DXWG DCAT subgroup teleconference 12 December 2018 21:00 UTC

12 December 2018

Meeting minutes

Confirm agenda

<DaveBrowning> https://‌www.w3.org/‌2017/‌dxwg/‌wiki/‌Meetings:DCAT-Telecon2018.12.12

DaveBrowning: Talk with alejandra yesterday. We are working towards a 3PWD, but considering timing it is probably better to postpone it to January - February.
… About what the 3PWD will contain, I have a pretty good idea.

<alejandra> working towards 3PWD at the moment

DaveBrowning: It may be useful doing some housekeeping.
… We still have to respond to people's comments.

DaveBrowning: Everybody's happy with the agenda, or other priorities?

alejandra: I agree that we should revise milestones, and assign tasks.
… First of all, for the people usually not joining the subgroup calls, we should send a mail pointing to the relevant issues.
… One of them being the identifier-related issue.
… Maybe we can aim for having the 3PWD in early January.

DaveBrowning: I agree with the proposal.

Approve last meeting's minutes

<DaveBrowning> https://‌www.w3.org/‌2017/‌dxwg/‌wiki/‌Meetings:DCAT-Telecon2018.12.05

alejandra: It was only SimonCox and me.


<alejandra> +1

<riccardoAlbertoni> 0 ( i was not there)

<DaveBrowning> 0

<DaveBrowning> https://‌www.w3.org/‌2018/‌12/‌05-dxwgdcat-minutes

Resolved: approved last meeting's minutes

Open actions

<DaveBrowning> https://‌www.w3.org/‌2017/‌dxwg/‌track/‌actions/‌open

DaveBrowning: Some of these are done.
… AndreaPerego you wanted to close some of them.

AndreaPerego: Yes, it's 85 and 86. I made a PR and sent a mail about that -> https://‌lists.w3.org/‌Archives/‌Public/‌public-dxwg-wg/‌2018Nov/‌0744.html

<alejandra> I can close the actions now

alejandra: Actually, the PR has been merged, and now the revision is in the ED.

DaveBrowning: So we should probably close 85 & 86

<Zakim> riccardoAlbertoni, you wanted to say close my action 259

<alejandra> +1 to closing 259

riccardoAlbertoni: I propose to close https://‌www.w3.org/‌2017/‌dxwg/‌track/‌actions/‌259 as I think I've addressed it.

close action-85

<trackbot> Sorry, but no Tracker is associated with this channel.

close action-86

<trackbot> Sorry, but no Tracker is associated with this channel.

close action-259

<trackbot> Sorry, but no Tracker is associated with this channel.

AndreaPerego: Maybe we can close also https://‌www.w3.org/‌2017/‌dxwg/‌track/‌actions/‌123

close action-123

<trackbot> Sorry, but no Tracker is associated with this channel.

Public comments list: https://‌lists.w3.org/‌Archives/‌Public/‌public-dxwg-comments/

<alejandra> new reply by Luca Trani: https://‌lists.w3.org/‌Archives/‌Public/‌public-dxwg-comments/‌2018Dec/‌0000.html

DaveBrowning: Luca Trani replied to AndreaPerego's reply.
… Did anyone have the opportunity to read it?

AndreaPerego: Not yet.

riccardoAlbertoni: Not yet.

DaveBrowning: So we need to look into it in case anything needs to be changed.
… I volunteer to review it - others are welcome - especially AndreaPerego

Action: AndreaPerego to review Luca Trani's response and report to DCAT subgroup

<trackbot> Sorry, but no Tracker is associated with this channel.

DaveBrowning: I don't think we have any other responses. SimonCox planned to send a longer response to Clemens Portele.
… Let's wait until he's back.

outstanding work

<alejandra> this is the milestone (subject to change): https://‌github.com/‌w3c/‌dxwg/‌milestone/‌14

DaveBrowning: Should we reduce the list of milestones to be able to deliver the 3PWD in Jan?

alejandra: As I said, I think we should prioritise and assign tasks, and leave the ones we are not able to address to the next PWD.

<Makx> +1 to Andrea

AndreaPerego: +1 to alejandra's proposal. Also, we can do the other way round: we decide on the date of the release and we implement only what we are able to do.
… Actually, we already have 2 substantial changes: identifiers & rights.

<alejandra> we also have qualified attributes

DaveBrowning: Looking at the taks in the milestone, I'm not sure I remind the full context of all of them.
… Are there any that are not going to affect the 3PWD, as we need more time?

Makx: Maybe the ones on data quality and project context. There was some discussion on project context, about whether its in or out of scope.
… The one about identifiers can be in a good position for the 3PWD.

AndreaPerego: +1

riccardoAlbertoni: The data quality issue was left open to have further review and comments on the proposal.
… We already had a round of review, probably we can think to leave it open, and focus on it in the next round.

DaveBrowning: I am happy to update GH to make it clear were we are for each issue.

Makx: For me there are two issues in the milestones that we should try to finish what we - the ones I mentioned earlier.
… For data quality, probably we are not ready. I was on a webinar with alejandra about FAIR principles and there's kind of requirement of having conformance with FAIR principles in metadata. This is another case for data quality.

alejandra: I think it's an important issue, but unsure about the timing.

<Makx> You're right, Alejandra

alejandra: Probably, we should focus at the moment on what is almost ready.

<PWinstanley> +1 to Makx - I think this is very true

AndreaPerego: Just suggesting that, once we have decided about the relevant issues, we should put in the agenda for the next call, and decide whether they are or not ready to be included in the next PWD.

Makx: About comments, actually, I'm a bit concerned about the lack of feedback. I pointed many people who are supposed to be very much interested but no feedback so far.
… Unclear why this happens - are they happy with the changes? are they just thinking that they eventually will pick up just what they will like?
… I'm not sure how to do to address this.

alejandra: About AndreaPerego's proposal, I agree, but we just have 1 meeting before Christmas. So, because of the timing, let's try to discuss in the tracker, and see if we can get an agreement.

<alejandra> that's right - we do get comments on github

riccardoAlbertoni: I wonder whether part of the comments are included in GH. I noticed that non-members are putting comments there. This kind of comments should count as external review and suggestions, and show when we are going to propose the new version of DCAT.
… Alos, if we want to close some issue, maybe we can add labels as done by Nick and Rob, to mark them as due to be closed, so to see if people would object.

<alejandra> good idea, riccardoAlbertoni

DaveBrowning: I would be good if we can identify issues that are not at all controversial.

AndreaPerego: [suggesting to use mail + calls to take decision on what should be put in the PWD]

DaveBrowning: It would be good, but the problem is timing.

Makx: I tend to agree with AndreaPerego's proposal, also based on my experience.

alejandra: I am a bit negative here. We did follow a process, and what was done has been documented in GH and on the wiki, so we should be able to always point people to the right place.
… We'd rather focus on the work to be done without changing the process.

DaveBrowning: We are running out of time. AOB?

<riccardoAlbertoni> thanks bye

[meeting adjourned]

Summary of action items

  1. AndreaPerego to review Luca Trani's response and report to DCAT subgroup

Summary of resolutions

  1. approved last meeting's 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/January/January - February/

Succeeded: s/2PWD/3PWD/

Succeeded: s/2PWD/3PWD/

Succeeded: s/2PWD/3PWD/

Succeeded: s/q'//