19:50:56 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #dxwgcneg
19:50:56 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2018/10/10-dxwgcneg-irc
19:50:58 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
19:50:58 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #dxwgcneg
19:51:00 <trackbot> Meeting: Dataset Exchange Working Group Teleconference
19:51:00 <trackbot> Date: 10 October 2018
19:51:18 <LarsG> Meeting: DXWG CNEG Subgroup Teleconference
19:51:35 <LarsG> RRSAgent, please draft minutes v2
19:51:35 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/10/10-dxwgcneg-minutes.html LarsG
19:54:00 <azaroth> azaroth has joined #dxwgcneg
19:59:05 <ncar> ncar has joined #dxwgcneg
19:59:41 <roba> roba has joined #dxwgcneg
20:00:31 <LarsG> present+
20:00:49 <LarsG> Chair: LarsG
20:01:00 <ncar> present+
20:01:33 <azaroth> present+
20:02:31 <LarsG> apologies+ Antoine
20:03:20 <roba> * ugh now i have to find a webex password
20:07:34 <azaroth> scribenick: azaroth
20:07:41 <azaroth> TOPIC: Review Agenda
20:07:46 <LarsG> https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/Meetings:CNEG-Telecon2018.10.10
20:08:12 <azaroth> LarsG: Main topics are progress on FPWD and might need to discuss new meeting time
20:08:28 <azaroth> ... end of DST in Europe in 3 weeks, Australia is ... weird
20:08:39 <azaroth> ... Anything else?
20:08:57 <azaroth> ncar: All the effort is around FPWD, think we need to discuss that
20:09:00 <azaroth> TOPIC:  Approve minutes
20:09:11 <LarsG> PROPOSED: Approve minutes
20:09:14 <roba> +1
20:09:17 <ncar> +1
20:09:18 <LarsG> https://www.w3.org/2018/09/26-dxwgcneg-minutes.html
20:09:19 <LarsG> +1
20:09:22 <azaroth> +0 (not present)
20:09:38 <LarsG> RESOLVED: Approve minutes
20:09:51 <azaroth> TOPIC: Action items
20:09:54 <LarsG> https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/track/products/4
20:09:58 <azaroth> ncar: we did have a couple ...
20:10:09 <azaroth> LarsG: Product list only has three
20:10:41 <azaroth> ... our product is product 4
20:11:02 <azaroth> ncar: I can report on these
20:11:16 <azaroth> ... 212 is make an issue for profile version, have done that. Issue #391.
20:11:23 <azaroth> ... question is does it appear in the document somewhere?
20:11:34 <LarsG> ISSUE-212?
20:11:34 <trackbot> Sorry, but ISSUE-212 does not exist.
20:11:36 <azaroth> ... answer is ... yes it does :) It's a singleton issue that we might consider removingt
20:11:41 <LarsG> ACTION-212?
20:11:41 <trackbot> ACTION-212 -- Nicholas Car to Create an issue for profile version representation or not via identifier for w3c conneg doc -- due 2018-09-19 -- PENDINGREVIEW
20:11:41 <trackbot> https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/track/actions/212
20:11:42 <azaroth> ... in the PR version.
20:12:03 <azaroth> ... Rendered version of the PR document ... might talk about that in a minute
20:12:19 <azaroth> ... Appears in two places. In its own section, and the issue list. So can close action.
20:12:23 <azaroth> LarsG: Fair enough!
20:12:27 <LarsG> close ACTION-212
20:12:28 <trackbot> Closed ACTION-212.
20:13:03 <azaroth> ncar: 214 is add a section to the doc to lay out recommendations for FPWD. Was confused, made a PR last week, but forgot what else we wanted to put in
20:13:11 <azaroth> ... made a section but there's no content in it.
20:13:25 <azaroth> ... so have followed to the letter, but haven't worked out the details
20:13:33 <azaroth> LarsG: downside of 10pm, can't remember either!
