<kcoyle> proposed: accept Oct 30 minutes
<DaveBrowning> 0 (not present)
antoine: missing regrets.. we can acknowledge here
<kcoyle> regrets from Oct 30 = Karen Coyle, Riccardo Albertoni, Dave Browning
Resolved: approve minutes of Oct 30 with addition of regrets for Karen Coyle, Riccardo Albertoni, Dave Browning
antoine: still ongoing
kcoyle: suggest turn into a github issue
PWinstanley: reclassify #246,7 as DCAT
alejandra: few minor PR merged - discussed priorities last week
… address main topics by mid-Jan
… need to discuss more, start assigning to people
… suggestion that releasing more PWDs brought more feedback
kcoyle: seems to help editors review progress and motivates reviews as they see responses
… need to solicit more feedback - what might help?
ncar: about to go into meeting - agencies usually use ISO19115 - but are exploring DCAT as a 'future state'
<Zakim> DaveBrowning, you wanted to ask about publishing moratoria
DaveBrowning: where are the 'blackout periods'
* Calendar infrastructure from W3C would be nice :-)
kcoyle: progress on abstracts in other languages?
ncar: will try to do Polish next week
<alejandra> the good thing is that the vocabulary also is translated to several languages
<PWinstanley> point on the translations: at TPAC - Richard Ishida - might be able to help
<antoine> roba: we've handled issues
<antoine> nick: yes it's good for review
<antoine> roba: there's a proposal to change the editors.
<antoine> ... moving Ruben from editor to contributor
<antoine> roba: there's one point about QSA
<antoine> alejandra: I've spent time looking at the doc
<antoine> ... I did changes in the text, Lars merged them.
<antoine> ... some clarifications.
<antoine> ... and US English
<antoine> kcoyle: so there's one final PR to merge?
I will take final minor edits merge on today
<antoine> kcoyle: someone should ask the group to review the doc after these merges
kcoyle: please send out request to review when done - if today tomorrow we can ask for review by next meeting and vote on FPWD
Action: roba merge edits and announce to group for review
<trackbot> Created ACTION-255 - Merge edits and announce to group for review [on Rob Atkinson - due 2018-11-13].
antoine: not a lot of recent updates processed
… inputs from @kcoyle to incorporate
… conversation with Jaro re UCR and feeding requirement updates into guidance doc
… structure discussed at F2F proving a challenge for UCR, perhaps also Guidance doc
<alejandra> could you please include the issue number here?
<antoine> roba: we have a discussion on naming terms
<antoine> ... nick has made some suggestion on the is/has convention
<antoine> ... we can treat as an editorial change, we've got no installed base
<antoine> kcoyle: we can wait for comments
<antoine> roba: ok
<antoine> kcoyle: if there's a fair amount of work, then we could go with the current one
<antoine> roba: it's already done!
<alejandra> this is the PR roba is referring to: https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/pull/532
antoine: we should go for it and wait for feedback
… homogenising now will help
<antoine> kcoyle: ok so this sound like the thing to do
<antoine> ... but then can you freeze a draft?
<antoine> roba: happy to do it and then do an editorial review and then freeze
<antoine> kcoyle: question to the group: we've not done a group review
kcoyle: we havent done a group review
<antoine> ... we've decided to move to FPWD but haven't brought it to the group
<antoine> roba: not sure I understand
<antoine> ... it's been brought to the group last week
<antoine> ... a lot of comments have been made
<antoine> ... and handled
<antoine> ... what could we do more?
<antoine> kcoyle: there was not a group action (formal)
<antoine> ... people who have followed it have been engaged
<antoine> ... but for others it's unclear so we may want to set a period to allow others
<antoine> annette_g: it sounds a standard procedure to have a review period and vote after
<antoine> ... I'm not sure we've done it
<antoine> ... that said I'm ok with the current state
<antoine> Jaroslav_Pullmann: I've overlooked the request for review
<antoine> ... if there's time given until next Tuesday I could do it
<antoine> riccardoAlbertoni: I was involved in the review and put some suggestions
<antoine> ... I would prefer if in the future we've got an explicit call and period
<antoine> ... but as far as I'm concerned I'm ok with this version
<Zakim> DaveBrowning, you wanted to agree with annette_g
<antoine> DaveBrowning: +1 with annette_g 's summary
<antoine> ... following the procedure adds extra clarity
<antoine> ... so that we all agree with publishing
<kcoyle> straw poll: announce a review for the WG of profilesOnt to end Nov 13
<kcoyle> +1 from nick
<antoine> nick +1
<antoine> +1 but voting I won't probably have the time to review so would again (benevolently) abstain when voting for FPWD
<antoine> alejandra: ok for some more days, but we shouldn't delay to make it public
<antoine> ... should we look for all 3 docs that are profile-related?
<antoine> kcoyle: profile guidance is not ready, it's only for profile negotiation and profile ontology
<antoine> alejandra: ok
<antoine> kcoyle: Dave, what do you need for moving to FPWD
<antoine> dsr: PubRuleChecker
<antoine> ... and permission for the short name
<antoine> ... from Philippe
* thanks antoine...
<antoine> ... subsequent versions would be more straightforward
<antoine> dsr: for namespace management we don't have a very formal policy
<PWinstanley> dsr please can you formally state this about document linkage - see minutes of last week's meeting for discussion on this where we need exact detail
<antoine> kcoyle: is it true that we don't have a namespace for the ontology, or has there been a discussion?
<antoine> dsr: there's been a discussion
<antoine> ... maybe the group could have a top-level ns
<antoine> kcoyle: we could discuss it before next Tuesday
<antoine> dsr: this would streamline discussion
<antoine> kcoyle: do we have short names?
<antoine> nick: we've have suggestions but no decision yet
<antoine> ... re PubRule, ReSpec checker we've run the doc through them already
<antoine> kcoyle: there could be an action on discussing short name and namespace with dsr
<antoine> nick: it would be alright
Action: roba to process merge for name change; announce document for review
<trackbot> Created ACTION-256 - Process merge for name change; announce document for review [on Rob Atkinson - due 2018-11-13].
<antoine> roba: I want an action on me to process the merge and provide the doc for reivew
<antoine> antoine: discussion on namespace and short name is between nick and dave or the WG?
proposals are in document already..
<antoine> dsr: I don't decide I'm passing it
<Zakim> DaveBrowning, you wanted to ask which namespaces
<antoine> DaveBrowning: we're talking about namespaces for the set of profile docs?
<antoine> kcoyle: two things: the docs and the ontology
<antoine> dsr: yes the two things: short names for reports and namespace for the ontology
<antoine> roba, is there 2 github issues that you can point the group to, so that we can discuss?
<antoine> dsr: how many more of these namespaces do you think you'd need?
<antoine> nick: I've mailed something to dsr about the namespace and have suggestions for the short names
<antoine> ... I will send a mail
<antoine> kcoyle: great
<riccardoAlbertoni> thank you bye
Succeeded: s/ok for some more days, but I've already looked at it myself/ok for some more days, but we shouldn't delay to make it public