scribenick" roba
<LarsG> https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/Meetings:CNEG-Telecon2019.01.16
ncar: minutes link is broken
<ncar> agenda for the last meeting: https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/Meetings:CNEG-Telecon2018.12.05
larsg: minutes appear to be missing - we reviewed open actions and will address then.
close: action-231
close action-231
<trackbot> Closed action-231.
<LarsG> action-234?
<trackbot> action-234 -- Nicholas Car to Use definitions to create abstract model diagram and text -- due 2018-10-17 -- OPEN
<trackbot> https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/track/actions/234
roba: i think we need to finalise details of model for this and sequence diagram
<LarsG> ... so we leave 234 and 235 open
<LarsG> action-264?
<trackbot> action-264 -- Lars G. Svensson to Check moratorium dates -- due 2018-11-28 -- OPEN
<trackbot> https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/track/actions/264
<LarsG> action-241?
<trackbot> action-241 -- Rob Atkinson to Clarify #264 -- due 2018-11-01 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/track/actions/241
https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/264
<LarsG> roba: This is important for profile negotiation
<LarsG> ... The UCR says in "5.5 Discover available content profiles"
<LarsG> ncar: ID5 covers the github issue #264
<LarsG> roba: not sure it's exactly the same
<LarsG> ... what the req doesn't say is where this metadata resides
https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/ucr/#RPFMD
<LarsG> ... (req 6.1.3.1)
<LarsG> ncar: can we say that 6.1.3.1 covers issue #264?
<LarsG> ... if we're not losing anything we should be fine
close action-241 issue closed - requirement https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/ucr/#RPFMD handles this
<LarsG> roba: requirement https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/ucr/#RPFMD handles this so we can close the action
<LarsG> close action-241
<trackbot> Closed action-241.
<LarsG> action-243?
<trackbot> action-243 -- Rob Atkinson to Go back through the discussion, come to a conclusion, discuss with antoine and work out what requirement #267 actually meant -- due 2018-11-01 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/track/actions/243
<LarsG> roba: analysis has been done (cf note in action)
relates to https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/267
https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/ucr/#RDIC
<LarsG> ... is the requirement we're talking about
<LarsG> ... seems to cover the use case
roba: i think this covers
<LarsG> ... If we have something like an OGC feature service wrapping
<LarsG> ... a list of items in a container
<LarsG> ... then the profile can be for the container or the list
<LarsG> ncar: it's not limited to DCAT
<LarsG> roba: If you say that a distribution conforms to a profile
<LarsG> ... then it can conform to several profiles independently specifiying the container
<LarsG> ... or the list items
<LarsG> ... a container can be e. g. GML FeatureCollection
<LarsG> ncar: and that is not in the accept-header
<LarsG> roba: The profile doesn't refer to the container but to the actual
<LarsG> ... features and that is similar for all services returning
<LarsG> ... lists of items.
<LarsG> ncar: So the solution is to say that it conforms to two profiles
<LarsG> ... one for the container and one for the items in the container
<LarsG> roba: The question is if it's a requirement, not to specify the details of it
<LarsG> ... another example is a zipped package with several items
<LarsG> ... that have their own media types
larsg: can do this by asking for mime type application/gzip etc or another (Accept-Encoding?)
<LarsG> ncar: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7231#page-41
roba: we have three levels here : encoding, container elements in data and content items contained
… or ATOM or RSS feeds - profiles would be likely to be scope to listed items
roba: lets say we have a news service - we have a service profile that a feed contains the "most recent 10 and the 10 most popular items" - and each news items conforms to a specific citation profile
… do we have this covered in an issue?
… noting requirement is very general and we need to get down to specifics
<LarsG> ncar: we have probably gone beyond what the original writers
<LarsG> ... of the requirement intended
<LarsG> roba: we should go back to the use case
"Provide a means to specify the container structure of a distribution for access methods that return lists, independently of the specification of the profile the list items conform to."
<LarsG> ... we need to work out how the concern how this requirement is expressed
<LarsG> ... functions for the conneg guidance document
"A client wishes to know for which profiles a server is able to deliver conformant representations of a resource. "
<LarsG> ... in the "abstract model" section we talk about this in a general fashion
<LarsG> ... but we need to raise an issue to clarify what happens when
<LarsG> ... there is a profile for the meaning of the list
<LarsG> ... as opposed to a profile of what is listed
<LarsG> ... the requirement is in the use case
<LarsG> ... shall follow up with antoine
proposal: refer to issue #267 in abstract model
<LarsG> +1
+1
<ncar> +1
Resolved: refer to issue #267 in abstract model
<LarsG> action-262?
<trackbot> action-262 -- Rob Atkinson to Propose a copy edit (retaining original sense) and add an issue for list_profile responsibility -- due 2018-11-28 -- OPEN
<trackbot> https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/track/actions/262
close action-262
<trackbot> Closed action-262.
<LarsG> ncar: #379 doesn't have anything that isn't in #575 so we keep that one open
<LarsG> ... and we can close #379 and action-263
close #379
close action-263
<trackbot> Closed action-263.
<LarsG> action-264?
<trackbot> action-264 -- Lars G. Svensson to Check moratorium dates -- due 2018-11-28 -- OPEN
<trackbot> https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/track/actions/264
close action-264
<trackbot> Closed action-264.
proposed: accept issues #662 and #663
+1
<ncar> +1
<LarsG> +1
Resolved: accept issues #662 and #663
Action: ncar - respond to reviewer with issue references
<trackbot> Created ACTION-277 - - respond to reviewer with issue references [on Nicholas Car - due 2019-01-23].