcoyle> ack roba
20:17:54 <azaroth> roba: In terms of the way forward, I think we should follow standard practice.  It's helpful to get a scope, and then we can discuss it and commit the first draft to GH
20:18:06 <azaroth> ... then deal with it in terms of people submitting PRs to the draft
20:18:30 <azaroth> ... hopefully in the normal way, with discussion, actions, people can propose improvements ... let's not put another system in place.
20:18:31 <antoine> q+
20:18:33 <azaroth> kcoyle: I agree
20:18:39 <kcoyle> ack antoine
20:18:41 <azaroth> ... we have 3 or 4 suggestions in the thread
20:18:56 <azaroth> antoine: A question to Rob -- are you suggesting to have commit suggestions, or have them in an issue?
20:19:16 <azaroth> roba: Too early in the morning :) If you have something that needs to be thrashed out, then we have an issue
20:19:28 <azaroth> ... if there's a suggestion, then just put in a PR with a comment.
20:19:39 <azaroth> ... If there's a significant decision point, then issues are the way to do it
20:19:49 <azaroth> kcoyle: Okay, anyone else?
20:19:51 <antoine> ok we could try
20:19:56 <azaroth> *tumbleweed*
20:20:12 <azaroth> ... Anyone here in the profile negotiation group
20:20:17 <azaroth> ... any comments?
20:20:33 <azaroth> ncar: Rob A, Rob S and I are all there, we just haven't met ... so nothing to report
20:20:47 <azaroth> ... administratively, we have the new timeslot, this hour plus 24 hours
20:20:53 <azaroth> ... every two weeks, starting tomorrow
20:20:59 <azaroth> kcoyle: Okay great!
20:21:08 <azaroth> ... I assume UCR document is same status?
20:21:14 <azaroth> SUBTOPIC: UCR document
20:21:22 <azaroth> kcoyle: ?
20:21:32 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> q+
20:21:34 <azaroth> roba: Jaro offered to look at a PR as an alternative
20:21:43 <kcoyle> ack Jaroslav_Pullmann
20:22:00 <azaroth> Jaroslav_Pullmann: Thank you. I looked at it, it amde sense, so I accepted and merged
20:22:10 <roba> +1
20:22:29 <azaroth> ... Don't know how to proceed with UCR docs, I'm approaching holidays in August. How to incorporate requirements into UCR doc.
20:22:43 <azaroth> ... how urgent is this?  Tasks to be done in the next days, or is end of August okay?
20:22:57 <roba> if we get consensus on text i can edit in  - there is a lot of deduplication to do again
20:22:59 <azaroth> kcoyle: Don't see anything urgent.  Easier to refer to when it's all together, but we have this messy google doc to use in the mean time
20:23:04 <azaroth> ... don't see any urgency
20:23:20 <azaroth> ... there are some sort of black out times for documents coming up related to vacations of W3C, and TPAC.
20:23:36 <PWinstanley_> q+
20:23:41 <azaroth> ... but that's only for new documents or new FPWDs. Update process doesn't need to go through that
20:23:49 <kcoyle> ack PWinstanley_
20:24:06 <azaroth> PWinstanley_: We're due for a couple of FPWDs in Q4. Need to keep an eye on our schedule.
20:24:21 <azaroth> kcoyle: Are you reading Q4 as the beginning, middle, end... ?
20:24:44 <azaroth> PWinstanley_: October to December.  Given a F2F coming up, we should be close to publication or potentially on the cusp of it
20:24:53 <azaroth> TOPIC: TPAC
20:25:20 <azaroth> kcoyle: Meeting is 24th of October, on the meetings page. Can use that time to finalize whether the docs are ready to go out or not
20:25:28 <PWinstanley_> https://www.w3.org/2018/10/TPAC/#WeekGlance
20:25:34 <azaroth> ... Alejandra signed up and noted the expense compared to non TPAC meetings
20:25:57 <azaroth> ... assumed that TPAC would be a good time to meet. Didn't realize that it's quite a bit more expensive.  Ends up being 110 euros a day
20:26:04 <azaroth> ... don't know if that is going to stop anyone from attending
20:26:19 <azaroth> ... in the future I won't assume we'll meet at TPAC, especially as the next one is in Japan
20:26:35 <azaroth> ... Can begin to think soon about inexpensive place to meet for F2F after October
20:26:47 <azaroth> ... early 2019 if someone has space to offer, that would be great
20:26:53 <PWinstanley_> q+
20:27:00 <azaroth> ... if you're planning to attend, the cheapest rate you should sign up
20:27:03 <kcoyle> ack PWinstanley_
20:27:04 <azaroth> q+ to talk about TPAC
20:27:21 <azaroth> PWinstanley_: If you're an IE, and not at a member organization, then there's a fee waiving scheme
20:27:34 <azaroth> ... not sure if Alejandra for example is in a member institution
20:27:41 <azaroth> q?
