06:00:50 RRSAgent has joined #dxwg 06:00:50 logging to https://www.w3.org/2018/10/25-dxwg-irc 06:01:03 Zakim has joined #dxwg 06:01:13 rrsagent, make logs public 06:01:26 meeting: DXWG f2f4 Day 1 06:02:35 SimonCox has joined #dxwg 06:03:41 Hi folk - I will not join the meeting this morning, but intend to join the first part of this afternnon's session when the discussion of DCAT will occur 06:04:10 (though it will be late for me 22:30-24:00) 06:09:54 present+ 06:09:58 DaveBrowning has joined #dxwg 06:16:12 present+ 06:20:20 AndreaPerego has joined #dxwg 06:20:29 present+ 06:22:55 LarsG has joined #dxwg 06:28:45 present+ 06:30:46 agenda: https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/F2f4#Agenda_Friday_October_26 06:31:18 meeting: DXWG f2f @ TPAC 2018 - Day 1 06:31:25 RRSAgent, make logs world 06:31:33 RRSAgent, draft minutes v2 06:31:33 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/10/25-dxwg-minutes.html AndreaPerego 06:31:41 RiccardoAlbertoni has joined #dxwg 06:31:46 present+ 06:31:51 present+ 06:31:51 chair: KCoyle and PWinstanley 06:31:56 present+ 06:32:07 chair: kcoyle 06:32:08 Topic: content negotiation requirements 06:32:10 RRSAgent, draft minutes v2 06:32:10 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/10/25-dxwg-minutes.html AndreaPerego 06:32:53 Linda has joined #dxwg 06:33:28 https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Aopen+label%3Arequirement+label%3Aprofile-negotiation 06:33:49 Linda has joined #dxwg 06:34:01 jtandy has joined #dxwg 06:34:06 kcoyle: asking LarsG for advice on how to get through quickly 06:34:28 Present+ jtandy 06:34:53 Present+ Linda 06:34:53 scribenick: PWinstanley 06:35:13 scribe: Peter 06:35:13 LarsG: are we just looking for what is / isn't in scope, or are we having a longer discussions. we need to have plenary approval or requirements and saying that it is in scope is sufficient. We also need a shhort discussion per requirement 06:35:21 azaroth has joined #dxwg 06:35:43 rrsagent, draft minutes v2 06:35:43 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/10/25-dxwg-minutes.html DaveBrowning 06:35:47 roba has joined #dxwg 06:38:05 RRSAgent, draft minutes v2 06:38:05 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/10/25-dxwg-minutes.html AndreaPerego 06:38:15 LarsG: on #290 the requirement is about the use of tokens as an alias for a profile URI 06:38:53 q+ 06:39:20 LarsG: in my view it is not controversial, but might need to be reworded 06:39:29 antoine has joined #dxwg 06:39:32 Jaroslav_Pullmann has joined #dxwg 06:39:52 ... we don't use tokens in the IETF, but would consider if it was a reuquirement 06:39:59 ack roba 06:40:02 q? 06:40:05 present+ antoine 06:40:16 jtandy has joined #dxwg 06:41:13 roba: seen references in W3C working draft that use tokens - so it is in real use. question is how does the server recognise the token. I would like it discussed in the IETF discussion to see if it is a requirement 06:41:25 FYI: please find the profile requirements based on the previous discussions (spreadsheet) here: https://rawgit.com/w3c/dxwg/ucr_profile_requirements/ucr/index.html#ProfilesRequirements 06:41:34 proposed: accept requirement shown at github #290 06:41:40 newton has joined #dxwg 06:41:40 +1 06:41:42 +1 06:41:43 +1 06:41:44 +1 06:41:45 +1 06:41:46 +1 06:41:50 +1 06:41:50 +1 06:42:07 +1 (find it here: https://rawgit.com/w3c/dxwg/ucr_profile_requirements/ucr/index.html#RPFALIAS) 06:42:18 ncar has joined #dxwg 06:42:22 +1 06:42:45 that's with ncar's proposed re-wording! 