– DRAFT –
DXWG Plenary

agenda at https://‌www.w3.org/‌2017/‌dxwg/‌wiki/‌Meetings:Telecon2018.09.18

<azaroth> +1

PROPOSED: accept last week's minutes

https://‌www.w3.org/‌2018/‌09/‌11-dxwg-minutes

<azaroth> +1

+1

<PWinstanley> +1

<ncar> +1

<DaveBrowning> +1

<kcoyle> +1

Resolved: accept last week's minutes

<PWinstanley> https://‌www.w3.org/‌2017/‌dxwg/‌track/‌actions/‌open

Open Actions

PWinstanley: we have some proposals of ones to drop.

shall we drop 94?

annette_g says yes

<antoine> +1

PWinstanley: Dan Brickley and his blog post doesn't need to be an action, right?

+1

<azaroth> +1

<ncar> +1

<PWinstanley> +1

<DaveBrowning> +1

PWinstanley: good
… 129 is for Alejandra to create use cases for more complex situations.

I think it's just clutter. What do others think?

<kcoyle> yep, clutter

<roba> retire it

+1

<ncar> yes

<azaroth> +1

<PWinstanley> +1

<DaveBrowning> +1

PWinstanley: okay, let's bin that one.

<antoine> I don't remember what it's about so +1

PWinstanley: 124 is old, too. Karen, you were thinking this should be retired?

kcoyle: I think it's covered in changes to the DCAT document? Dave?

<ncar> Isn't 124 a Guidance subgroup relevant action?

<roba> 124 still seems relevant - given hiatus in dealing with issue

<ncar> can be addressed tomorrow

kcoyle: we'll leave it if it's still relevant

PWinstanley: okay

<ncar> yes

PWinstanley: there are other actions to look at. Can we drop 163, Nick?

CLOSE 163

CLOSE ACTION 163

<ncar> all conneg items, no label though

PWinstanley: 209, 210, 212, 214, 215 are Nick's

ncar: those are all conneg items that didn't get the tag for it.

PWinstanley: okay, so we will keep those open. ProfileDesc gap analysis is the exception. Let's let that one stay open.

<ncar> yes please!

<DaveBrowning> Let me type this (Safari upgrade has caused webex failure)

antoine: offers to tag them

<DaveBrowning> Short version: will time box 2PWD work

DCAT subgroup meeting, short report

<DaveBrowning> Draft for review available 24th (next Monday)

<DaveBrowning> Suggest that give pplenary a week to review - formal motion next week

<DaveBrowning> Assuming that's okay

PWinstanley: I hope everyone is okay with that brief turnaround

kcoyle: what's the best way to handle that? github?

<DaveBrowning> Probably easier by email, so we can group PRs.....

<DaveBrowning> Yes - lets discuss

kcoyle: I will do an editorial review

<DaveBrowning> Thanks kcoyle

kcoyle: will contact Dave directly with questions for that.

PWinstanley: any other points to discuss on DCAT subgroup?

crickets

profile guidance

<kcoyle> https://‌w3c.github.io/‌dxwg/‌profiles/‌index-structure242.html

PWinstanley: last week, we decided ProfileDesc would be written up as a note. Of the four outlines, only one didn't incorporate ProfileDesc in the document. But Antoine wrote the doc linked above. (structure 242)
… so we have two main docs, the one Nick started and the one Antoine has been working on. We want to merge them over the next few days or weeks.

<ncar> https://‌w3c.github.io/‌dxwg/‌profiles/

PWinstanley: Can Antoine and Nick talk through their two docs? And lets engage with it so that many hands make light work. This is due in the first quarter, FPWD.

ncar: it's really just got a bunch of administrative things. definitions, related work. It lists the requirements for the group to address. It shows how responses to different requirements would look. There's about 14 reqs that have been approved in plenary.

antoine: I was not super creative. It reflects the structure in issue 242. I included the text from Nick wherever I thought it could be included. The intro is from Nick. It has "what is a profile". Something new would be the idea of trying to pick up some requirements and say that they are answered by resolutions that we took.
… I like the principle of what Nick suggested, though it isn't in here.
… section 6 on ProfileDesc may be a departure in the sense that I see the sections as introductions to the other documents, conneg and ProfileDesc.

<antoine> (and section 3 on publication)

PWinstanley: I think we could spend a little time dealing with coordination of the portfolio of products. Does anybody have questions or comments?

ncar: one question: the family of documents section is not there. Is it intentional?

antoine: it's there in the index
… not in the table of contents

<DaveBrowning> sotd is never in table of contets

PWinstanley: we should be doing things in small sprints and make sure we are coordinated. There's lots of material in the github issues. I'm up for being in the reading group.

kcoyle: can we divide up by section?

PWinstanley: I think we can have expressions of interest in this meeting.

ncar: some sections can clearly be handled by specific people. People like Andrea for communities. We need to do a demo of requirement addressing. I presume we can just ask tomorrow for the rest of it.

PWinstanley: were you thinking particularly of geoDCAT-AP, etc?

ncar: yes

<AndreaPerego> +1 from me to contributing about *DCAT-AP*

ncar: people should comment on what they know well.

PWinstanley: we do have application profiles for norwegian, ec, etc., so I can contribute that bit.

PWinstanley: annette_g you were interested in people who were putting up web assets via less sophisticated methods. Do you want to join in?

annette_g: sure

PWinstanley: so that gives us three
… is that okay?

<roba> annette had useful views about simplifying user viewpoint - hope we captured this in requirements

kcoyle: yes

PWinstanley: let's look at deadlines. Somewhere around the first week of October?

antoine: do you want to capture the volunteers here as actions?