20:27:51 <kcoyle> ack azaroth
20:27:51 <Zakim> azaroth, you wanted to talk about TPAC
20:28:38 <PWinstanley_> azaroth: to say that while TPAC is expensive to get to and attend, it is valuable for cross-WG discussions
20:28:43 <antoine> q+
20:28:54 <PWinstanley_> ... there is scope for meetings between e.g. JSON/LD group and the profiles subgroup
20:29:08 <kcoyle> ack antoine
20:29:12 <azaroth> kcoyle: Makes me also think, are there cross-group discussions we need to set aside time for?
20:29:34 <azaroth> antoine: A message to send to W3C. I agree with Rob -- every additional day costs 110 euro, makes it quite difficult.
20:29:49 <PWinstanley_> +1 to azaroth
20:29:50 <azaroth> ... if one wants to attend groups other than the ones we're involved in, it gets very expensive
20:30:50 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> q+
20:30:53 <azaroth> kcoyle: Let's turn to requirements
20:31:18 <azaroth> ... the ones we have left on the list, there's also some use cases, but hope the requirements let us work on the guidance document...
20:31:27 <kcoyle> 12.6 Requirement: a profile may be (partially) "implemented" by "schemas" (in OWL, SHACL, XML Schema...) that allow different levels of data validation.
20:31:30 <azaroth> ... will start with the Europeana requirements
20:31:46 <roba> q+
20:31:48 <azaroth> ... what comments on this?
20:31:51 <kcoyle> ack Jaroslav_Pullmann
20:32:07 <azaroth> Jaroslav_Pullmann: Comment from previous discussion... still agreement to meet at TPAC. Rates are changing this evening.
20:32:18 <azaroth> kcoyle: Today is last possible day for lowest rate
20:32:32 <kcoyle> ack roba
20:32:52 <azaroth> roba: Wanted to vote in favor of the requirement.  Haven't written up use cases for OGC, but we have profiles in schematron.
20:33:11 <azaroth> ... not very expressive but appropriate for an XML based standard.  We have that constraint being partial description of the profile
20:33:18 <azaroth> +1 from me for the requirement
20:33:27 <kcoyle> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Zty4jTzhG0_1xoJlDOMq1XeHelIwVP2-STw6_-_ZxR4/edit#gid=0
20:33:38 <kcoyle> https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/ProfileRoundup
20:33:38 <azaroth> kcoyle: Understand that Europeana also uses schematron. We added this to the profile roundup page
20:33:53 <azaroth> ... it is at the beginning list of types of languages and tools
20:34:03 <azaroth> ... schematron definitely on there
20:34:18 <azaroth> ... within our task is to look around and have a good list of the more mainstream tools
20:34:30 <azaroth> ... in terms of actionable profiles
20:34:31 <roba> q+
20:34:36 <kcoyle> ack roba
20:35:01 <azaroth> roba: The proposed requirement doesn't talk about specific languages, it's an interesting one, different langauges have different expressivity, and that's the nature of it
20:35:17 <azaroth> ... the second point is whether there's a requirement to specify the language, and if there's a canonical list of those languages
20:35:33 <azaroth> ... can we have URIs for the languages, to say what it's written in? might be a requirement?
20:35:41 <azaroth> kcoyle: Are there languages that do not self identify?
20:35:52 <azaroth> roba: Is there an identifier to reference the langauge itself by?
20:36:15 <azaroth> kcoyle: Not talking about hte document, but is there a property to say it's written in a language external to the doc. Meta-metadata
20:36:29 <azaroth> roba: Is it a requirement to discover the language the constraint is written in, without reading the constraint doc?
20:36:30 <kcoyle> q?
20:36:31 <annette_g> q+
20:36:35 <azaroth> kcoyle: Don't see it.