06:42:50 resolved: accept requirement shown at github #290 06:42:53 RRSAgent, draft minutes v2 06:42:53 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/10/25-dxwg-minutes.html AndreaPerego 06:44:11 LarsG: rewording is from ncar first comment 06:44:35 kcoyle: we break at 09:30 06:44:45 ... next is #289 06:44:56 ... reqording from ncar 06:45:36 LarsG: I think we accept with rewording follwing discussion a couple ofmonths back 06:45:46 proposed: accept #289 06:45:48 +1 06:45:50 +1 06:45:50 -1 06:45:51 +1 06:45:53 +1 06:45:53 +1 06:45:53 +1 06:46:11 have some reservations about wording too 06:46:13 s/ofmonths /of months / 06:46:26 i think it is a "combination of" needed 06:46:28 q+ 06:46:32 +1 (https://rawgit.com/w3c/dxwg/ucr_profile_requirements/ucr/index.html#RPFSREQ) 06:46:41 antoine: I would like clarification - I like the beginning of the text, but not the last bit 06:47:08 +1 06:47:12 ... the rewording is better, but can I change the title of the requirement 06:47:31 proposed: accept #289 with antoine's reqording 06:47:32 +1 06:47:35 + 06:47:35 +1 06:47:46 +1 06:48:06 +1 06:48:14 +1 06:48:15 s/reqording/rewording/ 06:48:15 1 06:48:16 resolved: accept #289 with antoine's rewording 06:48:20 RRSAgent, draft minutes v2 06:48:20 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/10/25-dxwg-minutes.html AndreaPerego 06:48:48 +1 (belatedly) 06:49:06 jtandy has joined #dxwg 06:49:11 LarsG: next is #288 . it goes back to use case 5.5 talking about the graph of metadata, but in my mind that is a solution and not a requirement, so this is controversial as a requirement 06:49:27 kcoyle: skip this and come back to it tomorrow 06:49:40 q+ 06:49:42 action: LarsG to make a suggestion to deal with #288 06:49:43 Created ACTION-240 - Make a suggestion to deal with #288 [on Lars G. Svensson - due 2018-11-01]. 06:49:54 ack roba 06:50:05 roba: I'm chasing up the same clarification as antoine 06:50:07 ack Jaroslav_Pullmann 06:50:08 ack Jaroslav_Pullmann 06:50:30 Jaroslav_Pullmann: according to the spreadsheet we have this marked as 'approved' 06:51:04 kcoyle: the google doc record shows that the group didn't get this far with the considerations 06:51:42 kcoyle: on to #287 06:51:54 re 288 - i think machine readability is a requirement - the solution would be choice of a specific vocabulary and graph shape required. 06:51:54 q? 06:52:46 LarsG: there is a rewording suggestion by antoine and this was discussed in a telecon in June, removing the word 'modular', and say that some data can conform to several profiles at once 06:53:18 kcoyle: looks like we already approved it 06:54:19 kcoyle: going to #286 ... according to the spreadsheet this is approved, the workind is different in the googledoc 06:54:57 https://docs.google.com/document/d/13hV2tJ6Kg2Hfe7e1BowY5QfCIweH9GxSCFQV1aWtOPg/ 06:54:57 q? 06:55:23 s/workind/wording/ 06:55:37 dsr has joined #dxwg 06:57:16 Linda has joined #dxwg 06:57:20 q+ 06:57:52 ack antoine 06:57:53 antoine: when I do the rewording do I keep the links? 06:57:58 kcoyle: yes 06:58:47 ... next up is #264 06:59:40 LarsG: this use case is about discoverability of profiles, but I couldn't read this requirement from the use case. can roba clarify? 07:00:06 roba: the description should match the profile the conneg relates to 07:00:19 action: roba to clarify #264 07:00:19 q+ 07:00:23 Created ACTION-241 - Clarify #264 [on Rob Atkinson - due 2018-11-01]. 07:00:27 ack Jaroslav_Pullmann 07:00:50 Jaroslav_Pullmann: is the requirement as it is able to be approved? 07:01:00 kcoyle: no, we await clarification 07:01:12 ... next up is #265 07:01:17 RRSAgent, draft minutes v2 07:01:17 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/10/25-dxwg-minutes.html AndreaPerego 07:01:43 LarsG: it is in scope 07:01:45 q+ 07:01:47 q+ 07:01:49 ack Jaroslav_Pullmann 07:02:33 Jaroslav_Pullmann: there was a legacy requirement which was prior to github that covered this 07:02:37 phila has joined #dxwg 07:02:41 ack an 07:02:41 prev. version: https://rawgit.com/w3c/dxwg/ucr_profile_requirements/ucr/index.html#RPFN 07:02:47 action completed. 