20:13:54 <azaroth> ncar: I looked at the minutes, but couldn't work it out. Noted in the action that I suggested we remove it
20:14:01 <azaroth> ... no other group has such a section
20:14:19 <azaroth> ... the FPWD seems like a whole document thing, rather than a section in the doc
20:14:41 <azaroth> ncar: DCAT people have it fairly easy as they copied the old spec and noted what to do differently
20:14:48 <azaroth> s/ncar/larsg/
20:15:13 <azaroth> ncar: I think we either had to write down the recommendations, or to write down what FPWD needs to tick boxes for structure etc.
20:15:27 <azaroth> roba: Could close and ignore if the latter, and for the former we've done the issues
20:15:34 <azaroth> ncar: can just remove the section
20:15:48 <azaroth> LarsG: Should be the former, don't need a meta discussion in teh document about hte document
20:15:51 <azaroth> s/teh/the/
20:16:03 <azaroth> ncar: A section about recommendations?
20:16:10 <LarsG> s/hte/the/
20:16:17 <azaroth> roba: Doc is a recommendation. So just specify normative requirements.
20:16:25 <azaroth> ncar: Yeah, just get rid of the section
20:16:32 <azaroth> LarsG: Would leave us with [list of sections]
20:16:39 <ncar> http://htmlpreview.github.io/?https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/blob/conneg-doc/conneg-by-ap/index.html
20:16:40 <azaroth> ncar: That's where we're missing stuff. Link ...
20:16:46 <azaroth> ... HTML rendering of the PR
20:17:07 <azaroth> ... rawgit is shutting down, so using a worse service that doesn't do things like letting you click through links
20:17:39 <azaroth> ... imagine section 5 is removed. Related work describes the profile guidance and IETF draft
20:18:05 <azaroth> ... Important things are after the related work, there's two sections. Need something to test conceptually and specifically
20:18:16 <azaroth> ... abstract model is what is conneg in general, and put in a GH issue to discuss
20:18:25 <azaroth> roba: Definitions and diagram.
20:18:42 <azaroth> ncar: must be some abstract way to describe the functionality, some sort of UML thing.
20:18:48 <azaroth> roba: a sequence diagram
20:19:10 <azaroth> ncar: Yeah, not a trouble for the group.  Abstract, then for specifics see the sections / related docs
20:19:18 <azaroth> ... put in issue 463 for the implementation question
20:19:38 <azaroth> ... puts a serious task on the doc to define things, rather than pass on to other docs
20:20:06 <azaroth> roba: would propose that negotiation by http terminology, then extract those as definitions, write a sequence diagram with those terms
20:20:32 <azaroth> ... and the query string argument implementation pattern, have the issue of whether we have a canonical version or if we map to those arguments
20:20:44 <azaroth> ... could be to list the profiles, the server has to tell the user which arguments are used for conneg
20:20:58 <azaroth> ... either have a metadata problem, or a canonicalization problem :)
20:21:08 <azaroth> ... thing to start with is extracting the key concepts from ietf work
20:21:15 <azaroth> ... happy to take an action to do the sequence diagram
20:21:39 <azaroth> ... good to make it fit with the information diagram.  If you do the model, I'll do the sequence, and lars can extract key elements?
20:22:02 <azaroth> ncar: Can I go back one -- with those sections does that look like we're covering the scope required for FPWD?
20:22:13 <azaroth> ... have intro, motivation, abstract model, and specific realizations
20:22:19 <azaroth> ... then test suite and implementations
20:22:23 <azaroth> q+
20:22:35 <azaroth> ... only now do we have the full amount to cover
20:22:40 <azaroth> ack azaroth
20:22:43 <LarsG> ack azaroth
20:23:20 <azaroth> https://www.w3.org/TR/annotation-model/
20:24:08 <LarsG> azaroth: test suite and implementation report don't have to be in the document
20:24:31 <LarsG> ... they can develop separately from the spec
20:24:46 <LarsG> ncar: where is the link?
20:24:53 <LarsG> azaroth: at the top of the spec
20:25:08 <LarsG> ncar: Is that respec magic?
20:25:25 <LarsG> azaroth: [checking github...]
20:25:57 <azaroth> respect code: "implementationReportURI": "https://w3c.github.io/test-results/annotation-model/all.html",
20:26:05 <LarsG> ncar: do the tests live in a different github repo?