20:36:39 <kcoyle> ack annette_g
20:36:41 <azaroth> roba: Don't see it explicitly mentioned anywhere
20:36:46 <azaroth> annette_g: I think it should be in there some where
20:37:06 <azaroth> ... I have a niggle with it, it reads more like a solution than a requirement.  There's an underlying requirement that I'd like to see it written as
20:37:16 <azaroth> ... have to have a way to figure out the language is closer to an actual requirement
20:37:27 <azaroth> kcoyle: How would you like it to be worded?
20:37:32 <antoine> q+
20:37:43 <azaroth> annette_g: ... I'd need to look at the use case more carefully
20:37:58 <azaroth> ... Not sure the best way, I think we're just missing things here.
20:38:11 <azaroth> ... do we need to accept all possible schemas? Do we narrow it at all?
20:38:20 <azaroth> ... this is deciding a solution before understanding the real requirements
20:38:35 <azaroth> q?
20:39:04 <PWinstanley_> s/langauge/language/
20:39:09 <azaroth> kcoyle: Is there the assumption that we would be not leaving this wide open, that people could do this if they want, but that we provide more guidance as to acceptable languages?
20:39:15 <roba> q+
20:39:22 <azaroth> q+ to be -1 on preselecting languages
20:39:31 <azaroth> kcoyle: Do people understand the question?
20:39:48 <kcoyle> q?
20:39:52 <kcoyle> q?
20:39:59 <kcoyle> ack antoine
20:40:09 <azaroth> antoine: Also in favor of not closing the set of languages. Want to represent that by ... in the requirement
20:40:23 <azaroth> ... if that's not open enough, then happy to reformulate to say the list is not closed.
20:40:49 <azaroth> ... second point about what rob said on making a requirement for assigning URIs to languages, I'm in favor of it, but it could be a derived need from the requirement.
20:41:15 <kcoyle> ack roba
20:41:19 <azaroth> ... the requiremnt says that profiles are impelmented in schema languages, and profiles should be in profile desc, then profile desc needs enough information, which would include the language identifiers
20:41:36 <annette_g> q+
20:41:42 <azaroth> roba: Didnt' see it as prescriptive, but in the real world, they're not perfect. Need to have a requirement that it is allowed
20:42:00 <azaroth> ... do have a situation where the language needs to be able to be identified, without necessarily grabbing every possible one down to look at
20:42:11 <azaroth> ... don't think we should specify that it has to be a URI, that seems like a solution
20:42:14 <antoine> q+
20:42:22 <azaroth> ... could be a specialized property instead, e.g. shaclConstraint
20:42:47 <azaroth> ... not very nice, but a possible one.  Requirement is that we support partial constraints. Profound implication -- the profile is different from the constraints
20:42:59 <azaroth> ... the shacl doc would not BE the profile, but a partial expression OF it
20:43:08 <azaroth> ... this drives the profileDesc design to separate these out
20:43:11 <kcoyle> ack azaroth
20:43:11 <Zakim> azaroth, you wanted to be -1 on preselecting languages
20:43:14 <azaroth> ... didn't read it as prescriptvie so happy
20:43:42 <antoine> azaroth: preselecting languages seem very closed world and not very future-proof
20:43:51 <kcoyle> ack annette_g
20:44:01 <PWinstanley_> s/prescriptvie/prescriptive/
20:44:14 <azaroth> annette_g: I didn't read the list as prescriptive, comment as to open or not is a solution question rather than a requirement
20:44:31 <azaroth> ... just trying to get at what the requirement is.  I think it's that we want to support existing expressions with as little change as possible
20:44:54 <azaroth> ... this is more complex than just saying it's a requirement, we've had some discussions around modularity and inheritance, that we haven't figured out how it will be dealt with
20:45:06 <azaroth> ... might be things we need to express things that aren't possible in various languages
20:45:10 <antoine> q-
20:45:17 <azaroth> ... could be just the file extension, but it merits some thought
20:45:25 <azaroth> kcoyle: What do you suggest we do with the requirement?
20:45:52 <azaroth> annette_g: Turn it into something that says that our guidance is as friendly as possible to existing languages
20:45:56 <azaroth> kcoyle: Could also be future?
20:46:06 <azaroth> annette_g: true. Use case is that people have already implemented?
20:46:23 <azaroth> kcoyle: Might be that there's languages that haven't been used yet.  DOnt' want to support only existing ones.
