– DRAFT –
DXWG Plenary
13 November 2018
<roba> * before we get too deep into details I'd like to foreshadow a proposal to take a week to process all the editorial feedback to improve docs - but I'd like to have one substantive discussion for now on naming on ResourceDescriptor
<PWinstanley> today's agenda: https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2018.11.13
proposed: Approve Nov 6 minutes https://www.w3.org/2018/11/06-dxwg-minutes
<Jaroslav_Pullmann> +1
<alejandra> +1
<PWinstanley> +1
<ncar> +1
+1
<SimonCox> 0 (not present)
<roba> +1
<DaveBrowning> +1
<antoine> +21
Resolved: Approve Nov 6 minutes
<antoine> +1
https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/track/actions/open
close Action-236
<trackbot> Closed Action-236.
Actions 238 239 on Nick
close Action-238
<trackbot> Closed Action-238.
close Action-239
<trackbot> Closed Action-239.
244 on Antoine continues
255-256 on Roba done
close Action-255
<trackbot> Closed Action-255.
close Action-256
<trackbot> Closed Action-256.
<ncar> * oh, so lines starting '*' are comments!
PWinstanley: discussion on email on both drafts have taken place
roba: have been following this feedback; lots of it constructive; a few substantive issues
… but mainly inconsistencies in wording (as per Makx)
… suggest going through these over the next week
PWinstanley: prof-negotiation first
roba: can have an improved doc for next week
PWinstanley: need a little more time?
roba: that's my reading
<Jaroslav_Pullmann> Comments on CONNEG: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dxwg-wg/2018Nov/0400.html
Jaroslav_Pullmann: was busy this week and sent comments just before meeting
<Jaroslav_Pullmann> Profile ontology comments: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dxwg-wg/2018Nov/0402.html
Jaroslav_Pullmann: +1 for fpwd, but there are notes to be looked at
PWinstanley: no show-stopper? jaro: yes, right
Jaroslav_Pullmann: some definitions, some context and ambiguous statements
alejandra: thanking the editors; the lesson learned is that we should have done public working drafts more often
<roba> +1
alejandra: rob mentioned issues that Makx raised. for content negotiation things are ok
… for ontology, need to have github issues so that they can be included in the document so people know we are aware of them
… then people can make comments on github
antoine: have a comment on both - we've given feedback and comments; I will not object to publication but also give a few more days
… to editors so they can make changes
… suggest a moratorium on feedback
alejandra: I agree that we should close comments that go into document, but people should make comments at any time
… set end to comments that will go into the document
antoine: I understand Alejandra's point and agree, but we should be easy on the editors
PWinstanley: one possibility: agree to go forward with prof neg FPWD giving editors 4 more days on cleanup
… to group: do you think we can make the decision now, so that by next week's meeting it is done?
… assuming it passes pubrules
… don't want another week of decision-making
… just needs polishing, no show-stoppers, and leave that to the discretion of the editors
Proposed: Agree Prof Neg goes to FPWD with proviso that editors take on board comments made by this meeting time today
<Makx> +1
<Jaroslav_Pullmann> +1
<antoine> +1
<AndreaPerego> +1
<SimonCox> +1
<PWinstanley> +1
PWinstanley: assume that working with dsr they will complete pub rules work etc.
+1
<alejandra> +1
<ncar> +1
<DaveBrowning> +1
<roba> +1
PWinstanley: also have +1 from Riccardo and Lars (in email)
<PWinstanley> note there is +1 from Lars and Riccardo
Resolved: Agree Prof Neg goes to FPWD with proviso that editors take on board comments made by this meeting time today
<AndreaPerego> Riccardo +1: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dxwg-wg/2018Nov/0389.html
PWinstanley: Now discuss profOnt -same questions and issues
<roba> https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/release/dcat-ap/11
roba: distinction between the thing and its distribution, like the DCAT-AP -
<AndreaPerego> Lars +1: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dxwg-wg/2018Nov/0380.html
roba: issue is what to call a distribution in a profile
… various suggestions - resource descriptor, rules, etc. Other ideas?
… there are lots of things that aren't rules (documentation, guidance)
… need a name for the class
<alejandra> what about ProfileImplementation?
Makx: why not call it a distribution?
<AndreaPerego> +1 to Makx
roba: two issues: 1-debate about information equivalence for distributions, and in profiles they are not equivalent
<alejandra> -1 to distribution
roba: 2-resources like guidance documents do not feel like distributions of a profile
<ncar> -1 to Resource Descriptor == Distribution (it's not a distribution of the Profile)
<roba> +1 to it being an issue and run with as is..
PWinstanley: problem with nomenclature could be a waste of time now - can the document indicate that we don't have a set term yet?
<ncar> I can create an issue for this and place it in the doc
PWinstanley: allows us to move on
<AndreaPerego> alejandra, ncar, I think this is one of the issue to be sorted out, but for 2PWD.
<roba> * too quiet Jaro ?
Jaroslav_Pullmann: similar concern; profiles are not same as datasets
… sentences were hard to read because dense; need to do some rewording. Is a profile a profile of a standard or of data?
