– DRAFT –
ProfGui Subgroup

<ncar> @alejandra: do you need connection details?

<roba> * present+

<PWinstanley> https://‌www.w3.org/‌2017/‌dxwg/‌wiki/‌Meetings:ProfGui-Telecon2019.01.23

minutes from last meeting

<PWinstanley> https://‌www.w3.org/‌2017/‌dxwg/‌wiki/‌Meetings:ProfGui-Telecon2019.01.09

<ncar> https://‌www.w3.org/‌2019/‌01/‌09-profgui-minutes.html

+0 (not present)

proposed: accept minutes from last meeting

<ncar> +1

<roba> +1

<PWinstanley> +1

+0 (not present)

<kcoyle> +1

Resolved: accept minutes from last meeting

action items

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

<roba> synbcing UCR and profgui requitrements

ncar: action item 272 - analyse profile requirements against the guideline

kcoyle: I think we can close that one
… moving the requirements into the UCR did it

<roba> +1

ncar: ok, let's close it

<ncar> close action-272

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

<ncar> close: action-272

ESWC paper review

kcoyle: we have to make the reviews public
… even if copied from somewhere

ncar: yes, we are ready for that
… we've got 4 reviews, we've got the in a document
… we're tidying them up

kcoyle: the paper is about the profiles ontology?
… and this is the profile guidance group
… maybe there is subset that relates to profile guidance

ncar: we've got a couple of comments about background and information
… we want to indicate what belongs to the ontology and what we think belongs to the guidance document
… we don't have to spend this meeting to discuss the comments fully

roba: we need to outline the guidelines ; are the comments confidential?
… feedback is related to the paper and is less important to the substance of the ontology
… and I think the feedback is mainly about the paper rather than the ontology

ncar: yes, I read through the comments again and the majority are about the paper itself
… maybe two comments about the ontology
… the reviews are open reviews
… we can include them in the public comments list

<roba> ok cite them and reflect in the substantive matters

PWinstanley: three things: 1- I haven't seen this paper and I'd like to if possible
… 2- are there things in the paper that would help us complete this document ?
… 3- in the plenary, we were talking about doing the sprints and this is one of the areas that seriously needs a sprint and wanted to make sure that we discuss that today

<kcoyle> +1

<roba> re 2 - as ncar said it gives us some insight into guidance needs

ncar: it is a sideshow w.r.t. the profile guidance document

PWinstanley: there is a big difference between writing a paper for a meeting and getting the guidance thing pushed ahead
… we need to move on

<Zakim> alejandra, you wanted to say that the reviews are published at notification time

alejandra: reviews will be public when notifications are out

ncar: there is a small number of comments related to the profile guidance, so we will refer to the reviews in the comments list

ncar: I'll send the paper to PWinstanley after this meeting
… we could organise a workshop

roba: the milestone for the prof guidance FPWD is broadly discussed
… we need a couple of specific milestones and discuss when those can be done
… identifying things in the UCR is important
… things to discuss
… there are lots of issues that are controversial or complicated because we have to cite evidence

plans for Prof Guidance workshop

roba: a milestone that is the requirements and the mapping to conneg
… would be a substantial initial piece
… and it is a different milestone to what is currently described

ncar: was that milestone produced a long time ago?

roba: yes

<roba> "A definition of what is meant by an application profile and an explanation of one or more methods for publishing and sharing them."

ncar: having a mini-workshop asap, could this be item number 1 of that workshop?

ncar: comments on that proposal?

kcoyle: since we do have conneg and ontology in progress, it would make sense to integrate them into this document
… it will leave a whole bunch that isn't covered
… but there is no reason not to include them
… and will help us to see what is remaining

PWinstanley: we need to sort out this definition

<roba> we can choose a second milestone for FPWD

PWinstanley: the discussion is still going, e.g. with base specification

<roba> -1 for changing the defintion - it works without defining BaseSpecification as a class

ncar: we don't have any substantial discussion about the ontology
… the discussion about base specification has been resolved

<kcoyle> which document are you speaking about?

<roba> its a change to the ontology - but not the definiton

<roba> definition is common to all documents (please!)

kcoyle: what document are you referring to? the ontology document?
… that is not what PWinstanley is talking about
… he is talking about the profgui document

PWinstanley: exactly

<PWinstanley> https://‌w3c.github.io/‌dxwg/‌profiles/

PWinstanley: we had Annette, me, Antoine, we've been doing different versions of it and we need to move on from that
… and come back to the introduction and the abstract after the sections and subsections have been completed
… the definition will be more clear after that

ncar: the proposal at the moment is to do away with the phrase base specification
… when we complete this action, we can think of the use of base spec in the guidance doc

roba: the definition that we agreed that would be common to all documents is still fine
… base spec defines a role
… and the change in the ontology is independent
… still seems to meet the requirements in the UCR
… if we have evidence of something that breaks it, fine
… if we need to clarify saying that base spec is whatever the standard is referring to
… we can write a piece of text extending the explanation

