20:03:16 RRSAgent has joined #profgui 20:03:16 logging to https://www.w3.org/2019/01/09-profgui-irc 20:03:27 Zakim has joined #profgui 20:03:32 rrsagent, make logs public 20:03:45 meeting: Profiles Guidance 20:03:55 chair: Ncar 20:04:04 rrsagent, please generate minutes v2 20:04:04 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/01/09-profgui-minutes.html kcoyle 20:05:01 present+ 20:05:06 present+ 20:05:08 present+ 20:07:22 present+ 20:08:22 scribe: LarsG 20:08:25 scribenick: LarsG 20:08:49 Topic: approve minutes from last meeting 20:09:11 https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dxwg-wg/2018Dec/0085.html 20:11:27 proposed: accept minutes 20:11:29 proposed: Accept minues (email) from last meeting 20:11:36 0 (wasn't there) 20:11:38 +0 20:11:41 +1 20:11:42 +1 20:11:54 RESOLVED: Accept minutes email from last meeting 20:12:14 Topic: meeting time 20:12:37 ncar: we'll wait for antoine, but currently it seems to be OK 20:13:39 ncar: still open action on nick "to bring in a sentence or two about each example of profiling" 20:14:15 ... also to complete s&p 20:14:31 antoine has joined #profgui 20:14:38 present+ antoine 20:15:36 LarsG: has looked at s&p only for conneg. Needs to revisit Annette's comments 20:16:05 ncar: shall look at Annette's email, too 20:16:23 topic: Review open Actions for this subgroup: 20:16:33 https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/track/products/3 20:16:53 action-210? 20:17:13 ACTION-210? 20:17:27 trackbot has joined #profgui 20:17:33 ACTION-210? 20:17:33 Sorry, but no Tracker is associated with this channel. 20:17:56 q+ 20:18:07 kcoyle: we still need a gap analysis 20:18:07 what chganges? 20:18:31 antoine: my idea was to make a small inventory of what exists in the field 20:18:40 ... as motivation for the prof ontology 20:18:45 s/chganges/changes/ 20:18:48 ... which needs are not yet answered 20:19:05 q+ 20:19:09 ... should be a bit of text for the introduction in prof guidance 20:19:23 ncar: will draft short paragraph 20:19:47 roba: at this stage no-one has identified anything equivalent 20:20:16 q? 20:20:21 ack antoine 20:20:24 ack roba 20:20:39 q+ 20:20:47 ... in this space, so it's hard to see what the gap analysis should be 20:21:01 ... since there is no work we can ignore 20:21:26 ncar: if we try to say exactly that in the guidance document we should be fine 20:21:38 q+ 20:21:38 ... even if it isn't exactly a gap analysis 20:22:17 antoine: agrees with roba, might be a simple thing. We should reference 20:22:39 vaem 20:22:39 ... vocabularies that do similar things (e. g. in LOV) but don't 20:22:41 ? 20:22:45 ... meet our requirements 20:22:58 +1 20:23:13 ... could be good to use those as examples of things that don't meet our requirements 20:23:30 kcoyle: seems to be a reverse of the gap analysis, 20:23:37 q+ 20:23:40 q- 20:23:44 ... e. g. requirements that are not met by the prof ontology 20:24:09 roba: where requirements are met by the prof ontology we should highlight that 20:24:13 ack kcoyle 20:24:16 ack roba 20:24:28 ... it was never intended to fulfil _all_ of them 20:24:48 ... e. g. it doesn't tell us to provide a human and a machine readable 20:24:55 q+ 20:25:03 ... version of the documentation but simply provides the means to do so 20:25:08 ack kcoyle 20:25:15 kcoyle: That was not what she intended. 20:25:33 +1 20:25:34 ... We're relating two things that overlap. We need to explain what 20:25:50 ... is covered by each area. Won't be easy but is an important test 20:25:54 ... for the document 20:25:55 q+ 20:26:03 ack roba 20:26:19 roba: If we list the requirements we have for profiles we can have a summary 20:26:40 ... table where we show how those requirements can be met by use of the prof 20:26:42 ... ontology 20:27:13 ncar: So does that mean that "of all requirements we have, the prof 20:27:18 ... ontology meets those"? 20:27:21 roba: yes 20:27:43 ncar: So then we have other requirements that need to be met 20:27:50 ... through other mechanisms. 20:27:54 ACTION-220? 20:27:54 Sorry, but no Tracker is associated with this channel. 20:28:36 PWinstanley: this was an action on everybody to review the profiles doc 20:28:45 ... can be closed. 20:29:18 ... there is also #269 as a reminder for ncar and roba to write a draft letter 20:30:08 ... we can close #269, too. 20:30:31 ACTION-242? 20:30:31 Sorry, but no Tracker is associated with this channel. 20:30:46 ncar: we leave this one open (discussed yesterday) 20:30:57 ACTION-272? 20:30:57 Sorry, but no Tracker is associated with this channel. 