<roba> * on holiday - with no screens or keyboard :-(
PWinstanley: Any comments?
<riccardoAlbertoni> 0 (I was not present)
<Jaroslav_Pullmann> 0 (joined late)
Resolved: last meeting minutes approved
PWinstanley: We slide on this...
PWinstanley: Let's have a open chat on where we are with out deliverables
… About DCAT we have to decide when is enough
… and maybe leave to a Community Group to follow on - possibly preparing a primer, etc.
ncar: About the profile work: the ontology document is going on, we got some feedback, also through the ESWC paper
… we have a few issues to address which are in GH
… Overall the ontology is pretty good, considering we didn't mean to have a big one
… Concerning profile guidance we keep on discussing on it, and work is going on
… About profile conneg, in a couple of weeks could be ready
… So, the report which requires more work is still the guidance on profiles
<Zakim> Makx, you wanted to comment on DCAT status
<Makx> For DCAT, I think there is no more time
<Makx> what we have is what we get
<Makx> February deadline for Last PWD
<SimonCox> No more time? It's only January ...
<Makx> Otherwise not enough time for Rec track
PWinstanley: Are we talking about the beginning of Jan or Feb?
<SimonCox> OK - we need to gather evidence of implementation
PWinstanley: Rec requires longer time, right?
<Makx> I'd say mid-Feb publication of final PWD
<Makx> then hopefully April Proposed Rec
<SimonCox> Hmm. That is very conservative
<Zakim> DaveBrowning, you wanted to ask about subsequent process
PWinstanley: That's all, Makx?
DaveBrowning: Makx might have answered my question on timing
… [asking for confirmation]
SimonCox: I understand there's a cost in the wrap-up phase. What we have not under control is implementation evidence, which is required for REC
… I think anyway I am more optimistic than Makx about timing. I would push it at the end of March.
… In SDW WG I got a 2-month extension without seeming it was a big problem.
<roba> Are there comitted implementers for all the changes proposed?
SimonCox: I agree that we should try to move it as quick as possible, but I think we have still some time.
PWinstanley: About extensions, we want to be clear that if we ask for that, we need to be backed up by people commitment
<SimonCox> Tabulation of implementations: not yet!
ncar: The DCAT group may have a table of implementations
<alejandra> I imagine we need to show implementation of the new elements - right?
PWinstanley: What about the existing DCAT profiles? Can they be used as implementation evidence?
<DaveBrowning> +1 to Alejandra
PWinstanley: There's also the European Data Portal which can be used for that.
<PWinstanley> AndreaPerego: to comment about PWinstanley comment - existing specifications such as DCAT-AP might contain other classes - but we need to be careful. the European Open Data Portal might not have everything (e.g. GeoDCAT-AP), so we need to ask Yuri Glikman to gethdetail
<Makx> All current DCAT profiles are DCAT-2014 profiles. I think they don't count for DCAT-2019
<SimonCox> > I think they don't count for DCAT-2019
<SimonCox> they do for all the elements that are carried over
<Makx> Yes of course, Simon
<SimonCox> ... it is the new elements that we need to worry about (DataDistributionService, servesDataset,
roba: About DCAT profiles, the question is whether we can consider profiles when they add new things
<SimonCox> qualifiedRelation, )
<roba> DCAT 2014 profiles should be valid DCAT 2019 profiles if DCAT 2019 is backward compatible with DCAT 2014.. but how/why/where should we declare this?
<PWinstanley> AndreaPerego: ref comments by Makx that DCAT-AP is based on DCAT2014, for me the DCAT2019 is based on DCAT2014, we have added new things and relaxed some constraints, but it is probably backwardl compatible.
<PWinstanley> ... all we need to justify is implementation evidence for the new aspects/components
<ncar> new Ps & Cs: that's the table I want to check implementation off against. I have implemented some of the new ones already!
<PWinstanley> ... we are updating and extending DCAT, not rewriting it.
PWinstanley: Yes, this makes sense
<riccardoAlbertoni> +1 to AndreaPerego ( about demontrating adoption for new properties and classes, in any case the legacy part should not be difficult to demonstrate)
alejandra: About dates and process, and what does it mean having implementations, it seems we don't have a clear idea about the deadlines. Whare can we find the answers?
PWinstanley: kcoyle was looking into it
kcoyle: I don't have information for the implementation bit. I'll ask W3C staff about that.
… Anyway, if we go for Candidate REC in Feb, this may become REC in Apr. The latest we go to meet the current deadline would be March.
