zakin, who is here?
<ncar> https://www.w3.org/2018/09/05-profgui-minutes.html
<ncar> last meeting's minutes
<roba> +1
<ncar> +1
rrsagent: make logs public
0
<kcoyle> +1
<ncar> topis: Review open Actions for this subgroup
Resolved: minutes of last call approved
<ncar> https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/track/products/3
action-124 andrea not here
action 200 is done
close action-200
ncar: action 201 is done
close action-201
ncar: action 202. antoine suggested to change position of definitions so let's leave this one open
ncar: action 203. there's a section but empty
close action-203
close action-204
ncar: 205 is still open
ncar: 206 kcoyle this is what we've talked yesterday
… actions with no 'plenary-approved' tag
… do you want me to do this?
kcoyle: I've sent the list
ncar: I'll do it
ncar: 208 we've sent a mail to the group
… we'll find the link later, let's keep it for review
… 209 and 210 are not yet done
<ncar> https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/profiles/
<ncar> https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/profiles/index-structure242.html
ncar: we've discussed it yesterday
… would I do a PR for the requirements?
<kcoyle> antoine: put requirements in an appendix; distribute them into sections
ncar: I can update the index with index-242 and then a PR to include the requirements as a new section in appendix
<roba> +1
kcoyle: yes
… in the DCAT document they seem to have a section in the end about requirements
… most documents I've seen don't have a list. People just make sure they've addressed them
ncar: it's nice to keep track
kcoyle: yes some sort of notetaking
Action: ncar to merge the two documents retaining requirements as an appendix
roba: in principle we could just rely on issues
ncar: 1,2 and 5 look good as examples of different reqs
… for which responses would have different styles
… [reads profile and gives hint at why they're different]
<ncar> https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/profiles/
kcoyle: I'm not sure whether it's better to look at specific requirements
… we don't have yet the context
ncar: the reason is related to what's happening in the conneg group
… most requirements are answered by the RFC
… In our case some requirements might be addressed differently
… i.e. by some discursive comment on the nature of profiles
… or by adding a dedicated element in ProfileDesc
ncar: I want to do this only on a couple of requirements
roba: we may decide that it's not the way to do it, based on this so it would be useful.
… also we've spent a lot of time so it would be useful to talk back to the previous work.
… also for identifying when some requirements are met by existing proposals.
… and these which need something new
… it would be good to triage them and send them to different people.
ncar: I agree
… after this we could see a pattern
… req 7 could be a good one too.
roba: on using constraint languages, it's not that simple because constraint languages tend to provide patterns
… but there could be aspects that are not addressed by constraint languages.
ncar: so I could write something and you could react
<kcoyle> antoine: too soon because group hasn't reacted to structures but good to pick a few and try
<kcoyle> ... concern is timing not utility of exercise
ncar: on some we could have an answer
… it's something I would like to write down.
kcoyle: could we do it in the github issue so that we can have the discussion?
<roba> +1
kcoyle: instead of PRs
+1
<roba> wait for issue to converge on consensus - but a couple of examples now is also good
ncar: it could be a good idea
ncar: I can have a first go today
antoine: kcoyle are you thinking of the issues as handled in the Dublin Core Usage Board?
kcoyle: yes
antoine: I'll send them to ncar for inspiration
<roba> +1 - seems to be no barrier
antoine: see kcoyle 's email. How to refer to a non-normative doc from a normative one?
… I've tried to re-use the way it was done in DWBP
kcoyle: we should just try and see if it passes
… in my mail I've pasted the answer from Philippe
… if you look at DUV and DQV and how they're refered in DWBP there is subtlety
… we need to be sure there is subtlety in the doc when it is submitted
ncar: we could use requirements
kcoyle: I'm not sure we'll get anyone to look at it before it's a WD
ncar: so then we can give it a go
kcoyle: yes
https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/profiles/index-structure242.html#ProfileDesc
<roba> MAY seems to work well
<roba> in combination with SHOULD use a published vocabulary
kcoyle: I'd like us to develop some form of structure, discussing things before they become PRs or commits
… so that we have agreement beforehand
ncar: unless we leave them as notes
roba: notes could be ok with references to issues
kcoyle: first is the issue
ncar: it doesn't get in the text until the issue is approved
ncar: I will create github issues for the current issues in red and then we can go forward
rrsagent. please draft minutes
ncar: we'd like to change the name of ProfileDesc slightly
ncar: ProfileDesc was not ambiguous
Succeeded: s/it's that simple/it's not that simple