DXWG CNEG Subgroup Teleconference

10 October 2018

Meeting minutes

<LarsG> apologies+ Antoine

<roba> * ugh now i have to find a webex password

Review Agenda

<LarsG> https://‌www.w3.org/‌2017/‌dxwg/‌wiki/‌Meetings:CNEG-Telecon2018.10.10

LarsG: Main topics are progress on FPWD and might need to discuss new meeting time
… end of DST in Europe in 3 weeks, Australia is ... weird
… Anything else?

ncar: All the effort is around FPWD, think we need to discuss that

Approve minutes

<LarsG> PROPOSED: Approve minutes

<roba> +1

<ncar> +1

<LarsG> https://‌www.w3.org/‌2018/‌09/‌26-dxwgcneg-minutes.html

<LarsG> +1

+0 (not present)

Resolved: Approve minutes

Action items

<LarsG> https://‌www.w3.org/‌2017/‌dxwg/‌track/‌products/‌4

ncar: we did have a couple ...

LarsG: Product list only has three
… our product is product 4

ncar: I can report on these
… 212 is make an issue for profile version, have done that. Issue #391.
… question is does it appear in the document somewhere?

<LarsG> ISSUE-212?

<trackbot> Sorry, but ISSUE-212 does not exist.

ncar: answer is ... yes it does :) It's a singleton issue that we might consider removingt

<LarsG> ACTION-212?

<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

<trackbot> https://‌www.w3.org/‌2017/‌dxwg/‌track/‌actions/‌212

ncar: in the PR version.
… Rendered version of the PR document ... might talk about that in a minute
… Appears in two places. In its own section, and the issue list. So can close action.

LarsG: Fair enough!

<LarsG> close ACTION-212

<trackbot> Closed ACTION-212.

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
… made a section but there's no content in it.
… so have followed to the letter, but haven't worked out the details

LarsG: downside of 10pm, can't remember either!

ncar: I looked at the minutes, but couldn't work it out. Noted in the action that I suggested we remove it
… no other group has such a section
… the FPWD seems like a whole document thing, rather than a section in the doc

larsg: DCAT people have it fairly easy as they copied the old spec and noted what to do differently

ncar: I think we either had to write down the recommendations, or to write down what FPWD needs to tick boxes for structure etc.

roba: Could close and ignore if the latter, and for the former we've done the issues

ncar: can just remove the section

LarsG: Should be the former, don't need a meta discussion in the document about the document

ncar: A section about recommendations?

roba: Doc is a recommendation. So just specify normative requirements.

ncar: Yeah, just get rid of the section

LarsG: Would leave us with [list of sections]

<ncar> http://‌htmlpreview.github.io/?https://‌github.com/‌w3c/‌dxwg/‌blob/‌conneg-doc/‌conneg-by-ap/‌index.html

ncar: That's where we're missing stuff. Link ...
… HTML rendering of the PR
… rawgit is shutting down, so using a worse service that doesn't do things like letting you click through links
… imagine section 5 is removed. Related work describes the profile guidance and IETF draft
… Important things are after the related work, there's two sections. Need something to test conceptually and specifically
… abstract model is what is conneg in general, and put in a GH issue to discuss

roba: Definitions and diagram.

ncar: must be some abstract way to describe the functionality, some sort of UML thing.

roba: a sequence diagram

ncar: Yeah, not a trouble for the group. Abstract, then for specifics see the sections / related docs
… put in issue 463 for the implementation question
… puts a serious task on the doc to define things, rather than pass on to other docs

roba: would propose that negotiation by http terminology, then extract those as definitions, write a sequence diagram with those terms
… and the query string argument implementation pattern, have the issue of whether we have a canonical version or if we map to those arguments
… could be to list the profiles, the server has to tell the user which arguments are used for conneg
… either have a metadata problem, or a canonicalization problem :)
… thing to start with is extracting the key concepts from ietf work
… happy to take an action to do the sequence diagram
… 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?

ncar: Can I go back one -- with those sections does that look like we're covering the scope required for FPWD?
… have intro, motivation, abstract model, and specific realizations
… then test suite and implementations
… only now do we have the full amount to cover


<LarsG> azaroth: test suite and implementation report don't have to be in the document

<LarsG> ... they can develop separately from the spec

<LarsG> ncar: where is the link?