<Zakim> DaveBrowning, you wanted to ask what else is needed for that timeline
DaveBrowning: But what we need to have for that?
<riccardoAlbertoni> how long are we going to give for providing the implementation ?
kcoyle: I think everything - implementations included
… I will ask Dave & Philippe which steps they are anticipating
… And this is just DCAT we are talking about. There are also the other 2 deliverables.
PWinstanley: PROF is making progress
kcoyle: Yes, but what about implementations of the other 2? What we need to have 2 independent implementation for each?
<roba> roba - plan one implementation independent of Nicks of profile ontology and conneg
<PWinstanley> ack ncar
riccardoAlbertoni: I guess that many implementations will come from WG members, but it would be good to have external contributions
ncar: I am not very much concerned about profile conneg - we have already being working on an implementation of it
<Zakim> DaveBrowning, you wanted to offer a view of where we are with DCAT rec.
ncar: I see it difficult to find implementations created outside the WG
DaveBrowning: alejandra and I were trying to understand where we are with DCAT
<kcoyle> yes, for me
DaveBrowning: I can give a summary of it.
DaveBrowning: We have a summary of the issues we plan to address
<DaveBrowning> 31 open requirements issues
<DaveBrowning> 57 other issues , 7 editorial
DaveBrowning: About distributions, we keep on getting questions, so this needs to be thoroughly addressed before going for Candidate REC
DaveBrowning: These 2 milestones reflect what I think needs to be addressed, and it needs review and input about anything that may be missing etc.
PWinstanley: So there are a few bits of work requiring WG work
… Plenaries and f2f should be the place where to do that.
… What people think? Suggestion for location and time for real f2f?
<kcoyle> sounds to me like some sprints are going to be needed in any case
<SimonCox> First week of June is too late for Makx's timetable :-)
<antoine> +1 for sprints
<Jaroslav_Pullmann> +1 for both, F2F in March
<alejandra> indeed, June too late
<DaveBrowning> +1 for sprints, since I can't do March
<kcoyle> first week too late for the standard w3c one, also
<roba> +1 for sprints
+1 to March - although I don't know I can join
<riccardoAlbertoni> first week of march for me is very difficult.. but it is probably need
<SimonCox> But I predict Australians would not be able to make a March f2f ...
+1 to sprints as well
<SimonCox> +1 to sprints
PWinstanley: Should we then give it a try for a first sprint of 3-4 hour?
kcoyle: I think we need also to decide about which deliverable we are talking about - the answer could be different
PWinstanley: So, let's start with DCAT
alejandra: I am in favour of sprints, but I cannot be sure I can join. So, how we do that?
<SimonCox> I suggest the separate teams need to plan the sprints
<kcoyle> half - full day is very hard to sustain
<roba> 3 hours probably better if online
<DaveBrowning> esp. if across geographies
<Jaroslav_Pullmann> +1 for shorter sprints, may be 2 of them?
<riccardoAlbertoni> 3 hours sprint could work
PWinstanley: So, let's make a 3-hour one, taking into account time zones
PWinstanley: Dave, about DCAT, do you have a proposal about what to put into a 3-hour sprint?
DaveBrowning: There are the clusters about distribution and versioning
… So, we can focus on them. alejandra, SimonCox are there other topics?
SimonCox: I think the individual teams need to do the planning
<roba> suggest milestones for profgui
PWinstanley: We question is also whether the sprint should also include other people
<roba> * oops sorry was mid edit...
PWinstanley: We can have both subgroup and plenary sprints, they are not mutually exclusive.
SimonCox: My expectations is that the subgroups to the planning, but the whole WG needs to be invited
<roba> milestone suggestions for profgui: currently = "A definition of what is meant by an application profile and an explanation of one or more methods for publishing and sharing them."
PWinstanley: So, I would suggest we have actions on subgroups to identify topics and feature list to be addressed in sprints
<roba> instead M1 Capture requirements from UCR and point to conneg and profiles ont options for addressing. M2 provide guidance for other requirements
PWinstanley: Do you agree?
kcoyle: So, we need also to create quickly the doodle pools, considering time zones, given the precedence to people actively participating in terms of time slots
<SimonCox> Sorry - I have to leave now
PWinstanley: So, probably it is better if subgroups create the doodle poll looking at specific people, but please inform everyone.
… So, let's try to do this within the next 2-3 weeks
<roba> * bye
PWinstanley: Thanks everyone then!
Succeeded: s/about f2f//
Succeeded: s/should to meet/to meet/