– DRAFT –
DXWG Plenary
25 September 2018
* have my cup of tea - but still on european time so more awake :-)
<PWinstanley> https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2018.09.25
propose: approve minutes https://www.w3.org/2018/09/18-dxwg-minutes
<SimonCox> 0 - wasn't there
<annette_g> +1
<kcoyle> +1
<PWinstanley> +1
<alejandra> 0 - wasn't present
<Jaroslav_Pullmann> 0 - missed the meeting
<DaveBrowning> +1
<ncar> +1
+1
<antoine> +1
Resolved: approve minutes https://www.w3.org/2018/09/18-dxwg-minutes
<PWinstanley> open actions https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/track/actions/open
<PWinstanley> https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/F2f4
<Makx> me so will try to follow irc
PWinstanley: thanks Karen for starting this. Need to use first day to review position and see what needs to be done in the final "home run" form here
… can everyone dump into wiki ideas about what we need to consider
… reminder to pay W3C before prices go up
<DaveBrowning> https://rawgit.com/w3c/dxwg/dcat-2pwd-internal-review/dcat/index.html
DaveBrowning: new 2PWD best accessed via this link
<SimonCox> and the actual ED is here https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/dcat/
DaveBrowning: what we need - fresh pair of eyes - look at it as if you havent seen it before please
<SimonCox> Section 11.1 is particularly interesting in current context
<alejandra> people can also change the change history section https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/dcat/#changes and analyse mainly those changes
<alejandra> and relevant sections of the document
<SimonCox> https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/dcat/#dcat-sdo
<ncar> https://rawgit.com/w3c/dxwg/profile-guidance-doc/profiles/index.html
ncar: quite a few changes made in as per decision in last plenary and sub group meeting
… PR review approved but not merged
PWinstanley: @ncar and @antoine have merged structures?
ncar: yes - we are now ready for inserting substantive content
… we have some comments from @annette_g to merge in, need more, but ready for some sort of release now we have issues recorded
… effort available to edit to keep up with discussions
<PWinstanley> https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/profiledesc/
<ncar> https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/profilesont/
<PWinstanley> ack ncar
ncar: updated to align structurally and visually with dcat
… name tweaked to remove "desc" which has been problematic
<alejandra> I like the "Participate" section - we should copy that into the DCAT 2ndPWD
PWinstanley: what are milestones and timeframe?
<Makx> +1 to alejandra
<DaveBrowning> +1 to the participate idea
ncar: issues identified (and latest cut of requirements) do not seem to indicate significant changes to existing version
<PWinstanley> kcoyle: we should discuss the change of name from 'description' to 'ontology'
<PWinstanley> roba: it is an implementation of the conceptual model . I think that 'desc' is redundant, and I'm not sure that there is another conceptual model so using ontology is less ugly
kcoyle: concerned about name change - are we describing profiles
roba: name change is consistent with the fact profiles is an ontology that implements the conceptual model implied in the agreed definition
ncar: note profiles not profile - because it describes how profiles relate to each each other
antoine: profiles feels more authoritative - profiledesc is ugly but matches the one implementation
<SimonCox> IMHO its not a deal-breaker either way
antoine: quite like it as profiledesc
PWinstanley: should we vote on this
antoine: would like to vote - but later we after other potentially related information
<alejandra> it could also be 'vocabulary'
<alejandra> as in DCAT
kcoyle: should be brought to the profile group then plenary. names are important
+1 to discuss in subgroup
ncar: notes issue has been in document to consider renaming
… guidance around use of "vocabulary" vs "ontology" please
SimonCox: precedents in W3C both ways
<Makx> Ontology seems to imply OWL expression
SimonCox: vocabularies may have OWL
<annette_g> ontology = vocabulary + relationships
profile(s/desc) is OWL - specifically to link to dct:sStandard
ncar: happy to take action
Action: ncar to check on vocabulary vs ontology usage and bring back to the group
<trackbot> Created ACTION-223 - Check and bring back to the group [on Nicholas Car - due 2018-10-02].
ncar: met 2 weeks ago, again tomorrow
… agreed and implemented changes to doc
… demonstration/example of how requirements will be met, particularly w.r.t. to the IETF document
PWinstanley: is there any requests for input
ncar: IETF draft is an issue - formally expired but reliant on input from Ruben and Lars in timeframe
PWinstanley: does it present a risk?
ncar: need comment from Lars
PWinstanley: does IETF have a schedule
ncar: not sure
Action: ncar to bring back to the group a risk assessment on IETF draft
<trackbot> Created ACTION-224 - Bring back to the group a risk assessment on ietf draft [on Nicholas Car - due 2018-10-02].
<PWinstanley> https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/238
This use case was APPROVED at the plenary meeting of August 28, 2018.
roba: editorial task now to include it
ncar: agrees
kcoyle: action on Jaro to update
Jaroslav_Pullmann: no action so far
… expect to get it done by F2F
… additional UC on 'real world' documents - need to look at discussions and update wording
roba: getting in UC should be easy - cleaning up and deduplicating requirements will be heavier - happy to review that
<Jaroslav_Pullmann> bye!
Succeeded: s/dxwg2017//
Succeeded: s/descision/decision/
Succeeded: s/realease/release/
Succeeded: s/check/check on vocabulary vs ontology usage/
Succeeded: s/working/wording/