07:02:52 danbri has joined #dxwg 07:03:03 https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/264 updated 07:03:07 newton has joined #dxwg 07:03:25 AndreaPerego: I've a similar concern, why are we not talking about data profiles, or just 'profiles', otherwise it is just about negotiating the profile you want back 07:03:48 metadata => data +1 07:04:14 kcoyle: that comment came up on the profile guidance by annette, we replace 'metadata' with 'data' generally. We can add this as an issue 07:04:30 q? 07:04:32 AndreaPerego: for me there is no difference between data and metadata 07:05:01 kcoyle: let us create an issue, make a comprehensive decision 07:05:24 dsr has joined #dxwg 07:06:05 action: AndreaPerego to create an issue about metadata vs data in relation to #265 07:06:05 kcoyle: proposed: accept #265 but with the change from 'metadata' to 'data' 07:06:06 Created ACTION-242 - Create an issue about metadata vs data in relation to #265 [on Andrea Perego - due 2018-11-01]. 07:06:30 proposal: accept #265 but with the change from 'metadata' to 'data' 07:06:33 +1 07:06:34 +1 07:06:36 +1 07:06:37 +1 07:06:40 +1 07:06:43 +1 07:06:49 +1 07:07:07 +1 07:07:30 resolved: accept #265 but with the change from 'metadata' to 'data' 07:07:38 jtandy has joined #dxwg 07:07:38 RRSAgent, draft minutes v2 07:07:38 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/10/25-dxwg-minutes.html AndreaPerego 07:07:50 kcoyle: next up is #266 07:07:56 ... this has a number of parts 07:09:05 LarsG: 'other profiles' means profiles other than the one that the data conformed to in the response 07:09:17 kcoyle: there might need to be a little more context 07:09:40 ncar: this is a core requirement. it was narrowly scoped, but it is a general principle. 07:10:02 ... it applies across all realisaitons we can think of 07:10:12 kcoyle: we can accept in principle 07:10:33 q+ 07:10:45 q+ 07:10:47 ack Jaroslav_Pullmann 07:10:48 proposed: accept #266 in principle, and realise that there might be some rewording 07:10:57 +1 07:11:01 +1 07:11:07 ack antoine 07:11:30 antoine: I'm trying to hange the github and googledoc at the same time. please slow down 07:12:12 s/ hange/ change/ 07:12:55 +1 07:12:59 +1 07:13:00 +1 07:13:00 +1 07:13:03 +1 07:13:04 +1 07:13:05 +1 07:13:13 +1 07:13:27 resolveed: accept #266 in principle, and realise that there might be some rewording 07:13:31 RRSAgent, draft minutes v2 07:13:31 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/10/25-dxwg-minutes.html AndreaPerego 07:13:46 kcoyle: next is #267 07:13:48 https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/267 07:14:23 q+ 07:14:28 LarsG: that is not a profile negotiation requirement, so need to change the label 07:14:53 roba: there was a decision to split content negotiation and profile negotiation 07:15:32 kcoyle: so is this in scope elsewhere 07:15:51 roba: yes, it relates to distributions not profiles 07:16:08 AndreaPerego: is this in scope of profile guidance 07:16:16 roba: maybe not 07:16:17 q+ 07:16:27 ack Jaroslav_Pullmann 07:16:30 q+ 07:16:44 Jaroslav_Pullmann: maybe the keyword 'profile' could be removed? 07:17:07 roba: profile guidance is the wrong tag, dcat should be there 07:17:12 ack antoine 07:17:46 antoine: I'm going to solicit roba's help in understanding the 2 pages in the googledoc about this. 07:18:17 roba: I will review and port to github 07:19:00 action: roba to go back through the discussion, come to a conclusion, discuss with antoine and work out what requirement #267 actually meant 07:19:01 Created ACTION-243 - Go back through the discussion, come to a conclusion, discuss with antoine and work out what requirement #267 actually meant [on Rob Atkinson - due 2018-11-01]. 