20:46:33 <azaroth> annette_g: Support existing and others that are likely to be used
20:46:41 <azaroth> kcoyle: Don't think we know what's likely to be used, which is why it's open
20:46:53 <azaroth> ... can we vote on it, and then add rewordings to the google doc? Acceptable?
20:46:59 <azaroth> q?
20:47:03 <kcoyle> PROPOSED: accept Requirement: a profile may be (partially) "implemented" by "schemas" (in OWL, SHACL, XML Schema...) that allow different levels of data validationRequirement: a profile may be (partially) "implemented" by "schemas" (in OWL, SHACL, XML Schema...) that allow different levels of data validation
20:47:13 <azaroth> +1
20:47:19 <kcoyle> +1
20:47:22 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> +1
20:47:22 <antoine> +1 (for half of it)
20:47:30 <annette_g> 0
20:47:41 <roba> +1
20:47:41 <DaveBrowning> +1
20:47:42 <PWinstanley_> +1
20:48:19 <kcoyle> RESOLVED: Requirement: a profile may be (partially) "implemented" by "schemas" (in OWL, SHACL, XML Schema...) that allow different levels of data validation
20:48:21 <azaroth> kcoyle: I think anyone can suggest rewordings.
20:48:28 <PWinstanley> PWinstanley has joined #dxwg
20:48:37 <azaroth> ... Okay. Can we do the next one?
20:48:41 <azaroth> ... number 127
20:48:42 <kcoyle> 12.7 Requirement: data publishers may publish data according to different profiles, either simultaneously (in one same data "distribution") or in parallel (via content negotiation).
20:49:01 <azaroth> kcoyle: Comments on this?
20:49:04 <azaroth> +1 to this :)
20:49:14 <azaroth> kcoyle: The direction that conneg is working in
20:49:22 <annette_g> q+
20:49:29 <kcoyle> ack annette_g
20:49:43 <azaroth> annette_g: We're specifying that using a distribution or conneg, is that necessary for the requirement?
20:49:46 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> q+
20:49:52 <kcoyle> ack Jaroslav_Pullmann
20:49:52 <azaroth> q+ to be in favor of examples
20:49:53 <PWinstanley> q+
20:49:59 <azaroth> Jaroslav_Pullmann: I could imagine conneg as related to data services
20:50:18 <roba> dct:conformsTo
20:50:20 <azaroth> ... where dynamic data is being retrieved, otherwise the distributions are set. How are profiles indivcated? Do we have a predicate for this already?
20:50:31 <annette_g> suggested rewording: Requirement: data publishers may publish data according to different profiles.
20:50:42 <azaroth> roba: A profile is a specification, so dct:conformsTo
20:50:43 <azaroth> q?
20:50:46 <azaroth> ;)
20:50:49 <antoine> q+
20:50:52 <kcoyle> ack azaroth
20:50:52 <Zakim> azaroth, you wanted to be in favor of examples
20:51:24 <annette_g> maybe add "e.g."?
20:51:27 <roba> I read as examples - may make this more explicit
20:51:33 <kcoyle> ack PWinstanley
20:51:35 <antoine> annette_g++
20:51:43 <antoine> q-
20:52:06 <azaroth> PWinstanley: slightly similar thing with DCAT stuff, a bag of assorted datasets thrown in to a specification. sometimes you have the same data in JSON and XML, stuff like that
20:52:10 <azaroth> ... want to keep an eye on both
20:52:17 <kcoyle> q?
20:52:29 <azaroth> +1 to e.g.
20:52:48 <azaroth> kcoyle: I've added e.g. inside the parentheses.  I'll copy it from what Antoine has given
20:52:52 <kcoyle> PROPOSED: accept 12.7 Requirement: data publishers may publish data according to different profiles, either simultaneously (e.g. in one same data "distribution") or in parallel (e.g. via content negotiation).
20:52:55 <azaroth> +1
20:52:55 <annette_g> +1
20:52:55 <antoine> +1
20:52:57 <DaveBrowning> +1
20:52:59 <PWinstanley> +1
20:52:59 <roba> +1
20:52:59 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> +1
20:53:00 <kcoyle> +1
20:53:22 <kcoyle> RESOLVEDLaccept 12.7 Requirement: data publishers may publish data according to different profiles, either simultaneously (e.g. in one same data "distribution") or in parallel (e.g. via content negotiation).
