– DRAFT –
DCAT team 2018-08-23
23 August 2018
DaveBrowning: although not quorate, I'd like to discuss release
DaveBrowning: in today's potential agenda: https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/Meetings:DCAT-Telecon2018.08.23
… we are making progress with the milestone doc
… but we have issues with coherence of the doc. I need guidance with issue #320
<DaveBrowning> raised https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/320
DaveBrowning: What do we want to do for the 2nd PWD
DaveBrowning: I added this to the milestone but need to know the release steps and procedure, esp relating to keeping links live
… How do we do the release?
SimonCox: it was handled by DaveR who did some minor editorial changes outside of github and therefore outwith the vc system
… it wasn't spotted until after we'd made changes, so it was too difficult to fix
DaveBrowning: I will talk to DaveR and lead on the editorial and release tidying up
SimonCox: I think you've been restrained, so be bolder
DaveBrowning: will do.
DaveBrowning: the second draft will replace the first, rather than sitting side by side
<alejandra> https://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-dcat-2/
SimonCox: the latest published version of the editor's draft is missing a link back to the first
DaveBrowning: the W3C version control will link to the previous version, but will clarify with DaveR
alejandra: we need to ensure the links in examples are live before publication. they got broken last time and needed repairing
<SimonCox> https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/320
DaveBrowning: can we talk through the milestone for 2nd draft? we need to assess
<DaveBrowning> https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+milestone%3A%22DCAT+Second+Public+Working+Draft%22
<SimonCox> https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/milestone/13
<alejandra> It'd be good to assign people to issues
DaveBrowning: action: DaveBrowning to deal with issue #320
alejandra: the issue on size to include the unit -
… #313
… I think that requires more discussion. Andrea had an alternative view that makes the representation more complex, but needs discussion
… we are close to closing the data citation issue
SimonCox: in the basic example, in the current doc, [s5], there is an example where byteSize is included. we maybe need examples for approximate values
… it is a suggestion made in the last part of #313
<alejandra> I assigned the issue to me anyway
Action: DaveBrowning to take care of issue https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/320
<trackbot> Sorry, but no Tracker is associated with this channel.
Action: alejandra to take care of issue https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/313
<trackbot> Sorry, but no Tracker is associated with this channel.
DaveBrowning: with https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/300 thanks to SimonCox for providing content for this
… the proposed text looks good
… the sugggestions by Jakub and alejandra are helpful too. this feels to me like it has to go at the start of section 5,
SimonCox: but are we recommending this approach?
… we need to show that we are applying good practice developed elsewhere for the way we illustrate
… blank nodes are used for distribution descriptions
… It is hard for us to make a strong recommendation as it is counter to current practice
… "should" rather than "must"?
DaveBrowning: the issue doesn't reflect all the thinking, so we need to review and discuss proposed changes in a larger group
alejandra: I think "should" because there are uses cases for blank nodes, but it is worth making a comment on the issue within the document, but it shouldn't be normative
DaveBrowning: I will update the issue #300
… to reflect that it is "should" and not "must"
… and to ask for opinions so that we can follow up next week
DaveBrowning: I don't think that #292 or #259 have been looked at recently
… #110 will close when we have the byteSize completed
alejandra: on dereferencible identifiers, I think it is worth bringing it back as data citation depends on it. We could relate to adms:Identifier
… we need to refresh minds on what was discussed and sort it as it is quite important
DaveBrowning: we need to clarify for the second working draft
SimonCox: there is an identifier issue within Research Data Alliance (RDA) discussions.
… we have similar interests re: versioning etc
… Since we are looking at the assignment of tasks I think we need to get someone to lead in the versioning area
DaveBrowning: I'm interested
me too
DaveBrowning: but it will take time to do anything in the short term.
SimonCox: RDA are looking at international data week (gaberone) for a meeting
… http://internationaldataweek.org/
… 5-8 NOVEMBER 2018
<SimonCox> Week starting 2018-11-05
DaveBrowning: I think that we need a small group to get a story together for the whole plenary - we need to make sense of the requirements and determine the level of detail in which we want to deal with this. The answer "you do it in the profile" isn't necesarily helpful
SimonCox: attention was brought to the Prov approach when we last discussed this, but we will probably just provide some patterns and sources of good practice
DaveBrowning: I agree
… there are so many different scenarios that it is impossible to cover all bases within a 'recommendation', but we can give pointers to good practice
… we need to choose the examples well so that we get across the point that it is a complicated area, but there are some common patterns
SimonCox: my colleagues have 4 patterns. we want to find which meld well with the recommendation we are making on DCAT
DaveBrowning: I'll organise the effort on this - a note to the whole group providing information, I don't want a separate group but I want to elicit interest
<Makx> I am happy to contribute
last 3 mins
Action: DaveBrowning to organise discussion on versioning
<trackbot> Sorry, but no Tracker is associated with this channel.