– DRAFT –
DXWG Plenary

<SimonCox> rrsagent draft minutes

<PWinstanley> https://‌www.w3.org/‌2018/‌09/‌25-dxwg-minutes

approve minutes from last meeting (25th September)

https://‌www.w3.org/‌2018/‌09/‌25-dxwg-minutes

+1

<azaroth> +0 (was not present)

<roba> +1

<antoine> +1

<SimonCox> +1

<PWinstanley> +1

<annette_g> +1

<kcoyle> +1

Resolved: previous meeting minutes approved

open actions

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

PWinstanley: action 145
… it seems completed as there is now a repository manager associated with the github repository

kcoyle: what does it trigger the check?

kcoyle: I've been told that the check is about verifying if a person is in the group

alejandra: the check requires to link the github and the w3c accounts to verify a PR

PWinstanley: we will keep action 145 open

PWinstanley: action about jmeter?

roba: it's part of the profiles work

F2F4

<PWinstanley> https://‌www.w3.org/‌2017/‌dxwg/‌wiki/‌F2f4

PWinstanley: everyone planning to go should have booked their place on w3c and make travel arrangements
… check the agenda page
… we'll review where we are, check requirements, etc

kcoyle: for people attending remotely, let us know what times you'll be available

PWinstanley: please consider time zones

<Zakim> azaroth, you wanted to ask about JSON-LD / Profile Conneg joint session

azaroth: regrets for the F2F as I'll be in the JSON-LD group
… it would be great to arrange a joint session between JSON-LD and profile conneg
… I don't think it needs more than an hour
… we could organise a breakout

<PWinstanley> https://‌www.w3.org/‌2017/‌dxwg/‌wiki/‌F2f4#Ideas.2C_issues.2C_topics_to_discuss

PWinstanley: include idea in that section of the planning pages

DCAT-rev

<PWinstanley> https://‌rawgit.com/‌w3c/‌dxwg/‌dcat-2pwd-internal-review/‌dcat/‌index.html

PWinstanley: proposed 2nd PWD
… have people read it and are prepared to vote?

<kcoyle> ?+

<SimonCox> this was announced to the list 2 weeks ago

<alejandra_> PWinstanley: need to check moratorium for publication, was announced on the list

<alejandra_> kcoyle: October 17th is the last day for publications

<SimonCox> It was announced to the list here https://‌lists.w3.org/‌Archives/‌Public/‌public-dxwg-wg/‌2018Sep/‌0342.html

<alejandra_> PWinstanley: so we can give until the end of the week

<alejandra_> annette_g: since this is the 2nd draft, the criteria for acceptance should be stricter

<alejandra_> ... some small clarifications

<alejandra_> ... I've got some notes

<alejandra_> ... there is a statement about the DCAT profiles

<alejandra_> ... is there an intention to discriminate about profiles that have been using DCAT or DCAT profiles?

<SimonCox> annette_g: do you have a suggestion to correct the wording about profiles/conformance

<SimonCox> ?

<alejandra_> ... I had a difficult distinguishing between a Resource and a CatalogRecord

<alejandra_> ... I had a hard time telling the Resource from the Distribution and the DistributionService

<alejandra_> ... the chain of different levels we have has become more complicated

<alejandra_> ... things are defined very briefly in the overview and it might be a need to expand on the distinction between the classes

<alejandra_> ... my understanding is that DataService is a superclass for DataDistributionService

<alejandra_> SimonCox: yes

<alejandra_> annette_g: figure 1 is missing

<SimonCox> Figure 1 is there, the CSS/JS stuff seems to sometimes delay rendering - try refresh and it will show up

<SimonCox> you will have a harder time understanding the model without looking at the figure!

<alejandra_> ... in 6.9 says that DataDistribution is the superclass for discovery service

<SimonCox> Here is the figure https://‌w3c.github.io/‌dxwg/‌dcat/‌UML/‌DCAT-summary-all-attributes.png

<SimonCox> it really is easier to understand the model if you inspect this.

<PWinstanley> alejandra_: thanks for reading with fresh eyes. Please can you send the questions to me. As SimonCox pointed out some will perhaps be clarified by looking at the diagram, but if there are errors then we need to correct asap

<alejandra_> annette_g: usage note in 6.10

<alejandra_> ... is in discord with the distribution

<alejandra_> ... is the intention that distributions are informationally equivalents?

<alejandra_> ... if so, what distinguish them?

<alejandra_> SimonCox: different serializations

<alejandra_> PWinstanley: different formats - pdf vs csv, etc

<alejandra_> annette_g: that makes sense

<roba> i also had concerns re definition and applicability of " informational equivalence"

<alejandra_> we now have the "bag of files" solutions for when there are things that are not informational equivalent

<alejandra_> +1 to sending these comments via email or github issues

<roba> its in the issues - will chase it down (link should be in doc..)