07:19:01 q? 07:19:11 'dcat' label added to https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/267 07:19:38 q+ 07:19:47 ack Jaroslav_Pullmann 07:20:28 Jaroslav_Pullmann: makes sense to consider profile as well, so the constraints on packaging. 07:20:55 kcoyle: that takes us through requirements. We can summarise later 07:20:59 RRSAgent, draft minutes v2 07:20:59 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/10/25-dxwg-minutes.html AndreaPerego 07:21:18 LarsG: #217 - is this still awaiting approval? 07:21:20 https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/217 07:21:59 kcoyle: We have already covered that - there is a duplicate in github, and we will deduplicate at some time 07:22:04 ok refreshed - its definitely a DCAT expressivity problem - data distribution services will need to describe both the service profile(s) and the data payload profile(s) 07:22:10 antoine: I think we need to dedupe now 07:22:14 q+ 07:22:26 AndreaPerego: the dupe is #212 07:22:49 Jaroslav_Pullmann: and #268 07:23:27 kcoyle: we need to tidy up the issues as soon as Jaroslav_Pullmann has the document written 07:23:47 Jaroslav_Pullmann: the gdoc is outdated 07:24:10 LarsG: do we merge or remove ? 07:24:37 q+ 07:24:46 kcoyle: I suggest we remove #217 (the earlier one) and when the UCR group is confident it has finished, they can be closed 07:24:47 ack Jaroslav_Pullmann 07:25:39 kcoyle: labelling in github has been ad hoc 07:26:25 RRSAgent, draft minutes v2 07:26:25 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/10/25-dxwg-minutes.html AndreaPerego 07:26:29 ...We have completed the task and between now and break we can return to 8:30-8:45 07:27:02 Linda has joined #dxwg 07:27:40 ... an email was sent to the list and after a chat with dsr and Philippe de Hegueret we wanted to look at how we manages the additional resources (examples etc) and also the Profiles Ontology 07:28:43 ... Philippe suggested that one way to clarify the Profiles Ontology was to issue it as a FPWD. We asked about the style of the doc and his response was that he needed to see the proposed doc before he could make a decision 07:29:49 q+ 07:29:58 PWinstanley: we need a group decision; does anyone have any objection to issuing a first public working draft 07:29:59 ack AndreaPerego 07:30:47 Profiles Ontology, as published at https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/profilesont/, is currently formatted as a Rec FPWD 07:31:17 AndreaPerego: publishing on the rec track is fine, as long as there are no shortcomings from bringing it forward on the rec track 07:31:29 q+ 07:31:40 RiccardoAlbertoni we did the DQV as a note 07:31:42 ack DaveBrowning 07:31:56 DaveBrowning: Did you also talk about examples 07:32:11 PWinstanley: the examples could be packed up with the document 07:32:24 ... provided they are not updated separately from the doc. 07:32:32 q+ 07:32:57 dsr: it is a matter of how they are curated 07:33:17 q? 07:33:33 DaveBrowning: in the case of DCAT there are several examples that might be useful and might be curated separately 07:33:54 dsr: you can have an informative link to github and curate them separately 07:34:07 ack ncar 07:34:15 ... critical stuff can be bundled with the main document 07:35:35 ncar: we have an example of profiles that use this ontology we would want to publish those alongside the ontology document. the link has yet to be included, but there is in the github a folder of examples. 