– DRAFT –
DXWG DCAT subgroup teleconference 6 September 2018 8:30 UTC
06 September 2018
Hi all!
<Alejandra> Hi!
<DaveBrowning> https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/Meetings:DCAT-Telecon2018.09.06
DaveBrowning: we are focusing on completing the Working draft by the end of this month, any suggestion comment on the agenda
?
<DaveBrowning> https://www.w3.org/2018/08/30-dxwgdcat-minutes
proposed: approve last meeting minutes https://www.w3.org/2018/08/30-dxwgdcat-minutes
<Alejandra> *no worries
+1
<Alejandra> +1
<DaveBrowning> +1
<Jaroslav_Pullmann> 0 (absent)
<PWinstanley> +1
Resolved: approve last meeting minutes https://www.w3.org/2018/08/30-dxwgdcat-minutes
<DaveBrowning> open actions https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/track/actions/open
PWinstanley: I have one i still want to discuss with colleguague the #####
Alejandra: about bytesize I will make a proposal when discussing the issue.. people are still divided ..
Alejandra: i am suggesting to keep the discussion in the issue tracker and i will do a proposal
<DaveBrowning> riccardoAlbertoni: action 198 can be closed - text is merged
close action-198
<trackbot> Sorry, but no Tracker is associated with this channel.
<DaveBrowning> DaveBrowning: No new public comments
<DaveBrowning> Contents: https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/milestone/13
DaveBrowning: the subtopic in the agenda are issue that are included in the milestone
<Alejandra_> *I have been listening but IRC got disconnected
<DaveBrowning> Links in the document https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/320
DaveBrowning: the first issue 320 deals with link on the document
not sure why some of the links went broken, but I am fixing these, still working with david to get the thing coherent and respecting the w3c publishing rules
DaveBrowning: issue 313 and 125, do we still need to keep them separate?
Alejandra_: bytesize already existing, and the part of discussion related to the domain might pertains to other properties, while the other is about precision so I would keep it separate..
DaveBrowning: I think you made good argument to keep them separate..
DaveBrowning: one question is how long we keep the conversation before closing the issue, the time in running, At a some point we need to choose which are able to reasonably close ..
<DaveBrowning> Next issue Project context [RPCX] - https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/71
DaveBrowning: this has been partial addressed by an example simon added, we need more examples
DaveBrowning: Are we going to add new example in the next document round ?
PWinstanley: no I think I need to add some sentences so I see if i can add some text with the reference illustrated
DaveBrowning: i will add something here, probably in time for the face of face but not in time for the working draft
DaveBrowning: we briefly discuss this last week, simon expressed the opinion that this should not be a big problem, there 37 dialogues that suggest a lack of consensus, I am happy to discuss this but it seem there is no consensum...
… i am not quite sure what to do about it..
Alejandra: i want to say to check if there are issues not in the milestone that we can close
riccardoAlbertoni: +1 to alejandra, for example issue 58
https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/58
ttps://rawgit.com/w3c/dxwg/dcat-issue58-riccardo/dcat/index.html#quality-conformance
https://rawgit.com/w3c/dxwg/dcat-issue58-riccardo/dcat/index.html#quality-conformance
<DaveBrowning> I'm agreeing with you (riccardo)
<DaveBrowning> Editors will process the merge request for 2PWD
DaveBrowning: adding issues 58 to the milestone ..
Jaroslav_Pullmann: It seems to me that the issue related to the identifier is a guidance issues..
… what is the subject of identification are we talking ?
DaveBrowning: i think it is a very good question
DaveBrowning: we have an example for citation in the document ..
alejandra: In term of citations and identifiers I think we should consider versioning
Jaroslav_Pullmann: versioning, evolution of dataset as well
Jaroslav_Pullmann: in Industrial Data Space ontology we are trying to express this notion of evolution, maybe we can discuss this to the F2F ..
DaveBrowning: we sent a mail about versioning, Jaroslav_Pullmann did a very good use case, and we are marshalling on that so that we can have at least a starter..
<PWinstanley> +1 to minimal attention to dereferencable idents
<Jaroslav_Pullmann> +1
DaveBrowning: I wouldn't open this kind of storm in the draft unless we have something to propose..
DaveBrowning: is there anything we want to discuss .. ?
Jaroslav_Pullmann: I think a clustering of concerns is very helpful reading the DCAT document..
DaveBrowning: sure, we will take care of it...
<Jaroslav_Pullmann> bye!
Succeeded: s/XXX/Industrial Data Space ontology/
Succeeded: s/in Industrial Data Space ontology we are trying to express this notion of evolution, maybe we can discuss this to the F2F ../Jaroslav_Pullmann: in Industrial Data Space ontology we are trying to express this notion of evolution, maybe we can discuss this to the F2F ..
Succeeded: s/i want to say to look to the ather issue, if there are issue not in the milestone that we can close/ i want to say to check if there are issues not in the milestone that we can close
Succeeded: s/+1 to alejandra/riccardoAlbertoni: +1 to alejandra, for example issue 58