Dataset Exchange Working Group Plenary

22 January 2019

Meeting minutes

<roba> * on holiday - with no screens or keyboard :-(

<PWinstanley> https://‌www.w3.org/‌2017/‌dxwg/‌wiki/‌Meetings:Telecon2019.01.22


PWinstanley: Any comments?


[agenda approved]

approving last meeting minutes

<PWinstanley> https://‌www.w3.org/‌2019/‌01/‌15-dxwg-minutes

<SimonCox> +1

<alejandra> +1

<kcoyle> +1

<DaveBrowning> +1


<ncar> +1

<antoine> +1

<roba> +!

<riccardoAlbertoni> 0 (I was not present)

<roba> +1

<Jaroslav_Pullmann> 0 (joined late)

Resolved: last meeting minutes approved

list of actions

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

PWinstanley: We slide on this...

assessment of the current position

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

<antoine> +1

<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?

<Makx> yes

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.

<kcoyle> https://‌w3c.github.io/‌spec-releases/‌milestones/

<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

<SimonCox> https://‌github.com/‌w3c/‌dxwg/‌issues/‌680

<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
… [missed]

<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

<SimonCox> +1

<roba> +1

<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.

[all curious]

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> https://‌github.com/‌w3c/‌dxwg/‌milestone/‌14 https://‌github.com/‌w3c/‌dxwg/‌milestone/‌15

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

<riccardoAlbertoni> s\need\needed

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

<antoine> +1

<Jaroslav_Pullmann> +1 for shorter sprints, may be 2 of them?

<SimonCox> +1

<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> +1

<PWinstanley> +1

<Makx> +1

<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> +1

<roba> +1

<DaveBrowning> +1

<Makx> +1

<antoine> +1

<riccardoAlbertoni> +1

<Jaroslav_Pullmann> +1

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

<riccardoAlbertoni> ok

<roba> ok

<Jaroslav_Pullmann> yes

<DaveBrowning> ok

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
… AOB?

<roba> * bye


<Makx> bye

<ncar> bye!

<roba> :-)

<Jaroslav_Pullmann> thanks!

PWinstanley: Thanks everyone then!

[meeting adjourned]

Summary of resolutions

  1. last meeting minutes approved
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/about f2f//

Succeeded: s/consrvative/conservative/

Succeeded: s/should to meet/to meet/

Succeeded: s/editoraial/editorial/

Succeeded: s/implementatino/implementation/