07:36:06 kcoyle: put those into the document prior to publication, just a small section pointing to the github area 07:37:01 proposed: we decide to publish the profiles ontology as a first public working draft 07:37:06 +1 07:37:13 +1 07:37:13 +1 07:37:14 +1 07:37:17 +1 07:37:17 +1 07:37:30 0 07:37:36 +1 07:37:43 0 07:37:45 0 07:37:52 resolved: we decide to publish the profiles ontology as a first public working draft 07:38:15 +q 07:38:28 ack Jaroslav_Pullmann 07:39:04 yes its conformsTo 07:39:09 Jaroslav_Pullmann: when looking at the DCAT 2PWD and discussing runtilme behaviour, can we link a profile to a distribution. is this covered by conformsTo? 07:39:49 If it's the content, it;s the Dataset that needs to conformsTo, not the Distribution 07:39:53 AndreaPerego: looking at what is currently used for packaging, this is mainly relating to format. I don't know if they can be called profiles 07:40:00 q+ 07:40:03 Linda has joined #dxwg 07:40:22 rrsagent, create minutes v2 07:40:22 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/10/25-dxwg-minutes.html PWinstanley 07:40:25 ack roba 07:40:58 q+ kcoyle 07:41:16 q+ 07:41:33 ack kcoyle 07:41:57 s/runtilme/runtime/ 07:42:04 kcoyle: it sounds as though conformsTo becomes ambiguous - it could relate a data set to a standard, or a profile. 07:42:06 ack AndreaPerego 07:42:08 its up to DCAT to work out hopw to use conformsTo (its already ambiguous - profile is just another option for a relevant standard) 07:42:54 q+ 07:43:04 prof:Profile rdfs:subclassOf dct:Standard 07:43:28 AndreaPerego: thinking about packaging, I have 2 scenarios: compressed package containing the same things (like shape files) and this is essentially a format. In a more heterogeneous zip file, the format is the zip file, but I don't see how this can be linked to profile, it is just a packaging 07:43:28 ack ncar 07:43:36 q+ 07:44:29 see note on action https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/track/actions/243 07:44:51 ncar: it is for DCAT to work out what is missing from the profiles ontology 07:44:51 "its definitely a DCAT expressivity problem - data distribution services will need to describe both the service profile(s) - which may introduce containers and the data payload profile(s) for data within those containers The conneg requirement may be for negotiation of the container - for example Accept-Encoding can ask for gzip, which has a container and a manifest." 07:44:54 My point is asking the profile (guidance) and DCAT groups to consider stating a static relation between a Distribution and a Profile (e.g. by extending the dct:conformsTo prediate) 07:44:57 ack roba 07:45:49 q+ 07:46:01 roba: see my comment above. These are communal concerns; format, packaging and profile are open questions for working out what conformsTo relates to . The DCAT group may be able to provide guidance 07:46:34 kcoyle: tomorrow we will discuss interdependency of documents, and this is germane to that discussion. 07:46:57 i think the goal is to minimise interdependence 07:47:33 ... it is set for tomorrow afternoon, Lyon time, and perhaps we need to move to the morning to allow Australian colleagues to contribute. Should we change the order of tomorrow's discussion? 07:47:58 ... work it out by the end of the day 07:48:14 q+ 07:48:40 ack Jaroslav_Pullmann 07:48:48 ack roba 07:48:53 Jaroslav_Pullmann: I didn't find this information in DCAT, and perhaps it should be 07:49:30 roba: if there is something we can do to help DCAT by creating extra roles in the profiles ontology then we can do that 07:49:55 ... the minimisation of interdependencies is a key point to keep in mind 07:50:07 kcoyle: we should eliminate dependencies 07:50:20 rrsagent, create minutes v2 07:50:20 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/10/25-dxwg-minutes.html PWinstanley 07:51:56 break now for no more than 40 mins 07:54:12 RRSAgent, draft minutes v2 07:54:12 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/10/25-dxwg-minutes.html AndreaPerego 07:58:16 