<roba> profile "constrains" one or more standards
antoine: This would be one of my main comments; we used distribution as one possible word for naming
<AndreaPerego> +1 to antoine
antoine: this issue will require more discussion than we can do before FPWD - make note in document and move on
<Zakim> AndreaPerego, you wanted to suggest we focus first on the decision on whether PROF should go out as FPWD
<ncar> Isseu for Resource descriptor class naming created and flagged as 2PWD: https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/573
AndreaPerego: same comment; first decide on FPWD
<roba> I raised it as the most substantive non-editorial issue
alejandra: don't want to stop FPWD but ResourceDescriptor is too confusing; it would be better to change to Implementation
<ncar> I will put isse 573 in the doc
alejandra: but ok to go with putting a very obvious issue so that we make it obvious
<antoine> for the record the two words we've used in the post-its at F2F were Distribution and Publication
Makx: current text of the document is confusing, but we will get questions that come from the way it is written
PWinstanley: can we take a few days to clean up some bits of the document
<alejandra> great ncar - maybe we should move to issue 573 the comments under about the name that are in the issue https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/404
Makx: the main problem is the use of the word "resource" throughout the document, meaning different things in different sections
… maybe editors can fix that over the next few days
PWinstanley: do you think this needs so much work that it needs to come back for a separate vote?
Makx: No
… I can help over the next few days. The intention of the document is good, but word "resource" confusing
<Makx> +1
PWinstanley: propose: FPWD with proviso that Makx and editors clear up issues used until this meeting time by Friday
ncar: May not be able to do all of the issues because there are a lot
PWinstanley: do we get help from Makx and bring it back next Tuesday
ncar: best help would be pull requests transcribing the comments in email
PWinstanley: could you vote +1 by email by next Tuesday?
Makx: out Sunday through Thurs
roba: nick and I could split it up, each taking one document
… overhead of putting all comments through as an issue is too much; better to work through comments and making changes
… make them into issues if we can't resolve them
… use issues for major changes
alejandra: What are the changes that are absolutely necessary?
PWinstanley: makx says confusion about resource
roba: changed names many times, and thus used 'resource' because we haven't firm names
… taking that on board is worthwhile; need to be more consistent
PWinstanley: we can propose to allow editors to work on it; for Makx to work with them regarding 'resource'
… to have draft by the end of the week
… if satisfies editors and makx we can move it through to FPWD
proposed: agree to move profiles ontology to FPWD with proviso that Makx's issue relating to terms is addressed, and that editors make other changes relating to readability
<Makx> don't need proviso
proposal: agree to move profiles ontology to FPWD and the editors make changes relating to readability
<Makx> +1
agree to move profiles ontology to FPWD after the editors make changes relating to readability & consistency by end of this week
<Makx> +1
proposed: agree to move profiles ontology to FPWD after the editors make changes relating to readability & consistency by end of this week
<PWinstanley> +
<Jaroslav_Pullmann> +1
<roba> +1
<DaveBrowning> +1
+1
<AndreaPerego> +1
<alejandra> +1
<antoine> 0
<SimonCox> +1
<ncar> +1
Resolved: agree to move profiles ontology to FPWD after the editors make changes relating to readability & consistency by end of this week
antoine: my main comments will relate to the model
PWinstanley: we all know about soliciting feedback, etc.
<Zakim> AndreaPerego, you wanted to make a suggestion on the next steps and publication frequency
AndreaPerego: about profile ontology - next steps and publication frequency. We have many issues to address, many dependencies
… at F2F Jeremy talked about having "sprint publications" each with a few issues
… suggest that we can decide a small set of issues to solve for the next WD
PWinstanley: make that a slot at the next meeting
Jaroslav_Pullmann: UCR changes are fine, but some groupings could be reconsidered
… still have question whether conneg requirements will remain separate
antoine: we have tried to include requirements as approved in the G-Doc, and to restructure of the profiles section
<Jaroslav_Pullmann> Link to Antoine's reworking of profile requirements: https://rawgit.com/w3c/dxwg/aisaac-ucr_profile_requirements/ucr/index.html#ProfileRequirements
antoine: just received email; think that all requirements should be in UCR document
antoine: Jaro and I will need to have a discussion first; will bring back to plenary, hopefully next week
PWinstanley: time to talk about implementation reports? email from Andrea
AndreaPerego: suggest that we find a space under WG wiki (or github) for implementation reports
… this is required for recommendation track
… this doesn't get updated after group ends
ncar: shacl keeps an updated list of implementations
AndreaPerego: let's have a page with a list of implementations that can link to implementations
<Makx> Thanks all, and bye
<AndreaPerego> Thanks, bye bye
<alejandra> thanks all! bye
<PWinstanley> bye
<Jaroslav_Pullmann> thanks!
<ncar> thanks, bye
Succeeded: s/agree to move profiles ontology to FPWD and the editors make changes relating to readability/proposal: agree to move profiles ontology to FPWD and the editors make changes relating to readability/