<PWinstanley> +1 to roba suggesting we move on

roba: but I'm reluctant on changing the definition

ncar: shall we define what to do in a workshop?
… and then see when this could happen

kcoyle: the key thing is not whether or when we will have it, but how
… let's define actions

<roba> ok next week

<kcoyle> +1

ncar: are people on this call available on the first 3 days of next week for instance?

yes, in principle

<roba> * prefer not within 12am-6am window :-)

ncar: not easy to find a time slot with a mix of North America / Europe / Australia

<Zakim> roba, you wanted to talk about duration

roba: we talked about 3 hours sprints
… we can make substantive comments in 1 1/2 h
… if we know what we are doing

+1 to roba

ncar: suggestion is to propose a series of times

Action: ncar to send out doodle poll

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

ncar: so, as discussed, let's come up with an agenda
… we had some discussion about base spec, and roba mention about triaging the issues
… can someone else suggest more topics?

roba: one of the things we want to do is come up with a standard wording when referring to other documents
… this is probably a little bit tricky but it's something we need to prioritise

PWinstanley: going to the documents, it's completely scattered with pink boxes relating to the issues
… and going to the google doc and things like that
… going all the way through sections 2.1 and 2.6 and replacing the pink boxes

<roba> +1 for removing all google docs and putting in even placeholder text

PWinstanley: would be helpful

<kcoyle> +1 to writing - we need some writing

PWinstanley: I see these meetings being collaborative writing of text rather than discussing something and going away to write it
… maybe we can work on a google doc

<roba> +1 collaborative writing. We could use a google doc as long as we transcribe when agreement made in the meting

<ncar> +1 to above

PWinstanley: we can move quickly through the red boxes and replace them with some proper narrative

+1 to collaborative writing

kcoyle: I'd drop the base specification one
… we agreed that we're going to leave it until we have more
… there are some issues that we have, where we have quite a bit written
… my question is: should we go ahead and put those in here or should we look at the issues first?

<roba> i think triage that issues are referenced

ncar: if we took the google doc, why don't we say that people will find the summary of the issues and put them in the google doc?

kcoyle: we kind of have them on this document

ncar: we need to include what we have in the document

<roba> i think use google doc only during meetings and dont allow it to persist...

kcoyle: someone has done a google doc to respec translate
… we can get this structure as something we can write into without having to go through github

ncar: if we are only addressing a subset of the document, I can include it into a google doc and then put it back

roba: my view is that google doc is great for collaborative writing and terrible for persistence and tracking changes
… so we can use a google doc for collaborative writing and then move it to github

<PWinstanley> +1 to the mixed approach roba suggests

<ncar> +1 to approach

roba: the google doc should be thrown away
… after a session

ncar: happy to treat this as set up and tear down thing
… prepare google doc before the workshop and transfer it over after the workshop

roba: we could do it as we go along, rather than leave it to transcribe at the end

ncar: we have a couple of topics that would be suitable for a couple of sections

kcoyle: either ncar or roba feel that they can fill the conneg work and profile ontology work between now and then?

<roba> ok - i will do a triage for the ontology references

ncar: I think that's possible
… the semi-urgent things we need to deal are some responses related to the paper on the ontology
… but no other thing too urgent
… so I think that's possible

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

action ncar address as many issues for conneg before guidance workshop

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

action roba address as many issues for profiles ontology before guidance workshop

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

<ncar> summarising suggested agenda for workshop: 1. Create a referal wording for Guidance doc to other Profile docs, 2. Triage Issues - handoff to other docs, 3. Issues in Sections 2.1 - 2.6

kcoyle: could the issue about how to link from one to the other become a github issue?
… this would leave more time for us to write

roba: yes

ncar: ok

<roba> proposed: rewrite FWPD milestone to be "Have all requirements in UCR represented and cross referenced, and addressed with a cross reference, agreed text or an open issue"

<roba> "Have all requirements in UCR represented and addressed with a cross reference, agreed text or an open issue"

<roba> proposed: rewrite FWPD milestone as "Have all requirements in UCR represented and addressed with a cross reference, agreed text or an open issue"

<ncar> summarising suggested agenda for workshop: 1. Review outcome from an Issue discussiong doc referal text, 2. Triage Issues - handoff to other docs, 3. Issues in Sections 2.1 - 2.6

proposed: rewrite FWPD milestone as "Have all requirements in UCR represented and addressed with a cross reference, agreed text or an open issue"

reform Milestone for Guidance doc

proposed: rewrite FWPD milestone as "Have all requirements in UCR represented and addressed with a cross reference, agreed text or an open issue"

Action: ncar to create the google doc

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

<roba> +1

<ncar> +1

<kcoyle> +1 to milestone

+1

<PWinstanley> +1

Resolved: rewrite FWPD milestone as "Have all requirements in UCR represented and addressed with a cross reference, agreed text or an open issue"