https://photos.app.goo.gl/Ji4okxktTpqUUF7A8 is the photo of the post-it notes 08:02:53 s/ https://photos.app.goo.gl/Ji4okxktTpqUUF7A8 is the photo of the post-it notes/..../ 08:02:55 ncar has joined #dxwg 08:05:14 newton has joined #dxwg 08:05:36 newton has joined #dxwg 08:17:36 I'm back 08:24:50 phila has joined #dxwg 08:31:33 scribenick: AndreaPerego 08:32:26 newton has joined #dxwg 08:32:32 newton has joined #dxwg 08:36:09 antoine has joined #dxwg 08:36:12 karen: [reporting about the work done yesterday on the prof guidance doc] 08:36:35 Picture of post-it's: https://photos.app.goo.gl/ptHGcZKgqdFivPNY7 08:36:51 Got it thanks 08:36:55 https://raw.githack.com/w3c/dxwg/guidance-restructuring-LyonOct24/profiles/index.html 08:37:18 https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/profiles/ 08:37:29 karen: restructured guidance prepared by antoine 08:38:22 antoine: we started from a very long list of reqs and recommendation. 08:39:02 ... the idea was to split that list to structure the different parts of the doc about what we want to day about profiles 08:39:34 ... first conceptual model, then publication of profiles 08:39:57 ... extended a bit the part about admin metadata which have their own reqs, to be refined. 08:40:03 dsr has joined #dxwg 08:41:10 ... We also had some discussion about the model, aligning what is in the prof descr ontology. 08:41:11 riccardoAlbertoni has joined #dxwg 08:41:18 present+ 08:41:44 ... We drafted also a proposal for the conceptual model, not having impact of the doc structure. 08:41:53 PWinstanley has joined #dxwg 08:43:13 antoine: speaking through some post-it notes 08:43:25 dsr has joined #dxwg 08:43:36 antoine: about the motivation: introduction already very long, and we wanted to add also motivations (karen suggested some text not yet in the doc) 08:44:15 ... conceptual model can provide good introduction on the overall content of the doc. 08:44:19 q? 08:44:45 ... the new section on functions and roles was picked from what roba and ncar suggested 08:45:02 RRSAgent, draft minutes v2 08:45:02 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/10/25-dxwg-minutes.html AndreaPerego 08:46:21 Linda has joined #dxwg 08:46:45 ncar: [mentioning how to how a slash namespace for organising content] 08:47:00 s/how to how/how to use/ 08:47:00 q+ 08:47:09 q+ 08:47:39 ack roba 08:48:51 q+ to ask if the roles list should be fixed or extendable 08:49:05 q+ (philippe) 08:49:08 roba: [asking about how this kind of "registry" will be managed @ W3C] 08:49:17 q- (philippe) 08:49:57 q- 08:49:58 philippe: We have plenty of registry, but we don't have a consistent way of maintaining them. I can bring Ralph in this room who knows better. 08:50:04 The PR is at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/pull/489 08:50:22 present+ philippe 08:50:52 q+ 08:51:12 ack antoine 08:51:42 ack AndreaPerego 08:51:44 jtandy has joined #dxwg 08:52:21 AndreaPerego: we talked before about having the profile ontology as a FPWD, knowing that we might have a note 08:52:25 q+ 08:52:32 ... are roles going to be stable over time 08:52:49 ... maybe roles should be maintained seperately from the profiles ontology 08:52:59 Linda has joined #dxwg 08:53:07 q- 08:53:09 ncar: the namespace for w/g things is stable, but the roles should be separate 08:53:22 antoine: We should then discuss the voc of roles before going to that. The registry is about an operational things. We'd better discuss the document now. 08:53:31 RRSAgent, draft minutes v2 08:53:31 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/10/25-dxwg-minutes.html AndreaPerego 08:53:48 karen: [reading post-it's] 08:54:54 antoine: what karen is reading is also at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/pull/489 08:56:10