Action: AndreaPerego to review the profiles doc

<trackbot> Created ACTION-219 - Review the profiles doc [on Andrea Perego - due 2018-09-25].

Action: PWinstanley to review the profiles doc

<trackbot> Created ACTION-220 - Review the profiles doc [on Peter Winstanley - due 2018-09-25].

Action: annette_g to review the profiles doc

<trackbot> Created ACTION-221 - Review the profiles doc [on Annette Greiner - due 2018-09-25].

PWinstanley: which issues are most difficult, Nick?

ncar: I'm happy to let people jump in and discover.

PWinstanley: the one Antoine developed had pretty much everything that Nick had, except the requirements.

ncar: that's the only thing that's really different.
… I'm happy to override my one with Antoine's.
… no big conceptual differences. We just have to figure out how to deal with requirements. However we split those out is fine.

PWinstanley: are you happy with that, Rob?

roba: yes, I think they're converging anyway.

PWinstanley: looks like we'll have something in the next 48 hours.

antoine: I was envisioning that the reqs could be included in the structure. Nick's idea of running through a demo seems good. Then we need to think about how to incorporate those into the structure.

annette_g: I find it awkward to see a list of requirements in the doc.

<kcoyle> https://‌lists.w3.org/‌Archives/‌Public/‌public-dxwg-wg/‌2018Sep/‌0070.html

<PWinstanley> annette_g: I wouldn't want to base too much of the structure on the requirements - we just need to ensure that we respond to each them in the text

kcoyle: there are some requirements missing that need to be added.

PWinstanley: they need to be stuck on a scratchpad somewhere.

PWinstanley: Nick and Antoine can take those into account.

ncar: to annette's point, I think we need to list the requirements initially to ensure we catch them all.

+1

<antoine> +1

ncar: so those 5 extra ones are wording complete but didn't have the tag "plenary approved". Can kcoyle add those tags?

antoine: even if the list is incomplete, we can still work with it.
… I think I saw somewhere that the UCR group meets in September. Is that something that group would want to do?

ncar: I don't think we need to wait on the UCR group. If we plenary approve a bunch now, we can work with that. The UCR group can take a look after that.

antoine: If we can get the complete list of approved reqs, that's great, but we can still make progress without.

PWinstanley: let's move on.

profile negotiation group

ncar: in the last meeting, we substantially addressed responses to the IETF draft. There are some reasonable changes to be made to the doc agreed. It looks like we will be able to have a FPWD of the W3C doc soon. Things are going okay.

PWinstanley: we've got in the agenda three lots of use cases with the question whether they are still needed. Two others have had no or little discussion. Can we drop them?

<PWinstanley> https://‌github.com/‌w3c/‌dxwg/‌issues/‌223

This is about things like documents, geospatial standards, etc.

ncar: I think that's going to be covered naturally.

<DaveBrowning> +1 to ncar summary

PWinstanley: I think that's why there's been little discussion on it. Any other comments?

roba: I agree that it's largely covered. It suggests a particular solution, but I think content negotiation via profile covers the requirements.

<azaroth> +1 to archiving. Creating things like Work and Series seem very out of scope

PROPOSED: that we archive github issue 223 and do not pursue it. We will verify later with the author (Stijn) that it is covered.

<azaroth> +1

<DaveBrowning> +1

<ncar> +1

<kcoyle> +1

<PWinstanley> +1

+1

<antoine> +1

<RiccardoAlbertoni> +1

<roba> +1

Resolved: that we archive github issue 223 and do not pursue it. We will verify later with the author (Stijn) that it is covered.

<PWinstanley> https://‌github.com/‌w3c/‌dxwg/‌issues/‌224

<Zakim> azaroth, you wanted to mention POE WG

<DaveBrowning> DCAT revision hasn't completed rights, licenses yet - so may be relevant

ncar: I think this is also something that's going to get covered anyway. Same as the last one.

<AndreaPerego> +1 to ncar

<roba> +1

<azaroth> POE WG: https://‌www.w3.org/‌2016/‌poe/‌wiki/‌Main_Page

azaroth: I would like to see this put out of scope. It would conflict with the permissions and obligations expressions group.

<ncar> +1 (my suggestions & Rob S's can work together)

PWinstanley: If we need, we can point across to permissions and obligations group.

<azaroth> Agreed they're sympatico

PROPOSED: to archive github issue number 224 and check with Stijn to verify that what we did is okay with him.

<kcoyle> +1

<azaroth> +1

<RiccardoAlbertoni> +1 to AndreaPerego ( provide some guidance)

AndreaPerego: this is overlapping with another use case. We can rely on what is done in the vocabulary group. We can provide good practices on how to use them.

+1 to archive it

<ncar> +1

<roba> +1

<DaveBrowning> +1

<PWinstanley> +1

<azaroth> +1 (to the current proposal to archive)

AndreaPerego: if it is archiving, it's fine for me, provided we look into guidance on the use of dct:rights, dct:license, dct:accessRights in DCAT.

PWinstanley: it is archiving with verification by Stijn.

<AndreaPerego> +1

<antoine> +1

<RiccardoAlbertoni> +1

PWinstanley: we're down to 2 minutes.

<ncar> UC #239 should have been removed from minutes

PWinstanley: anybody else have comments?

<ncar> (agreed in a previous meeting)

PWinstanley: but we'll have another one next week.

ncar: 1-second resolution of UC239, we've already voted to remove that.

Resolved: to remove 239

PWinstanley: thanks all for a very good meeting.

Resolved: to archive github issue number 224 and check with Stijn to verify that what we did is okay with him.

<azaroth> Thanks all!

<AndreaPerego> Thanks, and bye!

<RiccardoAlbertoni> bye good night!