20:31:23 kcoyle: we've discussed this one already, we leave it open 20:31:36 topic: Establishing 3 Profile document timelines 20:32:24 ncar: we need to backwork the timeline. When do we need to submit the FPWD? 20:32:25 kc 20:32:49 kcoyle: past that point already (needs about a year from FPWD to CR) 20:33:23 ... so we might need to think of an extension of the WG 20:33:46 ncar: so we need to get to FPWD soon and discuss extension? 20:33:51 PWinstanley: yes 20:34:17 ncar: if nothing happens, are there other timelines we need to be aware of? 20:34:44 ... considering that the other docs have just got to FPWD 20:35:01 kcoyle: we should discuss this in the plenary 20:35:14 ncar: but is there anything we need to do by say end of January? 20:35:23 kcoyle: take it to the public list 20:35:39 PWinstanley: Two parallel efforts. 20:35:45 ... 1) soliciting feedback 20:36:13 ... 2) moving on with the development of the documents by acting on requirements 20:36:27 ... the coherence of the documents is a final polish 20:36:44 ... so there is nothing that prohibits this doc to go to FPWD except 20:36:49 ... getting it in shape 20:37:08 topic: Establishing Guidance/Conneg/Ontology effort split 20:37:25 ncar: the most pressing thing seems to be to get the guidance document 20:37:40 ... to FPWD without getting behind with the other docs 20:37:56 PWinstanley: we should try to get the guidance doc out asap 20:38:05 topic: Establishing a regime to address all Issues 20:38:29 ncar: looking at github there was no project for the ontology doc 20:38:39 ... so I created one. 20:38:54 ... LarsG has used github project for the conneg document 20:39:13 ... but all this doesn't tell us how to deal with issues 20:39:30 ... but as soon as we are in FPWD we have a list of issues we 20:39:46 ... can process. Are there other sources we need to consider, too 20:39:55 s/too/too?/ 20:40:21 antoine: we might not be in good state for profile guidance. 20:40:39 ... has played around with requirements for prof guidance 20:40:58 ... there are many issues tagged profgui that might be problematic 20:41:21 ncar: the project picks up all issues tagged profile guidance 20:41:32 we should create a FPWD milestone and tag key issues for these - then work these - and include refs to other issues (in appendix?) 20:41:44 ... currently 45 open. Do we want to use that project? 20:42:19 antoine: github could be a tool, prof guidance project is a bit mysterious 20:42:50 ... not sure how it's defined since there are other issues in there (tagged profile decription), too 20:43:14 q+ 20:43:21 ncar: in spite of problems, do we want to use this tool? 20:43:44 roba: suggests we continue to use it since other subgroups do that, too 20:44:14 ... use triage to mark what we want to get done in phase X 20:44:36 ... once we've got FPWD out 20:45:02 q+ 20:45:18 ncar: if the listed issues are the right ones, then they should 20:45:23 ... be listed in the document, too 20:46:00 kcoyle: agrees with roba. We shouldn't organise more until further down the line 20:46:02 +1 20:46:14 q? 20:46:30 ack roba 20:46:38 ack kcoyle 20:46:39 q+ 20:46:44 topic: meeting time 20:47:24 antoine: suggests to keep it every other week and spend the other time 20:47:30 ... cleaning up issues 20:47:40 does this time clash with conneg? lets try to close issues via email. priority is to triage FPWD milestone issues? 20:47:49 ... if we need calls, we need longer ones where we can discuss issues and topics 20:48:02 ... short calls have too much overhead 20:48:21 ... in favour of longer meetings over more frequent meetings 20:48:37 +1 ti antoine 20:48:45 ncar: more comments? 20:49:01 q+ 20:49:06 q- 20:49:25 roba: is it worth to triage the issues critical to FPWD? 20:49:56 +1 to roba ... we need to have an idea of the critical path 20:50:08 +1 20:50:19 +0 20:50:41 ncar: there is a milestone already 20:51:01 roba: only one issue... we should mark those we think are critical 20:51:23 ncar: do we tag now or do it offline? 20:51:40 https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/537 20:51:47 roba: #537 20:52:03 q+ 20:52:42 ncar: agrees 20:53:02 antoine: #417, #418, #487 20:53:10 +1 20:53:33 ... result of Annette's review and we have almost ready solutions 20:53:52 ... make scoping of document much better 20:53:59 q- 20:54:05 ack roba 20:54:28 ncar: those seem sensible 20:55:28 ... need to do some learning on how to use github projects... 20:55:39 rrsagent, create minutes v2 20:55:39 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/01/09-profgui-minutes.html kcoyle