<roba> https://‌github.com/‌w3c/‌dxwg/‌issues/‌52

<alejandra_> annette_g: in section 6.10.8 there are access services

<SimonCox> The 'information equivalent' question is being discussed at https://‌github.com/‌w3c/‌dxwg/‌issues/‌411

<alejandra_> ... and accessURL?

<alejandra_> PWinstanley / SimonCox: if I got a catalog, accessService points to the description of the data distribution service

<alejandra_> PWinstanley: we should take this offline and discuss them in issues

<alejandra_> ... could be part of the 2nd PWD review

<alejandra_> ... issues about interpretation rather than faults in the model

<SimonCox> accessService points the description of the DataDistributionService in a catalog (perhaps the same one), while accessURL points to the service endpoint itself

<riccardoAlbertoni> +1 to take these issues in the review after publication...

<alejandra_> roba: pointing out issue 411 (https://‌github.com/‌w3c/‌dxwg/‌issues/‌411) about meaning of informational equivalence

<alejandra_> ... should be reference in the draft

<alejandra_> ... clear definition of what that is

<alejandra_> ... given that it is an open issue, it should be called out in the document

<alejandra_> SimonCox: I agree that the issue 411 should be called out in section 6.10

<alejandra_> PWinstanley: other questions or points?

<alejandra_> PWinstanley: propose to vote about 2nd PWD with the change of issue 411, plus editorial change on link to DATS, send message to the list and wait until Friday this week

<alejandra_> Proposed: accept publication of 2nd PWD with the change of issue 411, plus editorial change on link to DATS, send message to the list and wait until Friday this week

<alejandra_> +1

<AndreaPerego> +1

<riccardoAlbertoni> +1

<azaroth> +1

<PWinstanley> +1

<roba> +1

<kcoyle> +1

<antoine> +1

<annette_g> -1

<SimonCox> +1

<alejandra_> annette_g: I think there is more than issue 411

<alejandra_> PWinstanley: propose to move ahead with rigour and speed - get it out and consider annette_g comment's as first comments for revision

Action: annette_g to add issues on github related to the comments on the 2nd PWD document

<trackbot> Created ACTION-227 - Add issues on github related to the comments on the 2nd pwd document [on Annette Greiner - due 2018-10-09].

<alejandra_> Proposed: accept publication of 2nd PWD with the change of issue 411 plus editorial change on link to DATS, consider after publication comments make by annette_g as per action 227, send message to the list and wait until Friday this week

<AndreaPerego> +1

<SimonCox> +1

<roba> +1

<PWinstanley> +1

<kcoyle> +1

<azaroth> +1

<riccardoAlbertoni> +1

<antoine> +1

<alejandra_> +1

<annette_g> that still doesn't say that we will mark issues in the 2PWD

<alejandra_> PWinstanley: what do you mean specifically?

<alejandra_> annette_g: the point about dcat profiles and better definitions of resources

<alejandra_> PWinstanley: is this an impediment for publication of 2nd public WD?

<azaroth> +1 to clearly marking issues in the draft

<alejandra_> annette_g: these things I pointed out should be included as issues in the draft

<alejandra_> PWinstanley: we can add a reference to action 227

<alejandra_> annette_g: I think that's fine, as long as we mark in some ways that there are still issues

<alejandra_> annette_g: I hadn't realised that there are so many github issues referenced

<SimonCox> See list of github issues referred to here https://‌w3c.github.io/‌dxwg/‌dcat/#issue-summary

<alejandra_> PWinstanley: between today and Friday, would you be able to put those comments on github and then make sure the draft points to the github issues

<alejandra_> annette_g: yes

<alejandra_> PWinstanley: we can clarify this in the email to people

<alejandra_> ... that this is still a working draft and not final

<alejandra_> ... to encourage people to review it

<annette_g> Proposed: accept publication of 2nd PWD with the change of adding links to GitHub issues for comments made by annette_g as per action 227, send message to the list and wait until Friday this week.

<AndreaPerego> +1

<azaroth> +1

<PWinstanley> +1

<kcoyle> +1

<annette_g> +1

<antoine> +1

<riccardoAlbertoni> +1

<alejandra_> the proposal is also considering issue 411 and editorial change

Resolved: accept publication of 2nd PWD with the change of issue 411 plus editorial change on link to DATS, consider after publication comments made by annette_g as per action 227, send message to the list and wait until Friday this week.

<riccardoAlbertoni> thanks, bye !

<roba> bye

<AndreaPerego> Thanks, bye bye!