20:26:24 <LarsG> azaroth: several test-* repositories in W3C
20:26:55 <LarsG> ... bit of a pain to use since you have to download everything separately
20:27:16 <LarsG> ncar: The SHACL implementation report is a separate section
20:27:31 <LarsG> ... more lightweight to push and pull against a smaller repo
20:27:53 <LarsG> ... don't know if how SHACL want to continue maintaining this repo
20:28:10 <LarsG> ... what is your recommendation?
20:28:27 <LarsG> azaroth: This should be discussed at TPAC
20:29:04 <LarsG> ncar: at meeting yesterday we were asked to submit topics for TPAC
20:29:05 <azaroth> ACTION: azaroth to submit topic for face to face meeting about test runner/ results repositories
20:29:05 <trackbot> Created ACTION-231 - Submit topic for face to face meeting about test runner/ results repositories [on Robert Sanderson - due 2018-10-17].
20:29:48 <LarsG> ... and then we need to discuss the removal of section 9 in current ED
20:30:31 <LarsG> roba: Specifications should be in a testable form, that's at least OGC policy
20:30:46 <LarsG> ... test suite is just a version of the requirements
20:31:10 <LarsG> ncar: So we just refer to an executable script to do the testing?
20:31:29 <azaroth> scribenick: azaroth
20:32:00 <LarsG> ncar: if we take "two implementations" seriously, is it OK just to link
20:32:05 <LarsG> ... to the implementation report?
20:32:15 <LarsG> azaroth: No, it's part of the process
20:32:24 <LarsG> ncar: Then §9 can go
20:33:33 <LarsG> azaroth: annotation model implementation report was written to make it easy
20:33:40 <LarsG> ... to go from CR to PR
20:33:56 <LarsG> ncar: Then we can remove §9
20:34:01 <azaroth> ACTION: ncar to remove section test suite and implementation sections
20:34:02 <trackbot> Created ACTION-232 - Remove section test suite and implementation sections [on Nicholas Car - due 2018-10-17].
20:34:07 <azaroth> scribenick: azaroth
20:34:37 <azaroth> ncar: If we can answer the question that the debate came from, if we remove that section and make it a link ... does that look like the structure for FPWD?
20:34:44 <azaroth> ... [sections]
20:34:53 <azaroth> ... added privacy / security considerations section
20:35:04 <azaroth> +1 to that list, minus test suite :)
20:35:09 <azaroth> LarsG: That could work
20:35:20 <azaroth> roba: It's only FPWD, can tune it
20:35:35 <azaroth> ncar: would someone encountering the doc get a sense of what we're talking about and how things will be dealt with
20:35:49 <azaroth> ... would they look at the sections and think it was sensible
20:35:53 <azaroth> ... heading towards FPWD
20:36:09 <azaroth> LarsG: think it'll work. Before it's published, it needs to be reviewed by the WG anyway
20:36:15 <azaroth> ... be signed off by plenary
20:36:19 <azaroth> ... perhaps in Lyon
20:36:32 <azaroth> ncar: Keen to make sure we're stepping through it properly
20:36:37 <azaroth> ... okay, will make those changes today
20:36:48 <azaroth> ... will put in a fake link to an implementation report but will be there in concept
20:36:53 <azaroth> roba: just a stub page
20:37:07 <azaroth> ncar: Another PR, but assuming that goes through, we can submit to plenary
20:37:20 <azaroth> ... have looked at w3c validation system to ensure I have all the things correct ... not been pleasant
20:37:36 <azaroth> ... validation tool doesn't work with the doc as we write it, it requires the static html
20:37:45 <azaroth> ... e.g. post JS rendered, lots of false errors
20:37:53 <azaroth> ... dont' have a title, but can see that we do
20:38:01 <azaroth> roba: It probably looks for css class declarations
20:38:09 <azaroth> ncar: tried to improve some of those
20:38:16 <azaroth> ... e.g. informative sections are tagged
20:38:21 <azaroth> ... adds in the css itself
20:38:41 <azaroth> ... tried to follow that as best as I can following things like SHACL, but not critical for FPWD
20:39:01 <azaroth> LarsG: You click the respec button and click export, then put it through the validator?
