– DRAFT –
Profiles Guidance

approve minutes from last meeting

<kcoyle> https://‌lists.w3.org/‌Archives/‌Public/‌public-dxwg-wg/‌2018Dec/‌0085.html

proposed: accept minutes

<ncar> proposed: Accept minues (email) from last meeting

0 (wasn't there)

<roba> +0

<kcoyle> +1

<ncar> +1

Resolved: Accept minutes email from last meeting

meeting time

ncar: we'll wait for antoine, but currently it seems to be OK

ncar: still open action on nick "to bring in a sentence or two about each example of profiling"
… also to complete s&p

LarsG: has looked at s&p only for conneg. Needs to revisit Annette's comments

ncar: shall look at Annette's email, too

Review open Actions for this subgroup:

https://‌www.w3.org/‌2017/‌dxwg/‌track/‌products/‌3

action-210?

ACTION-210?

ACTION-210?

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

kcoyle: we still need a gap analysis

<roba> what changes?

antoine: my idea was to make a small inventory of what exists in the field
… as motivation for the prof ontology
… which needs are not yet answered
… should be a bit of text for the introduction in prof guidance

ncar: will draft short paragraph

roba: at this stage no-one has identified anything equivalent
… in this space, so it's hard to see what the gap analysis should be
… since there is no work we can ignore

ncar: if we try to say exactly that in the guidance document we should be fine
… even if it isn't exactly a gap analysis

antoine: agrees with roba, might be a simple thing. We should reference

<roba> vaem

antoine: vocabularies that do similar things (e. g. in LOV) but don't

<roba> ?

antoine: meet our requirements

<roba> +1

antoine: could be good to use those as examples of things that don't meet our requirements

kcoyle: seems to be a reverse of the gap analysis,
… e. g. requirements that are not met by the prof ontology

roba: where requirements are met by the prof ontology we should highlight that
… it was never intended to fulfil _all_ of them
… e. g. it doesn't tell us to provide a human and a machine readable
… version of the documentation but simply provides the means to do so

kcoyle: That was not what she intended.

<roba> +1

kcoyle: We're relating two things that overlap. We need to explain what
… is covered by each area. Won't be easy but is an important test
… for the document

roba: If we list the requirements we have for profiles we can have a summary
… table where we show how those requirements can be met by use of the prof
… ontology

ncar: So does that mean that "of all requirements we have, the prof
… ontology meets those"?

roba: yes

ncar: So then we have other requirements that need to be met
… through other mechanisms.

ACTION-220?

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

PWinstanley: this was an action on everybody to review the profiles doc
… can be closed.
… there is also #269 as a reminder for ncar and roba to write a draft letter
… we can close #269, too.

ACTION-242?

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

ncar: we leave this one open (discussed yesterday)

ACTION-272?

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

kcoyle: we've discussed this one already, we leave it open

Establishing 3 Profile document timelines

ncar: we need to backwork the timeline. When do we need to submit the FPWD?

kc

kcoyle: past that point already (needs about a year from FPWD to CR)
… so we might need to think of an extension of the WG

ncar: so we need to get to FPWD soon and discuss extension?

PWinstanley: yes

ncar: if nothing happens, are there other timelines we need to be aware of?
… considering that the other docs have just got to FPWD

kcoyle: we should discuss this in the plenary

ncar: but is there anything we need to do by say end of January?

kcoyle: take it to the public list

PWinstanley: Two parallel efforts.
… 1) soliciting feedback
… 2) moving on with the development of the documents by acting on requirements
… the coherence of the documents is a final polish
… so there is nothing that prohibits this doc to go to FPWD except
… getting it in shape

Establishing Guidance/Conneg/Ontology effort split

ncar: the most pressing thing seems to be to get the guidance document
… to FPWD without getting behind with the other docs

PWinstanley: we should try to get the guidance doc out asap

Establishing a regime to address all Issues

ncar: looking at github there was no project for the ontology doc
… so I created one.
… LarsG has used github project for the conneg document
… but all this doesn't tell us how to deal with issues
… but as soon as we are in FPWD we have a list of issues we
… can process. Are there other sources we need to consider, too?

antoine: we might not be in good state for profile guidance.
… has played around with requirements for prof guidance
… there are many issues tagged profgui that might be problematic

ncar: the project picks up all issues tagged profile guidance

<roba> we should create a FPWD milestone and tag key issues for these - then work these - and include refs to other issues (in appendix?)

ncar: currently 45 open. Do we want to use that project?

antoine: github could be a tool, prof guidance project is a bit mysterious
… not sure how it's defined since there are other issues in there (tagged profile decription), too

ncar: in spite of problems, do we want to use this tool?

roba: suggests we continue to use it since other subgroups do that, too
… use triage to mark what we want to get done in phase X
… once we've got FPWD out

ncar: if the listed issues are the right ones, then they should
… be listed in the document, too

kcoyle: agrees with roba. We shouldn't organise more until further down the line

<antoine> +1

meeting time

antoine: suggests to keep it every other week and spend the other time
… cleaning up issues

<roba> does this time clash with conneg? lets try to close issues via email. priority is to triage FPWD milestone issues?

antoine: if we need calls, we need longer ones where we can discuss issues and topics
… short calls have too much overhead
… in favour of longer meetings over more frequent meetings

<roba> +1 ti antoine

ncar: more comments?

roba: is it worth to triage the issues critical to FPWD?

<PWinstanley> +1 to roba ... we need to have an idea of the critical path

<ncar> +1

<antoine> +0

ncar: there is a milestone already

roba: only one issue... we should mark those we think are critical

ncar: do we tag now or do it offline?

<roba> https://‌github.com/‌w3c/‌dxwg/‌issues/‌537

roba: #537

ncar: agrees

antoine: #417, #418, #487

<roba> +1

antoine: result of Annette's review and we have almost ready solutions
… make scoping of document much better

ncar: those seem sensible
… need to do some learning on how to use github projects...