20:53:31 <roba> q+
20:53:54 <azaroth> kcoyle: expletives ... Rob go ahead
20:54:01 <annette_g> s/RESOLVEDL/RESOLVED /
20:54:27 <kcoyle> RESOLVED accept 12.7 Requirement: data publishers may publish data according to different profiles, either simultaneously (e.g. in one same data "distribution") or in parallel (e.g. via content negotiation).
20:54:33 <azaroth> roba: A comment for editing ... publishers may do this, we can't stop them. We just need to accept that this is happening.  The requirement we can do something about is that there's a way to identify which profiles are being published
20:54:44 <azaroth> ... a requirement to recognize reality, not to do something about it.
20:54:48 <azaroth> +1 to roba
20:55:09 <azaroth> kcoyle: I think we've gone beyond the myth that we have control over things :)
20:55:22 <azaroth> ... Gone through the numbered ones. Another one I can't quite paste in ...
20:55:23 <antoine> q+
20:55:28 <azaroth> ack roba
20:55:34 <kcoyle> It should also be possible to derive requirement in terms of description of profiles vs their implementations/schemas and how all this should be served.
20:55:42 <kcoyle> ack roba
20:55:50 <kcoyle> ack antoine
20:56:15 <azaroth> antoine: I can save Karen the effort ... it was more like a note to say that from our use case, I can derive requirements as to what profiles can express in terms of data constraints
20:56:31 <azaroth> ... the specific expressivity in a profile. I've not done that as I saw that we already had requirements about this.
20:56:57 <azaroth> ... Don't know if they're complete or if it's desirable to seek such completeness. Question to the group - should I go back to the use case and add to the expressivity requirements?
20:57:07 <azaroth> kcoyle: We have some expressivity requirements
20:57:13 <azaroth> antoine: we have several, and the most important ones
20:57:38 <azaroth> ... I was referring to the work done in the DC community in the WG that karen and I co-chaired where we identified a couple dozen possible things that can be expressed in a prfile
20:57:48 <azaroth> ... it was whether we should go that route, or if we should stay at a high level
20:57:57 <roba> q+
20:58:02 <azaroth> ... and focus on the most important parts, leaving open what could be expressed in a profile
20:58:25 <kcoyle> https://github.com/dcmi/repository/blob/master/mediawiki_wiki/RDF_Application_Profiles/Requirements.md
20:58:29 <azaroth> kcoyle: [unscribable]
20:58:55 <azaroth> ... we can look at this as the group starts work. Other ideas will come up as the document takes form. Can bring it back to he plenary if there's things beyond the requirements
20:58:59 <azaroth> ... does that seem okay?
20:59:01 <antoine> +1
20:59:03 <azaroth> +1
20:59:19 <azaroth> kcoyle: We have the DC information there, there may be some others. We have the ODRL profiles to look at.
20:59:34 <azaroth> ... I thnk as this document comes together we'll be going back to examples to see if there's anything we missed
20:59:40 <azaroth> ... if the group is okay to work that way
20:59:49 <PWinstanley> rrsagent, create minutes v2
20:59:49 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/07/31-dxwg-minutes.html PWinstanley
21:00:03 <kcoyle> ack roba
21:00:04 <azaroth> roba: agree to that. need to be high level and recognize that there's different tpes of profiles
21:00:14 <azaroth> ... what's common is the way that they deal with interoperability and data exchange
21:00:29 <azaroth> ... the ability to support them in a more coherent way than word docs scattered around the web is what we're looking to achieve
21:00:48 <azaroth> kcoyle: Yup! We'll set this one aside, not an actual requirement. We have the information in our list of documents, so can get back to it
21:00:56 <PWinstanley> rrsagent, create minutes v2
21:00:56 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/07/31-dxwg-minutes.html PWinstanley
21:01:01 <azaroth> ... thank you to Rob S for scribing, thanks to all for being here, will talk again next week
21:01:07 <roba> * go antoine!
21:01:08 <azaroth> ... Peter and I will chat to see what we want to cover.
21:01:15 <azaroth> ... would like to talk about profile description documentation
21:01:20 <azaroth> ... ahve gone through most of the requirements
21:01:32 <annette_g> bye all!
21:01:32 <azaroth> Thanks all!
21:01:38 <PWinstanley> bye!
21:01:42 <PWinstanley> rrsagent, create minutes v2
21:01:42 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/07/31-dxwg-minutes.html PWinstanley
21:01:52 <PWinstanley> s/ahve/have/
21:02:07 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> bye & thanks, meet you on 28th latest!
21:02:10 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> present-