20:39:10 <azaroth> ncar: Oh, I was doing DOM inspection
20:39:16 <azaroth> ... that would have saved some time
20:40:03 <azaroth> LarsG: not sure if that is the way it works
20:40:09 <azaroth> azaroth: Yup, that's how it works :)
20:40:27 <azaroth> ncar: pubrules is a pain ... have to reference something that's hosted
20:40:40 <azaroth> ... can do that but need to do it by hand, can't just upload a chunk of text
20:40:54 <azaroth> ... could make some suggestions ;D
20:41:14 <azaroth> ... what we've written looks similar to recent specs, so validation errors should be minor and solvable
20:41:19 <azaroth> ... not a barrier to FPWD
20:41:26 <azaroth> ... if agreed, I'll go ahead with the edits.
20:41:37 <azaroth> ... can cycle back to who should do what, w.r.t. abstract models and realizations
20:42:15 <azaroth> roba: proposed three actions - Lars to extract definitions from IETF, ncar to create minimal information model from that, and then for me to create a UML sequence diagram
20:42:33 <azaroth> ncar: Would that be ... a diagram of ...
20:43:00 <azaroth> roba: the information elements in the model if we need it. if there's a relationship in the definitions between a profile and the media types they're available in, we need some abstract name for that relationship
20:43:06 <azaroth> ... so when you implement it, it's there
20:43:17 <azaroth> ... got to tease out those "things".
20:43:26 <azaroth> ... nothing we don't already do, but don't have it yet
20:43:43 <azaroth> ncar: would be interesting, as looks like a generalized version of the model i've been using for alternative views
20:44:10 <azaroth> ... trying to achieve the same task. has view, format, with relationship ... looking at the terminology and implementing a model for it, would be a better informed version of thatt model
20:44:15 <azaroth> ... related to the profile ontology
20:44:28 <azaroth> roba: exactly right, would make the relationship visible
20:44:37 <azaroth> ncar: would be dependent on Lars' action
20:44:50 <azaroth> roba: a minimal list of definitions and descriptions of the critical sequences
20:44:55 <azaroth> LarsG: definitions of ... what?
20:45:29 <azaroth> roba: for example if the process says that the client asks for something from the server with a name ... e.g. a header that gets back a list of profile identifiers, that's what we need ot have in the diagram
20:45:44 <azaroth> ... extract those terms for a diagram
20:46:01 <azaroth> ... not sure what status those definitions have. can review them for stability
20:46:08 <azaroth> LarsG: Ruben's definitions will go in there too
20:46:09 <azaroth> q+
20:46:14 <azaroth> ... for us to figure out!
20:46:32 <azaroth> ... I can extract my definitions and create diagram from that for FPWD. If need to change it later, no problem
20:46:38 <azaroth> ack q
20:46:40 <azaroth> ack azaroth
20:47:26 <azaroth> azaroth: synchronization between IETF and W3C docs??
20:47:42 <azaroth> ncar: depends if it was a breaking change or not
20:48:01 <azaroth> ... if it breaks the conceptual model,  would need to change the way things are described
20:48:11 <azaroth> roba: Try to keep in sync until we reach a decision point
20:48:36 <azaroth> azaroth: updates about IETF doc?
20:48:57 <azaroth> LarsG: Herbert has opted out. Ruben has promised to start working on it again in same week as TPAC
20:49:19 <azaroth> ACTION: Lars to extract definitions to form basis of abstract model
20:49:20 <trackbot> Created ACTION-233 - Extract definitions to form basis of abstract model [on Lars G. Svensson - due 2018-10-17].
20:49:35 <azaroth> ACTION: ncar to use definitions to create abstract model diagram and text
20:49:36 <trackbot> Created ACTION-234 - Use definitions to create abstract model diagram and text [on Nicholas Car - due 2018-10-17].