<LarsG> azaroth: at the top of the spec

<LarsG> ncar: Is that respec magic?

<LarsG> azaroth: [checking github...]

respect code: "implementationReportURI": "https://‌w3c.github.io/‌test-results/‌annotation-model/‌all.html",

<LarsG> ncar: do the tests live in a different github repo?

<LarsG> azaroth: several test-* repositories in W3C

<LarsG> ... bit of a pain to use since you have to download everything separately

<LarsG> ncar: The SHACL implementation report is a separate section

<LarsG> ... more lightweight to push and pull against a smaller repo

<LarsG> ... don't know if how SHACL want to continue maintaining this repo

<LarsG> ... what is your recommendation?

<LarsG> azaroth: This should be discussed at TPAC

<LarsG> ncar: at meeting yesterday we were asked to submit topics for TPAC

Action: azaroth to submit topic for face to face meeting about test runner/ results repositories

<trackbot> Created ACTION-231 - Submit topic for face to face meeting about test runner/ results repositories [on Robert Sanderson - due 2018-10-17].

<LarsG> ... and then we need to discuss the removal of section 9 in current ED

<LarsG> roba: Specifications should be in a testable form, that's at least OGC policy

<LarsG> ... test suite is just a version of the requirements

<LarsG> ncar: So we just refer to an executable script to do the testing?

<LarsG> ncar: if we take "two implementations" seriously, is it OK just to link

<LarsG> ... to the implementation report?

<LarsG> azaroth: No, it's part of the process

<LarsG> ncar: Then §9 can go

<LarsG> azaroth: annotation model implementation report was written to make it easy

<LarsG> ... to go from CR to PR

<LarsG> ncar: Then we can remove §9

Action: ncar to remove section test suite and implementation sections

<trackbot> Created ACTION-232 - Remove section test suite and implementation sections [on Nicholas Car - due 2018-10-17].

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?
… [sections]
… added privacy / security considerations section

+1 to that list, minus test suite :)

LarsG: That could work

roba: It's only FPWD, can tune it

ncar: would someone encountering the doc get a sense of what we're talking about and how things will be dealt with
… would they look at the sections and think it was sensible
… heading towards FPWD

LarsG: think it'll work. Before it's published, it needs to be reviewed by the WG anyway
… be signed off by plenary
… perhaps in Lyon

ncar: Keen to make sure we're stepping through it properly
… okay, will make those changes today
… will put in a fake link to an implementation report but will be there in concept

roba: just a stub page

ncar: Another PR, but assuming that goes through, we can submit to plenary
… have looked at w3c validation system to ensure I have all the things correct ... not been pleasant
… validation tool doesn't work with the doc as we write it, it requires the static html
… e.g. post JS rendered, lots of false errors
… dont' have a title, but can see that we do

roba: It probably looks for css class declarations

ncar: tried to improve some of those
… e.g. informative sections are tagged
… adds in the css itself
… tried to follow that as best as I can following things like SHACL, but not critical for FPWD

LarsG: You click the respec button and click export, then put it through the validator?

ncar: Oh, I was doing DOM inspection
… that would have saved some time

LarsG: not sure if that is the way it works

azaroth: Yup, that's how it works :)

ncar: pubrules is a pain ... have to reference something that's hosted
… can do that but need to do it by hand, can't just upload a chunk of text
… could make some suggestions ;D
… what we've written looks similar to recent specs, so validation errors should be minor and solvable
… not a barrier to FPWD
… if agreed, I'll go ahead with the edits.
… can cycle back to who should do what, w.r.t. abstract models and realizations

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

ncar: Would that be ... a diagram of ...

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
… so when you implement it, it's there
… got to tease out those "things".
… nothing we don't already do, but don't have it yet

ncar: would be interesting, as looks like a generalized version of the model i've been using for alternative views
… 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
… related to the profile ontology

roba: exactly right, would make the relationship visible

ncar: would be dependent on Lars' action

roba: a minimal list of definitions and descriptions of the critical sequences

LarsG: definitions of ... what?