20:49:54 <azaroth> ACTION: roba to create sequence diagram from abstract model and definitions
20:49:54 <trackbot> Created ACTION-235 - Create sequence diagram from abstract model and definitions [on Rob Atkinson - due 2018-10-17].
20:50:19 <azaroth> ncar: that's all I had to discuss at the meeting :)
20:51:21 <azaroth> roba: One item to put up for feedback ... number of activities in the OGC space have been looking at the use of JSON-LD. Has a mechanism for a context ... hope Rob S can enlighten us ... trying to figure out relationship between context and profile
20:51:35 <azaroth> ... sort of a namespace for a profile. Perhaps a full expression of a profile, like a schema
20:52:07 <LarsG> azaroth: A context document in JSON-LD is a mapping of RDF predicates to JSON keys
20:52:26 <LarsG> ... e. g. DC title and you want to use title in JSON, you map dc:title to title
20:52:34 <LarsG> ... in the context (document)
20:53:01 <LarsG> ... it's not a definitional document, so you cannot define new terms
20:53:26 <LarsG> ... several tricks that can be done in order to create the desired JSON structure
20:53:37 <LarsG> ... without constraining the triples
20:53:52 <LarsG> roba: can that express constraints as in a profile?
20:54:15 <LarsG> azaroth: not quite. can see why it's possible to think of them as constraints,
20:54:25 <LarsG> roba: feels like constraints/profiles
20:54:40 <azaroth> Example:  {"@context":  {"dc": "http://blablaba.org/ns", "title": "dc:title"}}
20:54:53 <LarsG> azaroth: I don't think of them as constraints.
20:55:36 <LarsG> ... it's closer to namespace prefixes, but you can map the whole term
20:55:53 <LarsG> ... it's also possible to import complete contexts and merge them
20:56:20 <LarsG> ... and not create new terms or mappings but re-using what's there already
20:56:36 <LarsG> ... some JSON document conforms to a profile if it uses the names
20:56:41 <LarsG> ... specified in the context.
20:56:50 <LarsG> roba: so it's necessary but not sufficient?
20:57:00 <LarsG> azaroth: correct
20:57:20 <LarsG> ... part of the work in JSON-LD WG because others want to do conneg
20:57:50 <LarsG> ... based on frames etc, saying "I want this particular part of the graph
20:57:58 <LarsG> ... to look like this"
20:58:08 <LarsG> roba: so is this emerging?
20:58:14 <LarsG> azaroth: yes.
20:58:15 <azaroth> https://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld11-framing/
20:58:36 <LarsG> ... part of the community group, not WG
20:58:52 <LarsG> ... now it's about creating an API
20:59:19 <LarsG> roba: we probably need to bring this into focus in DXWG, seems relevant
20:59:25 <LarsG> ... how do we do that?
20:59:51 <LarsG> azaroth: kcoyle has agreed to have a 90 minute block for joint discussion
20:59:59 <LarsG> ... with JSON-LD WG
21:00:30 <LarsG> ... and how that impacts conneg (how to request a specific format for a
21:00:37 <LarsG> ... JSON-LD doc)
21:00:47 <LarsG> ... (hope I got that right...)
21:01:20 <azaroth> LarsG: 2 minutes to talk about meeting time?
21:01:54 <azaroth> ... from my point of view, this time slot is good
21:02:14 <azaroth> ncar: this time is good for me
21:02:18 <azaroth> azaroth: good for me
21:02:22 <azaroth> roba: fine for me too
21:02:24 <azaroth> :)
21:02:38 <azaroth> LarsG: And for me an hour earlier
21:03:36 <azaroth> rrsagent, set log public
21:03:41 <azaroth> rrsagent, generate minutes
21:03:41 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/10/10-dxwgcneg-minutes.html azaroth
21:04:12 <LarsG> Bye all
21:04:17 <azaroth> zakim, bye
21:04:17 <Zakim> leaving.  As of this point the attendees have been LarsG, ncar, azaroth
21:04:17 <Zakim> Zakim has left #dxwgcneg
21:04:21 <ncar> present-
21:05:22 <LarsG> RRSAgent, please generate minutes v2
21:05:22 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/10/10-dxwgcneg-minutes.html LarsG