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
… extract those terms for a diagram
… not sure what status those definitions have. can review them for stability

LarsG: Ruben's definitions will go in there too
… for us to figure out!
… I can extract my definitions and create diagram from that for FPWD. If need to change it later, no problem

azaroth: synchronization between IETF and W3C docs??

ncar: depends if it was a breaking change or not
… if it breaks the conceptual model, would need to change the way things are described

roba: Try to keep in sync until we reach a decision point

azaroth: updates about IETF doc?

LarsG: Herbert has opted out. Ruben has promised to start working on it again in same week as TPAC

Action: Lars to extract definitions to form basis of abstract model

<trackbot> Created ACTION-233 - Extract definitions to form basis of abstract model [on Lars G. Svensson - due 2018-10-17].

Action: ncar to use definitions to create abstract model diagram and text

<trackbot> Created ACTION-234 - Use definitions to create abstract model diagram and text [on Nicholas Car - due 2018-10-17].

Action: roba to create sequence diagram from abstract model and definitions

<trackbot> Created ACTION-235 - Create sequence diagram from abstract model and definitions [on Rob Atkinson - due 2018-10-17].

ncar: that's all I had to discuss at the meeting :)

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
… sort of a namespace for a profile. Perhaps a full expression of a profile, like a schema

<LarsG> azaroth: A context document in JSON-LD is a mapping of RDF predicates to JSON keys

<LarsG> ... e. g. DC title and you want to use title in JSON, you map dc:title to title

<LarsG> ... in the context (document)

<LarsG> ... it's not a definitional document, so you cannot define new terms

<LarsG> ... several tricks that can be done in order to create the desired JSON structure

<LarsG> ... without constraining the triples

<LarsG> roba: can that express constraints as in a profile?

<LarsG> azaroth: not quite. can see why it's possible to think of them as constraints,

<LarsG> roba: feels like constraints/profiles

Example: {"@context": {"dc": "http://‌blablaba.org/‌ns", "title": "dc:title"}}

<LarsG> azaroth: I don't think of them as constraints.

<LarsG> ... it's closer to namespace prefixes, but you can map the whole term

<LarsG> ... it's also possible to import complete contexts and merge them

<LarsG> ... and not create new terms or mappings but re-using what's there already

<LarsG> ... some JSON document conforms to a profile if it uses the names

<LarsG> ... specified in the context.

<LarsG> roba: so it's necessary but not sufficient?

<LarsG> azaroth: correct

<LarsG> ... part of the work in JSON-LD WG because others want to do conneg

<LarsG> ... based on frames etc, saying "I want this particular part of the graph

<LarsG> ... to look like this"

<LarsG> roba: so is this emerging?

<LarsG> azaroth: yes.


<LarsG> ... part of the community group, not WG

<LarsG> ... now it's about creating an API

<LarsG> roba: we probably need to bring this into focus in DXWG, seems relevant

<LarsG> ... how do we do that?

<LarsG> azaroth: kcoyle has agreed to have a 90 minute block for joint discussion

<LarsG> ... with JSON-LD WG

<LarsG> ... and how that impacts conneg (how to request a specific format for a

<LarsG> ... JSON-LD doc)

<LarsG> ... (hope I got that right...)

LarsG: 2 minutes to talk about meeting time?
… from my point of view, this time slot is good

ncar: this time is good for me

azaroth: good for me

roba: fine for me too


LarsG: And for me an hour earlier

<LarsG> Bye all

Summary of action items

  1. azaroth to submit topic for face to face meeting about test runner/ results repositories
  2. ncar to remove section test suite and implementation sections
  3. Lars to extract definitions to form basis of abstract model
  4. ncar to use definitions to create abstract model diagram and text
  5. roba to create sequence diagram from abstract model and definitions

Summary of resolutions

  1. Approve minutes
Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by Bert Bos's scribe.perl version 2.49 (2018/09/19 15:29:32), a reimplementation of David Booth's scribe.perl. See CVS log.


Succeeded: s/ncar/larsg/

Succeeded: s/teh/the/

Succeeded: s/hte/the/